Abortion. Republicans. And the "Gray Area" (5659 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.1 on 337 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by NotMuchToSay (View user info) at 2004-10-30 14:24:53 EDT
I am a republican. You might call me a conservative, or (if you're a liberal) you might call me an asshole. Anyways, I was having a discussion with a liberal friend of mine who is very much in favor of "a woman's right to choose."
I told her that I was pro-life and only support the right to choose abortion if the woman was raped or the pregnancy has serious potential health risks for the mother. She told me that I was missing the gray area. So I ask you Uber-Siters, what the hell is the gray area? Am I wrong? Am I an asshole after all? I just think the right to choose should be to choose a condom or choose to keep your legs closed.
I think I'm probably just an asshole.
User Reviews
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2005-07-01 16:14:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-10-30 14:50:54 (#)
Ranking: 1
Excusing abortion on the basis of rape is a grey area. If everything were black or white, a fetus would either have the right to be born, regardless of how it was conceived, or it wouldn't. It's innocent
Damn right.
Hell this is an old post but i've just read it.
Loren1 can fuck off, stupid bitch.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-06-27 12:08:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
this was the only good abortion debate on Über
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-11-09 11:56:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Rad - that wasn't Jesus. I think a bum tricked you.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-09 02:09:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I was talking to the man Jesus the other day and he was mad at me. He said that I have been too diplomatic with the baby killers. He also said to me that everything was in God's plan, so that abortion for rape and incest and for medical reasons is wrong. I was then given the mandate to spread the word all through Uber in order to reform wrong minded liberal appeasers.
So REPENT sinners, and ye shall be saved.
That enough religion for you munkeypants? BTW thanks for the kind words on my other post. I do appreciate that.
Submitted by dingo (user info) at 2004-11-08 22:27:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Inky Fingers,
I'm conflicted when it comes to abortion. I have children who I love dearly, and I truly believe a child can be "alive" when it is terminated, long before it is viable. My son was hiccuping in the womb when he still could be legally killed. I've never seen something not alive hiccup.
On the other hand, I think rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake may call for an abortion. I don't think a couple should choose to abort for petty reasons, like many allegedly do today.
In any case, I don't believ that I am somehow smarter or more moral than anyone else, so I would like to see the issue of abortion returned to the legislature. I think we could all come to some sort of agreement. The laws would vary state to state, but that's ok. If nothing else, it would end this dabate that I feel has poisoned America a bit. Whenever the Supreme Court takes an issue out of the peoples' hands, rage and helplessness build on whoever the loser is.
Some commenters actually have shown that the modern Court has used substantive due process, as reincarnated by Roe, to justify striking down nearly any environmental regulation is sight as an unlawful "taking". Most liberals when they hear that give pause. It's easy to support an imperial court when you agree with them. But if you look at what they are doing in the big picture, it is a little frightening.
It was a diatribe--apologies.
BTW, when Miranda was challenged last term, the DOJ and US Attorneys wrote briefs in support of the Miranda warnings. And cops can still deceive the hell out of you and apply all kinds of subtle pressure, they merely have to inform you about your rights before they do it. Miranda is popular with cops, believe it or not. The Court basically told them how to make a confession almost automatically admissible. It's a much easier rule now than the pre-Miranda "voluntariness" test. But I'm preaching again.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-11-08 20:12:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
it pisses me off that loren is called a femi nazi because she
feels very strongly about an issue. We all have a certain issue that we feel
strongly about and will vehemently argue.
I am so fucking relieved no one brought religion into this. THAT
would be enough to set me off.
Submitted by InkyFingers (user info) at 2004-11-08 12:24:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Dingo, I didn't see your opinion anywhere in that informative diatribe. Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion?
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-08 10:43:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"My point is, I don't like not being able to hold appointed judges accountable to the will of the people the same way elected officals are. "
I agree with you on this, rad. The theory of why federal judges are appointed and not elected is to keep the Constitution from being changed every x years at the will of the people. Also, the theory is that by the time you are respected enough to be appointed to a federal bench, you are no longer subject to partisan politics either way. Unfortunately, there is too much "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" going on to get there.
The problem comes in the lack of oversight. It is nearly impossible to remove an appointed judge, meaning there is no incentive to be non-partisan and to rule solely based on law.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-08 10:39:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-07 22:12:06 (#)
Ranking: 0
And why would Miranda be overturned before Roe? I don't see anyone expressing outrage at the Miranda decision.
------------------
Miranda has been challenged in every session for the last 4 years. Law enforcement hates it. Bush's DOJ hates it. It is another case of the Supreme Court defining US law and Repubs hate it because they can no longer abuse (psychologically) suspects into confessing.
Submitted by hooligan at 2004-11-07 23:17:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm late. This was a stupid argument, and Lojope is dumb as a brick.
I wrote a long thing for this thread and got the message that I used all caps, so my long thing for this thread was omitted. Not that anyone cares, but that was gay.
So instead I've decided to be a prick and say that Lojope is dumb as a fencepost. She has to be the most backward irrational pro-abortionist I've heard. I haven't really read anyone else's reviews, so anyone who sided with her or ever claimed her arguments as "good points," you're a dumbass too. But who cares anyway, I've submitted this way late and haven't backed my assertations one bit. I'm sure Lojope has put this thread away and won't come along to read this. Is anyone there? Hello? Probably not. That's why I decided to be a prick and say this without registering.
Save the unborn kids.
-hooligan
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-07 22:12:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And why would Miranda be overturned before Roe? I don't see anyone expressing outrage at the Miranda decision.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-07 22:05:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Just a tanget here. My cousin from Mass. was visiting the week before elections, and the dinner discussion turned to politics. He said that he couldn't believe that we, in Nevada, elect our judges; and went as far as to suggest that we should appoint our judges, like they do in Mass, and the federal government. I then began to think of all the bad decisions made by courts in the history of this country, and for some reason I kept thinking of the 9th circut court. My point is, I don't like not being able to hold appointed judges accountable to the will of the people the same way elected officals are.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-07 21:46:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Justifying bad behavior with other bad behavior still sucks. Is that clear enough for you?
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-07 21:43:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"As far as republican fillibusters that prevent democratic nominees from taking office, can you give an example? I sure as shit can give you an example of a democratic fillibuster in the last 2 years. Miguel Estrada. The Democrats apparently had a problem with a member of a minority being conservative. Don't try to justify your parties bad behavior by citing the bad behavior of others. That is a bad fucking arguement. "
That was pre-emptive. Repubs love to remember what Dems do, but forget who started it.
My example: Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez in 2000 (led by Bob Smith). Paez was finally confirmed, but only because the Repubs didn't have enough to fight the cloture petition to defeat the filibuster.
Estrada's coninues because the Dems do have enough votes to sustain the filibuster.
Clear enough for you?
Submitted by dingo (user info) at 2004-11-07 21:26:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ahhh Rad, I see your Schwartz is a big as mine. In any case, who gives a damn about filibusters. I'm pretty sure the president can appoint justices to the supreme court through recess appointments, like he has other federal judges. As a matter of fact, Justice Warren was a recess appointee. That would be a very unpopular tactic, but I doubt George II gives a damn about that.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-07 21:15:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The inherent problem stems back to Marbury v. Madison (1803, I think). Judicial review is the one check in governement that has no balance. Appointed justices are able to legislate from the bench, and congress cannot overturn these decisions without a supermajority. Is it really fair that the court can decide cases in a way that favors 49% of congress, when the issue isn't even a constitutional one to begin with. I see no unconstitutionality with a law prohibiting abortion on demand.
As far as republican fillibusters that prevent democratic nominees from taking office, can you give an example? I sure as shit can give you an example of a democratic fillibuster in the last 2 years. Miguel Estrada. The Democrats apparently had a problem with a member of a minority being conservative. Don't try to justify your parties bad behavior by citing the bad behavior of others. That is a bad fucking arguement.
Submitted by dingo (user info) at 2004-11-07 20:57:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No, I realize only the Supreme Court can overrule Supreme Court decisions (barring a constitutional amendment). It's called stare decisis, a latin legal term for "let the decision stand". What I wrote was simply that if Roe were overturned (and most academics belive it will be in our lifetimes) that would not permit abortions per se, rather it will simply allow the matter to be regulated by laws made through individul legislatures. And if your representative votes against your particular view of abortion, throw his or her ass out of office and install someone who agrees with your political views.
The Supreme Court overturns decisions all of the time. Lawrence v. Kansas (2003), the celebrated decision that outlawed state laws banning sodomy, overturned a decision that stood as long as Roe had. The Supreme Court overrules itself fairly regularly, only the cases it either modifies or strikes down are nowhere near as motorious as Roe v. Wade.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-07 20:47:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
dingo seems to have forgotten the other way for sometthing to become law: the Supreme Court writes a binding decision that no one but the Supreme Court can ever overturn. And that VERY rarely happens. Miranda will be overturned before Roe.
Submitted by dingo (user info) at 2004-11-07 20:42:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
oops, and here is my tip.
Submitted by dingo (user info) at 2004-11-07 20:39:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, I don't have time to give you ignorant asses a primer in constitutional law, but let me try just a second. First of all, let's call our stances "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" because the choice and life rhetoric is simply empty and incorrect. I can't choose to kill my ex-wife, and most so-called pro-lifers are all for justified killing (e.g. war, capital crimes, Osama, Michael Moore etc.)
Anyhoo, look throughout the Constitution for anything resembling abortion or the "right to choose" and you will not find it. What Roe relied on was "substantive due process" from the due process clause found in the 14th Amendment which reads, "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." Anyone who has even smelled a law school laughs at the idea of substantive due process, because the substance of a law is not, by definition, the procedure used to create or enforce it. But I digress...
The law in question did in fact have plenty of process; the legislature of the state that passed it. In any case, by ruling like this the Court took the abortion debate out of the very place it belonged. The fundamental premise behind democracy is that INTELLIGENT PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE. And when they do, they resolve their conflict through discussion and compromise using the representative democratic i.e. republican (not the party) process.
The average mouth breathing moron in the US has forgotten that. Instead, we battle to elect a president largely in part due to who he or she will appoint to the Supreme Court. Appointments were not always such a big deal, but judicial law-making like Roe has polarized the country. Decisions like Roe remove divisive issues from the lisgislative process, instead making them the sole province of nine appointed overlords--all of which are old elitist waspy white males. (With the notable exception of the two women and two african-american justices we've had since this country was founded) Me, I'd rather leave it to my congressmen, because at least I can boot those jackasses out.
The court has done this before. Google the "Lochner" decision, where a past supreme court did essentially the same thing as Roe. It invented substantive due process to support the concept of lassaiz faire economics and social darwanism--which as we all know led to the great depression, WWII, the holocaust etc. That decision was overturned after the Court Packing incident, where FDR was going to increase the size of the SupCt so he could get his way. That's a crisis foreseeably on our horizon if our Court does not remember where it belongs under the constitution.
To whatever ignorant turd said that if Roe was overturned there would still have to be an exception for the health of the mother I say this--you are dumb. Again, Roe created the law. The "health of the mother" language is borrowed from the Casey case, which weakened Roe by allowing states to regulate abortion as long as it does no impose an "undue burden" whatever that is. (By the way, read Casey for some laughable language about how we all have "the right to define one's own existance" WTF!?! and a scathing Scalia dissent) The times they are a changing.
Again, the debate should be in Congress, not in Ruth Bader Ginsberg's head. You have no "right to choose". Read the constitution or retake civics class in whatever middle school you attend. The sad thing is, many states were beginning to allow certain types of abortion due to public pressure on their representatives until Roe was decided. No we all sit around and yell at each other through emotional message board posts, but, regardless, the issue is completely out of our hands.
Even the most liberal legal academic will tell you Roe was wrong. How you feel about abortion is an entirely different matter than how you feel about the fundamental constitutional structure of our three bra
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-07 19:51:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And I'm an idiot for not checking the hard line wraps from that text editor.... -2 for me.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-07 19:50:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"But seeing how Bush got re-elected this discussion is going to be obsolete for the near future anyway. One new supreme court judge and goodbye Roe versus Wade :) "
Don't be so sure.
1) The first justice who will go is Rehnquist - already an EXTREMELY conservative justice.
2) No far-right judge will ever make it past Senate confirmation, since the Dems can still stall the
hearings (a practice started by the Repubs during Clinton's term).
3) Most moderate judges who will make it to the Supreme Court have an understanding that previous
courts have ruled a certain way on purpose. It is pretty rare to have the Supreme Court overturn
a decision handed down by a previous court.
4) Even if the makeup of the Court changes vastly and Roe v. Wade is overturned, no law which doesn't include a "health of the mother" clause will ever be Constitutional. That inherently means that
abortion will be legal because,just as there are doctors who will write prescriptions with no visit,
there will be doctors who call abortion "medically necessary for the health of the mother".
Just food for thought.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-07 19:43:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-05 22:50:18 (#)
Ranking: 2
I love bringng up old points because people are too lazy to read all the reviews.
1. Regarding the homeless infant syndrome. The teenage mother made a choice to have sex and get pregnant against her parent's rules. If the parents kick her out, too bad. It sucks, but he convienence of the girl does not supercede the rights of the infant.
--------------
Even though the baby will probably die from exposure on the street? That's a GREAT alternative to abortion.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-11-07 17:37:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Secondly, I rarely ever reply to anything regardless of it's contents and yes I do read every post I rate and I have made replies before. Just because I do not agree with republicans on many issues does not mean that I do not take the time to listen to there opinion, it just means I disagree. I am not making any assumptions about anyone. Maybe the next time you decide accuse someone of something, you might want to make sure you are not guilty of the same crime.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-11-07 17:30:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
There have been soooooooo many abortion posts on ubersite from both sides and I have made my opinion known on several of them.
Submitted by Freakmagnet (user info) at 2004-11-07 15:50:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I love it when peopel assume I'm stupid because I've formed an opinion and am under the age of 18. Never in my life have I ever wanted to punch a girl in the face, thank you Loren.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-07 10:25:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey Lyric, three things:
1. Choosing to condone the killing of human beings is reprehensible. And a person's rights end where another's begin.
2. If you agree with everything Loren said, you have fucking issues. Munkeypants is cool though.
3. You are cute when you are drunk. (I really hope that the fact I said that pisses off some feminazi out there)
Submitted by Lyric (user info) at 2004-11-07 06:23:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
old post, but whatever, i had to put my canadian twocents in
A) there's areasson it is called the birthday and not the coception day/ your offical age is the day your are BORN. not conveiced. before birth, you are growing into what you will become. tis my opinion only, bit hat is what this site is about. O am not 21 years, 11 months, and 14 days old (plus 9 months). i'm 21.
b) its pro choice, not pro kill. big fucking differnce. go look up hthis word, okay.... "choice". pro choice doesnt mean, "Yes, I want to kill my unborn child"... it means, "I have the choice to do ith mybody, becuas rhtat chouce is allowed."
C) what loren and munkeypants said.
ps i am drunk os exuce the spelling musaktes andf al that jazz.
Submitted by Disektor (user info) at 2004-11-07 04:10:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes Firefly, that was exactly what I was implying!
Yes, this post is about abortion, but instead of actually bothering to post a thoughtful reply of why you feel the way you do, you just decided to -2 it. That goes with pretty much every post you reply to. You +2 or -2 it, usually with a 'no comment'
You probably managed to -2 every pro-republican post on Ubersite, and I doubt you even read a single one. Frankly I don't give a flying fuck what race or ethnicity you are, that has never mattered to me. But I'm sure it's much easier for you to make assumptions about things than to actually try to find the real meaning in them. Maybe you should try and be a little more open-minded.
Furthermore, being pro-choice is basically saying you have no problem with murder. You can tell yourself all you want that "oh it can't think or feel" but in reality you have no idea whats going on with it. Who the hell are you to decide whether or not someone lives or dies? What if someone shot your husband of your parents because they were a hassle to deal with and they were 'unwanted.' You can't really say you'd be mad, or even sad about that, because aborting a baby is the exact same thing.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-07 03:49:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Unless a Jewish mother gets raped. But that is also preventable.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/50103
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-06 23:08:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
All we Jews care about is other Jews. I am now pro-abortion as long as it is on Gentile babies. Leave the Jewish babies alone. Especially the males, they have a tendency to grow up into the messiah and stuff.
Submitted by Dead_0hi0_Sky (user info) at 2004-11-06 20:27:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/50665
i felt like hit-whoring.
Submitted by tech-junkie (user info) at 2004-11-06 20:17:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck you Loren1! You're giving First Amendment junkies a bad name!!! Fuck this, I'm writing a post about how much I hate you.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-11-06 13:47:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I love firefly.
That comment was even awesomer if you can imagine it in her voice.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-11-06 10:52:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Why would you have to say the jews are great poeple? Is it because I am married to a jew? and therefore, I myself must be a jew, and all we jews care about are other jews, right. Thanks for stereotyping me. As I seem to recall this post is not about condemming bush, saying all the jews are the best, or praising democrates. It is about abortion and I happen to be pro choice and yes it is because I am a fat dike with hair armpits, who worships jews and dances naked around trees while holding an I love Kerry poster. I also have had ten abortions and I am a prostitue. Anything else?
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2004-11-06 10:03:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I just didn't want you thinking I was digging at you with that paragraph Lojo, I'm glad you understood :o)
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-11-06 09:57:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That was a nice thing to say, Stin. Thank you.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-06 09:17:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Whatever, enough already. Lets kill this post and move on. You wanna kill people and justify it, go ahead. I will reserve my right to judge you.
Like I said, no grey area.
Submitted by Stin (user info) at 2004-11-06 08:50:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Just to add my tuppence-worth to this debate.
A lot of people have spoken about the potential of the foetus to become a person, life a long and fulfilling life etc. etc.
However, the foetus has not yet started that life, and although there is the potential for that, there is also the potential for it to be born unwanted and unloved, to be beaten and abused, abandoned because its mother was unready for the commitment. It was the potential to grow up one messed-up kid who will turn to crime, violence, suicide.... the options are endless.
It would be lovely if every child grew up in a loving home to go on and get married, have 2.4 children of its own and become the model citizen. But children of young, single parents (as is often the case in accidents - but not always) are usually those who have behavioural difficulties, who go on to get involved in petty crime and the like.
I'm NOT saying that this is every case. Lojo, I'm particularly aiming that last statement at you.
But it is all a question of potential. Yes the foetus has potential. But what of the potential of the mother? What if she did everything possible (with the exception of not having sex) to prevent pregnancy? Is it fair to take away established potential, a life with probability rather than possibility, because of an accident? Stop a bright young girl from pursuing her potential for the sake of a foetus she did not want at that time, has no means to support, is unable to provide the lifestyle for at that time in her own life?
I don't think so.
I became pregnant at 17. It was an accident, I was on the Pill and using condoms. Heaven only knows what went wrong, but I became pregnant. Because I have never had nice, regular periods I didn't realise for some considerable time that I was pregnant at all. When I did, it was so late in the term that they would not have aborted unless for medical reasons.
I miscarried the baby at 24 weeks. By that time she was a baby, not a foetus - to me. She had arms and legs and fingers and dammit, I loved her. But had I known early enough in the pregnancy, I would have had an abortion. I was 17 years old, in the middle of exams and university applications, I had my whole life in front of me. Would I have been a good mother at that point in time? Maybe. Would I be a better mother when I was married, had a good job, money behind me and life experience? Undoubtedly.
I stand by a womans right to choose based on what is appropriate to her at that time. I do not advocate abortion as a means of primary birth control. I believe in the potential of a life already happening, rather than a life about to start. But that's my view, everyone else is entitled to their own. I'm not trying to convert, just sharing a different perspective.
Submitted by the_mysterious_stranger (user info) at 2004-11-06 08:07:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Woulda been 0, but +2 to balance out that stupid cunt below (Loren)
Fetuses are sentient. You can actually see them covering their face and shrink away when abortetd late during the pregnancy. (They are sawed to pieces in the womb so they get out better, they back away when the sawblade enters the Uterus). You can ACTUALLY SEE THAT ON ULTRASONIC. I don't get how people can be so fucking heartless. Besides, the Fetus's right to live, to grow up and to accomplish somethings with their lifes far outweighs the woman's right to choose, at least in my opinion. But seeing how Bush got re-elected this discussion is going to be obsolete for the near future anyway. One new supreme court judge and goodbye Roe versus Wade :)
Submitted by dragonninja (user info) at 2004-11-06 07:41:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Abortion, although not nice, is necesary in todays western society.
Our system of economics, work, lifestyle cannot afford to have the burden of a unwanted child.
Abortion is nasty and needed. I'm pro choice, cause a condom fails me (I'm a guy), I would stick by the girl, but I'd rather not have child until I want to.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-11-06 07:28:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HEY LOOK I CAN WRITE IN ALL CAPS!
I can write long words too.
supercalifragilisticexpialadociouis
The reason you can't is because you aren't a logged in user. So get a user ID, or quit yer bitchin.
Submitted by vr <2richvic2.at.earthlink.net> at 2004-11-06 05:03:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
what the fuck? got a stupid message about my caps lock key and long words. first off, i did not have my caps lock key on, so that was an ASSumption there. sorry if you doh't undertand long words and can't handle them. it was a lame message i recieved nonetheless (omg, is that too much for ya? - the word nonetheless) I know the word nonetheless is longer than four letters and it might be a challenge for ya. it's okay, try getting beyond the four letter word thing and show some intelligence in the process. seriously, it works. get a grip and a clue. you can do it, i just know it. afterall, you already presume you're smarter than most people ever born, so if it makes you FEEL better, go with it. in the meantime, get it right.
Submitted by v r <2richvic2.at.earthlink.net> at 2004-11-06 03:55:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No Comment
Submitted by NotMuchToSay (user info) at 2004-11-06 00:29:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
This is my post but I havent checked it (until now of course) since the day I wrote it. No time to read all this shit, I'm surprised there are this many responses. I'm over it, fuck the gray area.
One response to one idiot who grouped all republican views into one and insinuated that I was against bi-racial marriage and various other things. Fuck you, I just don't want anymore dead babies. Marry/have sex with/date/build a fucking tee-pee with anyone you want, no matter what color or religion or sex. Just don't kill the baby.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-11-05 23:28:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Marriage implies that you are starting a family"
That is the first truly stupid thing I have seen you say.
Marriage implies that two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, and nothing more. There are people who get married and NEVER want to have children. For some people, 2 is enough for a family.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-05 22:50:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I love bringng up old points because people are too lazy to read all the reviews.
1. Regarding the homeless infant syndrome. The teenage mother made a choice to have sex and get pregnant against her parent's rules. If the parents kick her out, too bad. It sucks, but he convienence of the girl does not supercede the rights of the infant.
2. I am a person who is loved by none, loves no-one else. I live by myself and do not have meaningful interaction with anyone. You have a wife, kids, family, and friends who love you. Is your life worth more than mine in terms of who has a right to live? No? Then why does the rights of a woman supercede the rights of a fetus?
3. I never said "don't have sex at all" I merely want people who wont accept the responsibility to not have sex. Accepting the responsibility means that you carry the child to term. What you do after that (adoption or not) doesn't matter. If you are unwilling to accept responsibility for it, please do not have sex. If you are a girl worried about the pressure your boyfriend will put on you for not giving it up, maybe you should find a different boyfriend. If you are married, get this. Marriage implies that you are starting a family. Do not get married until you are ready for the responsibilities.
4. Plenty of republicans out there (including me) against the death penalty. Oil work camps in ANWR is more my style. But if you want a justification for the republican hypocracy, here it is. Murderers are not innocent. Babies are. End of arguement.
NO GREY AREA!!!!!
Submitted by Seralena (user info) at 2004-11-05 18:47:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm a democrat, and I'm against the death penalty not because I'm against killing criminals, but because I think they should suffer sodomization in prison as long as possible.
Submitted by cexshun (user info) at 2004-11-05 17:50:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
My question. What if the girl's parents will kick her out and put her on the street when the find out she's pregnant. Many could argue that not only would the abortion save her life, but prevent a homeless infant as well.
Submitted by Galgos27 (user info) at 2004-11-05 15:52:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
This is G-H-E-Y, GHEY!!! Both the uber Democtrats and the uber Repuplicans are both retarded. Life is life there is no "grey" area. Republicans are against abortion and for the death penalty. Democrats are for abortion but against the death penalty. Does anyone see a problem with this and I don't want to here that one is the consequence of an action, because they both are. To kill is to kill there is no real diffrence, except the one you justify in your mind.
Submitted by InkyFingers (user info) at 2004-11-05 11:20:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Where's my pepto-bismol...
Submitted by InkyFingers (user info) at 2004-11-05 11:19:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It is not simply a matter of whether the mother or the fetus has more potential (although that is an important elemnt of the pro-life/pro-choice debate) It is also about pre-existing human relationships. Potential-Mom is loved and loves other people. And, in all likleyhood, people depend upon her as she depends upon others. No one depends on a fetus, if a fetus dies through misfortune, there are no jobs lost or families that starve. Additionally, there are few if any emotional attachments to the undeveloped organism. What emotional and fiscal ramifications will affect its relative environment if it is aborted? I guarantee the effects of improperly raising a child and ruining the mother's life would cause more problems for EVERYONE in that relative environment than aborting the child.
And- in responce to the person who said that abortion would never become illegal because of the money involved, get your head out of your ass sir. If the bible belt had its way, abortion would be illegal tomorrow. And if the election isn't doesn't prove to you that the bible belt is capable of enacting change based on paper thin facts, then maybe you arent smart enough to be comenting on this topic.
Submitted by Seralena (user info) at 2004-11-05 09:56:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No offense, Rad, but most guys are going to get rather pissed off if all women suddenly go, "No, I'm not having sex, because I don't want a child." There are accidents even if you use birth control. I'm sure you've had sex before. I don't want to rub your face in anything, but would you want to be told by a significant other (wife, girlfriend, fiancee) that you aren't allowed to have sex, simply because she's worried about getting pregnant, protected or not?
Because that's what your saying. In the argument for or against forcing men to pay child support, the argument usually isn't, Men should stop having sex. It's "Men should be held responsible for their actions." Or that they should have used protection. Why is it okay to tell women to stop having sex, but men aren't told that? Sounds like a double standard, to me.
And I am sorry for your loss, Rad. I'm going through some form of that myself right now, but I think yours is worse.
Submitted by accuseddenied (user info) at 2004-11-05 08:07:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Er sorry Rad just scolled down and read about you and your wife. I'm gutted for you and wish you both the best. But I think it proves my point(sort of) it's people like you and your wife who should be parents, not people who were too drunk to put on a condom
Submitted by accuseddenied (user info) at 2004-11-05 07:56:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Rad, Makng people be parents who don't want to be parents can't be a good thing?
Won't somebody please think of the children!
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-05 06:21:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry about the delay on responding to this thread, but I got banned from uber for a coupla days. I am now officially Bart's bitch.
Now, I feel now more than ever that my view is correct. I am pro-limited choice.
1. Abortion should be available, but not mandatory, for women who have been raped(incest), or for women who will suffer severe medical consequences due to the pregnancy.
2. Abortion should not be made available for women who merely want to terminate the pregnancy because they don't want to be a parent.
3. The impetus of responsibilty for the pregnancy falls on the woman, whos choice to have sex resulted in the pregnancy.
The grey area occurs when a person wants to commit an immoral act, but wants to justify it so they don't feel badly about the decision.
I don't think pro-abortion people are bad people. I think that they are caught up with an ideology, and have a hard time seeing simple pure truths. This is evident in the fact anyone who is "pro-choice" finds the label "pro-abortion" so reprehensible.
Thanks to everyone who responded so kindly to my personal tragedy; espically to Stin, thanks again.
Submitted by Scarlett13 (user info) at 2004-11-05 05:09:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Everyone will always have a differing opinion on abortion, at the end of the day it should always boil down to what a woman wants to do when she realises she is pregnant, there are too many factors for the decision to ever be black and white...
Too often women are influenced by their partners and end up making a decision under pressure.
Happiness is essential in life, and whilst this may sound like an entirely hedonistic view, you have to remember that one wrong decision affectsevery area of your life.
My stance is always to be supportive of whateve decision the woman may make, she has enough to cope with without being castigated for making the wrong decision too.
Men get to choose when their body can support a growing foetus, until then you should take a back seat and offer advice only, not your opinions.
Submitted by NotApologizing (user info) at 2004-11-04 23:55:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
conservative doesn't mean "antiabortion". Those are issues that are talked about to get a rise out of voters. remember, what you think doesn't mean shit when our constitution allows us to get abortions all we want. The very same applies to W Bush. Only the supreme court can change it and considering the recent statements of (conservative republican) Arlen Specter, it's not going to change no matter what W does.
If you want to call yourself a conservative, then tell the truth:
You support capitalism, an elite class, and advantages for wealth. You keep a voter in your party by suppressing progressive human rights (like gay marriage), instead pandering to religious zealots and sheltered old ladies. In every area of government except economics, you want to control not just americans, but everyone in the world. You suppress information. You were the type to oppose integration in the south.
If you want to call yourself a liberal, then tell the truth:
You believe the government is the fiscal nanny of all its' citizens. You create and keep voters by perpetuating a dependency on your maternal economic givings. You don't promote financial success, because the more money you help people earn, the quicker they realize the other party benefits them. You do, however, support the ideas of personal freedom, individualism, along with sexual, religious, and other similar freedoms. You believe the focus should be on domestic issues, but ignore the interests we have in foreign lands.
Submitted by great_angst (user info) at 2004-11-04 21:35:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Loren1 (user info) at 2004-10-30 15:15:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
Forget this. I'm done. I just researched to find out you are 17. I'm not going to waste my time arguing about a fetus' rights with a fetus. Call me when you're old enough to vote.
-------------
Now THAT made the whole damn thing worth reading.
Submitted by smurf_master (user info) at 2004-11-04 21:29:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ok I have finally finished ready through the replies (mostly) and the thing that I learned in the posts are these:
1. Pro-choice arguments (the good ones) have been based on the right of the human body (theirs).
2. Pro-life arguments have been based on the fact that humans have the choice to have sex and should accept the consequences.
3. Pro-choice then rebuttals by saying that pregnant women sometimes have serious health issues due to pregnancy and women become pregnant because of rape or incest.
4. Pro-life then points out that those are very rare cases of abortions and that they don't have a problem with them.
5. Pro-life then continues to tell pro-choice not to have sex.
6. Pro-choice ignores this or says kids will be kids and they should know how to have protected sex. And then pro-choice states there is no form of 100% certain birth control.
7. Pro-life then states, yes there is 100% certain birth control, it's called not having sex.
8. Pro-choice then goes into the bad arguments and says that a fetus really isn't alive and shouldn't have rights.
9. But then nine months after that fetus that really isn't alive and shouldn't have rights pops out and now it does have rights. (ok I really didn't learn that from reading all this, but it's kind of commonsense isn't it?)
10. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers have made it clear that most abortions aren't for the mothers' health or that she got raped, it's because they are too young, can't afford it, or not ready to have children yet.
11. And then pro-life points out, yet again, that all this could be avoided by not having sex.
12. And then pro-choice, yet again, ignores that fact or dismisses it.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-11-04 14:56:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't want to dive into this whole thing again, so I'm just going to do another hit and run.
It seems a lot of the pro-choice people feel very strongly about the importance of "potential."
For example, the typical example of the young girl who winds up pregnant, "is it fair," they will ask, "that this young girl be made to drop out of school and be condemned to live a life of poverty because of some silly mistake?" The heart of this question is that this poor girl will be denied the POTENTIAL she could have acheived if she had been able to continue on in school, etc.
For pro-lifers, the issue is that that little blob of cells be allowed it's potential to become a fully functioning human being.
Who's potential is more important? Which "potential" is more basic, or critical, or fundamental?
But again, it all comes down to whether or not you think that blob of cells is "just" a blob of cells or a person, or a pre-person or what have you. If you think it IS a person, there really is no alternative to a pro-life position. Unless you are the kind of person who likes to think of innocent people being slaughtered, I guess.
Submitted by DavyJones (user info) at 2004-11-04 14:54:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think everyone missed the part about how it will never become illegal due to money. Get over it. Let it pass. The man is never going to take your rights away. Not because he doesn't want to, but because he can't. If you think the deficet is bad now, imagine a 250 billion+ strain added out of nowhere.
It won't happen.
Submitted by Adereterial (user info) at 2004-11-04 10:13:02 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I'm pro-choice, for a couple of reasons:
1, I have the right and I need to be in charge of what happens to my own body.
2, I don't feel it fair or moral to force a woman to continue with a pregnancy which will affect the rest of her life, whether she brings up the child or not. Specific examples as follows:
Is it fair to force a young girl who made a mistake to suffer for the rest of her life with a baby she may not want and is not capable of bringing up properly? Is it fair to force her to suffer the emotional tormoil involved in giving birth and then giving the baby away?
Is it fair to force a woman who made an informed, responsible choice to get pregnant, and whose circumstances change so irrevocably to make having a baby both detrimental to that woman's future and to the baby's long term prospects? What if she or her partner lose their jobs, or their homes? What if her partner becomes seriously ill and is unable to help?
Is it fair to force a woman whose contraception failed through no fault of her own?
And also, being pro-choice does not mean I am not pro-life. What I truly believe about abortion doesn't mean I don't believe in the individuals right to choose.
'Sir, I do not like what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.'
Submitted by InkyFingers (user info) at 2004-11-04 09:46:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I have a question?
For those of you asserting that killing a fetus is murder, I have to ask: what IS a person? Is a person a group of unaware cells? Does the fact that those cells will definitely become a person imbue them with value?
From my non-religious point of view, awareness and experience are critical elements in describing a human being. If it can't think, speak, interract, it doesn't know it exists, and it is loved purely on the basis of principle (I.E. This will be a person, I should start loving this creature with whom I have shared no experiences) is its life valuable enough to hinder the life of potential "mom"?
At the very least, it is a choice the mother should have, because she is undeniably a person, and her well-being is on the line as well.
Submitted by sexy_biatch (user info) at 2004-11-04 08:58:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
no ones going to listen to what i have to say, because i usually just read everything, but abortion is one thing i cant keep quiet about.
some people need to learn to shut their mouths before they make themselves sound like dumbasses.
i am pro-choice, and i would get an abortion right now if i found out i was pregnant. but that doesnt mean im irresponsible about it, i still use a condom every time and im on birth control, but if an accident does happen im glad i have that choice.
Also on the whole guy making decisions about abortion, if you dont know the circumstances then i feel you shouldnt have a say. but its something you should talk about and agree on, one way or the other, if you are in a serious relationship with someone.
it's like religion, you dont force your religion on me, i dont force mine on you. so why should someone be able to force their morals on me? they shouldnt. if you arent prochoice, and feel abortion is murder, then dont get an abortion.
as for the whole thing about abortion a day before a baby is due, its now illegal as of one year ago when bush made partial birth abortions illegal.
for the prochoice people who think abortion should be illegal. do some research, in countries where abortion is illegal, there is actually a higher number of abortions then here in the US. also, many of those women face severe health risks because the procedure isnt always done properly.
Worldwide, about 20 million women a year have abortions in countries where it is banned and abortions rates are often as high or higher in these countries. www.choiceusa.org/facts/abortion.pdf
Submitted by alu (user info) at 2004-11-04 00:39:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-03 22:00:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
This discussion doesn't deserve to have a negative rating. Whether you agree or disagree with the original point, the ensuing debate has been worth it, I think.
>I think the idea is to rate the post, not the thread. But whatever to each his own.
Antluvdog, a common justification for abortion is that it's for the future child's own good. He'll rot in foster homes, he'll probably become a criminal, it'll be difficult to be a "bastard" son of a "whore," life will just be too difficult and sad for him. So we'd better end his life now out of kindness.
>It isn't out of kindness, more for the indirect benifit of society. No one wants to take care of these children, why have them? Abortion makes sense from a practicial stand point. You can say it's wrong and imooral, but that doesn't change reality. It is wrong that someone's grandma can't pay for her heart medicine, or that there's a vet addicted to smack begging me for money whenever I put gas in my car. I cannot fix everyone's problems, no single person can fix all of them. Now remember that the government is just an extension of society, not some magical enity with the ability to anything.
"In what other segments of society do we apply euthanasia? We can't kill the old and sick, even if they beg for an end to their pain after living long, fruitful, worthy lives. We don't grant inmates convicted to life sentences the opportunity to kill themselves. We don't kill the seriously retarded--the downright catatonic--although their quality of life isn't up to our standards. It's not even easy to pull the plug on someone who's comatose and brain dead.
I'm pro-suicide rights. I'm pro-assisted suicide. I believe that people should have the right to die if they want. A prison "lifer" should be able to go before a judge and be granted the right to die, rather than suffer in prison, if that's what he wants. And I definitely believe that everybody should be given the opportunity to live. Let people decide what existence is too awful for themselves, not because somebody else believed that they would be better off dead."
>You are taking three completely different cases and I don't feel the comparison is valid to abortion because none of them are controversial.
First allow me to address your belief that a prisoner has a right to die. When someone is conviced of a crime they automatically lose certain rights, one of those rights is to decide your own fate. I am not afraid to die, but 80 years in prison terrifies me. Regardless, if I commit a crime I do not get to decide my punishment, that is society's job. Criminals can actually request a death sentence (in most states,) but it is up to the judge to meter punishment. However, a criminal cannot demand death. He lost the power over his life when he commited a crime.
Now about assited sucides, first of all, let me say I never understood why someone needed assistance in ending your own life. If you are too scared to take it, then you aren't ready to die. That being said, I have no problem with assisted sucide either. I don't believe society as a whole has a problem with it. That why Kavorikan isn't in jail. I fail to understand why you brought this up, the only people who take issue with it are the same "every life is scaired and beautiful" pro-lifers.
As far as being able to "pull the plug" that varies according to state, but it is fairly simple if the person requesting it is still cognisent, and it is not that hard for a family to do it either. Like assisted sucide, isn't a huge controversy in society at large either. The case like the one with that lady in Florida became an issue because part of her family (the parents) didn't want her to die. The national media ran with it because there wasn't anything else going on.
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-03 22:00:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This discussion doesn't deserve to have a negative rating. Whether you agree or disagree with the original point, the ensuing debate has been worth it, I think.
Antluvdog, a common justification for abortion is that it's for the future child's own good. He'll rot in foster homes, he'll probably become a criminal, it'll be difficult to be a "bastard" son of a "whore," life will just be too difficult and sad for him. So we'd better end his life now out of kindness.
In what other segments of society do we apply euthanasia? We can't kill the old and sick, even if they beg for an end to their pain after living long, fruitful, worthy lives. We don't grant inmates convicted to life sentences the opportunity to kill themselves. We don't kill the seriously retarded--the downright catatonic--although their quality of life isn't up to our standards. It's not even easy to pull the plug on someone who's comatose and brain dead.
I'm pro-suicide rights. I'm pro-assisted suicide. I believe that people should have the right to die if they want. A prison "lifer" should be able to go before a judge and be granted the right to die, rather than suffer in prison, if that's what he wants. And I definitely believe that everybody should be given the opportunity to live. Let people decide what existence is too awful for themselves, not because somebody else believed that they would be better off dead.
Submitted by Seralena (user info) at 2004-11-03 21:26:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not rating this, because it wasn't a good post. He has the right to his views, but he doesn't really express them. Thus not worth a -2.
First of all, I thought I was pregnant at one point. I was in love with my boyfriend, we used protection, and if I was, it would have been a horrible accident. For a week, I was in agony. I had plans for my life. You know that most schools won't let you stay in school once you come near full term? Adoption is an option, but I would kicked out of my school for it. I wasn't old enough to have an abortion without parental consent (I was 17), so I was rather worried. But it was my main option. I had no work experience at the time, and neither did my boyfriend. Neither of our parents would be capable to raise a child. I wasn't pregnant, but if you haven't gone through that experience, don't talk about a clear-cut choice. If you're using abortion as birth control, then you're pretty heartless.
I've wanted children my entire life, just not now. And I was just recently diagnosed with early stage cervical cancer. Right now, it doesn't require treatment, and might retreat on its own, but if it gets worse, the treatment will leave me infertile. And I would die if I couldn't have a child, because it's what I've wanted for so long. So while I value the life of a child, I still think it's each woman's choice. A child at 17 would have ruined my life.
Outside of that, I feel the father of the child should have some say. If the father insists on an abortion, and the mother won't get one, then the father should not be responsible for paying for the child. In the same sense, if the father wants the child, and the mother doesn't, have the mother have the child, and give it to the father. Easy answer. Both were responsible for creating it, so both should have the responsibility of raising it. Once the decision's been made, child support should be mandatory (such as in cases of divorce). Until that point, both parties should have a choice.
Also, if abortions are made completely illegal except in health/rape/incest cases, then I agree that men shouldn't have a say in it. Or else, I claim that sperm have a right to life, and therefore blowjobs are now illegal. The woman only gets something out of it if she has an emotional attachment to the guy or if she really likes how semen tastes, so it's not fair. But as a woman, I reserve the right to determine what men can and can't do with the possibility of life. Fair enough? If you want your blowjobs, I want my choice.
I'm also really impressed with this whole thread. Everyone seems to be arguing rationally (whether their logic is flawed or not) and not devolving into name-calling. Congratulations to everyone. I'm proud of your maturity.
Submitted by gknmom (user info) at 2004-11-03 20:52:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If you have genitalia, be responsible for them. Easy, huh? Are they in your posession 24/7? I hope so. If your mom had you sucked out (or injected, etc.) you wouldn't actually be reading this right now, would you? Thank her, mentally or verbally, whatever works. My mom was pro-abortion, so I'm glad she didn't "exercise her rights over her body" while I was in the house, so to speak. Eventually, abortion will be looked upon just as slavery prior to the Civil War is looked at now; a monstrosity, cruel, heartless & inhuman. Scientic advances are ensuring this outcome. And to those of you who wish my mom had exericsed her rights over her body, TFB!
Submitted by antluvdog (user info) at 2004-11-03 19:48:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I am also pro-life. To answer your question, I have to ask you one first: why do you believe a woman, by law, must have a child if she becomes pregnant?
I do not believe the issue is as simple as "because to abort a fetus is murder." That view is short-sighted.
There are several issues to consider in the raising of a child:
1. It costs money and a lot of time to raise a child. Some people cannot afford to raise a child. This is not, in my opinion, a good reason to abort a child. However, it's also detrimental to a child if he or she must be raised in a substandard parenting environment. There are few avenues for parents who cannot afford to raise a child or do not have the time to raise a child to go to. These kids will ultimately suffer.
2. There is a social stigma attached to children in this country born out of wedlock. Women who get pregnant out of wedlock or by being "loose" are labeled as whores. This negativity is, in most cases, passed down onto the care of the child.
Before we ban abortion, we must build a larger and broader support foundation for all children born in this country. More tax money must be poured into organizations that find homes for children through adoption. More tax money must be poured into community organizations that help mothers raise their kids and help the children in the communities succeed.
Until we break the notion that the parent of a child is 100% responsible for the children she brings into the world - until we as a society start helping people to raise their children - there will be problems for all children, but especially for this particular subset of children.
It's going to take a long time for this society to start thinking that way. Until we can, there's going to be reasons for people to not want to have the children that they produce, whether by accident or otherwise.
Submitted by Disektor (user info) at 2004-11-03 19:46:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The only way to get a 2 from Firefly is to condemn Bush, say all the Jews are great people, or praise Democrats.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-11-03 18:11:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You sir are an asshole and moron
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-11-03 17:17:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
It's like trying to reason with a toddler.
Submitted by lucid (user info) at 2004-11-03 16:49:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
A world without the religious right would be heaven.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2004-11-03 16:43:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-02 19:33:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
Question for the anti-abortion crowd.
How many of you are willing to run out and adopt a child who would otherwise be aborted?
If you aren't, shut the fuck up - you are showing that you aren't willing to walk the walk.
________________________________________
How about this for the anti-abortion crowd: how any of us are willing to see as few humans die as possible? everyone. how many pro-abortionists are willing to not give a shit?
OCG, thats a terrible argument, and i'll tell you why:
since when has the willingness to 'walk the walk' been a prerequisite for arguing something?
this is a civil debate, it is neither a declaration of one's creed nor an end-all deal. (for lack of a better phrase)
to answer your question: would i be willing to adopt a child who would otherwise be aborted? yes.
in 3 years, when i have a house, i most certainly will. in the meantime, i am too young. i'm not ready to raise a kid. but that doesn' tmean that i dont know where i stand on certain issues.
Question for you: would you kill a child that has been put up for adoption to give the mother 6 months of her life back?
**********************************
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-02 12:56:12 (#)
Ranking: 0
PFAUST! PFAUST! PFAUST!
Two, four, six, eight,
Get out there and go fellate!
Eight, six, four, two,
Just don't wear those ugly shoes!
I love politics.
**********************************
i love julia.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
seriousness for last - rad, i am very sorry to hear about that. i wish i could do something other than offer my condolances. you'll get through...
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-03 16:22:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rath (user info) at 2004-11-03 14:49:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Tons of posts here...but I'll throw in my 2 cents...
It's not 100% the woman's choice. If in fact you look at a newly concieved baby as
"a bunch of cells" than half of those cells are mine (I'm a guy). I don't know how
far all of you got in bio, but the sperm and egg each have half the chromosomes (22?)
needed to make a child. So, that "bunch of cells" you're holding is actually half-mine.
What if I want a son/daughter...YOU have the right to kill my kid? Doesn't seem right.
However, this doesn't mean I'm pro-life. I AM pro-life, and although I'd like to say I wouldn't
let the woman I impregnated get one, but it's more her choice than mine, so it'd be more of a
strong suggestion.
The only people that need to resort to abortions are dumb low-life sluts really. This is because
of a few reasons.
-Birth control is so easy to get, and VERY effective
-There is now a "week-after" pill to go along with the "morning-after" for any rape victims
that realize they've been raped within a week of it happening (I'd hope they'd know by then). The
week-after pill is almost like a semi-abortion, but it's better than sticking a vaccuum tube
up there and sucking the baby out.
-In the rare case that giving birth would kill the mother.
If you don't fall into that category, you're a low-life who isn't responsible enough to bear a
child, and if you were forced to raise the child, I'm sure one day I'll either be paying his
welfare checks, or being robbed/raped/murdered by him/her.
Also...this world is populated enough...anything to control the population is ok in my book.
---------------
<sarcasm>
"I'm pro-life, and only low-life sluts get abortions unless it's medically necessary.....but children raised by low-life sluts will probably grow up to murder me. And anything to control the population is ok in my book."
It takes a very smart man to argue both sides of an argument. In the same post.
</sarcasm>
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-11-03 14:51:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Rad - the same thing happened to my girlfriend (now wife) and I when I was a junior in college. I am so sorry for your loss.
Submitted by rath (user info) at 2004-11-03 14:49:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Tons of posts here...but I'll throw in my 2 cents...
It's not 100% the woman's choice. If in fact you look at a newly concieved baby as
"a bunch of cells" than half of those cells are mine (I'm a guy). I don't know how
far all of you got in bio, but the sperm and egg each have half the chromosomes (22?)
needed to make a child. So, that "bunch of cells" you're holding is actually half-mine.
What if I want a son/daughter...YOU have the right to kill my kid? Doesn't seem right.
However, this doesn't mean I'm pro-life. I AM pro-life, and although I'd like to say I wouldn't
let the woman I impregnated get one, but it's more her choice than mine, so it'd be more of a
strong suggestion.
The only people that need to resort to abortions are dumb low-life sluts really. This is because
of a few reasons.
-Birth control is so easy to get, and VERY effective
-There is now a "week-after" pill to go along with the "morning-after" for any rape victims
that realize they've been raped within a week of it happening (I'd hope they'd know by then). The
week-after pill is almost like a semi-abortion, but it's better than sticking a vaccuum tube
up there and sucking the baby out.
-In the rare case that giving birth would kill the mother.
If you don't fall into that category, you're a low-life who isn't responsible enough to bear a
child, and if you were forced to raise the child, I'm sure one day I'll either be paying his
welfare checks, or being robbed/raped/murdered by him/her.
Also...this world is populated enough...anything to control the population is ok in my book.
Submitted by Raimee <pirynne_18.at.yahoo.com> at 2004-11-03 14:29:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Rad, I am real sorry to hear your news.
You seem like a pretty smart person.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-03 13:03:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-03 10:34:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
OCG, I said I'd adopt if I could. I can't.
-----------------
Yes. Read the last line. You're one of the ones who has been civil and well-spoken. Thank you.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-11-03 11:41:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Rad - I am sorry for your loss. That's just awful.
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-03 10:34:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
OCG, I said I'd adopt if I could. I can't.
Submitted by WhoLetYouIn (user info) at 2004-11-03 09:44:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Women are responsible for what goes in and what comes out of their coochies.
It is NOT the state's responsibility unless it harms the possible happiness of someone else....
Who is to say what this child will be?
This is really a rhetorical question. However, I think girls should just be a little more responsible about themselves and go to the fucking store and buy some condoms dammit. Stop drinking and fucking. Get on the pill....
and mothers, stop being spineless and be straight with your girls for chrissakes.
Whatever. Having the choice is good, but I think until we figure out the life-line according to fetuses, the state should butt out.
And that's what I feel about that.
Submitted by captainflibby (user info) at 2004-11-03 08:27:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Rad, I condone your antidisestablishmentarianism.
Sorry about your loss, I had to take that. I may never successfully use that word again.
My understanding of the abortion issue is that some people find it an extremely offensive idea while others have very compelling reasons for using it. I don't have any personal experience but I'm sure that an abortion would be one of the most terrible choices that anybody would have to make. I know where you stand and I'm pretty sure you can guess where I stand but the point is that that decision should not be forced either way.
the gray area comes down to the morality of the choice. Some may see it in black and white, either as equivalent to premeditated murder or as a casual choice (admittedly I know of nobody who sees it this way) but it easy for most to justify an abortion in cases of rape . There's one of many shades of gray. the point is that peoples views differ and it would be wrong to deny them what they see as the best choice for both mother and embryo.
I'm not an Pro-choice activist or anything and honestly have given this only a little thought so I welcome any logical argument but please keep sentiments and religion out of it
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-03 07:17:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-02 21:01:20 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd adopt if I could. However, that argument isn't very strong. That would be like my asking every person who felt that our planet was overpopulated whether they'd be willing to go kill someone.
-------------------
Try again. If you think that children should be forced to be put up for adoption and abortion should be illegal, you should be willing to do some of the adopting instead in languishing in a system where they will be neglected. If you aren't willing to actually do it, it means that you aren't willing to be a part of what you call the solution, making you part of the problem. At least according to everything I've heard our (most likely re-elected) president saying for the entire campaign.
That said, I'm glad you're one of the few willing to do something instead of spitting hatred. You know who I'm talking about.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-11-03 06:13:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Rad, I am so sorry for your loss. Having a miscarriage is devastating. Please take good care of your wife, and yourself.
All my best.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-03 03:19:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
My wife miscarried last week. Her doctor confirmed it today. I am all fucked up over it, please excuse any emotional ramblings. So let me spell this out for you people who try to justify things about this issue.
Fuck you.
Fuck you because you take life for granted.
Fuck you because you place one persons right to comfort over another's right to live.
Fuck you because you cannot face the moral implications for your ideaology.
Fuck you if you are too ignorant to formulate a viable justification for abortions. (not you Lojope)
Fuck you if you hate the fact that no matter how much you think women have been wronged in the past, the best you are going to get is equal, not better.
Fuck you if you are a disestablishmentarianist who hates law enforcement.
Fuck you if you are "pro-choice", but hate that some women choose to stay married, loyal, and at home with the kids.
Fuck you if you hate women who want a white picket fence.
Fuck you because I love my wife
Fuck you because I love my kid who was flushed down the toilet last wednesday.
Submitted by Disektor (user info) at 2004-11-03 03:15:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Guys would be pro-choice too if they were the ones bearing children? Now how the fuck would anyone know that? Ah right, you don't, so quit trying to use that as a fucking argument. Same goes for the whole concept of guys having children, how fucking stupid are you people?
It's quite simple really, so I'll break it down for you dimwitted individuals out there.
1. Women give birth to children.
2. Women.. knowing full well that they can get pregnant from having unprotected sex, should be responsible for taking the neccessary precautions when engaging in sexual activity.
Simply put, if you are female, and you get pregnant, you should under only VERY VERY VERY few circumstances be allowed to have an abortion because you engaged in sexual activity knowing for a fact that you have a chance of becoming pregnant. Don't want a kid? Don't have sex. I know it must be horrifying to have to take responsibility for your own actions, but it was your fucking choice, so.. deal with it.
Guys don't have to help you if they get you pregnant, and if you're stupid enough to be sleeping with a guy that will run out on you if you do get pregnant, then you're a fucking retard anyways, and I don't feel sorry for you at all.
Loren, I know it must be a great feeling knowing that if you do become pregnant you can dispose of the baby at will. The sense of power.. knowing that you hold in your fate the life of another human being, and that you can take that life away at a whim.. I bet thats a wonderful feeling.
Well.. hell, regardless of a humans age the mother should have the right to decide whether they live or die, right Loren? I mean life would be just be great if you could kill your child if they were misbehaving too much.
I'm all for womens rights, but for me.. the right to live and survive.. that right is a little more powerful than the right to kill at will.
Submitted by JohnGalt (user info) at 2004-11-03 00:55:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Loren, I don't know if you're still reading this, but it appears that I was wrong. They just did an interview with Senator Frist, the Senate Majority Leader, and he said they DO plan to push the Pro-Life agenda in the Senate if Bush is elected (the "re" left off intentionally). They did manage to get the ban on partial birth abortions through, as well as the violent crimes against fetuses legislation. I don't know how close those were though. I would hope that at least some of the people that voted for those two would still be against a total ban on abortion. If not, we're going to see a lot of girls running to back alleys to get them done. I just hope that if it does happen they have enough sense to repeal it pretty quickly.
Submitted by jtber (user info) at 2004-11-02 23:54:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Your a dumbass OCG
your saying
"hey I fucked up and now you have to pick up my slack and deal with my shit.
What!?! you wont do it for me (adopt my kid). Well then dont tell me not to KILL it then, if YOU wont take care of it."
That could be the stupidest arguement ever.
--Oh and by the way, i just shit myself after reading that stupid comment, but i dont wanna wipe my ass, so you fucking do it! Oh, well you dont wanna wipe my ass so I'm not gonna wipe yours!--
Fuck off you stupid ignorant asshohle
JT
Submitted by jtber (user info) at 2004-11-02 23:46:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i am pro-life, yet pro-choice.
I believe that abortion is wrong, yet i believe that becuase of a religous conviction. I believe that the unborn baby is a living thing.
BUT, how in the hell can i prove it??? Theres no way to prove when a fetus is its own being or still apart of the women. Yet because of some research, ideas presented by my church, and the fact that killing a pregnant women is a double count of murder(which i do not know how the government can even support abortion then, if they ruled it counts as TWO murders), I am pro-life Therefore, I'll leave it up to everyone else to decide for themselves, however, I have a clear stance that I am pro-life and would support anyone that is fighting for the abolishment of abortion.
JT
By the way, if people are too lazy to use protection, I'm suprised too many of them arent too lazy to drive to the abortion clinic.
Submitted by Schaden (user info) at 2004-11-02 22:38:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Why do people give a shit what other people do?
Meh...
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-02 21:01:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd adopt if I could. However, that argument isn't very strong. That would be like my asking every person who felt that our planet was overpopulated whether they'd be willing to go kill someone.
Submitted by Jerems (user info) at 2004-11-02 20:48:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
the gray area...
isn't that like a bling spot while driving?
Submitted by Ashlee <@ work> at 2004-11-02 19:41:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I would, if the people who decided that shit would let me.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-02 19:33:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Question for the anti-abortion crowd.
How many of you are willing to run out and adopt a child who would otherwise be aborted?
If you aren't, shut the fuck up - you are showing that you aren't willing to walk the walk.
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-02 19:30:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I am an anti-abortionist, not an "all killing is wrong"-ist. Somebody early on in this thread said that so-called pro-lifers should be vegans or else they were hypocrites, since "all life is sacred" or whatever some people say. I don't use the label pro-life for that reason: somebody always pounces.
Some killing is justified. Attack my children and I will kill you with a fucking hammer, for instance.
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-11-02 19:23:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2004-11-02 16:22:37 (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm all for choice.
...but the brilliant lojope still has the worse logic ever.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Let me break it down for you.
My silly extremist arguments were all basically to show this:
Until we find a way to surgically attach men to their unborn children, saying that abortion should be illegal in an effort to "make women take responsibility for their actions" is a big load of crap.
Don't take it as anything more or different than it is.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-02 19:16:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-02 19:13:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
I am, OCG, and I can see you from a mile away.
---------------------
So killing is wrong except when it isn't? I know, you saw it coming....
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-02 19:13:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I am, OCG, and I can see you from a mile away.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-02 19:01:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Raimee <pirynne_18.at.yahoo.com> at 2004-11-02 18:44:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
Partial Abortion :absouletly fucking disguisting,fucking murder, its like murdering a kitten or something... and in no means can it be good for a womans body.
I agree with you at points....like if someone is raped....
What about this, ADOPTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ABORTION....there are plenty of people that want babies, they go to Russia and China....etc...maybe some of these women who have abortions should be at least 22% less selfish and think of that......abortion fucking makes me sick at times....my biological mother had 6 kids, gave two up...never once thought about killing one of us.....think about that people.
---------------
Yes, and there are tens of thousands of American babies waiting to be adopted. Maybe we should impose a massive tariff on importing babies before we've exhausted the domestic supply.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-11-02 19:00:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
So how many anti-abortion, "killing is wrong" people support the death penalty?
Submitted by someone (user info) at 2004-11-02 18:58:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Abortion ROXXXX!!!111ONE
Submitted by Jesus_Loves_TwEE (user info) at 2004-11-02 18:48:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Im for Abortion. If its republican babies getting the axe.
Submitted by Raimee <pirynne_18.at.yahoo.com> at 2004-11-02 18:44:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Partial Abortion :absouletly fucking disguisting,fucking murder, its like murdering a kitten or something... and in no means can it be good for a womans body.
I agree with you at points....like if someone is raped....
What about this, ADOPTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ABORTION....there are plenty of people that want babies, they go to Russia and China....etc...maybe some of these women who have abortions should be at least 22% less selfish and think of that......abortion fucking makes me sick at times....my biological mother had 6 kids, gave two up...never once thought about killing one of us.....think about that people.
Submitted by jeetkunetony (user info) at 2004-11-02 18:37:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Who the fuck said double bag it? That increases the chances of the condom coming off.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2004-11-02 18:26:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
*sigh* I find it funny how people have watered themselves down so much, they still call themselves "pro-choice." I see right through it.
Submitted by Acarnis (user info) at 2004-11-02 16:22:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm all for choice.
...but the brilliant lojope still has the worse logic ever.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2004-11-02 16:05:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I'm pro-your-death
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2004-11-02 14:02:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
As to lojope's argument of medical procedure wouldn't it be more likely comparing it to liposuction or nose jobs? You get rid of something you don't like about you so that you raise your self esteem.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2004-11-02 13:43:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-02 03:46:44 (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey Munkeypants,
Awhie ago who asked me what I am doing for the unwanted children. Now that you know what I do for a living, does anything I am saying hold any more water?
----------------------------
regarding this argument? not at all. any other argument? maybe. I have all the respect in the
world for our law enforement, fire fighters, soldiers, and emergency personnel.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you on this issue.
I really don't want you to think I am all for ripping a viable fetus from the womb
and killing it. As I have stated several times there is a point where it's too late to have doubts. 3 weeks in? decide now. 3 weeks until birth? too late. Decide adoption or keeping it.
Lemme ask you this... what about the morning after pill? what about taking a pill that
would halt potential conception or cause the uterus to abort a "possible fetus" a few days
after sex? would you scream that I just killed a baby?
what bothers me is that if I get raped OR if I were pregnant and I found that the baby is
going to come out deaf, blind and retarded ,with no arms and legs, that because of
anti abotionists I would not have the right to choose what I feel is necessary.. THAT is what bothers me.
Looking at the big picture... my uncle went to russia to adopt. He left here expecting
to come home with one and he came home with 4 children (hey, he's a doctor... he can afford it).
Over there they have 3-4 babies in one crib. Some of them do not grow because they do not
receive the proper nutrition. They just lie there all day, listless. Occaisionally one will die and it may be hours or days before they are discovered. At two years they still cannot walk and are too underfed to move much. There are hundreds of them in one single orphanage.
See, me... I look at the big picture. I see thousands of unwanted children already in existance.
I read about teenagers having babies them dumping them because they don't want their
parents to find out. I read about women who, before abortion, would stick coathangers up their
hoo hoos because they had no alternative. I see babies being born addicted to crack. And I see this world being overpopulated and overrun by mankind. I see mankind destroying the earth because we are too numerous for earth to sustain us. Maybe one less unwanted child...
I'm sorry... in most cases I'm a bleeding heart. But with this I have to be a realist.
In a perfect world every baby would come out beautiful and have two loving parents. Every
mother would treat her body well as she carries a life within. Society would teach the child
to become a good citizen and the child would grow up to become a productive member of society
and one day have a family of their own.
This is not a perfect world. Not even fucking close.
And if I am raped then it's my body that was violated. I want the right to
choose not to carry my rapists spawn. If my baby is going to come out as
a vegetable then I have to right to decide not to bring it into a miserable existance.
you are saying I don't. you are saying that there are no exeptions.
Submitted by Julia (user info) at 2004-11-02 12:56:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
PFAUST! PFAUST! PFAUST!
Two, four, six, eight,
Get out there and go fellate!
Eight, six, four, two,
Just don't wear those ugly shoes!
I love politics.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-11-02 12:19:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I have NEVER been able to spell that word. It has been the bane of my existance since it lost me the county spelling bee championship in the fifth grade. THANKS FOR BRINGING BACK THOSE MEMORIES, BITCH!
Get on AIM. I have 2 hours before work and I need someone to talk to!
Submitted by Kristen (user info) at 2004-11-02 12:16:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ash, you went all dyslexic with your spelling of "necessary" in this review: http://www.ubersite.com/m/50132#925897
:o)
Submitted by dicquellis (user info) at 2004-11-02 12:07:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by lojope (user info) at 2004-11-02 11:47:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Should the legality of that operation be constantly called into question as well?
That fact is, that, according to medical definition, the fetus is no more than a mass of cells. Does abortion kill those cells? Yes. But chemo attempts to kill a mass of cells too.
So shouldn't the same morality apply?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those cancer cells are destroying your body. The cancer is killing you. Chemo is trying to save your life. A fetus is the start of a life. How could the same morality possibly apply?
Submitted by InkyFingers (user info) at 2004-11-02 12:05:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I am a pro-choice advocate for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there