1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

Roe vs. Wade Under Fire!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Shrek, Jan 21, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. macrumors 65816

    Shrek

    #1
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/21/roevwade.overview/index.html

     
  2. macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    #2
    Remember when (if) Bush appoints another member to the court all of that can change again and we will be set back a couple maybe 40 years, no big problem at all.

    Really, having no abortions are good and all types of cloning is bad, heck even worse than bad, it is EVIL.
    If you get stem cells to cure your parkinsons YOUR EVIL. If it cures your cancer, EVIL.

    And if your gonna die if you have this baby, It's Soon Gonna be illegal, oh yes, and EVIL.

    Just remember the things to come and what you can do to stop this.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    #3
    i won't go the whole right/wrong route, but i will say that when the supreme court made its decision 30 years ago in favor, they based it on some pretty shaky legal reasoning.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Kethoticus

    #4
    I for one am glad that this inhuman policy's "under fire". Thank God. Never should have become policy in the first place, altho it wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court has made a mistake and labeled a group of people as less than human.

    As for killing human embryos to cure my diseases, I see it as no different from me killing you to cure me. As for prohibiting someone from getting an abortion even if it means the death of the mother, even conservative Republican pro-lifers make allowances here. I know I would.

    I hope that this country can finally repent of its policy of killing tens of millions of defenseless human beings, a policy that shows no reverence for human life. For me, it is not just a woman's body which is affected here, but also that of another, perfectly legitimate person. Pro-choicers tend to describe pregnancy as a female medical condition rather than the development of a separate human being toward greater independence from its mother's womb. This is not a women's rights issue, but a human rights issue.

    No, I'm not a woman. So I do not pretend to fully understand how a woman with an unwanted baby feels. But I was an unborn baby once, one who's dad wanted him aborted because he didn't want to pay the consequences of his actions.

    Some might argue that women will just go back to rusty hangers again. Honestly, while that's an ugly thought, that is ultimately THEIR choice to take such an action. No one is forcing them to do it. If they don't want the kid, after bringing him/her to term, they can surrender him/her to adoptive family.

    One thing we all can do though is to help these women who are left bearing the responsibility for an unplanned child. I knew a man from my former church who used his large house to provide shelter and overall support for pregnant women who's deadbeat lovers left them.
     
  5. macrumors 603

    rainman::|:|

    #5
    before you guys start arguing this, keep in mind the results of such an arguement: you will not succeed in changing anyone's mind on the subject, it will degrade into a flamewar, you'll feel very self-righteous, and you'll be very angry with one another.

    :rolleyes:

    flame on.

    pnw
     
  6. macrumors member

    #6
    It's only natural to get angry at people who are in favor of murdering babies
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    Shrek

    #7
    IMVHO, we give dead people rights. Dead people can make their own wills before they die, deciding what they want to leave behind for their loved ones after they die. They also have the right to their own memory and can decide wether they want to be cremated or buried after they die.

    One may argue that a dead person is no longer human, that what was once a living, breathing human being is now just a corpse. That's a "good" argument if you compare it with the same concept as it applies to abortion.

    My point is, if corpses have human rights, then why can't the unborn? Make sense?
     
  8. macrumors 68020

    sparkleytone

    #8
    okay that is just plain offensive. i am not going to take a stand on either plank for this argument, because my ideals and beliefs are just that, mine. your comment is inflammatory, offensive, and unwanted. if you want to go into a forum and troll around, pick a different issue.

    it is my suggestion that this thread be closed before serious damage is done.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page