Abortion -A Non-Issue

[QUENTIN]

You know it's funny, I've been going to a lot of political rallies lately and I would have to say it seems over 90% of the people who protest these rallies are carrying anti-abortion signs or "protesting abortion". It seems so odd to me, do the American really think who is in office is gonna change abortion's legality? Do they think the fact that Kerry is pro-choice and Bush is pro-life will affect anything at all? Well just in case, since it seems abortion is a very important issue to both sides, here are some facts you may not know that really make abortion a moot point in politics.

In 1973, the historic Roe Vs. Wade supreme court case made abortion legal. When something becomes federal law like this, there are only three ways to make it illegal again in the country.

1.) The supreme court could hear a very similar case and reverse their previous ruling, then vote to have a law stating the opposite of what they'd previously ruled for, something they have never done.

2.) The U.S. could be given a seven-year period for 2/3 of the states to vote in favor of making abortion illegal by a 2/3 majority of each state's legislature. This process was deemed to take too long for civil rights, and in a country where nowhere near 66% of the states, by a 66% or more majority, are anti-abortion, seems impossible.

3.) An amendment could be made to the constitution which would make abortion illegal. This would require 2/3 of Congress to vote in favor of making it illegal, in a Congress where the majority are pro-choice and most politicians look at a constitutional amendment on anything as a last resort.

Seeing as how none of these options are feasible, a politician's stance on abortion doesn't really matter, now does it? The president has no power to do anything about abortion, and nothing will be done about abortion in the relatively near future. Not to mention if trends continue, more and more of the American populus will be pro-choice as the abortion rate currently exceeds the birth rate in the U.S. and there are few pro-life liberals, but there are many pro-choice conservatives.

So, no matter how much your religious or political convictions make you lean one way or another, abortion shouldn't really matter to you in your voting because it is no longer a political issue. Just thought I'd get that out there because I'm sick of hearing it discussed by politicians so much who are relying on the ignorance of certain one-issue voters. It's a major social issue, but it's not a political issue.

[JohnTheHenchman]

It's a political issue as long as government pays for it in any way shape or form.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
1.) The supreme court could hear a very similar case and reverse their previous ruling, then vote to have a law stating the opposite of what they'd previously ruled for, something they have never done.

....

Seeing as how none of these options are feasible, a politician's stance on abortion doesn't really matter, now does it? The president has no power to do anything about abortion, and nothing will be done about abortion in the relatively near future.


The President can elect judges to sit on the Supreme Court who have an opinion on abortion. In the next four years, three seats are going up for grabs. The President has much power in appointing who will fill these seats. If three more are appointed who favor abortion, then there will be enough judges in there to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, if a suit is filed.

This is how I understand it.

[JohnTheHenchman]

There already is a 7-2 Conservative to Liberal ratio in the supreme court. So explain to me, how Rowe v. Wade hasn't been overturned already?

Because it just won't happen.

[The Postmaster General]

You want me to explain why, if there's a majority of Conservatives in the SC, Roe Vs. Wade hasn't been overturned.

Well, the obvious answer is because a majority didn't vote to overturn it, but I don't think that's what you're asking.

So, let me explain this:

Just because someone is conservative doesn't mean they are automatically anti-abortion, so 9 out of 9 of the justices could be conservative, and this doesn't mean they'll vote against abortion.

Also, just because someone is Liberal doesn't mean they are for abortion for all. Please read more about former Democratic Representative for Rhode Island, Robert Weygand: http://activote.ontheissues.org/AVA/House/Robert_Weygand.htm


______________________

Recent Supreme Court abortion cases have been 5-4 votes, so historically, it's been close.

This is a case from 2000, where one vote would have made partial birth abortions illegal.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.partialbirth/

Saying it "just won't happen" is just being pretty optimistic.

Currently, 3 of the 9 are for overturning Roe vs. Wade. You do the math.

It's talked about here in this article from FatChick.com, I mean factcheck.com, I mean.... Check the link. It talks about Kerry exaggerating on the numbers, but it clearly shows that 3 anti-abortion appointments would easily overturn Roe Vs. Wade.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=176.html


Hope that explains it.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Which 3 of the 9 are in favor of overturning it. Also, are the people that would probably leave the bench soon people that don't favor it? If it's three that don't favor it, you have a point, if it's three that do then it doesn't matter.

[The Postmaster General]

Which 3 of the 9 are in favor of overturning it. Also, are the people that would probably leave the bench soon people that don't favor it? If it's three that don't favor it, you have a point, if it's three that do then it doesn't matter.


John, I'm not trying to make a point. You are looking for some sort of debate here, and all I'm trying to do is address the Que Man's question. He asked why people look to The President for matters such as abortion, and I think I've stated why fairly well.

Personally, this is something I don't worry about, but thought that I could provide some construtive input, as I knew an answer to the question posed. There are many other reasons people look to the president, but I just stated what was foremost. Everything I'm saying is factual, and you are trying to debate me with hypotheticals.

It could happen, and it couldn't happen. What's to debate? If you are really interested in learning more about the Supreme Court, knock yourself out. If some interesting facts arise and you want to share those, I'm sure everyone would appreciate it.

In the meantime, as far as I can tell, no one is stating anything wrong here, and that's me and you. There's really no need to disagree just because you clearly hope and believe that abortion will stay legal, and I'm stating facts about how it could be made illegal. You haven't even really provided any reasons why it WILL stay legal. The most interesting thing, is that out of the questions you've so far asked me to address, you haven't even asked me if I think it in threat of being banned.

Come on, man. There is a good reason I never joined the debate club.

PS - I like your avatar, and respect your devotion to 3rd party candidates. As Ali G would say: "RESPEKT"

[JohnTheHenchman]

Sorry, I'm not really debating you. I should have made it clear I was speaking rhetorically. If anything I'm debating the notion that people actually think it will be banned because omg Scalia will be appointed Chief Justice or something.

Eh, even though I'm not conservative it pisses me off when crazy things are said about them too.

[SLAW]

Yet another important thing in this election. I don't want Bush appointing conservative activist judges to the Supreme Court.;) The freedom for people to have the right to choose on many things (even if it is women's own bodies) is very important and we cannot tolerate choice it being taken away from people in this country. And no I don't abortion will ever be made illegal, but pre-cautions need to be made by us (the people at the ballot box).

[free]

Also, just because someone is Liberal doesn't mean they are for abortion for all.

That would be me.

Personally, I look at it from this point (and I'm not trying to preach, because I don't know whether or not a fetus is alive):

Regardless if the fetus is alive or not, if allowed to develope, would become a living person. The act of an abortion would prevent that eventual person from existing. I don't consider remove a tumor or killing a virus to be akin to an abortion because a tumor and a virus couldn't eventually become a living, sentient being. Besides, thousands of barren parents are waiting to adopt a child, and they made wonderful drugs that can be used so no pain is felt.

On the other hand, I am in favor of abortions in the cases of rape, incest, and survival of the mother, because, in the case of rape, the sexual act was not consenual, and in the case of incest, the baby would in most instances be severly handicapped or brain damaged.

Again, I am not trying to preach, because I can understand the reason for both sides.

[Lynn7]

But a baby is a baby no matter how it came to be (even thru rape and incest). The baby has no guilt in either scenario. Why not have the babay and give it up for adoption. I'm in favor of the government paying for the entire medical bill of the pregnancy if the perpetrator is unable to be found to be held financially responsible. The only instance I agree with abortion is when the mother's life is at risk.

[Raymond Babbit]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Why not have the babay and give it up for adoption.

From what I've heard, Lynn, many mothers have a hard time giving the baby up for adoption once it's born, so they end up keeping a baby that they may be unfit to raise. Besides, what if the child is never actually adopted, then what?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
From what I've heard, Lynn, many mothers have a hard time giving the baby up for adoption once it's born, so they end up keeping a baby that they may be unfit to raise. Besides, what if the child is never actually adopted, then what?

I know that this is true of the regular woman who gets pregnant but the argument about the woman who has been the victim of rape or incest is that the baby would be a disturbing reminder of a bad experience- in this case I would think that they would be less likely to want to keep the baby----if that argument it true.

There is a five year waiting list for people who want to adopt a baby and people are so desparate to adopt they go to other countries and spend tons of money to adopt. I'm sure those babies would be snapped right up!

Most of the people I have known who have had abortions have done it out of convenience. It wasn't a convenient time to have the baby so they aborted it. I understand abortion in the old days when having a baby tainted the mother's reputation and could ruin their lives- these women were desparate! That is not the case anymore. Single women have babies as a matter of routine and their is no stigma attached. We have come to a new age and especially with the advent of ultrasound which was developed after Roe v. Wade, we now know that the baby that is aborted is not a clump of tissue but a little thing with arms and legs jumping around the uterus as early as 7 weeks gestation. I think its really time to reassess abortion. I do not think Bush will go there though. and I think that no one who goes there will get elected cause people like their convenience.

[The Other]

QUENTIN for President!

[Maestro]

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c_p.html

DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.

First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.

Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

You'll help prevent AIDS.

You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.

You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.

BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.

My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.

This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.

I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.

I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them.

I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.

These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.

I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion.

And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.

Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society.

Thank you.

In any case, I think the following quote from Kerry sums up the basic difference between the parties, not only on abortion, but generally overall, pretty well:

"you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise."

But somehow I don't see Kerry buying welfare moms guns - Maestro

[jeo4]

My wife and I can't have kids. My wife would make one of the best parents on this Earth, IMO. She's great with kids. Our nieces and nephews love her more than anyone else in their lives, save for maybe their own parents. Yet she can't have kids of her own. There are many cases where parents would like to adopt a baby and raise him/her as their own. We could be those people. As a result, I am flatly against abortion.

It's not a "choice". Adoptive parents don't have a choice whether or not they have children. Babies don't ever have a choice whether or not they get to live. Yet many women believe it's "my body, my choice", even though they up and got pregnant in the first place by not taking precautions with their bodies. If you can't be a parent, then don't be one, but give the rest of us who can't have our own that chance instead of throwing an innocent life away.

If this is a non-issue, then I wish people would drop it, especially during an election when most of the candidates could care less about it in the first place. I've seen a lot on both sides of the fence (mostly pro-"choice" signs), but they all just need to stop.

[loner]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
From what I've heard, Lynn, many mothers have a hard time giving the baby up for adoption once it's born, so they end up keeping a baby that they may be unfit to raise.

If a woman wouldn't have a hard time having an abortion than I find it kinda odd if she were to have a hard time giving the baby up for adoption once it's born. Just an observation.

I too think abortion is pretty much a non-issue; and I get annoyed by the fact that each side of the issue is for the most part still tied to a particular party. As someone stated, there are many pro-choice Republicans. I mean seriously, being pro-life or pro-choice.....what bearing does that have on whether one believes in small or big government?

[free]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But a baby is a baby no matter how it came to be (even thru rape and incest). The baby has no guilt in either scenario. Why not have the babay and give it up for adoption.

I understand where you are coming from, but I do disagree.

In any normal circumstance, that baby (through rape) wouldn't have been born. Would you really want a woman reminded of that rape every morning she is sick, every visit to the doctor, every sonogram that reminds her of that violation? The baby may not have guilt, but it is a byproduct of that violation, and I think it is a woman's right to not have to go through any additional pain just because you or I think she should.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by loner
If a woman wouldn't have a hard time having an abortion than I find it kinda odd if she were to have a hard time giving the baby up for adoption once it's born. Just an observation.


I think what you said definately is not an observation, unless it's an obervation of your opinion....

What I've observed is that many mothers grow an attachment to the baby before it is born. It's hard not to do when you've been leading your life around this evergrowing thing that lives in your stomach. Nine months is a long time to get used to anything, and that I why I think a woman would have a less of a hard time aborting a child than actually going through with the pregnacy.

Not to trivialize life, but it's like the difference between deciding not to buy a new car before test driving it -- and deciding after the salesman has let you use it for the weekend. The latter is usually more difficult.

[Lynn7]

But that is exactly the thing! It is only becasue the woman can't see the baby or feel it that she can't get attached. If she could see it by ultrasound she probably would not have that abortion. I know this is a small example and not scientific at all but there was a woman who had 2 abortions and went on to become an ultrasonagrapher who showed women who planned to abort the ultrasounds of their babies and everyone of them changed their minds. A woman I know is an ultrasonagrapher and she is forbidden to show the ultrasound to anyone planning to abort. It is absolutely forbidden so the women will not be troubled by what they see. Isn't this the ultimate dehumanization? As long as we don't know we are doing wrong then it is not wrong.

I happen to agree that anti-abortion fights are totally ineffective. Teh genie is out of the bottle already. I think Bush says it right when he says we should try to make abortion rare. I think education and lots of help for pregnant women in crisis is the right answer.

[Jim H]

and they made wonderful drugs that can be used so no pain is felt.

Said by someone who, I'm willing to bet, has never had a baby.

It is absolutely forbidden so the women will not be troubled by what they see. Isn't this the ultimate dehumanization?

Kind of reminds me, in a roundabout way, of those who would never kill animals themselves, can't watch animals being killed or butchered, but eat meat.

I think education and lots of help for pregnant women in crisis is the right answer.

Would you be in favor of ending the abstinence only education programs? They don't work as well as other education programs.

Well, in other countries with wider programs, they have much much lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates than America does, anyway - which might not be the same thing.

[free]

Said by someone who, I'm willing to bet, has never had a baby.

lol, Well I would've made big news if I had. :)

I based that statement on what many of my friends have told me. In fact, my mother-in-law said she actually fell asleep during my wife's birth.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by free
lol, Well I would've made big news if I had. :)

I based that statement on what many of my friends have told me. In fact, my mother-in-law said she actually fell asleep during my wife's birth.

I just feel it is silly to look at it that way, since some mothers don't get to have a choice in that regards.

Like my mother didn't have a choice to take drugs with me - I was born too fast.

[C-Desecration-]

Generally abortion is using a sort of vacuum that sucks out cells. Cells. It's very rare that a woman with a fetus 'aborts' it.


In any normal circumstance, that baby (through rape) wouldn't have been born. Would you really want a woman reminded of that rape every morning she is sick, every visit to the doctor, every sonogram that reminds her of that violation?



That's true, but I think - objectionably - emotional distress isnt much of a reason to stop a life. I am completely for abortion, by the way, even if it'd been much of a common practice years ago I would've never existed. My grandmother on my mother's side - whom I've never met - gave her up for adoption. My mother went to look for her eventually, and although most of the records were locked, turned out she's a rape child. And both her and me look exactly like this rapist (apparently it was a friend, not a total stranger), have his traits.
That reminds me of something I only vaguely remember--there's an arguement against abortion because its unfair for children to be born in unfit environments, etc. Now this might just be groundless since I can't remember any damn specific (if any schmoe can help me out mucho appreciated), but I remember hearing about a famous (I'm talking famous-famous) musical composer, who was born into a family of what, five or six, they were starving, terrible environment, the circumstances were as such where the mother would've gotten an abortion of it'd been common practice. And yet . . .
But then again that example is like me shooting a guy in the chest, and when he doesn't die I decide that you can't kill a guy by shooting him in the chest.
God what a terrible analogy.

[Lynn7]

Abortion in the first few weeks would be cells as you said but most women do not even know they are pregnant for almost 2 weeks to a month and most of them do not run right out and abort. You should view an ultrasound before you make up your mind. At 7 weeks gestation one of my kids was bopping all around even though he didn't even have fully formed arms and legs- it was amazing to watch him jumping around. My other kid was ultrasounded at 9 weeks and that was totally wild!

Jim, I have had three babies and I didn't have the benefit of the epidural like they have now- totally painless labor! My sister-in law slept through her labor. I had a really hard labor with the wonderfully sadistic drug pitocin which gave me horrible non-stop contractions that made me feel like I was turning inside out and then I ended up with a C-section. The next two were also c-sections. But despite all the pain, I brought 3 lives into the world and it was really worth it.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Abortion in the first few weeks would be cells as you said but most women do not even know they are pregnant for almost 2 weeks to a month and most of them do not run right out and abort. You should view an ultrasound before you make up your mind. At 7 weeks gestation one of my kids was bopping all around even though he didn't even have fully formed arms and legs- it was amazing to watch him jumping around. My other kid was ultrasounded at 9 weeks and that was totally wild!

Jim, I have had three babies and I didn't have the benefit of the epidural like they have now- totally painless labor! My sister-in law slept through her labor. I had a really hard labor with the wonderfully sadistic drug pitocin which gave me horrible non-stop contractions that made me feel like I was turning inside out and then I ended up with a C-section. The next two were also c-sections. But despite all the pain, I brought 3 lives into the world and it was really worth it.

Yeah, my sister just had a child. She went the natural route though, no drugs. Preferable to my mind.

BTW, why exactly did you need a c-section? I'm not sure I get it.

but I remember hearing about a famous (I'm talking famous-famous) musical composer, who was born into a family of what, five or six, they were starving, terrible environment, the circumstances were as such where the mother would've gotten an abortion of it'd been common practice. And yet . . .

