right to life or a womans choice?

[CosmicCowboy]

I hate this fucking issue.

it is an emotional and divisive issue with no damn solution. It has totally fucked up the Republican party.

Personally, I am Republican on at least 75% of the issues but feel strongly that it is a choice between the woman, her doctor, and god.

Funny...I have polled my entire immediate family...from the grandparents, to myself and my wife, and my son we all believe in the right of a woman to choose...

ironically, the only "fertile" womb in the bunch belongs to my daughter and she is adamantly pro life.

this political stance has had some unusual side effects. One of them is that my pocket knife is the sharpest it has ever been in my lifetime.

Unfortunately my daughters boyfriend may be too fucking dumb to understand why I always stare at him while I sharpen it... :lol

[Hook Dem]

I'm with you Cowboy. Regardless of what I believe, I think it is the right of all women to choose what to do with their body. So, when I get labled a "blind Republican" , I take exception with it. Does anyone who backs Kerry believe "everthing" he does? Does that make them bad Democrats? I think not. It's called the ability to think for one's self.

[Shelly]

Another pro-choice. While I don't think I could ever have one, I do not judge anyone that does. I have had family members that have and that's a decision they have to live with.

That dude is still around? Maybe you need a bigger knife???

[CosmicCowboy]

That dude is still around? Maybe you need a bigger knife???

*sigh*

still around...at least he has a real job now...the main thing is that he is still VERY scared of me... :lol

[NeoConIV]

I oppose abortion, because after conception, it's not her "body" but another person. DNA proves it. Terminating the other person willingly is, well...murder. It's so 'black and white' to me.
I don't judge people who have had abortions, but I do try to persuade or at least educate a little better those who are adamantly pro-choice.

When adoption is an option, abortion seems so cruel, cold, and heartless.

If the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or if the woman became pregnant with a rapist (microscopic statistically) , then I think the line of, "between the woman, her doctor, and God" comes into play a little, although I'm still for courageously fighting for the unborn. And if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, does the line from Jesus, "There is no greater gift you can give than to lay down your life for a friend" mean anything?. I mean, this isn't even a friend, this is a son or daughter!! I understand the decision may be a excruciatingly difficult one, but there is a right decision and a wrong decision.

[whottt]

I'm pro-choice, with some reservations. I don't think it should be used as just another form of easy birth control. I think it should be an option...just not an easy one. It should be viewed as what it is...an extreme option...not a convenient out for irresponsibility.

At the same time...there are certainly plenty of people in this world that have no business having children, and I don't think the issue should be forced...it's easy to say put the child up for adoption...but I don't think that gurantees the child to be better off...in some cases he might be worse off.

It's not an easy issue, I lean to the left on most domestic issues...where I am a true conservative is in the area of foreign policy. Sometimes war is necessary.

[Guru of Nothing]

I hate this topic, only because no one wins.

What this world needs is a reproductive-system stun gun.

Fill in your own technical details; I'm just an idea guy.

ETA: Birth control pills don't count.

[JoeChalupa]

Excellent posts from all.

This is where I've gone round and round with some on this board.

I believe life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong.
Having two daughters and seen the early sonograms...well words could not describe it.

But I too believe this is an issue that the woman needs to resolve with herself, her doctor and her God.

[Shelly]

I'm pro-choice, with some reservations. I don't think it should be used as just another form of easy birth control. I think it should be an option...just not an easy one. It should be viewed as what it is...an extreme option...not a convenient out for irresponsibility.

At the same time...there are certainly plenty of people in this world that have no business having children, and I don't think the issue should be forced...it's easy to say put the child up for adoption...but I don't think that gurantees the child to be better off...in some cases he might be worse off.

It's not an easy issue, I lean to the left on most domestic issues...where I am a true conservative is in the area of foreign policy. Sometimes war is necessary.

Yeah, I've known people that have used it as a form of birth control. I don't get that at all. Birth control is not hard to come by, be it the drugstore or Planned Parenthood.

Sometimes I wonder if people need a license to be a parent. No, I'm not saying I wish it were like that, just thinking out loud so don't jump down my throat. I'm not saying I'm the best parent in the world, but until my kids are out of the house, they come first. IMO, what's wrong with kids today is that 'children' are having children and aren't and don't know how to raise them. I had my first kid at 27 and even at that age it's overwhelming at first. I can only imagine what it's like for a teenager.

However, if my kids decide to make me a grandmother in the next 5 years, you can bet your ass that they will be involved in that child's life. He did the crime, he's gonna do the time.

[samikeyp]

but there is a right decision and a wrong decision

maybe...but who are you to tell someone what they can and can't do? I don't mean that to be snotty, although I am sure it comes across as such. I respect your beliefs as well as everyone else's here. My point is simply that we have the right to believe as we want but we do not have the right to try and impose our beliefs on others.

[samikeyp]

At the same time...there are certainly plenty of people in this world that have no business having children, and I don't think the issue should be forced...it's easy to say put the child up for adoption...but I don't think that gurantees the child to be better off...in some cases he might be worse off.

Amen. Well said.

[dcole50]

I'm pro-choice, with some reservations. I don't think it should be used as just another form of easy birth control. I think it should be an option...just not an easy one. It should be viewed as what it is...an extreme option...not a convenient out for irresponsibility.

:wow

I ... agree with whottt. A first. ;)

[NeoConIV]

maybe...but who are you to tell someone what they can and can't do? I don't mean that to be snotty, although I am sure it comes across as such. I respect your beliefs as well as everyone else's here. My point is simply that we have the right to believe as we want but we do not have the right to try and impose our beliefs on others.

In the last major abortion thread blowout a few months ago, I made the point that I do not want to legislate abortion as illegal. Like prohibition, it will only exacerbate the problem. I always seek the hearts and minds when I debate this issue. I'm absolutely not for banning abortion by government mandate, though I don't think my tax dollars should be going to abortion mills where hundreds and hundreds of unborn babies daily come to the end of the road.

As far as 'unfit' parents, I find this arguement very disheartening. Folks, we're ALL unfit to be parents of God's children. I've lost count of all the times I've made some pretty shitty decisions as a father of my two wee ones. I've lost count of the times I've thougt about myself first before my wife and kids. But to not even give the kid a CHANCE, I just don't get that rationale. With God all things are possible. Period. It's glass half empty view. Yes, the kid might go through hardships. Maybe even unbearable hardships, but that too, will pass.

[Samurai Jane]

What I don't get is that if you believe that life begins at conception, that makes the termination of that life murder. Do you believe that murder is a "decision between the that person, a doctor and God?" Why is a child any different?

My opinion doesn't come from religion or my beliefs, I was pro-life long before I was Christian. My opinion comes from the simple fact that you are terminating a life. For me it came down to whether that baby is an individual, not just some clump of cells, science says it is (see below). Whether an individual has a right to live, is that not guaranteed in our Constitution? And whether any other person has a right to terminate that life, murder is against the law, is it not? In my humble opinion, a person's choice ends when it infringes on another's rights.

I found a pretty good article on this when we discussed this last time that I think bears repeating in this thread..
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm

I don't think it comes down to trying to press my beliefs on someone else, I think it comes down to defending the rights of an innocent to live and I'll do that without shame til the day I die.

[Useruser666]

I think abortion is a battle to be fought on an individual basis. I don't really agree with it and hope that I never have to face being a party to it. I believe that with education and the proper use of birth control abortion is unecessary. I do however know that in certain instances, for certain people, it may be their only option. I guess I believe in a woman's choice. I feel like it should be the father's choice as well. I think in the future it won't be needed and will be looked on as an archiac relic from the past.

[JoeChalupa]

I do believe that life begins at conception and that you are killing a life.
But to terminate the pregnancy is a decision that the mother (and father) will have to live with for the rest of her life.
I cannot make that decision for her is what I'm trying to say.

[samikeyp]

I respect what you are saying Jane, but if someone goes up to someone else and say "I belive abortion is wrong and you are wrong if you believe otherwise" that is trying to press a belief on someone else (I am not saying you do this but people on both sides of the issue have) You believe life begins at conception...others don't. You believe abortion is wrong...others don't. We live in a country that allows people to think how they want. We don't have to agree but we do have to respect others beliefs, whether we agree or not. Sadly, people on both sides of this issue tend not do that.

[Samurai Jane]

I do believe that life begins at conception and that you are killing a life.
But to terminate the pregnancy is a decision that the mother (and father) will have to live with for the rest of her life.
I cannot make that decision for her is what I'm trying to say.


I still don't understand these arguments... OK, say you commit a murder, nobody knows about it, nobody notices the victim is gone, in other words, it is as you say, it's between you, that victim and God. Is it not still wrong?? If you found out someone else had done this, would you not want justice done or would you say, "Oh well, that person will have to live with what they have done."??

[samikeyp]

That is just it....we don't have to understand. Its Joe's indivdual belief.

[Samurai Jane]

I respect what you are saying Jane, but if someone goes up to someone else and say "I belive abortion is wrong and you are wrong if you believe otherwise" that is trying to press a belief on someone else (I am not saying you do this but people on both sides of the issue have) You believe life begins at conception...others don't. You believe abortion is wrong...others don't. We live in a country that allows people to think how they want. We don't have to agree but we do have to respect others beliefs, whether we agree or not. Sadly, people on both sides of this issue tend not do that.

I guess the question at this point is when does a belief that is supported by scientific evidence become more than just a belief?

Also, where do you draw the line? Some people say when the baby is viable.. what does that mean? Viability of a baby changes as technology changes, so does that mean that baby doesn't have a right to live unless our technology gets better?

[NeoConIV]

http://www.ervnet.com/pictures/baby_pictures/images/sonogram.jpg
I have no voice Joe. Will you fight for me?

http://www.ovulationpredictors.com/images/baby10.jpg
Thank you pro-life movement!! Thank you for choosing me!

[NeoConIV]

I do believe that life begins at conception and that you are killing a life.


So why does this mother get to make this choice again? I'm still confused on your position....

[samikeyp]

Therin lies the problem....for every question that is answered, 2 or 3 more get asked. For every credible piece of evidence pointing one way, I have seen one pointing the other. Maybe right now, we don't have technology to accurately determine it.

Beliefs don't necessarily have to be proven. I may believe that the wind is caused by a big fan on God's desk....its outrageous, it has been proven otherwise but if I really want to believe that, I have that right. :)

My point is this. We can believe however we choose and we do not have the right to try and impose those beliefs on others. I agree that Abortion is a dangerous practice with serious physical and emotional effects on everyone involved and should not be used as a form of birth control. If it were illegal, then I would support enforcement of that law. Right now, its not. I support a womans right to choose and I have that right. Don't disrespect me by trying to change my beliefs.

[JoeChalupa]

I still don't understand these arguments... OK, say you commit a murder, nobody knows about it, nobody notices the victim is gone, in other words, it is as you say, it's between you, that victim and God. Is it not still wrong?? If you found out someone else had done this, would you not want justice done or would you say, "Oh well, that person will have to live with what they have done."??

Yes, I do think abortion is wrong but the fact is that it is NOT illegal in the US therefore it cannot be prosecuted as murder.

But yes, I do think abortion is wrong.

[NeoConIV]

Disrespect you? Huh? We're just presenting the pro-life arguement. Sorry if you felt disrepected. No disrespect intended.

One last note before I scoot to work:

This new 'respectable sounding' fallacy, 'between a woman, her doctor, and her God'...notice who has been conveniently left out of that equation?


Vile.

[Spurminator]

Here's my opinion in a nutshell... Outlawing abortion would be like outlawing guns.

Ultimately, abortion is an act of self defense. The morality of that can certainly be argued (and I would argue it too, as I find most abortions to be very immoral), but the legality cannot.

[Samurai Jane]

Yes, I do think abortion is wrong but the fact is that it is NOT illegal in the US therefore it cannot be prosecuted as murder.

But yes, I do think abortion is wrong.

Ah ok, I get it now.. as long as it's legal it's ok. Gotcha.

[Samurai Jane]

Here's my opinion in a nutshell... Outlawing abortion would be like outlawing guns.

Ultimately, abortion is an act of self defense. The morality of that can certainly be argued (and I would argue it too, as I find most abortions to be very immoral), but the legality cannot.

Self defense? Please explain that one to me.

[Spurminator]

Something is growing in your body that you will have to deal with for 9 months.

I never said it wasn't shallow.

[NeoConIV]

But yes, I do think abortion is wrong.
What are you doing about it? Could you be doing more? Declare yourself pro-life. That would be a huge first step.

[Samurai Jane]

BTW, Mikey, no disrespect intended here as well.

I truly try to understand the opposition, I am a scientist at heart, I have to have see reasons, you know?

[Samurai Jane]

Something is growing in your body that you will have to deal with for 9 months.

I never said it wasn't shallow.

Hmm.. ok, self defense is allowed when you're in danger, correct?

[Spurminator]

You might be in danger.

If someone breaks into your house, do you ask why they are there before you shoot them? Most likely, they're just there to rob you, but they could be there to rape you.

[JoeChalupa]

Ah ok, I get it now.. as long as it's legal it's ok. Gotcha.

That is not what I'm saying at all.

[NeoConIV]

You might be in danger.

If someone breaks into your house, do you ask why they are there before you shoot them? Most likely, they're just there to rob you, but they could be there to rape you.
I give up Jane. :depressed

[Samurai Jane]

but the fact is that it is NOT illegal in the US therefore it cannot be prosecuted as murder.

If I misinterpreted this, then please forgive me. What are you trying to say?

[Spurminator]

Like I said, it's shallow and ugly. But so is injecting unscientific morality into law.

I believe life begins at conception. But I believe that for philosophical/religious reasons only, and that's not enough to create a law.

[Samurai Jane]

I give up Jane. :depressed


We're not going to change any minds here, NeoCon, all you can do is voice your opinion and plant the seed.

[JoeChalupa]

What are you doing about it? Could you be doing more? Declare yourself pro-life. That would be a huge first step.

I am pro-life and I pray for the women who have made the decision to have an abortion that they may find peace within themselves.

We can go round and round on this issuek, and believe me I have, and there are those who will not understand my view as I may not understand yours.

[Samurai Jane]

Like I said, it's shallow and ugly. But so is injecting unscientific morality into law.

I believe life begins at conception. But I believe that for philosophical/religious reasons only, and that's not enough to create a law.

Read the article I posted. I believe it was a well done article based on science, not religion or philosophy.

[JoeChalupa]

We're not going to change any minds here, NeoCon, all you can do is voice your opinion and plant the seed.
Yes, but planting the seed is what causes pregnancy.

[Samurai Jane]

Yes, but planting the seed is what causes pregnancy.

Not that seed, Joe!! :angel

[Spurminator]

You can change minds... Mine was changed.

At worst, you may simply convince some to think strongly before having an abortion.

[CosmicCowboy]

What are you doing about it? Could you be doing more? Declare yourself pro-life. That would be a huge first step.

I see absolutely no incostincency in personally not choosing the abortion option while not wanting to impose my personal beliefs on others.

It truly IS a personal issue.

The American public will NEVER reach a unanimous consensus on this issue.

Why keep making it a national political issue?

[samikeyp]

actually I should have specified. I did not mean anyone here specifically. My apologies. The points here have been well presented. Maybe if people on both sides could discuss like we do...there would be less violence. I have seen pro-choice people walk up to someone who was standing with a pro-life sign and berate them. Also I was in the Diamond Shamrock on Evers near 410 one saturday morning. I was ahem..hungover..so I was not feeling good to start with. :) There is an abortion clinic right next to it and there were people with pro-life signs outside it. I am cool with that...that is the right to peacable assembly which is part of our constitution. I was walking out of the store and was approached by one of the protesters to sign a petition and take some literature. I politely declined and tried to walk away. She jumped in front of me and told me, "You need to see what is happening" I said, "you need to get out of my way" and started walking away. She then started shouting that I was a "party to murder" and I was going to hell. Which was about the time I told her to go to hell and walked off.


I have a question. Those here who are pro-life....do you feel that the killing of abortion doctors is justified?

[samikeyp]

At worst, you may simply convince some to think strongly before having an abortion

or to be smarter before having sex.

[Shelly]

Okay--let me throw a different twist to this discussion, because right now it's all about Pro-choice or Pro-life.

Say you find out that a relative or a very close friend has had one. It could have been your mother when she was a teen (and yes, that does happen) or whomever. They had one because to them that was their only choice. Would your feelings change about that person?

[Samurai Jane]

actually I should have specified. I did not mean anyone here specifically. My apologies. The points here have been well presented. Maybe if people on both sides could discuss like we do...there would be less violence. I have seen pro-choice people walk up to someone who was standing with a pro-life sign and berate them. Also I was in the Diamond Shamrock on Evers near 410 one saturday morning. I was ahem..hungover..so I was not feeling good to start with. :) There is an abortion clinic right next to it and there were people with pro-life signs outside it. I am cool with that...that is the right to peacable assembly which is part of our constitution. I was walking out of the store and was approached by one of the protesters to sign a petition and take some literature. I politely declined and tried to walk away. She jumped in front of me and told me, "You need to see what is happening" I said, "you need to get out of my way" and started walking away. She then started shouting that I was a "party to murder" and I was going to hell. Which was about the time I told her to go to hell and walked off.


I have a question. Those here who are pro-life....do you feel that the killing of abortion doctors is justified?

You are right, nothing gets accomplished when you throw over active emotions into the mix instead of trying to reasonably present your case.

No, I don't think killing of anyone is justified.

[Samurai Jane]

Okay--let me throw a different twist to this discussion, because right now it's all about Pro-choice or Pro-life.

Say you find out that a relative or a very close friend has had one. It could have been your mother when she was a teen (and yes, that does happen) or whomever. They had one because to them that was their only choice. Would your feelings change about that person?

I do have close relatives that have had abortions and I can state that my feelings towards them have not changed in the least. The only changes that have really been wrought in our relationship is the attitude of that person towards others, not necessarily having to do with the abortion itself or anybody elses opinions of that, but just a more cynical view in general. I still love everyone and welcome them with open arms. Part of being a Christian is recognizing that nobody is perfect, that we all make mistakes and that there is forgiveness for all. Of course, you are sad that they made the choice, sad for the life that was lost and there may be a period of grief as with any death, but I have never let that be a reason to judge someone.

[samikeyp]

Nope....I would love that person just the same. I am not the one to judge others. That belongs to a higher authority. (no, not Gregg Popovich!) :)

[CommanderMcBragg]

Let those without sin cast the first stone.

[Shelly]

I do have close relatives that have had abortions and I can state that my feelings towards them have not changed in the least. The only changes that have really been wrought in our relationship is the attitude of that person towards others, not necessarily having to do with the abortion itself or anybody elses opinions of that, but just a more cynical view in general. I still love everyone and welcome them with open arms. Part of being a Christian is recognizing that nobody is perfect, that we all make mistakes and that there is forgiveness for all. Of course, you are sad that they made the choice, sad for the life that was lost and there may be a period of grief as with any death, but I have never let that be a reason to judge someone.


I wish more people thought the way you do, Jenn. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are so close minded that they just can't see beyond their way of thinking.

My brother and his wife are the exact opposite of your bolded quote. God forbid you don't agree with their beliefs no matter what the subject is.

Kudos!

[Samurai Jane]

I wish more people thought the way you do, Jenn. Unfortunately, I think a lot of people are so close minded that they just can't see beyond their way of thinking.

My brother and his wife are the exact opposite of your bolded quote. God forbid you don't agree with their beliefs no matter what the subject is.

Kudos!

Oh I have an aunt and uncle that suscribe to that brand of Christianity and they aren't the most popular family members.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20000531casey1.asp


The son of a coal miner, Mr. Casey was an unrepentant New Deal liberal, whose political heroes were Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. When asked to describe the Democratic Party, Mr. Casey would often quote former Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The mission of the Democratic Party, Humphrey was fond of saying, is to help "those in the dawn of life, those in the shadow of life, and those in the twilight of life."

Mr. Casey saw his own opposition to abortion, which toward the end of his career put him at odds with many of his party's leaders, as rooted in what he believed was the historic role of the Democratic Party -- to protect the weak, the little guy who didn't always get a fair shake in life. He often compared opposition to abortion to the 19th century abolitionist movement against slavery.

"We can talk on and on about the problems facing children: abusive parents, malnourishment, neglect. But almost always these social ills are just the signs of a deeper malady. I would even say that in our culture today there is a callousness, a meanness, toward the child -- a violent streak slowly spreading out across society," Mr. Casey wrote in his autobiography, "Fighting for Life." "Let me say it directly: Abortion is the ultimate violence. For me it is a simple step in logic: if government has a duty to protect the powerless, then who among us is the most powerless, the most defenseless, the most voiceless? The answer is children."



http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL08/bob_casey.htm


As the presidential campaign moves along and Democrats try to decide who the party's presidential nominee should be, pro-life Democrats can understandably remember, and long for, the resolute and spirited vitality of the late Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey.

A staunch Democrat, Gov. Casey addressed abortion many times and in many places. In 1994, for example, he said of abortion, "Twenty-one years ago, it was sold to America as a kind of social cure, a resolution. Instead, it has left us wounded and divided. We were promised it would broaden the circle of freedom; instead, it has narrowed the circle of humanity. We were told the whole matter was settled and would soon pass from our minds; 20 years later it tears at our souls."

He continued, "The fundamental question posed by abortion is this: Once a child has been conceived, what is the proper response of a good society - - of America at her best? If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we, as a society, rise to that challenge, or do we steal away, dispensing with the challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home or at the abortion clinic?"

[bigzak25]

should a woman have the right to choose? YES.

I believe the man should have rights in the matter as well though.

is it morally correct to terminate what would be an otherwise healthy pregnancy, that was the result of consentual sex by the woman....NO.

only one Judge though.

[Spurminator]

Well, if the premise of the right to choose involves the woman's body, then the man - while having an understandable emotional attachment to the embryo - does not have an equal right to the decision.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, if the premise of the right to choose involves the woman's body, then the man - while having an understandable emotional attachment to the embryo - does not have an equal right to the decision.

OK...lets REALLY kick this debate into high gear...

a man and woman engage in consentual sex.

a pregnancy results.

for whatever reason the father does not want the child and encourages her to have a legal abortion.

the mother decides on her own to keep the child despite the fathers wishes.

should the father be forced to pay child support?

[Marcus Bryant]

The "right to choose" also would seem to imply a right of the father to "choose" whether or not he wants any responsibility for the child whatsoever. I submit that men should be allowed to choose to disown their unborn children without any further financial responsibility whatsoever.

May sound harsh, but at least they aren't killing the child.

Anyways, the issue of abortion on demand is ridiculous. A choice already exists: don't fuck.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Any man who doesn't wish to care for his own child is no man in my book.

[Spurminator]

I think that's fair.

[bigzak25]

should the father be forced to pay child support?

fair is fair, but it's just as shitty morally........


does anyone supporting a woman's right to choose have a problem with this pic?
just curious...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/bigzak25/smoker.jpg

[Hook Dem]

Everytime this subject comes up in this forum it receives 100,000 posts and replies. Nothing is ever changed except some bad feelings for others. Why doesn't everyone believe what they want to believe and respect the feelings of others. Yes. I have an opinion but I will not try to push it on others. Peace!

[spurster]

No one likes this argument, but here goes.

If a sperm and egg combined is a whole person, then isn't a sperm or egg by itself a half-person? Surely, killing them or letting them die is murder, too, or at least half-murder. Why is the value of X and Y by themselves nearly zero while XY together is invaluable? Did God do his thing and stick in an eternal soul at the same time?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why is the value of X and Y by themselves nearly zero while XY together is invaluable?

well...next time you are thirsty don't get a glass of water (H2O) but rather just take a few deep breaths...there is plenty of H and O in the air...must be the same thing, right?

[Spurminator]

If a sperm and egg combined is a whole person, then isn't a sperm or egg by itself a half-person? Surely, killing them or letting them die is murder, too, or at least half-murder. Why is the value of X and Y by themselves nearly zero while XY together is invaluable? Did God do his thing and stick in an eternal soul at the same time?

I disagree with this premise. The reason I am morally opposed to abortion is because you've essentially terminated a future... which is the reason that killing is wrong in general.

At the point that you have only a sperm and an egg, nothing will happen a vast majority of the time. You could say it is LIKELY that no future person will be conceived... There is no such thing as a half person.

After conception, you would usually say it is likely that if left alone, a human (however you define it) will be the end result.

[Uncle Donnie]

should a woman have the right to choose? YES.

It all comes down to whether you believe the unborn baby is a human life. If so, then when does the baby get to choose? That's why I have a hard time understanding the stance taken by many who personally believe abortion is wrong, but say it should be a choice. If you believe abortion is wrong it is probably because you believe it involves terminating a human life. How can that be justified as a choice?

[Opinionater]

IMHO, everyone makes exceptions to their beliefs such as the dying in Iraq, Sudan and other places. Killing is sometimes a necessary evil.
Not to say that abortion is a necessary evil, but sometimes it is for the best.

[Spurminator]

Because the woman's choice is more important than the fetus'. By making abortion illegal, you give the fetus (and really the government) more control over the woman's body than the woman herself.

[Opinionater]

Because the woman's choice is more important than the fetus'. By making abortion illegal, you give the fetus (and really the government) more control over the woman's body than the woman herself.

IMHO, this is why I get confused.
Isn't that what conservatives don't want?

[Spurminator]

Trying to rationalize views of hard-line conservatives or liberals is confusing.

[Marcus Bryant]

The government restricts what we do with our bodies ten ways to Sunday. Taking abortion as the destruction of an individual life, well we are restricted from using our bodies to do the same with "born" individuals.

Also, I would add...what is so magical about popping out of the other side of the pussy that marks the start of life? The child is still dependent on someone else to live no matter what.

I say we allow parents to dispatch of their born children within 3 months of leaving their mother's body. I think that's fair.

[NeoConIV]

Also, I would add...what is so magical about popping out of the other side of the pussy that marks the start of life?

:lol :lol :lol

Good point.

[Spurminator]

Once the child pops out, there are options besides being raised by the birth mother.... thus, it is no longer about the woman's right to her own body. Until we have a proven and reliable method for extracting an embryo and raising it, its only option after conception is to grow in the mother's womb.

And I would argue that other government restrictions on our bodies should be eliminated as well. Drugs, suicide, etc.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, I don't think that George Bush is committed to outlawing Abortion because he has not done the two things that he could do to outlaw it they are.

1) Propose a constitutional amendment to outlaw it. Since he has already said he would like such an amendment to outlaw gay marriage why not one to outlaw abortion? And since both the house and the senate are Republican majorities he could ask them to pass such an amendment and have a reasonable chance of it passing.

