"...except in the case of rape or incest."

If a law is passed against throwing couches in the garbage (i.e. against abortion), then the lawmakers - and society - have an obligation to provide an alternative means for recycling the couches (i.e. taking care of the babies). You can't just say, "Buy a couch that lasts forever."You can't just put up a "No Thoroughfare" sign and provide no alternative means of getting there. You're laying all of the responsibility on the individual. Society also has a responsibility to the individual. We have constitutions to prevent society (via government) from imposing unreasonable restrictions on the individual.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That individual Christian might happen to kill, does not count against Christians as a group. The problem comes when Christians kill (or do other misdeeds) in the name of their Christian beliefs. And, as you have admitted, they have done that. Again, what individual atheists do, as individuals, is not relevant here. The question is whether they have done egregious things in the name of atheism. We await the evidence.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 03-16-2006 04:44 PM

You miss the fact that atheism was a by product of totalitarian, communistic states. The goal was not to make people atheists, but to make them totally subserviant to the state. Atheism was just a tool choosen to do this, as those in charge of those states considered loyalty to anything other then the state (like a deity or church) to be a bad thing.Thus, to claim that communists are atheists zealots is absolutely incorrect. They were, at best, communist zealots who happened to be atheists.This differs from the many religious zealots in the world and in history who commit their atrocities with tthe main motivation being religious. See the difference?ABE: I see that the above has already been pointed out. No need to respond.This message has been edited by mikehager, 03-16-2006 04:17 PMThis message has been edited by AdminNosy, 03-16-2006 04:44 PM

This is getting way, way to far from the topic at hand. Please refrain.

Again, only if the law is made after you've already bought a couch(i.e are pregnant). If you don't have a couch before the law is made, then it is your responsibility, knowing that you can't throw the couch away, to be careful when shopping for a couch. And if you accendentally buy a couch, it was your responsibility to not put yourself in a position where you were unable to avoid buying the couch (don't go to the couch store if you can't resist buying one) because your not allowed to throw it away if you do buy it. No, you say "Don't buy a couch if you can't keep it." You have to be more careful about having sex if abortion isn't an option. And if abortion isn't an option then it is not the other citizen's responsibility if you aren't careful about having sex. Key word: unreasonable. It is a matter of opinion if abortion is reasonable or not.

Hold on a sec, crash...I would love to continue the historical/communist/athiest stuff all day, but i'm getting tired. Plus, Ringo and Nosyned said that I should reaspond to the OP, and I promised I would to another poster. I am a man of my word, so here it goes....Should it be allowed for people who voluntarily commit incest to recieve abortions. When it comes to having the child have such medical issues and pain, misery, and mental anguish of a kind that would make the child's life a living Hell, then yes I would allow an abortion. That goes too for a couple who are not inbreds that have the same issue with their child.But if it was just two voluntary inbreds and the child either had minor or major medical issues (though far less severe than what I described above)then I wouldn't allow it. If a normal couple cant get an abortion, neither should an inbred couple, at least unless the medical issues involved are too horrifying to fathom. And in that case an inbred as well as a normal couple should be allowed to have that one preformed.As for rape: No, I dont think that abortion should be allowed there. After all, even with that you can still choose to love the child unconditionally, even though it was concieved in a dispicable way (Koine Greek: "Agape", meaning "unconditional Love")I dont think the unborn child here needs to suffer just for the way he/she was concieved. The rapist on the other hand needs to be hanged by his &*#@ and burned with blow torches for the punishment.BTW: you do have a point on the "Eugenic position" that some anti-abortion activists take on this. Kudos

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

I'd like to stress at this time that metaphors are a privilege... not a right.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

But what about the father, then? Is the mother going to be forced to share custody with the rapist? What if she decides to put him up for adoption? Can her rapist decline to allow the adoption to proceed? (Adoption requires the consent of both parents where applicable.) All this, of course, presumes that the rapist has been caught and convicted by the time the child is born (a remote possibility.) Assuming he can be caught and convicted. That's the end result of fewer than 20% of rapes, if not even less.How are we going to deal with that? In a custody dispute, what's the burden of proof to revoke paternal rights from the father of the child? Must he be convicted of rape? Or is it sufficient that the mother of the child asserts conception through rape?

I like the idea that you can choose to love something. Almost as much as I like the idea that you can choose to love a living reminder of the person who held you down, and penetrated you against your will with enough force to rip your genitals up into shreds.These whining rape victims just need to hush up and choose a little love.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I did see that, yes. Holmes made much the same point so I believe my message 74 works as a reply to your points, too.But thanks for reminding me.

It's important here to remember that the fetus is not going to suffer; the majority of abortions take place long before the fetus has any capability of awareness of pain. We're terminating the existence of something with no capacity to know that it is alive. It has less awareness than a pet (and euthanasia of pets is fairly common and not at all objectionable to most if done painlessly.)

No. It is irresponsible of the government to pass such a law, without acknowledging its own responsibility. It's ludicrous to expect people to keep a couch forever or to do without one. That's why the law is irresponsible. If such a law is passed, there must be some provision made. Did I miss the news last night? I was under the impression that abortion is legal and therefore is thought to be reasonable by the lawmakers and a large segment of society.To relate our analogy to the OP: suppose my sister sneaks a couch into my house when I'm not looking. Would it be okay for me to throw that couch away?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'm going to write a novel titled If you Accidentally Buy a Couch.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I guess we just disagree on how much responsibility should be placed on the individual versus how much should be placed on the government. Its not very ludicrous in my opinion. And I don't think that some provision must be made if abortion is outlawed."Don't get pregnant" is easier to say than to do, but I think too much responsibility is removed from the individual if the government becomes responsible after it outlaws abortion. I hope you don't get mad when you read this, but:I think abortion should be legal.I think it is a bad thing to do but because we can't define when a fetus is a person and I'm only opposed to it for moral reasons, I think the option should be available to people who have no problem with it.What I don't agree with is that if abortion becomes considered unreasonable enough to be made illegal, then the govenment, or other citizens, should have to take on the responsibility of the unwanted children. (i know its not a christian attitude, btw) Yes because you weren't responsible for getting the couch (i.e. you were raped).That is why I agree that if abortion is made illegal, the phrase "except in the case of rape or incest." should be included. I strike the incest part because, like the OP said, it is redundent if talking about involuntary incest and I don't think that abortion, if illegal, should be allowed for voluntary incest.P.S. I gotta go, this is my last post for today.

Don't get me wrong either. I'm not in favour of abortion.I'm just in favour of minding my own @#$% business. I don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry telling me how to run my life, so I extend the same courtesy to them.It would be nice to live in a world of white picket fences with the sun shining and the birds singing and every child brought up in a loving family with two parents. But in this world, it doesn't always work out that way.If a woman is pregnamt and doesn't want to be, you have no "moral" right to tell her what to do. Your morals apply to your own life, not anybody else's.We do have a moral resposibility, as a society, to take care of our weaker members. If we take away an option, we must provide an alternative.As for the OP, it doesn't make the slightest difference where the embryo/fetus/baby/child came from. It's the woman's decision. It's everybody's responsibility.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC