Fred Thompson

imported post

I don't have a response to that, because I don't have all of the answers to everything. I do think that it's clear from my last post that I find abortion to be fundamentally wrong. But that doesn't mean thatI think the government should be forcing my opinion on everyone else.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

I don't have a response to that, because I don't have all of the answers to everything. I do think that it's clear from my last post that I find abortion to be fundamentally wrong. But that doesn't mean thatI think the government should be forcing my opinion on everyone else.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But the people who want to ban abortion are going to say that abortion is something that the government has the right to ban because it infringes on the life of a fetus.

imported post

imperialism2024 wrote:

expvideo wrote:

I personally believe that abortion is wrong and I don't support it, but I also think that it is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor, not a decision that should be made by the federal government. I personally think that it is wrong, butI don't like to press my personal beliefs on other people, especially through legislation.

Click to expand...

While you and vmathis12019 have a good take on it, how do you respond to the accusation that abortion is an infringement on the life of the fetus, especially in late-term abortions?

Click to expand...

I would say once you are "vested" in the pregnancy, it should only be terminated for health reasons... the woman has already had a couple months to make up her mind, and if she hasn't figured out shes pregnant by then... well, shes an idiot.

I think anything 1st trimester is fine.

imported post

openryan wrote:

imperialism2024 wrote:

expvideo wrote:

I personally believe that abortion is wrong and I don't support it, but I also think that it is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor, not a decision that should be made by the federal government. I personally think that it is wrong, butI don't like to press my personal beliefs on other people, especially through legislation.

Click to expand...

While you and vmathis12019 have a good take on it, how do you respond to the accusation that abortion is an infringement on the life of the fetus, especially in late-term abortions?

Click to expand...

I would say once you are "vested" in the pregnancy, it should only be terminated for health reasons... the woman has already had a couple months to make up her mind, and if she hasn't figured out shes pregnant by then... well, shes an idiot.

I think anything 1st trimester is fine.

Click to expand...

As much as I am against abortion all together,I think this is a very realistic way of looking at it, and about as good of a compromise as anyone can expect.

I'm not sure how I feel about 1st trimester, but anything past that is a human being with rights, in my opinion.

imported post

I am pro life. No matter what the situation, it still does not justify the murder of an innocent child.

imported post

dngreer wrote:

I am pro life. No matter what the situation, it still does not justify the murder of an innocent child.

Click to expand...

When does it become a "child". At the very first moment of conception?

imported post

Yes, that is what I believe.

imported post

dngreer wrote:

Yes, that is what I believe.

Click to expand...

At the moment of conception... I do respect your opinion. But the mold on my bread right now has more intelligence and feeling, maybe I won't throw it away.

Again don't get me wrong, I know what you believe is your truth, and what I believe is mine.

It is just such a murky situation... when does it "feel" when is it a "child", I guess it always comes back to a question of moral values and personal beliefs. I don't think science will ever give us a viable answer to this question.

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

OTOH, the population of this planet is ballooning out of control.

Click to expand...

That's basicallyan old lib's/wive's tale. Not even close to being true. Never was.

One of the biggest long term problems of mostfor theindustrialized world is its long declining birth rate.Maintenance of population levels is a BIG strategic concern for many countries, including the U.S. There are a couple of exceptions, e.g., India, but there is no way the planet's population is "ballooning out of control."

imported post



It certaintly isn't going DOWN, and the planet isn't getting any bigger. Also, the pollution is becoming worse, and resources of those regions that are populated are most definitely becoming depleted.

By 2050, the estimated population of the planet will exceed 9,500,000,000 people. And it is just going up. The number of habitable ecosystems are dwindling. Not in small part to mankind's ability to utterly consume and destroy the ecosystem it currently resides in. Do YOU want to live in Antarctica when there is no room left?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population



So, unless you can cite to authority on your claims that the opposite is true, your argument doesn't hold water......

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

It certaintly isn't going DOWN, and the planet isn't getting any bigger. Also, the pollution is becoming worse, and resources of those regions that are populated are most definitely becoming depleted.

By 2050, the estimated population of the planet will exceed 9,500,000,000 people. And it is just going up. The number of habitable ecosystems are dwindling. Not in small part to mankind's ability to utterly consume and destroy the ecosystem it currently resides in. Do YOU want to live in Antarctica when there is no room left?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population



So, unless you can cite to authority on your claims that the opposite is true, your argument doesn't hold water......

Click to expand...

Believe it or not, if you took every human being on this planet, they would all fit within the state of Texas with plenty of room to spare.

The problem that comes is that of supporting the population, all the infastructure, parks, water, food, roads, all that stuff. There is plenty of room for the population, but not what the population desires.

We could also support ourselves quite easily with 9,500,000,000 people, the problem is logistics.

I do however wish there was a limit on how many children you could have.

imported post

I'm kinda in the middle on this one. I don't believe in aborting children as a form of birth control. But in some cases abortion is certainly appropiate, like rape/incest, severe birth defects, danger to the mother etc. However I don't believe in imposing my beliefs on anyone else. The choice of whether or not to abort is the women's alone.

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

It certaintly isn't going DOWN, and the planet isn't getting any bigger. Also, the pollution is becoming worse, and resources of those regions that are populated are most definitely becoming depleted.

By 2050, the estimated population of the planet will exceed 9,500,000,000 people. And it is just going up. The number of habitable ecosystems are dwindling. Not in small part to mankind's ability to utterly consume and destroy the ecosystem it currently resides in. Do YOU want to live in Antarctica when there is no room left?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population



So, unless you can cite to authority on your claims that the opposite is true, your argument doesn't hold water......

Click to expand...

If that's what you mean by "the population of this planet is ballooning out of control," then you deserve to languish in your, um, hysterical perceptions.

It's so easy to find the references to contradict your "ballooning out of control" assertion, that I can only assume you wouldn't read them if they were delivered to you on a silver platter.

imported post

Remember the old thread 'The UN is going to save us.'

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=5620&forum_id=65&jump_to=88189#p88189

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

It certaintly isn't going DOWN, and the planet isn't getting any bigger. Also, the pollution is becoming worse, and resources of those regions that are populated are most definitely becoming depleted.

By 2050, the estimated population of the planet will exceed 9,500,000,000 people. And it is just going up. The number of habitable ecosystems are dwindling. Not in small part to mankind's ability to utterly consume and destroy the ecosystem it currently resides in. Do YOU want to live in Antarctica when there is no room left?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population



So, unless you can cite to authority on your claims that the opposite is true, your argument doesn't hold water......

Click to expand...

The Lord Said;

"For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves."

imported post

I am pro-choice for one very simple reason (that leads in to lots of other reasons).

Respecting the right of each individual to make up her mind how to deal with her life, her health, and her body, I don't believe it's morally right for any of us to make that choice for her.

I may disagree with her. I may believe she's doing wrong. But that's my moral judgement. In response to that judgement, I may disassociate myself from the person I believe immoral. I may refuse funding for her choice. I may attempt to persuade others to my belief.

If she has to stand in front of a judge on some judgement day (which I don't personally believe), then SHE's the one who has to answer. Not any of us.

imported post

glocknroll wrote:

openryan wrote:

I said in another thread that I stand behing Thompson on his approach and stance towards the 2nd Ammendment and immigration.

However, he is "pro-life", which is disheartening, as this is a big issue for me, not as big as the two in the previous statement, but enough to possibly change my vote.

I'm wondering how many firearms owners, not just any person though, I'm talking about the people who really believe in the 2nd ammendment, not those who pick up a gun for personal protection, then don't really follow those rights politically, are pro-life.

It seems a little conflicting for him to support such an important right, yet take choice away on another front, well, at least to me it does.

I'd like to know how many people here are pro-choice, or pro-life, and would it make you look at him differently?

I know this topic can be very controversial, so try to keep the flames down...

Would like to get a lot of votes on this one!

Click to expand...

Whose choice? Do you believe in equal protection under the law?
When does a man get to opt out of unwanted parenthood? Don't give me the argument that a man can keep his pants on or use birth control (condoms). That's what they used to tell women.

Anything that is entirely a woman's choice should be entirely her responsibility.

Understand that I am seperating my personal beliefs from my belief in equal protection. I personally believe that anyone who is a participant in the creation of child has a responsibility to that child. My 3 sons and 3 daughters are examples of such.

Equal protection under the law says that all should have the same choice.

Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that you were pro abortion (I don't use pro choice) so you could opt out of parenthood. I was asking where is the same provision for a man? Why should he be held financially responsible for a choice that isn't his?

Again: If it a woman's right alone to choose whether or not to bear a child, then she should be held solely responsible for the consequences of that choice. With rights come responsibilities. You can't have it both ways.

imported post

compmanio365,

OTOH, the population of this planet is ballooning out of control.

Click to expand...

No it's not: certainly not in the West, and even globally demographers have already started talking about the coming population decrease.

As to your original question, openryan, I see nothing at all contradictory in believing in a strong right to self-defense, while also believing that the most-defenseless among us also have a right to life. And I wouldn't say the couple in your hypo was behaving cowardly, but rather committing evil.

And MarkNH, if you look at survey data, I think you'll find that a large segment of pro-life folks would allow (as I would) exceptions in the case of rape and incest.

[edited to fix typos]

imported post

glocknroll wrote:

glocknroll wrote:

openryan wrote:

I said in another thread that I stand behing Thompson on his approach and stance towards the 2nd Ammendment and immigration.

However, he is "pro-life", which is disheartening, as this is a big issue for me, not as big as the two in the previous statement, but enough to possibly change my vote.

I'm wondering how many firearms owners, not just any person though, I'm talking about the people who really believe in the 2nd ammendment, not those who pick up a gun for personal protection, then don't really follow those rights politically, are pro-life.

It seems a little conflicting for him to support such an important right, yet take choice away on another front, well, at least to me it does.

I'd like to know how many people here are pro-choice, or pro-life, and would it make you look at him differently?

I know this topic can be very controversial, so try to keep the flames down...

Would like to get a lot of votes on this one!

Click to expand...

Whose choice? Do you believe in equal protection under the law?
When does a man get to opt out of unwanted parenthood? Don't give me the argument that a man can keep his pants on or use birth control (condoms). That's what they used to tell women.

Anything that is entirely a woman's choice should be entirely her responsibility.

Understand that I am seperating my personal beliefs from my belief in equal protection. I personally believe that anyone who is a participant in the creation of child has a responsibility to that child. My 3 sons and 3 daughters are examples of such.

Equal protection under the law says that all should have the same choice.

Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that you were pro abortion (I don't use pro choice) so you could opt out of parenthood. I was asking where is the same provision for a man? Why should he be held financially responsible for a choice that isn't his?

Again: If it a woman's right alone to choose whether or not to bear a child, then she should be held solely responsible for the consequences of that choice. With rights come responsibilities. You can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Hey brother, I'm with ya!

I don't have any children of my own. But it a hard subject. I mean on the one side, the woman does carry the child, and it took a man to make that child. Granted the choice should be hers alone I do believe, but I'm not sure about the man having to pay for all the consequences.

If you get into a situation where both parties adamantly do not want children, are using birth control, say the condom breaks, they buy the day after pill, and she still becomes pregnant, both of them having an agreement that they do not want children prior, and she decides now that she has to keep it, well I don't know.

In a lot of cases the woman really does need the money from the father to help with expenses if the father leaves the situation. I just don't know, it is obviously the best thing that works now, but I do have my qualms with child support.

Men do however, or rather, should know that if a woman becomes pregnant, that it is ultimately her choice, and her choice alone whether or not to have that child. Knowing this, you need to make wise choices about whether or not to engage in such activity to begin with.

Your choices determine your fate...

imported post

kparker wrote:

compmanio365,

OTOH, the population of this planet is ballooning out of control.

Click to expand...

No it's not: certainly not in the West, and even globally demographers have already started talking about the coming population decrease.

Click to expand...

True enough. But the cut is basically developed vs. less developed countries.

Basically the rate of population growth is plummeting. Theabsolute numbers arelarge--because the base is solarge. This foolsa lot of (uninformed) people to believe the oldpopulation explosion rhetoric.






Another look at the gross numbers:





http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2006/09/picture.htm