2) Try to appoint more supreme court justices and rather than have only 9 justices increase the number of justices to 11 or 13 or whatever it took for him to ensure that the court would overturn Roe V. Wade. The constitution does not limit the number of supreme court justices to 9 and the president can appoint any number of justices he wants as FDR threatened to do when the Supreme court was striking down his new deal legislation over and over again. At that time the court backed down and started upholding his new deal legislation to prevent him from appointing more justices and it was called "the switch in time that saved nine". Everyone who has taken Constitutional law at the college or law school level knows about that and they also know that President Bush could with a republican majority in the senate as he has right now quite easily appoint as many justices as he wants or needs to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Because George W. Bush has not done either of these two things it proves he is not committed to overturning Abortion and he is just pandering to the religious right when he talks about abortion.

A strategy that works on some.

[Marcus Bryant]

I mean seriously, why can't parents try out a child for a month or two? If they don't like the kid, cut his head off and dump him in a trash can.

[Marcus Bryant]

Once the child pops out, there are options besides being raised by the birth mother....

All options make the child dependent on someone else for survival. It's still a parasite.

Plus the birth mother has those options when its in the womb. She just has to wait a little while.

If she doesn't like waiting, don't fuck.

[Spurminator]

All options make the child dependent on someone else for survival. It's still a parasite.

Yes, but because there are those willing to take on those responsibilities, it's no longer an unwanted parasite.

[ClintSquint]

I mean seriously, why can't parents try out a child for a month or two? If they don't like the kid, cut his head off and dump him in a trash can.

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/phillips/spock.gif

"That's illogical"

[Spurminator]

If she doesn't like waiting, don't fuck.

I agree, but that's a moral issue. Should we make fucking illegal? Why not nip it at the bud?

[CosmicCowboy]

It's still a parasite.

:lmao:lmao:lmao

hehehe...let me guess...you have no intentions of changing dirty diapers do you?...:lol

[Marcus Bryant]

When the child is in the womb it is 'theirs' and they can destroy it. I see no reason why it should be any different once it is outside the womb.

[Marcus Bryant]

Should we make fucking illegal?

Um no. That's the "woman's right to choose"...

[Spurminator]

Because there are others who can take care of it. When it's in the womb, there are no other options.

[Marcus Bryant]

Doesn't matter if there are others who can take care of it. It is still dependent on them as much as it was before. It is their child. It is a part of their bodies. The government shouldn't have the right to interfere with what they do to their own flesh and blood.

[Spurminator]

Forcing childbearing on someone who does not wish to carry one for 9 months is a bit of a drastic punishment for having sex.

[Spurminator]

It's not a part of their bodies when it's out of the womb.

It is now dependant on society as a whole. It is the society's responsibility to care for it. Most often, the mother fills that role, but if she chooses not to, another segment of society is ready and willing to fill that role.

[Marcus Bryant]

Forcing childbearing on someone who does not wish to carry one for 9 months is a bit of a drastic punishment for having sex

That's life. Blame God, Mother Nature, Mister Rogers, LL Cool J, or whoever.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's not a part of their bodies when it's out of the womb.

Sure it is.


It is now dependant on society as a whole. It is the society's responsibility to care for it. Most often, the mother fills that role, but if she chooses not to, another segment of society is ready and willing to fill that role.

When it's in the womb is it not a part of "society"?

[Spurminator]

That's life.

LOL.

Not here.

[Uncle Donnie]

Because the woman's choice is more important than the fetus'. By making abortion illegal, you give the fetus (and really the government) more control over the woman's body than the woman herself.

That's not very logical. So one persons choice is more important than another persons life?

I have a much easier time understanding people that are pro-choice who do not believe life begins at conception. I don't see how you can logically have it both ways.

[Spurminator]

Sure it is.

How?


When it's in the womb is it not a part of "society"?

No, because no segment of society besides the mother can care for it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not here.

Sure but is "here" right?

[Marcus Bryant]

No, because no segment of society besides the mother can care for it.

Then the society could care for the child by caring for the mother.

[ClintSquint]

I thought liberals were way out there.

[Marcus Bryant]

How?

Where'd the sperm and egg come from?

[Spurminator]

That's not very logical. So one persons choice is more important than another persons life?

I have a much easier time understanding people that are pro-choice who do not believe life begins at conception. I don't see how you can logically have it both ways.

Let's say each enitity.. mother and child... has an equal right to its own body (which I believe). If they were separate, then neither has any right to harm or feed off of the other. But they are not separate. The embryo is dependant on the mother. Therefore, in keeping with the mother's right to her own body, she has the right to rid herself of that responsibility.

Otherwise, you give the embryo more of a right to the woman's body than the woman herself.

[ClintSquint]

Where'd the sperm and egg come from?

GOD

[Spurminator]

Where'd the sperm and egg come from?

It came FROM the parents. It's no longer a part of the parents.

If I give you ten dollars, it's no longer a part of my assets.

[Marcus Bryant]

God doesn't matter though I thought.

[Spurminator]

Not legally, He doesn't.

[Marcus Bryant]

It came FROM the parents. It's no longer a part of the parents.

If I give you ten dollars, it's no longer a part of my assets.


So once the sperm and egg combine it is no longer a part of the parents.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not legally, he doesn't.

Well good. Then the sperm and egg are part of the parents' bodies, so they collectively should be able to determine what happens to their property.

[Spurminator]

No, but it's still living inside of the mother's body, and completely dependant on it.

[ClintSquint]

Enough already! Unless you happen to be the woman making the decision, STFU!

[Marcus Bryant]

No, but it's still living inside of the mother's body, and completely dependant on it.

Doesn't matter. They just gave their assets away as you said. They have created another individual. It is no longer their property.

[Spurminator]

Well good. Then the sperm and egg are part of the parents' bodies, so they collectively should be able to determine what happens to their property.

In a perfect world, yes, but ultimately the mother has the final choice because it's her body that bears the burden of carrying the decision for 9 months.

[Spurminator]

st gave their assets away as you said. They have created another individual. It is no longer their property.

Then they can give it away.

Oh wait, no they can't, because it's feeding off the mother.

[Marcus Bryant]

In a perfect world, yes, but ultimately the mother has the final choice because it's her body that bears the burden of carrying the decision for 9 months.

Are they not legally bound to bear the burden after the 9 months?

[Uncle Donnie]

Let's say each enitity.. mother and child... has an equal right to its own body (which I believe) . If they were separate, then neither has any right to harm or feed off of the other. But they are not separate. The embryo is dependant on the mother. Therefore, in keeping with the mother's right to her own body, she has the right to rid herself of that responsibility.

Otherwise, you give the embryo more of a right to the woman's body than the woman herself.


That seems like a pretty big contradiction. If the child has an equal right to its own body how is it not being violated when the child is terminated?

[Spurminator]

Are they not legally bound to bear the burden after the 9 months?

Nope... they can leave it at the hospital as soon as it's out of the womb.

[Samurai Jane]

Let's say each enitity.. mother and child... has an equal right to its own body (which I believe). If they were separate, then neither has any right to harm or feed off of the other. But they are not separate. The embryo is dependant on the mother. Therefore, in keeping with the mother's right to her own body, she has the right to rid herself of that responsibility.

Otherwise, you give the embryo more of a right to the woman's body than the woman herself.

So basically the baby has a right to live as long as it's not dependent on the mother, which is directly related to the technological advances that are made in this area.

[Spurminator]

That seems like a pretty big contradiction. If the child has an equal right to its own body how is it not being violated when the child is terminated?

Because if the mother is forced to carry the child, then her body is being violated.

[Marcus Bryant]

Then they can give it away.

Oh wait, no they can't, because it's feeding off the mother.


Doesn't matter, it's no longer their property. It just takes a little time for the transaction to close.

[Spurminator]

So basically the baby has a right to live as long as it's not dependent on the mother, which is directly related to the technological advances that are made in this area.

Correct, and if those advances are made, my stance on this issue would likely change.

[Marcus Bryant]

Because if the mother is forced to carry the child, then her body is being violated.

Men and women are forced after their children leave the womb to pay for them.

Also, again, if the woman doesn't want her "body violated", then don't engage in the behavior that leads to that or take steps to prevent it.

[Spurminator]

Doesn't matter, it's no longer their property. It just takes a little time for the transaction to close.

If it's no longer their property, they are no longer responsible for its care.

[Spurminator]

Men and women are forced after their children leave the womb to pay for them.

That's health care.

[Uncle Donnie]

Because if the mother is forced to carry the child, then her body is being violated.

Nice repetition, but it doesn't justify the ultimate violation of the child's body.

[Shelly]

The "right to choose" also would seem to imply a right of the father to "choose" whether or not he wants any responsibility for the child whatsoever. I submit that men should be allowed to choose to disown their unborn children without any further financial responsibility whatsoever.

May sound harsh, but at least they aren't killing the child.

Anyways, the issue of abortion on demand is ridiculous. A choice already exists: don't fuck.

Well, it takes two to tango, so I agree with your non-fornicating stance.

I get wage garnishments all the time for dead beat dads (and back taxes, but that's another story). And the woman on the order 99% of the time has the same last name as our employee so I'm assuming they were married. IMO, he does NOT have the right to choose for at least that reason. We had one guy that owed $100k in back child support, which he didn't pay unless the gov't finally got him through an employer. Yet, someone told me he was raising his grandchildren.

What pisses me off about it is that it's up to me as the employer to make sure the his child support is paid. If I don't, I get penalized. Unfortunately, by the time I get a wage garnishment on an employee, we've already have laid him off.

[Spurminator]

Nice repetition, but it doesn't justify the ultimate violation of the child's body.

How do you justify the violation of the woman's body?

Somebody's getting violated here. I never said it wasn't ugly. Priority goes to the mother.

[Marcus Bryant]

That's health care.


If it's no longer their property, they are no longer responsible for its care.

Oh really? Tell that to a judge.

[Marcus Bryant]

How do you justify the violation of the woman's body?

Somebody's getting violated here. I never said it wasn't ugly. Priority goes to the mother.

The mother had a choice not to fuck in the first place.

[Uncle Donnie]

How do you justify the violation of the woman's body?

Somebody's getting violated here. I never said it wasn't ugly. Priority goes to the mother.

The difference is that one person's life is ended, the other's is not. One person made choices that created the situation, the other did not.

[Samurai Jane]

How do you justify the violation of the woman's body?

Somebody's getting violated here. I never said it wasn't ugly. Priority goes to the mother.

Why does the priority go to the mother? We are talking about a temporary inconvenience for her versus the death of the child.

[Shelly]

I mean seriously, why can't parents try out a child for a month or two? If they don't like the kid, cut his head off and dump him in a trash can.

Well, I wouldn't be so drastic, but I think teenagers should be forced to care for toddlers before they decide they want a baby. Give them a two-three year old and trust me they won't think that having a baby is such a good idea.

[Marcus Bryant]

If every pregnancy was the result of rape then I could see Spurm's point. But that's not the case.

[Spurminator]

Oh really? Tell that to a judge.

If you're arguing about child support, that's a separate issue.


The mother had a choice not to fuck in the first place.

Moral issue. Choosing to have sex does not make you legally responsible for carrying a child.


The difference is that one person's life is ended, the other's is not.


Why does the priority go to the mother? We are talking about a temporary inconvenience for her versus the death of the child.

Sometimes we are talking about physical danger for the mother, though... Why wait to find out?

Call it a preemptive strike.


One person made choices that created the situation, the other did not.

Again, you're basing the stripping of a woman's right to her own body on the moral assertion that she should not have had sex.

[whottt]

If abortion is murder so be it. That still doesn't mean it's always wrong.

So is executing prisoners(even if they themselves are murderers)..and we have executed innocent men before. There is a commandment that says thou shalt not kill...it has no qualifiers attached to it.

So is chosing to remove life support of a person.

So is assisted suicide.

So is WAR. Right now we are mudering people daily in Iraq, many of them innocent.

A parent of siamese twins who chooses an operation that may kill one of the twins, so the other might live, is also murder.

It's not a clear case of right and wrong.

I look at the world and I see the places where life has the least value are place of deep religious fanatacism...or places where the population has outgrown the ability of the land to support it...those are the places where life is the cheapest.

Many of these suicide bombers and terrorists we are now murdering....were homeless, starving, opressed, unloved and angry children who were picked up off the streets of Pakistan and turned into weapons of hate and destruction...

What's the point of bringing a child into this world born with aids...

Aborting it is still murder.

If there is no one to take care of a child and love it and give it a fair chance at life, I will argue that abortion is the worst thing that could happen to that person.

My girlfriend works for CPS, and I can honestly say...I see a lot of cases where I would rather have been aborted that live the life some of these children have been foced to live.

So fighting like hell for a child to be born and then not caring about what happnes to it after it is born...is just as indifferent...can be just as inhumane.

It's problematic as well...many people who are prolife are also the ones that raise hell about welfare cases.

Even if the concept goes against your religion...death isn't supposed to be punishment remember? If so then we are all going to be punished. So even if there is a soul in an unborn child...why won't it just ben sent back to heaven and then sent to someone who does want that child and can take care of it?

There is no clear right and wrong issue on this. Abortion should never be an easy thing to do...at the same time it should never be labeled as always the wrong thing to do. If there is no one in the immediate family that can care for that child...I don't see how anyone can say that child is better off being sent off to an adoption place and made a ward of the state...than being aborted.

To me, that's ambivalence.

If you truly believe that abortion is always wrong...you should go and adopt a child right now. You should have at least 1 adopted child. You should practice what you preach and take an active role in what you feel is the solution.


I will say that I agree with one pro-life sentiment very strongly...

If the father is expected to pay child support in a state...he should also have a say in if the child is born. If he wants the child and has the ability to take care of it then the child should not be aborted without good reason. Either he is responsible for that child or he isn't...I migth even carry it further and say if anyone one in the immediate family is qualifed and wants to care for that child...the child should not be aborted. Yes it is a stiff price to pay for sex...and it should be. That will force responsibility. That will keep abortion from being a convenient solution to irresponsibility.

I also think kids need to be educated on this...they need to be shown picture of abortion...they also need to be shown what happens to children whose parents don't care for them or lack the ability to take care of them. I think it will make people be more responsible in the decisions they make.


This will never be solved by labeling one side right or wrong...because this is one issue where there is no clear cut right or wrong. Both sides have very strong and legitimate reasons for their stance...

And BTW Neocon, I don't know you but I am about 99% certain you are not the type of person I am talking about when I say some people have no business being parents.

[Marcus Bryant]

If you're arguing about child support, that's a separate issue.

Oh it's a direct issue. The man is required by law to pay for that child after its birth.

Parasite.


Moral issue. Choosing to have sex does not make you legally responsible for carrying a child.

What? The mother had a choice whether or not to engage in the behavior that leads to her being pregnant. Pretty straightforward.

[Marcus Bryant]

Again, you're basing the stripping of a woman's right to her own body on the moral assertion that she should not have had sex.

Um we are preventing from doing many things with our bodies by law.

[Spurminator]

Oh it's a direct issue. The man is required by law to pay for that child after its birth.

Parasite.

Then revoke that law. Don't create another problem by making abortion illegal.


What? The mother had a choice to engage in the behavior that leads to her being pregnant. Pretty straightforward.

And for that, she has to follow through with either raising it or aborting it. What you're advocating is punishment.


Um we are preventing from doing many things with our bodies by law.

And once again, those issues should be dealt with on their own, not by compounding the problem even more.

[Shelly]

Whottt I can imagine what your girlfriend must see working for CPS. What are the demographics of the families she sees? Are the parents uneducated and poor? Or are there some families where one would never expect for them to be involved with CPS? Just curious.

[Marcus Bryant]

And for that, she has to follow through with either raising it or aborting it. What you're advocating is punishment.

What I am advocating is reality. There are plenty of behaviors we engage in with our bodies which can lead to debilitating states, including death. Yet those are legal.

If someone doesn't want to be in that predicament, there is a choice.

[Marcus Bryant]

And once again, those issues should be dealt with on their own, not by compounding the problem even more.

So the government should have no restrictions on what we do with our bodies?

[Spurminator]

Circumventing a woman's right to decide whether or not a parasite is feeding off of her body is punishment. Unless sex is regulated or made illegal, you can't punish someone for fucking.

[Spurminator]

So the government should have no restrictions on what we do with our bodies?

As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, I would say no.

Other than abortion, what restrictions on one's own body do you favor?

[Marcus Bryant]

Circumventing a woman's right to decide whether or not a parasite is feeding off of her body is punishment.

She had a right to decide whether or not she could reasonably end up with said parasite on her body.




Unless sex is regulated or made illegal, you can't punish someone for fucking.

It's not "punishment" it is a natural result of the chosen behavior.

[Opinionater]

IMHO, every family has problems and issues regarless of their economic status. Some of the richest parents aint fit to be parents..case in point..the Osbournes.

[Marcus Bryant]

As long as it doesn't harm anyone else, I would say no.

Well let's see. You just said that at conception a man and a woman have given away their right to that part of their bodies. If that is an individual at that point then it is definitely causing "harm" to someone else if you destroy it.

[Spurminator]

She had a right to decide whether or not she could reasonably end up with said parasite on her body.

That's where education comes in.


It's not "punishment" it is a natural result of the chosen behavior.

The natural result is conception. The punishment is forcing the woman to deal with it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Other than abortion, what restrictions on one's own body do you favor?

How about not killing someone else? How about not stealing from someone, etc. If life begins at conception then terminating the "parasite" is murder, plain and simple.

[Spurminator]

Well let's see. You just said that at conception a man and a woman have given away their right to that part of their bodies. If that is an individual at that point then it is definitely causing "harm" to someone else if you destroy it.

Yes, but as I've said, it's a choice between harming the fetus or the mother, and the mother has the final choice. In a situation where someone HAS to be harmed in some way, priority doesn't go to the dependant.

[Marcus Bryant]

The natural result is conception. The punishment is forcing the woman to deal with it.

The natural result is conception and pregnancy.

[Spurminator]

How about not killing someone else? How about not stealing from someone, etc.


Each of those affects another party.

Drug use, suicide, etc. do not.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yes, but as I've said, it's a choice between harming the fetus or the mother, and the mother has the final choice. In a situation where someone HAS to be harmed in some way, priority doesn't go to the dependant.

Why does that decision have to be made if it's the result of consensual sex?

[Marcus Bryant]

Each of those affects another party.

Drug use, suicide, etc. do not.


Drug use can definitely affect other people.

[Spurminator]

The natural result is conception and pregnancy.

That doesn't mean the woman shouldn't be allowed to terminate the pregnancy.

The natural result of sex is conception, and some choose to avoid that with birth control. Human choice is founded on eliminating "natural results" where we are able.

[Spurminator]

Drug use can definitely affect other people.

That's why certain actions while under the influence of drugs are illegal.

Sitting in the corner of my room shooting heroin affects no one but me. If I go out and piss on someone as a result, I should be punished for that, not for the drug use.

[Marcus Bryant]

At this point you are blaming nature for creating the situation.


The natural result of sex is conception, and some choose to avoid that with birth control. Human choice is founded on eliminating "natural results" where we are able.

Well there you go. The mother even can reduce the chance of conception in the first place.

A child that exits the womb is a "natural result". Killing it should be an option.

[Spurminator]

Why does that decision have to be made if it's the result of consensual sex?

Because the woman has the final choice when it comes to her body. Even if she fucked up by having consentual sex.

[Spurminator]

At this point you are blaming nature for creating the situation.

Luck does have something to do with it, but I mostly blame the woman and her mate. That doesn't mean I think they should be punished.

[Marcus Bryant]

Because the woman has the final choice when it comes to her body. Even if she fucked up by having consentual sex.

What choice did the individual she destroyed have? You know, the one she gave away a part of her body to.

[Spurminator]

Well there you go. The mother even can reduce the chance of conception in the first place.

You ca reduce the chance of auto theft by getting a car alarm, but that doesn't mean you're fucked if you're robbed and you can do something about it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Luck does have something to do with it, but I mostly blame the woman and her mate. That doesn't mean I think they should be punished.

Punished for what? Their own stupidity?

[Spurminator]

What choice did the individual she destroyed have? You know, the one she gave away a part of her body to.

Besides the fact that it's incapable of choice, it has less of a choice over its own body than the woman has over hers because he is dependant on the mother for survival.

[Spurminator]

What other laws do we have that directly punish mistakes?

[Marcus Bryant]

You ca reduce the chance of auto theft by getting a car alarm, but that doesn't mean you're fucked if you're robbed and you can do something about it.

Here's a simpler analogy: you can get VD if you have indiscriminate sex. You can reduce the risk of contracting VD if you use protection or, yes, not engage in such a behavior.

[Marcus Bryant]

Besides the fact that it's incapable of choice, it has less of a choice over its own body than the woman has over hers because he is dependant on the mother for survival.

And it will be incapable of "choice" once it immediately leaves the mother as well.

[Spurminator]

Should you be forced to live with the VD if you have a way to get rid of it?

[Spurminator]

And it will be incapable of "choice" once it immediately leaves the mother as well.

But it will have other options.

[Spurminator]

Fun as this is, I have put off too much work.

Good talk.

[whottt]

Whottt I can imagine what your girlfriend must see working for CPS. What are the demographics of the families she sees? Are the parents uneducated and poor? Or are there some families where one would never expect for them to be involved with CPS? Just curious.

Yeah she's a volunteer in Dallas at CPS and from what I have heard her talk about, most of them are poor and uneducated, sadly. But there are some that you would never expect. And Dallas has some big problems with child abuse and neglect.

She's a total conservative christian Dallasite raised in the heart of the biblebelt..she has 3 kids(not mine) and loves babies...she would never get an abortion in a million years. But after volunteering there for many years and seeing some awful things she is pro-choice...even advocating it for one of the members of her family.

She told me to read a book called "a child called it" that was written by a man that was horribly abused as a child...Basically his mother called him "it" and treated him like a slave...this woman was devout chistian yet she foreced him to eat the excrement out of her other childrens diapers and things like that..that's actually the more moderate of the things she did to him....Horrible stuff...I am 100% in favor of the murder of this man's mother. And I'd have rather been aborted than live his life. To his credit...his story is pretty uplifting...he is now a very wealthy man and does a lot of good in speaking out against child abuse and mistreatment...but he is most definitely an exception to the rule. If you want to see what happens to some children that are born to people who have no business being parents, that book is a good place to start.

[Marcus Bryant]

What other laws do we have that directly punish mistakes?

The Law of Common Sense. If you don't want to be pregnant, reduce your risk by using protection or, yes, abstinence. If you don't want to end up with broken bones, don't take a bike down the side of a steep hill.

[Samurai Jane]

Luck does have something to do with it, but I mostly blame the woman and her mate. That doesn't mean I think they should be punished.

Instead the child should be punished with death.. a pretty high price to pay for someone else's choice.

[Marcus Bryant]

Should you be forced to live with the VD if you have a way to get rid of it?

So long as you don't have to terminate a child.

[Marcus Bryant]

But it will have other options.

How will it know about those options and decide on the one it wants?

[Shelly]

Yeah she's a volunteer in Dallas at CPS and from what I have heard her talk about most of them are poor and uneducated, sadly. But there are some that you would never expect. And Dallas has some big problems with child abuse and neglect.

She's a total christian Dallasite raised in the heart of the biblebelt..she has 3 kids(not mine) and loves babies...she would never get an abortion in a million years. But after volunteering there for many years and seeing some awful things she is pro-choice...even advocating it for one of the members of her family.

She told me to read a book called "a child called it" that was written by a man that was horribly abused as a child...Basically his mother called him "it" and treated him like a slave...this woman was devout chistian yet she foreced him to eat the excrement out of her other childrens diapers and things like that..that's actually the more moderate of the things she did to him....Horrible stuff...I am 100% in favor of the murder of this man's mother. And I'd have rather been aborted than live his life. To his credit...his story is pretty uplifting...he is now a very wealthy man and does a lot of good in speaking out against child abuse and mistreatment...but he is most definitely an exception to the rule.

Interesting...and so sad. Like I said in my first post, sometimes I wonder if parents should be required to have a license to be a parent. Or have to take x amount of parenting classes before giving birth.

Regarding A Child Called It: I've heard that that book is a fake a la Go Ask Alice. I may be able to dig up some links if you're interested on that issue.

[SpursWoman]

Moral of the story: don't have consensual sex if you can't afford a(nother) child, or with anyone that you aren't married to and/or who wouldn't want to be involved with you for at least the next 18 years or so....or you're footing a very large tab, financially or more importantly, physically and emotionally, on your own....regardless of what you may already have on your plate.

Because even if the all the stars and planets are aligned, a condom might tear and there may not be a lunar eclipse to bail you out.


Am I close?

[Shelly]

Moral of the story: don't have consentual sex if you can't afford a(nother) child, or with anyone that you aren't married to and/or who wouldn't want to be involved with you for at least the next 18 years or so....or you're footing a very large tab, financially or more importantly, physically and emotionally, on your own....regardless of what you may already have on your plate.

Because even if the all the stars and planets are aligned, a condom might tear and there may not be a lunar eclipse to bail you out.


Am I close?

Checkmate!

[JohnnyMarzetti]

If there is one thing I've learned is that when it comes to women.
Let them make their own decisions.

[whottt]

Interesting...and so sad. Like I said in my first post, sometimes I wonder if parents should be required to have a license to be a parent. Or have to take x amount of parenting classes before giving birth.

I kinda agree with that...like most problems this problem could be somewhat alleviated with education in schools. More than we are doing now.


Regarding A Child Called It: I've heard that that book is a fake a la Go Ask Alice. I may be able to dig up some links if you're interested on that issue.

No I've heard that also and the guy contradicts himself even in the book. But she has met the guy when he spoke at one of their conventions and she's convinced of his sincerity.

For what it's worth...I hope it's a fake. I honestly do.

The most tragic real case I have heard her talk and actually met the person..was a man who was sexually abused by his minister father as a child, he was passed around to his fathers friends, just taken to their house and left for the weekend...he was used like a piece of garbage, he was horribly abused, he had incredibly low self esteem and thought he was gay for many years...one day he realized that he wasn't gay, he met a girl and got married...then he found out he had aids. I got to see this guy speak at the CPS convention about 3 years ago. He wasn't a fake. And I am forced to ask myself...just what was the purpose of this guys life? To suffer?

If you want to know the truth...while most of the cases of abuse and neglect are from poverty and lack of education...the most brutal ones I have heard her talk about, the parents were deeply religious people.

See I think that's part of the problem...I think the strong stance of the various religions on this issue forces a lot of their devout followers into having children out of not wanting to commit a sin...even though these people really don't want these kids...and the result is an inner resentment that leads to some really horrible cases of abuse.

[Shelly]

Whottt, I've heard that also. I love true crime books and read a lot of them and most of the killers do come from a very religious background, you know, like the mom in Carrie...:lol

[whottt]

LOL. Yeah Carrie's mom is the ultimate example.

[CosmicCowboy]

For baseline.

[Millennial_Messiah]

I oppose abortion, because after conception, it's not her "body" but another person. DNA proves it. Terminating the other person willingly is, well...murder. It's so 'black and white' to me.
I don't judge people who have had abortions, but I do try to persuade or at least educate a little better those who are adamantly pro-choice.

When adoption is an option, abortion seems so cruel, cold, and heartless.

If the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or if the woman became pregnant with a rapist (microscopic statistically) , then I think the line of, "between the woman, her doctor, and God" comes into play a little, although I'm still for courageously fighting for the unborn. And if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, does the line from Jesus, "There is no greater gift you can give than to lay down your life for a friend" mean anything?. I mean, this isn't even a friend, this is a son or daughter!! I understand the decision may be a excruciatingly difficult one, but there is a right decision and a wrong decision.

This opinion is outright incorrect and religious zealotry...

"Muh Others" nutjobs on the right can be just as obnoxious as "Muh Others" nutjobs on the left, but they're far less numerous..



I'm pro-choice, with some reservations. I don't think it should be used as just another form of easy birth control. I think it should be an option...just not an easy one. It should be viewed as what it is...an extreme option...not a convenient out for irresponsibility.

At the same time...there are certainly plenty of people in this world that have no business having children, and I don't think the issue should be forced...it's easy to say put the child up for adoption...but I don't think that gurantees the child to be better off...in some cases he might be worse off.

It's not an easy issue, I lean to the left on most domestic issues...where I am a true conservative is in the area of foreign policy. Sometimes war is necessary.
Interesting to see that's how the GOP margin in Texas has shrunk over the last couple decades

[baseline bum]

For baseline.

LOL and you still vote for the GOP taliban despite your thoughts and prayers here.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL and you still vote for the GOP taliban despite your thoughts and prayers here.

And you vote for the ability to kill babies up to the day before they are delivered. The inability of both sides to agree on a reasonable compromise 1st trimester? Second trimester? Is the fault of both sides.

[baseline bum]

And you vote for the ability to kill babies up to the day before they are delivered. The inability of both sides to agree on a reasonable compromise 1st trimester? Second trimester? Is the fault of both sides.

ROFL spoken like a true Republican blaming Democrats for his party being fascist jeebotard loons.

[Blake]

And you vote for the ability to kill babies up to the day before they are delivered. The inability of both sides to agree on a reasonable compromise 1st trimester? Second trimester? Is the fault of both sides.

Both sides guy making an appearance.

[CosmicCowboy]

Both sides guy making an appearance.

What the fuck is wrong with that, ankle biting asshole? This hardheaded blue versus red shit will be the death of this country.

[CosmicCowboy]

In the past the parties might have different agendas and have disagreements but in the end they managed to work out compromises for the best if the country. This no compromise shit from both sides is ridiculous.

[baseline bum]

In the past the parties might have different agendas and have disagreements but in the end they managed to work out compromises for the best if the country. This no compromise shit from both sides is ridiculous.

Your side wants to overthrow democracy. What's the fucking compromise?

[CosmicCowboy]

Your side wants to overthrow democracy. What's the fucking compromise?

Get off this "your side" shit.

[boutons_deux]

Your side wants to overthrow democracy. What's the fucking compromise?


For Repugs, negotiation, compromise, respect for opponents is for eunuchs, because opponents are never right, never even legit,

only Repugs are legit and always right.

Been the Repug position since 1992 when Noot Gingrich set Congress on fire.

Fascist Repugs are wannabe Machos, "My Way, or Fuck You Down the Highway"

Biden's stand, out macho 'em, must be NOTHING but clean raising of debt limit, Never Give An Inch,

because Repugs lifted the debt a few times under Trash and shrub with no objection from Repugs.

Debt limit must be terminated.

No more debt limit extortion of the Dems by the Repug thugs.

[baseline bum]

Get off this "your side" shit.

You still vote for your side after they tried to overthrow democracy

[ChumpDumper]

And you vote for the ability to kill babies up to the day before they are delivered. The inability of both sides to agree on a reasonable compromise 1st trimester? Second trimester? Is the fault of both sides.

Which states have the elective abortion law you describe?

[Blake]

What the fuck is wrong with that, ankle biting asshole? This hardheaded blue versus red shit will be the death of this country.

To the religious right, there is no compromise to abortion. Never will be. It's not both sides on this issue, but nice try, ass hurt fuckhead.

[CosmicCowboy]

Which states have the elective abortion law you describe?

seven plus DC.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/late-term-abortion-laws-by-state

[CosmicCowboy]

To the religious right, there is no compromise to abortion. Never will be. It's not both sides on this issue, but nice try, ass hurt fuckhead.

I agree (except for the asshurt fuckhead part, that's you, loser cuck) and that sucks. East Texas bible thumpers have really fucked up Texas.

[ChumpDumper]

seven plus DC.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/late-term-abortion-laws-by-state

The commie stronghold of Alaska.

[Adam Lambert]

And you vote for the ability to kill babies up to the day before they are delivered.

This is such a stupid red herring I'm surprised you've fallen for it. Do you honestly think there are mothers out there who, at 39 weeks, are like, "Nah fuck it, I don't want this baby abort it."

Sometimes a birth is not viable, or serious physical and/or mental deformities require very tough decisions for the parents in consultation with their doctor. You want Ken Paxton stepping in and overriding those hard decisions? Fuck that.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is such a stupid red herring I'm surprised you've fallen for it. Do you honestly think there are mothers out there who, at 39 weeks, are like, "Nah fuck it, I don't want this baby abort it."

Sometimes a birth is not viable, or serious physical and/or mental deformities require very tough decisions for the parents in consultation with their doctor. You want Ken Paxton stepping in and overriding those hard decisions? Fuck that.

He asked for the states that allow it with no restrictions. This has come up time and time again at he federal level and Democrats have always supported no limits at all. Many states do a more reasonable no abortions after x time with those exceptions of mothers life, etc.

[ChumpDumper]

This is such a stupid red herring I'm surprised you've fallen for it. Do you honestly think there are mothers out there who, at 39 weeks, are like, "Nah fuck it, I don't want this baby abort it."

Sometimes a birth is not viable, or serious physical and/or mental deformities require very tough decisions for the parents in consultation with their doctor. You want Ken Paxton stepping in and overriding those hard decisions? Fuck that.

The total number for Colorado late term abortions is a bit over 200 a year. All reasons.

[Adam Lambert]

He asked for the states that allow it with no restrictions. This has come up time and time again at he federal level and Democrats have always supported no limits at all. Many states do a more reasonable no abortions after x time with those exceptions of mothers life, etc.

I guess I'm just more of a small government guy but I don't want Ken Paxton defining appropriate restrictions or serving as an unnecessary permission firewall for mothers and doctors who have to make these decisions.

[Winehole23]

looks like there's a coordinated push on the "late term abortion" on demand narrative.




South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham used to say that abortion is a state's rights issue. That is, until the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year—and Graham started pushing for a federal ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

But when CNN asked him about whether abortion is a federal issue on Sunday, he lost it.

“What the Democratic Party proposes on abortion is barbaric,” Graham told CNN’s Dana Bash when he appeared on the program State of the Union, just days after the Supreme Court ruled to keep a safe and effective abortion pill on the market (https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjzy3/supreme-court-mifepristone-abortion-pill-ruling). “Abortion up to the moment of birth, taxpayer-funded—I think is barbaric. I welcome this debate. I think the Republican Party will be in good standing to oppose late-term abortion, like most of the civilized world.”
https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjzea/lindsey-graham-abortion-rant (https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvjzea/lindsey-graham-abortion-rant?utm_source=vicenewstwitter)



here's the scheme under Roe v Wade. characterizing that as legalization of abortion on demand, at any time, is dishonest.


The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_(1973)

[CosmicCowboy]

The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate OR outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

whinehole, you didn't understand what the OR meant?

Personally, I wish they had never overturned Roe V Wade.

[Winehole23]

The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate OR outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

whinehole, you didn't understand what the OR meant?

Personally, I wish they had never overturned Roe V Wade.Me too.

I totally understand the OR and wish Roe were still the law. AFAIK, there are literally zero national Democrats and people in this forum supporting a legal scheme that's more permissive than Roe.

The narrative that third trimester abortions are mostly undertaken willy nilly by slutty, irresponsible women, rather than being appropriate treatment for legit medical emergencies or nonviable fetuses, is utter bullshit.

[Tyronn Lue]

The court should stay out of anyone's right to choose what happens to their own bodies.

[Ninja Roach]

And you vote for the ability to kill babies up to the day before they are delivered. The inability of both sides to agree on a reasonable compromise 1st trimester? Second trimester? Is the fault of both sides.

Speaking as someone who has helped deliver many babies and been an active part of several c-sections as part of his profession this is blatantly false. If a fetus is delivered prior to expected delivery date during the 3rd trimester then labor was induced or an emergency c-section was performed because of a potentially lethal risk to mother, a fatal defect in the fetus, or both.


