Abortion

[dabadon5 295]

Sex is not a chore !

[coolotter88 2]

haha, no of course not. "Just lie back and think of England" is such a dated ideology.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: saltandsauce how hard can sex education be?

if you have sex you can get pregnant DUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH how blunt must i put itquote>

Consider the following scenario:

a hot, sexy girl wants you, now. You don't have a condom. Nor does anyone else around. What do you do?

It's easy to say that you'll avoid the encounter now, in a rational state of mind, of course. Problem is, in situations like that, we have this tendency to cease thinking with our brains and start thinking with our testicles... and the willpower to say "no" all of a sudden becomes really hard to muster up.

So you do it, and oops, she gets pregnant. You know you did something wrong. You know you made a mistake. quote>

Well that is one scenario (and I don't know exactly how common it is), but there are also many others. I don't think I raised the point in my last post as it was very late when I wrote it, but one of the findings in more than one of the reports was this (which I think is quite reasonable):

"If a couple wants to have between two and four children, they must practice birth control successfully for 16-20 years."

If we look at what this is saying and its implications, it applies not only to couples wanting children but basically to every person regardless of whether they are in a long term monogamous relationship, a few shorter relationships or a lot of short or non-monogamous relationships. Basically people need to maintain effective contraception for 16-20 years if they are normal human adults. Looking realistically at contraception, while it is effective most of the time if used properly, it would still be unreasonable to expect that contraception over such a time frame would be entirely adequate. All methods of contraception have failure rates, some such as condoms are high. Contraceptives have side effects and not everyone can use a particular method. Some are difficult to use properly (eg taking the pill consistently, periodic abstinence). There are also issues of supply, reliability of quality, cultural, social and religious acceptance that limit the effectiveness of contraception. Incidentally I would tend to consider abstinence as having one of the highest risks of failure and being one of the lowest reliability/usability contraceptives, not only for the reasons Duke mentions.

So maybe a different situation to consider as well:

A pair of adults in a long term relationship using the pill as contraception just happen to become a statistic - one of the five percent of failures of the pill . Fair enough, but they don't know yet. They are paying for his elderly, disabled parent's nursing care and have no other family. Its an economic downturn, both lose their jobs in the next two weeks. Okay at least things could have been worse. Call from the doctor, " those tests you had the other day? Congratulations you're pregnant. But there's bad news, you've also got diabetes. "

Or what about another situation:

Again a pair in a long term relationship using condom and spermatocide (she can't use hormonal contraceptives), become another statistic. At six weeks she notices some problems and goes to the doctor. After tests she's told: "I'm very sorry but you have serious and life threatening cancer. Chemo and radiation together have a very good success rate. However the treatment will mean your baby almost certainly won't survive and will make your treatment very difficult and dangerous to both you and the baby. Without treatment, you probably will not live long enough to deliver the baby."

Or another situation:

A sixteen year old is raped by a "family friend".  In spite of threats of violence if she doesn't keep quiet, she reports it as a crime. She's not on birth control and of course he didn't use a condom. Unknown to anyone she has just become pregnant.

Or another one:

A married couple don't mind having a child and aren't very concerned with contraception. She becomes pregnant. Several weeks later, after having some pain previously, she collapses in severe pain. In the emergency room she's diagnosed with an ectopic tubal pregnancy and haemorrhage.

Life is not black and white. But compassion would compel many to allow others to make their own choices.

[Bumdark 3]

Haven't posted on the Current Events board in quite some time ... and reading threads like this reminds me why.

I see this thread is currently divided into three major currents, so I'll tackle each in stride: Abortion: Right or Wrong? / Human: Fetus or Person? / Abortion vs. Adoption.

ABORTION:

On Abortion: I'm 100% for it. Or, more accurately/specifically, Pro-Choice. Slice it any way you want, in the end, the girl has the right to do what the hell she wants to her own body, especially if it lasts for nine months, and NO-ONE has ANY say in that matter, whether it be government or civillian groups or whatever. The views and thoughts and feelings of people have no stand in deciding or governing the decisions of others, and that's that. Sorry to but it bluntly (well, not really), but anyone who is against abortion, and who specifically tries to convince women not to abort when the woman wishes to, or even worse, tries to outlaw abortion outright, is a total hypocrite. (Even a bit of a self-serving prig, but that's just getting petty of me.) It is NOT your choice. People need to mind their own dang business and stop putting their self-righteous noses in others'. If there's one thing on Earth I simply cannot stand without going berzerk over, it's self-righteousness, but this isn't about me ...

People have the right to do what they want to their bodies if they're sane (and adult). When they're children or teens or at any point between birth and legal adulthood (ie. 18 years old), they are under the care and supervision (or even 'mercy') of their parents' rulings and decisions; even if some parents can be totally idiotic or abusive or self-righteous, it's how it is. Until you're an adult, you need supervision, and although some parents may go overboard, it's how it is. (Besides, if parents are too bad, just emancipate yourself when you can ... but I digress.)

FETUS: HUMAN, OR PERSON?

I'll state this briefly: any form of Homo Sapiens-Sapiens, from conception to death, is 'human'. Human is the species, no matter which stage of development you're in. While I agree with Patricus Maximus in general, I do think that even a blob of cells forming the most primitive of embryos is still technically a human: it's just a very, veeery early-stage Human, but a human nonetheless. Whether or not is has truly 'human' characteristics (body shape, etc.), it has a human's genome and DNA. That alone makes anything what they are, regardless of which developmental stage they're at.

But it is not, however, a 'person'. My definition of person (which coincides with most major dictionaries - how surprising ) is pretty much any human that's sentient, who can feel, think, perceive. A fetus isn't capable of feeling emotions (it barely feels physical stimuli as it is, depending on the stage in development), it cannot think (although research has shown they can form primitive memories while in the womb), and most certainly cannot perceive, judge, reason, etc. Therefore, by definition only, it is not a 'person'.

That is why it cannot be 'murder' to take a fetus' life, and any excuse of 'taking any life is murder' falls flat right there (which already eliminates about 50% of anyone's excuses against abortion). Murder, by definition, is the 'unlawful ending of a person's life'. The 'unlawful' bit may be debatable depending on your geographical situation and which side of the Abortion fence you're on, but the 'person' cannot, simply through definitions. It is not a person. So it is not 'murder' to end its life. (It is 'killing' of course, but I don't really care about killing anything that can't feel or think. It has as much gravity as stepping on an ant for me. Killing is horrible for humans because of fear, of compassion, etc. If the creature being killed cannot feel fear and/or compassion, then there's nothing 'wrong' with it having its life ended, theoretically.)

ABORTION VS. ADOPTION & ENSUING DAMAGES

Adoption is most certainly not an 'equally-effective 'alternative'' to abortion, they are totally dissimilar. Abortion is the ending of a pre-person life before birth to end the physical and psychological effects 9 months sooner (the duration of psychological or physical effects of the abortion itself nonwithstanding). Adoption, evidently, requires the poor girl to persevere during the whole nine months (which are nothing short of 'neverending' by any means; it most certainly is more than 'just nine months', that saying is utterly ridiculous and even a fair bit idiotic), fully aware (horribly so) that she's going to suffer through the birthing of a baby she has no intention to keep (which brings up the 'why am I doing this, then?' questions), just to give it away as though it were a prize for someone else or something.

Yes, abortion is clearly a better option, for everyone involved. When the pregnancy is terminated before birth, the woman has a certain measure of closure: she knows what happened, very well. She knows the baby is gone, that her ordeal (meaning pregnancy, not the ensuing problems that may or may not arise) is over for now, and she can finally go back to her life (or trying to repair it).

In adoption scenarios, the woman will more than likely be consumed with guilt or regrets (biological pressure regarding mother-child relations are undeniably coercive), and will, for many years (if not forever), probably wonder where the child is now, if it's safe and/or happy, or if it's even still alive. That is not closure, and a lack of closure to any situation can only be traumatizing.

It's similar to the difference between having a loved one gunned down, or having a loved one be lost at sea and never found or heard from again. Yes, intellectually, you know both cases mean the loved one is dead and gone for good, but the 'gunned-down' scenario means you were there, you know what happened, you saw the end of the person's life. When they're lost at see, you never have closure. You never know, in your heart, what became of them, or if they truly are dead. They could be on a desert island for all you know, just waiting for help à la Chuck Noland (Cast Away. Of course they probably aren't, but it's nonetheless the type of psychological trauma you just don't really need.

I have many more things to say about this or related matters but for the sake of not putting any readers to sleep I'll end the abortion discussion there ...

Two small points appeared that I'd like to address:

1 - Someone whom I can't remember asked that, if not from religion, then where the heck else do you get morals/ethics/etc. from?

Um ... reason? Common sense? Logic? *Thinking straight*? Seriously, people act as though religion was the one good way to be 'good' in life. It's just a bunch of cults, people. Nothing more. Personally, if I were to choose a cult, I'd go with Pastafarian.

Besides, I prefer to think for myself, regardless of what a bunch of meaningless laws, or a 2,000-year-old book, tell me to.

2 - Duke said, 'a hot, sexy girl wants you, now. You don't have a condom. Nor does anyone else around. What do you do?'

Smart, safe choice would be to say 'no' and walk away, but knowing that's about as likely as a fundamentalist speaking sense, I'd go with simply: doing anything that doesn't include coit. There are many ways to sex without the penetration, you know. Genitals aren't the only sex-related things we can ... er ... 'use' during sex.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Very well put Bumdark, fantastic read and I fully support what you have said.

[Bumdark 3]

Ha lol, I regretted posting that almost the second I pressed the 'Post' button, thought I got a little edgy at times for Mods' tastes ... but what do you want. People who insist in meddling in other people's business are hypocritical morons, and should be called out on it. I'm not playing the devil's henchman, merely exposing BS as what it is.

I just think people should mind their own business. Someone does something you don't approve of? Get over it and just walk away. (Unless it's truly devastating or horrible or endangers more than themselves, in which case it's supported to intervene ...)

But I'm digressing *again* so I'll stop now, saying ... thanks!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

IMO, digress a little bit. I, like belfastuniguy, agree with your POV completely. You put it very well, and I, too, cannot stand the morons (I call them fascists) who want everyone to live according to their creed. That is not freedom and it is not desired in democratic society. They can live their own lives according to their own rules, but they need to butt out of the lives of others.quote>

Indeed, its especially hilarious that the abortion debate is most hotly contested in a nation that sees itself as the 'leader' of the Free World where freedom is not just a word but the basis of the nation, one established with a separation between church, and its moralistic babble, and the state itself.

Its incredibly ironic really.

*Note to some - The above statement should not be confused as anti-American, but a personal opinion on a specific issue*

[PhilsCafe 8]

Duke's example has only one problem... having sex without protection doesn't only have the consequence of a potential pregnancy, but the possibility to get yourself infected with sexually transmitted diseases. Not using a condom is not only careless, it is stupid in my opinion...

Also I think no woman takes an abortion lightly... they're probably not like, oops, let's have an abortion again. So I don't think it's a very realistic scenario.

In my opinion, sex education is an important factor in this whole discussion. Abortion is just the tip of this iceberg. We should ask ourselves why there are so many "unwanted" pregnancies...

[Bumdark 3]

I don't see why some consider you to appear Anti-American, belfastuniguy. Any country has to stand up to criticism, no matter by who, or by what or why. I'm certainly no Anti-American - plan to relocate there myself once I attain a certain age (and monetary sum) - but I can certainly criticize loads of the US' actions and behaviors. Same with any other country on the planet.

But you're right as well, it is rather amusing that the 'Land of the Free' is home to this debate more than anywhere else.

PS - This is driving me nuts. What does your username mean??? You're a guy from Belfast, perhaps, but the 'uni'? 'One'? Just curious.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

PS - This is driving me nuts. What does your username mean??? You're a guy from Belfast, perhaps, but the 'uni'? 'One'? Just curiousquote>

University student living/from Belfast, NI and a guy obviously lol

Have thought about changing it, but feel I have created somewhat of an image here, so rather keep it now

I would also point out that the US is also the the most hotly contested arena with regard to biological evolution.quote>

LOL Yeah don't even start me on that...and the whole intelligent design ROFL ...anyway, we have a thread for that.

[Bumdark 3]

@belfastuniguy:
Thanks for clearing that up ... And if you wanna change it, by all means change it, if you want you can write something akin to 'formerly known as belfastuniguy' or something in your siggy.

Regarding ID ... have you heard of Pharyngula? Or better yet, 'The Great Desecration'? Google them if you dunno what they are – the whole story is a curious mix of both insane hilarity, and insane ... insanity. (Literally.) But agreed, let's not go off-topic, I just wanted to mention the above ...

PS – IF someone could please tell me why this damn site has always been so execrably SLOW for me in loading and refreshing, I'll give them a million dollars and a free cruise in addition. I've been trying to delete the previous double-posts for THRITY MINUTES and the damned page just won't reload, so sorry, but Mods, delete them, will you? Thanks ...

[Bumdark 3]

MODS, could you please delete the first two posts of my triple-post above (another side-effect of this site's execrably slow bandwith I've been getting ever since I first found it years ago)? Or perhaps just edit them to remove the content, either way ... I'd do it myself, but I no longer have the strength nor the interest to force myself to stay up another friggin' half hour just because this site is so slow to respnd to my mouse's clicks and I'm going to bed ... zzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz ...

Update – Thanks. Dunno what it was about last night, I always seemed to 'time out'. Ah well.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Bumdark

Regarding ID ... have you heard of Pharyngula?

...

quote>

Today's posting is particularly topical to this debate. Interesting responses to such an apparently simple question.

For those who haven't seen it, the question is: If abortion should be made illegal, what should be done to women who obtain an illegal abortion?

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: sam

Originally posted by: Bumdark

Regarding ID ... have you heard of Pharyngula?

...

quote>

Today's posting is particularly topical to this debate. Interesting responses to such an apparently simple question.

For those who haven't seen it, the question is: If abortion should be made illegal, what should be done to women who obtain an illegal abortion?quote>

 

Thats another thing we dont need  either. More cases cloging the court systems

And what do you do with the doctor? Murder? or performing an abortion?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Bumdark MODS, could you please delete the first two posts of my triple-post abovequote>

Protip: you can delete your own posts. Just click the "delete" link below it.

another side-effect of this site's execrably slow bandwith I've been getting ever since I first found it years agoquote>

Another protip: only click "Reply to topic" once. Never, under any circumstances, click it again, no matter how long it's taking. Just wait for it. Open another tab and do something else in the meantime if it's taking a while.

And if you doubt it went through, select the entire text of your post (Ctrl+A) and copy it (Ctrl+C), close the post popup, and reload the page to check to make sure it didn't go through. If it didn't, then just hit reply, paste (Ctrl+V) the post you copied and try again.

Accedental double (and triple, and quadruple, etc.) posts are completely avoidable if you follow this policy.

[Bumdark 3]

@Duke87:

I know that, I only ever click buttons once, but the page never - and I mean NEVER - refreshes in under at least 10 minutes, and that's in no way an exaggeration. I dunno, this site, however wonderful it may be, has always been painfully slow for me, loading- and refreshing-wise. Just last night I got sick and tired of keeping myself awake (as you could tell from my irritated tone; sorry) trying and have it refresh before 5 AM, I clicked 'Delete' on a post and it just wouldn't come in. I closed the browser after about a quarter hour (watched TV in the meantime) as it gave me another 'timed out' error, I reopened the site and it still hadn't deleted the stupid message. Screw it, I just typed a quick little 'please delete them 'cause I can't' message in the Quick Reply, clicked 'Post' and went to bed ... And this morning I got up and it had again timed out. At least the message had posted in the meantime.

I dunno ... is this site also really slow for anyone else, or is this just limited to me? Rather annoying when you're trying to post a simple message and it ends up taking half an hour, then it just times you out ... o_0

Anyway, messages are deleted now, so thanks (to whomever did the deed). And now, back on topic ...

'For those who haven't seen it, the question is: If abortion should be made illegal, what should be done to women who obtain an illegal abortion?'

Indeed, that is a question none of the self-righteous anti-abortion activists were able to answer; when asked they literally just seemed like they were hit with an impossible query, which is hilarious, considering it's what they're parading around trying to stop, and they hadn't even thought about what to do if it *did* happen. I wish there were a brain requirement to become an activist ... ah well.

Personally, to play the Devil's Advocate for a minute: if it were illegal and I was for it being illegal, and a woman had an abortion anyway, I'd say: don't punish the woman, but punish the one who practiced the abortion (doctor, whatever). It's like RIAA trying to end Internet piracy by only going after the individual downloaders - even those morons realized it was futile. Point is: don't go after the ones who receive the illegal deeds, but the ones who perform them, distribute them, etc. Cut off the head, see. Plain logic to me ...

[Explodingsims 3]

Well, the thing of that is, that if you cut off the head, another pops up in its place, and the one who received the illegal goods gets off free.

If it was illegal, then both parties would have to be punished. Although, given the shadiness of the procedure, the receiving party might make up for it in her health.

[Duke87 1,070]

I'd imagine it would end up working a lot like the way policing of illegal drugs works.

The cops catch a guy with drugs on him, they give him a choice: either he can get tried for possession and face the consequences thereof, or he can tell the cops who he bought the drugs from and have the charges dropped. At least, that's typical NYPD policy. I don't know about other departments.

So, this would translate to, it's found out a woman had an abortion. Either she can be tried for the crime, or she can say who gave it to her and be released (and the cops would then of course go after the doctor).

Still, it won't come to that since abortion is going to remain legal, right?

[Bumdark 3]

@Explodingsims:

Well - still on the Devil's Advocate thingy here - if cutting off a head means another one is spawned, then go higher and cut off the head to which those heads become the body. It's a common rule that there will always be a higher echelon, a superior rank, to whomever you're dealing with. Cut off the higher head, and all the heads/bodies below perish, unless they themselves elevate themselves to higher heads ... Okay I'm getting images of that multiheaded dragon-type monster from Hercules now. o_o

And when you said '... the receiving party might make up for it in her health.' ...

You don't actually mean that along the lines of 'If she did something illegal I don't agree with, then it's good for her if she suffers health-wise', I hope? 'Cause that would be transcending self-righteousness into plain malvolence and/or bad taste. Just wanna be sure.

@Duke87:

I've never heard of that particular option in drug-crimes. It certainly isn't like that around here (Montr

[Jasoncw 11,841]

My thoughts are:

- Pro-Choice doesn't force women to have abortions, it only allows individual the right to choose, based on her beliefs.  This means that if she is Pro-Life, she has the right to continue with the pregnancy.  If she's not Pro-Life, then she has the right not to.

To me this issue is less about abortion itself, and more about whether or not one group of people has the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

- So many Pro-Life people will happily go to protests, harass abortion centers, and insist that adoption is the moral alternative, but how many of them have actually adopted kids before?  "Someone" out there will adopt all of these babies, but not them.  They'll demand that either the mother or someone else will raise the kid, but they won't be changing a single diaper.

If they were very serious, genuine, realistic, and set on actually making a difference, then instead of demonizing a woman, a couple with the means would kindly walk up to the woman and offer to adopt the baby instead of aborting it.  Or they'd volunteer or donate to foster homes, or organizations that assist mothers.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Bumdark: I agree with your opinions on the Abortion: Right/Wrong current, and the Abortion/Adoption current.

Someone whom I can't remember asked that, if not from religion, then where the heck else do you get morals/ethics/etc. from?

Um ... reason? Common sense? Logic? *Thinking straight*? Seriously, people act as though religion was the one good way to be 'good' in life. It's just a bunch of cults, people.quote>

Reason and logic for me. The people who are ethical solely because of their religion are not doing it out of rationality, but out of fear -- fear of retribution from an omnipotent and/or omniscient supernatural entity (a god), for which there is absolutely no evidence it exists, apart from a 2000-year-old book, which from an evidentiary standpoint could easily have been fabricated as a work of fiction. Indeed, there are many parallels between the Bible and large, long-lasting fictional universes (like Star Trek). But, I am digressing now. Back on track.

So many Pro-Life people will happily go to protests, harass abortion centers, and insist that adoption is the moral alternative, but how many of them have actually adopted kids before?  "Someone" out there will adopt all of these babies, but not them.  They'll demand that either the mother or someone else will raise the kid, but they won't be changing a single diaper.

If they were very serious, genuine, realistic, and set on actually making a difference, then instead of demonizing a woman, a couple with the means would kindly walk up to the woman and offer to adopt the baby instead of aborting it.  Or they'd volunteer or donate to foster homes, or organizations that assist mothers.quote>

Well put.

From my observations, the pro-life people wish to reduce or eliminate abortion. This objective cannot realistically be accomplished by simply criminalizing abortion. It will solve nothing. Back-alley abortions will return, and they are far less safe than legal abortions. Abortion will go on, just like the drug trade went on, despite increasing penalties and government spending.

The best way to accomplish this objective is non-governmental, or cultural. Some methods include organizations encouraging adoption, people willing to adopt otherwise aborted children, and prevention of pregnancies that are unwanted. These methods will reduce the abortion rate, which is precisely the pro-life objective. These methods also retain a person's right to choose what to do with growths inside their own body.

I am getting a strong sense of deja vu here, Patricius Maximus. Your view of terms is superbly skewed. You rely too much on a particular definition of pro-. Perhaps you do not know what a semicolon means when it comes to definitions. By your application, everyone is pro-life, since I think there isn't a single person on ST who doesn't favor living. This is why I brought the point up in the first place.quote>

First of all, I do not know why you put my username in bold, since I do not understand the need for emphasis of that.

Secondly, I did not say that the pro-life position is favoring living. I said that the position commonly referred to as "pro-life" is an anti-abortion position.

The word "pro-life" does mean "favoring living", technically. The sole reason I use the term to refer to the anti-abortion position is because it is in common use, and commonly understood.

And I do not understand how my understanding of terms is "skewed". My understanding of terms is no more skewed than yours, since your definition of "pro-abortion" does not match up to the definition of "pro".

Also, your understanding of the origination of terms is incorrect. Pro-abortion is not a term created by those who wish to make abortion illegal. The terms created by and used by them is Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. quote>

Actually, the word "pro-life" was created by the anti-abortion position to describe themselves, and the word "pro-choice" was created by the pro-choice position to describe themselves.

Pro-abortion and Anti-abortion are legitimate terms used to identify supporters of one or the other. As I have said previously, one can be pro-abortion and still wish to not exercise it in their personal life. THERE IS NO FAVORING OR ENCOURAGEMENT OF ABORTION IN THE PRO-ABORTION CAMP, ONLY THE SUPPORT OF A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO HAVE ONE IF SHE SO DESIRES.quote>

Then by the definition of "pro-", you are incorrect in your statement of the pro-abortion position.

I thought we had agreed this was off-topic, but you brought it up, so be prepared to discuss semantics ad nauseum if you continue to corrupt definitions.quote>

I am not corrupting definitions, and I am now fully prepared to debate it ad nauseum. By the definitions, you are the one that is corrupting them.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Bumdark

That sort of deal-making would be both useful and pointless IMO: useful for the user/druggie who would evade charges and jail, but not so good for Police and stuff as the druggie, knowing he/she got off so easily, knows he/she just has to give away his/her vendor each time he/she's caught and therefore can continue getting stoned all he/she wants ... Seems like a bit of a fallacy in that particular area. Unless there's a sort of 'quota'/'limit' as to the number of times a particular user can get caught before they get prosecuted for real? quote>

More like, the idea is that the city has more interest in prosecuting dealers rather than drug users. So they'll glady let a user go in exchange for the name of a dealer they can then go arrest and prosecute. Point being, going after the users isn't anywhere near as effective as going after the distributors. Put a user behind bars, you've stopped on user, at least temporarily. Put a dealer behind bars, and you're working towards cutting off the supply which stops several users.

Besides, dealing is a more severe crime than simply possessing, and they can put you behind bars longer for it.

It's quite effective a tactic, actually. Certainly more effective than never giving people the option. Users aren't going to snitch on their dealer unless you give them a reason to, and you can't legally force them to speak on the matter.

is abortion mostly legal or illegal around the US and its States? quote>

Completely legal. The decision from Roe v. Wade says that a law banning it would be unconstitutional - so every state has to have it legal. The legislature has no choice on the matter.

Now, some more conservative states have tried to severely restrict the availability of abortions - by requiring parental notification or consent for minors, and by limiting the number of abortion clinics. I believe South Dakota, for instance, has only one abortion clinic in the entire state. They'd like to have none, but they can't do that.

Incidentally, yesterday was the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. The pro-lifers had their annual protest/rally in Washington... although this time pro-choicers also staged a significant counter-rally. This is also the first year since 1995 where there has been both a Democratic president and a democratically controlled congress. So the powers in Washington are, for the time being, all leaning towards the pro-choice side.

The rally, as these things tend to, included both reasonable and ridiculous. I was reading an article in USA today about it. A picture showed general "support life" signs but also mingled with signs mentioning Jesus and divine judgment. There was also mention of some harsh criticism being thrown at Obama for his pro-choice position. Many claim he's not a proper Christian for it. And thus you also had the shock value stuff like Obama's portait surrounded by pictures of aborted fetuses and a photoshopped picture of Obama dressed as hitler reading "Impeach Adolf Obama".

Two days. That's how long it took for someone to call for Obama's impeachment, and for Godwin's law to manifest on the matter.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Patricius Maximus said: First of all, I do not know why you put my username in bold, since I do not understand the need for emphasis of that.quote>

I put everyone's username in caps. Haven't you noticed? You are not special in my bolding.

So as not to bore our fellow members, feel free to PM me with regard to your ideas regarding the definitions of prefixes. I am more than happy to discuss them, even though I think that my point has been made. Your reply was still stuck on a particular interpretation of pro-. Pro-abortion does not mean encouragement of having an abortion, it means encouragement of the availability of abortion. Geez, I feel like I am talking to a teenager (if you are, then that explains a lot).

Barbarossa

quote>

 

Um dosent using "quote" automaticly bold names?

I dint know till yesterday that ROE vs Wade started in Dallas County.

When i was younger I always thought roe vs wade were just choices for crossing shallow water. 

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I put everyone's username in caps. Haven't you noticed? You are not special in my bolding. quote>

Well, that explains it.

So as not to bore our fellow members, feel free to PM me with regard to your ideas regarding the definitions of prefixes. I am more than happy to discuss them, even though I think that my point has been made. Your reply was still stuck on a particular interpretation of pro-. Pro-abortion does not mean encouragement of having an abortion, it means encouragement of the availability of abortion.quote>

I agree that any furthur discussion of prefixes will be in private. And technically, my reply was stuck on an interpretation of pro-abortion, not pro- itself.

I also agree that the pro-choice position is by default pro-availability of abortion. I also stand my ground on the definition of pro-abortion.

[Explodingsims 3]

Originally posted by: Bumdark @Explodingsims:

Well - still on the Devil's Advocate thingy here - if cutting off a head means another one is spawned, then go higher and cut off the head to which those heads become the body. It's a common rule that there will always be a higher echelon, a superior rank, to whomever you're dealing with. Cut off the higher head, and all the heads/bodies below perish, unless they themselves elevate themselves to higher heads ... Okay I'm getting images of that multiheaded dragon-type monster from Hercules now. o_o

And when you said '... the receiving party might make up for it in her health.' ...

You don't actually mean that along the lines of 'If she did something illegal I don't agree with, then it's good for her if she suffers health-wise', I hope? 'Cause that would be transcending self-righteousness into plain malvolence and/or bad taste. Just wanna be sure. .quote>

I didn't mean that in a "She's deserves to pay for an abortion" type punishment. It was more concern that she would put herself in danger by seeking an illegal/homemade abortion.

I'm not that cruel....yet...

[baystatebill 2]

I must say that I do not feel that there should be the need for abortions. There is enough forms of birth controll, many availible for free through many social programs. Having sex is a choice. A choice that if made, has great responsibility. If you choice to have sex and become, or make someone pregnant, then you shoud live with the circumstances. The idea that someone is having sex and becomes pregnant and the pregnancy is "inconvenient" so they decide to have an abortion and end a life just disgust me. I had a different opinion before the first time I heard my daughters heartbeat on the monitor. No one could ever convince me that a fetus is not a life. I feel that the only time an abortion would be acceptable is for a case of rape or incest and extreme medical conditions. I don't not suscribe to the notion that the right to choice is because it's a woman's body and she can do whatever she wants with it. It takes 2 parties to become pregnant and the life of the child is just as much the male's responsibility. The male should always have a say in what happens to the life he helped create. It's funny how if the woman wants an abortion it's her body and the male has no business in making a decision, but if a woman decides to have the child it is no longer her's, it becomes their's and she expects the male to participate. I think the main problem with society across the world is a general lack of responsibility. If people took more responsilbility in their lives there would be no more need for abortions, welfare, prisons etc.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa