First off, I'd say until each person reading this Live Journal gets rid of their car, I don't think any of us really has a right to point fingers at the "masses" for not recognizing that we're running out of oil
( ... )
you know that i did not mean any of this in an accusatory way-- on the contrary, in fact. by my 'christian morals' comments, i was referencing the fact that the country is supposed to be divorced from religion... separated by a gulf of reason for the purpose of preserving what it written in the constitution. Thus, I think that if we put blinders on for a moment and forget about what each of us thinks about the logistics of abortion, dont we have to come to the same conclusion? That this country is required to allow it? Maybe Im wrong and my logic is twisted and cloudy. it could definitely be true
( ... )
I know I'm going to regret involving myself in this debate. But I think "I think that if we put blinders on for a moment and forget about what each of us thinks about the logistics of abortion, dont we have to come to the same conclusion? That this country is required to allow it?" is absolutely correct. That is all.
I'm just going to go ahead and shoot this debate in the forehead right now before it wastes its time dying slowly on the road that all of these conversations on abortion have followed.
First off, however, I think the argument for separating church and state is entirely correct and valid. But, all religion aside, what this entire debate really comes down to is whether or not an abortion is actually "murder". If it is not viewed as murder, then you're right, the country is required to allow it, regardless of how Bush and his croonies, and I, for that matter, feel. But, if it is decided to be murder (and I to this day fail to see how it could not be construed as such) - the intentional cessation of another's life without their consent- then this country is required to provide that unborn child with a voice against such an action, along with everything else it promised- "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
An unborn child can enjoy none of those things in a laboratory garbage can.
Can I just point out something I don’t understand? All the time, people against abortion condemn this country for allowing it. They say things like you just said - there’s no solution, we can’t win, man is fallible, our race is “confused” and we’ve made ourselves so, etc. As far as the state of the current world, you paint quite a bleak picture. And yet, there’s all this romanticizing about what a child might be able to “enjoy” if he were allowed to live. You know as well as I do that this world is a lonely, lonely place to be, and that most of the women having abortions are hovering around or below the poverty level and wouldn’t exactly be able to provide a glorious life for their child. It’s not really the soundest argument, is it, to lament the inability to experience such a fantastic world? Don't people see that they can't have it both ways?
Well, yes, it's true, there are a lot of horrible things out there: things that seem to have no solution like foreign policy, economic issues, or environmental policies. But just because there are no perfect solutions to such issues doesn't mean that life isn't beautiful. Crime is a problem, but that doesn't negate the beauty of experiencing love. Our environment may be in trouble, but that doesn't take away the aesthetic value of a sunset. It sounds overly romanticized, perhaps, but more than anything else I don't see how anyone, even a mother, has a right to deny a child a chance at experiencing all of these things. Of course there will be pain and suffering, that's part of life, but I completely disagree that this is a lonely place. Are you really lonely, Christine?
This world in which we live is not perfect, of course, but I for one would be furious with someone who was presumptuous enough to assume I wouldn't make anything worthwhile of my life. I just don't think that's anyone's decision but the individual's.
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
Reply
First off, however, I think the argument for separating church and state is entirely correct and valid. But, all religion aside, what this entire debate really comes down to is whether or not an abortion is actually "murder". If it is not viewed as murder, then you're right, the country is required to allow it, regardless of how Bush and his croonies, and I, for that matter, feel. But, if it is decided to be murder (and I to this day fail to see how it could not be construed as such) - the intentional cessation of another's life without their consent- then this country is required to provide that unborn child with a voice against such an action, along with everything else it promised- "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
An unborn child can enjoy none of those things in a laboratory garbage can.
Reply
Reply
This world in which we live is not perfect, of course, but I for one would be furious with someone who was presumptuous enough to assume I wouldn't make anything worthwhile of my life. I just don't think that's anyone's decision but the individual's.
Reply
Leave a comment