Replies

A person is either 100% opposed to infancide or they are in favor of it.

I cannot say I agree with that statement. I think it is deeper than that simple statement.

Do you agree or disagree that a person can be 100% opposed to Abortion as it pertains to their own choices and still understand that everyone else's choices are their own to make and to be accountable for? Do you agree or disagree that removing choice, in general, is a bad thing?

Personally, I would like to see a day come where a pregnancy can be removed from a female who does not wish to remain pregnant without ending the pregnancy itself. I find this to be an outcome where both sides of this seemingly endless debate can gain what it is they truly seek. Would this not be a good thing?

Maybe then, every election and apointment wouldn't have the litmus test of Abortion postion. If all Abortion is simply outlawed, then the debate will remain as it is right now just in the reverse. Rather than remove choice entirely, I prefer to seek another choice.... a better choice.

I just can't subscribe to the idea that removing choice entirely is the best way forward. In fact, I oppose that action.....like say, smoking bans in eateries and bars for instance. I much prefer a solution that opposing sides can agree on. An alternative choice rather than abolition of choice.

If preserving life is the base of your stance and a pregnancy could be removed from a female, who does not wish to remain pregnant, without destroying the pregnancy and thus seeing that pregnancy come to term in another female or even in a lab, would your opposition as it stands today be addressed to your satisfaction? It should right?

Likewise, a female not wanting a pregnancy should find this solution viable right? After all, what a female seeking an abortion today really wants is to not be pregnant right?

Keep in mind that what I am talking about is a possible future solution in idea. Setting a goal that two opposing sides could work together to bring about, rather than just fighting the same old fight over and over and accomplishing nothing but wasting time and creating hard feelings and division among our own countrymen.

In the not so distant past, we as a society could not remove an organ from one person and make it function inside another person. Today, we can with great success. This is the model process, in idea, I am talking about in terms of pregnancies and abortions.

I am sure flamings will be sent my way by folks who aren't really interested in anything other than what they see as valid. That is fine. I am not saying folks have no right to do such a thing.

I am Just sayin that such action shows true colors. My true colors are a positive outcome for all involved. Is this postion not honorable?

I am Just sayin that I think there are ways to change this hate-filled subject by injecting something positive where opposing sides can both be afforded that which they seek on the bottom line. Not all that unlike our founders did when they came up with Electoral College.

Two sides of a heated and heartfelt debate brought differing yet valid positions to the table, both also brought valid downsides about the other as well. Yet still, a workable position was found where both sides got some of what they were seeking. In that action, I believe our founders taught us how to settle serious differences. Seek out an alternative that affords both sides that which they seek rather than simply disallow one position entirely.

I believe that same thing can be done in regards to this very heartfelt subject. That is, if people on both sides would be willing to admit that there will never be agreement between the two sides as the debate stands today. In order to move forward without doing harm one way or the other a new alternative is in order.

I said at the start of this post that I disagreed with your statement. I said that because I am against all options put forth on this subject today. I am against abortion and I am also against removing choice (in general, not just abortion). What I am for, is an alternative that sees a pregnancy removed from one who does not want it in a way that does not destroy life.

Do you find this position to be without merit or objectionable? How does my position fit with your statement? Should my position proclude me from participation on this website? Would you shun me as an 'aboritonist' because I refuse to just remove choice entirely and call that proper....because I seek another way forward instead?