On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

Life begins at the point of conception.  No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue.  What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death.  Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence?  Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions.  They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created.  What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country?  Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption?  Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter!  Does the father of the child have a say in this?  And what about the constitution of the United States?  Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed.  We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country.  For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

Why abortion?

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/GeorgeBush1st.jpg
http://www.visitingdc.com/images/george-w-bush-picture.jpg

wow..i read your past posts. are you campaigning?

now that i have read all you have to share, i'm going to forget it cuz i disagree.
thanks, though.

On a more serious note, the reasons women get abortions are not as simplistic as you seem to believe. 
Yes, all people born in the United States of America deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unfortunately that mantra has never been true to its word.
If you look around, seriously look around you will see that in many ways life is not cherished, unless it is economically feasible to do so.

Those are the same "pro-lifers" who are against expanding welfare programs to help take care of what the women are being coerced to carry.  They care about life sure, but when it comes to their purses forget it.

Ugh  >:(.  I usually don't get into these debates because I end up in an argument but you are so off the mark on several points that I just have to respond.

I assume from your screen name that you're a man.  I have found that many men who share this opinion are religious, controlling or don't factor other things into the equation (prejudice, I know, it's just my opinion).  

Firstly, I do believe my mother (or any other) should have the choice of abortion.  Am I glad she didn't abort me? - sure!  And what if she did? - I just wouldn't be having this argument with you (or maybe I'd always be her first child in the birthing order, who knows?!

Secondly, to say that "Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions.  They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created."  lets me know that you are, infact, clueless about birth control, about a woman's body and about the fact that only WOMEN get pregnant and MEN get to leave (if they so choose).  

It's easy for you to assume this is an easy, flippant decision a woman makes.  "Oh well, I'll just get an abortion..."  As though there's no wavering, heartache or struggle.  How one-sided and ridiculous!

Leave Roe v. Wade the way it is and stay out of my vagina!!!

life begins at conception? why stop there? i actually think every single stray sperm in existence should be retrieved and an egg found to inseminate with it, and then we'll have trillions and trillions of people! and then they can all be shipped off to mars and all the republicans can be shipped there also, where they can take care of all the people who got born because they felt like controlling women's bodies. and meanwhile the rest of us can actually get on with building a civil society.

bonus! jesus is already on mars so it'll really be a conservative paradise once we turn it into a pro-life zone.

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01/marsLL_500x246.jpg

life begins at conception? why stop there? i actually think every single stray sperm in existence should be retrieved and an egg found to inseminate with it, and then we'll have trillions and trillions of people! and then they can all be shipped off to mars and all the republicans can be shipped there also, where they can take care of all the people who got born because they felt like controlling women's bodies. and meanwhile the rest of us can actually get on with building a civil society.

bonus! jesus is already on mars so it'll really be a conservative paradise once we turn it into a pro-life zone.


You were about to do the "every sperm is sacred bit, weren't you"?  Are Liberal Democrats supposed to pay for a the shipment to Mars? (Not that I object, I just want to know where my tax dollars are going."  Oh, and if life begins at conception and abortion is to be criminalized will women who miscarry be charged with involuntary manslaughter?

First of all, abortion has been around since the beginning of time. Women are going to have abortions whether it is legal or not-we might as well keep it legal so these women who choose to have one can do so in a safe environment instead of having to seek it in some back alley by some guy with a butcher knife.

Second, I love how these so-called pro-life advocates want to dictate whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion but do nothing to help her after a child is born. Many women have abortions because they feel that they have nothing to offer a child. And as for adoption-yeah, it is a nice idea but you know how many kids are in orphanages as I am writing this? I would like to see everyone who doesn't want a woman to have an abortion to adopt. I rarely hear that happening.

Besides, it is a woman's decision. Yes, I think the father should also have a say in the matter but that father had BETTER be in the picture. If he just wanted to get his jollies and then took off-then he has forfeit any parental rights.


Cat 

Are Liberal Democrats supposed to pay for a the shipment to Mars? (Not that I object, I just want to know where my tax dollars are going." 
as a liberal independent, i'd be willing to chip in, sure. :P they can use that $800 in bribe money they were gonna borrow from the chinese and pay me to overlook the fact that nobody's running the country.

sorry, i got all partisan, from this guy's other posts i'm not sure he's right wing except on this issue but i couldnt help myself. i'm irritable and have a headache.

First of all, abortion has been around since the beginning of time. Women are going to have abortions whether it is legal or not-we might as well keep it legal so these women who choose to have one can do so in a safe environment instead of having to seek it in some back alley by some guy with a butcher knife.

Second, I love how these so-called pro-life advocates want to dictate whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion but do nothing to help her after a child is born. Many women have abortions because they feel that they have nothing to offer a child. And as for adoption-yeah, it is a nice idea but you know how many kids are in orphanages as I am writing this? I would like to see everyone who doesn't want a woman to have an abortion to adopt. I rarely hear that happening.

Besides, it is a woman's decision. Yes, I think the father should also have a say in the matter but that father had BETTER be in the picture. If he just wanted to get his jollies and then took off-then he has forfeit any parental rights.


Cat 


Wonder if they'd outlaw herbs that are used to induce abortions.  Excellent point Cat.
What has always shocked me is how they use adoption as an alternative for abortion.  How many "wonder-bread white, born-again Christians are going to adopt a minority infant?
Harsh, but true.

There has been a serious decrease in the number of abortions since the legalization of RU 486,

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR2008012102075.html?nav=hcmodule

The anti-choice people must be heartbroken, this is something else they fought against. 

Why abortion?

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/GeorgeBush1st.jpg
http://www.visitingdc.com/images/george-w-bush-picture.jpg


Finally we find something we can agree on!!!

wow..i read your past posts. are you campaigning?

now that i have read all you have to share, i'm going to forget it cuz i disagree.
thanks, though.


That's okay once Maxwell and Davey get a whiff of this guy he'll be going down!  ;D

I have never agreed with abortion as a means of birth control, and very few women use it as such.... but
prolifers never take into account conception by criminal means whether it be a rape or abuse. they never
take medical issues into account either, they believe it is better to save the child being carried than the
woman who is carrying. They also don't take into account the accident, the only form of birth control that is
100% guaranteed is abstinence. Should a woman be forced to have an unwanted child because the protection
used failed? As tough as a decision it is, it is the woman's decision to make.

Ugh  >:(.  I usually don't get into these debates because I end up in an argument but you are so off the mark on several points that I just have to respond.

I assume from your screen name that you're a man.  I have found that many men who share this opinion are religious, controlling or don't factor other things into the equation (prejudice, I know, it's just my opinion).  

Firstly, I do believe my mother (or any other) should have the choice of abortion.  Am I glad she didn't abort me? - sure!  And what if she did? - I just wouldn't be having this argument with you (or maybe I'd always be her first child in the birthing order, who knows?!

Secondly, to say that "Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions.  They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created."  lets me know that you are, infact, clueless about birth control, about a woman's body and about the fact that only WOMEN get pregnant and MEN get to leave (if they so choose).  

It's easy for you to assume this is an easy, flippant decision a woman makes.  "Oh well, I'll just get an abortion..."  As though there's no wavering, heartache or struggle.  How one-sided and ridiculous!

Leave Roe v. Wade the way it is and stay out of my vagina!!!


Karma +1

You said it, Ladybug!  I agree 99%, gotta subtract the very last bit 'cos last time I checked I didn't have one of them!
;)

The man who started this thread isn't asking me what I think, he's telling me what he thinks.  

There are a minority of women who use abortion as "birth control"* and don't care much about using it that way.  Well, I would rather not see those women becoming mothers.  This is not to say a woman who has had an abortion should feel she's done something "wrong," however both women and men need to take their reproductive choices/behaviour seriously.  

I sympathize the pro-life/anti-choice position.  I have nearly been pursuaded to that side a few times.  In the end simply don't believe it is murder nor do I believe the government should demand all women who become pregnant must carry to term.  If your religious beliefs tell you abortion is murder, I respect that.  If you're pregnant and that's what you believe, then don't get an abortion.  

Abortion services:  I think abortion must be available on demand in a safe clinical setting.  It is a woman's decision and it is up to her to decide if she wants religious counseling.  Unfortunately, in vast areas of this country abortion is not available even though it is legal.  In some areas a woman might have to travel 100 miles or more.  This is often extremely difficult for indigent women.  

Abortion and minors:  Conservatives condemn abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, for providing abortion to minors without consent of their parents.  They make a strong argument.  If a 14-year-old is pregnant somebody has committed rape--statuatory or aggravated.  Underaged pregnancy is sometimes a result of domestic sexual abuse or incest.  Sometimes it is a result of rape by a stranger.  In either case, the perpetrators should be arrested. In the case of "consensual" sex between, say, a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old, the young man at the very least needs counseling, like "hey, what do you think you're doing, bud?"  

However, this argument does not outweigh the medical urgency.  I can imagine how frightened a teenager would be when she is pregnant.  If she is going to have to talk to the her parents and the cops, she might not seek any medical help at all.  Every year there are cases of young women carrying to term in secret with no prenatal care and sometimes killing the newborn in panic.  This happened right down the road from me at UMass a few years ago, and that woman was of legal age!  Some families are extremely shaming and may disown the daughter or abuse her subsequently.  Perhaps the clinic calls the father and the father is, erm, the father and he lies about it through his teeth.

No, confidentiality regardless of age is a must.  It doesn't seem "right" for a 14-year-old to be able to make such a drastic decision without her parents' knowledge but it's preferable to say the least to a 14-year-old dying from a septic "back alley" abortion.  I know a doctor who was an ER intern in the late '60s.  He saw several teenagers die horrifically from "back alley" abortions.  Once the young woman got to the ER it was too late.  

I think the goal should be "safe, legal, and rare."  Reproductive education with abnstinence encouragement.  

*But it is "birth control."  Speaking literally it is the only form of "birth control."  What we call "birth control" is actually "conception control," that's why I prefer the therm "contraception."  

Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption?  Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter! 


http://youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

i thought this was funny. at least the guy knows what he wants the penalty to be: life in prison! omg.

Those are the same "pro-lifers" who are against expanding welfare programs to help take care of what the women are being coerced to carry.  They care about life sure, but when it comes to their purses forget it.


And they're against contraception and they're for a mildewy old church lady teaching abstinence-only education!
::)

And they're against contraception and they're for a mildewy old church lady teaching abstinence-only education!
::)



http://therecshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/church_lady.jpg

Well, isn't that special.



Cat

http://therecshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/church_lady.jpg

Well, isn't that special.



Cat

Yes indeed-aroony!

http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/images/2007/04/02/nedflanders.jpg

First of all, abortion has been around since the beginning of time. Women are going to have abortions whether it is legal or not-we might as well keep it legal so these women who choose to have one can do so in a safe environment instead of having to seek it in some back alley by some guy with a butcher knife.

