tecoyah

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

drakers

It is funny how republicans feel they are so morally superior than us liberals. Bush thinks that promoting being celibiste will have a better effect on kids in high school than actually talking about the issues. He doesn't think passing out condoms might be a good idea in case kids to get in a sexual situation, we are still talking about kids because they still considered adults. Well no condoms, I guess I'll have unprotected sex, next thing you know the girl is pregnant. Most kids aren't going to want to keep a baby at such a young age, because they aren't able too. Looks like those condoms could've help and now the parents are forcing their kid to have an abortion. Great job President Bush, by promoting no sex.

Mojo_PeiPei

If kids aren't ready for the consequences of their actions, more importantly sex, they aren't ready for sex.

It reminds me of the argument for giving needles to druggies. "Well they are going to do it anyways! Might as well make sure they are doing it safe and right! "

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Paq

I think it would be helpful to give hypo's to drug addicts instead of having them risk aids and then spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on healthcare and treatment. hypodermics are cheap compared to that...

and really..people are stupid and unprepared for babies, yet they have them all the time. Sex is an instinct, one of the most powerful urges there is, and is not easily controlled without knowledge, which is what the republicans are trying to restrict. "Don't have sex until you'er married and ready to have children.."...yeah..that works for so many people...I'd rather have an informed population than a 'moral' population when it comes to sex and drugs...

__________________
Live.

Chris

boatin

I agree with this statement 100%, I would even remove the word "kids", and suggest that most people (including me, if you must know) aren't ready for the consequences of their actions.


As opinions go, however, I don't think it helps move the discussion forward about dealing with the problem of teen pregnancy/abortion.

As the last poster suggested, people are going to have sex. There is pretty significant evidence (to put it mildly) of that in every social/cultural/economic/geographic strata in the world.

Saying "don't do it" is tantamount to covering your ears and saying "nyah nyah nyah". I keep hearing that liberals are the pie in the sky team. It's clear I don't understand.


Can I infer, Mojo, that you are against handing out condoms in schools? What is your preferred strategy for preventing high school sex, if I may ask?

Coppertop

It reminds me of the argument for giving seatbelts to drivers. "Well they are going to do it anyways! Might as well make sure they are doing it safe and right!"

Mojo_PeiPei

While the catch with that argument Coppertop is that it is not a self only action. If I'm driving and I T-bone somebody they are going to get fucked up. My passenger is not in control and the other car had no control over my driving. Thus seat belts are required for safety. They are basically innocent and have no control over the situation.

On the other hand I could give a fuck if junkies get aids or die of blood infections, they are social parasites and this is darwinism at it's finest. They are willingly injecting themselves with poison.

Also I'm mostly indifferent to handing out condoms, I just hate the liberal mentality as mentioned in my druggie post.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Coppertop

Control has nothing to do with it. I could easily change it to say "If people aren't ready for the consequences of being in a moving car, then they shouldn't be in one. Let alone driving."

Why should be we not provide the means and/or education for people to safely do things they are going to do anyway? People are going to have sex, period. Especially kids going through puberty. No force in the world is strong enough to defeat that.

Mojo_PeiPei

Except an IRON CLAD FIST!!!!

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

wnker85

Wow, I see a deeper analogy here. (SP?)

But, I am confused the argument here is that if a baby can't survive outside the womb than I should think of it less than an animal. Because I can not kick a puppy, but if I want, when I'm through with school (I'm becoming a doc) I can stick my hands in a woman's vagaina and take a baby out and kill it as long as I kill it inside. I do not see you logic.

I think that pro-choice is a very, extremly selfish stance. Well I want to go have sex, but if something happens i want to have it removed so I can go back to having sex again. If you don't want to raise a child put it up for someone else who wants a baby to raise.

And for an ealier quote that only men are pro life. Many women are pro-life. Who you may ask. How about the founding Mothers of Feminism. They spoke out against it.

uncle_el

the logic is what i posted before. before 24 weeks, a fetus is not viable. if a woman less than 24 weeks pregnant came in to the e.r. or the doctor's offfice in premature labor... there's not much that could be done. you could try to close the cervix (referred to as cerclage), and tell the woman to be on bedrest... all of which would really only give the woman another 4 weeks at best... i suppose that's not bad if the woman is 23 or 24 weeks pregnant (though the likelihood of disability is quite high), but at 12 weeks... the fetus would still not be viable... and thus would end up dead.




by your own admission, you feel that "junkies" are social parasites... if that's the case, why would you want a parasite to have aids... that's even more of a drain on society... hiv/aids comes with a lot of complications, these complications require medicines, prescribed by doctors, given during visits to the doctor... seems like it's worse if the "junkie" has aids.




i don't think that you should think because a fetus cannot survive out of the womb, you should think of it less than an animal. what you should realize is that's reality (which you'll learn on your ob/gyn rotation, from a.c.o.g. literature): a fetus less than 24 weeks gestation has pretty much nil chance of survival in the face of aggressive medical care.

i assume you've yet to see an abortion, as you'll realize that you don't stick your hand in the vagina... and you don't stick your hand in the vagina for a birth either... but i guess those are separate topics for another day.


both those who choose abortion, and those who choose to have a baby deal with physical and psychological consequences. both choices are selfish:

if you don't want to bring a child into the world, you're selfish because you want to do what you do (have sex) and not live with the consequences. of course that argument forgets the psychological consequence that women and men who have abortions can go through after the abortion.

if you want to bring a child into the world, you're selfish because there are plenty of children already out there for adoption. there's no "need" for more and more children. many people want children for their own selfish motives (perpetuate their genese, have something to love, be a role model, etc. etc.). and of course the consequence of pregnancy is having a child. i'll refrain from expounding upon my opinon of having children as a selfish necessity/want for purposes of staying on topic.

__________________
An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of inprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses. - Malcolm X

Mojo_PeiPei

Another thing that bothers me about the pro-abortion crowd, the exaltion of Margaret Sanger. What you have is a racist cow, who preached Eugenics, she felt that black people should be subject to eugenics because they were inferior... She was a big fan of Hitler's eugenics movement, sickening really.

Also isn't it funny that we easily justify an action based on the lack of humanity? Read holocaust and Dred Scott/slavery.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

That's a very interesting thing to say from someone who trips over himself rationalizing the "greatness" of our slave owning founding fathers. Plato was a proponent of eugenics too, yet still i bet you respect his place in the history of philosophy. In any case, you can't ascribe the exaltation to all pro-choicers, since exaltation of sanger isn't a defining characteristic of pro-choiceness.

I can't speak for slaves or holocaust victims, but i'd imagine if i were in their place i'd find your comparison laughable. I'd think if anyone was inclined to preemptively liberate their unborn child from the horrors of a human existence, it would be someone who lives in bondage.

Mojo_PeiPei

In the context of, well proper context the Founding Fathers were great, I make no justification for slavery. Sanger helped put fourth an evil on this world that I haven't found to have been rivaled.

I don't think they would find it laughable. Those evils were pushed on the grounds that they somehow weren't human, it's the same lame duck excuse pro-aborts use.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

Sez you. Everyone has ways of justifying what is "evil" to another. I've heard vegetarians use your holocaust argument against meat eaters. It all depends on your perspective.

To my mind, of all the reasons to oppose abortion, the concern for human life is the least convincing. I think murder has always been acceptable when it can be shown to have an at least tenuous benefit to society. Humanity's attitude has very often been, "We don't want to kill you, but it makes our life better if we do." How is abortion different from war in this respect?

StanT

Where exactly do you see a pro-abortion crowd? An opinion that abortion should be safe and legal, hardly makes a person pro-abortion. Neither of my daughters were planned or convienent. Both are proof that contraception isn't 100%. When it came to making a very personal and tough decision, my wife and I chose against abortion. I'm glad I made the decision that I did, but I'm also grateful that I had the ability to make that decision. I'm hopeful that my daughters never have to make that kind of decision, but it is something that ought to be available to them if they chose. I'd consider myself strongly pro-choice, I would not consider myself pro-abortion.

While we are at it, what's with the pro-life label, do you really know many people that are against life?

I just don't buy a single cell fertilized egg as human life. It comes from a belief system that I simply do not share.

alansmithee

You're right. I guess it's a lost cause trying to teach people personal responsibility and that actions have concequences. I mean like drunk driving, millions are spent yearly saying not to, when we should be having classes teaching people how to drive drunk. Or murder, honestly do people think that if you tell someone killing is wrong it stops anything? We need sharpshooting classes so that instead of some messy fashion, you can murder with a nice quick shot. Damn that Bush and him expecting people to have self control, damn him!

Coppertop

Your post almost made sense. And then one realizes that drunk driving and murder are in fact illegal. Abortion is not, and should not be. You disagree? Then don't participate in abortions, simple enough.

But don't get on your high horse and tell other people how they need to live their lives and use their bodies. But I guess you've got enough control over your own life to allow you that desire to try to control others, don't you?

FoolThemAll

I've seen a fair number of pro-choice arguments that I find intelligent and worthy of discussion, even if I don't agree with them.

This is not one of those arguments. It would only have value once more important points, points that the entire debate is hinged upon, were settled in favor of the pro-choice view. And then it wouldn't be needed.

In short, this is a useless argument.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Coppertop

Obviously my post was not meant to sway everyone over to the pro-choice side, as you seme to indicate. It was in reference to one very specific post, I even quoted it. You even read that post?

And thank you for your incredibly intelligent, worthy of debate argument. Bravo sir, I retire, the field in your possession.

Seaver

See that's where we dont see eye-to-eye. I dont CARE if it cant survive without the mother. It is a human being. You throw out these things about miscarriages, well deaths do happen, but it doesnt justify murder.

The two reasons to justify abortion dont hold up. There's the "they're going to do it anyways" argument... well murderers are going to kill anyways, lets hand out pistols to make it easier. Or the "it's a womans body and no one can tell her what to do". Well that doesnt hold up, a mother can do pretty much whatever she wants to herself, but not to another human being. She can not just throw out a 3 year old in the trash, so why should she be able to throw a 3 week old zygote?

I dont see divisions there, where the pro-abortionists do.

FoolThemAll

I did. It's still useless in that particular context. "Murder and drunk driving are illegal." "Abortion should be, too." "Don't want an abortion? Don't have one." "Don't like rape? Then don't do it."

See? Useless. The bigger points of contention, not present in these arguments, determine whether these arguments or their counterarguments hold any water.

I think you're being sarcastic.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Coppertop

It's been debated to death already, but ok.

The drunk driving/murder does apply as I stated, as those infringe on the civil liberties of another human. Hence being illegal. Hence we should not condone these actions. And hey, guess what? We don't. Abortion does not infringe on another human's civil liberties. Anti-abortionists will argue that a fetus is a human, and I will disagree and say that it is not. Until a settlement is reached on this topic, everyone will just be arguing in circles. The poster I was responding too did not bring this point so neither did I.

But then you already knew all this, didn't you?

FoolThemAll

But you'd need to bring it up in order for your reply to be worthwhile. "Your post doesn't make sense because abortion shouldn't be illegal." Because he doesn't share a premise that you merely stated? His argument makes plenty of sense with a different premise.

Still not seeing the usefulness. But I'm going to quit while I'm behind.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Seaver

Exactly what I was saying (or trying to if I didnt get it accross).

jorgelito

So then, is a fetus a life or not? Or as put above, a human life?

Incosian

I agree with the many others who have posted, that the key issue here is the notion of when life really begins. Personally I do not know enough about the science of it to claim one way or another if humans have conciousness and faculties of thought before birth, but I am inclined to believe that they don't.

Since there is no concrete evidence supporting this issue in either direction, I think to destroy a woman's ability to choose is an unconstitutional violation of her rights. While some may argue that abortion is a form of murder, I do not think this claim can be made with the lack of substantial scientific evidence to support this, and that there is simply too much room for interpretation with this issue as a whole.

Using your 'moral' grounds/religious beliefs to limit the actions of another is unconstitutional according to the founding fathers, and I stand by that notion.

Just my thoughts.

stevo

One of the best arguements I've heard all day.

filtherton

Because it made you laugh out loud?

Mojo_PeiPei

So you don't think the fact that the numbers paying into social security vs. the number that are taking out, that will continue to grow as the baby boomers become of age, will be affected by the fact that over 40 million babies have been aborted?

In that case we will have to agree to disagree.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

I disagree that an "entire generation" has been aborted. If you think abortion is a problem for ss, imagine how much better off it would be if we outlawed birth control all together.

Where did you get 40 million? Over how long a time period is that 40 million stretched? It's been 32 years since roe v wade. 1.25 million a year is a drop in the bucket. How many of these potential humans would have been raised on welfare? How many would have been more of a drain on society than they could ever make up for by paying into social security? There is no way you can credibly attribute ss problems to abortion.

Mojo_PeiPei

Oh you're right, if they are inconvenient they are a problem and therefore expendable.

Why do we give public money to fund retards? They are a drain on society and resources, maybe euthinise them, they have an extra chromsome right, they aren't human like me and you. Also they don't have the same mental capacity as a fully grown and "normal" human.

Hey aren't darkies predisposed to crime and rape, they make up a big drain on society, I mean what through prison population (cause they are predisposed to crime). Hell there are more naggars (hihi clayton bigsby) on welfare then other minorities, they aren't paying into SS, maybe our great Hero Margaret Sanger was right about Eugenics and black people.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

Is this the thread where all of my posts get read-into way too much? I said none of those things. When you see me post something, all you have to do is read it and take all of the words at face value. I try to be as explicit as i need to be to make my position clear. I don't demand that you necessarily take everything i write and go one step further with it in the direction of your choosing. In fact, i would say that i prefer that you address what i wrote in the context of what it what it was referring to, instead of taking what i wrote completely out of context and then trying to use that out-of-context interpretation to somehow obscure the fact that you really have no answer for me that doesn't involve making a concession. In case you forgot, i was calling bullshit on your bold assertion that social security is currently threatened because of abortion. By all means, point me towards the no doubt numerous objective science-based studies that support the idea that abortion is a significant cause for the "problems with social security".

Mojo_PeiPei

I never said it was the reason, I said it was A reason. Look at the numbers, do the math, add-subtract, people that were paying in, people that would be paying in, people that are taking out, factor in 40 million less (actually it'd be lower then that, so lets go with 25-30 million) potential people not paying into SS since Roe. v. Wade.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

You attributed problems with social security as being a direct result of abortion, in fact, of aborting an entire generation. That would seem to imply that there is a twenty or so year gap where every fetus was aborted. You can't claim social security has been effected by this because its simply not true. Your assertion is vacuous, it's true only in the least meaningful way possible.

I am actually amazed that you found a way to turn abortion into an issue of social security.

host

Okay, folks......I am surprised that you haven't gone here yet.
A question for the pro-life advocates. Do you propose using the
power of the government to restrict women's access to abortion ?

How would you accomplish this ? Would you restrict access to abortion
nationwide ? Would you limit legal penalties to lifting the licenses of
medical practitioners who performed abortions after a cease and desist
date ? Would you arrest, prosecute and jail women who have an abortion
or practitioners who perform them ? Would there be any exceptions to
a legal ban on abortion; the life of the mother, rape, incest, diagnosed
pre-natal fetal abnormalities or hereditary diseases ? Who would you
trust to determine which abortion requests to approve, vs. determining
which performed abortions are crimes ?

Would appeals of abortion applications be allowed ? Would courts and
attorneys be involved in the application and decision process ? Would
the abortion ban or the appeal process unfairly burden or discriminate
against women with the least money and influence ?

How do you propose preventing or discouraging women who can afford
to purchase a flight out of this country with the intent of obtaining an
abortion in Paris, or in Bermuda ? When I was in college, in the early 70's,
women who wished to terminate a pregnancy simply flew to Puerto Rico
for a weekend. Unless you are willing to restrict travel by requiring
pre-flight pregnancy tests and border exit checkpoints on land routes in
and out of the U.S., do you concede that your implementation of an
outright abortion ban or severe restrictions on the procedure would have
the effect of restricting access to abortion mostly on women who can least
afford to provide post natal care to a child ?

Are the consideration of these details for the purpose of proposing an abortion ban that is comprehensive and effective, but practical and non-discriminatory, a mental exercise that you have spent much time
engaging in, or have you confined your objections to the details in your opinions and arguments that you have posted here ? Is it important to you
that all American women are equally restricted from obtaining abortion
services ?

stevo

Yes

Good question, looks like you've got the answers written down here below. yes limit, no. Include, yes You'd have to look at it case-by-case, but jail time and/or fines would be the punishment somea priest

thats a good idea. if you know courts and attorney, you bet they will. Someone will most likely complain

by restricting travel by requiring pre-flight pregnancy tests and border exit checkpoints on land routes in and out of the U.S. ok um...no.

yes yeah, but thats just about impossible. So we might as well let everyone have an abortion since we can't equally restrict all women from having an abortion. That makes a lot of sense

almostaugust

I am strongly pro-abortion, and am sickened by those who are trying to wrestle a woman's autonomy over her own body away from her. This is simply regressive. If conservatives are so worried about the children, why dont they pay some attention to the growing gap between public and private education, or the broken health care system.
Wasnt it revealed that the head of the anti abortionists lobby, Barr, had actually got an abortion for his wife some weeks before? This hypocrisy is telling of the 'moral values' rhetoric that secretes its way into intelligent debate.

__________________
'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe
Maybe this year will be better than the last
I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself
To hold on to these moments as they pass'

StanT

Last time I checked, Catholicism wasn't the state religion. How about you checking with your priest and I'll check with my (non-pedophile) witch-doctor.

host

C'mon StanT, it's difficult enough to engage even one of the pro-lifers here
in a low key exchange without..............

stevo, would you advocate implementing a pregnancy testing requirement for
all women from 9 to 60 years of age before leaving or re-entering the U.S. if
a federal ban on abortion could be legislated?

If your answer is affirmative, I anticipate that women in signifigant numbers
would object to being limited to carrying their unplanned and unwanted
pregnancies through a full term and then delivery. How would you stop
or discourage women from using private boats and airplanes to slip out of
the U.S., obtain an abortion, and slip back into the country?

Would it be "American" to implement and execute the means necessary to
restrict exit and entry from/to the U.S. of women of child bearing age, in
an effort to protect the unborn?

Does the end justify the means, and as long as an abortion ban and border
restrictions prevent a signifigant number of abortions, you'll concede the
loss of civil liberties and the expense and inconvenience to travellers and
to the government? If the abortion ban and border restrictions result in
stopping access to abortion to all women except those with the resources
to escape U.S. jusridiction in private boats and planes, that would be
acceptable to you ?

Would U.S. Customs inspectors, when confronted with women who return to
the U.S. bearing certificates from foreign physicians who certify that they
performed abortions because of a life threatening or other medical neccessity,
simply exempt such women from arrest or investigation?

I am assuming that clergy other than priests would also be given authority
to consider applications for abortions due to special circumstances. How
would women without religious affiliation or beliefs apply for permission to obtain an abortion?