Just a few emergencies requiring c-section aka abortion:

-Sometimes the umbilical cord can start to strangulate a fetus requiring an emergent c-section or immediate labor induction.
-Sometimes the placenta can detach from the uterine wall causing massive hemorrhaging again requiring an emergent c-section aka abortion.
-Sometimes an infection can spiral out of control.
-Sometimes a fatal physical flaw is discovered late in the fetus

A c-section is the medical procedure that terminates pregnancy in the 3rd trimester. An abortion terminates pregnancy. A c-section is an abortion. There are countless ways in which a pregnancy can go catastrophically wrong resulting in the need for rapid abortion or loss of life will happen.

Sometimes a baby is delivered as a result of the c-section, sometimes a fetus dies during the actual process and sometimes a nonviable fetus is removed. To make abortion (aka 3rd trimester c-sections) illegal is to place the mother's and potential child's lives at risk.



During my college days there was a group of "pro-life" conservatives that traveled around harassing students with horrific pictures of supposed "3rd trimester abortions." In actuality, these pictures were the results of life-saving c-sections that had to be performed.

Did the above emergencies matter to the photographer or the religious zealots that used them as propaganda? No, the pictures were taken illegally, (violating patient privacy) and mislabeled as "3rd trimester elective abortions." That's a truly vile act performed by the zealots because these aren't elective, they're emergent. The women that undergo these procedures have now been carrying their prospective child for many months now and that is now all lost. It's an extremely traumatic experience for everyone involved, but of course especially the mother, and requires a lengthy healing process. In most cases they never even had a choice. To prolong that loss by prohibiting abortion is an action of cruelty fueled by ignorance and zealotry.


Let's think critically for a moment, how many women do you really think would willingly progress through the profound physiological changes associated with a pregnancy and the attachment to her prospective child all the way towards a nebulous, but certain, delivery date only to flippantly change her mind as the process is finally, finally reaching conclusion?

Does that really sound plausible to you?

Do you really think that to be a frequent occurrence?

Do you really think an ob-gyn would unquestioningly accept her profound change in desired outcome without a therapist being on hand to help sort through whatever she may be feeling at the time?

Nobody is "killing babies in the 3rd trimester," let alone being allowed to vote on the issue. It's highly charged emotional rhetoric used to dupe people that for whatever reason can't see through the dishonesty. To repeat their message is to promote harmful behavior.

Please listen to medical professionals and not politicians when dealing with medical problems. Be it abortion, covid, vaccination, whatever. There can be no compromise with irrational, dishonest behavior.

To believe otherwise, is dangerously naive.

[baseline bum]

Personally, I wish they had never overturned Roe V Wade.

Probably shouldn't have voted for Cruz and Cornyn then

[Trainwreck2100]

And you vote for the ability to kill babies up to the day before they are delivered. The inability of both sides to agree on a reasonable compromise 1st trimester? Second trimester? Is the fault of both sides.

no woman is going to carry a baby for 8 months, fuck up her body for 7 months and say "fuck it kill the thing" the issue is your side has turned women into walking tombs because shit happens in those nine months and the thing needs to be cut out because it ain't going to live and repubs are like "keep it an bury it".

[Adam Lambert]

This needs to be reposted on every page of every abortion thread moving forward.


Speaking as someone who has helped deliver many babies and been an active part of several c-sections as part of his profession this is blatantly false. If a fetus is delivered prior to expected delivery date during the 3rd trimester then labor was induced or an emergency c-section was performed because of a potentially lethal risk to mother, a fatal defect in the fetus, or both.


Just a few emergencies requiring c-section aka abortion:

-Sometimes the umbilical cord can start to strangulate a fetus requiring an emergent c-section or immediate labor induction.
-Sometimes the placenta can detach from the uterine wall causing massive hemorrhaging again requiring an emergent c-section aka abortion.
-Sometimes an infection can spiral out of control.
-Sometimes a fatal physical flaw is discovered late in the fetus

A c-section is the medical procedure that terminates pregnancy in the 3rd trimester. An abortion terminates pregnancy. A c-section is an abortion. There are countless ways in which a pregnancy can go catastrophically wrong resulting in the need for rapid abortion or loss of life will happen.

Sometimes a baby is delivered as a result of the c-section, sometimes a fetus dies during the actual process and sometimes a nonviable fetus is removed. To make abortion (aka 3rd trimester c-sections) illegal is to place the mother's and potential child's lives at risk.



During my college days there was a group of "pro-life" conservatives that traveled around harassing students with horrific pictures of supposed "3rd trimester abortions." In actuality, these pictures were the results of life-saving c-sections that had to be performed.

Did the above emergencies matter to the photographer or the religious zealots that used them as propaganda? No, the pictures were taken illegally, (violating patient privacy) and mislabeled as "3rd trimester elective abortions." That's a truly vile act performed by the zealots because these aren't elective, they're emergent. The women that undergo these procedures have now been carrying their prospective child for many months now and that is now all lost. It's an extremely traumatic experience for everyone involved, but of course especially the mother, and requires a lengthy healing process. In most cases they never even had a choice. To prolong that loss by prohibiting abortion is an action of cruelty fueled by ignorance and zealotry.


Let's think critically for a moment, how many women do you really think would willingly progress through the profound physiological changes associated with a pregnancy and the attachment to her prospective child all the way towards a nebulous, but certain, delivery date only to flippantly change her mind as the process is finally, finally reaching conclusion?

Does that really sound plausible to you?

Do you really think that to be a frequent occurrence?

Do you really think an ob-gyn would unquestioningly accept her profound change in desired outcome without a therapist being on hand to help sort through whatever she may be feeling at the time?

Nobody is "killing babies in the 3rd trimester," let alone being allowed to vote on the issue. It's highly charged emotional rhetoric used to dupe people that for whatever reason can't see through the dishonesty. To repeat their message is to promote harmful behavior.

Please listen to medical professionals and not politicians when dealing with medical problems. Be it abortion, covid, vaccination, whatever. There can be no compromise with irrational, dishonest behavior.

To believe otherwise, is dangerously naive.

[ElNono]

And you vote for the ability to kill babies up to the day before they are delivered. The inability of both sides to agree on a reasonable compromise 1st trimester? Second trimester? Is the fault of both sides.

It really isn't both sides. Roe was that compromise. It was struck down because one side doesn't want to compromise.

[CosmicCowboy]

It really isn't both sides. Roe was that compromise. It was struck down because one side doesn't want to compromise.

Despite the fact I wish it hadn't been overturned I still think the decision was legally correct. It's not the place of the judiciary to make laws according to the constitution. The legislative branch should have done it. Then again you get into the state issues with the constitution.

[Blake]

Despite the fact I wish it hadn't been overturned I still think the decision was legally correct. It's not the place of the judiciary to make laws according to the constitution. The legislative branch should have done it. Then again you get into the state issues with the constitution.

The legislative branch will never do it because your side will never compromise.

[ElNono]

Despite the fact I wish it hadn't been overturned I still think the decision was legally correct. It's not the place of the judiciary to make laws according to the constitution. The legislative branch should have done it. Then again you get into the state issues with the constitution.

Roe was a compromise between the inherent right to privacy of the individual to make health decisions for herself and whatever State interests in protecting life.

This last decision was a major blunder and legally unsound. To the point that it overruled not one, but two different SCOTUS (a first), taking a royal shit on stare-decisis and it came up with a new 'traditionalism' legal standard that did not exist before.

It's so bad that the whole rationale of it was that it returned the authority to States, and so you would've thought the SCOTUS wouldn't need to look at this again. As we know now, that was an epic fail, and why? Because one side does not want to compromise.

IMO, it's just a matter of time until that decision is overturned and it goes into the history books on the same section as "separate but equals". Just an unnecessary black eye on the SCOTUS.

[Trainwreck2100]

Roe was a compromise between the inherent right to privacy of the individual to make health decisions for herself and whatever State interests in protecting life.

This last decision was a major blunder and legally unsound. To the point that it overruled not one, but two different SCOTUS (a first), taking a royal shit on stare-decisis and it came up with a new 'traditionalism' legal standard that did not exist before.

It's so bad that the whole rationale of it was that it returned the authority to States, and so you would've thought the SCOTUS wouldn't need to look at this again. As we know now, that was an epic fail, and why? Because one side does not want to compromise.

IMO, it's just a matter of time until that decision is overturned and it goes into the history books on the same section as "separate but equals". Just an unnecessary black eye on the SCOTUS.
we're stuck with kavanaugh and coney barret for the rest of our adult lives, the only way is if there's no R pres and senate majority until thomas an alito both die which is like 20 years of dem wins

[koriwhat]

we're stuck with kavanaugh and coney barret for the rest of our adult lives, the only way is if there's no R pres and senate majority until thomas an alito both die which is like 20 years of dem wins

Boohoo!

[ElNono]

we're stuck with kavanaugh and coney barret for the rest of our adult lives, the only way is if there's no R pres and senate majority until thomas an alito both die which is like 20 years of dem wins

Plessy v. Ferguson was in the books for 60 years, yet it's still regarded as one of the worst if not the worst SCOTUS decision in history.

But, ultimately, these kind of decisions find their way to the tree of woe. The 'quick fix' would be a law from Congress, but one side doesn't want to compromise.