MorningGlory Posted August 2, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2017 Interesting. I really want to watch where this goes. I would like to see an abortion free world. http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/01/kentucky-first-abortion-free-state-2018/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted August 2, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,705 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,522 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted August 2, 2017 I think its great they're trying. I'm not holding my breath at it working though, at least not in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted August 2, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2017 Is Kentucky doing anything to help prevent unwanted pregnancies concurrently with these efforts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted August 2, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2017 10 hours ago, Running Gator said: Is Kentucky doing anything to help prevent unwanted pregnancies concurrently with these efforts? I'm not sure what that matters or why it is at all relevant. It's not really the state's job to try to attempt to prevent unwanted pregnancy. It is, however, the state's job to try to stop babies from being murdered, or should be, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted August 2, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Steve_S said: I'm not sure what that matters or why it is at all relevant. It's not really the state's job to try to attempt to prevent unwanted pregnancy. It is, however, the state's job to try to stop babies from being murdered, or should be, anyway. There are two things at play here. From a purely legal point of view, no babies are being murdered so there is nothing to stop. So, what the state is doing is more of a moral thing than a legal thing. From a moral point of view preventing unwanted pregnancies is a more efficient way to stop abortions than closing abortions clinics. If all they are doing is closing down clinics and not aiding in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies then it is my opinion that what they are doing is not about morals or laws but about grandstanding and a governor trying to win votes. The same holds true if they are not also increasing funding and access to crisis pregnancy centers. Edited August 2, 2017 by Running Gator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted August 2, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2017 24 minutes ago, Cobalt1959 said: They can pass a law to make anything legal, but that hardly makes the results morally right. It does not matter if abortion is legal. It is still morally wrong. Perhaps without the easy cushion of abortion-on-demand there would be less unwanted pregnancies. None of what you wrote negates the fact that abortion is morally reprehensible and should not exist in the U.S. in any form. What is legal and what is moral often do not intersect in our country. Yes, abortion is morally reprehensible, so it seems that those that feel that way would do everything in their power to reduce it. But that is most often not the case, all that is done is to focus on the procedure itself and not what leads to it. If one is not doing what they can to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to deal with the babies that are the result of those, then they really not trying to end abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted August 3, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2017 6 hours ago, Running Gator said: There are two things at play here. From a purely legal point of view, no babies are being murdered so there is nothing to stop. So, what the state is doing is more of a moral thing than a legal thing. From a moral point of view preventing unwanted pregnancies is a more efficient way to stop abortions than closing abortions clinics. If all they are doing is closing down clinics and not aiding in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies then it is my opinion that what they are doing is not about morals or laws but about grandstanding and a governor trying to win votes. The same holds true if they are not also increasing funding and access to crisis pregnancy centers. That goes to my point, when I said it should be the states job to stop murder. If murder did not exist as a "legal concept," it would still still exist as an act. I don't think that "preventing unwanted pregnancies" should be coupled with the abortion debate at all, because it implies that it is fine to kill a baby because a person did not intend for that baby to exist. Qualifying the value of a human being's existence based simply on whether or not that person's mother wanted to be pregnant is disgusting. Whether or not the government should fund a crisis pregnancy center should not, at all, come in to play when deciding whether or not one should be allowed to kill their child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 10 hours ago, Running Gator said: There are two things at play here. From a purely legal point of view, no babies are being murdered so there is nothing to stop. So, what the state is doing is more of a moral thing than a legal thing. From a moral point of view preventing unwanted pregnancies is a more efficient way to stop abortions than closing abortions clinics. If all they are doing is closing down clinics and not aiding in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies then it is my opinion that what they are doing is not about morals or laws but about grandstanding and a governor trying to win votes. The same holds true if they are not also increasing funding and access to crisis pregnancy centers. And how exactly would a state government prevent unwanted pregnancies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted August 3, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Steve_S said: That goes to my point, when I said it should be the states job to stop murder. If murder did not exist as a "legal concept," it would still still exist as an act. The act is killing, the motive/reason makes it murder. Quote I don't think that "preventing unwanted pregnancies" should be coupled with the abortion debate at all, because it implies that it is fine to kill a baby because a person did not intend for that baby to exist. Qualifying the value of a human being's existence based simply on whether or not that person's mother wanted to be pregnant is disgusting. Be that as it may, that is where we find our society today. But most Christians/conservatives think like this as well, which in my mind is why the rate of abortion is the same now as it was 2 years after RvW. It makes a fine philosophical argument but it is not very pragmatic, it does not really address the reality of the world we live in. So, you are right, if all you want to do is debate abortion, then talking about unwanted pregnancies should not be part of the debate. But if you wish to actually end abortion, that is where the focus should be. If there is no baby, then there is nothing to abort. Quote Whether or not the government should fund a crisis pregnancy center should not, at all, come in to play when deciding whether or not one should be allowed to kill their child. Well, that has already been decided by our Supreme Court. Closing all the abortion clinics in Kentucky and not giving an alternative will just mean that people from Kentucky will drive to one of the 7 states that border it for an abortion. It does not actually solve the problem one iota, it just gives them a hollow victory. It all comes down to whether you want to win a debate or solve a problem, whether you want to end abortion or just have something to brag about (like a state having no abortion clinics). If the goal is a few abortions as possible, since they are still legal, then the focus has to be preventing unwanted pregnancies and providing an alternative for those that are pregnant and are contemplating abortion. But neither of these has been the focus of those who want to stop abortion, which is why it goes on unchecked. Edited August 3, 2017 by Running Gator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted August 3, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted August 3, 2017 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: And how exactly would a state government prevent unwanted pregnancies? First and foremost by making birth control more readily available and easier to get. Secondly actual comprehensive sexual education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts