Dilemma: There is no Pro-Life candidate

[caitycaity]

if that argument were made then the argument could also be made that homicide cuts down on overpopulation....

the difference (as has been pointed out several times here) is viability vs. non-viability.

just to put your mind at ease though, the overpopulation argument is not a reason that i am pro-choice. i was just throwing it out there.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Originally posted by IMGONNABE40!
One argument I would put forth for abortion disturbing the order of our society is that it lessens the respect for life overall.

Yes this is a valid argument however I just feel that the approach is backwards. I believe with all of my heart that we must start to care for the children that are already ALIVE. The poor, hungry, orphaned, homeless, etc....We must place a higher value on our schools, teachers & women. I believe that until this is done the value of an unborn child will be the same as the orphaned child that nobody wants to adopt.

However the downside is that I don't know if this is EVER going to happen.

 

[2bemarried]

I have a question for all those in favor of banning abortions.

What will happen when a woman gets pregnant then finds out that she is unable to carry the baby to full term without waging a serious risk of her own life?? How can you tell her that no, it's illegal to terminate the pregnancy in order to save her own life.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

There is an exception made for that.

 

[beattyfamily]

Originally posted by 2bemarried
I have a question for all those in favor of banning abortions.

What will happen when a woman gets pregnant then finds out that she is unable to carry the baby to full term without waging a serious risk of her own life?? How can you tell her that no, it's illegal to terminate the pregnancy in order to save her own life.

Why does this have to turn into a debate about whether abortion should be banned or not?

Isn't the OP about which candidate is more pro-life? Which she/he should vote for since one is pro-abortion and one is for capital punishment?

 

[IMGONNABE40!]

I hear you loud and clear, Mystery Machine. I just want to do it all. Can't we try to care for everyone, no matter how small?

Sadly, I don't know that it is ever going to happen either. The way we treat our fellow wo/man is appalling sometimes...but I don't mean to hijack my own thread...Perhaps we can discuss this tomorrow.

 

[Maleficent13]

We as a society lull women into believing that abortion is okay because it is legal and many of these poor women suffer long term emotional effects.

I think I am offended by this statement. I know you did not intend it to be offensive, but this to me is very condescending. I, as a woman, am not "lulled" by society. And I am not a "poor woman" either. I am an independent woman who understands the decisions I make and the effects of those decisions, and if I chose to risk long term emotional effects from a decision I made, then those are consequences that I have to accept.

I have suffered long term emotional effects from several decisions I have made in my life, none of which have anything to with abortion. Should I be protected from those decisions as well?

 

[caitycaity]

since one is pro-abortion

let's be clear, john kerry is NOT pro-abortion, he is pro-choice, and yes, there is a difference.

I have suffered long term emotional effects from several decisions I have made in my life, none of which have anything to with abortion. Should I be protected from those decisions as well?

sing it, sistah!

 

[danacara]

Originally posted by Microcell
One could argue that abortion disturbs the order of society.

Not really effectively.

 

[danacara]

Originally posted by beattyfamily
Kerry voted NO on banning partial birth abortions and that is one of the main reasons I'm voting for Bush.

Please consider reading a book called "To Protect and Defend" by Richard North Patterson, and let us know how you feel about this point afterwards. I'm genuinely interested.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Originally posted by danacara
Not really effectively.

Yes, one could. It desensitizes the value of life. If we do not respect the right to life of others, then we are being very selfish.

Think about the 30,000,000 aborted souls and what they could have done for America. Who knows what great heroes, scientists, teachers, and athletes could have come from this lost generation. I think that it has disrupted the ordered of society in a way that we can not even begin to comprehend.

I am with the earlier poster, even if I agreed with John Kerry on 99% of the issues, I would still have to vote for a pro-life candidate.

In fact I do agree with Bush on about half of the issues and Kerry about half, but to me protecting the lives of Americans is #1.

 

[IMGONNABE40!]

