[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 17:12:28 04/21/07 Sat
Subject: It's hard to believe something on this subject...
In reply to:
's message, "I looked at my post, again" on 02:56:11 04/21/07 Sat
After the major emphasis on the evils of partial-birth abortion and, eventually, a ban, I think I am someone who is pro-life who supports the right to choose.
Partial-birth abortion is a practice that is used when the woman's life is at stake. If the baby being born could literally kill the mother, then that's where partial-birth abortion comes into play. Why is the emphasis put on this particular type of abortion? It's an easy target. It's not a pretty preceedure. Who the hell gives the government the right to say the baby's right to life is MORE important than the mother's right to life? If the emphasis were put on sexual irresponsibility, then I can start agreeing with some of the right's solutions. But, it's not. The issue of partial-birth abortions is proof that the "conservatives" can be just as bad as the "liberals".
I support ALL legitimate, non-legislative action against abortion. I can understand the "right to life" argument, too, though, have not heard of any legislative plans that I can support. (I will NEVER support federal legislation on the topic under any circumstances.) This is my opinion only, but my wife and I have talked about what we would do in a baby or wife's life situation. She considers the baby to be more important and I consider HER to be more important. However, we both decided that we would never use abortion as a solution. I emphasize that this is our opinion because we have NOT been in that situation and I hope we never will have to be. But, if we are in that situation some day, I would like to think that if we changed our mind, the option would be available. It should be non-legislatively available to all. (Possible exception of under-aged persons... But I haven't thought too much about it.)
So, I think the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are ridiculous. Of course I'm pro-life! I believe in everyone having an opportunity to life. However, I do not like someone else making decisions regarding which life is more important, so I am also, of course, pro-choice. I also do not support wishy-washy laws outlining in what cases it is acceptable. The last thing someone in a life or death situation needs is to go through government red tape.
The members of the LDS church, in general, don't care to ask questions such as "why". On top of that, we choose which counsel to support and which to pretend we did or didn't hear. So, I agree with you, Deb. There are double standards everywhere... Idaho pushed a bill to ban smoking in bowling allies and I KNOW it was the mormons behind it. It was NOT because they feared for their health, but because they want to see the "evil" disappear. If they can't see it, then it doesn't exist. They cited that a bowling alley was a "public" place. Wow... I didn't know the government owned all of the bowling allies. Imagine that! Bowling allies are PRIVATE BUSINESSES. So, even though members generally support liberty, they will infringe upon it to soothe their fragile holier-than-thou egos.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |