Rick Perry wants to force wacko religious morals on everyone

I never said I agreed with Perry completely. I doubt if I would ever agree with ANY politician completely.

Beside, I think you are inferring what you "think" he meant to satisfy your bias. I seriously doubt he would be against abortion in a life threatening situation.

 

I'm of course willing to listen. Please explain how those words did not denote an analogous relationship.

 

Easily, an abortion IS a medical procedure. It is a medical procedure that may be needed to be performed in order to save one life instead of losing both lives.

Tough decisions need to be make sometimes in life. The decisions to let 3 people die in order to save 10 lives in a mine collapse. The decision to not help 5 people to save 20 people in a ship disaster. Sacrificing those lives does not mean that they are not important.

In the medical field, sometimes body organs need to be removed to save the life of the host and sometimes an unborn baby needs to be aborted to also save the life of the host. To attempt to twist my words that were addressing a specific situation and apply them to a broad scope is disingenuous and intentionally deceptive.

 

Then you can't ban the abortion. Because there are cases that abortion is necessary. There are situations where the risk of the life of the child or the mother are very high, or will mean the death of one of both, in that cases abortion is necessary, isn't a convenience.

Also people don't abort for liking, and usually the people that more refuse the abortion is the ones that more abort, I remember the dictatorship period in Spain, where the most catholics(the ones that theory refuse abortion) were the ones that more abortions had. They went to a foreign country to abort, also because they had money. But it is another topic.

Abortion is something bad, an evil, but many times this evil avoids more harmful things. It is what we need to analyze. We can't say abortion is bad, ban it!!!

 

I agree.

However, I believe Perry was talking about banning abortions done for convenience sake and was not referring to abortions needed for medical sake.

I also believe that most reasonable people understand that, but, because of their political bias, some people are going to take his word literally and paint his comments as being all inclusive.

 

We're taking his words exactly as he said them. There's no room for vagueness in policy-making, because it's a binding contract with the citizenry.

 

Are you kidding me? Vagueness is a politicians best friend. If you think campaigning is a binding contract then you have better start on those lawsuits for breach of contract. You will have a case against every politician know to man.

 

And you're once again comparing to an organ (or a parasite) with your verbiage. In the case of rape, when the mother's life is not in danger, should she be forced to carry the child to term?

 

Did I say campaigning, or did I say policy-making?

 

No, YOU are comparing an organ to a unborn. I am making a comparison that sometimes medical procedures need to be done to protect the host and those medical procedures might not be ideal, but may be necessary.

I'm a bit divided on that one.

 

Is it a medical procedure, or murder? It can't be both.

 

It should be a contract. What a politician says in the program it is what the politician should do. And decissions that are out of program must be decided in referendum to people. It would be a real representative democracy, and something closer to democracy.

 

Yes, it would be great to live in a perfect world.

 

If the abortion is done to save the live of the mother, then it is not murder. Murder requires malice aforethought. Any doctor performing an abortion to save the mother is not doing that abortion for the sole intent to harm the unborn.

 

You think the sole intent of people having abortions is to harm the unborn child? That's delusional.

 

I never said it was the "sole intent", but when someone is aborting a child for convenience purposes, then YES, the are trying to harm the unborn. What do you think they are trying to do? Feed the unborn? They are willing trying to harm the unborn for their own selfish reasons.

It appears that you are having a hard time with the definition of malice.

 

Considering you used the noun form "malice" instead of the adjectival form "malicious," I don't think you should be questioning my grasp of the English language.

Anyone having an abortion for ANY reason is "trying to harm" the fetus. You don't think sacrificing the life of a "child" to preserve your own life is selfish?

 

What part of "for convenience purposes" don't you understand? If it was done to preserve the life of the mother then that would be "for medical purposes". So, yes, aborting an unborn child for convenience purposes is selfish.

 

It's convenient not to die. If you can't afford the child or the medical expenses, it's not "for convenience sake" that you abort the fetus. You seem to think young women are going out, having unprotected sex every weekend, then having abortions on a weekly basis.

 

Well to the religious zealot, Like Perry and the rest of the **********s woman should be banned from having sex unless its to have a child. They also believe we should outlaw all forms of birth control because it interferes with "God".

 

LOL..sure it is. You said it yourself "can't afford the child or the medical expenses". That is a convenience. Children can be put up for adoption and no hospital is going to turn away someone in labor just because they can't pay. So adoption in this case is for the sake of convenience.

If you feel differently, please explain in detail how an abortion can be for medical purposes just because someone may be financially burdened.

 

Actually, it is the Catholics that do not believe in birth control and that stance was taken centuries ago to increase their numbers. However, nice try at painting with a broad brush, but you completely missed the building.

 

No, but the hospital will certainly charge them for the service they provided. It's not free just because you didn't pay before/at the time of service.

How is adoption the in this case for the sake of convenience?

The fact remains that it's either murder or it's not. "Convenience" doesn't have a role in this at all. If a 13 year old girl is raped by her father and chooses to have an abortion, the end result is the same as if a 24 year old woman has consensual sex with her boyfriend and chooses to terminate the unwanted pregnancy. That's a fact.

 

The difference is that the 24 year old woman knowingly took a risk in an act that she knew could result in pregnancy. The 13 year old did not make that same choice. Plus, I already mentioned that I was divided over issues of rape.

If a person is having an abortion for the sole purpose of financial security, then they are choosing their financial well being over the life of the child. They are not in a position where someone would die if no action was taken. We are back to the word malice.

Just because a person is in debt or is receiving bills does not mean that they will pay the bill. There is no debtor prison anymore. All it does is affect a person's lifestyle...not their life.

 

The motivation absolutely does not matter. Either the fetus is a living human being at the time of abortion and it's murder (regardless of motivation), or it's not. Stop waffling.