Abortion

[Guest TheProudDuck]

And when we talk of an exception for the mother's health, it needs to be limited to genuine health reasons. The current constitutional framework guarantees people the right to an abortion at any stage, up to the moment of birth, for "health" reasons that include emotional health.

Which really isn't any limitation at all.

[Larry Kozlowski]

After reading all these fine and worthy rebuttals for banning abortion it's become apparent to me why we staunch Republicans boldly claim the preference for less government. This issue alone clearly illustrates our affinity for this "less government" concept, particularly the posts that touch upon what's "acceptable" abortion, i.e. "rape" "incest", and/or "health" and at what time it's "okay" to perform the murder... er, procedure. Now all that's left is shipping all you yellow belly baby-killin' red-tape hoarding pro-goverment liberal commies to Greenland and we should be good to go. USA USA!!!

[DisRuptive1]

You're just like the people that changed the bible, you say that killing a man in self defense is ok even though the bible strickly forbids killing a human being (thou shalt not kill). If abortion is ok in cases of rape and incest then it is ok in all cases. Get your thoughts straight and get on one side of the fence or the other.

[Larry Kozlowski]

I am with you brother!!! ...sort of.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Winnie G@Oct 22 2004, 12:24 PM

I would legislate change in how the government treats the women who find them self’s in a tight corner.

The term un-wed would be abolished as a term to describe the stats.

What a bunch of hyper-sensitive, politically correct blather.

If someone is called an unwed mother or father, that is because they are unwed. If they don't want to be an unwed parent, then there is a solution: more responsible behavior. And, there is a reason that there is a stigma attached to being an unwed parent. Making it all nice for the unwed doesn't make being unweb (with children) something good. Having compassion on those who are troubled is one thing. That compassion would include keeping your sexual moral judgements to yourself, but pretending that premarital parentage is okay is not okay.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Oct 24 2004, 12:47 AM

You're just like the people that changed the bible, you say that killing a man in self defense is ok even though the bible strickly forbids killing a human being (thou shalt not kill). If abortion is ok in cases of rape and incest then it is ok in all cases. Get your thoughts straight and get on one side of the fence or the other.

Dis -- The word in "Thou shalt not kill" is actually "thou shalt not murder." The Bible emphatically recognizes that some killing is not just permissible, but moral. In the chapter immediately following the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, the Lord gives the further commandment, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Following the rule that statutes are to be interpreted so as to render them consistent where possible, we have to conclude that "thou shalt not kill" in Exodus 20 isn't a universal probition on all killing.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Larry Kozlowski@Oct 23 2004, 01:25 PM

After reading all these fine and worthy rebuttals for banning abortion it's become apparent to me why we staunch Republicans boldly claim the preference for less government. This issue alone clearly illustrates our affinity for this "less government" concept, particularly the posts that touch upon what's "acceptable" abortion, i.e. "rape" "incest", and/or "health" and at what time it's "okay" to perform the murder... er, procedure. Now all that's left is shipping all you yellow belly baby-killin' red-tape hoarding pro-goverment liberal commies to Greenland and we should be good to go. USA USA!!!

You are often amusing, but it's rarely possible to understand what the hill you're trying to say.

This issue is morally complex, with plenty of shades of gray, but you go at it with a great bloody satiric hammer.

If you can be serious for a second, what's your take on late-term abortion? Pro or con? Explain your position and your reasons, being as nuanced as you want. Or we'll ship you to Siberia.

[Larry Kozlowski]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, it was Shakespeare who was the first to recognize the unique gift the fool possessed... to tell the truth to the powerful and get away with it. The fool could, from behind the mask of comedy, comment on the leader's follies and still keep his head. Or as the poet Mark Van Doren once wrote, "Nothing in man is more serious than his sense of humor; it is the sign that he wants all the truth." Or as I like to put it, nah nah nah nah nah naaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Larry Kozlowski@Oct 25 2004, 05:44 PM

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, it was Shakespeare who was the first to recognize the unique gift the fool possessed... to tell the truth to the powerful and get away with it. The fool could, from behind the mask of comedy, comment on the leader's follies and still keep his head. Or as the poet Mark Van Doren once wrote, "Nothing in man is more serious than his sense of humor; it is the sign that he wants all the truth." Or as I like to put it, nah nah nah nah nah naaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Yeah, but remember that in Shakespeare, the fool characters aren't the whole play. Satire's all well and good in proper doses, but you'd have to be a real fool as opposed to a Shakespearean one to try to settle all your arguments with it. It's imprecise, for one thing; it's all well and good to paint up a universe of big-haired Christian fundermentalists pipe-bombing saintly abortion providers to their final reward for yeoman's work in erasing insignificant specks of tissue -- but ya know, there's a few more shades of gray in there you're not addressing.

And conservatives get called the simplistic, un-nuanced ones. Go figure.

[Winnie G]

Winnie

I would legislate change in how the government treats the women who find them self’s in a tight corner.

The term un-wed would be abolished as a term to describe the stats.

What a bunch of hyper-sensitive, politically correct blather.

If someone is called an unwed mother or father, that is because they are unwed. If they don't want to be an unwed parent, then there is a solution: more responsible behavior. And, there is a reason that there is a stigma attached to being an unwed parent. Making it all nice for the unwed doesn't make being unweb (with children) something good. Having compassion on those who are troubled is one thing. That compassion would include keeping your sexual moral judgements to yourself, but pretending that premarital parentage is okay is not okay.

I find it funny that men are so hot under the caroler over this topic.

Since 99.9 % of the workload is carried by the mother and like most men past and present behave like animals spreading their seed and then move on.

You would think they had a stake in all this.

The term “unwed” was and is used to describe the moral character of the women.

This term and others like it coursed decades of women doing dangers things to end pregnancies because of that stigma.

Of course man were called being just boys “Boys will be boys” and “spreading their wild oats”

Like most human community’s the males walk free wile women are the ones held accountable for their actions. {Their Actions}

Women mostly young were shipped off to a distant relative or housed in UN Wed mothers homes for girls or schools were young women could finish their education with out the eyes of so called innocent students seeing her.

No presser on the women, no support system, no love or comfort from parents.

Yup like most systems punishment before thoughtfulness.

The need for abortion will always be there if the human community does not change.

Having compassion on those who are troubled is one thing. That compassion would include keeping your sexual moral judgements to yourself, but pretending that premarital parentage is okay is not okay.

Need I say more.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Oct 23 2004, 11:47 AM

Well it is true, ya know. A woman will never, ever be as attractive as she could be if she had any children. Some girls already have poor self-esteem and don't want their looks to go down hill. So they have an abortion. And do you really want a child to be raised by someone with poor self esteem?

And what about mother's who have children without fathers. I think those women are selfish to not have an abortion or at least put the child up for adoption. Living in a one parent household can screw up a child. Some women understand this so is it wrong if they have an abortion if their boyfriend/spouse says that they don't want a child and will leave them if they have it? If they have it, their child will have no father or a father who doesn't help them out in any way (if the father is smart). If she has the abortion she can maintain her life with her boyfriend/spouse. Abortion isn't always about the right to life of a child. There is more behind it in most circumstances. And some people just are not fit to be parents. Either they're bad or ignorant parents, or they just don't have the money to support a child. So what is more wrong? Killing a child by abortion (I do agree PBA is barbaric and should be outlawed), or bringing a child into the world in which it has no or very little support, terrible parents or lack of one, or parents which don't have enough money to support it, and therefore have to get another job and so then can't spend as much time with the kid which can be bad if it's a single mom or dad (although single dads are very uncommon).

Are you serious about all this? Surely you're just being sarcastic...

It's better for a child to be aborted than to be raised by a mother with low self-esteem? Or without a father in the picture? I have to say I was raised under these conditions... oh and we were poor too... and I think I turned out just fine (though I'm sure some would disagree). My mom is so darn selfish for not having aborted me!

I'm totally with you, Curvette.

[DisRuptive1]

I meant that a children should be raised properly, by parents who are capable of being parents, and by parents who are together in a marriage. A child should not have to go through life in a single parent household (it leads to people like me!). It is best for all parties to abort the child early (and avoid any stigma received from late-term abortions) and wait until all parties are ready (financially, emotionally, and stablely) for the child. And some people just don't want kids.

[Jenda]

What people need to do is grow up and take responsibility for their actions. Then millions of children wouldn't have to die, even with abortion being legal. My mother got pregnant before she and my father got married, and that was the (sole?) reason they did get married. And life at home was not always pleasant because of it. And she laid the blame on us for her unhappiness. People just need to grow up and stop blaming others for their own short-sightedness.

While I believe that America has an awful lot to offer, much more than most other countries, all all this freedom leads to is spoiled rotten brats who don't care about anyone other than themselves.

*rant over*

[Ray]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Oct 26 2004, 10:19 AM

I meant that a children should be raised properly, by parents who are capable of being parents, and by parents who are together in a marriage. A child should not have to go through life in a single parent household (it leads to people like me!). It is best for all parties to abort the child early (and avoid any stigma received from late-term abortions) and wait until all parties are ready (financially, emotionally, and stablely) for the child. And some people just don't want kids.

If a Mother doesn't want her child, and the Father also does not want that child, they can do something else besides have it Aborted. They can also have it Adopted. I fail to see any good reason for intentionally killing a child.

[Guest adorablemeo3]

I don't really see a lot of people discussing the church's view on the topic...but I have been taught that every soul will get to have an earthly body. I have also been taught that there are souls that are born, get one breath and die. Many people think of this as the child had problems and probably wouldn't have survived long anyways. I have been taught though, that these souls are so close with Heavenly Father that he fulfills their promise to have an earthly body, if only for a mere minute, then they are so rightous that they immediatly return to live with him, without having a chance to sin. Abortion takes away that child's right to have their one breath. As for the children who have no health problems and COULD BE born 100% healthy, that is taking away a full life. That child did NOTHING to deserve to not even have a chance to live. How could someone take away a child's chance to live? As for the view on abortion being right so that the mother can be more attractive....NO WAY! That is the most selfish view I have heard! This is just my opinion on the whole ordeal...

[DisRuptive1]

If a Mother doesn't want her child, and the Father also does not want that child, they can do something else besides have it Aborted. They can also have it Adopted. I fail to see any good reason for intentionally killing a child.

Going through a pregnancy can ruin a woman's looks. She can gain weight that she'll never, ever be able to lose. She'll look different than if she had had the baby, and she'll never ever be able to look as good as she would have had she not had the baby. Hence, it makes adoption not such a good idea either since it would be bad for the woman to go through the pregnancy in the first place. Plus, birthing a child and giving it away causes a lot more emotional stress than aborting a fetus.

And neither religion or science have ever proven when life begins in the womb [now where I have I read that?]

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Oct 26 2004, 12:19 PM

I meant that a children should be raised properly, by parents who are capable of being parents, and by parents who are together in a marriage. A child should not have to go through life in a single parent household (it leads to people like me!). It is best for all parties to abort the child early (and avoid any stigma received from late-term abortions) and wait until all parties are ready (financially, emotionally, and stablely) for the child. And some people just don't want kids.

Going through a pregnancy can ruin a woman's looks. She can gain weight that she'll never, ever be able to lose. She'll look different than if she had had the baby, and she'll never ever be able to look as good as she would have had she not had the baby. Hence, it makes adoption not such a good idea either since it would be bad for the woman to go through the pregnancy in the first place. Plus, birthing a child and giving it away causes a lot more emotional stress than aborting a fetus.

I'm sorry, but this is the most absurd thinking (except for your next gem of a post about women's looks being affected by pregnancy)!

You truly wish you hadn't been born because you were brought up in a single parent household? I'm very sorry you think that way. I was brought up the same way, although my parents divorced after I was born, when I was 5. I'm VERY glad my mom didn't abort me, b/c other than getting through a sometimes tough childhood, I'm very happy with my life.

"And some people just don't want kids."

Then 'some people' should keep their pants on so that some baby's skull isn't crushed and sucked out with a vacuum! (Sorry for the graphic detail, people.)

About the 'looks' part, you have a lot to learn, and I hope you do eventually learn it. I still can't help but think that you're being sarcastic, or just trying to stir things up a bit. Hopefully that's true. You're pretty young, aren't you? I think I remember that from some previous posts.

[Spencer]

Not to mention the bazillion forms of birth control out there, if you dont want kids, use 1, use 5, or get snipped/tied.

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest Unorthodox]

Deleted

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Oct 26 2004, 10:29 PM

Going through a pregnancy can ruin a woman's looks. She can gain weight that she'll never, ever be able to lose. She'll look different than if she had had the baby, and she'll never ever be able to look as good as she would have had she not had the baby. Hence, it makes adoption not such a good idea either since it would be bad for the woman to go through the pregnancy in the first place. Plus, birthing a child and giving it away causes a lot more emotional stress than aborting a fetus.

Well, I can tell that Disruptive isn't Italian. Italian men say that stretch marks are the sign of a TRUE woman! (Those men love their mamas!)

[Faerie]

disruptive, i'm sorry...but you have got to be the most uninformed, most uneducated person i've ever met in regards to your views on this subject...*shakes head*

[Guest curvette]

Don't be too hard on him. He's very young, had a difficult upbringing in a single parent home, and doesn't have the experience yet of loving a woman who has born him children. Most men eventually grow up and their perspective changes. Hopefully, he will be able to bond to a woman someday and find out what it's like for a man to really love a woman (not just her body.)

[Faerie]

curvette...that or he'll pass those views onto another generation of men...*shudder* lol

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Faerie@Oct 27 2004, 12:01 PM

curvette...that or he'll pass those views onto another generation of men...*shudder* lol

That's a sad possibility.