Second, I love how these so-called pro-life advocates want to dictate whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion but do nothing to help her after a child is born. Many women have abortions because they feel that they have nothing to offer a child. And as for adoption-yeah, it is a nice idea but you know how many kids are in orphanages as I am writing this? I would like to see everyone who doesn't want a woman to have an abortion to adopt. I rarely hear that happening.

Besides, it is a woman's decision. Yes, I think the father should also have a say in the matter but that father had BETTER be in the picture. If he just wanted to get his jollies and then took off-then he has forfeit any parental rights.


Cat 


Karma,you said it all.

Where i come from abortion is illegal and it doesn't stop any woman who decides to do it from doing it,it only contributes to the rise of a shady business where women's lives are put in danger everyday.
When people say having an abortion is the easy way out they obviously talking about what they don't know,you can ask any woman who ever had one or had a miscarriage and they'll tell you,i'll tell you: it's one of the most painfull heartbreaking experiences a woman can go through,whether you believe that life begins with conception or not,when the prospect of life is inside you you can't help but care,but that doesn't mean that having an abortion isn't the best choice...a lot of times it is,the same way you can't stop anyone from breeding you also shouldn't force them to have a child.
Those who are against it just don't do it,but please don't even consider taking away the right of those who decide to do it. In the future maybe this will be a non issue,if contraception comes out to be 100% safe and sex education becomes exactly that and not a abstinence only outlet (i've read a piece on People magazine this week about how so many teens are getting pregnant ever since this "just don't do it" campaign began) ,but until that day and so what happens overhere won't happen there,celebrate roe vs wade,i wish we could too.

Why do some of these anti-abortion demonstrators feel the need to show pictures of aborted fetuses?  It's disgusting.

Danoota has probably presented the strongest pro-choice argument in the entire thread.  I really can't top that....  lol

All I can say is...  most pro-lifers don't like to think of the economic repercussions of an abortion ban, because it would mean we'd have to spend a lot more on those social programs most of them hate with a passion.

Danoota has probably presented the strongest pro-choice argument in the entire thread.  I really can't top that....  lol

All I can say is...  most pro-lifers don't like to think of the economic repercussions of an abortion ban, because it would mean we'd have to spend a lot more on those social programs most of them hate with a passion.

Yeah, but you're only thinking about social programs such as Head Start, Section 8, and WIC. 
Kids get the idea just because they were born society owes them something.  The real evil social programs are compulsory education and child labor laws.  See, abortion is murder and murder is proscribed by the Ten Commandments (unless it's capital punishment, war, or undesirables sneaking into your gated community) but the Bible doesn't mandate schooling until age 16 or no work permits for kids under 14.  Victorian England, now there was a society that had it together.  If your parents don't have any money, then go down to the coalmine and earn a living, don't leech off of the taxpayers!

Republican Bill of Rights:
1. You have the right to be born.
2. You have the right to compete in the marketplace.

Republican Bill of Rights:
1. You have the right to be born.
2. You have the right to compete in the marketplace.
well, the first one is right. the second would only be true if the playing field was level.

max! you sound like a republican shill all the sudden.  :P i'd always had my suspicions. it's more like

1. right to be born
2. right to work till you drop

well, as i suspected, the one that began this thread never returned.
what else is new.

well, as i suspected, the one that began this thread never returned.
what else is new.


Yeah, I've noticed that too.

Google his name. You find some interesting stuff.

See, I'm not just pro-choice... I'm actually pro-Abortion.

Young girls.... if you get preggers by accident because you were ignorant and made a couple of dumb decisions, Abortion is your solution.

All these pro-life people, they all seem to be on the same page about sex. It's shameful (especially before marriage) and your getting knocked up is your scarlet letter, which you must wear for nine months so that everyone will know that you're a teenage 'whore'. They think you should have to pay a price, because they all think that you have 'sinned'.

But, you see, sex is natural. It's a big step to take, but let's face it. Some teenagers are ready for sex, some are not, and most are confused. They should probably wait longer, but that's just intelligent. It has nothing to do with sin. There is no god out there who gives a rat's ass about who you're shagging or why. So, short of using abortion as a frequent method of birth control (which is just stupid, unhealthy, and expensive), there is nothing wrong with bailing you and this future child out of a sheeshty life.

You made a mistake. The condom broke, slipped, you forgot to use one, you don't know wtf a condom is... whatever. It doesn't mean you should be sentenced to 9 mos. of agonising pregnancy, or 20 odd years of struggling to raise a child you didn't want in the first place. And adoption is OK for some people, but there are already fewer would-be adoptive parents out there than there are orphans.

Yeah, but you're only thinking about social programs such as Head Start, Section 8, and WIC. 
Kids get the idea just because they were born society owes them something.  The real evil social programs are compulsory education and child labor laws.  See, abortion is murder and murder is proscribed by the Ten Commandments (unless it's capital punishment, war, or undesirables sneaking into your gated community) but the Bible doesn't mandate schooling until age 16 or no work permits for kids under 14.  Victorian England, now there was a society that had it together.  If your parents don't have any money, then go down to the coalmine and earn a living, don't leech off of the taxpayers!

Republican Bill of Rights:
1. You have the right to be born.
2. You have the right to compete in the marketplace.


LOL...  You've summed it up quite well.  Although I actually am against truancy laws, and I believe that child labor laws should be amended so that more 15 and 16 year olds can find work if they want to make a little money outside of school.  It's actually quite difficult for teens to find part time work because of labor laws.  I'd like to change that, because they should have the freedom to work if they want to.

The reason for the age on child labor laws is more to keep employers from exploiting young workers than it is for denying children the right to work.  It is a much harder question than it seems.

LOL...  You've summed it up quite well.  Although I actually am against truancy laws, and I believe that child labor laws should be amended so that more 15 and 16 year olds can find work if they want to make a little money outside of school.  It's actually quite difficult for teens to find part time work because of labor laws.  I'd like to change that, because they should have the freedom to work if they want to.




I think kids can learn quite a lot from getting a job at an early age. If you quit school-look at the kind of job you will have to get stuck with for the rest of your life. If you get an education, you can get a decent job that pays much better than minimum wage.


Carlos had a job in a factory while going to college-the same factory his dad worked in. A few years ago, he was talking to his dad about how much his boss was an S.O.B. His dad told him that the guy wasn't so bad. In fact, his dad told the guy to be hard on Carlos so Carlos wouldn't be blinded by the $$$ he was making and think about dropping out of college. That is a great dad.  :)



Cat

Tomorrow (28 January), will mark the 20th anniversary of the Morgentaler Decision, where the Supreme Court of Canada nullified the anti-abortion sections of the Canadian Criminal Code, thus legalising abortion across the country.

The procedure is also covered by Medicare, so an abortion can be obtained free of charge to the recipient.

An interesting fact I found on Wikipedia:

Three Canadian doctors who perform abortions have been shot.

    * November 8, 1994, Vancouver doctor Garson Romalis shot and wounded.
    * November 10, 1995, Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario targeted while eating breakfast in his home.
    * November 11, 1997 Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg shot.

In 1992, Henry Morgentaler's Toronto clinic was firebombed and sustained severe damage. The event occurred at night, so no one was injured, although a nearby bookstore was damaged. Appointments were switched to another clinic in Toronto and no abortions were prevented.

So clearly, these people were doing God's work. Funny how there have never been any pro-choice bombings, shootings, or murders.

Tomorrow (28 January), will mark the 20th anniversary of the Morgentaler Decision, where the Supreme Court of Canada nullified the anti-abortion sections of the Canadian Criminal Code, thus legalising abortion across the country.

The procedure is also covered by Medicare, so an abortion can be obtained free of charge to the recipient.

An interesting fact I found on Wikipedia:

Three Canadian doctors who perform abortions have been shot.

    * November 8, 1994, Vancouver doctor Garson Romalis shot and wounded.
    * November 10, 1995, Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario targeted while eating breakfast in his home.
    * November 11, 1997 Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg shot.

In 1992, Henry Morgentaler's Toronto clinic was firebombed and sustained severe damage. The event occurred at night, so no one was injured, although a nearby bookstore was damaged. Appointments were switched to another clinic in Toronto and no abortions were prevented.

So clearly, these people were doing God's work. Funny how there have never been any pro-choice bombings, shootings, or murders.



That mentality always gets it: Abortion is wrong because it is "murder" yet, it is ok to murder the doctors who preform the procedure.  ???




Cat

http://therecshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/church_lady.jpg

Well, isn't that special.



Cat


Could it be . . . SATAN?

well, the first one is right. the second would only be true if the playing field was level.
I said compete, no handicap! As Forbes Magazine said to the "level playing field" argument: Don't level the playing field, level the competition!  Gotta love a Reaganesque non-answer answer!


max! you sound like a republican shill all the sudden.  :P i'd always had my suspicions.
"Call my a cryptofascist one more time and I'll smash you in the bloody goddam mouth!"
--William F. Buckley (to Gore Vidal)

it's more like

1. right to be born
2. right to work till you drop

That's Tom Tancredo style, I'm more John McCain style...say the same thing as Tom Tancredo, just say it nicer!
:P


The reason for the age on child labor laws is more to keep employers from exploiting young workers than it is for denying children the right to work.  It is a much harder question than it seems.

Agricultural work is stil exempted, as far as I know. 



That mentality always gets it: Abortion is wrong because it is "murder" yet, it is ok to murder the doctors who preform the procedure.   ???


Oh, you know, the fanatics will ask you if you'd be against shooting a death camp commandant.  You can't win with a zealot. 



if you get preggers by accident because you were ignorant and made a couple of dumb decisions, Abortion is your solution.


why, i know the preggers!
;)

Agricultural work is still exempted, as far as I know. 




Yes, and it is one of the most dangerous of jobs.  The worst, of course, are the migratory workers who are exploited mercilessly. 

Yes, and it is one of the most dangerous of jobs.  The worst, of course, are the migratory workers who are exploited mercilessly. 

Migrant laborers have no rights, which is what the bosses like.  They're working on the same arrangment for the native population, but until then, immigrants will have to do!
::)

Yes, and it is one of the most dangerous of jobs.  The worst, of course, are the migratory workers who are exploited mercilessly. 


Most claim freedom of religion in order to do that.  The Amish and a few cults are particularly fond of that.  They are also pro-life.

All these pro-life people, they all seem to be on the same page about sex. It's shameful (especially before marriage) and your getting knocked up is your scarlet letter, which you must wear for nine months so that everyone will know that you're a teenage 'whore'. They think you should have to pay a price, because they all think that you have 'sinned'.



Don't be so quick to lump everyone together.  I am one of those pro life people and I don't think that being pregnant is a punishment to show that they are teenage whores.  It is not a price to be paid, either.  Teen pregnancies happen, that doesn't make the kids bad kids.  Hell, I was 18 and alone when I got pregnant the first time.  I chose adoption and it was the most difficult thing I ever did.  I am just thankful no one judged me because of it.  Abortion is rarely a solution.  It isn't something to be done just because "you made a mistake and got preggers", it should not be used as birth control.  Just because it is done in a medical environment doesn't make it safe.  No medical procedure is safe. 

IMO adoption is a good answer.  Yes there are lots of orphans out there who aren't being adopted but with newborns it is different.  The reason there are so many orphans out there is that people want newborns, not older kids.  It is sad but true.  There are waiting lists for newborns. 

That being said, I am pro-life but lean pro choice because I would rather a person who thought there was no other solution have it done in a medical environment than a back alley. 

In the future you should think about how you word things.  Just because a small minority of pro-lifers are vocal and idiots doesn't mean the rest of us think that way as well.  I don't like being lumped in with people who judge others, especially since no one is perfect and not one of us hasn't done something we wish we wouldn't have done.

Just because a small minority of pro-lifers are vocal and idiots doesn't mean the rest of us think that way as well.  I don't like being lumped in with people who judge others, especially since no one is perfect and not one of us hasn't done something we wish we wouldn't have done.


I can appreciate your views on abortion, but I think your approach is the minority approach. Not the other way around. You might be pro-life in your personal life, but like you said, you wouldn't begrudge another woman her right to an abortion, and that makes you pro-choice.

You ask your average pro-life Joe on the street why he thinks a woman should HAVE to carry a child to term even if she doesn't want to, the answer you'll get will be something along the lines of 'well she had sex so now she has to deal with the consequences..." As if having sex were such a bad thing that you should have to be punished.

You ask your average pro-life Joe on the street why he thinks a woman should HAVE to carry a child to term even if she doesn't want to, the answer you'll get will be something along the lines of 'well she had sex so now she has to deal with the consequences..." As if having sex were such a bad thing that you should have to be punished.



I think this is something we are going to have to disagree on.  The people you are referring to are the minority, IMO.  I guess it depends on where you poll. 

I think one of my biggest problems with your post was the "abortion is the answer" statement you made.  That is not a choice to be made lightly.  There are so many women out there who have had them that it has messed with their minds and emotions.  They don't get over it easily if at all.  There are much better ways to deal with an unexpected teen pregnancy.  I am a big adoption advocate.  It is a hard thing to do but, trust me, it is much easier to deal with when you know your baby is going to a good home where he or she will be taken care of and have a good life.

I think this is something we are going to have to disagree on.  The people you are referring to are the minority, IMO.  I guess it depends on where you poll.

I wish I could believe that those people were the minority. But I want to be clear. I'm not talking about people who don't oppose a woman's right to choose even though they themselves would never have an abortion. Those people are called pro-choice. They may not believe in abortion, but they believe in a woman's right to choose, which I think describes the views you have explained to me.


I think one of my biggest problems with your post was the "abortion is the answer" statement you made.  That is not a choice to be made lightly.


I'm not saying it is, but it's also not something to be afraid or ashamed of. There's nothing wrong with it. It's a perfectly valid and healthy choice to make for a lot of girls and women faced with an unwanted pregnancy. It's a private matter, yes, but I want girls and women to know their rights and to be comfortable with them.

So that's why I say I am more than just pro-choice. Because if a woman, younger or older, decides that that's what she wants, then I am 100% for it, hence making me pro-abortion. That's life. That's the real world and it's gritty. 

I wish I could believe that those people were the minority. But I want to be clear. I'm not talking about people who don't oppose a woman's right to choose even though they themselves would never have an abortion. Those people are called pro-choice. They may not believe in abortion, but they believe in a woman's right to choose, which I think describes the views you have explained to me.


Again, this is something we will have to disagree on.  I still believe the pro-lifers you described are in the minority, they are just the most vocal.  The louder person gets noticed more.  Plus the idiots with the bombs and guns get noticed as well.  That type of fanatacism (sp) gets pushed off on the normal people who are pro-life but would never think of calling people whores, killing docs, or bombing abortion clinics. 

I am more pro-life than you think.  If it would completely stop abortions, I would be all for outlawing it.  I think life begins at conception and it is wrong to kill that life.

Face it, you are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you.



I'm not saying it is, 


But the way you worded it did say that it was the answer.  Here are your exact words:


Young girls.... if you get preggers by accident because you were ignorant and made a couple of dumb decisions, Abortion is your solution.

Face it, you are not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything and never was, I'm trying to clarify for you what I believe you have misunderstood about my views on the issue. That's all.


But the way you worded it did say that it was the answer.  Here are your exact words:


Yes exactly. I know what I said.  And notwithstanding a bit of sarcasm in my statement, that's exactly what I meant. But I did not say or even imply, as you mentioned, that it was a choice to make lightly. I can appreciate the gravity of an unwanted pregnancy, even if I myself will never be pregnant. I know it is a hard choice, but all I'm saying is that it IS a choice. Women HAVE that choice, and that it's a good choice that they don't have to feel ashamed about.

Women HAVE that choice, and that it's a good choice that they don't have to feel ashamed about.


And, here is where we will disagree again.  I don't think it is a good choice.

Oh well, I guess this world would be pretty boring if we all agreed about everything. :)

And, here is where we will disagree again.  I don't think it is a good choice.

Oh well, I guess this world would be pretty boring if we all agreed about everything. :)


Agreed.

Agreed.
i disagree.

I think this is something we are going to have to disagree on.  The people you are referring to are the minority, IMO.  I guess it depends on where you poll. 

I think one of my biggest problems with your post was the "abortion is the answer" statement you made.  That is not a choice to be made lightly.  There are so many women out there who have had them that it has messed with their minds and emotions.  They don't get over it easily if at all.  There are much better ways to deal with an unexpected teen pregnancy.  I am a big adoption advocate.  It is a hard thing to do but, trust me, it is much easier to deal with when you know your baby is going to a good home where he or she will be taken care of and have a good life.


When a woman (whether she be young or older) finds herself pregnant and alone, she has choices to make and there is not an easy choice. As I see it, there are really 3 choices:

1. She can raise the child herself-which is VERY tough. Trying to work at a job (or more) to make enough to live in a decent place plus having to pay someone to care for the kid when she is at work. Dealing with health insurance and other things that come up. Some women can cut this. Others can't.

2. She can give her child up for adoption. This is also tough. She always wonder if it was the best decision. Most times it is, but there is a chance that it will not be. And when the kid grows up, are they going to hate the biological mother for "giving them up". Yeah, it is very emotional for a mother-whether they be a teen or older. It is not an easy decision.

3. She can have an abortion. Again, not an easy decision. That woman will always wonder if she made the right choice. And to add to the fact that if a woman chooses this option, she may be forever labeled. It is like she has to wear a scarlet "A" for the rest of her life. I know a couple of women who have had them and they don't talk about it because of that. It must be kept hush, hush or she will be called a "murderer".



Cat

When a woman (whether she be young or older) finds herself pregnant and alone, she has choices to make and there is not an easy choice. As I see it, there are really 3 choices:

1. She can raise the child herself-which is VERY tough. Trying to work at a job (or more) to make enough to live in a decent place plus having to pay someone to care for the kid when she is at work. Dealing with health insurance and other things that come up. Some women can cut this. Others can't.

2. She can give her child up for adoption. This is also tough. She always wonder if it was the best decision. Most times it is, but there is a chance that it will not be. And when the kid grows up, are they going to hate the biological mother for "giving them up". Yeah, it is very emotional for a mother-whether they be a teen or older. It is not an easy decision.

3. She can have an abortion. Again, not an easy decision. That woman will always wonder if she made the right choice. And to add to the fact that if a woman chooses this option, she may be forever labeled. It is like she has to wear a scarlet "A" for the rest of her life. I know a couple of women who have had them and they don't talk about it because of that. It must be kept hush, hush or she will be called a "murderer".



Cat

I know how hard it is.  I have been there.  I made the adoption decision (which was the hardest thing I have ever done) and I am also raising a child by myself.  I know people in the other two categories, too.  None of the answers are easy.

My problem was with being lumped in with pro-lifers who do the branding you are talking about, or calling kids whores because they got pregnant.  Also, the statement he made that "abortion is the solution".  He stated that he made it sarcastically, which I didn't pick up on originally. 

I personally think abortion is wrong, but I also think it is wrong to call people who have made that decision murderers.  We shouldn't judge others unless we have been in their shoes. 

I know how hard it is.  I have been there.  I made the adoption decision (which was the hardest thing I have ever done) and I am also raising a child by myself.  I know people in the other two categories, too.  None of the answers are easy.

My problem was with being lumped in with pro-lifers who do the branding you are talking about, or calling kids whores because they got pregnant.  Also, the statement he made that "abortion is the solution".  He stated that he made it sarcastically, which I didn't pick up on originally. 

I personally think abortion is wrong, but I also think it is wrong to call people who have made that decision murderers.  We shouldn't judge others unless we have been in their shoes. 


An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, you can't repeat a karma action without waiting 24 hours. 

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/life/i-2-spm2.jpg
''Every sperm IS sacred ... and if a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate !  :\'(


Well ... being a liberal, I reckon it's absolutely nobody else's business other than the woman and the man who got her there. As Tia has said, the world has quite enough of a population burden as it is ! There are many people out there who DO have kids .... who are not fit to be parents. We're supposed to saddle more who don't want them with this life-long burden ?  How come the kid who hasn't even been born yet .... knows nothing of our world ... gets placed on an equal footing with us (or more than equal ? ) . We suddenly lose our sovereignty cos we didn't perhaps consider the repercussions deeply enough .... in perhaps a rash moment ?

I suppose you do need a very large labor force to keep those at the top in their status quo, so in that sense, having a continuous supply of potential slave labor / people to nurture you in your old age / pay taxes etc ... historically, and societally, it would have made sense.

Producing a lot of unwanted kids it seems to me ... is more likely to result in a lot of bad eggs who turn out to be rapists, muggers, murders, and so on. Hands off our making the call, I say !

I know how hard it is.  I have been there.  I made the adoption decision (which was the hardest thing I have ever done) and I am also raising a child by myself.  I know people in the other two categories, too.  None of the answers are easy.

My problem was with being lumped in with pro-lifers who do the branding you are talking about, or calling kids whores because they got pregnant.  Also, the statement he made that "abortion is the solution".  He stated that he made it sarcastically, which I didn't pick up on originally. 

I personally think abortion is wrong, but I also think it is wrong to call people who have made that decision murderers.  We shouldn't judge others unless we have been in their shoes. 



I hope you don't think that I am lumping you into that category. I responded to your post specifically as a means of expanding on your thought-no matter what choice a woman makes, it is not easy.



Cat

I hope you don't think that I am lumping you into that category. I responded to your post specifically as a means of expanding on your thought-no matter what choice a woman makes, it is not easy.



Cat


I know you don't.  I took your post as you meant it.  I was trying to point out that I already knew all of what you pointed out to me.  I have been in the position twice and all options were open to me.  It wasn't easy either time, and both decisions I made continue to be difficult.  I do wonder about the baby I gave up.  She will be 18 in July and I worry she won't want to meet me.  I just want to let her know that I did what I did because I love her and wanted her to have a better life than a single 19 year old making $3.35 an hour could give her.  I worry that I am not making the right decisions concerning my 10 year old.  Trust me, I do not come by my opinions on abortion lightly.  I have never been one to let someone tell me how I must feel.  In fact, when people do I tend to feel the other way just to show them, I'm stubborn like that. ;)

The saddest part of all this is the women who feel it necessary to put their children up for adoption for economic reasons.  It says so much in our society about the lip service given to the sanctity of motherhood and the condition of children in the richest country in the history of the world.

I know you don't.  I took your post as you meant it.  I was trying to point out that I already knew all of what you pointed out to me.  I have been in the position twice and all options were open to me.  It wasn't easy either time, and both decisions I made continue to be difficult.  I do wonder about the baby I gave up.  She will be 18 in July and I worry she won't want to meet me.  I just want to let her know that I did what I did because I love her and wanted her to have a better life than a single 19 year old making $3.35 an hour could give her.  I worry that I am not making the right decisions concerning my 10 year old.  Trust me, I do not come by my opinions on abortion lightly.  I have never been one to let someone tell me how I must feel.  In fact, when people do I tend to feel the other way just to show them, I'm stubborn like that. ;)

I have 4 Cousins who were adopted,3of those were allowed to find their real mothers,and have said they harbor no ill feelings,my one cousin told me if she hadn't been put up for adoption she would not have the terrific family she has now,plus she knows her birth mother was young and could not take care of here.
I myself do not believe in abortion (maybe that's partially due to my Catholic upbringing) but that's just my opinion,but I do believe that there are circumstances (rape, abuse to name a few) that a woman may feel her only choice is to have an abortion. I have a 16 yr old daughter,who has been sexually active since 14,and I often wonder if she got pregnant what would be the right decision for her.
I know that my 4 cousins are grateful their birth mothers choose adoption over abortion.

i disagree.


  Agreed...

 

  Education.  Education teaches us about our bodies, and how to use and abuse them properly.  Education offers women (who, by proxy of biology, have the abortions) the skills to participate in society in a manner not "reduced" to a breeding factory.  Education offers men (who, by proxy of biology, knock up the women who have abortions) manifold reasons to respect what biology teaches (via education) about women (whom the men knock up, as covered above)...

  Life should never be its own worst enemy.  Human beings, however, can make it so go ;)...

My mother was adopted. All her life, she wanted to know who her biological parents were but the records were sealed. Why? Who knows. There was this old fart of a judge who didn't believe that adopted kids should know. He also had a secretary who was basically a b!tch and a half with the same attitude. Finally the old fart retired and replaced by a woman judge who fired the b!tch.  ;D ;D ;D  In turn, she opened my mother's records. So at the age of about 65 or so, my mother learned who her biological parents were (both had passed away  :\'( ) and learned that she had siblings-3 brothers (2 living) on her mother's (?) side and 1 sister on her father's side-ALL of them accepted her with open arms. My mother grew up as an only child-so this just thrills her to have siblings. What is kind of interesting is 1 of her brother's wife had a situation in her family where they discovered an adopted sibling only to discover a similar situation in his family.


Ok, I went off on a tangent a bit.



Cat

My mother was adopted. All her life, she wanted to know who her biological parents were but the records were sealed. Why? Who knows. There was this old fart of a judge who didn't believe that adopted kids should know. He also had a secretary who was basically a b!tch and a half with the same attitude. Finally the old fart retired and replaced by a woman judge who fired the b!tch.  ;D ;D ;D  In turn, she opened my mother's records. So at the age of about 65 or so, my mother learned who her biological parents were (both had passed away  :\'( ) and learned that she had siblings-3 brothers (2 living) on her mother's (?) side and 1 sister on her father's side-ALL of them accepted her with open arms. My mother grew up as an only child-so this just thrills her to have siblings. What is kind of interesting is 1 of her brother's wife had a situation in her family where they discovered an adopted sibling only to discover a similar situation in his family.

Cat


  That's cool..!

  If in the same situation I'd have a strong desire to know who I was and where I came from.  It would probably consume me...

My mother was adopted. All her life, she wanted to know who her biological parents were but the records were sealed. Why? Who knows. There was this old fart of a judge who didn't believe that adopted kids should know. He also had a secretary who was basically a b!tch and a half with the same attitude. Finally the old fart retired and replaced by a woman judge who fired the b!tch.  ;D ;D ;D  In turn, she opened my mother's records. So at the age of about 65 or so, my mother learned who her biological parents were (both had passed away  :\'( ) and learned that she had siblings-3 brothers (2 living) on her mother's (?) side and 1 sister on her father's side-ALL of them accepted her with open arms. My mother grew up as an only child-so this just thrills her to have siblings. What is kind of interesting is 1 of her brother's wife had a situation in her family where they discovered an adopted sibling only to discover a similar situation in his family.


Ok, I went off on a tangent a bit.



Cat


That is cool.  I'm happy your mom got to meet her siblings.  :)

That is cool.  I'm happy your mom got to meet her siblings.  :)



And I got to meet my uncles. I haven't met my aunt yet.



Cat

What has always shocked me is how they use adoption as an alternative for abortion.  How many "wonder-bread white, born-again Christians are going to adopt a minority infant?
Harsh, but true.

"Harsh but true"?  You know what?  There's a lady at my church (never married) who adopted 2 Korean boys; my brother happens to be  friends with them.  A few years ago they were able to go back to Korea to meet their biological parents, which they said went well.

I'm very pro-life (although I am in favor of abortion if the mother's life is in danger).  I definitely don't believe any decisions like this are easy for a person to make.  I believe abortion is murder, however, a big part of Christianity is forgiveness.  I don't believe that if you had an abortion in the past that you're automatically going to hell (some non-believers assume the opposite).  Jesus died because we were sinners and needed redemption.

And I got to meet my uncles. I haven't met my aunt yet.



Cat


The more family the better. :)

Dagwood...let me just say BRAVO for your inputs.

Unlike others,or maybe 'cause i don't live in the US,i feel most pro-lifers here are actually people who believe that abortion is killing instead of fingerpointing women who get pregnant as sinners,they believe that every human life is sacred and they use the same argument against death penalty for instance. Of course there are some religious extremists that go wacko on teens having sex but they're really a minority.
The thing is although i think it's important for women to have a law that allows them to have an abortion if that is their choice,i also think abortion shouldn't ever be a contraception method and i don't think any woman on her right mind would use it as one. I just wished the hypocrisy would stop because right now it's like everyone knows it exists,where to do it,who to pay,but the state just pretends it's not an issue.

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_pictures/life/i-2-spm2.jpg
''Every sperm IS sacred ... and if a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate !   :\'(



Karma +1 for Python!

Karma +1 for Python!


Likewise 'Max'. Hey, I do believe that's my first ever one from YOU ! Remind me to post python pics more often !

Likewise 'Max'. Hey, I do believe that's my first ever one from YOU ! Remind me to post python pics more often !

Always a good way to butter up to me!
:)

Bush just said "All your medical decisions should be made in the privacy of your doctor's office, not in the halls of Congress."*
So he must be pro-choice, right?  Right.


*State of the Union Address, 1/28/08

Always a good way to butter up to me!
:)



Are you familiar with the 'Tesco' product ?  ???


I hear it's the  ......
















http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4373/tescobuttermeupbutter56bl6.gif
          ^  'Smart' choice !  :P  ;D

"Harsh but true"?  You know what?  There's a lady at my church (never married) who adopted 2 Korean boys; my brother happens to be  friends with them.  A few years ago they were able to go back to Korea to meet their biological parents, which they said went well.

I'm very pro-life (although I am in favor of abortion if the mother's life is in danger).  I definitely don't believe any decisions like this are easy for a person to make.  I believe abortion is murder, however, a big part of Christianity is forgiveness.  I don't believe that if you had an abortion in the past that you're automatically going to hell (some non-believers assume the opposite).  Jesus died because we were sinners and needed redemption.


Would they have been willing to adopt the infant of a poor black woman?  Adopting Korean or infants from Guatemala is "Tre Chic".  So I don't buy your argument.  Oh and why did they have to do a foreign adoption when there is a supply here in America.

Bush just said "All your medical decisions should be made in the privacy of your doctor's office, not in the halls of Congress."*
So he must be pro-choice, right?  Right.


*State of the Union Address, 1/28/08


Not sure, maybe he has a pro-choice side to him.  Laura Bush is rabidly pro-choice.  Wait wasn't it rumored that Bush made a girlfriend he got pregnant have an abortion?  (All before Laura of course)

Not sure, maybe he has a pro-choice side to him.  Laura Bush is rabidly pro-choice.  Wait wasn't it rumored that Bush made a girlfriend he got pregnant have an abortion?  (All before Laura of course)


Oh that would be just too good.

f that were true, there would be some people who would do anything to keep it secret. That's the madness of it.

Oh that would be just too good.

f that were true, there would be some people who would do anything to keep it secret. That's the madness of it.


http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/436172


http://www.bettybowers.com/newsbush.html

There you go. :)

On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

Life begins at the point of conception.  No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue.  What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death.  Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence?  Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions.  They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created.  What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country?  Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption?  Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter!  Does the father of the child have a say in this?  And what about the constitution of the United States?  Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed.   We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country.  For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.


I went through a pretty thorough point-by-point about most of this almost two years ago with a member who is no longer here. No need to retype it...

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17208.msg809961#msg809961

Ant

I went through a pretty thorough point-by-point about most of this almost two years ago with a member who is no longer here. No need to retype it...

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=17208.msg809961#msg809961

Ant


Oh Jesus. It's Harmonica. I remember him well. All too well.

I hope things are working out for him though. He was a good kid, it's just what religion can do to some people.

He was a good kid when he didn't have is teeth in an issue.  He was like a pit bull that wouldn't let go.

He was a good kid when he didn't have is teeth in an issue.  He was like a pit bull that wouldn't let go.


You mean like the Tom Cruise incident? ;D

Oh jeez, I need to go find that thread and re-read it now...

You mean like the Tom Cruise incident? ;D

Oh jeez, I need to go find that thread and re-read it now...


I just read this and LMAO thinking about that. Definitely classic.



Cat

;D That was classic.

I think I missed it...can you get the link for me?

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=16529.0

Here ya go, snozberries.  Enjoy. ;D

Would they have been willing to adopt the infant of a poor black woman?  Adopting Korean or infants from Guatemala is "Tre Chic".  So I don't buy your argument.  Oh and why did they have to do a foreign adoption when there is a supply here in America.


I'm sure she would've, she's a very compassionate woman--I don't know the details of the adoption process she went through.  This all happened in the '80s.  But I also have a friend who's dad is a pastor and they've adopted several children--and yes, some are black.   

Just remembered some more--my mom's friend has 2 adopted brothers who are black.  And my brother's girlfriend also has some adopted black siblings.  These are both white, Christian families.

Just remembered some more--my mom's friend has 2 adopted brothers who are black.  And my brother's girlfriend also has some adopted black siblings.  These are both white, Christian families.


That's nice.  I know a Christian family who turned down an African American infant and went to Guatemala for one instead.  That would be my brother and his wife.  I was also a last choice because the adoption of a Korean boy fell through.  (I'm biologically of Jewish heritage and I have mild Cerebral Palsy.)  By the way I only meant black as an example of a minority.  I also have friends that adopted 15 handicap kids because no one wanted them.

I have a friend whose brother and wife knew they were having a child with Downs Syndrome.  They decided to put her up for adoption even though the family was adamant about keeping her in the family.  They had a couple of choices and chose a couple from California(as far away as possible?).  The bright part of this is that the adoptive family was very sensitive to the family and kept in close touch and even visited. The brother and his wife, who I have to add are over the top religious, wouldn't meet with the child and haven't any desire to see her. 

I have a friend whose brother and wife knew they were having a child with Downs Syndrome.  They decided to put her up for adoption even though the family was adamant about keeping her in the family.  They had a couple of choices and chose a couple from California(as far away as possible?).  The bright part of this is that the adoptive family was very sensitive to the family and kept in close touch and even visited. The brother and his wife, who I have to add are over the top religious, wouldn't meet with the child and haven't any desire to see her. 


Yeah, if it's not a perfectly healthy baby then a lot of times it isn't wanted.  My biological parents actually did want me.  It was my Maternal Grandmother who thought I was a mistake.  Broke my Mom's heart, she wasn't the same after.  If abortion had been legal my Grandmother probably would have forced my Mother to abort.  Funny thing pro-choice goes both ways.  The woman's right to bear a child or not to.  People seem to forget that.

I have a friend whose brother and wife knew they were having a child with Downs Syndrome.  They decided to put her up for adoption even though the family was adamant about keeping her in the family.  They had a couple of choices and chose a couple from California(as far away as possible?).  The bright part of this is that the adoptive family was very sensitive to the family and kept in close touch and even visited. The brother and his wife, who I have to add are over the top religious, wouldn't meet with the child and haven't any desire to see her. 


That is harsh.

I don't see anything wrong with children that have Downs Syndrome. IMO, they are the most loving and caring children in the world, and they take simple joys out of life.

That is harsh.

I don't see anything wrong with children that have Downs Syndrome. IMO, they are the most loving and caring children in the world, and they take simple joys out of life.


You are so right.  Some people are just jerks. 

That is harsh.

I don't see anything wrong with children that have Downs Syndrome. IMO, they are the most loving and caring children in the world, and they take simple joys out of life.


Down kids do have a rough go of things.  We've come a since doctors advised parents to just institutionalize retarded children...now doctors just advise women to abort them. 
::)

That's nice.  I know a Christian family who turned down an African American infant and went to Guatemala for one instead.  That would be my brother and his wife.  I was also a last choice because the adoption of a Korean boy fell through.  (I'm biologically of Jewish heritage and I have mild Cerebral Palsy.)  By the way I only meant black as an example of a minority.  I also have friends that adopted 15 handicap kids because no one wanted them.


I'm sorry about how your situation went and everything, and that you may have gotten a wrong impression from your brother.  Yeah, a couple of the children who were adopted by that pastor I mentioned earlier were handicapped too, it actually inspired his biological daughter to go into special education.

I also have to second what Jessica said, the handicapped kids are usually the most lovely people ever. :)

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=16529.0

Here ya go, snozberries.  Enjoy. ;D


thanks!

  For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.


http://www.angryflower.com/aposter3.jpg

That is all.

http://www.angryflower.com/aposter3.jpg

That is all.


;D

Hey Foo Bar, want my avatar?








<-------------------

Ant

http://www.angryflower.com/aposter3.jpg

That is all.


on sum mesg boards I C alot more grammer and and puctuation and speling mistakes then I C here sum peeps just dont care

:D

on sum mesg boards I C alot more grammer and and puctuation and speling mistakes then I C here sum peeps just dont care

:D




..... and some here are real sticklers about all that .... taking you to task  if you capitalize their user names !  ::)  :-X

Like to keep you on your TOWS, make sure ewe mind your queues and peas. Awe some thing like that !

Fortunately, being edumacated, I never ever make mistaskes  ...... ever never!


:P  ;D

I just feel like an old fogey because I don't know all that text messaging code the youngsters use.  I know one thing, it certainly dampens the ability to express complex thought.
::)

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f148/Copper_17/grammar.jpg

or


http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e276/weasel6231/grammar.jpg

lol...  All grammatical mistakes aside, I'd just like to ask all pro-lifers if they are willing to pay more in taxes to cover all the increases in social programs that would be necessary if an abortion ban was put into place.

I have a feeling this thought alone will leave most small government conservatives cringing.

lol...  All grammatical mistakes aside, I'd just like to ask all pro-lifers if they are willing to pay more in taxes to cover all the increases in social programs that would be necessary if an abortion ban was put into place.

I have a feeling this thought alone will leave most small government conservatives cringing.

Whoah!  It's the right to be born, not the right to anything else.

lol...  All grammatical mistakes aside, I'd just like to ask all pro-lifers if they are willing to pay more in taxes to cover all the increases in social programs that would be necessary if an abortion ban was put into place.

I have a feeling this thought alone will leave most small government conservatives cringing.


My thoughts exactly.

Hey Foo Bar, want my avatar?


ROFL!  (I rarely resort to being a grammar Nazi, but what can I say, when I'm in an evil mood, I do enjoy wearing a cool uniform :)

Any excuse to introduce people to the surrealist misanthropy that is Bob the Angry Flower is a good one in my books.  If it's any consolation, and just to bring us back to abortion... well, one of the characters in the strip is Freddy the Flying Fetus, introduced to the strip in 1992.  It's been a freaky 15 years.

Is anyone here pro-LIFE?  I ask, not because I have just an opinion, but about 20 years experience with pro-life activity.  That included every kind of activity, even picketing a jail. (the abortionists used to call the police on us for kneeling in the grass and praying that the woman would not go through with it, because often it was the mother of the woman, grandmother to the child who took her into there.)

It is a mistaken belief that some hold that musty old church ladies just hand down decrees and scarlet letters on the poor, unfortunate women, who really are not coerced into carrying her child.

And it was somewhat a held opinion that all we do is have her have the baby and have nothing to do with it from then on.  Plenty of support, baby clothes, whatever the woman needs is offered.  Anyone of us picketing, etc, would gladly adopt any child into our homes. 

That is not the only thing that is offered...have you heard of Project Rachel?  It is emotional support for the women who have undergone abortion.

Our only gripe is with the abortion providers themselves. I myself visited one in his 'regular' office and gave him a book, written by a former abortionist who now holds the opposite view.

Is anyone here profile?  I ask, not because I have just an opinion, but about 20 years experience with profile activity.  That included every kind of activity, even picketing a jail. (the abortionists used to call the police on us for kneeling in the grass and praying that the woman would not go through with it, because often it was the mother of the woman, grandmother to the child who took her into there.)

It is a mistaken belief that some hold that musty old church ladies just hand down decrees and scarlet letters on the poor, unfortunate women, who really are not coerced into carrying her child.

And it was somewhat a held opinion that all we do is have her have the baby and have nothing to do with it from then on.  Plenty of support, baby clothes, whatever the woman needs is offered.  Anyone of us picketing, etc, would gladly adopt any child into our homes. 

That is not the only thing that is offered...have you heard of Project Rachel?  It is emotional support for the women who have undergone abortion.

Our only gripe is with the abortion providers themselves. I myself visited one in his 'regular' office and gave him a book, written by a former abortionist who now holds the opposite view.


Living in a large metropolitan area I have to say that I have seen some of the tactics of your fellow anti-choice comrades and they are pretty ugly. First, they cannot know, nor do they seem to care, what has brought the woman in question there.  They will come within inches of the womans face SCREAMING calling her a murderer and playing tapes of babies crying and call the women all sorts of vile names. Thankfully they have recently put in place a 35 foot buffer zone(though that is not far enough), before it was 6 feet and continually  ignored.  I did have a friend who was very anti abortion, until she found herself pregnant with a baby that was not developing.  No discernible head, no brain stem, and many more genetic abnormalities.  She found herself on the other side of the buffer zone and quietly stepped aside from further activity in that arena.  A whole different story. Plenty of support?  Baby clothes?  Let me tell you, babies grow up and even when they are babies need more than clothes.  There are things like health care, formula, child care so if the mother is on her own or in an abusive situation she can go to work knowing her child is in safe hands.  It takes more than a box of Pampers. Support groups for women who have undergone abortions are provided at the very same clinics you stand in front of. Clinics that provide abortion services do more than just that, they have a whole array of support services for women whatever their choice.  How about the next time you are on the picket line you say to the people gathered that instead of picketing that one day you all go to an adoption services agency and ask to have some older children who they have had trouble placing, placed in their homes.  How many do you think will have an excuse? While you are at it ask how many have adopted children with specific birth related problems, or would be ready to file papers to take a child with exceptional needs.  See what happens.

That is not a normal practice nor tactics that you have described.  As I had said before, we had no gripe with the mother, just with the "doctor". And, of course, more than just a box of Pampers is provided...as I said, anything that the mother needed.  Other women even sewed layettes for that age and clothes were provided throughout.

On the contrary, I found myself on the other side of the rock throwing.  The clinic posted guards around the office, who would then describe lascivious sexual practices to us.  We have had hot chocolate and marshmallows poured where we were waslking and several splashed acid on our vehicles.  I cannot decribe all the stuff that has been done to us, but I can tell you that there was no screaming nor playing of tapes here.

This is also a medium size city.

I'd be willing to side with pro-lifers if they actually supported the necessary social programs to deal with a ban.  Since most of them don't, I can't even humor the possibility of a ban.

In short, pro-lifers need to be more realistic as a group.

That is not a normal practice nor tactics that you have described.  As I had said before, we had no gripe with the mother, just with the "doctor". And, of course, more than just a box of Pampers is provided...as I said, anything that the mother needed.  Other women even sewed layettes for that age and clothes were provided throughout.

On the contrary, I found myself on the other side of the rock throwing.  The clinic posted guards around the office, who would then describe lascivious sexual practices to us.  We have had hot chocolate and marshmallows poured where we were waslking and several splashed acid on our vehicles.  I cannot decribe all the stuff that has been done to us, but I can tell you that there was no screaming nor playing of tapes here.

This is also a medium size city.


In any case, it may be your First Amendment right, but I don't agree with the tactic of interfering with patients entering a clinic.  Whether your screaming bloody murder or pacifically handing out pamphlets for Christian counseling, it's obnoxious in either case.

Dirty-talking guards throwing cocoa and marsmallows?  First I've heard of it.  There are a lot of weirdos out there!
:D

That is not a normal practice nor tactics that you have described.  As I had said before, we had no gripe with the mother, just with the "doctor". And, of course, more than just a box of Pampers is provided...as I said, anything that the mother needed.  Other women even sewed layettes for that age and clothes were provided throughout.




Here is where I see a disconnect in our thinking.  First,  if you don't have a gripe with the mother, why picket outside of the clinic?  That is where the mother is, 99.9% of the time you will not see a doctor there.  Second "anything the mother needed....Other women even sewed layettes"!! You are talking clothes and layettes when health care, child care, food, shelter, and education are items on the table.  Where is the respite support for families with severely disabled?  The anti choice group reveled in the  election of little bushie, then turned a blind eye as he slashed aid to the severely disabled and people most in need of social programs to help them lead safe comfortable lives.  Where were the picketers then? Where are they now, home sewing layettes?  Why not picket outside of Congress and State House that in many times slash budgets of hospitals and schools that are overwhelmed with children who need specialized care and are underfunded, understaffed, and under-equipped.  Why not find families in the community that may need someone to come in a couple of times to offer respite to a individuals and there families.  Make the reasons for abortions dissolve.  Sewing layettes just doesn't cut it.

Of course, they do lobby congress. The end of Roe v. Wade is their explicit goal.  It's all about getting anti-choice justices on the Supreme Court.  They're almost there.  If McCain gets nominated, the religious right will go into overdrive.  He's anti-choice. 
::)

I'm pro-choice, but I actually wouldn't mind seeing Roe vs. Wade getting revoked.  I think abortion should've remained a state issue.

Besides, you know what that would ultimately mean if it went back to state policy -- the states with a ban would realize the hard way that abortion is necessary, and then the pro-life movement would shrink down to a fringe group.

Either that, or the states with a ban would spend way more on social programs than they currently do.

I'm pro-choice, but I actually wouldn't mind seeing Roe vs. Wade getting revoked.  I think abortion should've remained a state issue.

Besides, you know what that would ultimately mean if it went back to state policy -- the states with a ban would realize the hard way that abortion is necessary, and then the pro-life movement would shrink down to a fringe group.

Either that, or the states with a ban would spend way more on social programs than they currently do.


I don't see it as a states rights issue, I see it as a private health related issue, and as such protected for all women who are citizens of the United States.  I don't see any other issue which involves the health and well being of an individual that is proscribed by each state individually, I may be wrong, but I don't see it.

I don't see it as a states rights issue, I see it as a private health related issue, and as such protected for all women who are citizens of the United States.  I don't see any other issue which involves the health and well being of an individual that is proscribed by each state individually, I may be wrong, but I don't see it.



Euthaniasa?



Cat

Euthaniasa?



Cat


Nikes workforce?

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/c/3/bush_youth_enasia.jpg

Nikes workforce?

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/c/3/bush_youth_enasia.jpg



Cute.  :D ;D ;D



Cat

Nikes workforce?

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/c/3/bush_youth_enasia.jpg


Cheaper than American workforce.  Don't have to pay health insurance.  Very few pesky labor laws.  So this is why some Asian countries have outlawed (or tried to) abortion.

I don't see it as a states rights issue, I see it as a private health related issue, and as such protected for all women who are citizens of the United States.  I don't see any other issue which involves the health and well being of an individual that is proscribed by each state individually, I may be wrong, but I don't see it.

So does George Bush, apparently.  He said in the State of the Union that all your healthcare decisions should be made in the privacy of your doctor's office.  Well dummy...you just voted pro-choice...and pro-Kevorkian for that matter!

:D

So does George Bush, apparently.  He said in the State of the Union that all your healthcare decisions should be made in the privacy of your doctor's office.  Well dummy...you just voted pro-choice...and pro-Kevorkian for that matter!

:D




Calling Dr. Frisk. Calling Dr. Frisk.



Cat

Calling Dr. Frisk. Calling Dr. Frisk.



Cat

Who's Dr. Frisk?  Or do you mean Bill Frist who used to kill dogs for fun.
:o

Who's Dr. Frisk?  Or do you mean Bill Frist who used to kill dogs for fun.
:o



Oops, I meant Dr. Frist-you know, who's office is in the Capital Building in Washington.



Cat

I don't see it as a states rights issue, I see it as a private health related issue, and as such protected for all women who are citizens of the United States.  I don't see any other issue which involves the health and well being of an individual that is proscribed by each state individually, I may be wrong, but I don't see it.


As long as abortion remains a federal issue, you can be sure that the real issues (like the economy and Iraq) will often take a back seat due to the Religious Right.  I'd rather push this issue to the states so that they can battle that out locally.

As long as abortion remains a federal issue, you can be sure that the real issues (like the economy and Iraq) will often take a back seat due to the Religious Right.  I'd rather push this issue to the states so that they can battle that out locally.


Abortions can be used as medical tax deductions. (Out of pocket medical expenses.)  Therefore making it state by state would do nothing without something done on a federal level. 

As long as abortion remains a federal issue, you can be sure that the real issues (like the economy and Iraq) will often take a back seat due to the Religious Right.  I'd rather push this issue to the states so that they can battle that out locally.



If it is battled locally it is no longer a Constitutional right, it is an issue of State right.  To those of us who consider it a Constitutional right this would be a very serious step backward.

If it is battled locally it is no longer a Constitutional right, it is an issue of State right.  To those of us who consider it a Constitutional right this would be a very serious step backward.


Which is why states which have strong "pro-life" legislatures and lobbyist put as many conditions on it as possible.  The waiting period, parental notification, forcing doctors to take an ultrasound with the intent for the doctors to show the woman "supposedly" who or what they're killing.

As long as abortion remains a federal issue, you can be sure that the real issues (like the economy and Iraq) will often take a back seat due to the Religious Right.  I'd rather push this issue to the states so that they can battle that out locally.


Premature to say, but the religious right just might...just might...have overstayed their welcome.  Their influence could be on the wane.  They've become a divisive force in the GOP and divided they fall....

I hope.
8) 

Premature to say, but the religious right just might...just might...have overstayed their welcome.  Their influence could be on the wane.  They've become a divisive force in the GOP and divided they fall....

I hope.
8) 



I think what is happening is that the middle is gaining more influence.  The Republican party has a problem.  The religious right and fiscal conservatives.  Both are at odds with each other in the party.

If it is battled locally it is no longer a Constitutional right, it is an issue of State right.  To those of us who consider it a Constitutional right this would be a very serious step backward.


Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean you believe abortion is a Constitutional right.  I don't see it as a right, I see it as a necessary evil.

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee you the right to have an abortion?

I haven't much further to add on this subject  :-http://www.dwf-film.com/images/mtd.jpg

^ Get it ?  ???  ;D

Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean you believe abortion is a Constitutional right.  I don't see it as a right, I see it as a necessary evil.

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee you the right to have an abortion?


It was argued in Roe v. Wade that it is a religious issue which would go towards separation of church and state.  It is an issue of privacy, the decision being that of a womans right to privacy when it comes to her body as well as her health. It should be noted that the rights of the fetus transfer at the three month mark when it is assumed that it becomes viable, giving it rights.  At that time the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus enter into a balancing act.  The anti choice crowd would like to have a Constitutional Amendment to give the fetus the status of a person at the time of conception in order to guarantee rights under the Constitution.

It was argued in Roe v. Wade that it is a religious issue which would go towards separation of church and state.  It is an issue of privacy, the decision being that of a womans right to privacy when it comes to her body as well as her health. It should be noted that the rights of the fetus transfer at the three month mark when it is assumed that it becomes viable, giving it rights.  At that time the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus enter into a balancing act.  The anti choice crowd would like to have a Constitutional Amendment to give the fetus the status of a person at the time of conception in order to guarantee rights under the Constitution.


Good points.  I think it would be ridiculous to amend the Constitution over this, but at the same time, I don't see abortion as a federal issue.

Good points.  I think it would be ridiculous to amend the Constitution over this, but at the same time, I don't see abortion as a federal issue.



Many on both sides of the issue do.  I will also point out that the strict constructionists tend to forget that abortion was legal until after the Civil War. 

The anti-choicers claim abortion increases a womans risk of breast cancer, which is not true, just a pathetic scare tactic.
::)

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

The anti-choicers claim abortion increases a womans risk of breast cancer, which is not true, just a pathetic scare tactic.
::)

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage


If they can't succeed with the "guilt trip" they used the long term effects bit.  I've heard some talk about sterility after an abortion.  The over exaggeration of "post-abortion syndrome". Then their take on what can go wrong during the procedure.  Hemorrhaging, death.  As if a coat hanger is any safer. :P

If they can't succeed with the "guilt trip" they used the long term effects bit.  I've heard some talk about sterility after an abortion.  The over exaggeration of "post-abortion syndrome". Then their take on what can go wrong during the procedure.  Hemorrhaging, death.  As if a coat hanger is any safer. :P


The cancer thing was just outright BS.  It's like saying if you masturbate you'll go blind...so then, so then...where are my glasses?
8)






Where in the Constitution does it guarantee you the right to have an abortion?


Where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to tell you you can't have one?
???

The cancer thing was just outright BS.  It's like saying if you masturbate you'll go blind...so then, so then...where are my glasses?
8)



Where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to tell you you can't have one?
???


Then of course there's the fact that people were gullible enough to believe it. 

It said nothing in the constitution about Abortion.  Which is why anti-abortion people want an amendment making a fetus a individual with protection under the Constitution.

same

same


I find it so unbecoming for someone to start a debate and not fully engage in it.  Of course you probably weren't looking for debate since you first posted this topic in the "Off Beat Oddities" section.

Then of course there's the fact that people were gullible enough to believe it. 

It said nothing in the constitution about Abortion.  Which is why anti-abortion people want an amendment making a fetus a individual with protection under the Constitution.

Why stop there?  Let's go to individual protection for the egg and the sperm. 

I want social security checks for all my boys.
:-\\

Why stop there?  Let's go to individual protection for the egg and the sperm. 

I want social security checks for all my boys.
:-\\


Grab you calculator, draw up blueprints for your mansion, and change your voter registration if the far- right has their way your ideal may be in the works.

I have stated my view on the topic in here before, so here is a short synopsys.

I am opposed to abortion on moral grounds, when it is used for birth control.

That pretty much sums it up.  I do not think it should be made illegal, and I have absolutely no problems with it when used in cases of rape, incest, if birth defects are detected, or if the life or health of the mother is in danger.

However, the thought of it as birth control sickens me.  I would much rather either see the parents use some kind of birth control, or consider adoption.

One downside of the Roe V. Wade era is that the number of adoptions has gone down dramatically.  I can think of at least 5 kids that I went to school with that were aware that they were adopted.  And for those of my generation, I am sure that the numbers are similar.

Now look at the current generation.  I doubt that anybody knows more then 1 or 2 cases of adoption outside of inner-family adoptions.  This is why now we have so many parents going outside of the country in order to adopt.  Nowadays it is so much easier to abort, and nobody considers the effects this can have on society.

No, I do not believe it should be made illegal.  I do not even think it should be restricted (other then my belief that parents should be aware and give consent if their child is pregnant).  I simply find the use as birth control to be repulsive.  Especially when some women have multiple abortions. 

From Mushroom:

"One downside of the Roe V. Wade era is that the number of adoptions has gone down dramatically.  I can think of at least 5 kids that I went to school with that were aware that they were adopted.  And for those of my generation, I am sure that the numbers are similar.

Now look at the current generation.  I doubt that anybody knows more then 1 or 2 cases of adoption outside of inner-family adoptions.  This is why now we have so many parents going outside of the country in order to adopt.  Nowadays it is so much easier to abort, and nobody considers the effects this can have on society."

I actually know many children who were adopted in the US, both when I went to school and in my daughter's school.  It is true that people are going elsewhere to adopt, but I think that says more about the state of adoption laws here than it does about abortion.  Also, I think you should factor in fertility treatments.  There are so many options to getting pregnant on your own now, that most people turn to adoption as a last resort.

However, the thought of it as birth control sickens me.  I would much rather either see the parents use some kind of birth control, or consider adoption.



what about a situation where both parties acted responsibly but fell into the small percentage where the protection they used was not 100% effective?


I know that I don't ever want to be a mother and more importantly I know that I don't ever want to give birth...
I have known that since I was 14 years old.  Therefore...if the unthinkable happened I would have only one option.

same



I find it so unbecoming for someone to start a debate and not fully engage in it.  Of course you probably weren't looking for debate since you first posted this topic in the "Off Beat Oddities" section.


It's okay he's a chicken sh*t loser 

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd227/fishnestx/loser.jpg


besides aren't you the kind of person who refuses to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person???  ;D

It's okay he's a chicken sh*t loser 

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd227/fishnestx/loser.jpg


besides aren't you the kind of person who refuses to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person???  ;D




Thank you so much for reminding me of normal standards of debate.  Karma and a 20oz of MD.

besides aren't you the kind of person who refuses to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person???  ;D





Hey, that's one of my lines.  :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

Hey, that's one of my lines.  :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat


well I only steal from the best  ;)

well I only steal from the best  ;)





And for that, kind lady, I applaud you.



Cat

Then of course there's the fact that people were gullible enough to believe it. 

It said nothing in the constitution about Abortion.  Which is why anti-abortion people want an amendment making a fetus a individual with protection under the Constitution.


Well, a fetus should have SOME protection...I do like the law where they make it a double homicide now if you kill an expectant mother and the fetus dies too.

But abortion is slightly different, I guess.

Well, a fetus should have SOME protection...I do like the law where they make it a double homicide now if you kill an expectant mother and the fetus dies too.

But abortion is slightly different, I guess.


The fetus does have protection.  Once it begins its fourth month it is considered "quick" or "viable" i.e. a separate entity.  That is why after the third month of pregnancy it becomes much more difficult to have an abortion. 

The fetus does have protection.  Once it begins its fourth month it is considered "quick" or "vialble" i.e. a separate entity.  That is why after the third month of pregnancy it becomes much more difficult to have an abortion. 


Over here there's a big debate going on about embryonic stem cell research,we had a law that passed in favor of it but now the Catholic Church is trying to make it unconstitutional. This studies are made with in-vitro fertilization embryos that have been frozen for 3 years which were never viable in the first place and crucial to cure so many life threatening diseases,still there are so many who want to equal this to killing a baby and refuse to see the difference. 
One of the arguments they like to use is that it "goes against nature",like "nature" is so wonderful ::) If it was up to it we would live until our 30s and infant mortality would be about 50%.

One of the arguments they like to use is that it "goes against nature",like "nature" is so wonderful ::) If it was up to it we would live until our 30s and infant mortality would be about 50%.




Exactly!

Many on both sides of the issue do.  I will also point out that the strict constructionists tend to forget that abortion was legal until after the Civil War. 


Good point...  I'm not a constructionist myself, but I lean that way in certain respects.  Over the last month, however, I've become less of a small government advocate anyway.  It seems like centrism in combination with federalism is the most practical mindset in dealing with many social issues.

For example, the average North Carolinian has a totally different view on abortion than the average Massachusetts citizen.  Why should social policy be determined on a federal level given the vast differences between our states' viewpoints?

Good point...  I'm not a constructionist myself, but I lean that way in certain respects.  Over the last month, however, I've become less of a small government advocate anyway.  It seems like centrism in combination with federalism is the most practical mindset in dealing with many social issues.

For example, the average North Carolinian has a totally different view on abortion than the average Massachusetts citizen.  Why should social policy be determined on a federal level given the vast differences between our states' viewpoints?


The question is more of what each citizen of the United States is guaranteed as a right, and what rights can be regulated by the states.  As a adult citizens of the United States we cannot be sold into slavery, we can vote, we can marry, and have other rights under the federal system, and have these rights recognized across state lines.  There are people who believe that abortion is a right that should be guaranteed to every member of under the federal umbrella.

Again, I'm pro-choice, but I don't see abortion as a constitutionally protected right.  I still don't see where the evidence of that is...

The question is more of what each citizen of the United States is guaranteed as a right, and what rights can be regulated by the states.  As a adult citizens of the United States we cannot be sold into slavery, we can vote, we can marry, and have other rights under the federal system, and have these rights recognized across state lines.  There are people who believe that abortion is a right that should be guaranteed to every member of under the federal umbrella.



not everyone can marry...

  Rather than as a constitutionally protected right, I see it as more of an issue of dominion over one's person...

not everyone can marry...



At least not YET!!! 



Cat

  Rather than as a constitutionally protected right, I see it as more of an issue of dominion over one's person...


Yep, that is it. 

Again, I'm pro-choice, but I don't see abortion as a constitutionally protected right.  I still don't see where the evidence of that is...


The framers probably didn't consider addressing the question because at the time there weren't any restrictions against it.  Probably never entered their minds to consider making it illegal.

The framers probably didn't consider addressing the question because at the time there weren't any restrictions against it.  Probably never entered their minds to consider making it illegal.

Both mother and child stood a good chance of dying during the birthing process back then, and a child was likely not to survive his first year
Invasive surgical procedures in 1791? The Grim Reaper's cell number!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/peepwall.gif

Both mother and child stood a good chance of dying during the birthing process back then, and a child was likely not to survive his first year
Invasive surgical procedures in 1791? The Grim Reaper's cell number!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/peepwall.gif


Fair points by both you and Danoota.  It's just that I'm always leery of involving the Constitution in matters not defined by it.  I'd rather most social issues be determined by states.

Fair points by both you and Danoota.  It's just that I'm always leery of involving the Constitution in matters not defined by it.  I'd rather most social issues be determined by states.


I think it's more of a PRIVATE issue that the states and federal governments should have no hand in.

But that's just me.

I think it's more of a PRIVATE issue that the states and federal governments should have no hand in.

But that's just me.


That would be me as well. Abortion should be decided on a personal level, and it should go no further than that.

What's funny is that if men were somehow magically transformed overnight to carry a fetus to birth, I'd bet than within a month's time every state would have all remaining anti-abortion laws wiped off the books, and January 22nd (when Roe V Wade was decided) would become an official holiday.

As far as I know, abortion is the only main political issue that affects the genders differently. Why it's even an issue (at state or federal levels) is beyond me: no matter what "side" you take, at best you're going to have a ~50% agreement factor. The topic, on a campaign level, is, at best, a wash, an even money bet, with no hope of really gaining ground.

While thinking about the topic of abortion some more, I realize how lopsided the efforts of the "pro-life" side are. Them picketing abortion clinics is so commonplace that it's not even newsworthy anymore, unless one of them happens to decide that one of the doctors needs a shortcut to the afterlife, or gets careless and accidentally throws a few spare molotov cocktails into a clinic....

I have never, ever heard of a "pro-choice" person going to, say, a Lamaze class and screaming to everyone "Hey, all of you should get abortions! Damned baby-breeders!". Why is that? Probably because, although we get called everything from "anti life" to "baby-killers" and everything in between, we are in fact "pro choice".

Not only should the state and federal government not have any say in a woman's right to chose, but neither should any "special interest" groups (I phrased that about as neutrally as I could).

As I see it, the main differences between "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are as follows:

~Pro choice people put the choice in the individual's hands, and set aside any personal beliefs they have regarding abortion (not all "pro-choice" people are "pro abortion")

~Pro life people try to take the choice from the individual and impose their own personal beliefs regarding abortion.

That said, I will no longer refer to the PL side as "pro-life", rather "anti-choice".


Well, a fetus should have SOME protection...I do like the law where they make it a double homicide now if you kill an expectant mother and the fetus dies too.

But abortion is slightly different, I guess.


This is one issue that the pro-choice side can't have it both ways. With states that allow abortion up until birth, they can't turn around and make killing a pregnant woman a double homicide. Such a law is a double standard. Some higher charge of homicide would work though.

Ant

not everyone can marry...


Hey, I want to marry mt late fiancee's corpse.  What right do you have to stop me?

Hey, I want to marry my dog (or cat).  What right do you have to tell me I can't?

Now all jokes aside, anybody (or thing) can marry anybody (or thing).  I can legally perform marriages in the state of California (and many other states), and have performed 15 of them.  I have even performed 2 same sex marriages, and 1 plueral marriage.

People tend to forget, that in a great many cases, the term marriage is originally a religious term.  It is only more recently become such a "catch phrase" among those that favor gay rights and other things.  The simply fact that I perform a "Marriage" does not nessicarily make it a "Legal Marriage".

I know this is off-topic, but once again it shows how not all "conservatives" think alike.  And how because we do not agree with 100% of what people want us to agree with, we are demonized.

Am I against "Gay Marriage"?  Yes.  Because of the word "Marriage", and it's religious conatations.  We have already seen groups line up prepared to sue churches for refuseing to marry people.

Am I in support of a "Gay Civil Union"?  Hell yes.  To me, call it anything else.  Along with it give 100% of the rights of marriage (along with it's responsibilities, such as alimony and divorce).  I care about the right, not the name that it goes under.


Again, I'm pro-choice, but I don't see abortion as a constitutionally protected right.  I still don't see where the evidence of that is...


And I agree with you there.  No more then I agree that "freedom of the press" nessicarily gives such protections to TV or Radio.  The makers of the Constitution could not concieve of the changes in both society and technology.  And it is amazing that many people just assume things simply because they want to believe it is so.

To me, the protections (and rights) in the Constitution are spelled out quite simply.  Anything else quite often changes at the whim of the justices and common beliefs at the time.  And who knows, maybe in another 100 years future Justices will even go radical in the other way and translate the phrase "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" as either a prayer, or a condemnation of abortion (since it could be seen as killing future generations) and make radical changes.

After all, nowhere does it say in the Constitution that Abortion is a right.  No more then it says that Marriage is a right, saying anything you want on TV or Radio is a right, or that going to college is a "Constitutional Right".  In many cases, that phrase is meaningless, since the right people proclaim is never mentioned in the Constitution.  And as many people know from Civics classes, any right not given by the Constitution is left to the states to decide.


While thinking about the topic of abortion some more, I realize how lopsided the efforts of the "pro-life" side are. Them picketing abortion clinics is so commonplace that it's not even newsworthy anymore, unless one of them happens to decide that one of the doctors needs a shortcut to the afterlife, or gets careless and accidentally throws a few spare molotov cocktails into a clinic....


