<p>no my conservative bro, i AM in favor of women to have control of their bodies. this whole under extenuating circumstances bull is just a huge generalization i'm doing; these are abstract issues that would need to be analyzed more in-depth. but for the most part, as i said, i'm pro-choice.</p>
<p>When a woman is carrying a baby within her, it is no longer just her body.</p>
<p>It's funny, I didn't see any pro-choicers get up in arms when Scott Peterson was charged and convicted of double-murder for killing his pregant wife.</p>
<p>hell yeah, fides knows where it's at</p>
<p>"Here's a couple to mix it up for you:
For a woman's right to choose
For gay rights
and for drug legalization."</p>
<p>Neverborn,
I'm for gay rights
I'm not for complete drug legalization--I'm for government control of the drug economy (woohoo statist!) Kind of like alcohol's situation. Prohibition is the stupidest thing ever, but there's a solution that's not straight legalization.
I'm for a woman's right to choose. Yes, this may seem to contradict my position on the death penalty. But actually, I believe in the right to choose WHILE acknowledging that it may take human life. I support certain wars, and therefore the inevitable killing of people for a just/necessary end, so I support the right to choose for the same reason. It simply doesn't add up morally to support a war as necessary but reject abortion because it involves the taking of human life.
I am against the death penalty because I believe the justice system is not an adequate decisionmaking agency.</p>
<p>I could definitely see a conservative supporting these 3 issues (some of the best arguments for drug policy change are conservatives, for obvious reasons). In fact, that's true conservatism--it's a lot closer to libertarianism. I'm definitely not a libertarian though. Look at the stuff i said in my last post...no libertarian supports all of those.</p>
<p>Women should have the right to choose and even if the government makes it illegal , it will still occur i.e drugs are illegal and yet 25 million Americans use drugs.</p>
<p>If the government legalises drugs like heroin, and provides clean needles and disposals, then usage will go down as well as fatalities.</p>
<p>yup that's the truth tom, although there will be a very temporary upsurge in use (that will quickly go away).
interestingly, there was a survey done that asked people if they would start using drugs if they were legalized. Most people said No. The survey then asked those same people if they thought their neighbors would start using drugs. There were a whole lot more Yes answers.</p>
<p>As the good book says, "Never trust your neighbors, trust yourselves."</p>
<p>Love thy neighbor?</p>
<p>Is that what it really is? My next-door neighbors told me ^^(post 48) :D</p>
<p>I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose... and our right to throw them in prison.</p>
<p>Fides: Bow down before your monolithic state. /eyeroll</p>
<p>Her body is HERS - until the baby is able to breathe on its own and live outside the mother on its own - it is NOT alive and has NO rights.</p>
<p>"Her body is HERS - until the baby is able to breathe on its own and live outside the mother on its own - it is NOT alive and has NO rights."</p>
<p>Not alive? How can you say that?</p>
<p>You're either seriously misinformed or sick in the head.</p>
<p>I think the abortion issue is more of a science issue than a Moral one. I scientifically think the baby is alive therefore killing it would be killing a living thing.</p>
<p>Which, then, makes it a moral issue... is it OK to kill a living thing? Further, is it OK to kill a living human being? (If it is a living thing, it is a human being -- it isn't a dog or a plant.)</p>
<p>A fetus is not a human being - it is a POTENTIAL human being.</p>
<p>A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time. Rights are not permissions; permissions are not rights. This permission is given by the woman, because it is her body -- and not the fetus's body, and certainly not the government's body. </p>
<p>To give a fetus "rights" superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman's right to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole. Contrary to the opinion of anti-lifers (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig.</p>
<p>If it was as easy as capitalizing POTENTIAL then do you think there'd be abortion debates?</p>
<p>well apparently the lady in roe v. wade who wanted abortion legal has recently attempted to make it illegal again, as she submitted her concern to the supreme court. her baptism changed her thoughts on the issue. the court said they won't hear her again. idiot should have decided better 30 somewhat years ago.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To give a fetus "rights" superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman's right to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole. Contrary to the opinion of anti-lifers (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig.
[/quote]
Purely hypothetical, babies have a right to life after they are born - but not five minutes before they are born? This is absolutely a serious question btw, can a woman terminate the babies life when she is in contractions? When does the babies right to life become real? Is the passing uterus what grants it?</p>
<p>"Which, then, makes it a moral issue... is it OK to kill a living thing? Further, is it OK to kill a living human being? (If it is a living thing, it is a human being -- it isn't a dog or a plant.)"</p>
<p>That was my point of my last post. I’m saying that it is alive (scientifically) and therefore it is unlawful to kill it because it is a human (if you don’t believe me check its DNA and it will come back 100% human).</p>