sinker 0
Recommended Posts
wmw999 2,129
Quoteor is that your way of saying it's water under the bridge and don't get your panties in a wad over it...
More the second. Although folks have assured us in the women's forum that if women just wear thongs, their panties won't get in a wad anyway.
Just remember the second part, about reading all my extremely insightful and astute comments
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
TheAnvil 0
Perhaps I should explain why these phrases tick me off a bit better. I disagree with your statement. And my brain needs a break. Here we go.
'republicans are racist' is a lie the leftists use to motivate minorities to vote for them. I find it disgusting. Some republicans are racists. Some democrats are racists. In vain attempts to 'prove' this lie correct, leftists typically tell other lies which piss me off even more and then infuriate me by smearing folks who hold virtually identical views to my own as being racists - all because they don't support affirmative action or some other race-based program. That's why I think 'lying liberal coward' anytime this 'Republicans are racist' mantra comes up - and most often find no need to rethink my opinion. Add to that the incessant and subtle initiative by the left to encourage folks to IDENTIFY themselves by their race (Oreo cookie incident in MD, for example) and I get nauseous. Disgusting.
'tax cuts for the rich' pervades leftist attacks on conservatives. Unfortunately for them, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the tax system today knows that the rich pay most of the taxes. Most republicans also know that you CANNOT GIVE A TAX CUT TO PEOPLE WHO PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. When leftists scream, whine, and moan about not giving tax cuts to the lower income brackets, we know they are full of shyte. Sending these folks a larger check is taking money from somebody else who EARNED it. It's their money - not the government's. Though sometimes not a lie - and sometimes a blatant one - this phrase ticks me off and turns me against those who use it 99.9% of the time.
'woman's right to choose' is another phrase from the Gospel of the Left. My views on abortion make me both a bad Catholic and a man hated by the left almost as much as Ronald Reagan. I don't think life begins at conception or do I think that morning after pill (RU-238) immoral or that early term abortions are overly immoral (only partially; I know I'm opening myself up to attack, but that's what I think. So be it.). I also don't think religious hospitals should be forced to provide abortion services or the morning after pill. I think there's a very subjective moment where the fetus becomes a person with brain waves, heartbeat, soul,etc that really can't be quantified. As John Adams said - a comprehended God is no God at all. I don't think man capable of determining where life begins non-subjectively. Abortion after that point is murder - no question in my mind. Anytime I challenge a lefty to show a video of an abortion - Silent Screams for instance - or of a partial birth abortion they run like cowards. The 'woman's right to choose' phrase ticks me off, and anyone who can't show videos of a procedure whose legality they so staunchly support and then defend their views to the audience is a yellow belly. Only by hiding the reality of the procedure can lefties hope to use it as a political motivator. Cowards. I guess that makes me a hypocritical libertarian in a way, but I'm comfy with my viewpoint.
'religious right' ticks me off as well. Aren't there a few lefties who are religious? This phrase is inevitably accompanied by accusations of theocratic proclivities, intolerance, and etc and just pisses me off. There are right wing zealots who shoot abortionists and they're despicable. Like the crusade of the left against the Catholic Church in the wake of the Cardinal Law scandal, the 'right wing zealot' stereotype has litte basis in fact. Most religious people are extremely tolerant. This phrase, too,....you guessed it....pisses me off.
All of the aforementioned tick me off, and tick a lot of libertarians/conservatives off. If you've been watching the trends in the TV news - I watch both CNN and FOX, though I prefer FOX - and other outlets, these mantras are losing their political potency as a means to motivate voters. They are still potent, but going downhill. Ergo my conclusion that the advent of a non-left-leaning news source and internet are going to make those who rely on these mantras to motivate their base politically irrelevant. The ease of which opposing viewpoints and factual data can be obtained by virtually anyone makes this mode of political argument a thing of the past - or will soon do so, hopefully.
DAMMIT! I've typed a lot! Good thing I type like a bat out of hell. Needed a break anyway.
Beers to all,
Vinny the Anvil
'republicans are racist' is a lie the leftists use to motivate minorities to vote for them. I find it disgusting. Some republicans are racists. Some democrats are racists. In vain attempts to 'prove' this lie correct, leftists typically tell other lies which piss me off even more and then infuriate me by smearing folks who hold virtually identical views to my own as being racists - all because they don't support affirmative action or some other race-based program. That's why I think 'lying liberal coward' anytime this 'Republicans are racist' mantra comes up - and most often find no need to rethink my opinion. Add to that the incessant and subtle initiative by the left to encourage folks to IDENTIFY themselves by their race (Oreo cookie incident in MD, for example) and I get nauseous. Disgusting.
'tax cuts for the rich' pervades leftist attacks on conservatives. Unfortunately for them, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the tax system today knows that the rich pay most of the taxes. Most republicans also know that you CANNOT GIVE A TAX CUT TO PEOPLE WHO PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. When leftists scream, whine, and moan about not giving tax cuts to the lower income brackets, we know they are full of shyte. Sending these folks a larger check is taking money from somebody else who EARNED it. It's their money - not the government's. Though sometimes not a lie - and sometimes a blatant one - this phrase ticks me off and turns me against those who use it 99.9% of the time.
'woman's right to choose' is another phrase from the Gospel of the Left. My views on abortion make me both a bad Catholic and a man hated by the left almost as much as Ronald Reagan. I don't think life begins at conception or do I think that morning after pill (RU-238) immoral or that early term abortions are overly immoral (only partially; I know I'm opening myself up to attack, but that's what I think. So be it.). I also don't think religious hospitals should be forced to provide abortion services or the morning after pill. I think there's a very subjective moment where the fetus becomes a person with brain waves, heartbeat, soul,etc that really can't be quantified. As John Adams said - a comprehended God is no God at all. I don't think man capable of determining where life begins non-subjectively. Abortion after that point is murder - no question in my mind. Anytime I challenge a lefty to show a video of an abortion - Silent Screams for instance - or of a partial birth abortion they run like cowards. The 'woman's right to choose' phrase ticks me off, and anyone who can't show videos of a procedure whose legality they so staunchly support and then defend their views to the audience is a yellow belly. Only by hiding the reality of the procedure can lefties hope to use it as a political motivator. Cowards. I guess that makes me a hypocritical libertarian in a way, but I'm comfy with my viewpoint.
'religious right' ticks me off as well. Aren't there a few lefties who are religious? This phrase is inevitably accompanied by accusations of theocratic proclivities, intolerance, and etc and just pisses me off. There are right wing zealots who shoot abortionists and they're despicable. Like the crusade of the left against the Catholic Church in the wake of the Cardinal Law scandal, the 'right wing zealot' stereotype has litte basis in fact. Most religious people are extremely tolerant. This phrase, too,....you guessed it....pisses me off.
All of the aforementioned tick me off, and tick a lot of libertarians/conservatives off. If you've been watching the trends in the TV news - I watch both CNN and FOX, though I prefer FOX - and other outlets, these mantras are losing their political potency as a means to motivate voters. They are still potent, but going downhill. Ergo my conclusion that the advent of a non-left-leaning news source and internet are going to make those who rely on these mantras to motivate their base politically irrelevant. The ease of which opposing viewpoints and factual data can be obtained by virtually anyone makes this mode of political argument a thing of the past - or will soon do so, hopefully.
DAMMIT! I've typed a lot! Good thing I type like a bat out of hell. Needed a break anyway.
Beers to all,
Vinny the Anvil
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
wmw999 2,129
I'm really glad you wrote this; it's funny how labels serve to separate people as well as bring them together.
I'm a liberal, lying, stupid lefty, or something like that. I consider myself to be staunchly pro-choice. But I agree with nearly everything you wrote in this paragraph:
I'm a little less in agreement with the final sentence, and I disagree that I have to be willing to show a picture of a partial-birth abortion if I want to be pro-choice.
It's a lot easier for folks to work together if they can identify commonalities, and they for damn sure get farther when they do.
Wendy W.
edit: shit, I forgot whining!
I'm a liberal, lying, stupid lefty, or something like that. I consider myself to be staunchly pro-choice. But I agree with nearly everything you wrote in this paragraph:
Quote'woman's right to choose' is another phrase from the Gospel of the Left. My views on abortion make me both a bad Catholic and a man hated by the left almost as much as Ronald Reagan. I don't think life begins at conception or do I think that morning after pill (RU-238) immoral or that early term abortions are overly immoral (only partially; I know I'm opening myself up to attack, but that's what I think. So be it.). I also don't think religious hospitals should be forced to provide abortion services or the morning after pill. I think there's a very subjective moment where the fetus becomes a person with brain waves, heartbeat, soul,etc that really can't be quantified. As John Adams said - a comprehended God is no God at all. I don't think man capable of determining where life begins non-subjectively. Abortion after that point is murder - no question in my mind.
I'm a little less in agreement with the final sentence, and I disagree that I have to be willing to show a picture of a partial-birth abortion if I want to be pro-choice.
It's a lot easier for folks to work together if they can identify commonalities, and they for damn sure get farther when they do.
Wendy W.
edit: shit, I forgot whining!
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
sinker 0
oh, don't you worry honey, I won't be neglecting your posts anymore, especially since I know you ride a harley. don't mess w/ girls who ride harleys...
-the artist formerly known as sinker
-the artist formerly known as sinker
wmw999 2,129
Quotedon't mess w/ girls who ride harleys...
Damn skippy, unless it's the fun kind of messing
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
billvon 2,406
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
> Most republicans also know that you CANNOT GIVE A TAX CUT TO
>PEOPLE WHO PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
I agree completely. However, the current tax bill gives a $400 tax break to people who make over $26,000 a year, but does not give it to people who make less. A family that makes $26,000 a year, and has a total taxable income of $20,000 a year (after deductions etc) is paying around $2400 in taxes a year, going by last year's scales. The $400 reduction per kid would represent a 16% savings for such a family. Reducing a family's taxes from $2400 to $2000 is hardly "not paying income taxes."
I agree with much of your post, but the claim that "we're only giving breaks to people who pay taxes!" is nonsense.
>'religious right' ticks me off as well. Aren't there a few lefties who are religious?
Of course; atheism is a religion, and many leftists push a sort of "you have to worship at all altars" sort of multiculturalism. In both cases, I have no problem with people wanting to push whatever they want - as long as they don't try to codify anything into law. I have no problems with the Pat Robertsons of the world (outside of their support of terrorism) but I do have a problem with anyone who starts an office in our government to give money to religious groups (see the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.)
>PEOPLE WHO PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX.
I agree completely. However, the current tax bill gives a $400 tax break to people who make over $26,000 a year, but does not give it to people who make less. A family that makes $26,000 a year, and has a total taxable income of $20,000 a year (after deductions etc) is paying around $2400 in taxes a year, going by last year's scales. The $400 reduction per kid would represent a 16% savings for such a family. Reducing a family's taxes from $2400 to $2000 is hardly "not paying income taxes."
I agree with much of your post, but the claim that "we're only giving breaks to people who pay taxes!" is nonsense.
>'religious right' ticks me off as well. Aren't there a few lefties who are religious?
Of course; atheism is a religion, and many leftists push a sort of "you have to worship at all altars" sort of multiculturalism. In both cases, I have no problem with people wanting to push whatever they want - as long as they don't try to codify anything into law. I have no problems with the Pat Robertsons of the world (outside of their support of terrorism) but I do have a problem with anyone who starts an office in our government to give money to religious groups (see the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.)
sinker 0
yeah baby YEAH!!!!
-the artist formerly known as sinker
-the artist formerly known as sinker
sinker 0
reply to vinnie the anvil and wendy... too lazy to cut and paste...
Now, how did I know abortion was going to come up?? Vinnie, I agree w/ almost everything you said. Man, that was some rant and I enjoyed all of it!!!
The issue I have w/ the whole abortion thing is this... When human life begins is NOT a subjective thing, like Vinnie says. Just b/c science cannot yet quantify something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps the tools or ability just hasn't evolved yet. Also, with the advent of recent court decisions that speak to the protection of Cletus the Fetus from assault, state of the art inutero surgeries on Cletus (remember the TIME photo of the babies arm and hand sticking up out of the womb?), not to mention all the advertising that now openly uses the term "baby" when refering to pregnancies, I'm not so sure we can say life doesn't begin at conception. And I'm SURE we cannot say that life begins when I "think" it begins, like for Bill Mahr it is when the baby takes it's first breath or for others it's when brain waves develop or, as Roe v Wade said, when the fetus reaches viability. The only problem is is that viability is not a static moment in time. As medical science has progressed, fetal viability occurs far earlier in a pregnancy.
So, my point is this... It would seem to me that if there is ANY doubt or questions about when human life begins, THEN the obvious choice, the prudent choice, the ONLY choice, is to err on the side of caution and not allow abortions. The pro life crowd yells that abortion is murder. Pretty strong statement. What if they are right? What if medical science is able to determine that human life DOES start at conception and that once conception occurs, the product of conception is not a potential human being, but a human being with potential? That's a haunting thought to think that we might have "murdered" 1.5 million "babies" every year since Roe v Wade was passed. (I believe that is the Alan Gutmacher Institute's stat from Planned Parenthood, but not positive)
The problem with this is that for someone who gets pregnant, especially as a result of birth control failure, it's hard to NOT live with the availability of abortion, which all too often is looked at as the fail-safe birth control. I've always thought that hey, if you're going to play, accept the damn consequences. I mean really folks, pregnancy DOES happen only as a result of sex. (gee, really?) But most people I know aren't willing to give up their "sex w/o responsibilities" lifestyle.
like lewmonster, I won't duck for cover from the ensuing flames and hot forks... bring em on...
-the artist formerly known as sinker
Now, how did I know abortion was going to come up?? Vinnie, I agree w/ almost everything you said. Man, that was some rant and I enjoyed all of it!!!
The issue I have w/ the whole abortion thing is this... When human life begins is NOT a subjective thing, like Vinnie says. Just b/c science cannot yet quantify something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps the tools or ability just hasn't evolved yet. Also, with the advent of recent court decisions that speak to the protection of Cletus the Fetus from assault, state of the art inutero surgeries on Cletus (remember the TIME photo of the babies arm and hand sticking up out of the womb?), not to mention all the advertising that now openly uses the term "baby" when refering to pregnancies, I'm not so sure we can say life doesn't begin at conception. And I'm SURE we cannot say that life begins when I "think" it begins, like for Bill Mahr it is when the baby takes it's first breath or for others it's when brain waves develop or, as Roe v Wade said, when the fetus reaches viability. The only problem is is that viability is not a static moment in time. As medical science has progressed, fetal viability occurs far earlier in a pregnancy.
So, my point is this... It would seem to me that if there is ANY doubt or questions about when human life begins, THEN the obvious choice, the prudent choice, the ONLY choice, is to err on the side of caution and not allow abortions. The pro life crowd yells that abortion is murder. Pretty strong statement. What if they are right? What if medical science is able to determine that human life DOES start at conception and that once conception occurs, the product of conception is not a potential human being, but a human being with potential? That's a haunting thought to think that we might have "murdered" 1.5 million "babies" every year since Roe v Wade was passed. (I believe that is the Alan Gutmacher Institute's stat from Planned Parenthood, but not positive)
The problem with this is that for someone who gets pregnant, especially as a result of birth control failure, it's hard to NOT live with the availability of abortion, which all too often is looked at as the fail-safe birth control. I've always thought that hey, if you're going to play, accept the damn consequences. I mean really folks, pregnancy DOES happen only as a result of sex. (gee, really?) But most people I know aren't willing to give up their "sex w/o responsibilities" lifestyle.
like lewmonster, I won't duck for cover from the ensuing flames and hot forks... bring em on...
-the artist formerly known as sinker
wmw999 2,129
Quoterecent court decisions that speak to the protection of Cletus the Fetus from assault
QuoteSo, my point is this... It would seem to me that if there is ANY doubt or questions about when human life begins, THEN the obvious choice, the prudent choice, the ONLY choice, is to err on the side of caution and not allow abortions
I'd have to disagree here. The whole point for some people of the Cletus-the-fetus legislation was to start the slippery slope.
The reason I disagree is that humanity is in the eye of the beholder in many ways. Right now we don't legislate proper prenatal care (hell, we don't even make it easy half the time). We certainly don't legally monitor women to make sure they eat well and don't smoke (and watch for protests if we start). "child neglect" doesn't really apply to fetuses.
So if we start to try to define too clear a line, we're going to find that more and more questions have to be resolved exactly, and that's not good. Not every parent is sad that they had a miscarriage, and not every woman checks her Tampax for one of the fertilized eggs being discarded (about 80% of them). Yes, those are illogical extensions, but it's what you get when you go too far down a "all cases" path.
I'm quite pro-choice, for many of the same reasons that you're not. If birth control (and education in its use) is readily available, and abortions are also, the vast majority of women will choose birth control. Really. It's so much less hassle, for one thing. And, for the record, I've had an abortion, and speak from some knowledge at least of that. It doesn't make me evil, I haven't suffered unimaginable consequences from it, and I didn't do it because I was too lazy for birth control. The thing about freedom of choice is that I had it. You can choose not to do it, too.
Wendy W.
BTW -- no flames here. What can possibly be wrong with a well-worded argument that isn't rude?
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
billvon 2,406
>It would seem to me that if there is ANY doubt or questions about
> when human life begins, THEN the obvious choice, the prudent
> choice, the ONLY choice, is to err on the side of caution and not
> allow abortions.
Or birth control. Several types of birth control cause non-implantation of a fertilized egg; by the above rationale, that's murder. Others prevent what otherwise would almost certainly be a human child, and thus are also at least negligent homicide. Also, don't forget that humans reject over 50% of the fertilized eggs that could come to term either through non-implantation or spontaneous abortion; many of these are due to poor health care. That's over five million children dying a year here in the US due to poor health care, surely a moral disaster of biblical proportions. Unless, of course, you claim that a fertilized egg is not truly a child yet.
A few years back two very good friends of mine got pregnant with twins. One would survive; the other would die moments after being born. They agonized over the decision; do a 'selective reduction' to give the healthy fetus a better chance? Or let nature take its course and risk both fetuses dying?
They chose to carry both. The healthy fetus made it (barely.) I think it's absolutely obscene to think that the government is in a better position to make that decision than the child's parents.
> when human life begins, THEN the obvious choice, the prudent
> choice, the ONLY choice, is to err on the side of caution and not
> allow abortions.
Or birth control. Several types of birth control cause non-implantation of a fertilized egg; by the above rationale, that's murder. Others prevent what otherwise would almost certainly be a human child, and thus are also at least negligent homicide. Also, don't forget that humans reject over 50% of the fertilized eggs that could come to term either through non-implantation or spontaneous abortion; many of these are due to poor health care. That's over five million children dying a year here in the US due to poor health care, surely a moral disaster of biblical proportions. Unless, of course, you claim that a fertilized egg is not truly a child yet.
A few years back two very good friends of mine got pregnant with twins. One would survive; the other would die moments after being born. They agonized over the decision; do a 'selective reduction' to give the healthy fetus a better chance? Or let nature take its course and risk both fetuses dying?
They chose to carry both. The healthy fetus made it (barely.) I think it's absolutely obscene to think that the government is in a better position to make that decision than the child's parents.
sinker 0
Wendy, I certainly don't think you're evil for having an abortion. And I certainly admire your candor. I'm not a demonizing pro-lifer that bombs abortion clinics (and, let's all rejoice that Eric Rudolph has been captured). For most women it is a difficult decision to make, and for too many of them, there are emotional and physical complications that last long after the procedure.
Just a couple of things... of course most women will opt for BC over abortion. The only problem is that no BC or any amount of education will be 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, abortion for some WILL be a "choice" they feel forced into.
Which brings me to the second point... humanity cannot be in the eye of the beholder. One is human or one is not. If one is human, one is not a frog, even though some men will act like toads into perpetuity. Humanity was in the eye of the beholder in Nazi Germany and we all know what happened there. The slippery slope you spoke of is only the unwinding of the pro-choice mentality. The true slippery slope occurred when abortion was legalized. It continues in the euthanasia movement and will continue into perpetuity like those toadie men. Humans cannot define what it means to be human. Every time man has tried, he has erred (womAn too). One is either human or one is not, irrespective of how one defines humanity. Humans can simply state, correctly or incorrectly, that one is or one is not. It isn't for us to decide, it is for us to recognize. The status of "human" is a matter of objective truth, not subjective speculation. It is our job to discover that truth. And I believe it is discoverable irrespective of anyone's religious beliefs. Just look at all we know now about genetics, germs, disease, etc. that we didn't know 10, 50, 200 years ago.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
Just a couple of things... of course most women will opt for BC over abortion. The only problem is that no BC or any amount of education will be 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, abortion for some WILL be a "choice" they feel forced into.