On the other side of the coin, Hitler's mother was talked out of an abortion. Well, so the story goes.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Jim H
On the other side of the coin, Hitler's mother was talked out of an abortion. Well, so the story goes.

Sounds like a lie to me. (Not calling you a liar, but I'm saying the story is a lie.)

[James Logan]

I don't think Roe vs. Wade will ever be made illegal. We have such protests in France, too, although on a smaller scale, but our law won't ever be overturned either. I personally believe that, despite what people say, the legality of abortion is now what we over here call a "social given" of sorts (un acquis social). It's something you can't take back, because it would simply sound like your society is going backwards -- agree with it or not. It'd be taking away a liberty.

I personally am against abortion. I do think it's against nature to do something like that, and I don't think I'd ever advise any of my girl friends to get an abortion, or ever let a girl I would've gotten pregnant get an abortion.
But that's my personal belief. That's not something I can impose on other people. Besides, let me just put me in someone else's shoes -- I have a girlfriend. Or a wife. She gets raped and pregnant. Would we want to keep the child? It's hard to say. Would we want to give it away? It's hard to say, too. If a woman considers herself too young, or too poor, or any other reason, to bring her child into the world, but still not want to let it be born, see her son or daughter, and then give it away forever, can anyone blame her?

I know one of the usual answers is, well, bitch shouldn't have gotten herself knocked up. But that's just the easy way out, and it oversimplifies things.

And on Hitler having barely escaped being aborted...true or not, that's not even an issue. I don't think little Adolf was born into this world with his brain filled with evil and his eyes glowing with madness and a pointy red tail sticking out of his arse. Being born didn't make him evil, growing up resentful and hateful made him evil.

[Jim H]

that's not even an issue. I don't think little Adolf was born into this world with his brain filled with evil and his eyes glowing with madness and a pointy red tail sticking out of his arse. Being born didn't make him evil, growing up resentful and hateful made him evil.

If he'd never been born, he never would have had the chance to be resentful and hateful. I agree it is a non-issue, I'm just saying it is equally silly to say "well, Beethoven would have been aborted!" or some such nonsense.

[C-Desecration-]

I agree it is a non-issue, I'm just saying it is equally silly to say "well, Beethoven would have been aborted!" or some such nonsense.


Actually the two are very different. One is definitely a non-issue. The other is supposed to show that just because a family life is called "unfit" for a child to be born into it, or just because a mother might not think she could handle a child doesn't mean she couldn't, doesn't mean those sorts of scenarios haven't worked out because they have. The point wasn't that 'whoever' turned out to be some famous dojob, but that 'whoever' was born into a life that would cause most people to have aborted, and yet it all turned out okay.
But like I said that's taking one unique (I'm sure) circumstance and applying it to everyone.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-

But like I said that's taking one unique (I'm sure) circumstance and applying it to everyone.

Yeah. And in other cases, how many kids lived miserably or turned bad because they were born in such a situation?

My personal point is, I don't know. And if I don't know, then why should I (through law, and making abortion illegal) decide for the mother-to-be? Her life, her beliefs, her call.

[Lynn7]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jim H

BTW, why exactly did you need a c-section? I'm not sure I get it.
_________________________________________________

I needed the first one but the second two were my fault. The first one was cause I wasn't dialating past 2-3 and then the baby started to get in trouble (not getting enough O2)- they rushed me into surgery and he was born fine. The next time my doc asked me if Iwanted try regular or C-section casue after you have a c-section there's a risk of uterine rupture with a regular birth.Since my first son was 9 1/2 lbs I figured my second one might be more- he was only 7 11. so with my third I asked if I could go regular and my doc said that after 2 c-sections I could not do it casue the risk was too high- he weighed only 6 13 as it turned out. I regretted the decision I made on my second kid. Oh, well. It's only pain for a few weeks and then it's gone. This is probably more info than you wanted, LOL!


James, I know it sounds weird to amke a decision for someone else you don't know but you are doing it anyway when you abort a baby you are totally disregarding their right to live. They cannot think or speak so they do not count and yet in a few years they will be thinking and speaking and then they will grow to adulthood (unless they are aborted of course). These fetus' arte people too and no one exactly likethem will ever be born again. It is sad. I think most women would not even consider abortion except they have been sold the idea that it is just a clump of tissue- that is what I used to beleive and I was shocked to see an ultrasound that it was not true. I agree RoevWAde will never be overturned but I do hope more is done to help prevent women from choosing abortions.

[The Postmaster General]

I think if you are going to have capital punishment you should have abortion. And since I'm for capital punishment, I'm for abortion. George W. speaks in his large Texan way when he speak of the value of life. This man speaking has governed the execution of a mentally retarded person, so I definately don't share his value where life is concerned. Quentin is right when he complains of the way politicians distort peoples emotions in order to further their careers.

Neither side is wrong, but what we all agree on is that there are many factors that prevent abortions from happening, and people should probably be more focused on that than on the rhetoric of it all. While people are protesting which ever way they want, they are missing an opportunity to do some of the things they know will actually prevent abortions.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by free
I understand where you are coming from, but I do disagree.

In any normal circumstance, that baby (through rape) wouldn't have been born. Would you really want a woman reminded of that rape every morning she is sick, every visit to the doctor, every sonogram that reminds her of that violation? The baby may not have guilt, but it is a byproduct of that violation, and I think it is a woman's right to not have to go through any additional pain just because you or I think she should.

The woman who has been raped will be thinking of that rape for a long time anyway. Let's think of it another way- if Jessica is raped and then she finds out she is pregnant she can go to an abortion clinic and get the abortion.she can go home and feel crappy for the rest of her life cause she got raped and then she had the abortion.

Second scenario-Jessica gets raped and finds out she is pregnant with a creep's baby. she can decide not to abort but because of bad feelings about the incidenct she worries she might not be as loving to the child as she should be (worst case).She decides to adopt. She carries the child for 9 months, feels it movements, goes to appiontments and finally delivers. She knows there is a 5 year waiting list for babies with parents who have been closely screened and have been desparate to have a child. They come get the baby and bring it to a home where there are no memories of a rape- only a home full of love and blessings. Parents ready to devote their all to loving this innocent baby.

Jessica feels like crap about the rape but has the pleasure of knowing that she has blessed a childless couple through her actions and also the happiness of knowing that the baby will grow into a future teacher, nurse, CEO, banker, mommy, daddy or whatever. I think the second scenario is much nicer than the first.

[C-Desecration-]

I think we're getting off topic here, maybe, but lynn, that's pretty choosy of you.
How about a scenario where jessica can't give up the baby for aboption (like someone said, it's very tough for mothers to give up their child after they see it, which, no matter how "awww" it might seem, can be a bad thing). She keeps it. The older the kid gets the more he resembles her rapist. She just can't handle that. She can't put the rape behind her. Affects her mentally and eventually leads to this kid leading an abused life. The kid gets pissed, finds a gun and shoots his mom, then his school, then a cute little puppy, then himself.
These scenarios are always just exaggerations to better prove our point.

No one can predict this stuff, so we should all stop trying. The point is it CAN go badly, and better safe than sorry in my opinion.
And does anyone know what the percentage of abortions are those last-ditch-efforts (killing a fetus) versus cell sucking (which I'll assume happens the most). And if abortion is declared illegal, would this pertain to both those? Or just for a fetus? I don't know if this has been answered anywhere, if so, just refresh my memory.

[Jim H]

she can go home and feel crappy for the rest of her life cause she got raped and then she had the abortion.

Or she could have an abortion and be glad she did for the rest of her life. Why would you believe her feeling bad about it is more likely?

An interesting article on the psychological effects of abortions

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_post.htm

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
Or she could have an abortion and be glad she did for the rest of her life. Why would you believe her feeling bad about it is more likely?

An interesting article on the psychological effects of abortions

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_post.htm

I have known many women who felt crummy after having their abortions. Of course I'm sure there are a lot of women who really don't care. That would not suprise me.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I have known many women who felt crummy after having their abortions. Of course I'm sure there are a lot of women who really don't care. That would not suprise me.

What? There's NO grey area?

If a woman bears a child via a RAPE then she has every right to terminate...end of. Nobody anticipates being 'knocked up' against their will, and I find it ludicrous that folks feel fit to judge.

You also give no thought whatsoever to the child, the 'product of rape'.

The "Jessica + baby = lollipops and skipping ropes" scenario doesn't wash with me. It just undermines us as human beings.

[The Postmaster General]

Look - since the dawn of this nation, no one has ever been convicted on a murder charge for having an abortion, or giving an abortion.

I just don't like the idea of conservative activists going around and changing the definition of murder. Any reasonable person knows what murder is, and I don't like the likes of George W. Bush taking away the sanctitiy of murder laws.

It's funny how someone like George W. Bush can be against affording people positive labels, like "married", and be all for giving people negative labels, such as "killer" or "murderer".

And this is supposed to be compassion.

[Lynn7]

George W has never said anything like that. He said he would not outlaw abortion but he wants to make it rare by changing people's hearts. I agree with him.as I said before the genie is out- there is not putting it back in.

Bad Cover, there is no grey area. It is killing a life. That life will develop into an adult if it is not aborted. There is no in between here. If my mother aborted me I would not be here talking to you.

The grey area comes in when we speak of when does it become OK to have an abortion. A lot of people use rape and incest as causes of pregnancy for good reasons to abort. These are actually rare reasons for abortion. There are a million abortions a year here in the US. The women I have known who have had abortions have been usually talked into having one by parents who think the person is too young to be tied down with a kid or by their boyfriends or husbands who are not "ready" to be financially or emotionally responsible for a baby. (Why not use better birth control?! Lots of people are simply irresponsible with this).

As far as the Jessica and lollipops and skipping ropes remarks- that is exactly what little girls do. It's nice. Don't be so cynical!! (Actually, I am very cynical too but I do try to catch myself from time to time).

I went to an abortion clinic as part of my nursing training (one of only three students who volunteered to go) and I spent the day there. The nurses and doctors were cold and uncaring and the women having the abortions were crying. It was a sad situation and they deserved better than that scene.

[notchreturns]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If my mother aborted me I would not be here talking to you.



:p

[Lynn7]

I think from your little smiley that you think abortion is a good way to get rid of pesky people who have opposing viewpoints.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think from your little smiley that you think abortion is a good way to get rid of pesky people who have opposing viewpoints.

I find it funny that in this thread you speak of the massive importance of life in a world where we face overpopulation and have no natural enemies you speak of keeping "things" that grow up and likely become like Kevin Spacey in the begining American Beauty and realizes that in his entire life he didn't make any real change in the world works (just like ALMOST everybody) and speak how it's wrong to take a human life, which is all well and good on it's own...


...of course, this is if one chooses to forgot that in another thread, you spoke how American soldiers bombing Iraqis who didn't want to die (I have a feeling not many of them even wanted your guys their in the first place) and how they're wasn't a shred of evil on the hands, and how it was the terrorist's fault for being there (c'mon, would it really have killed the troops to not drop the bombs?) and all gave me the feeling you thought of the total civilian bodycount as (Buck Turgidson would put it) "acceptable loses".


I'm beginging to feel that the more somebody has a hard-on for fetuses will care less and less for those who are outside the womb...

[notchreturns]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I think from your little smiley that you think abortion is a good way to get rid of pesky people who have opposing viewpoints.

Hmmmm, know that I think about it.

But seriously, I couldn't stop laughing after reading that one.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
George W has never said anything like that.


No, he's never called abortionists "killers" or "murderers" but when he mocks Kerry, when Kerry takes a stand against anti-abotionists who do use such words, it's pretty easy to see how he feels.

In fact, with Bush that is all you have - emotion. Bush mocked Kerry's reply during the debate, because he found it too complicated. Well, it is a complicated issue, and to me, Bush is clearly the one who is playing politics with this one. On one hand, he wants laws that creates a definition for when muder is the case where a fetus is involved, on the other hand, he has people like you convinced that he doesn't think outlawing abortion would be an alright thing to do.

At least with Kerry, I know where he stands: No laws against the freedom to choose abortions, but lets also focus on preventing unwanted pregnacies. With Bush, it's more like, "Abortions - bad! Me - Good!"

Yeah, maybe Bush hasn't flat said anything against abortionists, but I'll be damned if I'm going to play dumb and act like he isn't passing moral judgement against these people. When Bush talks about abortion - that's all he talks about, is morals.

And for Bush to insult Kerry's response on the issue -- Clearly Kerry was basing his response to show he understands Bush's side.

Bush calls that "playing politics", I call it understanding and showing respect for the other side. Two things that Bush shows no knowledge of how to do properly.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
No, he's never called abortionists "killers" or "murderers" but when he mocks Kerry, when Kerry takes a stand against anti-abotionists who do use such words, it's pretty easy to see how he feels.

In fact, with Bush that is all you have - emotion. Bush mocked Kerry's reply during the debate, because he found it too complicated. Well, it is a complicated issue, and to me, Bush is clearly the one who is playing politics with this one. On one hand, he wants laws that creates a definition for when muder is the case where a fetus is involved, on the other hand, he has people like you convinced that he doesn't think outlawing abortion would be an alright thing to do.

At least with Kerry, I know where he stands: No laws against the freedom to choose abortions, but lets also focus on preventing unwanted pregnacies. With Bush, it's more like, "Abortions - bad! Me - Good!"

Yeah, maybe Bush hasn't flat said anything against abortionists, but I'll be damned if I'm going to play dumb and act like he isn't passing moral judgement against these people. When Bush talks about abortion - that's all he talks about, is morals.

And for Bush to insult Kerry's response on the issue -- Clearly Kerry was basing his response to show he understands Bush's side.

Bush calls that "playing politics", I call it understanding and showing respect for the other side. Two things that Bush shows no knowledge of how to do properly.

Beyond the usual moral objections, partial-birth abortion is still cruel and unusual punishment to a baby that's never done anything. Ever.

For those of you against the death penalty to criminals, why support abortion when a baby has never committed a crime or even had a chance to live his/her life?? Abortion is murder to an innocent life and the death penalty is punishment for a convicted killer. I see a HUGE difference between the death penalty and abortion, and I think many people are completely backwards on it.

I'm looking at it from the victims' families and from the baby's side, as well as my own situation.

[The Postmaster General]

Actually, I'm for both.

Both acts are cruel, and there are victims involved with both. What of the muderers wife who's only crime was to be blinded by love? (Or some nonsense...)_

My stand is that we cannot judge who is more deserving of death and who isn't. Laws should be made to protect the public, not to protect those who are jailed, and those who are unborn.

Yes, we should accept certain responsibilities, but to me the key word is "public" -- We cannot possibly go around debating and fighting for abstract reasoning. Yes, okay. The baby might have a chance, maybe it won't -- who knows. Okay, you care. Well, what about the people who care about the prisoners? Shouldn't we fuck them too? No? I don't know. Well, really, this is probably none of my concern, and I wouldn't be the wiser either way. The only reason I know this lady is pregnant to begin with is because I'm LOITERING outside a Planned Parenthood clinic.

Oh wait.

No - I think there is responsibilities. I think many of these people outside prisons and PP clinics should go back to their own neighborhoods, and get off their soap boxes, and put their signs down. Find the girl nearby who is knocked up, the kid who looks like he'll grow up to be a crumb-bum. Devote yourself to these types, not politicians. Make sure the thing you hate will not be repeated. Laws are laws and are meant for things like roads, security, schools - stuff like that. They aren't intended to be friggin guidelines for what I should do in private. Okay, you have cases where people beat their kids, and that does not count as private, as the kid is also intigrated into our culture. Babies and criminals either aren't, or have decided they aren't.

Is murder shitty? Yeah. But to justify different levels of muder is like trying to kick cat litter over the shit. Let's go back to doing what right, not telling people what's wrong.

[Jim H]

I went to an abortion clinic as part of my nursing training (one of only three students who volunteered to go) and I spent the day there. The nurses and doctors were cold and uncaring and the women having the abortions were crying. It was a sad situation and they deserved better than that scene.

Yeah, and my sister worked for a Planned Parenthood for several years, and the situation was the opposite. My experience with women who've had abortions - those who it was their own choice had no regrets, those who were forced/heavily pressured into it do.

Our anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much, anyway. But in any case, very little study has been done on the psychological effects of abortion, and I don't think it is generally relevant to the legality of abortion anyway.

[BadCoverVersion]

Edited because I'm a twat.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
I find it funny that in this thread you speak of the massive importance of life in a world where we face overpopulation and have no natural enemies you speak of keeping "things" that grow up and likely become like Kevin Spacey in the begining American Beauty and realizes that in his entire life he didn't make any real change in the world works (just like ALMOST everybody) and speak how it's wrong to take a human life, which is all well and good on it's own...


...of course, this is if one chooses to forgot that in another thread, you spoke how American soldiers bombing Iraqis who didn't want to die (I have a feeling not many of them even wanted your guys their in the first place) and how they're wasn't a shred of evil on the hands, and how it was the terrorist's fault for being there (c'mon, would it really have killed the troops to not drop the bombs?) and all gave me the feeling you thought of the total civilian bodycount as (Buck Turgidson would put it) "acceptable loses".


I'm beginging to feel that the more somebody has a hard-on for fetuses will care less and less for those who are outside the womb...

I think that with life comes hope and opportunity. I would like to see women start giving birth to their babies and giving them up for adoption to people who would love to raise them. as far as American Beauty goes that character put no effort into anything positive. His life was pointless becasue he made it that way.

I hate it when people have to die in war, especaiily when innocents are killed in the crossfire but there are evil people on the prowl blowing up innocents on a daily basis.Our side really tires to avoid innocnet death even at cost to our own soldiers lives. I would not mind seeing criminals with life in prison istead of the death penalty but my fear is that some nutty judge will come along and release someone evil onto society. They do it all the time.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove

In fact, with Bush that is all you have - emotion. Bush mocked Kerry's reply during the debate, because he found it too complicated. Well, it is a complicated issue, and to me, Bush is clearly the one who is playing politics with this one. On one hand, he wants laws that creates a definition for when muder is the case where a fetus is involved, on the other hand, he has people like you convinced that he doesn't think outlawing abortion would be an alright thing to do.

At least with Kerry, I know where he stands: No laws against the freedom to choose abortions, but lets also focus on preventing unwanted pregnacies. With Bush, it's more like, "Abortions - bad! Me - Good!"


Kerry's position on abortion is a little insincere. He says he opposes it personally but says he cannot enforce his beliefs on others. Why does he oppose it personally? If he didn't oppose it personally I'd have more respect for his position. If he thinks it's killing a baby then he should oppose it shouldn't he? Oh well, the point about kerry is really that he is one of a small minority of people who voted to keep partial birth abortion a procedure so barbaris that even most pro-choice legislators voted against it.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
Yeah, and my sister worked for a Planned Parenthood for several years, and the situation was the opposite. My experience with women who've had abortions - those who it was their own choice had no regrets, those who were forced/heavily pressured into it do.

Our anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much, anyway. But in any case, very little study has been done on the psychological effects of abortion, and I don't think it is generally relevant to the legality of abortion anyway.

I know two people who work for Planned Parenthood, one of them actually runs one. People who work for Planned Parenthood are very supportive to women who are pregnant as they convince them to have abortions. I worked on a Psych unit as I'm sure you already know and I remember one patient in particular that everyone was ganging up on to convince heer to get an abortion even though she really didn't want one. They felt that her mental problems (manic depression) and the meds she was on really made her a poor candidate for a mother. I was in on those discussions and I was pro-choice at the time. Looking back I think who were we to judge if she should have a baby or not.What kind of a society decides who gets to have a baby?

Inthis case I think anecdotal evidencve is compelling becasue a lot of the other info out there is based on what if this and what if that even though we know who is really having most of the abortions.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
Tell that to my friend whom was gang-raped just a year ago.

Four or five men, she's not entirely sure.

By eck..how she loved to feel...a foetus forming....life beginning....gestation...love.

You have NO idea, so don't pretend!

PS: I can't have my own kiddies, so your tedious back-chat matters not a jot!

PPS: Do I give a flip? NO!

That is really sad about your friend. There are a lot of crummy htings that happen in life but if she got pregnant it would not be the baby's fault. The baby would be half hers. If that happened to me I would hope I would carry the baby and pick out a great couple to raise it and never let that kid or the parents know about the rape so the child's life would never be overshadowed by such ugliness.

There was a less ugly story but just the same I'll tell you. There was a woman who had an amniocentesis and found out that her baby was going to be born with Down's syndrome. she was devastated and thought of having an abortion and the entire pregnacy was one of sadness and misery for her and her husband. When she had the baby she was shocked to see how much she loved that little baby and she said that the child has brought her and her husband so much happiness and now she realizes that it would have been better if she didn't know about the Downs' until after she had the baby becasue it was the love of the child that made all the difference.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
Tell that to my friend whom was gang-raped just a year ago.

Four or five men, she's not entirely sure.

By eck..how she loved to feel...a foetus forming....life beginning....gestation...love.

You have NO idea, so don't pretend!

PS: I can't have my own kiddies, so your tedious back-chat matters not a jot!

PPS: Do I give a flip? NO!

Don't PRESUME to know what idea I might have about anything. You don't know me personally and you don't know what I've been through. My wife miscarried my child. We tried for years to have kids. And before all that, she was raped twice. Once brutally.

And while I'm at it, there are millions of couples who can't have kids, but a SMALL percentage of women who are aborting their children who were raped. I'm sorry it happened, but I'm typically not referring to exceptional cases here.

Just because you're a moderator doesn't give you free license to insult people. PERIOD. You have to follow the rules of this board the same as everyone else. Your PS was rude and disrespectful.

[Jim H]

People who work for Planned Parenthood are very supportive to women who are pregnant as they convince them to have abortions. I worked on a Psych unit as I'm sure you already know and I remember one patient in particular that everyone was ganging up on to convince heer to get an abortion even though she really didn't want one.

What do you know about Planned Parenthood exactly? I'm guessing not much, since that isn't the way they discuss abortions. The concept of Planned Parenthood is that they provide information about family planning, which includes abortion, not prescribing the planning. Convincing someone to have an abortion goes directly against the core concept of what they set out to do.

Inthis case I think anecdotal evidencve is compelling becasue a lot of the other info out there is based on what if this and what if that even though we know who is really having most of the abortions.

It is not compelling because it is completely unfounded and poorly thought out. People inject their own beliefs into anecdotes all the time, sometimes altering them. In addition to that, it is a tiny fraction of people. You're also more likely to get extremes from anecdotal evidence - the people who had very bad experiences and those who had very good ones. Anecdotal evidence is just flat out unreliable and useless for something as widely used as abortion.

As far as who gets the abortions... From what I've read, most women who have abortions are between the ages of 20 and 35, usually never married, most have already had children (though nearly as many haven't). Were you getting at something else?

http://www.wprc.org/abortion/abtable.html
http://www.bigissueground.com/philosophy/blair-politicsofabortion.shtml

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Kerry's position on abortion is a little insincere. He says he opposes it personally but says he cannot enforce his beliefs on others. Why does he oppose it personally? If he didn't oppose it personally I'd have more respect for his position. If he thinks it's killing a baby then he should oppose it shouldn't he?


There is a difference between being against something, and wanting laws enforced to govern what you are against.

What you are suggesting is like saying that Kerry can't be for freedom of speech if he is against everyone's grandmother being called a hag.

[jeo4]

:confused:

...

[Benny]

Yeah! Abortion should be a non-issue anyway, becase women should be able to choose what they do to their bodies. Although abortion is a painful procedure and women should definitely think twice before receiving one, but still if they want to have one then we should not try to prohibit them.

I find abortion to be different than taking someone's life away (i.e. the death penalty). With abortion, you are stopping something from being born, from having life. In my opinion, life does not begin at conception. We are not fully-functioning human beings until we are actually born. If life begins at conception, we should all add nine months on to our ages. The death penalty, on the other hand, is killing a human being who has feelings and can think. A fetus does not. By the way, I am only for the death penalty in the most extreme cases.

Even if Bush is re-elected and brings in new conservative justices for the Supreme Court, I think Roe v. Wade is safe for now. It is too controversial and emotional of an issue to be changed right now. And there's no way a Constitutional Amendment would be passed to stop it either.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H

As far as who gets the abortions... From what I've read, most women who have abortions are between the ages of 20 and 35, usually never married, most have already had children (though nearly as many haven't). Were you getting at something else?


This is exactly who I am talking about. Teh women I have known who have gotten abortions have just about all fit into that category. Teh pregnancy was not convenient at the time for either them but actually more often it had to do with the guy or parents who pressured them into it.

Anecdotal evidence was used a great deal by Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton- if its good enough for them its good enough for me. i actually like to here about what happens in real life because it makes it easier to deal with issues on that level than to talk statistics. I would not use anecdotal evidence to prove a point, only to support it.

What do I know about Planned Parenthood. I know two women who work for the org one runs it and one works there.Both are RNs. They are very pro-abortion. I have never heard them speak of helping women to keep their babies. I hope you are right and that in your sister's branch they do not push people in that direction.

I wonder why it is that women who lean toward keeping their babies go to the Pregnancy Crisis Centers instead of heading to Planned Parenthood for help if it's true that PP is so helpful to them. Crisis Pregnancy Centers are usually right there for every need a pregnant woman has- they even run baby showers to help the moms get started. I am jaded on this cause it's been my personal experience that a lot of people who are pr-abrotion are usually kind of cavalier about ending a pregnancy. Teh emphasis tends not to be on self sacrifice for a greater good but instead it's on "Why don't you just have an abortion cause this isn't the best time to have a baby right now."

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Benny
In my opinion, life does not begin at conception. We are not fully-functioning human beings until we are actually born. If life begins at conception, we should all add nine months on to our ages.

If life does not begin at conception then when does it begin? Please watch an ultrasound before you decide.

[free]

If he thinks it's killing a baby then he should oppose it shouldn't he?

That's just his point. He DOES oppose it, but what right does it give him to impose his morals onto other people? I actually greatly respect him for this stance.

And BTW, my stance against abortion deals with more the fact that if allowed to fully develope, a fetus would become a sentient human being. For everyone who thinks life begins at conception, is this moslty based on Biblical teaching, or just personal opinion?

[The Postmaster General]

Some points are just easier to argue than others.

[BadCoverVersion]

Originally posted by jeo4
Just because you're a moderator doesn't give you free license to insult people. PERIOD. You have to follow the rules of this board the same as everyone else. Your PS was rude and disrespectful.


That's true...and I don't make a habit of insulting folks willy-nilly. I shouldn't drink and debate, they don't really 'mix'.

Listen, peace, love and understanding and all that...I got riled for no good reason and I'm a cock and I apologise...and no, I'm not taking the piss.

You're right and I'm in the wrong and I apologise...again.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by BadCoverVersion
That's true...and I don't make a habit of insulting folks willy-nilly. I shouldn't drink and debate, they don't really 'mix'.

Listen, peace, love and understanding and all that...I got riled for no good reason and I'm a cock and I apologise...and no, I'm not taking the piss.

You're right and I'm in the wrong and I apologise...again.

All is cool, BCV. Sorry I got so rattled.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
If life does not begin at conception then when does it begin?



Are you also for constitutional amendments banning birth control, or male masturbation?

You ask where it begins, and I think the question that should concern the general public is: Where would it stop?

I understand you are talking about conception, but the logic here is the same as why The Pope denounces birth control.

IMO - if you can't claim someone on your taxes, or include it in an American census -- there is no reason for the government to regulate it.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Teh emphasis tends not to be on self sacrifice for a greater good but instead it's on "Why don't you just have an abortion cause this isn't the best time to have a baby right now."


the 'greater good'? what the hell do you mean 'greater good'? i should have to go through with having a baby i don't want and can't take care of so that everyone can sleep at night because the 'greater good' has been served?

i have never had an abortion, nor would i, but it's MY fucking body that's being used as a vehicle for this child...and i have a right to decide whether or not i bring a life into this world if i'm not able to take care of it.

who are you to judge whether a woman is capable of the responsibility of life? who are any of us to do that, least of all some politician who has never met me or any women like me who don't need a baby at this point in their lives.

would you rather the woman has the baby, ends up keeping it, goes on welfare and ultimately ends up with a man for financial security who physically and emotionally abuses the child? NEVER. i would rather abort a child than subject it to repeated torture of a life that cruel.

or would you rather the woman has the baby and gives it up for adoption, with that child going through his or her whole life thinking 'why didn't mom and dad love me enough to keep me?'

once again, i'd rather not have a child than subject it to that.


nobody can make that choice for a woman. it's her decision, and should always be her decision, not some impersonal law that says 'gee, you can't decide what happens to your own uterus anymore because the greater good needs to be attended to'


fuck the greater good. what about the lesser?


Rockin' Like Dokken

~darchangel~

[The Postmaster General]

A comedian once said that if you outlaw abortion you'd have to keep capital punishment legal -- that way we can wait to find out if the kid is going to be a problem before we kill them.

People bring up God and the bible, but what happened to the part where it says to not judge as God would judge?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
the 'greater good'? what the hell do you mean 'greater good'? i should have to go through with having a baby i don't want and can't take care of so that everyone can sleep at night because the 'greater good' has been served?

i have never had an abortion, nor would i, but it's MY fucking body that's being used as a vehicle for this child...and i have a right to decide whether or not i bring a life into this world if i'm not able to take care of it.

who are you to judge whether a woman is capable of the responsibility of life? who are any of us to do that, least of all some politician who has never met me or any women like me who don't need a baby at this point in their lives.

would you rather the woman has the baby, ends up keeping it, goes on welfare and ultimately ends up with a man for financial security who physically and emotionally abuses the child? NEVER. i would rather abort a child than subject it to repeated torture of a life that cruel.

or would you rather the woman has the baby and gives it up for adoption, with that child going through his or her whole life thinking 'why didn't mom and dad love me enough to keep me?'

once again, i'd rather not have a child than subject it to that.


nobody can make that choice for a woman. it's her decision, and should always be her decision, not some impersonal law that says 'gee, you can't decide what happens to your own uterus anymore because the greater good needs to be attended to'


fuck the greater good. what about the lesser?


Rockin' Like Dokken

~darchangel~

I really don't like discuszing issxues when it gets hostile like this but here goes-
I know people who have been adopted who hardly ever give their birth parents a thought. They loved their adoptive parents and appreciated that their birth mother gave them up to a good home. One woman I know who was adopted has had two kids of her own who are unbeleivalbly brilliant and are just stellar people. If this woman had been aborted she and her two kids would not be here.

I dont really judge people who have abortions in that I have a few people very close to me who have had abortions and many acquaintances who have done the same. The fact that they have chosen to do this has no impact on my feelings for them. I am sad about the decision they made. I think the whole thing is so sad. I also know that most of them didnt know what they were doing at the time. They had not seen an ultrasound of their baby before they aborted them. I know they never would have done it if they had. Most OB Docs do not preform abortions becasue they know what that baby is and they refuse to participate. Abortion Docs are in the extreme minority.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
A comedian once said that if you outlaw abortion you'd have to keep capital punishment legal -- that way we can wait to find out if the kid is going to be a problem before we kill them.

People bring up God and the bible, but what happened to the part where it says to not judge as God would judge?

God expects us to use judgements because he gives us a lot of instruction that demands judgement. We judge when people break a law before we go ahead and arrest them and charge them with a crime. If you mean not to judge a woman who chooses to abort that I should not think that is a wrong decision then I disagree. If you mean that I should not be mean to her then I agree with that. She will have to answer to God for the decisions she makes- not to me. God will be fair when He judges her. And the bible does teach that God will judge all of us for our actions in life. That is the biblical point of view at least. I'm sure that atheists do not believe people will have to answer for anything except man-made laws.

[Jim H]

If this woman had been aborted she and her two kids would not be here.

Yeah, and I guess it is too bad Mrs. Klebold didn't have an abortion, isn't it?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
God expects us to use judgements because he gives us a lot of instruction that demands judgement. We judge when people break a law before we go ahead and arrest them and charge them with a crime. If you mean not to judge a woman who chooses to abort that I should not think that is a wrong decision then I disagree. If you mean that I should not be mean to her then I agree with that. She will have to answer to God for the decisions she makes- not to me. God will be fair when He judges her. And the bible does teach that God will judge all of us for our actions in life. That is the biblical point of view at least. I'm sure that atheists do not believe people will have to answer for anything except man-made laws.


Yes, but in the bible, it does not define murder as the killing of a fetus but as the killing of man. Genesis defines man as Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve were never fetuses.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
Yeah, and I guess it is too bad Mrs. Klebold didn't have an abortion, isn't it?

Yes, there are evil people that survive birth but most people are good. Babies are wonderful. No one hates babies. Why is it so acceptable to kill them off? I guarantee that if every woman who was to have an abortion saw an ultrasound first, she would not choose to abort becasue she would see what was really there instead of thinking of the baby as tissue.

In earlier times people would give up their very lives in sacrifice for their kids. Men would work three jobs to support the family and a woman would risk her life every time she gave birth especially before handwashing and modern medicine. Now, if it is not a convenient time it is OK to get the kid scraped out. men are just as guilty in this-if they like to have sex but don't want the responisbility of a baby they tell their girlfriend to abort. A woman I know had a daughter who got pregnant- the boyfreind did not want her to have the kid and told her to have an abortion. She decided to have the baby and the guy broke up with her and has never seen the child three years later. What a guy!

It's a real change in values. Devaluation of life. People are shocked when teens deliver babies and put them in a dumpster but it is the next logical step to what they have been hearing about the babies not being human.

[MacReady]

First off Lynn, I don't think it's fair for you to describe abortions as "killing babies". I feel this is a term used to make it sound like pro-choicers are the kinds people who raid hospital and go crazy with an MK-47 (I think that's what they're called) inside the maternity ward. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus is a motherfucking fetus. If you were to step on a cocoon wouldn't you find it inapropriate for somebody to call you a butterfly killer? Besides, this is only part of a human being. If you were to take it out it would die. I kinda see it as part of a non-vital organ in women.

Second, I don't agree with you analogy that people with lives like Lester Burnham simply didn't try hard enough. I'll quote a TV series to illustrate my point on how we plan life to turn out, but how it dosen't always got that way:

But I've told that if I try hard enough, I can become anything I want.

See, now that's crap. If the world was really like that, than everybody would be an astronaut or a millionaire. They're be nobody making sandwiches.

Third, you do realize that everytime a new baby is popped out, it has to be taken care of? I bet you do, but do you know that there's millions of equally innocent children (who've been around here for far longer) that are starving in third world countries? Just because somebody's outside the fetus, dosen't mean they're safe from major harm. I don't know if they do this, but I think all pro-lifers should give alot of money to foundations that feed and take care of orphans around the world.

Finally, you say that babies are innocent and don't harm people. Which is correct...


BUT they do grow up eventually! Humans are like baby alligators. They're cute and cuddly when they're little, but when they grow up, look out! They take up space, need alot of food, show signs of temper (nobody's innocence lasts forever) adn if you don't take of them, they might even kill somebody. It's a silly little analogy, but I feel it best demostrates my point. Hitler, Dahmer, Klebold among many others, were cute innocent at one time. All I'm saying is that the finishing product is never as desirable is the starting one.

P.S. A rape fetus is an accident an a mistake. No more, no less. It's rediculous to force somebody to go throught child birth, pregancy adn all that crap just because of an unfortunate biological reaction to a sadistic and evil act of inhumanity. This is not how a life should start it's way in the world.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
In earlier times people would give up their very lives in sacrifice for their kids. Men would work three jobs to support the family and a woman would risk her life every time she gave birth especially before handwashing and modern medicine.



Um. What you are saying simply isn't factual.

By earlier times, I assume you mean the start of the country. The first abortion laws appeared in the 1820's - they didn't make these laws just because people weren't having abortions. So, abortions were going on then.

Handwashing practices began in the early 20th century. Abortions were outlawed by this point due to the Comstock Law (1870's), which was meant to govern moralities such as obscene books and devices -- this covered birth control and abortion devices due to the nature of how they were used. By 1965, MUCH LATER than handwashing practices began, abortions were actually outlawed in all the states, with the exception of rape, incest, and the threat of maternal death.

By the time Roe Vs. Wade happened in the 70s, it was decided that there were safe means for facilitating abortions. That's all there is to it.

And to triumph old time women for "risking their life" in early times in a real exaggeration for the books. They risked there lives no more than people who ate meat before we learned about proper meat handling procedures, or seeked out any sort of medical care prior to standardized practices -- Better yet, they risked their lives no more than people who currently live in 3rd world countries do simply by being alive. No one back then was risking their life knowingly to themselves, as they were not even aware of procedures to make things safer. No one said "I'm keeping this baby, even if it kills me!"

It would be like me saying that there is no reason to wear coats, because prehistoric man "risked frost bite" by not wearing coats, so that shows how we don't need coats now.




EDIT:

I just did a quick search, and I know the net isn't always accurate, but it seems as if there are records of abortions being performed as early as 650AD

Also Ben Franklin debated on the abortion issue.

[free]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Babies are wonderful. No one hates babies.

I had a conversation with a well known minister, and this was his response to my question of, "Well wouldn't it be better to send the babies to paradise than to keep them here?"

"Actually, according to the Bible we are born with sin passed on from our father's side." (as to not infect baby Jesus i guess)

"Accordingly, sin is what keeps mankind from heaven, so every baby aborted or killed before accepting Christ is burning in hell as we speak.

No "age of decision" exists in the Bible, it is just something made up to make us feel okay about needlessly killing babies."

I looked up the verse about sin through the father, and it is there. I'll find the exact verse for you. So, if what he said plausible?

[Twisted Sister]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lynn7
It is only becasue the woman can't see the baby or feel it that she can't get attached. If she could see it by ultrasound she probably would not have that abortion. Isn't this the ultimate dehumanization? As long as we don't know we are doing wrong then it is not wrong.

Lynn, while I respect your opinions and passion on this issue, I think maybe a dose of science is warranted here.

Mammals have specific hormones that are at higher levels during pregnancy which invoke feelings of attachment and protection necessary to promote propagation of a species. These hormones peak at the end of gestation, just after the birthing process. For example, Dogs, Cows, Elephants, Monkeys and Whales are not normally subject to ultrsounds and are very attached to their young. In the context of this thread, seeing/not seeing an ultrasound has very little to do with anything except a political agenda.

I know this is a small example and not scientific at all but there was a woman who had 2 abortions and went on to become an ultrasonagrapher who showed women who planned to abort the ultrasounds of their babies and everyone of them changed their minds. A woman I know is an ultrasonagrapher and she is forbidden to show the ultrasound to anyone planning to abort. It is absolutely forbidden so the women will not be troubled by what they see.

Again, this sounds like an agenda. Maybe it's forbidden to show patients their ultrasounds where your friend works, but it's not forbidden in most places. There are many medical facilities who involve patients in every aspect of every procedure. Contrary to your point, I would think that if an abortion candidate were in her first trimester and saw an ultrasound of a zygote/early fetus, it would possibly affirm her decision to terminate the pregnancy simply due to the lack of resemblance to a fully developed infant.

[The Postmaster General]

Wouldn't it also be unnessesary, and a waste of everyone's time, money and/or resources to show an ultrasound of a baby that's going to be aborted.

It's like when Bob Barker shows you what you would have gotten if you wouldn't have kept playing and kept the $100, only that there are resources being essentially wasted.

Bob: "Alright, Cathy - you chose to abort the kid. Let's see what you would have ended up with!" (reveals ultrasound) "Oh, it's a healthy boy"

Audience: "Awwwww!"

BUZZER SOUND

Bob: "Well, thanks Cathy. We'll see you in the spin off showcase."

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by MacReady
First off Lynn, I don't think it's fair for you to describe abortions as "killing babies". I feel this is a term used to make it sound like pro-choicers are the kinds people who raid hospital and go crazy with an MK-47 (I think that's what they're called) inside the maternity ward. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus is a motherfucking fetus.[B]
__________________________________________________ _



I see your point but I would like to make the same point back to you. When people call them fetuses it is easier to distance yourself from the fact that this 7 or 8 week old fetus is jumping around and will be even seen to be sucking its thumb at some point (can't remember when). A rose by another name is still a rose or however the saying goes. Baby or fetus it is a living being with a beating heart and a brain and personality that will be like no one else's. It has a DNA that separates itself from both mom and dad.



__________________________________________________ _______
Second, I don't agree with you analogy that people with lives like Lester Burnham simply didn't try hard enough. I'll quote a TV series to illustrate my point on how we plan life to turn out, but how it dosen't always got that way:

But I've told that if I try hard enough, I can become anything I want.

See, now that's crap. If the world was really like that, than everybody would be an astronaut or a millionaire. They're be nobody making sandwiches._______________________________________ ______________




I love talking about movies but I am a little foggy on that one- it's been a few years. I do believe we have choices in life that can turn everything around. I agree that not everyone can be an astronaut but I think we can all try to be astronauts and if it is something you love then just the learning of it will be fun. A guy I know dreamed of being a weatherman but things didn't work out but to this day he follows the weather like a hobby and he correctly forecasts to his family and friends and he is right most of the time!


______________________________________________
Third, you do realize that everytime a new baby is popped out, it has to be taken care of? I bet you do, but do you know that there's millions of equally innocent children (who've been around here for far longer) that are starving in third world countries? Just because somebody's outside the fetus, dosen't mean they're safe from major harm. I don't know if they do this, but I think all pro-lifers should give alot of money to foundations that feed and take care of orphans around the world
__________________________________________________ ____



Pro-lifers do give lots of money and time to pro-life causes. Many will take in young girls until they have their baby. If a girl is pregnant and wants to remain pregnant there will always be someone to help her along. Babies need care and there are so many families just dying to adopt. 5 year waiting lists!!! It's not really the poor who have abortions. Many of the poor do have their babies.



__________________________________________________
[B]BUT they do grow up eventually! Humans are like baby alligators. They're cute and cuddly when they're little, but when they grow up, look out! They take up space, need alot of food, show signs of temper (nobody's innocence lasts forever) adn if you don't take of them, they might even kill somebody. It's a silly little analogy, but I feel it best demostrates my point. Hitler, Dahmer, Klebold among many others, were cute innocent at one time. All I'm saying is that the finishing product is never as desirable is the starting one.
__________________________________________________ _


I prefer to think that all babies are good and then some rarely becoem corrupted along the way. Maybe they are even corrupt from birth, who knows? but we do not kill babies once they are born and some of them may be evil when they grow up. How about little kids that are so evil tht their parents are afraid of them (rare but true) They are not killed. Even a stalker often has to commit a crime before the police can act.



__________________________________________________
[B]P.S. A rape fetus is an accident an a mistake. No more, no less. It's rediculous to force somebody to go throught child birth, pregancy adn all that crap just because of an unfortunate biological reaction to a sadistic and evil act of inhumanity. This is not how a life should start it's way in the world.
__________________________________________________ ____



Good can come from bad. All I ask is that everyone pro-choice should see an ultrasound of an early pregnancy of 7-9 weeks and then decide if abortion is right.When the original abortion ruling was made there was no ultrasound. Now they have such advanced ultrasounds that you can see the babies features. Amazing!

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7


Good can come from bad. All I ask is that everyone pro-choice should see an ultrasound of an early pregnancy of 7-9 weeks and then decide if abortion is right.When the original abortion ruling was made there was no ultrasound. Now they have such advanced ultrasounds that you can see the babies features. Amazing!


yes, because even women who are pregnant as a result of rape should be guilted even further by being shown pictures of the life that was forced into her against her will...

so according to your 'good can come from bad' statement, the woman's life and feelings should have virutally no weight as compared to her responsibility of popping out that baby, even if she was raped.

where does the mother's life come in to play? according to you, when should her choices and feelings start to matter, because it seems to me that you think all women have a responsilbility to a cluster of cells more than they have to themselves.

let me ask you this lynn...in the rarity that a woman had complications somewhere along the line, would you object to that woman aborting her fetus if birthing the child would cause her to die, presuming of course if she had the baby, the baby would be perfectly heatlhy; only the mother would be harmed in the process.

where do you draw that line between death and ruin of a life? you seem to be someone who's very insistent on the choices you make in life...is it fair to women everywhere to take away a choice that involves their own bodies?

i don't think it is.


Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[Jim H]

Good can come from bad. All I ask is that everyone pro-choice should see an ultrasound of an early pregnancy of 7-9 weeks and then decide if abortion is right.When the original abortion ruling was made there was no ultrasound. Now they have such advanced ultrasounds that you can see the babies features. Amazing!

I have. It didn't effect me either way, really.

[The Postmaster General]

Lynn, do you not have anything to say for yourself regarding your mangling of the history of abortion yesterday, or are you just going to go back to the non fact-based, arguements?

I only mention this because it's the 2nd or 3rd time you've distorted the evolution of handwashing and standardized practices to try and argue an unrelated point.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Lynn, do you not have anything to say for yourself regarding your mangling of the history of abortion yesterday, or are you just going to go back to the non fact-based, arguements?

I only mention this because it's the 2nd or 3rd time you've distorted the evolution of handwashing and standardized practices to try and argue an unrelated point.


<applauds BubbaStrangelove>




Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[free]

In case any one cared, I found a Bible verse that defuncts what that "minister" told me

Ezek. 18:20

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

and

Psalm 106:37-38 -

"They even sacrificed their sons And their daughters to demons, 38 And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with blood."

In sacrificing babies to idols, they shed innocent blood. If babies inherit Adam's sin, they would not be innocent.

Source (http://warrentonchurchofchrist.com/Articles/are%20babies%20born%20in%20sin.htm)

[free]

We are all adults here. I want to show you something that made me cry today. I went through a site a found while searching about babies called Abortion TV (http://www.abortiontv.com). I had never seen an aborted fetus until now. I still believe women should have the right to do this, but if you can look at this baby and tell me it didn't deserve a chance at life like all of us, then you have a much stronger will than I do.



#############WARNING, EXTREMELY GRAPHIC ABORTION PIC#############

http://abortiontv.com/images/FetusHeadonSide.JPG

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
yes, because even women who are pregnant as a result of rape should be guilted even further by being shown pictures of the life that was forced into her against her will...

so according to your 'good can come from bad' statement, the woman's life and feelings should have virutally no weight as compared to her responsibility of popping out that baby, even if she was raped.

where does the mother's life come in to play? according to you, when should her choices and feelings start to matter, because it seems to me that you think all women have a responsilbility to a cluster of cells more than they have to themselves.

let me ask you this lynn...in the rarity that a woman had complications somewhere along the line, would you object to that woman aborting her fetus if birthing the child would cause her to die, presuming of course if she had the baby, the baby would be perfectly heatlhy; only the mother would be harmed in the process.

where do you draw that line between death and ruin of a life? you seem to be someone who's very insistent on the choices you make in life...is it fair to women everywhere to take away a choice that involves their own bodies?

i don't think it is.


Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

First of all, rape is not the reason for the million abortions that are performed each year but for the sake of argument I will give that point to you- even if someone is raped and the baby is perfectly healthy and had no part in the rape and could be adopted by a loving couple I will say that if it meant that most abortions could be prevented that the abortions concerning rape and incest would be allowed to women who chose to have them.

Now lets go to the majority of abortions. These people choose to have sex knowing that a pregnancy could result from it. Many people are not willing to take the responsibilty of having a child so they choose to kill it instead. I have said before that I think in the case where the life of the mother is at risk it would be necessary to take the baby (preferably through inducement or c-section rathere than vacuum or DAnd C). and partial birth abortion where they paritally delver the baby and then stab it in the head should never be allowed, IMO.

That is my opinion but if anyone wants to do this to their child then I am sorry to hear it but I'm sure my opinion wouldn't matter anyway. There are a lot of things people do with their kids that I don't approve of anyway. Sometimes I see little three year olds playing out on busy streets with no parental supervision.I guess it's the luck of the draw on who you get for parents, right?

[The Postmaster General]

Lynn, how do you feel about the fact the abortion rate has risen under Bush, while it dropped under Clinton?

[The Postmaster General]

.....

[Indy in IN]

The older I get, the more Pro-Life I have become. When I was a teen, I was very Pro-Choice. That all changed the day my little girl was born. It makes me sick to even think someone would end the life of a baby.

The solution. Keep you F***i*g legs crosed. I know 3 girls that have had one. None of them were for a good reason.

#1 Boyfriend dumped her.

#2 Boyfriend talked her into it

#3 "She was scared"

Nice, huh?

[Jim H]

I have said before that I think in the case where the life of the mother is at risk it would be necessary to take the baby (preferably through inducement or c-section rathere than vacuum or DAnd C). and partial birth abortion where they paritally delver the baby and then stab it in the head should never be allowed, IMO.

What should they do with a fetus that will not survive outside the womb?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Indy in IN
Keep you F***i*g legs crosed.


It's a bit short-sighted to just tell women to keep their legs crossed. I think you also need to add that men should keep their fucking cocks in their pants. It takes two to tango, and traditionally, the men are too much of a piece of shit to hang around after the house lights go on.

All three examples you gave of women making the wrong choice could just as easily be pinned as equally the man's fault. You had at least one girl who was obviously being manipulated, and yeah - she made the wrong choice, but it isn't like she asked the guy to jerk off into a cup, then spread her legs open and poured semen into her passage to the temple.

I'm just going to say one more time, since no one really ackowledged this statement the first time I said it:

I think protesting for OR against abortion is time that could be used to educate women/girls. People who stand around and do nothing but spout their belief on the abortion issue are wasting time, resources, and only creating diversity among two group who are both concerned with unwanted babies - me included.

This is one of the few problems in the world that we can actually do something about. Making laws regarding what happens AFTER someone is pregnant is not one of them, and only results in creating two opposing groups with the same goal. That is not productive.

We can sit here and say all day long that females need to do this, need to get education about that, but the point of the matter is that we are doing nothing more but sitting here. I wish there was a legion of uneducated young women sitting in the room with me right now, but... well.... maybe that's a good thing they're not,

I hope you all get my point.

[dragon]

I agree with everything you said, except, not only should the women be educated, but the men right along with them. It does take two.

[Indy in IN]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
It's a bit short-sighted to just tell women to keep their legs crossed. I think you also need to add that men should keep their fucking cocks in their pants. It takes two to tango, and traditionally, the men are too much of a piece of shit to hang around after the house lights go on.

All three examples you gave of women making the wrong choice could just as easily be pinned as equally the man's fault. You had at least one girl who was obviously being manipulated, and yeah - she made the wrong choice, but it isn't like she asked the guy to jerk off into a cup, then spread her legs open and poured semen into her passage to the temple.

I'm just going to say one more time, since no one really ackowledged this statement the first time I said it:

I think protesting for OR against abortion is time that could be used to educate women/girls. People who stand around and do nothing but spout their belief on the abortion issue are wasting time, resources, and only creating diversity among two group who are both concerned with unwanted babies - me included.

This is one of the few problems in the world that we can actually do something about. Making laws regarding what happens AFTER someone is pregnant is not one of them, and only results in creating two opposing groups with the same goal. That is not productive.

We can sit here and say all day long that females need to do this, need to get education about that, but the point of the matter is that we are doing nothing more but sitting here. I wish there was a legion of uneducated young women sitting in the room with me right now, but... well.... maybe that's a good thing they're not,

I hope you all get my point.


Yeah, I should have went a little deeper into it. I agree with everything you are saying. Being a guy, I'll admit that we can be pricks and say "It's not my problem." It was one of my friends that talked her girlfriend into an abortion. He was proud of himself for doing it. I don't speak to him anymore.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
First of all, rape is not the reason for the million abortions that are performed each year but for the sake of argument I will give that point to you- even if someone is raped and the baby is perfectly healthy and had no part in the rape and could be adopted by a loving couple I will say that if it meant that most abortions could be prevented that the abortions concerning rape and incest would be allowed to women who chose to have them.

Now lets go to the majority of abortions. These people choose to have sex knowing that a pregnancy could result from it. Many people are not willing to take the responsibilty of having a child so they choose to kill it instead. I have said before that I think in the case where the life of the mother is at risk it would be necessary to take the baby (preferably through inducement or c-section rathere than vacuum or DAnd C). and partial birth abortion where they paritally delver the baby and then stab it in the head should never be allowed, IMO.


are you completely missing my point, or simply choosing to ignore it? this is a woman's life we're talking about here: her choices, her decisions, her future. how fair is it to ask any woman to take on a responsibility that she can't handle?

you said it's because 'many people are not willing to take the responsibility of having a child so they choose to kill it instead." why do you automatically presume it's because they are unwilling rather than unable? why should the position of glorified incubator be forced on a woman who doesn't want to or can't have a child at this point in her life?

just as you think it's inhuman to 'kill babies', it's equally inhuman to believe it's right to force a woman into birthing a child against her will.

please think on that.


Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[Twisted Sister]

Originally posted by darchangel
just as you think it's inhuman to 'kill babies', it's equally inhuman to believe it's right to force a woman into birthing a child against her will.

please think on that.


Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

One of the reasons I look forward to your posts, ~darchangel~, well stated.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Twisted Sister
One of the reasons I look forward to your posts, ~darchangel~, well stated.


thanks, Twisted! ;)



Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[jeo4]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Lynn, how do you feel about the fact the abortion rate has risen under Bush, while it dropped under Clinton?

Ooh! Ooh! Can I answer this one? If so, I'll say "I feel like this is a coincidence, not a valid statistic having to do with the terms of either President or their actions in office. Until proof is offered otherwise, I'm going with that feeling."

Wow. I could almost be a politician with answers like that.

[The Postmaster General]

jeo4 - I didn't ask what anyone thought of the presidents.

Lynn is talking ad infintum about caring about fetuses being killed. I figured such a fact would help contribute to a(n alledged discussion) about this issue. If anything I figured there would be some remotional concern, and I could get something other than a "politician's response".

No slight on you, whom which I totally agree with in what you stated, although the response was slightly less than condusive to a thoughtful conversation, as I'm still curious as to what an anti-abortionist feels regarding this statistical fact. I wasn't looking for a smarmy retort, as it was meant as a question, not a debate platform.

Then again, I've never had much luck getting an honest answer in this forum, so I probably should have known better.

The real question though: How do you feel about hand washing. Oh wait. I keep forgetting that has nothing to do with this.

And for the record, once again, I think what you said is right.

[The Postmaster General]

Looking back, perhaps I could sound less partisan by asking:

What factors do you believe are causing women to seek more abortions in the year 2000 on, when abortions were declining in the 90s?

I really don't know, but am wondering what everyone thinks since Lynn obviously is done responding to me.

Personally, I wonder how many wives of troops had abortions. You always hear about that last night of sex before being shipped out. It would seem out of all those last nights, there had to be a few baskets made there. And how hard would it be to have a baby when you don't know if it's daddy will be back.

I know there were lots of what they call "wartime abortions" during previous wars. They are most notably talked about in the book "Love, Sex, and War."

Here is from chapter 13: The Girls They Left Behind

http://www.heretical.com/costello/13gleftb.html

[jeo4]

Okay I'll cease and desist with the smart-assed answers and give you some of my most simple:

1. Terror attacks on America leave people with a real sense of dread. So does crime, joblessness, homelessness, etc. We live in a world where hope is fading and people are losing their grip on the future they might have with a child involved. There is a psychological barrier leaving women and men confused and they don't want to raise a child in this environment.

2. Money is still a factor. In 2000, America was spiralling into a financial down trend. As Bush took office, the dollar was sagging and the markets were shrinking. Without a job or hopes of one, why would a mother and father want to try to raise a child?

3. I know women and teens personally who have aborted children a number of times. Responsibility was something never considered during the act of sex, but as mentioned here, the boyfriend leaves or even talks the girl into an abortion. We live in an age of dumbing down. Condoms and birth control are ignored because people don't take the time to educate their children and make them more aware of the consequences.

These are three trends I think are a factor, but I know there are certainly more.

[free]

this is a woman's life we're talking about here: her choices, her decisions, her future.

But it was also her decision to risk becoming pregnant. I agree that if she had became pregnant without her consent, she should be able to have an abortion. But if she decided that it was worth that risk, why should that future person suffer for it?

Don't get me wrong, I believe women should have a right to do with their bodies what they chose, but I just wish that some of them would make better choices as to not be put into that situation.

[Elgyn]

Originally posted by free

On the other hand, I am in favor of abortions in the cases of rape, incest, and survival of the mother, because, in the case of rape, the sexual act was not consenual, and in the case of incest, the baby would in most instances be severly handicapped or brain damaged.



You hear this over and over........abortions in the cases of rape, incest, and survival of the mother.
[And I want to say right off the bat, I`m not directing this at YOU free, I simply quoted you because you were the first person in the thread to mention it].

Now.......I want to see numbers.
I want to see statistics.

HOW MANY abortions are carried-out because of rape and/or incest? I don`t know the facts (and I won`t pretend to), but I`m willing to bet the statistics are pretty LOW.

And, yes, I realize "survival of the mother" is a whole different can of worms.


Now, I haven`t read through this whole thread (because I`m tired and, at the moment, lazy).
So I apoligize in advance if this has already been addressed.

I`ve known many women who had abortions, and ALL of them were cases of convienence. They weren`t 'ready to have a baby', so they had an abortion.
Well, not to sound insensitive, but apparently these women WERE 'ready' to have unprotected sex.

Look.......I`m probably the biggest "bleeding-heart liberal" on these boards.
But one thing I CANNOT get behind is abortion. I see it as a very selfish act.

Look at it this way......I decry the bombing of Iraqi cities & villages because innocent women and children are killed. SO, I would be a hypocrite if I turned-around and advocated abortion.

NOW...let`s talk about the Catholic Church. They (or, rather, IT) is against abortion........but they`re also against birth-control/contraception.
The Catholic Church has got to choose one.
If you`re going to be against abortion, then you`ve got to at least accept contraception. Come on, it`s common sense.

Okay, I`m done rambling incoherently.:cool:

[free]

Look at it this way......I decry the bombing of Iraqi cities & villages because innocent women and children are killed. SO, I would be a hypocrite if I turned-around and advocated abortion.

You can be against abortion, but for the rights of women to choose. That's where I fall. I'm pro-choice, anti-abortion.

Also, I'm for increasing the amount of sex education in schools, in order to prevent abortions. In a perfect world abstinence is good and fine, but realistically, kids are gonna have sex, if for no other reason than to rebel against authority, and they need to be preparred.

Just a fun fact about Alabama. After our county decided to increase funding to sex ed. classes, the number of teenagers having sex increased about 15%, but the number of teenage pregnancy decreased over 50%. Go figure?

[free]

Now.......I want to see numbers.
I want to see statistics.


But how many of these abortions are actually "hard cases?" Here the deception comes to light. Studies of rape victims conclude pregnancy results in less than one percent of rapes. Indeed, in a study of 1,900 abortion clients in 1987, only one woman claimed to be the victim of rape or incest.2 With approximately 100,000 assault rapes occurring yearly in the U.S., we can estimate that less than 1000 pregnancies result. If all 1000 babies were aborted, this would account for less than .06 percent of the abortions performed. Since not all rape pregnancies are terminated, this number is much smaller. Likewise, pregnancies resulting from incest are estimated to be only one percent of those girls subjected to incestuous affairs.1 Clearly, the cry for abortion to "free" these victims has been disproportionately loud.

Source (http://www.bfl.org/rape_and_incest.htm)

The Justice Dept., from 1973 to 1987, surveyed 49,000 households annually, asking questions on violence and criminal acts. The results of those reported were:
1973 — completed rapes — 95,934
1987 — completed rapes — 82,505
The study stated that only 53% were reported to police. Accordingly, the total numbers were: 1973 — 181,016 : 1987 — 155,667 The Washington Times, Jan. 14, 1991, A-5
A more recent Justice Dept. report, using a study designed differently with more direct questions, returned a result of 170,000 completed rapes plus 140,000 attempted rapes. Nat. Crime Victim Report, US Justice Dept. Aug. 95, R. Bachman
About 1 or 2 for each 1000. Using the 170,000 figure, this translates into an overall total of 170 to 340 assault rape pregnancies a year in the entire United States.

Source (http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_29.asp)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll find better sources (not exactly non-biased sites, though one does cites sources.)

[The Postmaster General]

Now.......I want to see numbers
I want to see statistics

HOW MANY abortions are carried-out because of rape and/or incest? I don`t know the facts (and I won`t pretend to), but I`m willing to bet the statistics are pretty LOW.



There are no statitics, as it would be unethical for a doctor to inquire as to the cause of the pregnacy, as such matters are typically a need to know basis. All the doctor needs to know is that she is pregnant, and is seeking an abortion. How she got that way is not a matter of something you'd report for statistcal purposes.

Besides, I highly doubt that is we could say 9 in 10 abortions were due to the woman's life being at risk, you would have a different opinion on the killing of a fetus.





Well, not to sound insensitive, but apparently these women WERE 'ready' to have unprotected sex.


This arguement is driving me batty. Would you say that a child crossing the street who was struck by a drunk driver was "ready" to cross the street, so who the fuck cares if his family is upset.

The kid probably knew crossing the road was dangerous, and so did the parents, but at some point you have to try something, and you don't always know how bad it could turn.

Well, you know how often girls get knocked up not realizing the extent of the consequences. They watch women on shows like Deperate Housewives fucking everything in sight, and they don't get pregnant. You have movies, TV, all sorts of portrayals of people having sex, very seldom gets pregnent.

You say they "know" the risks, I say they knowing is not a replacement for being naive and inexperienced, which most girls who get pregnent are. Sure they know how to fuck like bunnies, but they obviously don't know how bad it can go.

Besides, it isn't like getting an abortion is a particularly plesant, or inexpensive, and non-time consuming operation that you can get at a drive-though window.

And what if we do make it illegal for doctors to perform the operation. Back in the days, women used to purposefully fall down stairs to abort unwanted babies. How would that be an improvement? Haven't you heard stories of vaseline, whiskey, and wire clothes hangers. You say abortion should be illegal, but really all this would accomplish is making controled, safer abortions non existent, but abortions would still be going on.

Also, I highly doubt these stories of girls who just plan on having abortions. That sounds like a stark misunderstanding of the actual human condition in young people. In my experience, people often say things they don't mean. I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone say they wanted to die - far more times than I've met an actual suicidal person.



But one thing I CANNOT get behind is abortion. I see it as a very selfish act.


I think having an abortion is far less selfish than protesting against women, devaluing their character, all because you have an opinion you feel is right. Come on, people pipe bomb doctors, and physically intimidate LIVING WALKING TALKING HUMAN BEINGS, and they are concerned about life.

If you are concerned with life, go volunteer at a teenage crisis center, or a maternity ward. How the hell is making women feel worthless, or stupid, or as if they fucked up going to help anything except your own self-worth.



Look at it this way......I decry the bombing of Iraqi cities & villages because innocent women and children are killed. SO, I would be a hypocrite if I turned-around and advocated abortion.


Who said you had to advocate abortion? If I'm not mistaken, I don't think anyone here is particularly like "November 12th is Abortion Day! Celebrate by killing a fetus." No one advocates abortion.

To me, my stand is "Leave people the fuck alone, and stop meddling in their life a telling them what's best for them."

News flash - we are bombing innocent women and children in Iraq because we are doing what we think is best for them. Abortion clinics are bombed too. What do these have in common? Well, the people who do the bombing are both fueled by other people who have opinions about what is best for other people.

Like I said earlier on -- The only reason most people know about women having abortions is because they loiter outside abortion clinics. To me, that is seriously fucked up. If people were finding dead fetuses on their front lawn -- Yeah, okay. You'd have something to draw concern about. Otherwise, it's really between a women, her doctor, and a judge. Be it an earthly judge (who said it was okay in 1973) or a higher being (who the woman involved may not even believe in, so we leave it at that -- church/state seperation, and all.)




NOW...let`s talk about the Catholic Church. They (or, rather, IT) is against abortion........but they`re also against birth-control/contraception.
The Catholic Church has got to choose one.
If you`re going to be against abortion, then you`ve got to at least accept contraception. Come on, it`s common sense.



Yeah, that would be great. Only problem is not every girl is Catholic, so I hardly see how it pertains as us The Society,



Anyway - just some thoughts here. I have to go get my pamphlets together so I can go around the local high schools, and teach girls about the benefits of having abortion - got to get ready for National Abortion Day. ;)

[Elgyn]

Bubba I think you`ve got the wrong idea about me (which is understandable, since my post was a little out-of-line IMO).

I don`t think abortion should be flat-out illegal, and I didn`t say that in my post. I don`t want any "coathanger abortions" going on any more than you do.

I guess basically all I`m saying is I think most abortions are simply a matter of convienience. And I get this opinion from women I know who`ve had abortions. Their pregnancies didn`t threaten their lives. They weren`t raped. They weren`t victims of incest. They simply weren`t ready for a baby.

Now Bubba, from your last post I get the idea that you think I`m some kind of Bible-thumpin`, abortion-clinic-bombing nutjob. I`m not. These women I know who`ve had abortions are friends of mine, and friends of my girlfriend. I never refused to associate with them because of it. I never argued with them about it (because I`d be a total asshole if I did).

Do I believe it should be the woman`s choice? Yes. I just think a lot of these women should really think about what they`re doing if it`s only a matter of convienience.
Three years ago when I (irresponsibly) got my girlfriend pregnant, we both thought about getting her an abortion - and her girlfriends encourged her to get one. But we stuck it out and she had the baby, and three years later, we`re both glad she didn`t get the abortion. Even though neither of us were "ready" to be parents at the time.

Now, if you`ll excuse me, I have to go decorate my front lawn for National Abortion Day.:)

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
are you completely missing my point, or simply choosing to ignore it? this is a woman's life we're talking about here: her choices, her decisions, her future. how fair is it to ask any woman to take on a responsibility that she can't handle?

you said it's because 'many people are not willing to take the responsibility of having a child so they choose to kill it instead." why do you automatically presume it's because they are unwilling rather than unable? why should the position of glorified incubator be forced on a woman who doesn't want to or can't have a child at this point in her life?

just as you think it's inhuman to 'kill babies', it's equally inhuman to believe it's right to force a woman into birthing a child against her will.

please think on that.


Through Like Crue
~darchangel~

Ihave hardly ever ignored a point on purpose except if it has been insulting or something. If I misunderstand something that is different of course.

I am just saying if a woman gets pregnant and can not raise the child she can give it up for adoption.so many people are dying to have that child. It is wrong thinking IMO when a woman says "I could never give up my baby for adoption-that is why I would get an abortion". That is the ultimate in selfish thinking. I would have a hard time with my feelings in this matter therefore I will kill the child and the couple can keep hoping to get another.

If a woman is so horrified about getting pregnant and having a child she should have her tubes tied. That is not the answer becasue the majority of women do not have abortions for this reason- they just don't want the baby at this point in time. They don't want to lose their figure. It is selfish IMO. Talk to someone who has been adopted. They are glad to be here and they have had great lives in most cases. These people were deeply desired by their families.

Just a reminder to you- I used to be pro-choice and I beleived just as you do but I am totally on the other side now. There is true beauty in self sacrifice-something that is disappearing in our culture.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Looking back, perhaps I could sound less partisan by asking:

What factors do you believe are causing women to seek more abortions in the year 2000 on, when abortions were declining in the 90s?

I really don't know, but am wondering what everyone thinks since Lynn obviously is done responding to me.

Personally, I wonder how many wives of troops had abortions. You always hear about that last night of sex before being shipped out. It would seem out of all those last nights, there had to be a few baskets made there. And how hard would it be to have a baby when you don't know if it's daddy will be back.

I know there were lots of what they call "wartime abortions" during previous wars. They are most notably talked about in the book "Love, Sex, and War."

Here is from chapter 13: The Girls They Left Behind

http://www.heretical.com/costello/13gleftb.html

Sorry Bubba- my grnadmother has been sick and had to be put in a nursing home at least temporarily. I've been too busy to post.

I have never heard the statistic about more abortions under Bush. I can only guess. Let me start by saying that Bush hasn't done anything to dissuade peopel from getting abortions- he has been focused on other things. He did ban partial birth abortions but I know as far as the other abortions go he says he would like to see less of them but will not be doing litus tests on judges.

Our culture is getting coarser and coarser and there is less concern for tenderness regarding other people. People are out for themselves. Some women do not want to have the baby becasue the time is not right, Some men do not want the financial responsibiblty of a baby so they encourage the abortion. People do not choose to see the life that is growing inside the uterus. What cannot be seen can be ignored. I'd love to see an abortion broadcast on TV.An ultrasound image of an 11 week old fetus being killed on TV. It is happending each day and why shouldnt we see it and talk about it. People would be shocked to see what is happening and there would be an outcry. Oh wait. Maybe people would just get entrenched in their own positions and make excuses.

I know there are a lot of young soldiers that get married very young and have babies and I think a lot of it is because they want to have a family in case they do not come back. The wives are happy to have their kids for the same reason. Ia m sure there are some abortions too but I always hear of the former case and never the latter.

[The Postmaster General]

Oh, no personal judgement on my part Elgyn. I was just posting some things I'm not sure people really consider.

[The Postmaster General]

I hope all is well with the grandmother, Lynn7. I went through the same thing last year. PM me if you want to talk, or support. It can be rough, I know.

[Tuukka]

It's not possible to make laws about abortion based on moral interests of just one group. The thing is is that it's a matter of opinion what makes a human. Is it a human when the DNA of a man and a woman get together? Is is a human when it has a brain and a heart? Or is is a human when it's not anymore physically connected to the woman's body? Because before the birth the fetus is entirely dependent on woman's body, it's a PART of her body.

This is strictly a matter of opinion, and everybody draws the line in a different place. IMHO the only way to make a law is to compromise and meet in the midway point of opposing ends.

I don't support abortion personally, but I do support a woman's right to do it. Here in Finland I think the current law allows you to do an abortion up to 4 months. After that you can get it only in exceptional circumstances, like rape, danger to mother, etc.

I don't consider a 3-month fetus a living person. But this is of course a personal opinion. Many religious people think that the child has a soul right after the impregnation, even if the fetus is just an extremely small ameba at that point. But if you kill a human soul, you basicly kill a person. It can't really be argued that they are wrong. But I don't think laws in general should be based on religous beliefs of one group.

Laws should be based on facts and reason, and I feel the facts are these:

1. If abortion is illegal, people do it anyway. It has been like this in the past, and since society is more sexually oriented than it used to be, things are not going to be any different. Illegal abortions are dangerous for women. Since abortions are being done anyway, I think we should give women the change to do it safely. This makes sense.

2. Since abortions are done anyway, regardless of whether they are legal or not, we should think how we prevent the need to get an abortion. The most effective way is to not get pregnant. No unwanted pregnancy, no need for abortion.

3. Since people are going to have sex anyway, it doesn't make much sense to prevent pregnancies by supporting celibacy. It has never worked, never will. So the only option is to educate people about birth control. Statistics from many countries show, that the the better sex education people get, the less unwanted pregnancies there are.

4. Most parents are not going to teach their kids to use condoms, pills, etc. This simply isn't gonna happen. Never has, most likely never will. So the sex education should be done by state, in schools. This way each kd can be fully educated about sex and birth control before the start their own sex lives. The education must be started early, for kids of 13 years, since teenagers are starting out their sex lives earlier and earlier.

...In Scandinavian countries sex education has been an important issue in the past, and it has resulted in some of the lowest abortion rates in the world. I was teached it at school when I was 13, and then again at the age of 14 and 15. I*ve heard that they have cut down the resources on sex education since then, thought, and it has resulted in increasing teen pregnancies.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I hope all is well with the grandmother, Lynn7. I went through the same thing last year. PM me if you want to talk, or support. It can be rough, I know.

Thanks Bubba- that was so nice of you!!!!! You made my day :p

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Tuukka
It's not possible to make laws about abortion based on moral interests of just one group. The thing is is that it's a matter of opinion what makes a human. Is it a human when the DNA of a man and a woman get together? Is is a human when it has a brain and a heart? Or is is a human when it's not anymore physically connected to the woman's body? Because before the birth the fetus is entirely dependent on woman's body, it's a PART of her body.

This is strictly a matter of opinion, and everybody draws the line in a different place. IMHO the only way to make a law is to compromise and meet in the midway point of opposing ends.

I don't support abortion personally, but I do support a woman's right to do it. Here in Finland I think the current law allows you to do an abortion up to 4 months. After that you can get it only in exceptional circumstances, like rape, danger to mother, etc.

I don't consider a 3-month fetus a living person. But this is of course a personal opinion. Many religious people think that the child has a soul right after the impregnation, even if the fetus is just an extremely small ameba at that point. But if you kill a human soul, you basicly kill a person. It can't really be argued that they are wrong. But I don't think laws in general should be based on religous beliefs of one group.

Laws should be based on facts and reason, and I feel the facts are these:

1. If abortion is illegal, people do it anyway. It has been like this in the past, and since society is more sexually oriented than it used to be, things are not going to be any different. Illegal abortions are dangerous for women. Since abortions are being done anyway, I think we should give women the change to do it safely. This makes sense.

2. Since abortions are done anyway, regardless of whether they are legal or not, we should think how we prevent the need to get an abortion. The most effective way is to not get pregnant. No unwanted pregnancy, no need for abortion.

3. Since people are going to have sex anyway, it doesn't make much sense to prevent pregnancies by supporting celibacy. It has never worked, never will. So the only option is to educate people about birth control. Statistics from many countries show, that the the better sex education people get, the less unwanted pregnancies there are.

4. Most parents are not going to teach their kids to use condoms, pills, etc. This simply isn't gonna happen. Never has, most likely never will. So the sex education should be done by state, in schools. This way each kd can be fully educated about sex and birth control before the start their own sex lives. The education must be started early, for kids of 13 years, since teenagers are starting out their sex lives earlier and earlier.

...In Scandinavian countries sex education has been an important issue in the past, and it has resulted in some of the lowest abortion rates in the world. I was teached it at school when I was 13, and then again at the age of 14 and 15. I*ve heard that they have cut down the resources on sex education since then, thought, and it has resulted in increasing teen pregnancies.

I know what you are saying. Becasue of my releigious beliefs I believe that life does begin at conception but I anc understand how someone who is not religious would see this differently. Some might beleive the life begins when the heart starts to beat or when there are brain waves. I could compromise and say how about we say that when the baby begins to move around that that is when life begins. My second baby was moving all around when he was at 7 weeks gestation. It was so fun to watch him and I was amazed at such an early point in time to see him so active. Ultrasound is an amazing development- especially the new 3-D ones where you can actually see the baby's facial features. I just wish people would use this technology when discussing abortion. I get the feeling people do not want to see what is being aborted becasue it might disturb their sensibilities.

I don't know why but I am reminded of an old STar Trek (original) episode where the people of a certain planet would be periodically shepharded into a chamber and would be voluntarily executed. There was a war being conducted between two planets by computer and when a hit would be made the corresponidng number of people would be executed. They explained that hundreds or thousands of years before the two planets decided that becasue war was so brutal the better thing to do would be to stop actual fighting and just agree to politely execute people when a hit was made. Captain Kirk objected to what was going on and made the observation that because war is brutal and messy THAT is what causes it to stop sooner becasue it is so awful, but what these two planets were doing was sterilizing the war in such a way that it could go on forever.

That is how abortion seems these days. You go in for a procedure- you never see or feel the baby.Everything is medical and sterile and effiecient and you do not have the feeling that anything bad is going on- like the fact that a fetus jumping around will be killed and expelled and thrown in the trash. Its really sad.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I know what you are saying. Becasue of my releigious beliefs I believe that life does begin at conception but I anc understand how someone who is not religious would see this differently. Some might beleive the life begins when the heart starts to beat or when there are brain waves. I could compromise and say how about we say that when the baby begins to move around that that is when life begins. My second baby was moving all around when he was at 7 weeks gestation. It was so fun to watch him and I was amazed at such an early point in time to see him so active. Ultrasound is an amazing development- especially the new 3-D ones where you can actually see the baby's facial features. I just wish people would use this technology when discussing abortion. I get the feeling people do not want to see what is being aborted becasue it might disturb their sensibilities.

RE:

I think there should be enough time to realize the pregnancy and then do the abortion. I'm not expert on this, but I think that mensturation periods can be varied. So basicly a woman can go for roughly 6 weeks before starting so suspect something unusual. I think the law should allow women time to realize that they are pregnant, and then leave 1-2 weeks to decide what they are gonna do. So a 2 month deadline sounds reasonable to me. If you are not taking any action before than, then live with it (And this goes to the father as well, since he also has to carry the responsibility).

I'm dating a woman right now, who is deeply religious. She had an abortion when she was 16, and deeply regretted it afterwards. She feels that she killed a living person, her own child. But the guilt was finally removed when she gave birth to her daughter at the age of 23. The kid is now a bit less than 4 years old, and she's a gorgeous and brilliant little girl.

BTW, I had a typo in my earlier post. The abortion deadline is 3 months in here, not 4. Well, so I recall.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I know what you are saying. Becasue of my releigious beliefs I believe that life does begin at conception but I anc understand how someone who is not religious would see this differently. Some might beleive the life begins when the heart starts to beat or when there are brain waves. I could compromise and say how about we say that when the baby begins to move around that that is when life begins. My second baby was moving all around when he was at 7 weeks gestation. It was so fun to watch him and I was amazed at such an early point in time to see him so active. Ultrasound is an amazing development- especially the new 3-D ones where you can actually see the baby's facial features. I just wish people would use this technology when discussing abortion. I get the feeling people do not want to see what is being aborted becasue it might disturb their sensibilities.

I don't know why but I am reminded of an old STar Trek (original) episode where the people of a certain planet would be periodically shepharded into a chamber and would be voluntarily executed. There was a war being conducted between two planets by computer and when a hit would be made the corresponidng number of people would be executed. They explained that hundreds or thousands of years before the two planets decided that becasue war was so brutal the better thing to do would be to stop actual fighting and just agree to politely execute people when a hit was made. Captain Kirk objected to what was going on and made the observation that because war is brutal and messy THAT is what causes it to stop sooner becasue it is so awful, but what these two planets were doing was sterilizing the war in such a way that it could go on forever.

That is how abortion seems these days. You go in for a procedure- you never see or feel the baby.Everything is medical and sterile and effiecient and you do not have the feeling that anything bad is going on- like the fact that a fetus jumping around will be killed and expelled and thrown in the trash. Its really sad.


just because your religious beliefs say that abortion is wrong doesn't mean it's wrong for everyone. i know you say you're keeping that in mind, but then you brought in a Star Trek reference where you seem to be likening abortion to voluntary execution. that statement makes me think you are NOT keeping it in perspective.

while i understand you are deeply religious, i cannot see why your personal religion should affect your views on something that is inclusive to literally millions of women who have hundreds of different religions or no religion, depending.

i do not believe that for most women there can be the truly numb, desensitized feeling you're speaking of when getting an abortion. it's a highly emotional thing for most women; a tough decision. however, ultimately, it's the decision of the woman herself, and looking at an ultrasound in most cases probably won't change her mind, only guilt her further about something she SHOULDN'T be guilted for: it's her body.

it's like a non-vital transplant. same concept really: a part of my body that couldn't live without me that will give someone a chance at life. would you have some random person who doesn't know you decide whether or not you should give the kidney? no. it would be your decision, because it's part of you and you'll be the one going through a laborious surgery.

yet no Jehovah's witnesses are going around screaming about how you're accepting another's blood and it's against the tenements of their faith even though the transplant doesn't involve them.

i guess i'm just trying to say that i don't think religious beliefs should be used as a defensible reason for abortion sentiment.



Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by darchangel
while i understand you are deeply religious, i cannot see why your personal religion should affect your views on something that is inclusive to literally millions of women who have hundreds of different religions or no religion, depending.

RE:

I don't think the real issue is religion. The point is that Lynn7 is *morally* against abortion. And morals of the people in society affect the laws that are made, and they should. In the end it's irrevelant if the morals come from religion or some other ideology.

People do have the moral right to demand that the laws should follow the moral belief system they have.

But it's also important to realize that not all people have the same moral beliefs. Those who think differently are usually not more immoral, they simply have a different point of view.

In order for society to work we have to compromise. Nobody is getting exactly what they want, but it's better to get halfway there and live in peace with others instead of constantly being in "war" with the opposing side.

I think the most effective way to deal with the abortion issue is to think coldly and calculatively. And this - of course - includes taking emotions and morals into consideration. Abortions are here to stay and by making them illegal they are not going to go away. So we should all think together ways of lessening unwanted pregnancies. We could also possibly tighten up the abortion laws a bit to make pro-life people feel better. But we can never take away the women's right to have an abortion, because it simply doesn't work in practice. They are going to have abortions anyway, and we all know this.

My greatest problem with abortion issue is that quite often people who are pro-life are also against any kind of sex education in schools. I don't think they are basing this on any kind of common sense. I've had sex education in school, and it was all very matter-of-fact and informative. Those were most certainly not sexually arousing sessions and didn't make anyone more eager to have pre-marital sex. I don't see any religious reason not to have sex education at schools, except that Bible is against pre-marital sex. I don't remember now if Bible ever states that people aren't allowed to use birth control. Maybe it's there somewhere, maybe someone can give a quote.

The amusing thing is that most people who oppose sex education have had pre-marital sex themselves and have used either condoms or pills in their relationship.

I think it's *responsibility* of the state to teach teenagers to protect themselves and their unborn children. We are talking about VERY basic issues here, something that affects everyone. Not understanding the biology of sex and birth in detail, and not being educated about birth control is equivalent of never learning to read in school.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
just because your religious beliefs say that abortion is wrong doesn't mean it's wrong for everyone. i know you say you're keeping that in mind, but then you brought in a Star Trek reference where you seem to be likening abortion to voluntary execution. that statement makes me think you are NOT keeping it in perspective.

while i understand you are deeply religious, i cannot see why your personal religion should affect your views on something that is inclusive to literally millions of women who have hundreds of different religions or no religion, depending.

i do not believe that for most women there can be the truly numb, desensitized feeling you're speaking of when getting an abortion. it's a highly emotional thing for most women; a tough decision. however, ultimately, it's the decision of the woman herself, and looking at an ultrasound in most cases probably won't change her mind, only guilt her further about something she SHOULDN'T be guilted for: it's her body.

it's like a non-vital transplant. same concept really: a part of my body that couldn't live without me that will give someone a chance at life. would you have some random person who doesn't know you decide whether or not you should give the kidney? no. it would be your decision, because it's part of you and you'll be the one going through a laborious surgery.

yet no Jehovah's witnesses are going around screaming about how you're accepting another's blood and it's against the tenements of their faith even though the transplant doesn't involve them.

i guess i'm just trying to say that i don't think religious beliefs should be used as a defensible reason for abortion sentiment.



Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

My Star Trek reference had to do with the fact that when something is so sterilized it loses the true horror.

I brought up my religion to say how I feel not how you should feel. My whole point was that I understand we are coming from two totally different points of view, HOWEVER, relgion aside, there is a moving baby that is being killed and that is not the same as removing an appendix. Maybe if abortions removed a woman's uterus people would not be so quick to have one.

[free]

Instead of wasting energy trying to reverse a decision that probably will never be reversed, why not concentrate on provideing better sex education in schools, so that we want have pregnant teens faced with a decision like this. I find it interesting that most people who are anti-abortion, are also against increasing the level of sex ed. in schools.

As I said in earlier, in a perfect world, abstinence would be the best thing, but kids are gonna have sex, sometimes just because an adult said they shouldn't, and whether or not they are prepared for the consequences of that encounter is up to the education they receive.

[Lynn7]

I agree that the abortion issue is a dead one but we should try to make abortion rare. It's not that I don't think sex should be taught in the schools it's just that I disagree with the way it is taught. I would teachit this way.

To girls- your sexuality is worth something- it is your capital -don't squander it. In the market place things that are easy to come by lose their value and become cheap. If people were passing out diamonds to everyone they would no longer be valuable. if a girl has sex with every guy she will also lose their regard. I would also say that girls should be really careful not to expose themselves to diseases that could casue them lifelong problems and that condoms don't always protect against everything. One rupture and you have been exposed.

To boys I would say any girl you have sex with could be the mother of your child. You might be attracted to the sleaziest girl at the party and have a night of sex fun with her but that girl could be your kid's mommy. Picture your kid living with her in 10 years as she brings a parde of guys into your kids house to have sex with.and picture some of these guys slapping your kid around or even molesting him/her and your only recourse is our wonderful court system.and how is your wife and your kids with her going to feel about all of your trauma as you deal with the problems with your first child.and how will your first child feel about you?

Finally, I would show every kid an ultrasound and say isn't this cute and have everyong laughing over the fetus jumping around and then I would say that it is legal to kill this fetus and see what there reaction is. Then I would warn them about having unprotected sex and the consequences of abortions.

Instead the schools today teach that sex is great and when you have it make sure you wear a condom (even though we all know they don't half the time).

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I agree that the abortion issue is a dead one but we should try to make abortion rare. It's not that I don't think sex should be taught in the schools it's just that I disagree with the way it is taught. I would teachit this way.

To girls- your sexuality is worth something- it is your capital -don't squander it. In the market place things that are easy to come by lose their value and become cheap. If people were passing out diamonds to everyone they would no longer be valuable. if a girl has sex with every guy she will also lose their regard. I would also say that girls should be really careful not to expose themselves to diseases that could casue them lifelong problems and that condoms don't always protect against everything. One rupture and you have been exposed.

To boys I would say any girl you have sex with could be the mother of your child. You might be attracted to the sleaziest girl at the party and have a night of sex fun with her but that girl could be your kid's mommy. Picture your kid living with her in 10 years as she brings a parde of guys into your kids house to have sex with.and picture some of these guys slapping your kid around or even molesting him/her and your only recourse is our wonderful court system.and how is your wife and your kids with her going to feel about all of your trauma as you deal with the problems with your first child.and how will your first child feel about you?

Finally, I would show every kid an ultrasound and say isn't this cute and have everyong laughing over the fetus jumping around and then I would say that it is legal to kill this fetus and see what there reaction is. Then I would warn them about having unprotected sex and the consequences of abortions.

Instead the schools today teach that sex is great and when you have it make sure you wear a condom (even though we all know they don't half the time).

then i think i'm glad they're not teaching the Lynn7 sex ed method in schools...

you just wrote that girls should save their virginity because it's special (which i'm not denying...mine sure was). however, you write that "to boys I would say any girl you have sex with could be the mother of your child"....

so now a guy's virginity isn't special, he should just watch it? this is promoting the same stereotype that's been going on for years: girls should be prim and proper virgins, but it's okay for guys to play around (as long as they watch themselves and are responsible, according to you)

why shouldn't girls and boys be held to the same sexual standards? if anything, girls should be cautioned more heavily on their sexual practices rather than their virginity since they're physically able to have sex earlier than most boys.

shaming a girl out of sex by telling her it cheapens her and telling her that virginity is the only precious thing she has is a horrible way to protect that girl from sex...she'll turn into the type of woman who screws the first man who tells her he loves her just to get in her pants (and believe me, guys will do that...i know some who have done it to my friends)

also, it's an extraordinarily bad idea to tell kids that condoms won't protect them against everything...they'll get the idea in their head that it doesn't matter if they wear one or not.

while condoms may not be more than about 60% effective, that's better than 0% with no condom.

and as a side note, i don't know about your sex life (nor do i want to), but contrary to what you believe, i think teachers should teach kids that sex is great; it can be an expression of love between two people, as well as physically pleasurable.

(IMO) kids should be made aware of those things so that girls aren't sleeping around to make people like them and guys aren't screwing every girl in sight because it makes him more of a 'man' to do so.

i would also ask teachers to address the issue of homosexuality and bisexuality while teaching sex ed classes so that children who are predispositioned to be homosexual or bisexual will know what to do sexually as well.


Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Instead the schools today teach that sex is great and when you have it make sure you wear a condom (even though we all know they don't half the time).


I'm not sure where you went to school, but can we take a poll here?

LISTEN UP EVERYONE -- If you've taken Sex ED. and it was unlike Lynn is describing, please raise your hand.

(Bubba raises his hand)

http://www.churchofsaintpaul.com/content/eucharist/images/raising_hands.jpg http://www.edow.org/diocese/governance/convention/2004images/votehandsraised.jpghttp://www.domlife.org/2003/supporters.jpg http://www.cvm.okstate.edu/graduate/images/FAQgroup2edgeb.jpg

[Jim H]

Instead the schools today teach that sex is great and when you have it make sure you wear a condom (even though we all know they don't half the time).

Well, that is pretty much the exact opposite of what they taught me in sex ed. And I grew up in Michigan, one of the more liberal states. What are you basing your statement on?

I'm also not sure I understand the point of what you said in parantheses. Do you think children who ignore advice about condom usage will listen to advice about not having sex at all?

[chilli pepper]

Im on the fence. I'm in favor of abortion in rape and incest cases and blah blah, or when its harmful (physically) to the mother to give birth. But, there are some miserable human beings using abortion as an abosolute form of birth control, not only do those fucks deserve to not go through with an abortion, they also need a slap in the fucking face. So, in short: Your being a moron and not wearing a condom, TOO FUCKING BAD, you fuck up, this is what you get, and this is why we have adoption agencies anyway. But like I said, if this was FORCED upon you, then I dont see why not.

[EVILxxx]

*Throws a Wrench in the gears*

So Scott Peterson was convicted of 1st degree murder of his wife, and 2nd degree murder of his unborn son Connor. Connor was an 8 month fetus. So here is the delema. What if Scott never killed his wife, and Laci Petterson decided to have an abortion. What does it matter who killed him, whether it was the mother or the father. They both had equal responsibility in making it.
I think this is more along the lines of "partial birth abortion" seeing as how late in development the fetus was. So by this rational the fetus is alive. But if an abortion was allowed, does it make Connor any less alive?
I know this was based on the decision of 12 people but it is something to think about.

[free]

That's a good question.

Is the fetus considered a person if the parents intend for the child to be born, but not if an abortion is planned?

Another question, If I were to accidently trip a pregnant woman and kill the fetus, should I be charged with involuntary manslaughter?

With the current laws as to the legal status of a fetus, killing one should carry the same penalty as destruction of property.

(not saying I agree with that, just that it would be a lgical punishment)

[The Postmaster General]

I don't think Peterson should be analogized with an abortion doctor. Different means, and different motives.

It would be like comparing Hannibal Lector and those cannabals from Alive.

[Criminal Rock]

What if Scott never killed his wife, and Laci Petterson decided to have an abortion. What does it matter who killed him, whether it was the mother or the father. They both had equal responsibility in making it.

Could have, should have, would have… doesn’t carry any weight on the argument. It’s a good question to compose, however, she didn’t have the abortion after seven months so why argue that she would after eight? And there was also no evidence supporting the “fact” that she wanted one in the first place. Listen, all I know is that most abortions take place way before eight months and she was still pregnant when she was murdered, so it would only seem logical to think that she was intending to have the baby. But if there was ever an appointment that she set up with her doctor, then show me, otherwise I don’t think there’s enough evidence to prove anything.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
then i think i'm glad they're not teaching the Lynn7 sex ed method in schools...

you just wrote that girls should save their virginity because it's special (which i'm not denying...mine sure was). however, you write that "to boys I would say any girl you have sex with could be the mother of your child"....

so now a guy's virginity isn't special, he should just watch it? this is promoting the same stereotype that's been going on for years: girls should be prim and proper virgins, but it's okay for guys to play around (as long as they watch themselves and are responsible, according to you)

why shouldn't girls and boys be held to the same sexual standards? if anything, girls should be cautioned more heavily on their sexual practices rather than their virginity since they're physically able to have sex earlier than most boys.

shaming a girl out of sex by telling her it cheapens her and telling her that virginity is the only precious thing she has is a horrible way to protect that girl from sex...she'll turn into the type of woman who screws the first man who tells her he loves her just to get in her pants (and believe me, guys will do that...i know some who have done it to my friends)

also, it's an extraordinarily bad idea to tell kids that condoms won't protect them against everything...they'll get the idea in their head that it doesn't matter if they wear one or not.

while condoms may not be more than about 60% effective, that's better than 0% with no condom.

and as a side note, i don't know about your sex life (nor do i want to), but contrary to what you believe, i think teachers should teach kids that sex is great; it can be an expression of love between two people, as well as physically pleasurable.

(IMO) kids should be made aware of those things so that girls aren't sleeping around to make people like them and guys aren't screwing every girl in sight because it makes him more of a 'man' to do so.

i would also ask teachers to address the issue of homosexuality and bisexuality while teaching sex ed classes so that children who are predispositioned to be homosexual or bisexual will know what to do sexually as well.


Through Like Crue

~darchangel~


I wasn't talking about virginity- I was talking about girls who engage in sex freelywith lots of guys and even after a first date or no date at all. Many girls are so love starved that they think they are recieving affection by giving guys the sex they want. They are really being used and then they don't understand why people make fun of them or disrespect them because they are promiscuous. Look at what happened to Madonna years ago. She made some risque videos, released a book called "Sex" and was absolutely ridiculed for years by Leno, Letterman etc etc. she was totally shocked by the reaction. She thought that it was a new day and that men and women were equal sexually and that sex was a good thing (which it is of course between tow caring people). Anyway, look at her now- she is no longer promoting what she used to and she says now that she was out to shock.
I think men and women should treat sex with the respect it deserves. It can have long reaching consequences including life and death and long term illness and it is sad to see how it is treated.

Recently a little controversy developed becasue they are offering condoms to students in a local middle school becasue there have been pregnancies. Most people in this liberal community are against this becasue people know that it sends a message that ah they are going to do it anyway so here are some condoms. Kids tend to not use condoms or when they do they don't use them consisttly or even right. Is it better to use a condom than not to use one-maybe. But if people are trusting in that condom for safety and it does not work than they are less protected than if they had not used one at all cause then they might not have even done it.

if I ride a roller coaster and trust in the seat belt and it does not work I could fall to my death. If I know that the seatbelts are not 100% trustworthy I wll not ride on that roller coaster at all.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Most people in this liberal community are against this becasue people know that it sends a message that ah they are going to do it anyway so here are some condoms.

Funny, I remember a snippet from a book by a consevative stating teen pregnancy didn't exist until liberals started handing out condoms at high schools.

Originally posted by Lynn7
if I ride a roller coaster and trust in the seat belt and it does not work I could fall to my death. If I know that the seatbelts are not 100% trustworthy I wll not ride on that roller coaster at all.

I don't think that's a fair analogy. I mean, riding a rollecoaster is simply a non-natural activity (meaning no animals in nature does it except for humans) done strictly for fun and excitement. Sex is an instinct in all animals (plants even have their own version). A better analogy would be if you're stuck alone in the woods with no food and you find a patch of mushrooms that might be poisonous. Althought you can always survive without sex, eating food is similar in that it's something our bodies make into a priority.

I know you'll likely retort by saying your point is about how people in general should be more careful about our sex partners, with a little to make sure nobody's in the relationship just for sexual reasons and have fewer sex partners (all of the following ideas should apply to both genders) and I agree with those ideas. I was just discussing something you spoke about involving roller coasters.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I wasn't talking about virginity- I was talking about girls who engage in sex freelywith lots of guys and even after a first date or no date at all. Many girls are so love starved that they think they are recieving affection by giving guys the sex they want. They are really being used and then they don't understand why people make fun of them or disrespect them because they are promiscuous. Look at what happened to Madonna years ago. She made some risque videos, released a book called "Sex" and was absolutely ridiculed for years by Leno, Letterman etc etc. she was totally shocked by the reaction. She thought that it was a new day and that men and women were equal sexually and that sex was a good thing (which it is of course between tow caring people). Anyway, look at her now- she is no longer promoting what she used to and she says now that she was out to shock.
I think men and women should treat sex with the respect it deserves. It can have long reaching consequences including life and death and long term illness and it is sad to see how it is treated.

Recently a little controversy developed becasue they are offering condoms to students in a local middle school becasue there have been pregnancies. Most people in this liberal community are against this becasue people know that it sends a message that ah they are going to do it anyway so here are some condoms. Kids tend to not use condoms or when they do they don't use them consisttly or even right. Is it better to use a condom than not to use one-maybe. But if people are trusting in that condom for safety and it does not work than they are less protected than if they had not used one at all cause then they might not have even done it.

if I ride a roller coaster and trust in the seat belt and it does not work I could fall to my death. If I know that the seatbelts are not 100% trustworthy I wll not ride on that roller coaster at all.

MacReady already checkmated the analogy of the rollercoaster, so i won't bother with it.

However, I don't see where you say there's a problem with teaching kids to use a condom. If we don't teach protective sex, they're going to have unprotected sex. Just like babies learning to walk, we take preventative measures: baby gates, outlet plugs, childproofing cabinets full of drain cleaner. It's the same basic principle: they will eventually learn how to do it, so we should teach them and protect them before it's too late.

In reference to lack of sexual respect for women, I don't think Madonna is a very good example to use period. She's not about respect, she's about attention, as she's always been. I think teaching girls how to have sex responsibly rather than guarding themselves against all evil penises will teach them to respect their sex more as something that they have because they want to, not because they feel as if it should be bad or wrong to be sexually expressive. The latter are the ones who end up having sex for attention or popularity.


So in recap: Let's not have Madonna teaching our kids to have a vagina full of drain cleaner.


Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Could have, should have, would have… doesn’t carry any weight on the argument. It’s a good question to compose, however, she didn’t have the abortion after seven months so why argue that she would after eight? And there was also no evidence supporting the “fact” that she wanted one in the first place. Listen, all I know is that most abortions take place way before eight months and she was still pregnant when she was murdered, so it would only seem logical to think that she was intending to have the baby. But if there was ever an appointment that she set up with her doctor, then show me, otherwise I don’t think there’s enough evidence to prove anything.

So are you trying to say that the only reason why the fetus is considered alive is because the mother intended on having it? I don't know where you are coming from
And there was also no evidence supporting the “fact” that she wanted one in the first place.
That isn't what I was saying. It was hypothetical.

All I was saying is that Scot Peterson was charged with killing a fetus. By law a fetus isn't alive, because if a fetus was alive it would be murder. How can this be. yeah ok I'm not saying Scott is on the same plane as an abortion doctor but what Scott did and what an abortionist does has the same end result. Just because the mother wanted the child to be born makes the fetus a living being?

[TheAxeGrinder]

My opinion is this: if you are foolish enough to get pregnant after refusing to use condoms, then you should either face facts and keep the baby or give it up for adoption. Abortion is not a birth control method, and should never be used as such. Regardless of religious views, I believe abortion is both morally and ethically wrong, simply because I feel that it's murder. Who are we to say when life begins? If you think abortion is a quick and easy thing, try looking it up on the internet and see what really goes on. It's not pretty, and furthermore, if the fetus is so far along that it is a sentient being, what right do you have as an individual to wipe out an innocent life like cattle?

[darchangel]

Originally posted by TheAxeGrinder
My opinion is this: if you are foolish enough to get pregnant after refusing to use condoms, then you should either face facts and keep the baby or give it up for adoption. Abortion is not a birth control method, and should never be used as such. Regardless of religious views, I believe abortion is both morally and ethically wrong, simply because I feel that it's murder. Who are we to say when life begins? If you think abortion is a quick and easy thing, try looking it up on the internet and see what really goes on. It's not pretty, and furthermore, if the fetus is so far along that it is a sentient being, what right do you have as an individual to wipe out an innocent life like cattle?

i've said it before and i'll say it again: if that child is in your body, it's your decision (and your right) whether or not it should continue to stay there.

this will definitely sound sexist (and i don't mean for it to, since Bubba and MacReady have both been awesome on this thread) i think it's easier for men to have a 'you should've kept your legs closed' mentality because men know they always have the option of leaving this baby (even if they're honor-bound not to, the option of walking out is still there)...women don't have that option; it's in them, like it or not and the only choice for women to leave a baby is abortion.

as i've said dozens of times before, if it's my body being used as a vehicle to birth this child, it is my right to decide if i want it. it shouldn't be a decision made by some person who doesn't know me and certainly shouldn't be somebody who's looking down their nose at me as a slut from the get-go because i was 'irresponsible'...as Bubba's said before, it takes two to tango, and the guy has just as much responsibility to put on a condom as the woman does.

why should the woman have to suffer the punishment alone?



Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[free]

if that child is in your body, it's your decision (and your right) whether or not it should continue to stay there.

How do you feel about women who have abortions without even talking to the father about it. (adds nothing to the conversation, just wondering)

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
i've said it before and i'll say it again: if that child is in your body, it's your decision (and your right) whether or not it should continue to stay there.

this will definitely sound sexist (and i don't mean for it to, since Bubba and MacReady have both been awesome on this thread) i think it's easier for men to have a 'you should've kept your legs closed' mentality because men know they always have the option of leaving this baby (even if they're honor-bound not to, the option of walking out is still there)...women don't have that option; it's in them, like it or not and the only choice for women to leave a baby is abortion.

as i've said dozens of times before, if it's my body being used as a vehicle to birth this child, it is my right to decide if i want it. it shouldn't be a decision made by some person who doesn't know me and certainly shouldn't be somebody who's looking down their nose at me as a slut from the get-go because i was 'irresponsible'...as Bubba's said before, it takes two to tango, and the guy has just as much responsibility to put on a condom as the woman does.

why should the woman have to suffer the punishment alone?



Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

Let's change the argument a bit- if two people are in a committed relationship and the woman is pregnant and has the baby and then the guy walks out and wants nothing to do with the kid the woman is stuck with the baby for the next 18 years, whether she wants to be or not.Suddenly she is responsible for all the bills and all of the care. Should she be allowed to kill the baby? The only difference is that the baby is out of the woman's body instead of in it. (Actually it is much easier to care for the baby during a pregnancy-no crying, feeding or changing diapers!) The baby is still the baby except the cord is no longer connected to its mother. Why can't she just have the baby and give it up for adoption?

Also, women have known since the beginning of time that they can get pregnant from sex and that men can walk away. That is why women have always been more careful in having sex than men. Thething that changed this is birth control and later on abortion. The danger of pregnancy always exists and women should still be careful. It s just a fact of life.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by free
How do you feel about women who have abortions without even talking to the father about it. (adds nothing to the conversation, just wondering)

That's one of the things that men should be aware of- if they don't want to take the chance of having a baby aborted then they should be careful who they choose to have sex with. I don't think men have any legal rights during a pregnacy do they? It's kind of sad cause it is their child too and even if they were willing to raise the child if the woman chooses to abort that is the end of the story. Of course, I think if the life of the mom is at risk the mother's life should always take precedence over the baby- the baby can't live without her anyway.

[darchangel]

first of all, to free, i would say that the woman should discuss the pregnancy with the father, however, ultimately it should be her choice whether to abort the child.




Originally posted by Lynn7

Also, women have known since the beginning of time that they can get pregnant from sex and that men can walk away. That is why women have always been more careful in having sex than men. Thething that changed this is birth control and later on abortion. The danger of pregnancy always exists and women should still be careful. It s just a fact of life.


what kind of reasoning is that? that's basically excusing men from the process of pregnancy entirely, which absolutely should not be done.

it's also a 'fact of life' that since the woman can't get out of the situation, the situation then becomes hers to change. it's HER body, not his. the fact that 'the danger of pregnancy always exists' is not a sufficicent reason for that woman to have no say in what happens to her body.



Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[bob]

I just waded through this entire thread in one sitting (took about 15 minutes, I'll have you know), and I've got a few comments:

1. Ask yourself this: What would your life be like if you didn't have language? Could you even think? That's why I believe that life truly begins when one learns to speak. A human who cannot use words, even in his head, is essentially an animal, operating on instinct and confusion. I don't believe life is achieved when chromosomes line up right; it's through the achievement of abstract thought.

2. Yes, an abortion is a selfish thing to do in many respects. But if a woman thinks that not having a baby is going to make her life easier, I say let her have an abortion. I value quality of life for a woman and (potentially) her boyfriend/husband/family more than the life of a child who has not yet experienced life. Sounds heartless, but that's how I feel.

3. Regarding sex education: It's done completely wrong. Sex should be given more than just pigeonholed as the means of making a child. Sex transcends its biological function. It is an expression of love, desire, passion...any number of true feelings. I know I can say, and I'm sure many people would agree, that I do not have sex to father a child. I won't be ready for that for years and years. I have sex to express my feelings.

What sets humans apart from animals is abstract thought and the ability to free associate. The topic of abortion and sex in general has been bound to its biological connotation for far too long.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by bob
1. Ask yourself this: What would your life be like if you didn't have language? Could you even think? That's why I believe that life truly begins when one learns to speak. A human who cannot use words, even in his head, is essentially an animal, operating on instinct and confusion. I don't believe life is achieved when chromosomes line up right; it's through the achievement of abstract thought.



So the ability to speak is what makes us human? So if someone were to kill a new born it wouldn't be murder to you right? It would be animal cruelty. That is a strange philosophy.

[darchangel]

Originally posted by bob
I just waded through this entire thread in one sitting (took about 15 minutes, I'll have you know), and I've got a few comments:

1. Ask yourself this: What would your life be like if you didn't have language? Could you even think? That's why I believe that life truly begins when one learns to speak. A human who cannot use words, even in his head, is essentially an animal, operating on instinct and confusion. I don't believe life is achieved when chromosomes line up right; it's through the achievement of abstract thought.

2. Yes, an abortion is a selfish thing to do in many respects. But if a woman thinks that not having a baby is going to make her life easier, I say let her have an abortion. I value quality of life for a woman and (potentially) her boyfriend/husband/family more than the life of a child who has not yet experienced life. Sounds heartless, but that's how I feel.

3. Regarding sex education: It's done completely wrong. Sex should be given more than just pigeonholed as the means of making a child. Sex transcends its biological function. It is an expression of love, desire, passion...any number of true feelings. I know I can say, and I'm sure many people would agree, that I do not have sex to father a child. I won't be ready for that for years and years. I have sex to express my feelings.

What sets humans apart from animals is abstract thought and the ability to free associate. The topic of abortion and sex in general has been bound to its biological connotation for far too long.


rock on, bob. <tosses up horns to bob>


Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, but what about the fact that you don't count a fetus on a census, or for tax purposes. Doesn't that thereby constitute that government doesn't recognize the fetus as a living being?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by darchangel
first of all, to free, i would say that the woman should discuss the pregnancy with the father, however, ultimately it should be her choice whether to abort the child.







what kind of reasoning is that? that's basically excusing men from the process of pregnancy entirely, which absolutely should not be done.

it's also a 'fact of life' that since the woman can't get out of the situation, the situation then becomes hers to change. it's HER body, not his. the fact that 'the danger of pregnancy always exists' is not a sufficicent reason for that woman to have no say in what happens to her body.



Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

It is a fact that a woman has the right to go downtown and take a walk at 3 am but it is also a fact she might be more likely to get assaulted if she does so. There are just things that are facts of life that women need to accept and learn to deal with. It is not good that men can get a woman pregnant and just walk away. Our laws are trying to deal with that by going after deadbeat dads.

There are consequences to having sex and one of them is pregnancy.
How about the consequence of getting Herpes or AIDS from sex? It's just not fair. The woman should be able to say no to these diseases because after all it is her body but nature does not work that way.

You say a woman has the right to have an abortion because she should have say over what happens with her body. I know what you are saying but I see it as the ultimate act of selfishness- my desires are more important than this baby's life. I think it is the highest calling to put your own needs aside to help others and especially to respect life. There is nothing as heartwarming to me as hearing how people sacrificed themselves so their kids could have a better life or a life at all. I've heard stories of women who have deffered cancer treatments until they had a baby to give the baby life, even when it risked her own life by delaying treatment. A soldier or a policeman or a fireman who lays down his young life to help others preserve their lives is a noble thing and a woman who has a baby and gives it up for adoption instead of aborting it is doing just as noble a thing.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by bob
I just waded through this entire thread in one sitting (took about 15 minutes, I'll have you know), and I've got a few comments:

1. Ask yourself this: What would your life be like if you didn't have language? Could you even think? That's why I believe that life truly begins when one learns to speak. A human who cannot use words, even in his head, is essentially an animal, operating on instinct and confusion. I don't believe life is achieved when chromosomes line up right; it's through the achievement of abstract thought.



This has so many interesting implications becasue like Evilxxx said that would mean that newborns and even one year olds would not be considered human. and how about people who lose the ability to speak through strokes or car accidents.

BAbies have brains that are able to process the most information. The amounts of info they absorb and process are staggering. Their potential is unlimited. Einstein was also unable to speak at one point just as these fetuses are.

Are you in favor of euthanasia? do you think that that life should only be measured by how much a person is able to contribute? what do you think of the retarded or the disabled?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
what do you think of the retarded or the disabled?



I don't like where this topic is going, or where it has gone. We're resorting to analogizing people with disabilities to a fetus.

The sad part is that there really isn't an issue. Everyone agrees on one thing, and that is unwanted pregnacies can be prevented. Whether or not abortions are good amount to a fragment of the total weight of the real issue - unwanted pregnecies. Everyone is pretty much right on the money with the main detail, but no one will stop to focus because for some reason one side has to be a fragment more right.

I'd imagine all of the people marching in protest for and against abortion. I imagine all those signs they are holding up with wood boards. It seems reasonable to think that if all those people put down their signs, they could use all that wood to build a shanty where they could counsel young women.

But no, they'd rather be right.

I'm no Trekkie, but I must say "Beam me up, Scotty."

[bob]

My point is not that those who cannot speak are worthless and essentially animals.

My point is that a child has never heard words, and cannot think about itself or life or death or anything. Someone who loses the ability to speak in a car accident has still experienced life, and can think. The mentally disabled are just that, disabled.

A fetus is mentally void. In my opinion, what gestates in the womb does not count as a human. It becomes human when it is born, yes, and becomes a PERSON when it begins to think and learn.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by bob


A fetus is mentally void. In my opinion, what gestates in the womb does not count as a human. It becomes human when it is born, yes, and becomes a PERSON when it begins to think and learn.

Uh. . . there's a differance?

[bob]

Absolutely.

Human is cells lining up correctly. Your son or daughter is a person.

[free]

If Bob is saying that a fetus or child is alive when they become sentient (self-awareness, intelligence, consciousness), I agree, but I don't see how anyone could absolutly know for sure when that occures for each individual.

You could have all those attributes, and still not speak. Are the early homonids not considered alive since their brains weren't capable of language?

[bob]

Not necessarily, but thought and language are linked. Try to think without using a word in your mind.

See what I mean?

[MacReady]

Ladies and gentlemen my best arguement for abortions! (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/09/un.population.reut/):eek:

Soylent Green, here we come.

[EVILxxx]

I can see where you're coming from Bob and I couldn't disagree more. :cool:
Maybe you're mindset will change when your child is born (and maybe it won't).

[Jim H]

Try to think without using a word in your mind.

Has there ever been a study of the ways people who don't learn language in any form think? It is interesting to note that language is not merely a construct derived from great intelligence - the human brain has a few bits with no other function other than working language.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by bob
My point is not that those who cannot speak are worthless and essentially animals.

My point is that a child has never heard words, and cannot think about itself or life or death or anything. Someone who loses the ability to speak in a car accident has still experienced life, and can think. The mentally disabled are just that, disabled.

A fetus is mentally void. In my opinion, what gestates in the womb does not count as a human. It becomes human when it is born, yes, and becomes a PERSON when it begins to think and learn.

OK. But the fetus does have brain waves and if it is born a few months early can develop from that point outside the mother, learning as other newborns do. These babies respond to pain before they are born. A pregnant woman can feel increased movement of the fetus in resonse to different stimuli. A baby mouse is less valuable than a human fetus and yet PETA decries their use in mediacl experiments (I never hear PETA members express their views on human abortion). Anyway, I disagree that this is a standard to use.

I think there is a fine line between abortion and euthanasia and even though it may seem like a topic diversion it is really all about valuing life in all of it's aspects. The helpless will always be dependent on the whims of society for its survival whether the helpless are fetuses or stroke victims.

[Raymond Babbit]

So, if life begins at conception, how come we don't judge our ages until after we've popped out? I mean, by that logic, I'd be a little over 18 right now (I'm 17).

Also, people earlier said something about what right do we have to say when life begins. This was used as a "Pro-life" argument. But it could easily be used the other way. If we have no right to say when life begins, what right do we have to say you can't have an abortion, because life begins at conception?

[EVILxxx]

So, if life begins at conception, how come we don't judge our ages until after we've popped out? I mean, by that logic, I'd be a little over 18 right now (I'm 17).

Because we do. It is called a "birthday" not "conception day".

Also, people earlier said something about what right do we have to say when life begins. This was used as a "Pro-life" argument. But it could easily be used the other way. If we have no right to say when life begins, what right do we have to say you can't have an abortion, because life begins at conception?

I think these people are basically saying that they give the fetus the benefit of the doubt.

[Bob Loblaw]

This topic must be discussed more!

[ThunderStorm]

.

[jaw2929]

Prior to being married a few years back, I used to be very pro-abortion/women's choice. When I got married, I made it clear to my ex-wife that I absolutely didn't want kids. Then like a dumbass, had plenty of unprotected sex with her. When we found she was pregnant, it was agreed that abortion was the way to go, simply because we were unprepared. She was early enough in her pregnancy that pills were prescribed by a clinic in which things could be passed at home. In other words, no surgery required.

When she took them & the time came, it was very sad. She passed essentially what were blood clots and it was quite painful for her at the time. Understandably so.

Later on in our marriage she got pregnant a second time.... We actually planned on having the baby (which is something I think I would've been regretful of, especially now looking back) but there were issues. After being checked into the hospital, a surgical procedure needed to be performed, because she had an ectopic pregnancy. Why? Because of complications stemming from the previous abortion from earlier. Needless to say, it was also sad. But necessary for her health.

Regardless of what a piece of shit human being she turned out to be, those two ordeals were very disheartening over all. So having actually experienced that (twice no less in different ways), I am still pro-choice. However I am NOT as gung-ho about it as I once was for obvious reasons.

[Scotch]

Prior to being married a few years back, I used to be very pro-abortion/women's choice. When I got married, I made it clear to my ex-wife that I absolutely didn't want kids. Then like a dumbass, had plenty of unprotected sex with her. When we found she was pregnant, it was agreed that abortion was the way to go, simply because we were unprepared. She was early enough in her pregnancy that pills were prescribed by a clinic in which things could be passed at home. In other words, no surgery required.

When she took them & the time came, it was very sad. She passed essentially what were blood clots and it was quite painful for her at the time. Understandably so.

Later on in our marriage she got pregnant a second time.... We actually planned on having the baby (which is something I think I would've been regretful of, especially now looking back) but there were issues. After being checked into the hospital, a surgical procedure needed to be performed, because she had an ectopic pregnancy. Why? Because of complications stemming from the previous abortion from earlier. Needless to say, it was also sad. But necessary for her health.

Regardless of what a piece of shit human being she turned out to be, those two ordeals were very disheartening over all. So having actually experienced that (twice no less in different ways), I am still pro-choice. However I am NOT as gung-ho about it as I once was for obvious reasons.

Thanks for sharing those experiences. Your post is the only one I've read in this thread so far. I can't imagine how difficult that must have been for you guys. I'm glad that you still base your decision on what abortion is to our society and not just your personal experience. Not many people can do that after experiencing something so personal.

[electriclite]

Regardless of what a piece of shit human being she turned out to be, those two ordeals were very disheartening over all. So having actually experienced that (twice no less in different ways), I am still pro-choice. However I am NOT as gung-ho about it as I once was for obvious reasons.


This is the problem with this issue, in that it has become a real "battle" with two sides who have become so passionate and "gung-ho" about "winning". Its not about winning a game with an awesome prize. Abortion is not awesome. While we want it to be available, we also want the need for it to be rare.

The reality is that the reason people are vehemently pro-choice is because we know that the other option is illegal abortions and all the horror that comes with that. Because as sad and depressing as what you and your ex went through was, we know it would be multiplied by 1000 if abortions were illegal.

[Scotch]

This is the problem with this issue, in that it has become a real "battle" with two sides who have become so passionate and "gung-ho" about "winning". Its not about winning a game with an awesome prize. Abortion is not awesome. While we want it to be available, we also want the need for it to be rare.

The reality is that the reason people are vehemently pro-choice is because we know that the other option is illegal abortions and all the horror that comes with that. Because as sad and depressing as what you and your ex went through was, we know it would be multiplied by 1000 if abortions were illegal.

A lot of truth said here. You're absolutely right that it has become more about winning rather than trying to determine the best possible solution. One side scares the public with pictures of dead fetuses while the other scares the public with stories of rape and incest. Like most political hot topics the ones that are the furthest on each side use fear to gather as many followers as possible for a cause that they have completely lost sight of.

[jaw2929]

Well said guys, it's unfortunate that it HAS become more of a "who's right/who's wrong" argument and about "winning". Nobody wins with abortion, but nobody wins with unwanted children that people seemingly "raise" solely out of obligation, either.

[Erroneous]

Anybody ever hear of or know about Dr. Kermit Gosnell? Don't google the man and cheat.