Sorry to offend Maleficent13. I see your point about being condescending. Unfortunately I know many women do not have your emotional strength. But you make a great point--does that mean we should protect them from all decisions that will have long term negative effects? I do not think so. But my comment was posted in response to how the order of society is disturbed by abortion. I guess I am saying that the impact on some woman could disturb the order of society...but I could be reaching. It would more likely disturb the order of their lives, personally. I can't say I see how that would have a big impact on the order of society. I could also argue that abortion has been a catlyst for a number a women to find shelter in the Lord and find strength and happiness in a spiritual lifestyle--so for these women the tragedy of their abortion may have led them to eternal life..if you believe that sort of thing.

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by IMGONNABE40!
The other way I believe that abortion disturbs the order of society is the profound impact having an abortion has had on many women who have had abortions. For many, it is something that stays with them for life. Much more of a traumatic impact than, say, having a mole removed, to use a prior analogy. We as a society lull women into believing that abortion is okay because it is legal and many of these poor women suffer long term emotional effects.

I happen to think that getting pregnant, carrying a baby for 9 months, and then handing it over for adoption also imparts a significant trauma to the birth mother. That is why many women DO have abortions because they know that they cannot hand over their child at the end, despite how ill-equipped they are to raise the child. I think you know that woman who give their children up for adoption are just as severely traumatized and probably NEVER get over it.

Also, I don't think that abortion has lulled these teenage girls into giving birth in a bathroom. That is caused by poor communications between the parent and child and the child not knowing her options or knowing how to handle it. So they try to hide it.

As far as what candidate to pick--try to go with some other issues. Even if the Bush administration touts "pro-life", they haven't stopped abortions at all so they are just "using" that emotion to get votes. Try to look at the other issues.

 

[beattyfamily]

Originally posted by danacara
Please consider reading a book called "To Protect and Defend" by Richard North Patterson, and let us know how you feel about this point afterwards. I'm genuinely interested.

No, thank you.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Originally posted by Christine

As far as what candidate to pick--try to go with some other issues. Even if the Bush administration touts "pro-life", they haven't stopped abortions at all so they are just "using" that emotion to get votes. Try to look at the other issues.

AMEN!!! Why don't people see this?????

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by JoeThaNo1Stunna
Yes, one could. It desensitizes the value of life.

Oh, please....Showing violence on TV and in movies desensitizes FAR more than any abortion debate. You think that allowing a woman's right to choose makes a child think less of life than watching "Rambo" on TNT every weekend ? Besides, arguing for the "value of life" while supporting a candidate that thinks assault weapons ought to be readily available is just ludicrous in the extreme.

 

[I_Know_You2!]

Excellent point wvrevy! I think that life is devalued everyday on the T.V. screens of america. How many people let their children watch this crap day in and out and are surprised that life means nothing to them.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

So I guess we can say yes abortion does devalue life and so does a hundred other things. Point taken....next...

 

[2bemarried]

Originally posted by beattyfamily
Why does this have to turn into a debate about whether abortion should be banned or not?

Isn't the OP about which candidate is more pro-life? Which she/he should vote for since one is pro-abortion and one is for capital punishment?

It's not a debate....it was a simple question about your view point on this since you're for pro-life.

I've always said that the babies should be given life over death, but I want to know how situations like the one I described would be handled.

*for reference I voted FOR Bush in 2000 not against. I'm still weighing my decision on this years vote*

 

[IMGONNABE40!]

You make an excellent point as well, Christine (but I would expect no less from someone with such a great name ). I hear you about birth moms. I have known a few in that situation as well.

I can't speak for everyone, but for me the reason that voting for Bush on the pro-life issue is so important is not for what he has done to date to stop abortion(nothing) but what he has the potential to do if the Supreme Court Justices start retiring. So for me, my vote will likely hinge on the possibility that the next president may have the opportunity to nominate someone to the Supreme Court who may have the ability to swing the court one way or the other on the abortion issue. For this reason, I also find it important to nominate house and senate members based on their beliefs on abortion since they will have to ratify the nomination of the candidate.

Hence the dilemma noted in my first post to this thread. Bush may never have the chance to nominate anyone to the Court. And look at all of the damage he could do while I am waiting for an event that may never occur. In like manner, I could choose not to vote for Kerry due to his ability to nominate a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade. Well, if he does not have the chance to do that, perhaps he would have been the better candidate overall.