Which brings me to the second point... humanity cannot be in the eye of the beholder. One is human or one is not. If one is human, one is not a frog, even though some men will act like toads into perpetuity. Humanity was in the eye of the beholder in Nazi Germany and we all know what happened there. The slippery slope you spoke of is only the unwinding of the pro-choice mentality. The true slippery slope occurred when abortion was legalized. It continues in the euthanasia movement and will continue into perpetuity like those toadie men. Humans cannot define what it means to be human. Every time man has tried, he has erred (womAn too). One is either human or one is not, irrespective of how one defines humanity. Humans can simply state, correctly or incorrectly, that one is or one is not. It isn't for us to decide, it is for us to recognize. The status of "human" is a matter of objective truth, not subjective speculation. It is our job to discover that truth. And I believe it is discoverable irrespective of anyone's religious beliefs. Just look at all we know now about genetics, germs, disease, etc. that we didn't know 10, 50, 200 years ago.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
billvon 2,406
>humanity cannot be in the eye of the beholder. One is human or one is not.
It will always be subject to judgement. Is a 20 year old woman who is completely brain dead human? Is the mother who signs her DNR, and removes her from tube feeding, a murderer? How about the doctor who shuts off the pump?
I think we all agree that it is the presence of a human _mind_ that makes us human. A soldier who has had all his limbs blown off, and is missing many internal organs, is still 100% human even though most of him is missing - as long as his mind is intact. A woman in good physical shape, who has hit her head so hard that she's lost all brain function, is not. I would put it that a similar scale is applicable at the beginning of life, just as it is at the end.
It will always be subject to judgement. Is a 20 year old woman who is completely brain dead human? Is the mother who signs her DNR, and removes her from tube feeding, a murderer? How about the doctor who shuts off the pump?
I think we all agree that it is the presence of a human _mind_ that makes us human. A soldier who has had all his limbs blown off, and is missing many internal organs, is still 100% human even though most of him is missing - as long as his mind is intact. A woman in good physical shape, who has hit her head so hard that she's lost all brain function, is not. I would put it that a similar scale is applicable at the beginning of life, just as it is at the end.
If my teenage daughter were raped there is no way I would want her to be forced to carry a baby to term. Abortion must remain legal for a variety of reasons........not everyone has access to education believe it or not. If that right were ever taken away we would go back to the days of women dying from botched abortions, etc.
kallend 1,635
QuoteQuoterecent court decisions that speak to the protection of Cletus the Fetus from assault
QuoteSo, my point is this... It would seem to me that if there is ANY doubt or questions about when human life begins, THEN the obvious choice, the prudent choice, the ONLY choice, is to err on the side of caution and not allow abortions
I'd have to disagree here. The whole point for some people of the Cletus-the-fetus legislation was to start the slippery slope.
The reason I disagree is that humanity is in the eye of the beholder in many ways. Right now we don't legislate proper prenatal care (hell, we don't even make it easy half the time). We certainly don't legally monitor women to make sure they eat well and don't smoke (and watch for protests if we start). "child neglect" doesn't really apply to fetuses.
So if we start to try to define too clear a line, we're going to find that more and more questions have to be resolved exactly, and that's not good. Not every parent is sad that they had a miscarriage, and not every woman checks her Tampax for one of the fertilized eggs being discarded (about 80% of them). Yes, those are illogical extensions, but it's what you get when you go too far down a "all cases" path.
I'm quite pro-choice, for many of the same reasons that you're not. If birth control (and education in its use) is readily available, and abortions are also, the vast majority of women will choose birth control. Really. It's so much less hassle, for one thing. And, for the record, I've had an abortion, and speak from some knowledge at least of that. It doesn't make me evil, I haven't suffered unimaginable consequences from it, and I didn't do it because I was too lazy for birth control. The thing about freedom of choice is that I had it. You can choose not to do it, too.
Wendy W.
BTW -- no flames here. What can possibly be wrong with a well-worded argument that isn't rude?
I believe fetuses should become people in the eyes of the state the instant the state allows the parents to take a tax deduction for them. Until then, they are none of the state's business.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
wmw999 2,129
As long as the decision for abortion can be treated with some seriousness I honestly think it should remain a part of choice.
Is it better to have a drug-involved 13-year-old carry a child to (whatever) than to have her have an abortion? Better for whom? Is it better to have a baby be born with no significant chance at a life without pain than to make the choice that it's better not to let it really get started? Again, whose life is better for this?
Those are choices for parents. Hopefully, most parents will take them seriously. The ones I've known who have made them have.
Wendy W.
Is it better to have a drug-involved 13-year-old carry a child to (whatever) than to have her have an abortion? Better for whom? Is it better to have a baby be born with no significant chance at a life without pain than to make the choice that it's better not to let it really get started? Again, whose life is better for this?
Those are choices for parents. Hopefully, most parents will take them seriously. The ones I've known who have made them have.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
sinker 0
I don't think we need to introduce the legal status of women who procure abortions intent or cause them by accident.
I maintain, and I realize I am in the minority about this in certain circles, is this... the fertilized egg is human. It can be nothing but. However, if I'm wrong, I have yet to see any evidence even remotely conclusive that demonstrates WHEN a baby is a baby. Since there continues to be scientific debate about the beginning of human life, again, the only prudent choice is to assume it begins at conception. To do otherwise is imprudent. This applies to the BC issue also. If some of the action of BC is abortifacient (BCPs, IUD, etc), and human life begins at conception, then logic dictates that BC isn't acceptible.
Now, the issue of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages and the like. This falls into the same category as someone having a stroke and dying. Or having a heart attack or dying of cancer. It is tragic, but it happens. It's nature's way. Or bodies aren't perfect. With the case of your friends who agonized over the selective reduction issues, the real question is this: Does the good of the one outweigh the good of the other? I've read many medical cases where doctors were "sure" that a baby wouldn't survive and that the mother should abort. Only the mother went to term and the baby survived. My mother in law did that with her last child. Docs said abort, too many health probs. Well, guess what... 17 years later, she'll be a senior in HS next year. She has some health probs, but they are not burdensome, esp. given the joy she brings to everyone.
It boils down the the principle of double effect. One cannot do something evil so that good may occur. It's a basic philosophical tenant that is often ignored.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
I maintain, and I realize I am in the minority about this in certain circles, is this... the fertilized egg is human. It can be nothing but. However, if I'm wrong, I have yet to see any evidence even remotely conclusive that demonstrates WHEN a baby is a baby. Since there continues to be scientific debate about the beginning of human life, again, the only prudent choice is to assume it begins at conception. To do otherwise is imprudent. This applies to the BC issue also. If some of the action of BC is abortifacient (BCPs, IUD, etc), and human life begins at conception, then logic dictates that BC isn't acceptible.
Now, the issue of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages and the like. This falls into the same category as someone having a stroke and dying. Or having a heart attack or dying of cancer. It is tragic, but it happens. It's nature's way. Or bodies aren't perfect. With the case of your friends who agonized over the selective reduction issues, the real question is this: Does the good of the one outweigh the good of the other? I've read many medical cases where doctors were "sure" that a baby wouldn't survive and that the mother should abort. Only the mother went to term and the baby survived. My mother in law did that with her last child. Docs said abort, too many health probs. Well, guess what... 17 years later, she'll be a senior in HS next year. She has some health probs, but they are not burdensome, esp. given the joy she brings to everyone.
It boils down the the principle of double effect. One cannot do something evil so that good may occur. It's a basic philosophical tenant that is often ignored.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
sinker 0
women die from botched abortions NOW TODAY.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
-the artist formerly known as sinker
sinker 0
how much damage is it going to do the 13 year old girl to give birth then put the baby up for adoption? This versus the killing of an innocent life?
but the real issue is this... when does life begin? If it begins at conception, most of these questions cease to exist.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
but the real issue is this... when does life begin? If it begins at conception, most of these questions cease to exist.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
Quotewomen die from botched abortions NOW TODAY.
You know exactly what I mean.... you can die from any type of surgery but try and take out your own appendix and see how far you get.
-the artist formerly known as sinker
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites