POST SCRIPTS

Well, the AMA is willing to consider the rights of the female in the situation, which you do not seem willing to do.

Us liberals are just sitting tight, cause probably advancing technologies are going to get us out of this little moral quandary.

libby, I'm so glad to hear that you think there's a moral dilema involved in the issue.

According to "Websters Unabridged Dictionary" quandrary means a state of perplexity or doubt.

As a woman I'm certain that my "rights" as a human being and citizen do not give me license to get rid of (illiminate, kill, flush down a sink) an unborn child in my body. This would be true for me personally even if you could find a right to abortion in the Constitution, which you can't.

If you and your liberal friends are so sure that Americans support the right to an abortion then use the system and pass appropriate legislation. In the mean time...

I'll put my confident stance up against your perplexity any time.

If there are no moral standards then there is no immorality thus no responsibility. Makes life easy and non judgemental.

I always thought conservatives were against legislating every aspect of life. I thought were were supposed to be left alone by our government, more or less, to get on with it as best we can.

Governments are for maintaining a degree of social order. Believe it or not, murder is not illegal because it's immoral. It's illegal cause it's right societally disrupting.

I just can't see that it's any of the government's business how many children I have. It's my business. Not the government's, and not yours.

libby, Did you know that before Roe v. Wade there were several states in which abortion was legal?

What the feminist left has done with the court case is legislate from the bench. The people were never given a chance to vote on the issue. Remarkably, before the left made it an issue the government pretty much did leave people alone to decide for themselves how to handle out of wedlock pregnancy.

I'd say that beyond the morality of the issue, which I agree is for some a non-issue, murder is illegal because it interupts the inalianable right to life that all citizens are entitled to enjoy. We honor the right to life by condemning murder. It's an agreed upon value. The left chooses to fudge when it comes to the rights of the unborn. Fine, all I said was if they want to "fudge" then they should do it according to the procedures set up in the Constitution...and pass a law.

You're right, it's not any of my business how many children you have. I would add it's none of my business if you choose to get abortions rather than behave responsibly. A responsible person would control the number of pregnancies with abstinance or birth control and when pregnancy that is "undesired" occurs, have the decency to give the child a chance at life by giving it up for adoption.

I also reserve the right to think a little less of you, as I do myself when I make similar errors of judgement.

Abortion is by far the least defensable of all liberal arguments.

It states basically that a woman should have the right to systematically destroy innocent human life for the sake of convienence.

But as Libby so eloquently mentioned, hey its not a morale issue, its just one of convienence.

Unfortunately, our forefathers disagreed when they wrote that part about life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Cant kill anyone without due process, etc.

Lets face it, it isn't our business to tell anyone how many kids they should have, but it is our buiness to say how many can be killed. If government doesnt exsist to protect innocent human, life perhaps our liberal friend will tell us why it is there.

But, I forgot, she is far more busy than I, to actually come up with a logical argument for such an indefensable position would require time, research, etc. Perhaps I should just describe to her "moral reltavism" "we can kill whoever we want in the name of feminism" policy. I wonder, if she has ever bothered to read what those who started the real feminist movement thought about abortion. oops, again, to busy to read or research...sorry i forgot.

Its called the arrogance of ignorance. And it never ceases to amaze

If there are no moral standards then there is no immorality thus no responsibility. Makes life easy and non judgemental. An adendum. People with no moral standards probably should not reproduce anyway.

I dont know about the rest of you, but i plan to throw that little quote of libbys about morality back into several posts.

The implications of such a shallow and thoughtless comment are inumerable.

Note the moral indignation in the tone of her writing when abortion is discussed as a womans rights issue, as soon as the discussion is one of murder, the morality of it is flipantly brushed aside.

How....revealing

I did not say that murder was not immoral. I said that it's immorality was not why it was illegal. If we cannot make and/or understand these distinctions, we cannot discuss the issue.

My point was, that your assertion is ubsurd, not that I didnt understand your point.

Of course it is illegal on moral as well as pratical grounds. What may be in question is the definition of "morals".

But your statement was an opinion which you passed off as a fore gone conclusion. A fact which us moralists had failed to see.

The liberal and libertarian concept that you cannot or shouldnt legislate morality doesnt mesh with history.

There are tribes in Papa New Guinea that were practicing canabalism until a couple decades ago, they didnt find it "socially disrupting" yet it was eventually outlawed, gee wiz, why do you suppose that is?

If murder is illegal simply because it is "socially disrupting" I wonder what your position is on infanticide, or perhaps killing the handicap and elderly, after all the argument has been made by moral realvatists that the very existence of certain members of society is "socially disruppting". So please expound, if you would, on say why ...the holocaust was wrong, if it is simply a matter of social disruption rather than moral obligation.

As for me, Ill maitain my un-enlightened view that innocent human life is precious and should be protected by society for moral reasons first and social reasons second. Since social reasons are nothing more than the current majorities opinion on what is important.

Again, liberals never argue the "science" of abortion, they simply bridge to "womens rights" and keeping government from "legistlating every aspect of their lives". The idea that it could be morally unjust, is just not something they want to honestly debate.