Huckabee - Abortion is "Holocaust"? - Page 4 - Political Forum

AzTeK · #31 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 07:20 AM

I'm a big fan of compromise and surely support what "we"'ve come up with as a consensus. That idea is suerly superior too any one-sided solution.

Thanks a lot for the discussion, it was a pleasure

eryan2369 · #32 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 07:24 AM

Thanks for recognizing my idea. And thanks for the discussion.

Aya · #33 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

Lets see, what does the Holocaust have in common with abortion, Hmmmm, how about millions of dead people.

Ahem, no.
First of all, the Holocaust was - genocide.
The Nazis wanted to exterminate every Jew they could find on earth.
They wanted to exterminate a whole religion or ethnical group. It was ethnical cleansing, too.
And I am pretty sure, that they informated you about concentration camps. They gasified as many as they could.

Firstly, Abortion doesn't aim at to kill all unborn babies around the world.
Secondly, it isn't an ideology.
Thirdly, it is a personal decision. I'm sorry, but the state can't decide about a mother's belly.
Fourthly, it depends on when you start defining a fetus as life. Clearly: Until the twelth week a fetus isn't viable without "help".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

BTW What are his positions on gay rights?

He is extremely conservative, isn't he? As far as I know he is against the right of gays to marry etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

And whatever they happen to be, how would his views on that subject actually affect his foreign policy? Just curious...tks

It doesn't affect his foreign policy. But he seems like one of these "cowboys"

You beat first, then you ask.

eryan2369 · #34 (**permalink**) 12-18-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainMike

eryan2369:

Can you find a way to disagree with more civility?

You are aiming a Hitler remark at someone that is from Austria. I would call that a cheap shot. Try to maintain the same level of civility as Aztek.

I agree with Freya. I suppose it could be called a Libertarian idea, but there are some areas of personal life government should not be involved in. I totally reject the idea of fundamentalist Christian Republicans that somehow they should advance their code of ethics and morality by force through the federal government. Point number one, abortion is a deeply personal decision first and foremost of women in regaurd to their own bodies. It is disgusting to think of Congress being 9 tenths male pontificating down at American women, a gender majority in America. Point number two, if all abortions had to be stopped, even cases of incest and rape, WHO would raise these children? My expectations is that it would definitely not be the fundamentalists carrying picket signs in front of abortion clinics. Unwanted children born to families that are less than willing or capable to raise them end up in many cases as part of the huge numbers of people involved in our mental health system or prison system.

You apparently did not read all of my statements if this is a response aimed at me...

First of all, the "areas of personal life that government should not be involved in"...as I stated before, the fundamental basis of law is to protect people, especially the innocent, from harm from others. If the government has no responsibility to protect an unborn child, who is completely defenseless, then I dont know who they are suppose to protect!...I think your arguments show that you dont believe that an unborn child should be recognized as a person, thats were our arguments will never be resolved...I would agree, if thats not a living person then there is no argument...but I believe a child, born or not, is a human being that deserves protection.

Second of all "a womans personal decision in reqaurd to her on body"...again, this argument is coming down to our apparent fundamental difference in the belief that an unborn child is a human being deserving of protection by law...

My belief is that once a woman becomes pregnant (which 99% of the time is HER CHOICE, if no other reason than by apathy to protect against it) she is now sharing her body with that child...it is no longer JUST her body and therefore she has given up the right to do harm to that child. Just like once a child is born, are there not laws that hold mothers responsible for the well-being of their children?...Are there not child endangerment and child abandonment laws?...If a mother locks a child in a car and leaves them in the summer heat will she not be arrested? You see, I believe that mothers responsibitlity begins once there is life, once she is pregnant, and those same laws should protect a child unborn the same as after birth.

Thats the way I believe, I believe in a "womans right to choose"...I believe there are many options she can choose to take prior to prevent pregnancy rather than murder as a form of birth control. I believe once she is pregnant her time to choose is over, and she is responsible to the child and so should be the law.

You also apparently did not read my suggestion regarding the morning after pill in regard to rape victims...they have a choice now other than having an unwanted child...and even those who werent rape victims but just dont want the inconvenience of using birth control can use the pill as well. Considering the number of pre-pregnancy contreceptives and no an after-sex contreceptive before pregnancy is even determined, I dont believe there is any reasonable excuse for the murder of an unborn child.

But if you dont think of an unborn child as a human being that deserves rights and protections...then nothing I say will make a difference to you, as nothing you say will ever make a difference to me...because thats the fundamental difference in our opinions that guide the rest of our thinking about "right to choose" and blah blah blah...