Abortion debate (Split from Obama Thread)

[t_BuckeyeScott]

But the issue is when a politician uses their influence to legislate their personal values and restrict the rights of others who don't share the same beliefs (abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, assisted suicide, etc.).

If I believe abortion is murder by definition, if I'm a politician how can I not try to use influence to end it. I'm very confused how this is a problem.

 

[Brewtus]

If I believe abortion is murder by definition, if I'm a politician how can I not try to use influence to end it. I'm very confused how this is a problem.

Then don't have an abortion. But let those who believe that abortion is not murder be free to make their own decisions.

 

[Tlangs]

Then don't have an abortion. But let those who believe that abortion is not murder be free to make their own decisions.

If I beleive something is murder, how can I stand by, be silent, and let it happpen(assuming I am in a position to influence policy)?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Then don't have an abortion. But let those who believe that abortion is not murder be free to make their own decisions.

Done! So anytime a portion of the population believes something isn't wrong that you believe is we should let them just do it. So because of this I grant slavery rights back to the all those confederates who think it's right.

So what you're advocating to me is that I should let someone else commit murder?

See a person who is pro-life considers the un-born baby a human life so he believes the abortion ends someone else's right to life, whereas a prohibition against abortion only minimally limits the right of liberty. But the right of liberty is already limited to only things that don't harm another's rights, anyway. So yes you believe you're protecting someone's freedom, while I believe I'm protecting someone's life.

Edit: pro-lifers aren't pro-lifers just to oppose pro-choicers.

 

[Brewtus]

If I beleive something is murder, how can I stand by, be silent, and let it happpen(assuming I am in a position to influence policy)?

I'd like to properly respond to you but don't want to clutter up this thread with an off-topic subject. I'm sure there is another abortion thread somewhere on this board so we can continue there if you'd like.

 

[DGADBTWSOM]

Seriously, what thread is this?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I'd like to properly respond to you but don't want to clutter up this thread with an off-topic subject. I'm sure there is another abortion thread somewhere on this board so we can continue there if you'd like.

This should probably be split, but I don't think we're talking about abortion. We're talking about religious values affecting policy decisions, abortion just being an example. I will not debate abortion with you because I've already said and heard everything under the sun on the topic. I'm dealing with the preposterous idea that my religious values shouldn't affect my politics.

 

[sandgk]

Seriously, what thread is this?

Quite right.

I'd love to see a moderator take out the off-topic discussion beginning with the relevant post.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Have at it...

 

[Brewtus]

This should probably be split, but I don't think we're talking about abortion. We're talking about religious values affecting policy decisions, abortion just being an example. I will not debate abortion with you because I've already said and heard everything under the sun on the topic. I'm dealing with the preposterous idea that my religious values shouldn't affect my politics.

But isn't an elected official a public servant who should be acting in the best interest of the people they represent, regardless of their personal beliefs?

I'm not claiming that a person's religious beliefs don't provide a moral compass, but a politician should not legislate their morality upon others.

 

[Mike80]

But isn't an elected official a public servant who should be acting in the best interest of the people they represent, regardless of their personal beliefs?

I'm not claiming that a person's religious beliefs don't provide a moral compass, but a politician should not legislate their morality upon others.

I don't know if sentence one is exactly congruent with sentence two.

Say, for instance, a politicians moral compass (or whatever you wish to call it), both matches what T says as well as what his constituents say...

And if he is able to build a coalition that passes such a law banning/allowing the action, that is what our very system relies on, majority rule (at least within congress)

Just saying, just because a congresscritter wants to ban abortion doesn't exactly mean he's enforcing HIS morals, but it could be those of a majority of the very people who elected him, by your own definition, acting in the best interest of those he/she represents....

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

But isn't an elected official a public servant who should be acting in the best interest of the people they represent, regardless of their personal beliefs?

And with my abortion example I gave why religious values affect policy decisions because as a US lawmaker I would then be responsible to defend the rights of all parties under my constituency whether they are unborn or not.The right of someone to have their life always has trumped your liberty too choose. So as a public servant I would in the situation of abortion side with the unborn babies right to live over that of a mother's right to murder her child.

I'm not claiming that a person's religious beliefs don't provide a moral compass, but a politician should not legislate their morality upon others.

Okay, but I say you're legislating your morals on the unborn in this case.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

I don't know if sentence one is exactly congruent with sentence two.

Say, for instance, a politicians moral compass (or whatever you wish to call it), both matches what T says as well as what his constituents say??

And if he is able to build a coalition that passes such a law banning/allowing the action, that is what our very system relies on, majority rule??

Just saying, just because a congresscritter wants to ban abortion doesn't exactly mean he's enforcing HIS morals, but it could be those of a majority of the very people who elected him, by your own definition, acting in the best interest of those he/she represents....

However, being elected does not mean the majority of the voters agree with the electee on all issues, and acting on your own behalf under the presumption that the voters unequivocally agree with you on all topics is where I get concerned. It's really easy on the hot-button issues, but not so clear on issues that don't get the media attention.

If people vote for John McCain as president due to his long service in the military and congress, and hold the expectation that he will be the best of the candidates in dealing with issues such as war management and national security, that isn't necessarily indicative of s majority approval for his personal feelings regarding other matters.

 

[AKAK]

If I believe abortion is murder by definition, if I'm a politician how can I not try to use influence to end it. I'm very confused how this is a problem.

If you believe abortion is murder by definition, you don't understand what the definition of murder really is.

But, I suppose a bumper sticker that says, "Abortion should be unlawful homocide" lacks the zing of "Abortion is Murder."

 

[Brewtus]

I don't know if sentence one is exactly congruent with sentence two.

Say, for instance, a politicians moral compass (or whatever you wish to call it), both matches what T says as well as what his constituents say??

And if he is able to build a coalition that passes such a law banning/allowing the action, that is what our very system relies on, majority rule??

Just saying, just because a congresscritter wants to ban abortion doesn't exactly mean he's enforcing HIS morals, but it could be those of a majority of the very people who elected him, by your own definition, acting in the best interest of those he/she represents....

But majority rule doesn't/shouldn't apply when it would interfere with, and limit the rights of others. I would venture to say that the majority of Americans believe in the sanctity of the 10 Commandments, but only a few of the Commandments are instituted as laws in this country because most would limit the individual rights and freedoms of others.