More americans "Pro-Life" than "Pro-Choice" [Archive]

PeterRJG

05-15-2009, 10:45 AM

Why does it blow your mind?
You have many millions that believe it's murder.
You have many millions that believe it's just a method of birth control.

And on top of it all, you have folks like me that wonder just why in the hell I have to pay for it either way...why pay to murder babies, or why pay for some idiot's abortion that's too dumb to use birth control.

It blows my mind that the US, the so-called land of the free, is so hung up over a paternalistic issue like abortion. That people are so keen to legislate what a woman can do with her body. They did it with prostitution, and now they've done it with abortion.

It's a political non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. It's an issue for the caught in the bronze age Vatican to fret over, not an allegedly enlightened society like the US.

I'm not going to argue with you re: how much it costs, because I don't know the particulars. Still, I'm of the opinion that it should be user pays thing if the act was consensual, but rape victims and mentally-impaired people that get pregnant? Well, that's a tale for another day.

seraosha

05-15-2009, 10:50 AM

Cool story, bro.

Jaeger07

05-15-2009, 10:54 AM

I have only one argument in this debate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/fUspLVStPbk&feature=fvst

Every sperm is sacred - Halleluja! woot

HorrigEn

05-15-2009, 10:57 AM

dont you have so called baby-boxes, where irresponsible mothers can haul down their born child,with impunity..?

It blows my mind that the US, the so-called land of the free, is so hung up over a paternalistic issue like abortion.

lol

Hollis

05-15-2009, 11:15 AM

It blows my mind that the US, the so-called land of the free, is so hung up over a paternalistic issue like abortion. That people are so keen to legislate what a woman can do with her body. They did it with prostitution, and now they've done it with abortion.

Prostitution has a different set of factors than abortions. There are other very core issues involved. Some are very deep legal issue that can have some very major ramifications on "mother's" life.

example, you can kill a tree, but you can not murder a tree under law. A tree is not a person. At what point does a human life begin and that being is now a person under law, with full protection of life.

One might say it is when the fetus enters the birth canal. Problem with a definition like that, are C-section babies excluded?

Is it after 9 months gestation? So what about early births, those babies are not human and one can end their life with any legal protection?

If a fetus is declared a person under law, then the law can interfere to protect the "human's life and health", much the same way Children protective services can interfere in a family to protect the health and well being of the children.

So you see, it not a it is my body issue only issue like in prostitution. The entry of another life makes it far more complicated.

As long as this is a very hot partisan political issue, I don't see any real answer or solutions coming out. It will probably be continue to be milked for all the political power that our politicians can get out of it.

Mr.K

05-15-2009, 11:59 AM

Why are Poles involved in this?

Because it's imporant not to forget Poland.

jedisponge

05-15-2009, 12:04 PM

Reasons such as...?

For many reasons. Without a doubt, Gallup conducts great polling and from what I've come across, always does an excellent job of doing what they can with what they have. But telephone polls are inherently flawed because there is the potential that many segments of the population can be filtered out.

This includes:
1) Those who don't want to be bothered with answering a telephone survey
2) Those who don't have landlines.
3) The potential (knowing that the proliferation of cell phones is great in today's society) that only the better off in society can afford cell phones.
4) The time these phone calls are made, which can weigh some segments of the population more heavily the others (for example, poor single mothers could be expected to work more, less convenient hours to support themselves and their kids. If most of these phone calls are made from 6pm-8pm, where a large amount of these mothers could be working, it would significantly affect the results of the poll)
5) Which particular phone numbers and regions of the country were called.

And of course many, many more factors. The poll even mentions that the president's stance on the issue could be making those that oppose abortions more apt to answer this poll.

You may or many not that think these are big factors, but all of these unknowns make telephone polls inherently imprecise. I think they can convey a general idea, but for this particular poll with a topic so polarizing and a margin of error making the difference potentially much more closer (48%-45%), it's hard to use it as slam dunk evidence that America in general is turning away from abortions. That may not be the original argument, but from what I'm inferred (probably incorrectly), it is what the original poster was pushing.

I'm not criticizing anyone's beliefs or anything, I'm just pointing out that all telephone polls should be taken with two grains of salt or more.

What kind of polls do you suggest?
I'm not an expert on polling, so I definitely can't give you one with complete authority. Different kinds of polls have different strengths and weaknesses depending on what you're trying to find.

matthew.manhorn

05-15-2009, 12:46 PM

If the egg is fertilized then it is considered as a life form and should not be aborted, in comparison with male masturbation and taking pills. Again it is not about ethical issues, it's whether we should make it legal or not, just like weed, prostitution, guns etc..

TBH abortion should be legal just because it'll backfire the entire society if such strict penalties are enforced against it.

Ordie

05-15-2009, 01:11 PM

I'm in favor of banning abortion if they ban executions as well.

And you better prepare to subsidize both baby and prisoner for life.

If you're going to be pro-life, you need to be consistant.

Lt-Col A. Tack

05-15-2009, 01:51 PM

I disagree with that logic, though.

A person on death rown has usually earned his or her punishment.

Gfunk

05-15-2009, 01:59 PM

if this poll is true representation, good thing the Dems are in power. the last thing this country needs is more unwanted pregnancies

Kit

05-15-2009, 02:05 PM

I'm very much pro-life. Using abortion as a form of birth control seems unethical to me. Once an egg is fertilized, I consider it human because of the process it's going through. You leave it alone, it will eventually become an infant. I see no reason that there's a point in the pregnancy when it receives human status. Treating a fetus as a ball-and-chain for a woman seems to be biological self-denial. Women get pregnant, it happens, so make good decisions. I'm not being a chauvinistic pig when saying this, I'm just stating a fact of life. There was a choice and now there's a consequence. However, I would tolerate abortion in cases of rape, because there was little choice on the mother's part.

What bothers me about the Pro-Life movement is that it's too Christian-affiliated. You can put as many Bible verses as you want on your picket signs, it won't stir the hearts of the secular public. The Pro-Life movements needs to present their cases within logical means.

RxOnco

05-15-2009, 02:21 PM

...What bothers me about the Pro-Life movement is that it's too Christian-affiliated. You can put as many Bible verses as you want on your picket signs, it won't stir the hearts of the secular public. The Pro-Life movements needs to present their cases within logical means.

Why would that bother you? I'm not a Christian and I'm Pro-Life. I understand the fact that the majority of vocal supporters are going to have a religious reasoning to their opinion. Doesn't bother me though.

Kit

05-15-2009, 02:26 PM

Why would that bother you? I'm not a Christian and I'm Pro-Life. I understand the fact that the majority of vocal supporters are going to have a religious reasoning to their opinion. Doesn't bother me though.

The Pro-Life movements that get into the media at least seem to have have a heavy religious theme. Politically, that's not attractive. You can have religious reasons, just don't bother using them when a Supreme Court case comes up.

RxOnco

05-15-2009, 02:33 PM

Maybe not to you...but it might be to the "religious right." Like it or not, there are many in and around the Bible belts of rural America that vote based on their moral conscience and not party hatred or skin color. To these folks, a Bible verse might just help change a mind or two.

click

05-15-2009, 02:44 PM

It blows my mind that the US, the so-called land of the free, is so hung up over a paternalistic issue like abortion. That people are so keen to legislate what a woman can do with her body.

Thats the thing. Some people (me included) believe that the mother isnt just dealing with her own body. She is taking the life out of another human (though indirectly)

Edit: HOLLiS said it already

Ordie

05-15-2009, 02:47 PM

I find it ironic that we (men) are discussing an issue that involves women. Where are the women voices in this matter?

RxOnco

05-15-2009, 02:52 PM

We (men) discuss and make a lot of decisions that involve women. There are plenty of women, like Palin or Pelosi, that discuss this issue too. As soon as a woman can become pregnant without the aid of a man, she'll get complete say in the matter.

Hollis

05-15-2009, 02:55 PM

I find it ironic that we (men) are discussing an issue that involves women. Where are the women voices in this matter?

Probably that has more to say with the membership of this forum than anything else. I can assure you, women are not mute on this topic.

I also believe and it is also backed up by the courts that men have something to do with the creation of this problem.

It is a complex multi-dimensional issue.

BTW, for a execution to take place, there has to be a crime, court action which includes a death sentence. How you can equated that to abortion is beyond me.

As far as I know, no fetus/baby in the womb ever committed a crime.

Mugg21B

05-15-2009, 03:09 PM

Of course no fetus has ever committed a crime. It's not alive. Sorry to be flip, but that's the issue, and until someone gets the courts to recognize fetuses as human beings, they do not have the same rights as US citizens.

Regarding telephone polls: because they can't call cell phone numbers, young people (<30) are disproportionately left out of these telephone polls. If you query only 35+ year old people with families and who identify themselves as Christian, I bet you will find a majority of them call themselves pro-life (a propaganda term which I think is particularly clever by the right - as if everyone who is for abortion is in favor of death).

Ordie

05-15-2009, 03:12 PM

How you can equated that to abortion is beyond me.

As far as I know, no fetus/baby in the womb ever committed a crime.

Roman Catholic Church policy to be pro-life no matter the circumstances.

Gleipnir

05-15-2009, 03:13 PM

Some people are not in any kind of condition to raise a child in a healthy way- keeping a child for simple reasons of pro-choice morality could not only ruin the life of the child as it grows up- think about that- No one asks to be born- but also the parents who are not equipped emotionally, financially or psychologically to raise a child.
I think that the decision should be left to the parents. After all, it is what they made.

What I most dislike about some arguments for pro-life is that people seem to think that individuals who end up having abortions are all nymphomaniacs who use it a method of convenience for their casual ****** behaviours.

I don't think anyone who has had to go through the very unfortunate process of abortion will tell you that is was easy and I don't think that people use the process in a casual way with complete disregard to the idea of life inside them.

RxOnco

05-15-2009, 03:21 PM

seraosha

05-15-2009, 03:21 PM

Of course no fetus has ever committed a crime. It's not alive. Sorry to be flip, but that's the issue, and until someone gets the courts to recognize fetuses as human beings, they do not have the same rights as US citizens.

Ohio Teen Charged With Murder, Killed Girlfriend's Baby After Abortion Refusal (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882182/posts)
Cincinnati, OH (LifeNews.com) -- An Ohio teenager accused of attacking his pregnant girlfriend and killing her unborn child after she refused to have an abortion will be charged with murder. Alfonso Price, a 15-year-old, allegedly attacked Kerria Anderson, 18, because she refused to have an abortion of her baby who Price fathered.

link (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882182/posts)

You were saying?

Gleipnir

05-15-2009, 03:23 PM

Don't you think more emphasis on good ****** education, which would entail honest discussion free of judgement would be more effective? I'm not sure two young people are thinking about the security blanket of abortion when they are discovering their ******ity together.

Lt-Col A. Tack

05-15-2009, 03:24 PM

if this poll is true representation, good thing the Dems are in power. the last thing this country needs is more unwanted pregnancies

We are human beings; we have minds and sovereign wills, and should be held accountable for our behavior.

Just because we get away with behaving like animals doesn't mean that we are animals.

Cogito Ergo Sum

Gleipnir

05-15-2009, 03:25 PM

This idea that abortion is an easy option or a way out of accountability is quite frankly insulting.

click

05-15-2009, 03:27 PM

Roman Catholic Church policy to be pro-life no matter the circumstances.

And your point?

He didnt say anything about God

Mugg21B

05-15-2009, 03:31 PM

link (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882182/posts)

You were saying?

That proves nothing. It's only a crime if the mother was murdered, or the fetus was destroyed without the mother's consent. Otherwise, if the mother chooses to do it, it's legal. It's hypocritical, I know, but our legal system often has these hypocrisies. How else can you explain how a fetus that has all the rights of a human being can still be aborted? It's not a full human being.

On a related note, the thing I always thought hypocritical about Republicans on this issue is their stance on welfare and ****** education. Speaking in very general terms, Republicans like to complain about poor people having numerous pregnancies and getting welfare, but they don't want to provide education on birth control to teenagers, and they want to criminalize abortion. You can't say "don't have ***" and realistically expect teenagers to not have ***. Look at Bristol Palin for crying out loud. This is not an attack on Republicans, just me grandstanding. Democrats have their own hypocrisies.

Flounder

05-15-2009, 03:32 PM

If we sent a space probe to Mars, and it found the Martian equivilent of a fetilized egg, would we or would we not say we had discovered life on Mars?

Just sayin'.

Gleipnir

05-15-2009, 03:35 PM

A zygote may be 'alive' but when can you say it has developed the necessary apparatus for 'consciousness' or the necessary organs to interpret exterior stimuli?
Just saying.

RxOnco

05-15-2009, 03:37 PM

gustav

05-15-2009, 03:41 PM

On a related note, the thing I always thought hypocritical about Republicans on this issue is their stance on welfare and ****** education. Speaking in very general terms, Republicans like to complain about poor people having numerous pregnancies and getting welfare, but they don't want to provide education on birth control to teenagers, and they want to criminalize abortion. You can't say "don't have ***" and realistically expect teenagers to not have ***. Look at Bristol Palin for crying out loud. This is not an attack on Republicans, just me grandstanding. Democrats have their own hypocrisies.

And the result is that the US is champion in the developed world for teenage pregnancy. 58th in the whole world.

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=127

Lt-Col A. Tack

05-15-2009, 03:42 PM

And the result is that the US is champion in the developed world for teenage pregnancy.

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=127

That's the result of a failure in another department. Still don't believe abortion is the answer.

Gleipnir

05-15-2009, 03:44 PM

I agree with some of what you are saying, but to say that Bristol Palin is disqualified from teaching birth control? Why? Because her voice as someone who has had to pay for that mistake isn't valid somehow? You think her voice will ring less true than someone who hasn't had a teenage pregnancy?
Teenagers shouldn't be having ***?
It doesn't matter what anyone tries to say, it is going to happen. It is going to happen.
It is going to happen- no matter what anyone says, so let's be adults and be realistic about that and work from there-
it is better that they know how to do things safely and responsibly, instead of not knowing what they are doing and not being able to talk about it because of some idea that they shouldn't have even done it in the first place.
That is only going to create a climate of complications- let's get real, shall we?

As for those who abuse abortion in the way that you describe, they are clearly missing some kind of education, in my opinion and don't constitute the entire demographic of people who have had to resort to this incredibly heart-wrenching decision.
I don't think it is fair to make a decision that affects everyone unequally. People aren't all the same and there are always exceptions and varying circumstances.

Mugg21B

05-15-2009, 03:47 PM

Those against abortion think that you should take responsibility for your actions. "Look at Bristol Palin for crying out loud." We shouldn't be going out of our way to teach birth control to teenagers...well because they shouldn't be having *** in the first place. Why don't we focus on trying to teach that?

Because it doesn't work.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html

A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only *** education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having ***.http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1054139X05004672

Although abstinence is theoretically fully effective, in actual practice abstinence often fails to protect against pregnancy and STIs. Few Americans remain abstinent until marriage; many do not or cannot marry, and most initiate ****** intercourse and other ****** behaviors as adolescents

Basically, abstinence as the only method of birth control is ineffective. It doesn't matter whether you think teenagers should be having *** or shouldn't, the fact of the matter is that they are going to have ***. It's how humans have survived as a species. I'm just saying that proper *** ed can reduce the number of single mothers, and number of abortions, because if teenagers don't get pregnant to begin with, they won't have to consider abortion.

As for the wefare thing...again, it rests with taking responsibility for your actions. If you can't afford to take care of yourself and a child...then keep your damn legs crossed. Sure we'll help you out with your first "mistake"...but then you do it again?...and again?...and again?...etc...That's why we don't support welfare in this type of situation.Well, my point with that argument was that Republicans are denying teenagers the options to prevent the pregnancies they are complaining about. I think that taking away birth-control options with one hand and then blaming them with the other hand is morally and ethically inconsistent.

RxOnco

05-15-2009, 03:55 PM

It's not the government's job to teach my kids about the dangers ***. It's my job. Just like that job belongs to all the other parents out there.

Gleipnir

05-15-2009, 03:57 PM

I agree- but,
not the job of schools, too?
Because apparently parents are doing a lousy job.

gustav

05-15-2009, 03:57 PM

That's the result of a failure in another department. Still don't believe abortion is the answer.

Overly the education's failure to teach them the use of contraceptives. But being a single 16 year old mother often foretells a grim future.

Ordie

05-15-2009, 04:01 PM

And your point?

He didnt say anything about God

No point.

Just stating the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. Holy See) policy.

RxOnco

05-15-2009, 04:02 PM

I agree- but,
not the job of schools, too?
Because apparently parents are doing a lousy job.

It's kind of stuborn principle thing with me, I guess. I understand that in today's society, parents can't really be trusted to do the job they need to do. That's where I think that, at some point, we're going to have to start re-shaping society to bring back a family structure.

Ordie

05-15-2009, 04:08 PM

That's where I think that, at some point, we're going to have to start re-shaping society to bring back a family structure.

Government should stay out on how we run our families, homes and bedroom.

seraosha

05-15-2009, 04:42 PM

That proves nothing. It's only a crime if the mother was murdered, or the fetus was destroyed without the mother's consent. Otherwise, if the mother chooses to do it, it's legal. It's hypocritical, I know, but our legal system often has these hypocrisies. How else can you explain how a fetus that has all the rights of a human being can still be aborted? It's not a full human being.

No, what's occurring is murder. You are just choosing (and you are not alone) in selective enforcement. And I agree, it's hypocritical...but that does not let us off the hook to wash our hands of the whole affair and condone what we know is wrong because it's easier than the alternative.

Personally, despite my trying hard to be a good Catholic, I believe that there are people in this world that deserve death, and I sleep better at night knowing that they are dead...but unborn children don't qualify...and I defy you to justify their murder as anything but expediency.

It's much easier to say that an unborn child isn't really alive then to say that it's ok to murder a child because their being alive is inconvenient, which is what's really happening.

As for birth control, and *** education...it ought to be freely available to anyone over the age of 10...being educated and aware of the consequences of your actions, as well as being informed of ways to mitigate those circumstances through free and readily available birth control is a no brainer in my opinion.

I sat down with both of my daughters when they reached the age of 5 and broke out the book "How babies are made" and there is no doubt about the biological process...and their entire life is (hopefully) being exposed to how to determine a responsible action, and the possible consequences of that action. Parents that neglect to talk to their children about *** and how to be responsible are ****bags in my book.
Abstinence is only one option, and only fools think that the discussion ought to end there.

Hollis

05-15-2009, 04:49 PM

Roman Catholic Church policy to be pro-life no matter the circumstances.

What ever that suppose to mean. The RCC has no jurisdiction over my life or where I live. They are welcome to formulate their own opinion/policy as any one of us. Besides their opinion has no legal bearing in the US.

Kit

05-15-2009, 05:00 PM

I agree- but,
not the job of schools, too?
Because apparently parents are doing a lousy job.

A lot of parents today are plainly ignorant. All to often, I meet parents that underestimate their kids. They think that their kids are good angels and up to good things. Nothing could be further from the truth. The kid could be smoking weed and going out getting drunk every weekend, and the parents are in the dark about it. As Reagan would say, "Trust, but verify". It applied to the Soviets, but it can sure apply to teenagers.

On the other hand, some parents are completely aware that their kid is a moral disgrace. This is either because the parents don't care, or they found out about their kid's antics until it was too late. I find that these families are fragmented and in shambles. It's sad either way.

Ordie

05-15-2009, 05:27 PM

What ever that suppose to mean. The RCC has no jurisdiction over my life or where I live. They are welcome to formulate their own opinion/policy as any one of us. Besides their opinion has no legal bearing in the US.

But Roman Catholic voters do.

Geezah

05-15-2009, 05:44 PM

I'm in favor of banning abortion if they ban executions as well.

And you better prepare to subsidize both baby and prisoner for life.

If you're going to be pro-life, you need to be consistant.

Just to add to the comment about those that have earnt the right to be put to death, what exactly has an unborn child done to be compared to someone that has commited a heinous act?

As far as being consistant, the two don't even compare, so don't try and push a sqaure through a round hole.

gustav

05-15-2009, 05:52 PM

But Roman Catholic voters do.

Catholic Americans are absolutely in line with the overall population regarding this issue.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=295

Lt-Col A. Tack

05-15-2009, 05:54 PM

But being a single 16 year old mother often foretells a grim future.I agree that being a parent at 16 can be scary, but adoption is an option.

oldsoak

05-15-2009, 06:26 PM

I guess I'm an old conservative in that I'd rather people be pro-life and stand up to the responsibility of their actions. In this day and age, contraception aint hard to come buy, and a little responsible forethought goes a long way. In cases of rape, it isnt the babies or the girls fault and every effort should be made to ensure neither end up trashed. Its not easy I'll grant, but if as a society we talk about valueing life and rights, mebbe the unborn child is a good place to start.

Gleipnir

05-15-2009, 06:37 PM

I agree that being a parent at 16 can be scary, but adoption is an option.

Yes, adoption is an option.
Abortion is also an option.
I am not trying to advocate abortion- I think it is a horrible process for all involved- but all this worry about murdering an innocent life should only be coming from vegetarians.

Carrying the growing child and needing to put in the time and effort of raising that child and having a healthy pregnancy if that child happens to have been formed out of rape can be a very prolonged and traumatic process.
I know someone who was born out of a rape, his mother chose to keep him and he has gone on to lead a very normal life, his parents included, even though he is mixed race and his father is clearly not the father.

But it was her choice.
That is what should be made clear. By taking away anyone's choice to have an abortion is taking away that person's right to give themselves control over their own lives and the life they may ultimately be responsible for.

I think that this choice should remain an option, despite the moral complexities surrounding the issue.

SoSo

05-15-2009, 06:44 PM

Like most Americans I'm an "abortion gray." That means I want abortion restricted and limited, but not entirely outlawed. At some point in the future our laws will reflect this preference, and the extremists on either side will be displeased. However, most Americans, being reasonable, sensible people, will be satisfied, and abortion will cease to be a major political issue here.

jedisponge

05-15-2009, 07:21 PM

I think we can all agree that abortion is something that everyone wants to stay away from.

But the question that we should be thinking about is, "is this a situation where the government has the right to tell me what to do?" I don't want to throw another tangent into this discussion, but I find the arguments about Second Amendment Rights and how the government shouldn't tell me if I can or cannot own a gun to be very similar with arguments about with privacy rights.

I think it's a bit hypocritical that some are arguing that the government should not be allowed to be involved something as "private" and basic as firearms ownership, yet at the same time argue that the government should be involved in something infinitely more intimate, such as matters within the home. The Supreme Court has already established with many decisions that the federal government should shy away from such matters.

StukaJr

05-15-2009, 08:00 PM

I'm opposed to late term abortion, but anything until the fetus can be visually distinguished from that of a monkey, fish or a pig is a woman's choice... It shouldn't be a legal issue until it's well into second trimester.

It's been well documented that making abortions illegal unless woman's life was in danger by pregnancy led to the infamous wire hanger methods - contrary to popular belief, it wasn't used to extract the fetus but to induce bleeding in the uterus, thus giving the doctor legal excuse to perform the procedure... Granted that such methods led to halfed survival chances due to infection, hemorrhaging or punctured uterus walls.

Ryan Boyd

05-15-2009, 08:07 PM

I think he is talking about Telephone Poles......... the ones along side the road that attack drunk drivers at night.

Oh my God, Funniest thing ive ever seen.

On topic, didnt Obama compare being pregnant to being a slave?
in my oppinion the dude is insane.

Hot Lips

05-15-2009, 08:31 PM

Why does it blow your mind?
You have many millions that believe it's murder.
You have many millions that believe it's just a method of birth control.

And on top of it all, you have folks like me that wonder just why in the hell I have to pay for it either way...why pay to murder babies, or why pay for some idiot's abortion that's too dumb to use birth control.

And nearly as many that turn their collective backs on all the children they want others to be forced to have.

Sure you shouldn't have to pay for someone's abortion, but then if the parents can't afford children you should have to pay for all the financial and emotional support those children will need for the next 18 years until they are self sustaining adults.

Would it be better for people to abstain from ***, practice effective birth control, or volunteer to be sterilized? Sure it would. But when it happens and the parents can't afford it I have no issue with their having this choice, because I don't want to pay the much larger price for their bad judgment, accident, rape, etc.

Gallup should ask people how much of their time and expendable income they are willing to forfeit to support all the children they would force upon others because most people rarely get beyond their own sententiousness to actually think about all the unwanted children already in the world that they do little if anything for.

Eknytz

05-15-2009, 08:33 PM

A zygote may be 'alive' but when can you say it has developed the necessary apparatus for 'consciousness' or the necessary organs to interpret exterior stimuli?
Just saying.
I don't think it matters if it was conscious or not.

If someone was in a coma he is not/does not have conscious, so if you killed him would it not be murder???

Of course it would because there is a vertical chance of the individual regaining consciousness if you just left him alone.

-just like child birth. the fetus may not have consciousness but if you left it alone it would eventually gain consciousness.

Lt-Col A. Tack

05-15-2009, 08:55 PM

Teenagers shouldn't be having ***? It doesn't matter what anyone tries to say, it is going to happen. It is going to happen. It is going to happen- no matter what anyone says, so let's be adults and be realistic about that and work from there-Really, capitulation right off the bat. Talking to children about ***, giving them advice, being intrusively involved in your child's life....not options?

Parents really do have the responsibility and right, yes, the right, to stop their children from doing something they deem to be unwise. Parents need to quit acting as if they're helpless.

Parents can't be everywhere to protect their child. And at some point, every child will move beyond the influence of his or her parents.

But expressing values through action makes an impression. Potentially, a positive one.

it is better that they know how to do things safely and responsibly, instead of not knowing what they are doing and not being able to talk about it because of some idea that they shouldn't have even done it in the first place. That is only going to create a climate of complications- let's get real, shall we?
Not talking to children about smart behavior is what's going to create complications. Avoiding the issue when it's uncomfortable, telling children you love them but not thinking to give them advice and support on how to avoid situations where they might be pressured into ***, not being available to them when they have questions, defaulting to the popular, television-derived perspective...why kids have a hard time with these issues isn't rocket science.

As for those who abuse abortion in the way that you describe, they are clearly missing some kind of education, in my opinion and don't constitute the entire demographic of people who have had to resort to this incredibly heart-wrenching decision.
So apparently it isn't a moral issue, just an issue of education? I don't deny that it's most often a very difficult decision. But it's the culmination of a tragedy of errors.

I don't think it is fair to make a decision that affects everyone unequally.
Unequally? Please explain your meaning.

Some people are not in any kind of condition to raise a child in a healthy way- keeping a child for simple reasons of pro-choice morality could not only ruin the life of the child as it grows up- think about that- I agree, but abortion is not the only recourse and I think it is not usually hard to find financial, medical, and psychological support for the decision to have a child.

No one asks to be born- but also the parents who are not equipped emotionally, financially or psychologically to raise a child. I think that the decision should be left to the parents. After all, it is what they made.So kids who didn't have enough sense to have *** in a responsible way should be allowed to decide the fate of a human life?

What I most dislike about some arguments for pro-life is that people seem to think that individuals who end up having abortions are all nymphomaniacs who use it a method of convenience for their casual ****** behaviours.Have you actually ever heard a pro-lifer say that? Or is that just an impression?

...and I don't think that people use the process in a casual way with complete disregard to the idea of life inside them.I would hope not.

Yes, adoption is an option. Abortion is also an option.
Unfortunately, yes, it still is.

Carrying the growing child and needing to put in the time and effort of raising that child and having a healthy pregnancy if that child happens to have been formed out of rape can be a very prolonged and traumatic process. I think it's fair to say that there is a lot of willing help available to those in that unfortunate position.

I know someone who was born out of a rape, his mother chose to keep him and he has gone on to lead a very normal life, his parents included, even though he is mixed race and his father is clearly not the father.I occasionally correspond via email and phone with a friend from high school. He's a lawyer, and has shared some of his political positions, including his support for abortion.

He recently adopted twins. I probably should have pointed out that the woman carrying those kids had the option terminate their lives. I didn't. Hopefully, I won't ever have to talk about that issue with him again. I'm not sure I could avoid saying what I would be thinking.

But it was her choice. That is what should be made clear. By taking away anyone's choice to have an abortion is taking away that person's right to give themselves control over their own livesAre you completely oblivious to the contradiction here?

I think that this choice should remain an option, despite the moral complexities surrounding the issue.I disagree, strongly.

In my humble opinion, it's stain upon our society, and an indication of conflicted, indecisive weakness.

An vulgar culture that seeks to indulge every behavior while seeking simultaneously to eliminate any unintended consequences of that behavior.

But the question that we should be thinking about is, "is this a situation where the government has the right to tell me what to do?"
This makes about as much sense as: "By making it a crime for me to shoot someone, the government is trying to tell me what to do"

This is a very controversial topic, and I think I've expressed most of my thoughts on the matter. My political activities reflect my viewpoint.

Gleipnir

05-15-2009, 10:08 PM

Really, capitulation right off the bat. Talking to children about ***, giving them advice, being intrusively involved in your child's life....not options?

What I said is in conflict with this, how?

Parents really do have the responsibility and right, yes, the right, to stop their children from doing something they deem to be unwise. Parents need to quit acting as if they're helpless.

Parents can't be everywhere to protect their child. And at some point, every child will move beyond the influence of his or her parents.

But expressing values through action makes an impression. Potentially, a positive one.

Not talking to children about smart behavior is what's going to create complications. Avoiding the issue when it's uncomfortable, telling children you love them but not thinking to give them advice and support on how to avoid situations where they might be pressured into ***, not being available to them when they have questions, defaulting to the popular, television-derived perspective...why kids have a hard time with these issues isn't rocket science.

I agree with you here, again, not sure how we are in conflict?

So apparently it isn't a moral issue, just an issue of education? I don't deny that it's most often a very difficult decision. But it's the culmination of a tragedy of errors.

It is both, but they shouldn't exclude one another

Unequally? Please explain your meaning.

Rape victims should not be compared to ir-responsible teenagers, in my opinion, and denying a rape victim the option of abortion is incredibly cruel, in my opinion. This should be their decision.
I agree, but abortion is not the only recourse and I think it is not usually hard to find financial, medical, and psychological support for the decision to have a child.

I don't think i ever said abortion was the only recourse and make no claims it is and/or should be the only option available. That being said I don't want to make the decision for someone else, especially if I don't know the circumstances revolving around the pregnancy, their lifestyle, etc.

So kids who didn't have enough sense to have *** in a responsible way should be allowed to decide the fate of a human life?
More so than you should for them.

Have you actually ever heard a pro-lifer say that? Or is that just an impression?
I would hope not.
This was in response to another member's post.

Unfortunately, yes, it still is.
I think it's fair to say that there is a lot of willing help available to those in that unfortunate position.
I agree, but I don't think the option of abortion should be taken away from the many possibilities.

I occasionally correspond via email and phone with a friend from high school. He's a lawyer, and has shared some of his political positions, including his support for abortion.

He recently adopted twins. I probably should have pointed out that the woman carrying those kids had the option terminate their lives. I didn't. Hopefully, I won't ever have to talk about that issue with him again. I'm not sure I could avoid saying what I would be thinking.
Good for you.

Are you completely oblivious to the contradiction here?
What contradiction? Unborn children don't have a voice, just as animals don't have a voice, yet we are willing to give them one. I hope you are a vegetarian because otherwise I can't take anything you say on this matter in total seriousness without thinking about hypocrisy. We are doing the speaking for the unborn, we are giving them a voice.

I disagree, strongly.
I am not arguing to try to convince you. You have every right to disagree and CHOOSE what you believe.

In my humble opinion, it's stain upon our society, and an indication of conflicted, indecisive weakness.
An vulgar culture that seeks to indulge every behavior while seeking simultaneously to eliminate any unintended consequences of that behavior.
I agree with this about Western Culture in general but I don't think this can be applied to all cases of unwanted pregnancy.

This is a very controversial topic, and I think I've expressed most of my thoughts on the matter. My political activities reflect my viewpoint.

I agree and there are no easy answers or solutions. I think that decisions should be made on a case by case basis.
I am all for limiting abortion, but absolutely not for making it illegal.

Eknytz

05-15-2009, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by gustav http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=4130498#post4130498)
But being a single 16 year old mother often foretells a grim future.
I'm sure it's alot grimmer for the aborted child.

PeterRJG

05-15-2009, 10:30 PM

I'm sure it's alot grimmer for the aborted child.
[/I]

How? It's dead.

Eknytz

05-15-2009, 10:42 PM

How? It's dead.
Your missing the point, and if you aren't which probably is the case than you are just being an ass.

BTW "dead" seems pretty grim to me

Hot Lips

05-15-2009, 10:56 PM

Your missing the point, and if you aren't which probably is the case than you are just being an ass.

BTW "dead" seems pretty grim to me

I gather you and many others who discussed this subject when octomom popped and California taxpayers were facing over $3 million in ongoing support for just one womans brood, ran out and adopted kids or started donating at least $6,000-$7,000 annually to support just one of the countless unwanted children you want to force the birth of? You know, to put your money and time where your morality allegedly is?

jedisponge

05-15-2009, 11:05 PM

This makes about as much sense as: "By making it a crime for me to shoot someone, the government is trying to tell me what to do"
It makes perfect sense. Let me ask you then; is it ok for the government to tell you that under no circumstances are you allowed to rent or buy movies starring Sylvester Stallone? Would it be ok for the government to tell you that under no circumstances are you allowed to purchase any firearm? That under no circumstances are you allowed to go to church? That cremation of your loved ones, to save space, is the only allowable thing you can do after death?

I would imagine that there would be deep anger across a wide spectrum of people if the government forced any of those obligations (except perhaps the ban on Stallone movies; the jury's still out). In situations where protection from homicide and security are concerned, things that I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the government is obligated to provide, the government should be telling us what we can or cannot do. We can't take a gun and shoot someone in the face under most conditions; we can't take fuel, dump it all over someone's house, and light a match to it; we can't buy c4 and blowup someone's car. These are things that government should be enforcing.

Should abortion be one of those? To you, yes. I respect that, along with your beliefs and reasoning as to why that should be the case. Adhering to your values is more than commendable. But is really something that any level of government should be regulating? And if so, how much regulation should there be? And at this point should something that is believed by a part of society, not an overwhelming portion of society, be enforced on the population at large? I have serious doubts about prescribing beliefs that is not a societal norm onto others, and I don't believe that a majority of Americans think that abortions, with very limited exceptions, should be banned outright.

Whether you agree with it or not, I think that stare decisis and the development of American society since '73 will preclude such a broad ban for the foreseeable future.

Ordie

05-15-2009, 11:11 PM

If you're against abortion, don't have one.

Government should stay out of people's personal lives and free will.

kosse

05-15-2009, 11:11 PM

What's the law in US regarding abortion? Legal/illegal?

Ordie

05-15-2009, 11:13 PM

What's the law in US regarding abortion? Legal/illegal?

Roe vs. Wade made it legal and the law of the land. However, some individual states make it very restrictive.

CG51

05-15-2009, 11:35 PM

http://www.youtube.com/v/zDI82tMiYog&feature=related

Gleipnir

05-16-2009, 12:17 AM

I don't think it matters if it was conscious or not.
Okay, good to know. I don't think it matters how you feel about cream of rice, either. Some people are still going to like it. I like how you go on to contradict this point below.

If someone was in a coma he is not/does not have conscious, so if you killed him would it not be murder???
He was conscious at one point, a state of mind that could be argued to be the normal brain state for his living, breathing existence on Earth, but then, after having already reached this undeniable state of consciousness- had that consciousness altered. Who can say if a foetus ever even achieved this type of consciousness in the first place and what that experience is like? My point is, it may have never even reached this state of consciousness and therefore did not even have this to be taken away. I can't say for certain, nobody can.

Of course it would because there is a vertical chance of the individual regaining consciousness if you just left him alone.

-just like child birth. the fetus may not have consciousness but if you left it alone it would eventually gain consciousness.
Serious? I had a still born brother. I wish I could have told that to him while he was still in the womb.
Furthermore, by this logic, you could call me a killer for never fertilizing an egg since I am disallowing life to happen. I am sorry, my friend, but I find this stretches rather thin.

How come no-one has addressed therapeutic abortion? Is it wrong if it will save the life of the Mother?

budgie

05-16-2009, 12:58 AM

Interesting that more Americans are pro-life. It shows that fewer Americans are single-ssue voters.

PeterRJG

05-16-2009, 01:07 AM

Your missing the point, and if you aren't which probably is the case than you are just being an ass.

BTW "dead" seems pretty grim to me

What point? If you're dead, you're dead. It isn't "grim" for a corpse, though it could well be for the mother concerned. Then it becomes a conscience thing which a lot of women struggle with. The dead, on the other hand, are wormfood.

So, genius, what "point" were you carefully trying to make here? Or am I wasting my time?

SilentType

05-16-2009, 01:20 AM

PeterRJG

05-16-2009, 01:31 AM

I wouldn't suggest one, wouldn't pay for one, wouldn't support someone who had one, and wouldn't celebrate the ability of anyone to have one. Horrible thing...anyone who suggests otherwise is full of $#%@.

If a woman has an abortion or a man supports one in any way then that will be on them. They'll have it on their conscious and if you believe in God as I do you'll know they'll have to answer for it to God who is going to make the real judgment in the end. If the woman or man supporter feels he or she has a real damn good reason other than "well I wouldn't have been able to go clubbing with my girls" or "child support would have screwed me out of that new PS3" then I guess they can try and make that argument to themselves later on in life and/or to God.

And there lies the problem. Take "God" out of abortion arguments, and the whole thing becomes a lot less black and white. Funny how that is, hey? Despite the ravings of preachers and bigots, not every woman that has an abortion is a gormless slut that couldn't keep her legs closed or made the guy use a condom. Some are rape victims, some were proxied into loveless marriages at an early age.

In fact, factor "God" out of all governmental decisions, and the world will become a whole lot saner.

Eknytz

05-16-2009, 02:27 AM

Glepnir:

He was conscious at one point, a state of mind that could be argued to be the normal brain state for his living, breathing existence on Earth, but then, after having already reached this undeniable state of consciousness- had that consciousness altered. Who can say if a foetus ever even achieved this type of consciousness in the first place and what that experience is like? My point is, it may have never even reached this state of consciousness and therefore did not even have this to be taken away. I can't say for certain, nobody can.

Dead people we also conscious at some point before as well.

Serious? I had a still born brother. I wish I could have told that to him while he was still in the womb.
Furthermore, by this logic, you could call me a killer for never fertilizing an egg since I am disallowing life to happen. I am sorry, my friend, but I find this stretches rather thin.Don't think your so special, I had a stillborn sibling as well. And I don't think you are a killer for not fertilizing an egg. I think life starts when the egg is already fertilized, so no.

Peter RJG

The dead, on the other hand, are wormfood.If that's what you want to degrade human life to than thats your problem.

So, genius, what "point" were you carefully trying to make here? Or am I wasting my time?My point is it makes more sense for someone to be miserable over having a kid than to deny someone the fundamental right to exist just to "help their psychological health"

Gleipnir

05-16-2009, 02:39 AM

Glepnir:
Dead people we also conscious at some point before as well.

Don't think your so special, I had a stillborn sibling as well. And I don't think you are a killer for not fertilizing an egg. I think life starts when the egg is already fertilized, so no.

Eknytz, my good man, you really are a hoot and a holler.
Dead people were also conscious at some point, so this makes abortion wrong.
I don't get it.

I don't think I am special- just wanted to point out that things like that also happen, as do miscarriages- not all pregnancies are successful and furthermore, not all pregnancies are wanted and in some cases even go so far as to endanger the life of and if not treated could be fatal to the mother. I don't hear many arguments about this type of abortion, I don't wonder why, I have to admit.

Eknytz, do you eat eggs?
I am just going to go ahead and assume you do and then go even further ahead and call you a hypocrite and a killer (this is according to your own logic, not mine). Do you eat animals as well? Because they are definitely conscious, there is no doubt about that.

I don't think that you can scientifically prove that consciousness begins at fertilization, and quite frankly, I personally disagree with this assessment.

Just know that I am not here to convince you, you are entitled to choose whatever you believe, and choose to do whatever you find is appropriate in regards to your own life - but trying to make abortion illegal for everyone, no matter what the circumstance I find to be an unacceptable proposition.
Especially in regards to therapeutic abortions, and victims of unconsensual ****** violence.

Eknytz

05-16-2009, 02:59 AM

Eknytz, my good man, you really are a hoot and a holler.
Dead people were also conscious at some point, so this makes abortion wrong.
I don't get it.

I don't think I am special- just wanted to point out that things like that also happen, as do miscarriages- not all pregnancies are successful and furthermore, not all pregnancies are wanted and in some cases even go so far as to endanger the life of and if not treated could be fatal to the mother. I don't hear many arguments about this type of abortion, I don't wonder why, I have to admit.

Eknytz, do you eat eggs?
I am just going to go ahead and assume you do and then go even further ahead and call you a hypocrite and a killer (this is according to your own logic, not mine). Do you eat animals as well? Because they are definitely conscious, there is no doubt about that.

I don't think that you can scientifically prove that consciousness begins at fertilization, and quite frankly, I personally disagree with this assessment.

Just know that I am not here to convince you, you are entitled to choose whatever you believe, and choose to do whatever you find is appropriate in regards to your own life - but trying to make abortion illegal for everyone, no matter what the circumstance I find to be an unacceptable proposition.
Especially in regards to therapeutic abortions, and victims of unconsensual ****** violence.
Well that "do you eat eggs" point is kind of moot: 1st of all those eggs are unfertilized that I eat, also I eat chicken eggs but I also eat chicken meat which came from an animal that was killed.
I don't care about animals, they are not my own kind so I could care less about them.
I do care about humans as they are my own kind.
As for the misscarriage being a type of abortion, those are bad but we can't do much about them.
Abortion on the other hand is something that we can actually do something about.

I also never said that abortion should be illegal no matter the circumstance, I didn't even mention whether it should be legal or not.

I think it should be only legal in cases of incest,known de-formities that are detected before birth, and rape though I'm not entirely sure about that last one as that many products of rape grow up to lead normal lives and are just like any other human being.

I applaud you though for being civilized in your dialogue and not being a dipstick like that Peter RJG guy.

La8pv

05-16-2009, 04:47 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

"We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization. The 5 states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime#cite_note-2)

One aspect.

HellToupee

05-16-2009, 07:49 AM

You can't murder something that is never truely alive to begin with just a lump of cells, this is not a choice to be forced on people by others.

Zarak

05-16-2009, 07:57 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

One aspect.

That makes a lot of sense. Unwanted children to single parents that can't afford them in the first place are far more likely to turn to crime.

seraosha

05-16-2009, 09:44 AM

You can't murder something that is never truely alive to begin with just a lump of cells, this is not a choice to be forced on people by others.

"truly alive"..."just a clump of cells"...I see what you did there.

Here is a pic (http://www.abortiontv.com/images/11WeekAbortion.jpg) of what you are calling just a clump of cells, during the first trimester...warning, graphic...but if is just a clump of cells, shouldn't bother you, right?
Dehumanizing who you are planning on killing is a tried and true method of desensitizing someone...you see it in war propaganda, and in "pro-choice" literature.

HellToupee

05-16-2009, 10:28 AM

No the picture does not bother me, brain is non functional through the first trimester, human is not about our bodies, but the intelligence our bodies sustain, untill theres a functional brain its nothing but a lump of cells.

I am pro choice because i believe a child should only be raised when theres the means to provide a quality life.

Andreas

05-16-2009, 10:43 AM

x2.

I actually sway toward the "Pro - who gives a rat's ass" category too. It still blows my mind abortion is a major issue in US politics.

Never underestimate religious BS's tendency to find its way into every part of life....

Pro choice, because it makes sense to chose what you do with your own body. It makes sense.

Gleipnir

05-16-2009, 10:56 AM

"truly alive"..."just a clump of cells"...I see what you did there.

Here is a pic (http://www.abortiontv.com/images/11WeekAbortion.jpg) of what you are calling just a clump of cells, during the first trimester...warning, graphic...but if is just a clump of cells, shouldn't bother you, right?
Dehumanizing who you are planning on killing is a tried and true method of desensitizing someone...you see it in war propaganda, and in "pro-choice" literature.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article658385.ece

I think this article puts this into perspective.

seraosha

05-16-2009, 11:07 AM

So it's ok if the cerebral cortex hasn't formed it's full connection yet?

Really?
Good luck with that, if it helps you sleep better at night.
I'd rather birth control be proactive instead of reactive.

Geezah

05-16-2009, 11:12 AM

Adoption is an option, as there are plenty of families willing to go this route in the US.

Eknytz

05-16-2009, 12:57 PM

HellToupee (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=67401)

I am pro choice because i believe a child should only be raised when theres the means to provide a quality life.I'd rather have a sh!tty childhood than not exist at all.
Andreas (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=7891)

Pro choice, because it makes sense to chose what you do with your own body. It makes sense.
It has NOTHING to do with her body, it has everything to do with the unborn child which isn't part of her body so she has no authority over it.
She made her choice when she decided to go sleeping around without protection.

acosta

05-16-2009, 01:06 PM

that's it,
remember pendulum effect, when white house gets left, the public take right.

HellToupee

05-16-2009, 01:20 PM

I'd rather have a sh!tty childhood than not exist at all.

Going to mourn over every sperm lost to?

It has NOTHING to do with her body, it has everything to do with the unborn child which isn't part of her body so she has no authority over it.
She made her choice when she decided to go sleeping around without protection.

Untill its born its a part of their body.

Eknytz

05-16-2009, 01:38 PM

Going to mourn over every sperm lost to?

Think about it this way, if you had a crappy childhood but now your all grown up so now it's all behind you.

Looking back would it be better if you just had been born with a poor childhood or would it be better for you to have been aborted and not have existed in the first place because just your childhood would have been crappy.

*I don't consider sperm life.

tercio67

05-16-2009, 01:56 PM

Women are not cattle or property!

Forcing women to give birth to unwanted children is barbaric.
Only a woman can make the decision to give birth or not to give birth.
No opinion of anybody but the woman concerned is valid.

If you do not want an abortion, don't have one.
If you want an abortion, have one.
But don't force you're opinion on others.

HellToupee

05-16-2009, 01:58 PM

Think about it this way, if you had a crappy childhood but now your all grown up so now it's all behind you.

Looking back would it be better if you just had been born with a poor childhood or would it be better for you to have been aborted and not have existed in the first place because just your childhood would have been crappy.

*I don't consider sperm life.

If i had a crappy childhood i would not be where i am, its not something you get over it defines you, if i had a crappy childhood i would not exist i would be someone else.

I don't consider an early fetus life, it has not lived.

IronFinn

05-16-2009, 02:28 PM

I gather you and many others who discussed this subject when octomom popped and California taxpayers were facing over $3 million in ongoing support for just one womans brood, ran out and adopted kids or started donating at least $6,000-$7,000 annually to support just one of the countless unwanted children you want to force the birth of? You know, to put your money and time where your morality allegedly is?

Good point, so far no answers to it yet from the anti-abortion group.

I´m interested in knowing how many of the "pro-life" people here are religious. Since this is military forum I assume these people are also pro-army. This makes a interesting point for me, do people who are strongly against abortion (and supposedly think life is sacred) in the other hand approve killing enemy soldiers during combat situation or ok for possible collateral damage.
If one believs in a god and that all life is sacred doesn´t it mean that all the actions, not just saving some fetuses but the ones done during combat are going to be weighted in the final judgement and in consequence of these actions the person in question could be going to hell?

I´m not flaming here btw, just genuinly interested since for me there is a contradiction here.

Hot Lips

05-16-2009, 02:29 PM

Adoption is an option, as there are plenty of families willing to go this route in the US.

Tell that to all the kids that never get adopted. How many of them do you support at a cost of $6-$7,000 annually?

MichaelF

05-16-2009, 02:38 PM

I'm struck by the similarities between the Dredd Scott decision and that of Roe v. Wade.

In both cases, the Court found that the subject in question was not a human being, and thus not subject to the protections granted to "real" people.

The Scott decision was later overturned.

Hot Lips

05-16-2009, 02:39 PM

Good point, so far no answers to it yet from the anti-abortion group.

They really don't want to deal with the fact that actions speak louder than words and there are already too many unwanted, unadopted children in the world that they do little if anything for.

It's easy to say you care about children and allowing them to be born when you don't have to actually prove how much you "care" once they are on this earth.

How many Trillions are we in debt now? How much more money is everyone willing to fork over to pay for all these babies for 18 years each?

I´m interested in knowing how many of the "pro-life" people here are religious. Since this is military forum I assume these people are also pro-army. This makes a interesting point for me, do people who are strongly against abortion (and supposedly think life is sacred) in the other hand approve killing enemy soldiers during combat situation or ok for possible collateral damage.

If one believs in a god and that all life is sacred doesn´t it mean that all the actions, not just saving some fetuses but the ones done during combat are going to be weighted in the final judgement and in consequence of these actions the person in question could be going to hell?

They are "Pro-No Abortion" or "Pro-Less Choice". To say one is "Pro-Life" and then to turn around and justify any killing is rather hypocritical, IMO.

I'm pro-choice, pro-capital punishment, realize that war (and therefore killing) have a place in society.

Do I want children? No. Would I have an abortion? Probably not. Do I want to pay for anyone else's children? Absolutely not. I think anyone that wants to take that option away from others should have to collectively foot the bill to ensure those children get everything they need in life.

However tragic, sometimes it's necessary to cull the herd.

Noble713

05-16-2009, 02:56 PM

I'm basically pro-death, i.e. pro-abortion and pro-capital punishment. When you kill a fetus you're just removing a parasitic organism. I also think we should euthanize those who are extremely mentally handicapped at birth. Whatever productivity they contribute to society is highly unlikely to be commensurate to the resources we dump into them.

One of my friends is working on his PhD in Biology, his opinion is thus: If the legal definition of death (i.e. the end of life) is the cessation of brainwave activity, then logically the beginning of life is the start of brainwave activity. So you should be able to abort anything prior to that.

Geezah

05-16-2009, 03:41 PM

Tell that to all the kids that never get adopted. How many of them do you support at a cost of $6-$7,000 annually?

PM sent..............

Gleipnir

05-16-2009, 04:31 PM

I'd rather birth control be proactive instead of reactive.

Me too, unfortunately unwanted pregnancies are not solely a question of birth control. Unless you dare to say that all women should take birth control just in case they get raped or something equally as stupid.

I agree with what Tercio wrote earlier- I think that the decision should rest with the woman involved.

Why is it ir-responsible to ensure that you stop a life from happening that you know that you can't be responsible for?

As for all of this adoption is an option- yeah it is, as is abortion- but there shouldn't only be one option- it is a question of what is appropriate and a question of the unique circumstances, conditions and problems of each unwanted pregnancy on a case by case basis. Unwanted pregnancies can not be reduced to one solitary cause or set of circumstances and neither can the demographic of people involved.

Hot Lips

05-16-2009, 04:48 PM

PM sent..............

There will still be people that choose to give their child up for adoption, there will still be people that choose to keep their child, there will still be people that choose to be serrogates, but until you and fellow anti-abortion crowd can support all the children you would have forced into the world it is a viable option for people that have to actually deal with the outcome of the decision they face.

It was estimated that octomom and her kids would cost California taxpayers upwards of 3 million dollars over 18 years. I checked an adoption site earlier that had over 3,600 children listed in their U.S. database waiting to be adopted. Over 18 years that's roughly 1/2 billion dollars not including college, etc. This also doesn't account for families that turn around and apply for financial assistance because they can't afford the the kids they have.

The expense to taxpayers would increase several times over if abortion were more restrictive or outright illegal.

click

05-16-2009, 04:53 PM

nevermind.

loganinkosovo

05-16-2009, 05:02 PM

It's nice that people are pro-life.....but I don't see these people lining up to adopt the handicapped children of crack whores.

Hell, America Celebrities won't even adopt American Kids. They need to dig up some Crack Whore's baby in West Bumfcuked to be hip.

I have no problems with abortion as long as I'm not paying for it.

My problem is when they want to use my tax money to pay for a "Choice".

The answer to that is "Not only NO, But HELL NO!"

The Son of a Btich who knocked her up should be paying for it.

seraosha

05-16-2009, 05:13 PM

On the subject of birth control, I believe that the reason there hasn't been a true, 100% effective birth control method is due to men not wanting to limit their progeny...whether consciously or not. Look at all the various methods (pun intended) of birth control options available to women...and look where they are frequently failing...then look what options are available to men...abstinence, condom, vasectomy.

Condoms can be argued as being more important today as disease preventers than only as birth control, but we all know what a PITA they are...better than the alternative though.

I think the whole abortion debate could be ended with 100% effective birth control available to everyone...except when you look at the recent court decision in Sweden, where it is legal to abort a fetus if you don't like what *** it is.

So now it's ok to abort a child because of its ***? Sure, it's been happening as soon as amniocentesis became an available testing tool, but now it's ok to do it on something as whimsical as a childs ***. And it's only a matter of time before it used to abort the too short, or not smart enough...with fetal gene therapy and "Gatica" only a little further down the road.

But it all starts with what value does a human life have?
At what point does the spirit, or soul develop in a child?

If you don't believe we are more than our componant parts, then there isn't an argument I can think of that will convince you otherwise.
Maybe when you help deliver your own children and they look up at you for the first time...that's what did it for me.
/done

Gleipnir

05-16-2009, 05:17 PM

But it all starts with what value does a human life have?
At what point does the spirit, or soul develop in a child?

You think it is okay for you to interpret this for someone else? I don't.

len173

05-16-2009, 05:43 PM

Abortion has changed society in the sense that there is no "fear" of *** and pregnancy. Yes, there are plenty of kids/adults out there who have no business being parents. However, they don't have to worry about that because there are always options for them. If outlawed, kids could no longer have abortion in the back of the mind as a security blanket. With a few years, maybe a generation, of education we could change the society for the better.

I'd agree with you that it has helped to change peoples view of ***, but a big part of that is also different methods of birth control (the pill in particular). The problem is those people with no business being parents will often tough it out, rather than take advantage of those options. Those options are often not very pretty either, and lead to another generation of screwed up kids.

That's not to say that makes abortion okay. I'll leave my feelings on that out of this. But just another way to look at it.

chauncy republicans

05-16-2009, 05:48 PM

They really don't want to deal with the fact that actions speak louder than words and there are already too many unwanted, unadopted children in the world that they do little if anything for.

It's easy to say you care about children and allowing them to be born when you don't have to actually prove how much you "care" once they are on this earth.

How many Trillions are we in debt now? How much more money is everyone willing to fork over to pay for all these babies for 18 years each?
You condescendingly imply that to have the moral clarity to understand that life is to be treasured, one also must accept the responsibility of those who are un-willing to provide for their children. That is obvious lunacy. You also unwittingly make light of your own moral perversions by assigning tangible value to a child. No matter how you try and justify you will always be wrong, which is why people who advocate abortion always have to cloud the issue with technicality.

They are "Pro-No Abortion" or "Pro-Less Choice". To say one is "Pro-Life" and then to turn around and justify any killing is rather hypocritical, IMO.

I'm pro-choice, pro-capital punishment, realize that war (and therefore killing) have a place in society.
To give the same moral equivalence to abortion and war is not only incorrect, but rather ignorant as well. In my opinion. I'm sure you also do the same with children and cattle.

Hot Lips

05-16-2009, 06:08 PM

I'm not implying it, I'm flat out saying it. If people cared so much about the lives of all the babies that they want to force into the world, they would take personal responsibility for those lives - the babies. Give thousands of dollars and months of their time year over year to help those children they want to force the births of.

Like it or not, it takes time, love, and money to raise a child. You make light of "life" by ignoring those "technicalities" while turning your back on all those children while professing to care about them.

I think it's more humane to prevent a life early than to turn my back on it for a life time - as you support. I don't have children by choice because I don't feel I can provide the life they deserve. I don't want to nor can I afford to raise nor pay for anyone elses either. And I couldn't begin to keep up with all the children people like you would force into existance even if I had a mind to. And neither can you. Yet you would support increasing those numbers.

The fact that so many only take "responsibility" for standing on a soapbox for the sole purpose of wagging their finger and thumping their chest to build themselves up by tearing down someone who is faced with real responsibility shows it's not the child's life they actually care about.

For too many it's more about engaging in a moral competition against another adult (or political group) and not about the children at all.

I'm all for decreasing the number of abortions in the country, what are you going to do about ensuring people practice abstinence, contraception, have incomes that allow them to afford their pregnancies?

Eknytz

05-16-2009, 06:18 PM

Tell that to all the kids that never get adopted. How many of them do you support at a cost of $6-$7,000 annually?
It's better for them to live out their childhood in an orphanage, at least then they can experience being alive.

Anyway we are paying $22,650.00 to support a prisoner annually, I think we can afford to fork out $6,000-7,000 to support kids in orphanages.
And if you really want them to be aborted so you don't have to pay for them I think that's kind of sick.

Niels

05-16-2009, 06:21 PM

At what point does the spirit, or soul develop in a child?
Good question, man. Are fetuses THETANS?? Do they believe in JESUS CHRIST?? These are all valid arguments.

It's better for them to live out their childhood in an orphanage, at least then they can experience being alive.
I don't know about you, but I was unable to think about being alive or not, back when I wasn't.

Hot Lips

05-16-2009, 06:28 PM

It's better for them to live out their childhood in an orphanage, at least then they can experience being alive.

Anyway we are paying $22,650.00 to support a prisoner annually, I think we can afford to fork out $6,000-7,000 to support kids in orphanages.
And if you really want them to be aborted so you don't have to pay for them I think that's kind of sick.

What's sick and hyocritical is to profess to care about those lives and then turn your back on them upon birth.

If you want to pay for them all, be my guest. I would commend you for it. I can't afford it. If I could, I'd likely have kids of my own. So I'm not going to tell someone who has to face the responsiblity of that decision what they have to do.

We'll still have people that choose adoption. We'll still have people who choose to keep their own children even though they can't afford them. You'll still have the opportunity to give your time and money to them... will you?

I'm simply not going to deny someone that choice if they can't afford to keep their child and know that so many people do so little to support children already in the system.

So you are in favor of killing one prisoner to support 3 births annually.

I might buy in to that logic.

Restricting/limiting abortion will no doubt drive up the numbers of births to be supported year over year so we'd have to execute prisoners accordingly.

Who do we execute that we aren't already?

Or do you want to reduce punishment for crimes so that we have more kids to financially support and more criminals on the streets?

Eknytz

05-16-2009, 07:03 PM

What's sick and hyocritical is to profess to care about those lives and then turn your back on them upon birth.
I don't think it's sick and hypocritical.
If I'm "turning my back" to them after they have been born It's not like I'm not condemning them to die, I know the government will find some place for them if their parents don't want them -they'll become ward of the state, or whatever.

I also don't have a problem with my money going to support these kids, it's a good cause.

Our money is also going towards all those crap pork projects anyway like funding for kayak tours in hawaii and all kinds of useless **** so they money that is being sent to kids is money put to good use.

Hot Lips

05-16-2009, 07:11 PM

It is hypocritical. Don't profess to care about their lives if you aren't willing to step up and support their needs until they are self sustaining adults.

"or whatever"

While others in here are against abortion, but also don't want to pay for someone else's bad judgement or mistakes - you are against abortion and want everyone to pay for it.

You have pro-lifers that don't care to pay with time and money to support those kids and pro-choicers that don't care to pay with time and money to support those kids.

I don't like my money paying for prisoners, but I'd rather pay that then have them on the street. Nor do I care to pay for wasteful projects either, because I want to eliminate them so I can keep more of my money - and not so people like you can divert what we save to force me to pay for someone else's kids that you don't want to be fully responsible for. I want to keep more of my tax dollars so I can pay for my own if I can afford it.

I want you to pay for for their kids because it's what you want.

Less children in the adoption/foster system means the tax dollars that go towards supporting them go farther. The system is deplorable, IMO. We do not need to create an environment where even more kids end up in the system.

How many thousands are you giving? Enough for 1 child? 2 children? 3... 4?

How many hours/weeks/months of the year do you dedicate to spending time with them? Seeing to their social, emotional, and educational needs?

Eknytz

05-16-2009, 07:49 PM

Zarak

05-16-2009, 07:57 PM

I said I don't have a problem with my money going towards supporting them.

Are you even old enough to pay taxes...?

Hot Lips

05-16-2009, 08:08 PM

I said I don't have a problem with my money going towards supporting them.

Just your money though right? And others of like mind. Collectively do you give enough time and money to support all the children currently in the system? Can you bear the cost off all the additional children you want to bring into the world?

How much of your money do you give? How much of your time? I gather you avoid these questions because it doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of the volume of lives and related expenses and needs you want to force in to existence and run through an already under funded, deplorable system.

Or do you want the rest of us to pay for it too?

"or whatever"

Eknytz

05-16-2009, 09:38 PM

Just your money though right? And others of like mind. Collectively do you give enough time and money to support all the children currently in the system? Can you bear the cost off all the additional children you want to bring into the world?

How much of your money do you give? How much of your time? I gather you avoid these questions because it doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of the volume of lives and related expenses and needs you want to force in to existence and run through an already under funded, deplorable system.

Or do you want the rest of us to pay for it too?

"or whatever"

Money should never be an object on whether someone lives or not.
We shouldn't deny someone the right to live because of money, this isn't China.

Like I said the annual cost of supporting kids in orphanages is minuscule to what we pay to support inmates.

Hot Lips

05-16-2009, 09:55 PM

Money should never be an object on whether someone lives or not.
We shouldn't deny someone the right to live because of money, this isn't China.

Like I said the annual cost of supporting kids in orphanages is minuscule to what we pay to support inmates.

Like it or not, it takes money, time, and love to raise a child. So again I ask how much of your time and money are you giving?

What you are doing is dancing around the reality of the issue in a vein effort to keep one foot on your soapbox.

You are right this is not China. Do you think China (roughly 20% of the world population) would be better off with a bigger population than it has?

I read there are 42 million abortions worldwide per year. In 2005, 1.2 million in the United States. Even if you could trim down the cost for each of those potential children to just $4,000 annually that's still $4.8 billion annually (U.S. alone) you'd need to support all those children for each of their first 18 years. Plus another $4.8 billion for next years brood. And so on. And so on. And that doesn't include wages for state employees who work these programs and certainly not a college education. How do you propose to support all of those births plus the average number of kids already in the system?

And when that 1.2 million plus the thousands of kids already in the system turn 18 and are cut loose with only a high school education and an income that reflects it and we have to add a percentage of their own forced births into the equation on top of the 20.4 million other births you would forced into the world over that same 17 year period - what then?

How many inmates are you willing to kill or give a free pass to annually to offset some of the cost of all the new births you want to force? By your estimates one criminal would need to be executed or released to pay for 3 children for each of their first 18 years.

When even well intentioned taxpayers realize that we can't afford to pay for the 1.2 million more births year over year forced on low income parents that in turn put them in the adoption/forster system what then? Do we force sterilization?

TallGuy

05-16-2009, 10:57 PM

It's better for them to live out their childhood in an orphanage, at least then they can experience being alive.

In this case, an abortion would have been better:

Baby born a heroin addict suffered 13 broken ribs while in care

A baby girl born a heroin addict suffered 13 broken ribs from "forceful squeezing" AFTER she was fostered.
Chelsey Essex was put in care weeks after her birth but died of a heart attack caused by a stomach infection.
The tot, whose junkie mum has given birth to three heroin addicted babies, was later found to have broken ribs.
The "non accidental injuries" were revealed in an independent panel's review.

Their report criticises social workers over their monitoring of foster couple Mr and Mrs A and brands the decision to put Chelsey in their care as "inappropriate".
They have since been de-registered as foster carers.
At last year's inquest, the baby's mum Michaela Mullen was blasted for producing so many heroin-addicted babies.
But Michaela, 27, who lives with partner David Essex, 52, in Rotherham, South Yorks, said: "I loved Chelsey to bits. I'm disgusted at what happened to her."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/05/16/baby-born-a-heroin-addict-suffered-13-broken-ribs-while-in-care-115875-21363127/

PeterRJG

05-16-2009, 11:43 PM

It's better for them to live out their childhood in an orphanage, at least then they can experience being alive.

How you would you know that exactly? Do you even know what a child wants? Do you even have children? No kid I know who's ever lived in an orphanage preferred it to the dream of living with a real family. Not a fvcking one.

Anyway we are paying $22,650.00 to support a prisoner annually, I think we can afford to fork out $6,000-7,000 to support kids in orphanages.
And if you really want them to be aborted so you don't have to pay for them I think that's kind of sick.

So, it's best to pension these kids off to an orphanage? I see the dollar bill being factored in here. Are you suggesting unwanted children go wherever it's cheaper on your tax dollar?

Gleipnir

05-17-2009, 12:16 AM

We shouldn't deny someone the right to live because of money, this isn't China.

What if that something (hasn't even been given a name yet or developed the necessary organs to input nor interpret external stimuli) hasn't even lived yet? Who says that it is a denial if you aren't taking away what it doesn't, in fact, have? Is that up to you to decide? Where is your evidence other than your opinion, which sadly, isn't enough here.

There are many differing ideas and beliefs concerning when a 'spirit' or 'soul' enters a foetus and when it is considered to be 'alive' as we are in the external world. Some say it is after a certain period of development in the womb, some say it is when it takes its first breath of air outside of the mother's body, some say it is when blood first enters the foetus, some say it is when its heart first starts beating, some say it is after the elapse of time where the possibility of it splitting off in to twins can occur.

That's right? What if it is twins or quadruplets or more?
Does every individual foetus's soul enter before this split has happened while it is still one mass? What about Siamese Twins or Parasitic twins?

Not to digress from my original point too far, but some say it is at conception, some say after a certain period of time- e.g. Islamic scriptures describe the soul entering the foetus after a period of 3 months.

Everyone and every Faith has its own interpretations surrounding this idea and unfortunately deciding across the board what the definition should be for everyone is an unrealistic and tricky proposal.

Zarak

05-17-2009, 12:22 AM

Everyone and every Faith has its own interpretations surrounding this idea and unfortunately deciding across the board what the definition should be for everyone is an unrealistic and tricky proposal.

Deciding anything based on religious ideas about 'souls' is 'unrealistic and tricky'. Religion may well have a place in personal beliefs about abortion (or marriage, or war, or alcohol) but it definitely has no place in politics or debate based on facts.

I, personally, believe that human beings don't have souls until after age 21, based on my experience with teenagers.

Gleipnir

05-17-2009, 12:28 AM

I, personally, believe that human beings don't have souls until after age 21, based on my experience with teenagers.

Haha, you might be on to something here!

domokun

05-17-2009, 06:42 AM

Of course no fetus has ever committed a crime. It's not alive. Sorry to be flip, but that's the issue, and until someone gets the courts to recognize fetuses as human beings, they do not have the same rights as US citizens.

(a propaganda term which I think is particularly clever by the right - as if everyone who is for abortion is in favor of death).

Not everyone is in favor of death. Still I am definitely pro-death. I do support death penalty, abortion and euthanasia. Death penalty even with it's flaws is effective and efficient form of punishment and deterrence for crime. Euthanasia as form of suicide is matter of individual rights and freedom. If person wants to kill himself or herself, it's not up to society or other individuals to interrupt, by interrupting process they violate rights of individual offing himself or herself. Abortion is also matter of personal freedom, people have right determine over how they use their body.

Life itself has no value of it's own. In case of all death penalty, euthanasia and abortion, society should utilize corpses and fetuses in more efficient manner they do now. Execution and euthanasia should be committed in way that leaves those organs needed for medical and scientific uses intact. Same applies to fetuses.

We are human beings; we have minds and sovereign wills, and should be held accountable for our behavior.

Just because we get away with behaving like animals doesn't mean that we are animals.

Cogito Ergo Sum

I can't see difference between humans and other animals. We got plenty of common things, nearly identical structure in most levels form DNA to cells to anatomy.

My neighbors dog also has sovereign will, it just is repressed by it's owner. Let's make little comparison between me and neighbors dog in relatively typical environments.

I encounter attractive female in night club, that is followed by my assessment of my changes to achieve favorable odds to get laid, an process that is often as done by both conscious and subconscious levels of thinking. Next thing I often do in this kinds of events is initiating series of rituals to prove that I'm worthy for simulated act of copulation (assuming I'm relatively sober... I would use sane method of disease and birth control that make act itself merely simulation).

My neighbors dog encounters attractive b!tch while at walk in park. It tries copulate. Before act of copulation both dogs do things like sniffing each others arses etc. Act of copulation is likely terminated by respective owners of dogs.

Main difference being that my neighbors dog is open in it's intentions and that in dogs case possible external forces interrupting act of copulation aren't of their own species in most likely cases.

oldsoak

05-17-2009, 10:08 AM

Reading through this and I get the rather depressing feeling thats its all down to cost. Life has a value after all.

Hollis

05-17-2009, 10:19 AM

Reading through this and I get the rather depressing feeling thats its all down to cost. Life has a value after all.

Maybe it is because money is easier to measure than the other factors. In the states this is a highly polarized issue. For the devotees of either camp there is only one solution, the extreme opinion for their camp.

I think this report really does not say much for the extreme positions. People I know, if they where would put themselves into one camp or the other would say,

"I am pro-choice but I see a need for reasonable limits on abortions"

or

"I am pro-life but I can see situations where abortion maybe justified"

The difference between the two, is from which side of the issue they are standing on. They actually agree. I think the preponderance of people would not support either extreme, abortions without any limits/restrictions or absolutely no abortions regardless of the conditions involved.

I find it, like you disheartening, that money seems to be criteria in which to make the judgment on(to live or die). I think we all can remember those dark moments in history and when this method was carried to the extreme.

Geezah

05-17-2009, 10:28 AM

There will still be people that choose to give their child up for adoption, there will still be people that choose to keep their child, there will still be people that choose to be serrogates, but until you and fellow anti-abortion crowd can support all the children you would have forced into the world it is a viable option for people that have to actually deal with the outcome of the decision they face.

Hey now, I am not 100% Pro-Life. I wrote the following,

except in cases of rape, abuse, insest a threat to the mothers life.

I know people that have been affected by all of the above except insest. Under these condistions can I support abortion, otherwise take the necessary precautions prior to having ***.

It was estimated that octomom and her kids would cost California taxpayers upwards of 3 million dollars over 18 years. I checked an adoption site earlier that had over 3,600 children listed in their U.S. database waiting to be adopted. Over 18 years that's roughly 1/2 billion dollars not including college, etc. This also doesn't account for families that turn around and apply for financial assistance because they can't afford the the kids they have.

While I don't support what she did, she got pregnant to have the kids, because of some sick Jolie fantasy. Granted society will have to support her kids, but would you have them aborted now?

The expense to taxpayers would increase several times over if abortion were more restrictive or outright illegal.

As I understand it, adoption in the US is extremely difficult, that's why people choose to adopt overseas. If it was made a little easier then maybe there would be more people open to it.

Hot Lips

05-17-2009, 03:15 PM

While I don't support what she did, she got pregnant to have the kids, because of some sick Jolie fantasy. Granted society will have to support her kids, but would you have them aborted now?

Now???? Obviously it's too late now. But had the story broke early in her pregnancy yes I'd have felt that she should have aborted all or most of them. The medical profession should not have allowed this in the first place.

Reading through this and I get the rather depressing feeling thats its all down to cost. Life has a value after all.

I'd be nice if the world were all sunshine and roses and we didn't need money to survive and every child could be born and live a long and fruitful life with no adverse affect on society at large.

That isn't reality. There are people who are against abortion that realize this. It's why when they aren't protesting abortion they are also protesting giving financial assistance to the low-income households that most abortions and children that require financial assistance originate from. It's why they protest paying higher college tuition for their own kids just to give tuition to kids from low-income families when their parents can't afford to send them to college.

Where do most drug addict babies traditionally originate from? Low-income demographics.

Where do most abused/neglected kids traditionally originate from? Low-income demographics.

Where do most criminals traditionally originate from? Low-income demographics.

Who traditionally needs the most handouts from taxpayers? Low-income demographics.

Where do most abortions traditionally originate from? Low-income demographics.

If having an abortion means a teen mother can finish high school and become a self sustaining adult. So be it. If having an abortion means a single mother will be able to pull herself out of poverty and become a self sustaining parent in the future. So be it. If having an abortion means the 2 kids a low-income family already has will be better off because one more mouth to feed will drag the whole family down. So be it. If having an abortion means a child won't be born addicted to drugs or live in an abusive or neglectful environment. So be it. If having an abortion means the number of kids in the foster system won't rise from 600,000 (?) to 1,800,000 - so be it.

I'd rather the men and women who generate most abortions get their collective acts together before they start bringing children into the world.

Frankly, I wish there were a way to prevent some people from continuing to have babies the rest of us wind up supporting. I think that has to start by revoking hand outs. But that would likely drive up abortion requests initially, before they would eventually drop when people start to learn to be more responsible.

NavyTimes

05-17-2009, 03:28 PM

I am not Taliban, so yeah i'm pro choice. Its been a while since the stone age ffs.

Eknytz

05-17-2009, 08:02 PM

In this case, an abortion would have been better:
So what, at least they are still alive. And i'm not for the complete illegalization of abortion. There is Alot of stuff that is illegal but it is permitted in certain circumstances.

How you would you know that exactly? Do you even know what a child wants? Do you even have children? No kid I know who's ever lived in an orphanage preferred it to the dream of living with a real family. Not a fvcking one.

I don't know personally but I bet if you asked them looking back they'd prefer being in an orphanage then being aborted.

Hot Lips

05-17-2009, 08:37 PM

Gee whiz, ya think? They are already born by then. :|

I like being alive too, go figure, yet I would still defend the right to choose even it had been my mother depending on her circumstances. If you believe in God, souls, etc you'll get another shot or wind up in heaven. If not, you'll never know the difference.

Still tap dancing around facing the realities of what you are asking for and refusing to answer any questions posed that might reflect that you actually care about those kids or have thought through what it is you are asking for.

It's nice that we don't have to worry about anything because the government "will do something or whatever".

ren0312

05-17-2009, 09:40 PM

I am not Taliban, so yeah i'm pro choice. Its been a while since the stone age ffs.

On the contrary, you have to wonder how advanced acivilization is when you can just slay babies if you do not like their gender, just like the Spartans used to throw unwanted babies off a cliff, especially when that country has universal health care, so for sure there is some govenrment orphanage that would be willing to take in the baby.

chauncy republicans

05-17-2009, 09:42 PM

It's nice that we don't have to worry about anything because the government "will do something or whatever".

Again you so incorrectly state that the only option other than killing unborn children is to foot the bill for their deadbeat parents. The idea that you would even suggest such a thing shows great immaturity, because you fail to assign responsibility to those who are really at fault.
Your a perfect example of pro-abortionists grasping at straws and attempting to confuse the issue with semantics, but I guess if that's the medication for a sick mind, so be it.

ren0312

05-17-2009, 09:50 PM

CMNot

05-17-2009, 09:54 PM

What I wonder is how do those people who are pro abortion but anti death penalty in all cases can explain their position.

Logical statement lacks logic.

Geezah

05-17-2009, 09:55 PM

What I wonder is how do those people who are pro abortion but anti death penalty in all cases can explain their position.

I wrote the following,

Just to add to the comment about those that have earnt the right to be put to death, what exactly has an unborn child done to be compared to someone that has commited a heinous act?

As far as being consistant, the two don't even compare, so don't try and push a sqaure through a round hole.

Atleast those that are up to be fried were given the chance at life and chose to take the wrong path. Unborn children that are aborted are not given that chance.

chauncy republicans

05-17-2009, 09:57 PM

What I wonder is how do those people who are pro abortion but anti death penalty in all cases can explain their position.
They have to dance around semantics and non-issues, just like all pro-abortionists do.

Ordie

05-17-2009, 10:40 PM

They have to dance around semantics and non-issues, just like all pro-choice advocates do.

Fixed your semantics.

You're just as adept in framing the language.

Hot Lips

05-17-2009, 10:55 PM

Again you so incorrectly state that the only option other than killing unborn children is to foot the bill for their deadbeat parents. The idea that you would even suggest such a thing shows great immaturity, because you fail to assign responsibility to those who are really at fault.

Your a perfect example of pro-abortionists grasping at straws and attempting to confuse the issue with semantics, but I guess if that's the medication for a sick mind, so be it.

Actually I did not say it was the only option and thus "choice" comes into play.

I have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere that I too would like to see abortion rates lowered, people be more responsible and start practicing safe *** and not having children they can't afford. You choose to ignore that because it doesn't play into your "us vs them" mantra.

I've stated here and in other threads that we have to start scaling back and eventually eliminating handouts that only serve to reward irresponsibility.

But I'm not naive enough to think that change will occur overnight. Abortion rates are likely to raise in the face of fewer handouts before they ultimately lower when people start to get more responsible.

Choice will remain a neccessary alternative for some families. I don't care to take that away from them.

You seemingly want to both force people to have children they can't afford and turn your back on the children all under the guise of caring about their welfare.

Hot Lips

05-17-2009, 10:59 PM

They have to dance around semantics and non-issues...

If money, time, etc were non-issues you wouldn't bellyache so passionately about helping to support the children you want to force into the world.

Too many people want to cry about the 'baby killers' and do little of anything for those babies once they are here - proving how little they actually care. Don't really get to have it both ways.

Irresponsible people won't become responsible overnight, but at 1.2 million abortions in a single year, 600,000 kids in foster care, and lord knows how many people getting assistance for the kids they continue to have but can't afford they have the potential to breed like theres no tomorrow.

Then you'll bellyache about that too I suppose. What's your solution?

.

Hot Lips

05-17-2009, 11:17 PM

What I wonder is how do those people who are pro abortion but anti death penalty in all cases can explain their position.

I don't know any. I would venture to guess it would be because they likely wouldn't consider the former a living being yet and the latter certainly is.

You're more likely to find people that are anti-abortion, yet pro-capital punishment, and have no problem killing people in the name of country/religion/politics/whatever.

How about pro-reality where abortion, capital punishment, and war all have a purpose in society at some point.

Do people in general take pleasure in any of them? Of course not.

Jobu

05-17-2009, 11:18 PM

1.2 million abortions in a single year

A modern day holocaust. I'm ashamed to say Hitler's got nothing on us.

At least he had an excuse. He was bat**** crazy. We've been killing our own children by the millions because of inconvenience.

Hot Lips

05-17-2009, 11:26 PM

And when a low income couple is faced with having a child (because no matter how much you preach abstinance or birth control pregnancies will still happen, just ask the Palins) they can't afford and they know it's not likely to be adopted, that the foster care system is riddled with cases of neglect and abuse, and that others want to withdraw funding that might help them get if they keep their child, that better jobs are not available or they don't qualify because they couldn't afford college either, that not having a child will mean their ability to remain a self sustaining citizen - your solution for them is?

You can reduce or eliminate handouts to families that continue to have and keep kids they can't afford. That might move some people towards being more responsible. But it won't happen right away.

You could reduce funding to support the extra 1.2 million kids per year that could be generated by forced births, but does that discourage irresponsible breeding if they are willing to give their kids up anyway knowing we have a surplus of 600,000 unwanted kids in the system already?

You could force them to keep their kids and not give them any assisstance what so ever. That might make those that want to feel better than someone else feel good, but what do you think the outcome of that would be on society? Higher crime rates? Higher HS drop out rates? It certainly hasn't stopped the populations of impoverished countries from continuing to have children they can't afford.

In the end you have to be willing to pay for and support all those children because if you remove abortion but you don't eliminate unwanted pregancies from the equation you are only compounding the problem.

Jobu

05-17-2009, 11:33 PM

ren0312

05-17-2009, 11:40 PM

I don't know any. I would venture to guess it would be because they likely wouldn't consider the former a living being yet and the latter certainly is.

You're more likely to find people that are anti-abortion, yet pro-capital punishment, and have no problem killing people in the name of country/religion/politics/whatever.

How about pro-reality where abortion, capital punishment, and war all have a purpose in society at some point.

Do people in general take pleasure in any of them? Of course not.

Most EU countries fall into the category I mention.

Hot Lips

05-17-2009, 11:46 PM

Ahh yes, babies spontaneously just "happen."

My solution?

To start with, don't kill your baby.

Of course not. Sarah Palin knows better than anyone you can talk till your blue in the face about abstinance and safe *** and babies still happen.

So now the babies are here in your 'don't kill them' world and 750,000 - 1,200,000 of them at an est cost of $5,000-$7,000 are to parents that can't afford them. You're going to foot the bill? And next years crop? And the next years crop?

Hot Lips

05-17-2009, 11:46 PM

Most EU countries fall into the category I mention.

And I answered your question as to why they probably do. If they don't consider the zygote or fetus to be a living being yet, that would explain the possible difference.

But if one believes they are both alive yet believe in capital punishment, etc then "pro-life" is a misnomer.

Kilgor

05-17-2009, 11:59 PM

With the republican brand smelling a bit foul, you can bet the ol' moral issues like abortion and gay rights will be well fired up for the next election.

WCF.KAS

05-18-2009, 12:01 AM

Does that mean the majority of Americans would prefer an abortion policy similar to say...el salvador's? Doubt it.....
Look at the Republic of Ireland in the 80's or the above mentioned nation, outlawing abortion hurts more people than it saves.
The simple fact is that we have to come together to reduce teen pregnancy, and the overall number abortions.

Someone once asked me, how would you feel if your mother aborted you? I thought about it....I wouldn't give a ****... why? Because I would not have a consciousness....I wouldnt exist to care.

PeterRJG

05-18-2009, 12:02 AM

Ahh yes, babies spontaneously just "happen."

My solution?

To start with, don't kill your baby.

Why? The way you rave on, it wouldn't be you that wanted to foot the bill for them. No fvcking sir.

ren0312

05-18-2009, 12:06 AM

ren0312

05-18-2009, 12:11 AM

Why? The way you rave on, it wouldn't be you that wanted to foot the bill for them. No fvcking sir.

How many of those who opposed the Bosnian genocide are actually willing to go there and fight the Serbs themselves, does it make the rationale for their objection to the Bosnian genocide any less valid?

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 12:22 AM

If a country has universal health care there is no rational reason for liberal abortion laws, can you think of any?

Healthcare would help curb the number of abortions, but because healthcare is available does that mean births should be forced upon incest victims? rape victims? the underaged? those who can't afford them even with healthcare? if the child will be deformed? yadda yadda yadda

How many of those who opposed the Bosnian genocide are actually willing to go there and fight the Serbs themselves, does it make the rationale for their objection to the Bosnian genocide any less valid?

If they aren't at least willing to financially, politically, and otherwise support the troups that do go there for what they profess to care about. Yes, it deminishes their stance.

It's hypocritical to profess 1.2 million abortions are lives you care about if you aren't giving significantly of your time, money, or care towards those lives once they are here. If the children are "someone elses problem to worry about", then it's not life one cares about.

If it's the kids you care about start here before concerning yourself with driving the number of kids in the system up:

Child Welfare League of America
Providing services that aid 3.5 million neglected and abused children each year. [Donate (https://www.networkforgood.org/Donation/MakeDonation.aspx?ORGID2=131641066)]

National CASA Association
Training and support for court appointed special advocates for children. [Donate (https://www.networkforgood.org/Donation/MakeDonation.aspx?ORGID2=911255818)]

Orphan Foundation of America
Support to parentless teens pursuing college and vocational training. [Donate (https://www.networkforgood.org/Donation/MakeDonation.aspx?ORGID2=521238437)]

National Foster Parent Association [Volunteer (http://www.networkforgood.org/OffsiteFrame/?PageID=100363)]

National American Council on Adoptable Children [Volunteer (http://www.networkforgood.org/OffsiteFrame/?PageID=100365)]

ren0312

05-18-2009, 12:43 AM

Healthcare would help curb the number of abortions, but because healthcare is available does that mean births should be forced upon incest victims? rape victims? the underaged? those who can't afford them even with healthcare? if the child will be deformed? yadda yadda yadda

If they aren't at least willing to financially, politically, and otherwise support the troups that do go there for what they profess to care about. Yes, it deminishes their stance.

It's hypocritical to profess 1.2 million abortions are lives you care about if you aren't giving significantly of your time, money, or care towards those lives once they are here. If the children are "someone elses problem to worry about", then it's not life one cares about.

If it's the kids you care about start here before concerning yourself with driving the number of kids in the system up:

Child Welfare League of America
Providing services that aid 3.5 million neglected and abused children each year. [Donate (https://www.networkforgood.org/Donation/MakeDonation.aspx?ORGID2=131641066)]

National CASA Association
Training and support for court appointed special advocates for children. [Donate (https://www.networkforgood.org/Donation/MakeDonation.aspx?ORGID2=911255818)]

Orphan Foundation of America
Support to parentless teens pursuing college and vocational training. [Donate (https://www.networkforgood.org/Donation/MakeDonation.aspx?ORGID2=521238437)]

National Foster Parent Association [Volunteer (http://www.networkforgood.org/OffsiteFrame/?PageID=100363)]

National American Council on Adoptable Children [Volunteer (http://www.networkforgood.org/OffsiteFrame/?PageID=100365)]

Where do you think the 63% income tax rates taxes go?

Ordie

05-18-2009, 12:45 AM

With the republican brand smelling a bit foul, you can bet the ol' moral issues like abortion and gay rights will be well fired up for the next election.

That's why they call them wedge issues.

Gay issues are less so because the younger generation of Americans are more tolerant.

The President today said something that made sense.

<Paraphrase> "If you want to stop abortions, lets work on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place through education, contraceptions, and adoptions."

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 12:53 AM

ren0312, Would they be asking for volunteers and donations if they were receiving enough help? Would kids still be waiting to be adopted if people actually cared so much? Do you think throwing another 700,000 to 1,200,000 children into the mix year over year is going to help?

SilentType

05-18-2009, 12:56 AM

"Wedge Issues."

"We need to have a more civil discussion."

Look, if you think abortion is wrong it's not an "issue" up there with whether the Capital gains tax should be increased or not it's "MURDER" in the eyes of the Pro-Life individuals.

Preventing "unwanted pregnancies" from a guy (Obama) who has taken tons of money from Planned Parenthood that actively advertises and markets their abortion services that they make the bulk of their money off of and now profit even more from by selling stem cells to research clinics.

People act like Obama actually cares about a woman's right to choose. He doesn't care it's a niche of support he's found and he's more than happy to cash the campaign donation checks that come from planned parenthood and the companies doing stem cell research along with various supporters.

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 12:57 AM

"If you want to stop abortions, lets work on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place through education, contraceptions, and adoptions."

Exactly. Stopping abortions won't fix the problem. People seeking abortions aren't likely to go away entirely any time soon even if it was made illegal. Nor are people that continue to have children they can't afford. Abortions will go down when people are taught to be more responsible.

I'm also for stem cell research so long as abortions will be performed anyway.

SilentType

05-18-2009, 01:06 AM

And there lies the problem. Take "God" out of abortion arguments, and the whole thing becomes a lot less black and white. Funny how that is, hey? Despite the ravings of preachers and bigots, not every woman that has an abortion is a gormless slut that couldn't keep her legs closed or made the guy use a condom. Some are rape victims, some were proxied into loveless marriages at an early age.

In fact, factor "God" out of all governmental decisions, and the world will become a whole lot saner.

World becomes a whole lot saner without "God" huh? Was it saner before much of the world believed in a single God? Nope. Will it be saner just because people believe in Darwin? Nope. People will just replace God with other things like money or politicians or theories or whatever. It's the nature of man.

There is nothing sane or rational about abortion. It's ending a life before it has a chance to begin. You're preventing life. If I harmed a pregnant woman and she didn't die, but she lost her child you'd call me a murderer. If the woman decides to do the same thing we're suppose to feel sorry for her and make excuses?

You know I think it's instructive to look at Mrs. Roe of the landmark case Roe v. Wade. She regrets her abortion now that she's older. She lives and carries that regret with her every day. You don't have to be religious to be moral. You don't have to be religious to have a conscious. You don't have to be religious to wonder what might have been.

Abortion is now a business. With stem cells now legal to harvest and sell an increasingly profitable business. People running Planned Parenthood don't do what they do out of deep respect for the privacy of a woman they do it for cash. Obama doesn't sign an executive order to allow for stem cells to be sold out of some desire to help people it's to get a campaign donation.

Sad part is that young women in trouble get tempted to do something that they may not fully understand. They get in these admittedly horrible situations in life and then some "business" which is what an abortion clinic is, offers them a seemingly "easy" way out. Turns out that all kinds of horrible things can result both physical and mental...it's a horrible thing.

Gleipnir

05-18-2009, 01:14 AM

Are funerals held for miscarriages?

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 01:32 AM

There is nothing sane or rational about abortion. It's ending a life before it has a chance to begin. You're preventing life.

Interesting slip of words, Freud. If it hasn't begun. If it's prevented. Then it's not life that's ending.

If I harmed a pregnant woman and she didn't die, but she lost her child you'd call me a murderer.

Suppose that depends on who you talk to or how far along the pregnancy was. At the very least you've taken away her right to choose without any real concern for the welfare of either.

Mrs. Roe may regret her decision, but it was her decision to make. That doesn't mean others will regret their decision. Either way, they are the ones who face the consequenses while others merely want to dictate to them and the wash their hands of them.

People on both sides of the issue try to tempt young women that may not fully understand. So you make sure they are more educated on their options. Not simply preach and then turn a back on them once they are left holding the baby.

Are funerals held for miscarriages?

Wouldn't be surprised if some have, but you don't really hear about people doing it unless it's a mid-late pregnancy incident. You'd think people would want to have a service and a place to visit. It helps.

chauncy republicans

05-18-2009, 02:06 AM

Exactly. Stopping abortions won't fix the problem. People seeking abortions aren't likely to go away entirely any time soon even if it was made illegal. Nor are people that continue to have children they can't afford. Abortions will go down when people are taught to be more responsible.
This is why you are wrong. You cling to the false assumption that to value unborn life one must also take responsibility for all of it after birth, while at the same time state that we need to teach people to take responsibility for their actions!? What kind of double-speak is this? How on earth are people going to be taught responsibility if they never have to accept it?

Ordie

05-18-2009, 02:12 AM

How on earth are people going to be taught responsibility if they never have to accept it?

Through parents who were not born to a teenaged mother and absent father with no resources or support system.

el borracho

05-18-2009, 02:17 AM

There is a difference between being "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." I am against abortion as a medical practice, but I feel that this is not an issue in which the government should mettle. This argument can never be settled by rational or religious debate as there are too many sides to the story. To those that are against it for religious reasons I would have to say just bite your tongue and hope that your god will judge these people for their actions.

chauncy republicans

05-18-2009, 02:24 AM

Through parents who were not born to a teenaged mother and absent father with no resources or support system.
There was also a nice little academy called 'the school of hard knocks', many people graduated from it before eunuchs started offering to wipe everybody's ass for free.

tercio67

05-18-2009, 02:40 AM

Through parents who were not born to a teenaged mother and absent father with no resources or support system.

You do realise that the percentage of abortions by women under 18 is only 6% ?
A study into the demographics of abortions was done in 1974 and 2004.

..."A lot of policymakers are stuck 30 years back when most women getting abortions are teenagers and college students, and that isn't so much the case these days." ....

....the proportion of abortions obtained by women younger than 20 dropped steadily, falling from 33 percent in 1974 to 17 percent in 2004. For those younger than 18, it fell from 15 percent of all abortions in 1974 to 6 percent in 2004. At the same time, the proportion of abortions obtained by women in their 20s increased from 50 percent to 57 percent, and the share done for women age 30 and older rose from 18 percent to 27 percent...

Link to the newspaper (Washington Post) article about the research done by the Guttmacher Institute;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html

Eye

05-18-2009, 02:47 AM

Law should protect everybody's life.

Zarak

05-18-2009, 02:51 AM

There was also a nice little academy called 'the school of hard knocks', many people graduated from it before eunuchs started offering to wipe everybody's ass for free.

I think the best example of its Alumni are inner city ghettos and the prison population....

tercio67

05-18-2009, 02:52 AM

Law should protect everybody's life.

But not when at the same time these laws would force women to give birth to unwanted children.
Rather than "protecting all life" wich is a concept based in religion, we should protect the right of women to make up their own mind about this.

Telmar

05-18-2009, 03:05 AM

Law should protect everybody's life.

The problem has always been defining "everybody".

In France, abortion is permitted until a certain number of pregnancy weeks. After that, if an abortion is carried out, it's only because the mother's life must be saved.

I find it fair and respectful.

Geezah

05-18-2009, 09:28 AM

Healthcare would help curb the number of abortions,

Healthcare is available to those that can't afford it. The same kind of care that those with insurance get.

Question for those that claim to be pro-abortion, at what point in your mind does life start?

What is the cut off point, the 1st trimester, 2nd, 3rd, when would you say abortion is a no go?

Jobu

05-18-2009, 09:52 AM

So now the babies are here in your 'don't kill them' world and 750,000 - 1,200,000 of them at an est cost of $5,000-$7,000 are to parents that can't afford them. You're going to foot the bill? And next years crop? And the next years crop?

It's nice to know you value the life of a baby at $5,000.

Let's round it off at 1,000,000 babies at $6,000 cost.
That's $6 billion. That's the same amount of money Obama spent in his $1 trillion stimulus bill alone to redecorate federal buildings.

Where do your priorities lie?

Telmar

05-18-2009, 11:00 AM

@Geezah:

In France, abortion is legal up to 12 weeks, so that would be up to the end of the first trimester.

For myself, it's not a question of life as much as it is a question of when the feotus actually can be considered a human being.

12 weeks IMO is a good compromise.

Eye

05-18-2009, 12:53 PM

12 weeks IMO is a good compromise.
Why do you think that very moment is the beginning of human being? I don't think newborn has more development self-awareness then 12 weeks foetus.

Gleipnir

05-18-2009, 12:59 PM

It's nice to know you value the life of a baby at $5,000.

Let's round it off at 1,000,000 babies at $6,000 cost.
That's $6 billion. That's the same amount of money Obama spent in his $1 trillion stimulus bill alone to redecorate federal buildings.

Where do your priorities lie?

Where do your priorities lie?

You are great at feeding us opinionated one-liners and finger pointing, yet you offer no suggestions of your own or add anything of value to the discussion- unless of course one-dimensional 3 sentence posts with advice as limited as 'don't kill your baby' and more excuses for your always predictable 'use any topic to bash Obama' are somehow adding something to the conversation and I am just not seeing it.

tercio67

05-18-2009, 01:03 PM

.....
Where do your priorities lie?

With the womens right to selfdetermination, rather than wanting to FORCE them to give birth no matter how much they don't want to.

Eye

05-18-2009, 01:08 PM

With the womens right to selfdetermination, rather than wanting to FORCE them to give birth no matter how much they don't want to.
I suppose most lives were started without using any force.

tercio67

05-18-2009, 01:21 PM

Most lives today are started without the use of force, at least in the developed world.

Taking away a womans right to choose is effectively forcing her to give birth if she were to get pregnant.

No method of birth control is 100% effective, and the arguments for abstinence are only valid if you consider women to be property who's virginity needs to be preserved for their husbands/owners.

IMHO only women should be alowed to have a say in this, after all they will have to carry the unborn for 9 months and give birth.
So they should have the right of choice.

tercio67

05-18-2009, 01:26 PM

About adoption, this too would force women to carry the unborn and give birth prior to the child being adopted.
Again not something I would want to force any woman to have to go trough against her will.

Telmar

05-18-2009, 01:32 PM

Why do you think that very moment is the beginning of human being? I don't think newborn has more development self-awareness then 12 weeks foetus.

Anyways, the process starts day 1 all the way to the end, so there is no decisive moment. It is only a matter of deciding when the liberty of the woman to stop the pregnancy yields in favour of protecting the yet unborn child.

As any deadline, it is blunt.

Rayber

05-18-2009, 01:59 PM

Personally im not considering it a life before week 22 (though that does not mean im for abortion so late , im fine with the rules we have here in Norway, Week 12 at your own mercy , over that its the doctors choice .

And for the Week 22, thats because its the earliest point any baby has been saved without permanent brain damage .

Eye

05-18-2009, 02:40 PM

And for the Week 22, thats because its the earliest point any baby has been saved without permanent brain damage .
Few dozens years ago much more mature premature babies died after delivery.
So, will you change you mind after some progress in medicine?

Jobu

05-18-2009, 03:17 PM

You are great at feeding us opinionated one-liners and finger pointing

Uh, welcome to the internet.

Rayber

05-18-2009, 04:35 PM

Few dozens years ago much more mature premature babies died after delivery.
So, will you change you mind after some progress in medicine?

Yes i will :),call me a hypocrite or whatever , i dont care .

There was a story a while ago from Ireland , a young girl , 19 years old who had to carry a baby who doctors knew for certain would die at birth or soon after , she was denied travel elsewhere to take a abortion and was of course denied abortion in Ireland as they never allow it .

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 04:35 PM

This is why you are wrong. You cling to the false assumption that to value unborn life one must also take responsibility for all of it after birth, while at the same time state that we need to teach people to take responsibility for their actions!? What kind of double-speak is this? How on earth are people going to be taught responsibility if they never have to accept it?

There was also a nice little academy called 'the school of hard knocks', many people graduated from it before eunuchs started offering to wipe everybody's ass for free.

If you begrudge helping those lives you do not truly value them. You wish those children on people you quite clearly despite and think little of. How much could you care about their lives that being the case.

Proving over and over it's not lives you care about at all, but merely some self righteous desire to thump your chest and exact what you perceive to be punishment upon other adults without regard for their potential children.

Reducing / revoking handouts will teach them to be more responsible, but many will still turn to abortion because responsibility won't be learned overnight.

If you make it illegal and they get it anyway, as other countries have found to be the case, and the mother ends up dead or needing medical care or is sent to prision what is it that you actually saved? Nothing because you still end up paying for it in the end - only it costs you more and you still aren't improving the lives you profess to care about.

It's nice to know you value the life of a baby at $5,000.

Let's round it off at 1,000,000 babies at $6,000 cost.
That's $6 billion. That's the same amount of money Obama spent in his $1 trillion stimulus bill alone to redecorate federal buildings.

Where do your priorities lie?

I didn't come up with that number the United States population did. It was a published average cost to raise a child for low-income households.

My priorities are to not compound the problem that exists. You moan about paying for other peoples mistakes and then want to pile on another $6 billion per year going forward. Cause that makes a lot of sense.

You moan about what the government spends and how it should be lowered and then seek drive it right back up with another $6 billion per year onto the tab? Forcing people to have kids they can't afford would neccessitate prolonging financial assistance, be more than double the number of unwanted kids in the system who would grow up to make more low income, low educated baby makers at a far greater expense to taxpayers and you'll have improved nothing.

Where are your priorities? How many kids in the system are you supporting?

Where do your priorities lie?

You are great at feeding us opinionated one-liners and finger pointing, yet you offer no suggestions of your own or add anything of value to the discussion- unless of course one-dimensional 3 sentence posts with advice as limited as 'don't kill your baby' and more excuses for your always predictable 'use any topic to bash Obama' are somehow adding something to the conversation and I am just not seeing it.

Exactly.

Jobu

05-18-2009, 04:38 PM

I didn't come up with that number the United States population did. It was a published average cost to raise a child for low-income households.

My priorities are to not compound the problem that exists. You moan about paying for other peoples mistakes and then want to pile on another $6 billion per year going forward. Cause that makes a lot of sense.

You moan about what the government spends and how it should be lowered and then seek to add another $6 billion per year onto the tab? Cause that makes a lot of sense.

If you find government spending that can be diverted you've changed nothing for the better. There would be more than dobule the number of unwanted kids in the system who would grow up to make more low income, low educated baby makers at a far greater expense to taxpayers.

Where are your priorities? How many kids in the system are you supporting?

I'd be willing to support all of the kids in the system if my tax money were spent on them instead of on ACORN, on new furniture for government offices, on abortions, on corrupt labor unions, and on and on and on.

Yes, my priorities are first to stop killing children. ACORN can find a different way to raise funds for their voter fraud schemes.

Geezah

05-18-2009, 04:46 PM

For those against abortion, what are your thoughts on those that have been convicted in the past of killing a girlfriends/wifes unborn baby?

Gleipnir

05-18-2009, 04:47 PM

@Jobu
Wow, more impractical logorrhoea that has nothing to do with the real world, any other wildly fanciful scenarios you wish to share with us?

Jobu

05-18-2009, 04:55 PM

@Jobu
Wow, more impractical logorrhoea that has nothing to do with the real world, any other wildly fanciful scenarios you wish to share with us?

Ahh yes, where our tax money goes is not the "real world." That's just all in the imagination.
:rollseyes:

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 05:08 PM

In other words, Jobu, you don't care to support them unless you can hand pick and choose what doesn't get paid for by government. As if that's ever going to happen regardless of which party is office. After several years here I think many of us realize you'll continue to have things to use as an excuse and impotently moan about without ever offering realistic solutions.

Jobu

05-18-2009, 05:16 PM

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 05:19 PM

Selective spending is unrealistic?

Wow, I wonder how the rest of you people balance your books each month.

When you run for office and implement your personal selective spending plan, get back to us.

Gleipnir

05-18-2009, 05:25 PM

For those against abortion, what are your thoughts on those that have been convicted in the past of killing a girlfriends/wifes unborn baby?

I'm not sure what this has to do with a woman's voluntary choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

Jobu

05-18-2009, 05:30 PM

When you run for office and implement your personal selective spending plan, get back to us.

I'll go on talking about trivial, unrealistic things like spending priorities and you can go on talking about important matters like how much you hate Sarah Palin or Joe the plumber.

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 05:37 PM

I'm not sure what this has to do with a woman's voluntary choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

I think he means when a man tries to kill a woman and she survives, but loses the embryo/fetus inside her as a result of the attack.

Basically he has forcibly deprived the parents of their right to choose for themselves and a penalty should added to the charges.

Embryonic Freezing: Child Abuse?

Rayber

05-18-2009, 06:00 PM

For all the enlightened ones out there. As you sit and discuss the murder of millions of babies as flippantly as you would discuss fishing or doing the dishes, remember; The whole issue derives its basis from an 'opinion'. It's this persons 'opinion' that life begins at this point and it's that persons 'opinion' that life begins at that point. It's absolutely horrendous that this takes place. It's inconceivable to me that such a thing can go on based on an 'opinion'. It's murder and all those who take place in the taking of an unborn babies life should be sentenced to death. It's not a religious thing, it's a human rights thing.
How can Government officials say it's O.K. to murder an unborn baby because the woman was raped but they say it's despicable to sentence the rapist to death?
As far as the whole "Tax payers footing the bill" with regards to fostering and/or adoption issue goes what do we do with the millions of elderly out there who can't care for themselves that the tax payers foot the bill for? Should we murder them because they are a costly inconvenience?
Casey Anthony is charged with the murder of her three year old daughter Caylee. It was, apparently, Casey's 'opinion' that her daughter Caylee should die because she was a burden, inconvenience, the future looked grim or whatever reason went through her mind so why is this any different than abortion?
Statistically, abortion from rape, incest, babies with birth defects, abortions because the mothers life was in danger are less than 8% of all abortions so the crap about it should be legal to murder a baby because of any of this is more tripe. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

I am a foster parent.

This is a issue which will ALLWAYS be based on Opinions , thats because there is no way to get a clear answer as to when life starts that both sides agree with . As for my self i dont consider abortion murder , i dont consider the removal of a parasite murder (and yes , a fetus is a parasite , it lives off the carrier , in this case the mother.)

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 06:12 PM

Thanks for your 'opinion'.

Should we kill the elderly? Should a three year old's murder be overlooked? Of course not. They've already been born and are here living, breathing, etc on their own.

It's great if you are a foster parent. Find a 1/3 million or so more willing to step up to the plate and you might be in business to handle the 1.37+ million abortions that would turn into births year over year in the United States. The 42+ million worldwide year over year will be a tad harder to handle.

I think people that want to force others to carry embryos to term should be forced to serve time as foster parents so long as there are children in the system. I don't think enough actually exist who care as much as they profess. Some people act on their convictions, like you, most are just hot air wrapped up in a political debate who you won't be able to count on when push comes to shove.

California Joe

05-18-2009, 06:17 PM

Well kudos to you for putting your time and money where your mouth is Slacks. I sincerely mean that. It's a good thing you are doing.

I tend to look at the fact that abortion is a legal option in this country the same way I look at the 2nd Amendment. Who does the Government think it is, to be telling me what I can do with my guns, or my wife/daughter what she can do with her body.

I'm a parent, I've seen sonograms, I've changed sh*tty diapers, it changes your outlook. Personally, I don't like abortion in any way shape or form, but I do believe it is a necessary evil and should be an option, to women, who aren't in any position to raise a kid. There are lots of retards like Casey Anthony out there that should never have been parents. Should we sterilize all of them at 15 based on a test of stupidity quotient? Personally, that works for me. Not so much in practice...

I think it's too easy to spread your legs and procreate with the mullet of the week. Look at Bristol Palin. I'd like my daughter to be able to have a choice, with parental influence, if Gawd forbid, she get pregnant. I would not want a kid growing up fatherless, because there would surely be some earth on the back 40 that looked recently disturbed.

Gleipnir

05-18-2009, 07:04 PM

For all the enlightened ones out there. As you sit and discuss the murder of millions of babies as flippantly as you would discuss fishing or doing the dishes, remember; The whole issue derives its basis from an 'opinion'.
If you read through the whole thread, I don't think it is fair to accuse people of discussing this issue flippantly. I think the majority of those who have spoken in defense of the decision to abort have all made it clear that they do find it a horrible process for all involved and that it is an unfortunate reality that provokes no easy decisions.
It's this persons 'opinion' that life begins at this point and it's that persons 'opinion' that life begins at that point.
#131 (I covered this here) (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4133011&postcount=131)
Yes, opinion differs, that's why I still feel it is unfair to make a decision that will take away someones opinion and furthermore, take away their choice to make a decision that will primarily affect them and the child. I still maintain the opinion that it should be the mother's choice, seeing as it is inside her body and she has to put in the hard work to ensure that if she decides to keep the child, that it is raised in good health while growing inside her. The decision to abort is never easy and I don't think it is fair to say (as some here have) that it is an easy process for anyone- morally, physically or psychologically.
It's absolutely horrendous that this takes place.
I agree and I think that most people will agree here.
It's inconceivable to me that such a thing can go on based on an 'opinion'. It's murder and all those who take place in the taking of an unborn babies life should be sentenced to death.
How is it murder? Because you say it is? As has already been said, this can not be clearly defined for everyone. You want to preserve life but think those who choose to abort should be sentenced to death?
It's not a religious thing, it's a human rights thing.
Yes and no for both.
How can Government officials say it's O.K. to murder an unborn baby because the woman was raped but they say it's despicable to sentence the rapist to death?
I don't know, not all Government officials say that. Again, you are calling it murder.
As far as the whole "Tax payers footing the bill" with regards to fostering and/or adoption issue goes what do we do with the millions of elderly out there who can't care for themselves that the tax payers foot the bill for? Should we murder them because they are a costly inconvenience?
No, of course not- but they can be without a doubt be proven to be living, conscious people with undeniable rights given to them by law.
Casey Anthony is charged with the murder of her three year old daughter Caylee. It was, apparently, Casey's 'opinion' that her daughter Caylee should die because she was a burden, inconvenience, the future looked grim or whatever reason went through her mind so why is this any different than abortion?
A three year old child is without a doubt a living, conscious human being protected by laws. This is an enormous difference.
Statistically, abortion from rape, incest, babies with birth defects, abortions because the mothers life was in danger are less than 8% of all abortions so the crap about it should be legal to murder a baby because of any of this is more tripe. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Again, your definitions of life and murder do not apply to everyone. Why should your opinion be any more valid than the opinion of the mother who has the decision to make concerning the unwanted pregnancy.

You have made a very sweeping and emotive argument but unfortunately it is still within the realm of opinion, which sadly, isn't enough.

What you choose to do in your own life and what you choose for your children is yours to decide.
That being said I don't think it is fair for you to make a decision for someone else, especially if you do not know the unique and complex circumstances revolving around that person. I still think it should be up to the person faced with the unwanted pregnancy as it is their body and will effect their life, not yours.

I am a foster parent.

Kudos to you. You set a great example for others who share your opinion on the matter and I applaud you for that.

.............

Gleipnir

05-18-2009, 07:11 PM

Okay, fair enough, thanks for your input, Slacks.
Great first post, by the way.

/EDIT/ I think it has already been said, but I would just like to emphasize this point:

When it comes to the issue of abortion, the root of the problem, the source of the problem is unwanted pregnancy- something that occurs before that horrible decision of whether to abort or not needs to be made.

In my opinion, this should be the main focus of education and discussion with children and teenagers.

Geezah

05-18-2009, 07:22 PM

I'm not sure what this has to do with a woman's voluntary choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

It is a valid question, if a baby is aborted before pregnancy, and is looked at as nothing more than a thing, then how can people get upset when a beast kills a womans unborn baby?
Realistically, should States pursue a charge against killing an unborn baby?

Violet Fashion by Mindy

05-18-2009, 07:25 PM

What's a bigger crime. Bring an unwanted child into the world, with parents that do not or have the ability to provide the upbringing it needs adequately or aborting the pregnancy early on.

In bother cases the possible solutions are not ideal. In both cases there will always be a lot of regret.

Gleipnir

05-18-2009, 07:33 PM

It is a valid question, if a baby is aborted before pregnancy, and is looked at as nothing more than a thing, then how can people get upset when a beast kills a womans unborn baby?
Realistically, should States pursue a charge against killing an unborn baby?

Because it wasn't a voluntary decision- this is the key difference.
It is terminating someone else's wanted pregnancy.
And saying it is only looked at as 'nothing more than a thing' isn't generally what is being argued.

Geezah

05-18-2009, 07:41 PM

Because it wasn't a voluntary decision- this is the key difference.
It is terminating someone else's wanted pregnancy.

So you are able to pick and choose when an unborn baby should be looked upon as an object?

And saying it is only looked at as 'nothing more than a thing' isn't generally what is being argued.

Well, to those that are pro-abortion, it works in their favour to look at an unborn baby as an object/thing.

I have said that in some cases(abuse, rape, incest or threat to the mothers life) I can meet people half way and agree on abortion, but as a form of birth control, well for those that are bringing a baby in a life of hardship, how about we sterilize those couples before hand?

Violet Fashion by Mindy

05-18-2009, 07:45 PM

Well the fact also stands that many people in low socio-economic groups raise children to be some of the richest and most productive in society and to forcibly sterilise people because they are poor is robbing them of their dignity, rights and chance to better themselves.

Gleipnir

05-18-2009, 07:54 PM

So you are able to pick and choose when an unborn baby should be looked upon as an object?

I never said anything about an unborn child being a mere object. It is about making a decision that will effect the life of the mother and the foetus. That decision lies with the mother and in the majority concerns an UNWANTED pregnancy.

In the case where SOMEONE ELSE creates a situation where a WANTED pregnancy is TERMINATED by force, I can see there being a huge difference.

Again, as I have said since the beginning- it isn't as simple as reducing everything to the same terms and definitions and as I have emphasized many times, I think each instance should be looked at on a case by case basis as each will have differing circumstances and conditions.

The same applies to the situation you are bringing up.

Well, to those that are pro-abortion, it works in their favour to look at an unborn baby as an object/thing.

I am not going to speak for anyone except myself here, because I don't know what your experience with pro-abortion people is and I certainly don't want to be lumped in with something you have already reduced to one type of person with a specific mindset.
All I can say is, I don't think of a foetus as a mere thing and have already said that I don't think abortions are at all an easy process for anyone involved- morally, physically, psychologically.
I think that there is a strange insistence on your part that those who decide to go through with this heart-wrenching procedure somehow treat it like an easy process devoid of thought or consideration, which to me, is very shortsighted.

I have said that in some cases(abuse, rape, incest or threat to the mothers life) I can meet people half way and agree on abortion, but as a form of birth control, well for those that are bringing a baby in a life of hardship, how about we sterilize those couples before hand?

I have already made it clear that I am not against limiting abortion but am in no way for making it illegal or taking this option away from someone - I don't think it is fair for me to make this kind of decision for someone else, especially if I am not directly involved or know the circumstances, etc.

I have already spoken about emphasis on ****** education.

..........

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 08:06 PM

... how about we sterilize those couples before hand?

OK by me. It'd be great to require people have to take parenting classes, pass a test and acquire a license to be parents first... but you'll have a whole crop of anti-choice and pro-choice folks that also object to that because "it's a persons natural right to have kids"...and more kids, and more kids, and more kids whether they can afford them or not.

It's not always a case of simple making people more responsible. It's also making sure people have the education and skills to become self sustaining adults who can afford their children.

There are not enough people willing to adopt the kids in the world now. New foster parents are always being sought because there aren't enough or they realize it's not for them. There isn't enough money being donated by all these people who profess to care so we take it from taxpayers like it or not. Children die around the world every day for lack of proper nourishment, health care, etc. Yet many of these same caring people want to pile 42+million/year on and then assert that once they are here it's not their problem because they did their part by forcing births on "those people", or are content to give $0.50/day because Sally Struthers told them that's all it takes, or don't care about those kids "over there", or simply "they're not my kids".

But if you force them into existence they are your kids, IMO, and you should be held accountable for each and every one of them.

Zarak

05-18-2009, 08:12 PM

Realistically, should States pursue a charge against killing an unborn baby?

Should a woman who has a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter?

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 08:15 PM

Should a woman who has a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter?

Suppose that could depend on how far people take the right to life arguement. If she went against doctors orders and didn't eat enough, exercised too much, had to much to drink, took improper medication with clear warning lables during pregnancy, got on a plane late in her pregancy or anything against doctors recommendations and endangered the life of the fetus for self serving purposes, like a business trip, fitting into a dress, whatever... why not?

What if she told people she thought about abortion and there was reasonable evidence of trying to bring on a "natural" miscarriage by not following doctors orders, etc?

Should people be able to take out life insurance policies and cash in on them if something goes wrong?

Is embryotic freezing child abuse? What if you never unfreeze them or dispose of them?

Ordie

05-18-2009, 08:28 PM

For those who argue against abortion, why not take away the demand for abortion as an option.

Those who claim to be 'pro-life' should advocate for free *** education, free contraceptives, subsidized and seamless adoptions, free pre-natal counseling, medical care and delivery for single unwed mothers.

The overall goal is to make abortion as irrelevent as possible.

If they spend half of thier time protesting, bombing clinics and death threats against doctors, perhaps they could have prevented abortions through pro-active means as mentioned above.

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 08:33 PM

^ And perhaps limits to the picking and choosing of which child you want. Take what is available.

Hollis

05-18-2009, 09:03 PM

^ And perhaps limits to the picking and choosing of which child you want. Take what is available.

Or in cultures where girls are very low ranking, abort the girls and go to term if it is a boy.

Never underestimate the human ingenuity to do good or bad.

Hot Lips

05-18-2009, 09:11 PM

Or in cultures where girls are very low ranking, abort the girls and go to term if it is a boy.

Never underestimate the human ingenuity to do good or bad.

If you can determine *** and still qualify for an abortion within legal limits. If you are limited to a number of children and desire at least one of a particular *** or having more boys means the family is more likely to survive and thrive I suppose it's more humane than waiting till they are born and then drowning them. But then I'm pro-choice. And the ramifications of selection is a whole nother topic.

If someone is against abortion they shouldn't be against having to take what you get during adoption since they wanted to force these children into existence.

Rad Resistance

05-18-2009, 10:25 PM

I feel bad being a catholic because I have to see all my fellow catholic brethren on the television acting like total asses it just saddens me to see people protest something so stupid, which in the first place isn't any of their dammned business, those that I see acting like idoits deserved to be taken out back and shot.

chauncy republicans

05-19-2009, 04:42 AM

But if you force them into existence they are your kids, IMO, and you should be held accountable for each and every one of them.
Again, laying the blame on everybody besides the parents. Failure to accept responsibility, and to assign it judiciously, would be considered a character flaw by many. You cling to your little argument of making unwanted children, and those that would protect them responsible for their parent's actions, but you can't seem to give any reasonable justification for it. I know you can't, but I'd still like to see you try.

RxOnco

05-19-2009, 09:47 AM

Jobu

05-19-2009, 10:56 AM

Parents have 9 months to get their **** together and become responsible human beings.

Or, they can kill their child instead.

It's quite a dilemma.

BMUS

05-19-2009, 11:30 AM

I'm pro-life for the most part, except in cases of rape, abuse, insest a threat to the mothers life.
Just a question, is it because you view the embreo a living human life?

Then isn't all abortions murder?
Even if the mother was raped, abused - whatever.

Murder is still murder.

And yes, I'm pro-choice.

Ordie

05-19-2009, 01:21 PM

Parents have 9 months to get their **** together and become responsible human beings.

Or, they can kill their child instead.

It's quite a dilemma.

If you care about that child, then offer to adopt him/her, pay for all expenses and education.

Jobu

05-19-2009, 01:35 PM

If you care about that child, then offer to adopt him/her, pay for all expenses and education.

Take some of that stimulus money away from those who don't need or deserve it and use it to help underpriviledged kids. I'm fine with that.

At the same time, people need to grow the **** up and take responsibility for their own actions. You conceived the kid, you take care of it as best you can. Or just go ahead and kill your child if that's more convenient. We wouldn't want to make life hard on you or anything due to your own actions. It's not like you chose to have *** and get pregnant, it just happened spontaneously.

Gleipnir

05-19-2009, 03:20 PM

Hey ****head
have some sensitivity to those women who have been victims of ****** assault

Eye

05-19-2009, 04:31 PM

have some sensitivity to those women who have been victims of ****** assault
They are minority of clients of abortion clinics.

Gleipnir

05-19-2009, 05:10 PM

And what is your point exactly? Because they are a minority we shouldn't show them some sensitivity? That they don't deserve the right to an abortion because they aren't in the majority? Please.
You guys need to grow the **** up and stop looking at the world through your narrow-minded politics and simplistic world views.
This is a pluralistic, complicated, multi-dimensional world and maybe just because you live in an area where everybody else looks, behaves and thinks like you doesn't mean the world beyond should be reduced to the fanciful utopia you envision in your incredibly closed minds.

Hot Lips

05-19-2009, 07:15 PM

Again, laying the blame on everybody besides the parents.

people need to grow the **** up and take responsibility for their own actions.

Have stated repeatedly that I'd like to make the parents more accountable by scaling back or revoking handouts. If they want to keep their kid they should pay for it. If they can't afford it then give it up to foster care until it can be adopted --- though I think they should have to pay funds into that or volunteer a specific amount of time to the system since it's cheaper than keeping the baby. Or they should have an abortion and pay for it themselves.

But if you are going to remove the right to choose from them out of some need to punish the parents under the pretense of caring about the child then I expect you to also be accountable for that life because you will have played a significant role in forcing it's birth.

I don't want the irresponsible parents nor their disingenuous political opposition who pretend to give a rip about kids lives continuing to spend my taxes on situations they are responsible for creating together while continuing to ignore all the children already here on earth that need their help while they are too busy procreating and protesting to create even more kids they don't care about.

This question is too inane to contemplate.

Should the parents of babies that die from IDS (Infant death syndrome) be charge with manslaughter? is just as inane a question.

If you truly believe the extreme point that life begins at conception and that abortion is flat out unjustifiable murder, then it's perfectly legitimate to explore if a women who is pregnant endangers the development of her unborn child should be prosecuted under lessor charges depending on the offense and impact on the fetus.

Or if a couple that freezes viable embryos has committed a crime. Or murder if they never use the embryo. Etc.

You can't have it both ways. You either unequivocally value that potential life and it's "rights" or you don't.

Most of us are "Pro-Choice" because most of us believe there are situations in which abortion should be allowed. "Pro-Life" is a feel good misnomer for most people -- false because many also believe in capital punishment, acceptable casualties in the name of country/humanity, etc.

Rad Resistance

05-19-2009, 07:27 PM

Hot Lips that avatar is great, but back to the matter at hand how can someone label abortion murder, the dead fetus when they pull it out looks like a blood loogie, and the images the bible thumpers show of dead babies are very late and dangerous abortions that most clinics don't even preform the procedure due to the high death rate related to late abortions, people are just blinded and easily subdued by religious propaganda.

Ordie

05-19-2009, 07:46 PM

Perhaps we should take it a step further and call ejaculation without intercourse murder.

ren0312

05-19-2009, 09:14 PM

If you care about that child, then offer to adopt him/her, pay for all expenses and education.

Anyone who is against terrorism should join at the nearest SEALS recruiting post, which is a better option than Delta.p-)

Random_Scientist

05-19-2009, 09:25 PM

But if you are going to remove the right to choose from them out of some need to punish the parents under the pretense of caring about the child then I expect you to also be accountable for that life because you will have played a significant role in forcing it's birth.

+1

They'll never admit it or acknowledge it, but the majority of peoples religous, 'superior morals' or 'good will' stops when it starts to impact their wallets. Its actually a good thing for the rest of us because it shows just how committed they really are and means they'll likely never get the support they want.

If you truly believe the extreme point that life begins at conception

Technically speaking thats when 'new' life begins. It is alive and from that point on, provided the right conditions and nutrients it has everything required to develop providing that it has genes which will allow it. (Because some mutations in some genes etc will prevent its development).

However, as someone put it earlier at that stage its still a bunch of cells which has no awareness and for the first little while has a fairly low chance of survival.

The question really is what stage would it be considered to have sufficiently developed to be called 'living'. Very early is an extreme stance on the issue and has little basis. I reckon what was posted earlier about the start of brainwave activity was actually a quite good one.

Most of us are "Pro-Choice" because most of us believe there are situations in which abortion should be allowed. "Pro-Life" is a feel good misnomer for most people -- false because many also believe in capital punishment, acceptable casualties in the name of country/humanity, etc.

Exactly

Also to all the 'pro-lifers':

Can someone explain why it is your 'right' to interfere with the lives of others? It doesn't affect you in any way shape or form, so what business do you have trying to force your views on them?

Geezah

05-19-2009, 09:44 PM

Also to all the 'pro-lifers':

Can someone explain why it is your 'right' to interfere with the lives of others? It doesn't affect you in any way shape or form, so what business do you have trying to force your views on them?

Could you not apply the same logic on someone that is about to abort a baby that has a heart beat?
After all, the baby has no say so in what is about to happen.

Midav

05-19-2009, 09:49 PM

Tough argument....

My mom had the right to do as she pleased with her own body..... yet at the same time, I am not my mom, either.

Hollis

05-19-2009, 10:16 PM

+1

They'll never admit it or acknowledge it, but the majority of peoples religous, 'superior morals' or 'good will' stops when it starts to impact their wallets. Its actually a good thing for the rest of us because it shows just how committed they really are and means they'll likely never get the support they want.

That is a pretty poor straw man argument. I bet you don't have any stats to back it up. If you look at charities in the US, the religious groups are very giving. Also I knew a 7th Day Adventist family that adopted about 5 very special need children. Some required the attendance of professional nurse.

Also I doubt event like I just mention also happens in non-religious community.

BTW, I gather your not a scientist. Just a very bush you that you paint people with.

Gleipnir

05-19-2009, 10:23 PM

Could you not apply the same logic on someone that is about to abort a baby that has a heart beat?
After all, the baby has no say so in what is about to happen.
Yes, but you are trying to tell us that you should be the one giving the baby a voice more so than the parents?
It's the same thing with animals, they don't have a voice, but everyone thinks it is okay to speak on their behalf to further their own political agendas.

I think it is fair to say that a good cut-off point should be a time-frame wherein a baby, if actually born at that premature stage of development, would have no chance of survival.

Hot Lips

05-19-2009, 10:23 PM

Hollis

05-19-2009, 10:44 PM

Yes, but you are trying to tell us that you should be the one giving the baby a voice more so than the parents?

I think it is fair to say that a good cut-off point should be a time-frame wherein a baby, if actually born at that premature stage of development, would have no chance of survival.

This is one of those issues that have so many parts to it. The strong emotional appeals, legal issues that have tremendous impact on people's daily lives, the money factor and finally what drives this issue to become so polarize the political value.

I don't think I ever known personally any one who is not pro-choice to some extent. They may want limits on abortion, but there are times they would think it should be a option. Option in the in that the person who is pregnant should have the ability to have one, if they so choose.

As long as it is a partisan political issue, I don't think we will even explore all the problems leading up to a unwanted pregnancy and all the issues a person has to deal with how they need to proceed.

I think the above is partially what Obama stated the other day.

For those who use the abortion issue for political means, they will only promote polarization of the issue and completely trivialize this very complicated issue that the only solution is some extreme.

Random_Scientist

05-19-2009, 10:49 PM

That is a pretty poor straw man argument. I bet you don't have any stats to back it up. If you look at charities in the US, the religious groups are very giving. Also I knew a 7th Day Adventist family that adopted about 5 very special need children. Some required the attendance of professional nurse.

I didn't mean just religious people there Hollis (sorry if it wasn't clear), and certainly not all are like that. I meant society in general - the average person whether they are religious or not. No i don't have stats to prove it and perhaps i've just met too many people who were all about promoting something but bypass the associated issues that will hurt their wallets to bias my views.

All of the people saying "I want abortions to stop, but its up to Person X to pay for the unwanted child" in this thread shows that. Like Hot lips said looking after the well being of those children is associated with the act of preventing the abortion in the first place. Don't you think if they were so committed they would do similar things to what those people you mentioned are doing? Those people you mentioned are the ones that actually stand by their beliefs and don't try to act superior or push their views in some way while trying to pass the impact of them onto someone else so it doesn't hurt their wallet.

Same thing happens with lots of issues like global warming etc. I've found that in my experience most people (the average person) i talk to wants a solution, but isn't prepared to pay the costs associated with it and wants someone else to do it for them.

BTW, I gather your not a scientist. Just a very bush you that you paint people with.

I am actually, A biologist. We have our own views too. Some people's are as strange as anybody elses. We just don't/try not to let them interfere with the science we conduct.

Hollis

05-19-2009, 10:49 PM

Great. Let them know there are 600,000 kids in the system they haven't adopted yet and more on the way every day. That orphanages, etc are still in need of donations because amazingly they haven't received enough yet. And potentially another 1,200,000 million kids per year in the US alone will be added to the mix going forward if people here get their way.... based on their own stats.

Pretty emotional reaction. Seem you only see in stereo types. OMFG the other side are just evil, evil I say. Seems to me, the hard core pro-lifers and hard-core pro-choice are using the same tactics.

I gather you didn't listen to Obama speech. I happened to agree with him. The Abortion aspect of the abortion issue is not the only issue and it may not be the major issue, it is Political divisive part.

Gleipnir

05-19-2009, 10:51 PM

For those who use the abortion issue for political means, they will only promote polarization of the issue and completely trivialize this very complicated issue that the only solution is some extreme.

Well said, HOLLiS, I couldn't agree more.

Hollis

05-19-2009, 10:55 PM

I didn't mean just religious people there Hollis (sorry if it wasn't clear), and certainly not all are like that. I meant society in general - the average person whether they are religious or not. No i don't have stats to prove it and perhaps i've just met too many people who were all about promoting something but bypass the associated issues that will hurt their wallets to bias my views.

Thanks for the heads up. This political issue is probably one of the most emotional one of our times. As long as it worked for it's political value, I don't think many of the other issues will be address. I mention Obama's speech, he covered other issue that needs to be address. I don't there will ever be a abortion free world, but we can do a lot to improve the environment to minimize unwanted pregnancies that leads to abortions.

Example. Health care, Maternity leave, Better education in prevention, etc,

Hot Lips

05-19-2009, 11:07 PM

Pretty emotional reaction. Seem you only see in stereo types. OMFG the other side are just evil, evil I say. Seems to me, the hard core pro-lifers and hard-core pro-choice are using the same tactics.

Factual. Nor did I call anyone evil. Simply hypocritical.

Actually I don't see sterotypes. I see reality. The harsh reality is too many people that profess to care about these lives aren't doing enough for the ones already here in the world - their own statistics reflect it. And we even see some here on MP.net crying about anyone daring to remind them or suggest they step up and really put their time and money where they profess their hearts are.

I accept that I can't do enough, it's why I don't have kids of my own, and that I don't like paying for other peoples irresponsiblity therefore I'm not going to try and deny other citizens their right to make a choice that is best for them when they have to deal with the consequences or want to put a bigger burden onto society.

I'm not going to whine about giving handouts to people that have kids they can't afford and then turn around and fight to create a situation that will only compound the problem. I prefer to keep this choice available to them and find way of bringing abortion rates down. Because until they are more responsible and self sustaining it is a neccessary evil.

I gather you didn't listen to Obama speech. I happened to agree with him. The Abortion aspect of the abortion issue is not the only issue and it may not be the major issue, it is Political divisive part.

I gather you haven't read most of the thread. I'm all for planned parenthood, contraception, and other solutions that will bring abortion levels down. Including restricting/eliminating handouts to those that abuse the system, making sure our citizens have a better shot at acquiring the education and skills and will help them become self sustaining adults, etc. Until that happens, it's an option that has a purpose however distasteful.

Hollis

05-19-2009, 11:45 PM

HL, This is a forum. We have no clue what people do or don't outside of this forum generally. The only person I can expound on is myself. I can share what I have experienced, such as that one family who adopted very special needs children.

Part of Obama speech was on the practical aspect and solution to this political conundrum. Your response to me on that ONE family was......

How did it fit into context on what I was talking about, painting people with a single stroke of a brush.

Stepping up the plate? How do we determine that? Straw man arguments are used a lot in this tread. I don't see practical solutions or discussions being presented in this thread that President Obama suggested. What I see is mostly extreme emotional diatribes.

Basically what I am saying and is what you are saying:

"Until that happens, it's an option that has a purpose however distasteful"

Now how do we go about as "
Obama, however, stated that even though he is pro-choice, he believes that the number of abortions should be lessened. Specifically, Obama said, “So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions. Let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let’s make adoption more available. Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term.”

I think one of the solutions in promoting dialogue, is also stated by our President:

"Obama called for "open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words" in the public debate over the issue, arguing that there was no reason to reduce the other side to caricatures." (didn't happen much on this thread)