- Joined
- Nov 4, 2004
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
Post removed
BellKicker said:I have followed this thread with great interest. I just felt like I had to write something.
I was born in the country that first legalized abortion (can anyone guess where that is?). We have very few pro-lifers here, and the ones we have are just plain weird.
I assume, given my recent activity in this thread, I'm included in this. Thank you.It's obvious that the pro-lifers in this thread are intelligent people.
I think you're trying to bait me into calling you a highly charged, universally reprehensible epithet before revealing your wonderful good-hearted nature. You're going to have to try harder.I have performed 4 or 5 abortions in my time as a medical student. Am I a murderer to you, then?
How does that train of thought typically end? "Enh, oh well, time to clean up and get a cup of coffee"?For the 17-year old girl who had her whole life in front of her, I felt an abortion was a good choice.
For the 30-something single career woman, who had obviously changed her mind more than once, I wasn't so sure.
I'll admit that every time we labeled the clump of tisue and sent if off to pathology I imagined that this "person" could have lived a long life instead of this.
I agree. You can, however, dispute the validity of their underpinnings.In the end it all comes down to beliefs. And you can't argue with beliefs.
BellKicker said:I have followed this thread with great interest. I just felt like I had to write something.
I was born in the country that first legalized abortion (can anyone guess where that is?). We have very few pro-lifers here, and the ones we have are just plain weird.
doglover said:Was it the Netherlands?
BellKicker said:I have followed this thread with great interest. I just felt like I had to write something.
I was born in the country that first legalized abortion (can anyone guess where that is?). We have very few pro-lifers here, and the ones we have are just plain weird.
.
Unless you can dig up a source somewhere, all three of those are completely blind speculation--plus they're completely irrelevant, whether accurate or not. This isn't about capital punishment, this isn't about gun control, and this isn't about political party affiliation. I don't know what you intended to prove with any of these.PBEA said:If we did a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals (in the US). What group favors the death penalty? My money's on the pro-lifers.
How bout a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals. What group favors the "right to bear arms"? My money is on the pro-lifers.
How bout a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals. What group favors the republican party? My money's on the pro-lifers.
Political ideology confused with morality. I'm positive there are exceptions, but if the above polls conclude the way I suggest, then I will never understand these people. It also shows the ever widening rift forming between the people in this country. It is a shame.
Sorry to interrupt
I would've guessed Netherlands too. Belgium, maybe?BellKicker said:Very close.
Yep, as a blanket statement you're correct.PBEA said:If we did a poll of pro-life and pro-choice individuals (in the US). What group favors the death penalty? My money's on the pro-lifers.
1) There's no such thing as a correct blanket statement.fuegorama said:Yep, as a blanket statement you're correct.
It confounds me how the GOP can be anti-abortion but pro-capital punishement. To them I guess It's all in the timing!!!!
wrong-aphistis said:1) There's no such thing as a correct blanket statement..)
Capital punishment and abortion share too much to ignore. They both result from poverty. (the number of abortions has risen over the past four years as the economy goes in the pooper, capital punishment is the end for those economically disenfranchised folks that can't afford representation.)aphistis said:2) Capital punishment is a red herring, with no impact whatsoever on the issue at hand (abortion, in case anyone forgets from all the attempts being made to distract it.)
OK, you're apparently not interested in keeping this focused to one topic, and I'm not interested in turning it into a no-holds-barred political firefight. I'm not going to try discussing with someone who evidently holds that stereotyping and distraction are viable debate tactics. G'night.fuegorama said:wrong-
If we try to describe a group of individuals with similar identifying traits (e.g. they vote for republicans)as sticking to certain issues as their reason for this identification we are making a "blanket statement" about these people. The person I was quoting described a fairly accepted platform of the Right as it stands in its present incarnation. His statement then is correct.
Capital punishment and abortion share too much to ignore. They both result from poverty. (the number of abortions has risen over the past four years as the economy goes in the pooper, capital punishment is the end for those economically disenfranchised folks that can't afford representation.)
There is no attempt at distraction. People like yourself, who rale about the evils of abortion, simultaneously support candidates that destroy the flimsy social safety net that should be preventing the desperation that leads to violent crime.
These same candidates crow for "abstinence only" and no reproductive health teaching in schools. If you want to see an abortion in the making, just tell that gym full of sixteen year olds to "just say no".
[edit..I wasn't finished]
It is the two-faced lack of logic that pi$$es me off about the Right. "Less government but we will tell you what to do with that uterus. Don't terminate that baby, but we won't assist with it's education, feeding, social identity, and don't make us think about healthcare. That 15 year old shot somebody trying to knock over a store? Try him as an adult then kill his ungrateful a$$. Without us he would've been aborted".
Probably for the best. Rather than try to change your mind I reckon I might as well do something realistic and productive.aphistis said:OK, you're apparently not interested in keeping this focused to one topic, and I'm not interested in turning it into a no-holds-barred political firefight. I'm not going to try discussing with someone who evidently holds that stereotyping and distraction are viable debate tactics. G'night.
fuegorama said:Probably for the best. Rather than try to change your mind I reckon I might as well do something realistic and productive.
Now where is that perpetual motion gadget I was working on?
fuegorama said:It's all in the timing!!!!
PBEA said:What if a miscarriage results from negligent behavior by the mother?
What if a miscarriage results from negligent behavior by the father?
Is this a criminal offense?
Imagine that, mother (and/or father) does crack, baby dies in womb from drug induced side effects, mother(and/or father) convicted and sentenced to death penalty.
aphistis said:Unless you can dig up a source somewhere, all three of those are completely blind speculation--plus they're completely irrelevant, whether accurate or not. This isn't about capital punishment, this isn't about gun control, and this isn't about political party affiliation. I don't know what you intended to prove with any of these.
And what do you mean, "political ideology confused with morality"? What else do you think people build their political perspectives on? The latter nearly always dictates the former, and that applies to everyone, not just the folks you're trying to so blithely write off as nutjobs.
OzDDS said:Well as things are currently, I believe a man can cause his 3 month pregnant wife some roughing up and if the baby dies, he can be sent to jail for murder. If his wife killed their child herself at the same time, then she is simply exercising her freedoms as a woman in the United States.
OzDDS said:Well as things are currently, I believe a man can cause his 3 month pregnant wife some roughing up and if the baby dies, he can be sent to jail for murder. If his wife killed their child herself at the same time, then she is simply exercising her freedoms as a woman in the United States.
Surprisingly, you're right. For those of us that do/will provide abortions, it is the timing.OzDDS said:Yep.. just like the abortion supporters timeing between an 9th month old feotus and a 1 day old baby.
OzDDS said:What if he is not abusive.. what if the father of the child wants to be a loving parent, but the mother wants an abortion.
Nope.OzDDS said:you know.. a 2 month old child is completly dependant and without full time assistance would probably die too. hmm
fuegorama said:males cannot carry babies. It's her body, not his.
fuegorama said:If a woman does not want to have a child with a certain man, he does not have the right to demand she carry it to term.
OzDDS said:I can't wait till the male pill comes out. That way men will finally truely have control of their lives again!! And not have women either pregnant and telling the father that they are going to kill his child and he can't do a damn thing about it
fuegorama said:Nope.
The two month old is capable of respiration, suckling, has an independent cardiovascular system and can nourish/eliminate without being physiologically dependent on its mother's uterus. hmmm.
Yeah lets try that before 23 weeks.MoosePilot said:The main difference is that the mother is not the only person capable of providing support. if she's unwilling or unable, somebody else can substitute.
OzDDS said:It is her body, but she is also carrying his child too!
Don't call it pro-choice then.. call it what it is.. pro-women's choice.
I can't wait till the male pill comes out. That way men will finally truely have control of their lives again!! And not have women either pregnant and telling the father that they are going to kill his child and he can't do a damn thing about it.. or that the mother is preg when he doesn't want a child and then she is going to proceed to demand he hand over his paycheck to her for the rest of his life and running him into either jail or life on the streets as a bum.
pillowhead said:Just to add another scenario...what about all the men who get their partner's pregnant because a condom just doesn't feel good, and they promise they'll be around forever but then they bail before the baby is even born?
pillowhead said:If a man is truly that concerned about his partner having an abortion in the case of an unwanted pregancy, then he should make the decision not to have sex with that woman because as we all know, no birth control is 100% effective 100% of the time.
pillowhead said:Incidentally, I completely agree with you (for once ) that we need more birth control options for men. Condoms and spermicides are the only options for men and they are not that effective
Ultimately, we need EVERYONE, MEN and WOMEN to be more concerned and responsible about birth control
Let's decrease the need for abortion in the first place.
OzDDS said:Also.. what about all those women who tell their man they are on the pill when they really aren't ...or if they are they are, they are not regular with taking it... and tell their man that it is ok to go without a condom. Then **** happens and they get pregnant. Look.. I know people who have gone through this before. It is not as uncommon as you may think.
It goes both ways.. Women can be just as manipulative as men.. if not more so sometimes.
It is not as simple as that.. I wish it were. First of all, it takes two to make a baby.. and also you can't force abstinence as the only way. not a realistic option.
Yes!! Sounds good to me!
pillowhead said:Yes, I know you cannot force abstinence. I also know that birth control is never 100% which is why I support a woman's right to choose abortion. I'm not trying to force abstinence on anyone, *unlike most individuals in government devising our sex education curriculums). All I'm saying is that if the two sexual partners cannot come to agreement on how to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, then perhaps they should rethink having sex and postpone it to a later date--say marriage? A man can't get upset with a woman who has already told her partner that she will have an abortion is she gets pregnant, and then he has sex with her anyway. Just as a woman cannot get mad at a man if he makes it abundantly clear that their sexual relationship is limited to a one night stand, and he has no intention of being around in the morning. That's why couples need to talk about sex before they do it and be educated! But when all teenagers are allowed to hear is "Abstinence good! Pre-marital sex bad!" we will never come close to reaching a goal of an educated populace regarding sex.
As an aside, please do not think I don't realize women are not just as manipulative as men. Trust me, I'm pretty cynical and definitely believe both sexes behave equally bad (and can also be equally responsible for birth control).
electric said:When the only option you are telling people about is abstinence (I'm thinking about the high school sex ed programs in the US that only support abstinence), then yes, you are 'forcing' abstinence on them. Even more so when you tell them that nothing else 'works'. My sisters caught one of those presentations, and the general feeling from the other kids after was 'If nothing works, why bother with anything at all?'
So rather than scaring people into doing what (you might think) is 'right', why not educate and let them go from there. Most of us agree that the status quo isn't working.... so what other options do we have?
Hmmm. Free sex isn't covered under the constitution? What's your point? That it?s a crap shoot with or without birth control? Maybe that?s true, to an extent. But I?d rather hedge my bets just the same. And have my choices open to me if something goes wrong. And I think that freedom is (somewhat) covered by your constitution.
aphistis said:Just to throw a little more gas on this, I'm noticing all this talk about how horrible a thing it is to "force abstinence" on people. Nobody's forcing anything.
I'll double-check my copies of the Constitution & Declaration of Independence, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in either about the right to unlimited, consequence-free sex. Just like anything else in life, you pays your money & you takes your chances.
electric said:When the only option you are telling people about is abstinence (I'm thinking about the high school sex ed programs in the US that only support abstinence), then yes, you are 'forcing' abstinence on them. Even more so when you tell them that nothing else 'works'. My sisters caught one of those presentations, and the general feeling from the other kids after was 'If nothing works, why bother with anything at all?'
So rather than scaring people into doing what (you might think) is 'right', why not educate and let them go from there. Most of us agree that the status quo isn't working.... so what other options do we have?
Hmmm. Free sex isn't covered under the constitution? What's your point? That it?s a crap shoot with or without birth control? Maybe that?s true, to an extent. But I?d rather hedge my bets just the same. And have my choices open to me if something goes wrong. And I think that freedom is (somewhat) covered by your constitution.
PBEA said:What do you tell your 17-18yo son who just got his girlfriend pregnant?...."..you pays your money & you takes your chances"?
That is an excellent philosophy (thick sarcasm)
You should probably stop trying to "interpret" the US Constitution or DOI because you are doing a terrible job of it. Fact is, they are a loose framework, and DO NOT define exactly, the current structure of our society.
neilc said:aphistis, i hardly think of an unwanted pregnancy, followed by an abortion as "consequence-free" sex, which seems to be what you are claiming.
as you mentioned life, when do you feel life begins? and is this timing the major rationale behind your beliefs?