And to be honest, I can't remember the last time I heard of a murder, bombing, or picket at an abortion clinic.  And I can't think of a single person I know that supports the tactics of Eric Rudolph.

In fact, doing a quick search of the phrase "Abortion Clinic" on Google News only turned up a small number of articles.  The vast majority dealing with a clinic in Dayton that has been disposing of fetal tissue and fetus in an illegal manner.  There were a few mentions of protests (all self-released by religious groups).  The closest article to anything even closely related to violence was from Ireland, where somebody sent threatening letters to a few clinics.

Violence against Abortion Clinics probably numbers somewhere around the number of Church Bombings and Lynchings.  A great "Boogyman", but in reality much lower then many people want you to believe.

And I find it rather strange that many of the same people that want to make abortion legal also want to make the killing of a pregnant woman a "double murder" (or a miscarriage from an attack a murder).  Am not saying it is a good or a bad thing, just that it is rather inconsistant.  At least be consistant, and require that the fetus be beyong the first trimester.  Otherwise, it is not really a murder, but the termination of unviable tissue, right?

*****

Realize, I am not making any kind of personal opinion here, simply pointing out some inconsistancies in various arguments.

*****

Realize, I am not making any kind of personal opinion here, simply pointing out some inconsistancies in various arguments.


Yes,Sir ::)

And I agree with you there.  No more then I agree that "freedom of the press" nessicarily gives such protections to TV or Radio.  The makers of the Constitution could not concieve of the changes in both society and technology.  And it is amazing that many people just assume things simply because they want to believe it is so.

To me, the protections (and rights) in the Constitution are spelled out quite simply.  Anything else quite often changes at the whim of the justices and common beliefs at the time.  And who knows, maybe in another 100 years future Justices will even go radical in the other way and translate the phrase "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" as either a prayer, or a condemnation of abortion (since it could be seen as killing future generations) and make radical changes.

After all, nowhere does it say in the Constitution that Abortion is a right.  No more then it says that Marriage is a right, saying anything you want on TV or Radio is a right, or that going to college is a "Constitutional Right".  In many cases, that phrase is meaningless, since the right people proclaim is never mentioned in the Constitution.  And as many people know from Civics classes, any right not given by the Constitution is left to the states to decide.



  Right, but in order for the Supreme Court to rule on an issue, it must have Federal Jurisdiction.  The states don't make the laws on abortion individually because the federal goverment's jurisdiction in the matter trumps theirs...

  The rationale for a legal "right to choose" is based on constitutional assertions of privacy.  The issue the supreme court was deciding in Roe v. Wade was whether or not a state has a right to restrict a person's implied right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.  The theory is that a person has a certain inalienable sphere of privacy that consists of, at least, their own body (in other cases in Texas it has also been construed to mean a person's home, as well) and that they have the right to make decisions about what to do within that private sphere.  The federal government's law, as laid out in the constitution, forbade Texas from entering into that sphere and prohibiting a person's freedom of action if they were acting completely inside that protected area...

  That's what I'm saying, above, about "dominion over your person"...

Yes,Sir ::)


If you look at earlier posts, my beliefs are quite clear.  I am not some kind of anti-abortionist crusader.  I even recognize the need for it to be kept legal.  But there are great inconsistancies, and I see them all the time.

I do not like the idea of protesting abortion clinics.  I feel it is an invasion of privacy for those that feel the need to go to one.  I am even stronger on the idea of bombing abortion clinics or killing people who practice it.  Which I find ironic, since there are people in here that have stated they see nothing wrong with burning or destroying things that they object to.

As the person in here who's job is essentially violence, I am probably the most pacifistic person on this board. 


   Right, but in order for the Supreme Court to rule on an issue, it must have Federal Jurisdiction.  The states don't make the laws on abortion individually because the federal goverment's jurisdiction in the matter trumps theirs...


Actually, that is largely what RvW said.  And later Supreme Court decisions have affirmed.  That individual states have the right to place limits on abortion.  However, they do not have the right to make it outright illegal.

And a lot of the fighting has been on fanatics on both sides.  On one side you have those that feel any abortion (even to save the life of the mother) is murder, and should be stopped no matter what.  Then on the other side you have those that feel it should have no restrictions on it at all, and that a woman 8 months pregnant should have the right to go in and get an abortion simply because she is depressed, or had a fight with the father and wants to "get back at him".

And the reality is that laws should be somewhere in the middle.  With access available, but with restrictions on how it should be used.

If you look at earlier posts, my beliefs are quite clear.  I am not some kind of anti-abortionist crusader.  I even recognize the need for it to be kept legal.  But there are great inconsistancies, and I see them all the time.

I do not like the idea of protesting abortion clinics.  I feel it is an invasion of privacy for those that feel the need to go to one.  I am even stronger on the idea of bombing abortion clinics or killing people who practice it.  Which I find ironic, since there are people in here that have stated they see nothing wrong with burning or destroying things that they object to.

As the person in here who's job is essentially violence, I am probably the most pacifistic person on this board. 



I got your beliefs before,they're not that different from mine. I just have to roll my eyes at your style of posting sometimes. Saying things like "realize,i am not making any kind of personal opinion here,simply pointing out some inconsistencies in various arguments" do you realize how condescending you sound? You're as objective as the rest of us which is not much since all we do here is express our personal opinion. 

Oh and no one here has said it's ok to "burn or destroy what they object to"...you just proved my point again by bringing that up.

I think it's more of a PRIVATE issue that the states and federal governments should have no hand in.

But that's just me.


On a personal level, I would agree.  The only reason I don't take that stance is that it's undeniable that a large portion of America doesn't see things that way.

As long as this issue is up for grabs, it will remain far more than a private issue.  I wish that it was one, but realistically speaking....  it simply isn't.

On a personal level, I would agree.  The only reason I don't take that stance is that it's undeniable that a large portion of America doesn't see things that way.



Which is why the words tyranny of the majority have great meaning.

The electoral college is a tyranny of the minority, as is the Senate.  One could even argue that lobbyism is a tyranny of the minority.

Still, I know what you're saying.  It's just that it gets very messy as more and more social issues become federal.  We start to see sectionalism develop as that happens.  The first major time we saw that happen was with slavery.  Obviously, abortion isn't anywhere near as controversial as slavery was, but it's the same general principle.

What's ok to the majority of one state isn't necessarily the case in another.  Would you like it if gun policies became federal?  I'm not sure where you stand on this, but as mentioned in another thread, D.C. is having a court case over its handgun ban.  I personally support lifting the ban, but I wouldn't want to see the federal government deciding every state's gun laws.  Would you?

Can I just check something here?

Is there no limit to how late on in pregnancy you can get an abortion in the US?

In the UK it's something like about 24 weeks.

Can I just check something here?

Is there no limit to how late on in pregnancy you can get an abortion in the US?

In the UK it's something like about 24 weeks.


I think that's the big thing being debated...if you get an abortion too late, it's getting close to "partial birth" which is really frowned upon.  Sounds like a nasty procedure anyway, and if you've gone that far, you might as well deliver and put the baby up for adoption, right?

Just my opinion.

I think that's the big thing being debated...if you get an abortion too late, it's getting close to "partial birth" which is really frowned upon.  Sounds like a nasty procedure anyway, and if you've gone that far, you might as well deliver and put the baby up for adoption, right?

Just my opinion.


The Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800710.html

I think that's the big thing being debated...if you get an abortion too late, it's getting close to "partial birth" which is really frowned upon.  Sounds like a nasty procedure anyway, and if you've gone that far, you might as well deliver and put the baby up for adoption, right?

Just my opinion.


So called "partial birth abortions" are only performed when the health of the mother or the child is in danger.  It is not an elective procedure.

Can I just check something here?

Is there no limit to how late on in pregnancy you can get an abortion in the US?

In the UK it's something like about 24 weeks.


Abortion in the last trimester is illegal except for extenuating circumstances...  (rape, incest, high chance of mother's death in childbirth).

And to be honest, I can't remember the last time I heard of a murder, bombing, or picket at an abortion clinic.  And I can't think of a single person I know that supports the tactics of Eric Rudolph.


Touche on Eric Rupolph.

You can't remember an instance of picketing, eh? As I said before, they are too commonplace to be newsworthy:

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

"The 'Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994', the FACE law, was signed into law in 1994. First-time offenders can receive fines of $100,000 and jail sentences of up to one year. In 1994-JUL, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that federal marshals will provide protection to any abortion clinic requesting it. These actions seem to have had a sudden dampening effect on the number of blockades and the number of arrests at blockades. The anti-abortion movement seems to have changed tactics, and engaged in hate letters, harassing phone calls, bomb threats, etc. There has been a fairly steady rise in the number of incidents of picketing."


And I find it rather strange that many of the same people that want to make abortion legal also want to make the killing of a pregnant woman a "double murder" (or a miscarriage from an attack a murder).  Am not saying it is a good or a bad thing, just that it is rather inconsistant.  At least be consistant, and require that the fetus be beyong the first trimester. 

I find this rather strange since I brought up this same point with the same views as you in my previous post...

Ant

I see the picketers regularly when driving around, but there are only a few here and there.

There was a big stink in Aurora last year because Planned Parenthood was opening a center that offered abortions. There were a ton of picketers aboot, but they gradually tapered off, possibly because no one pays attention to them. :D

In Boston, 1984, John Salvi walked into 2 clinics and murdered 2 people, 5 days after Christmas.  Picketers outside of the clinics would come up to any woman entering the clinic, without any knowledge of why they were there or what their circumstance were, and scream at them, the were allowed to come with in a 6 foot buffer zone.  It has since been expended to(I believe) 35 feet.  Pro life volunteers would form rings around anyone trying to enter the clinic to protect them against what was close to assault. 

In Boston, 1984, John Salvi walked into 2 clinics and murdered 2 people, 5 days after Christmas. 


That would make him a pro-life moron...I mean oxymoron

In Boston, 1984, John Salvi walked into 2 clinics and murdered 2 people, 5 days after Christmas.  Picketers outside of the clinics would come up to any woman entering the clinic, without any knowledge of why they were there or what their circumstance were, and scream at them, the were allowed to come with in a 6 foot buffer zone.  It has since been expended to(I believe) 35 feet.  Pro life volunteers would form rings around anyone trying to enter the clinic to protect them against what was close to assault. 


I vaguely remember hearing about that when I was a kid.  My parents are "pro-life" so they did talk about it.  I had a friend who went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to get a depro shot and some idiot was telling her not to abort her baby.  I also find it so ironic that Pro-lifers are willing to kill people for the lives of fetuses.  Oxymoron doesn't even come close to it.

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

He was killed (or killed himself) in jail awaiting his appeal.  Salvi was nuts.  Too befuddled to lie in wait for the doctors, he just burst in and gunned down two receptionists.
::)

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

He was killed (or killed himself) in jail awaiting his appeal.  Salvi was nuts.  Too befuddled to lie in wait for the doctors, he just burst in and gunned down two receptionists.
::)


Ranks right of there with that guy that bombed an abortion clinic and a gay nightclub.  Wish I could remember the moron's name.  :-\\