And, without question, the current extremism directed against prominent abortion providers -- ranging from anthrax threats to assassinations -- would gain implicit acceptance among that broad body of anti-choice rank-and-filers who are rigidly and irredeemably convinced that abortion is "evil" and just another form of "murder".
Oh puleeze! You've gone off the deep end. With the exception of one poster here, I've seen "anti-abortionists"condemn that sort of behavior.
That's because women, and young girls, will go on getting pregnant not so much simply against their wishes, but contrary to the possibilities for motherhood (or being a mother of yet another child) that their conditions and circumstances objectively allow.
That being the undeniable case, the real "choice" pertaining to this whole question is whether the resulting abortions will occur in safe, legal, and freely accessible surroundings...or in the deadly dangerous venues of outlaw butchery performed by those, often with underworld links, who would exploit their "trouble" for blood money.
At every pro-choice rally there'll be older women who had firsthand experience with the horrors that cost so many female lives before Roe v. Wade. I've often thought, that for the sake of balance, those women's memories should be excerpted on highway billboards to counter the anti-choice signs that manipulatively show cute, born babies which disingenuously suggest that they were identical in first-trimester time, practically playing with rattles in the womb.
Such billboards might say: "Sarah, only 15, hemorrhaged to death in a dingy waterfront hotel room, crying for her mother. All I could do was hold her hand..."
The outrageously presumptive, bogusly pious, and unabashedly tyrannical anti-choice movement's "values" incessantly intimate that those who find themselves unwantedly pregnant got that way because they were supposedly careless, irresponsible and essentially promiscuous.
The onus is placed squarely on the female, who is portrayed as character deficient and un-Godly. NEVER is first blame put on the male involved, although guys are generally the sexual initiator, the physically stronger, and the carnally weaker.
All this is key to counterposing the "sin" of the girl or woman against the "innocence" of the "baby" that she seeks to abort -- as an allegedly wanton killer.
There are some who try to set themselves apart from anti-choice extremism by claiming they'd support abortion in cases of incest or rape. Well, pregnancies resulting from incest are actually quite rare, certainly much smaller than those stemming from contraceptive failure. And can anyone doubt that date rape results in many more pregnancies than "real" rape in attacks, often by total strangers? So where do you draw the line?
More importantly, what business do any of us have trying to find out how the pregnancy came about? After all, this is the ultimate "privacy issue".
No female in that trying state should be grilled to ascertain if she meets somebody else's abortion criteria.
There ought to be no limiting factors whatever, with the words "I need an abortion" being sufficient to get the procedure quickly performed in the most free and safe way possible.
No moral stigmatizing, or second guessing by anyone else.
Just respect for a personal decision that should not be denied or qualified simply because Strom Thurmond doesn't like it.
NEVER is first blame put on the male involved, although guys are generally the sexual initiator, the physically stronger, and the carnally weaker.
If the decision to abort were up to the male, then you'd have a case.
I agree that the male is equally responsible as do the courts (Child support). However, they do not have equal rights. Men have no say in abortion. Therefore it's downright stupid to blame men for abortion.
Good luck with your sausage catapault. Try tin if availible, it will pick up on radar alot better.
You apparently arent here to debate or have conversation. Too bad, although you or I are diametricly opposed and about as opposite as two people can get politically I usually listen to what you have to say and try to keep an open mind. I disagree with you obviously 99% of the time as you do me. But I do try to keep an open mind and listen to others opinions and sometimes understand a posistion better.
Now if you'd like to debate, argue, discuss etc, that's great. I'd love to. If not, so be it, I shant lose any sleep.
Now again with a few rare exceptions and or posters I haven't seen anyone here say that they support filiming women having abortions, bobming clinics, killing doctors etc etc. I have heard nothing but the opposite of people who might oppose abortion yet detest or denounce those tactics. I think it's too easy to lump anyone who oposses abortion into an extreme element as the sure fire way to wite them off or associate their opinions with the fringe element.
Many times I have seen you defend the Palestinain people and the Islamic faith as a good cause taken over by extremists. Perhaps you could apply the same standards and give the ones as mentioned above the same benefit of the doubt.
Yesterday you asked why pro life people arent concerned with the children being killed by U.S bombs, sanctions etc. Although I feel it's not comparible I guess I could ask the same of you. Continually you rail against the war on terrorism, the policy in Iraq, etc. etc. ad nauseum. So I could ask the same of you, why don't you care about these children being aborted. There are two sides to a coin and the same questions you ask could also be asked of you. Now I think I know your answer as you know what mine and others are. So for this thread perhaps we can limit it to abortion as much as possible.
There are many things you attribute to anyone who opposes abortion. Mainly, you classify it as sexist. O.K what about women opposed to abortion? Have they just surrendered to this male dominated world and are unable to think for themselves ? If so that in itself is sexist and dgrading. You also assert that people view women who have an abortion as slutty, easy etc. Quite the contrary. Any women can get pregnant if biologicly possible regardless of her promiscuity or lack there of. Even if someone is responsible a pregnancy can result because there's no guarantee with birth control, nothing is 100%. It's a matter of what happens when the unexpected occurs. How or what actions does that person take once she finds out she's pregnant ?
You claimed that there are barriers for women who wish to give their child up for adoption. Perhaps you could provide some information on that.
One more thing as Columbo used to say. You claim that you would never force your values or morals on someone. Do you really believe that you don't ? Perhaps you could explain better but being completly nuetral means you aren't for taxation since you are imposing values morals or wishes upon someone else. Do you favor gun control ? Do you favor drug laws ? Do you favor or oppose porn availible in libraries ?
"There ought to be no limiting factors whatever, with the words "I need an abortion" being sufficient to get the procedure quickly performed in the most free and safe way possible."
I'm not sure that even I agree with this notion. If someone wants to have something like a sex change operation, they have to go through all kinds of things to make sure they are making the right decision before they can actually undergo the operation. Even if you just wanted something like breast implants or a face lift, I assume there is some kind of consultation that goes on where you are informed of the benefits vs. the risks so you can make an informed decision. I don't see why abortion should be any different. And I don't have any actual statistics, but I would suspect that if not a majority, at least a significant amount of women who get abortions are teenagers. If they already knew everything they needed to know, they wouldn't be in that situation. There really are women out there who get abortions and regret it all their lives. Consequently I don't think anyone should get one without first being informed of all the risks and all their options. While I'm in favor of having abortion legal, I wouldn't generally recommend it as a first choice.
And then as for Luv2Fly's comment on how people in the future will look back on abortion, I imagine it will be something more like this: "Can you believe back then people were still getting pregnant indiscriminantly? They'd even get pregnant sometimes when they didn't want to and would actually abort the baby!" Outlawing abortion isn't the answer. Preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place is.
Outlawing abortion isn't the answer. Preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place is.
I would agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is the FIRST step absolutely no question, no pregnancy = no abortion. But there will always be exceptions and then from there is what is at question but I agree whole heartedly that we need to prevent them first and foremost.
Dennis,
You are against ANY restrictions, waiting peiod, or PARENTAL notification.
How about a new chain of clinics, called McAbortion. Hell you could have a drive through.
Just goes to show what some extremeist Abortion supporters would like to see it become.
Abortion stops the beating heart of an innocent child. No child deserves for such a horrid death to be a "legal choice".
Have you read or heard any interviews from the women in the Ros VS Wade case, you know the women who was pressured by big business abortion providers to lie?
Her lie has haunted her ever since that horrid day.
She is now one of the BIGGEST Pro-Life supporters.
"When President Clinton signed the welfare reform act of 1996, critics prophesied disaster. Would women and children pay the price? Concerned scholars and foundations thoughtfully put together studies to monitor not just how many welfare cases got closed, but how mothers and children fared under welfare reform."
...
"But the larger good news, impossible to disguise, is that since welfare reform, the trends in family formation have, for the first time, begun to reverse. Unwed childbearing stopped rising. Marriage rates in low-income parents rose, especially among African-Americans. Previous economic booms produced no such family turnaround. Looking (as this study does) only at single moms of preschool children who enter welfare ignores the biggest beneficiaries of welfare reform: women (and men) who because of welfare reform decided to postpone pregnancy, or to marry, or to avoid welfare altogether."
"Can we make welfare more marriage-friendly? Yes. Should we try? Of course. The good news is that by highlighting the alleged bad news about marriage rates, even The New York Times is now conceding that marriage matters."
They contained a positive message of encouragement for women experiencing "crisis" pregnancies. A list of resources was included to help women who choose life for their babies. She explained that she had printed hundreds of copies and was distributing them throughout her area. These are her words:
Did you know that God can turn a mistake into a miracle?
I am living proof. I gave my life to the Lord two years ago and since then he has performed many miracles in my life despite my disobedience.
I am 22 years old and I am expecting my second child. Most would consider this a tragedy. Another statistic.
How sad. How sad? No, how wonderful!
I wanted to share this with you because through my pain God has done a miraculous work in me. Through my tears He has been by my side.
I turned my back on Him when my son's father decided he wanted to get back together with me. I hid from my close friends who know Christ. I didn't want to share that I was back enjoying my sin. I was getting all of my physical needs met consistently, but my soul ached to be right again.
I knew it wasn't God who had put us back together because the relationship was pulling me away from God. God would not do that. But it felt Oh, so good to be held, to be loved, to be desired by someone I had prayed would love me again.
He promised me the world on a platter: marriage after graduation, a big house, trips and the family I always wanted. I trusted him and gave myself to him.
Now, I'm 8 months pregnant and he hasn't spoken a kind word to me in about 7 months. I refused to have an abortion and he walked away from me, without looking back.
This child of mine is one of many miracles that God has blessed me with. If it had not been for my love for God, he would not be growing inside of me right now.
By showing God that I appreciate the gift he has blessed me with, he has provided me with a wonderful place to live, a healthy baby (thank god) and a wonderful son who's almost two and loves me to no end. the most beautiful thing is, I see God's reflection in his smile.
I have faith that since God has allowed me to face this situation, he will bring me through it. It was a big mistake to reunite with sin. But, God had a plan. And now I have a powerful testimony to share and encourage others.
I now know that one of my tasks as a child of God is to use my tears to wash away the tears of others. I am working diligently to help women like myself who are pregnant and have considered abortion to erase the pain. An abortion may take away the physical responsibility of a child, but a drastic act like that will leave a permanent mark on your soul.
If you are facing a situation similiar to mine and you need help or some encouraging words, contact me. I have a pamplet to send you and I can put you in touch with other women like you.
Remember: Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy. Psalms 126:5
The Right always sneaks exploitable prejudice into its positions.
For instance, it appeals to potential racial and class biases by getting us to attach the welfare question to negatively stereotyped residents from very poor and minority communities.
Same with things like privatization of public schools.
Abortion is no exception.
The anti-choice mob wants us to envision abortion seekers coming from impoverished neighborhoods having ethnic and racial identities different than our own.
Doing so meshes with whatever bigotry we may already possess.
That makes the demonization of abortion seekers that much easier.
But what if they're seated across the supper table from us, under our own roofs?
Are you a parent?
Do you have a daughter?
What would happen to her if she became pregnant under circumstances that made having the baby impossible -- but with abortion banned in America?
Ask the same question about your sisters, nieces, aunts, and female cousins.
Maybe even your wife.
At best, they'd risk becoming outlaws.
At worst, they could die under frighteningly dangerous blackmarket abortion conditions, as so many horribly did before Roe v. Wade.
Is that a chance you'll take for your loved ones, based solely on the fetus fetishism of extremists?
That's why the only "pro-life" stance I'll accept is one which expresses itself this way:
"I'm opposed to abortion. I'd personally never have one. But that's me. You're you. You have to reach your own conclusion."
Anything less tolerant or broadminded facilitates abolishing abortion.
Which would mean my female loved ones would be deprived of a safe and legal option they may require in the future, forcing them to become lawbreakers to acquire a bootleg pregnancy termination, with great risk to their health and very lives.
I absolutely despise conservatives for working feverishly to place them in that dreadful position.
AUG. 22 marks the five-year anniversary of welfare reform – "ending welfare as we know it." The new policy has been touted as a success by politicians and the media. Welfare caseloads are at a historic low; thousands of former welfare recipients are in the workforce. But we can't forget the real face of welfare: women, mothers, workers, survivors, and most important, children. Women and their children represent the vast majority of people on welfare.
To really understand the impact of welfare reform, we can't simply count the numbers; we must look at the quality of life of people on welfare. Have we reduced poverty at the same rate as we have our caseloads? Are the food lines shorter at St. Anthony? Are our families better off after welfare reform? The answer is no.
Mothers on welfare often have to make tough decisions about whether to pay for housing, utilities, child care, or food. Since welfare "reform" was enacted, emergency food assistance programs have seen a 76 percent increase in requests. While welfare caseloads have been cut by an average of 50 percent, there has been only a 2 percent decrease in poverty. (Keep in mind that these numbers are from the economic "boom" years.) Women are being forced into low-wage service-sector jobs with few benefits and less job security. In general, women make 75¢ for every white man's dollar. African American women make only 65¢, and Latinas make only 55¢.
Women of color face greater discrimination. Studies show that women of color are being diverted from the welfare rolls and forced off welfare at much higher rates than white women. Research also shows that white recipients receive more encouragement, support, and direct assistance – child care, education, and training – than women of color. They are also leaving the rolls at a higher rate, because they've found employment.
Welfare in California mandates the "work first" model: recipients are supposed to get a job, any job. For many women, those are dead-end jobs. Welfare reform limits vocational training, and bachelor's degrees are not an option for women on welfare. These draconian restrictions contradict the supposed goals of the legislation. Higher education has proved to be the number-one determinant in income earning ability. Numerous studies shows that two-thirds of women who leave welfare as a result of education will not return to the rolls. More important, their children will not need assistance during their adult lives.
Women are the primary caregivers in our society. However, poor women's role as caregiver is undermined and dismissed by current welfare legislation. Mothers are being forced into the workforce even if they have to resort to unsafe and tenuous child care. Many are victims of domestic violence and are trying to overcome other barriers to prepare themselves not just to get a job but to get a job with a living wage – and to keep that job.
Welfare legislation must be reauthorized by Oct. 1, 2002. So Congress has a real opportunity to eliminate poverty and increase the standard of living for poor families. Congress must stop welfare time limits for women working in low-wage jobs, for women in an education or training program, and for women caring for their young children or overcoming domestic violence. Congress must boldly address racism and sexism, discrimination that is destroying the potential of an entire class. This capitalist society must invest in human capital, if we are to survive.
#2) You never answered me on what you think about the woman (Norma) from Roe vs Wade changing her position, feeling bad about her lie, and being one of the top Pro-life supporters??????????????????
Rightwing anti-choice abortion fanaticism is built on a foundation of lies:
LIE NUMBER ONE: "Abortion is unsafe." This is an outrageous fallacy purposely spread to attempt to frighten women from exercising their reproductive rights. In a sanitary setting with the procedure performed by trained personnel, abortion is perhaps THE safest of all invasive medical acts. In outlaw circumstances such as those which prevailed before Roe v. Wade, however, where bartenders and beauticians moonlight as "doctors", in the deadliest of septic settings, abortions obtained by desperate women and girls are often fatal.
LIE NUMBER TWO: "Those who get pregnant against their wishes are irresponsible or careless." Nobody can actually know the hows and whys of specific, unwanted pregnancies, but it can be generally stated that they range all the way from teenage inexperience and lack of knowledge to contraceptive failure among married couples with existing families. No condemnatory judgments should be made in this area, but anti-choice demagogues routinely do, to demonize females who feel a need to terminate their unacceptable pregnancies, in full accordance with law.
LIE NUMBER THREE: "Babies" are aborted. The manipulative use of terms like "person" or "child" to define an in utero fetus is common in anti-choice propaganda, reaching absurdities that were subsequently thoroughly debunked by medical professionals viewing the purposely inflammatory video, "The Silent Scream".
LIE NUMBER FOUR: "Abortion is murder". Once females with pregnancies their life circumstances can't allow to be brought to term are maliciously painted as promiscuously immoral for "permitting" their condition to have arisen in the first place, and once they're cruelly depicted as "selfish" for entering a women's health clinic, they then get accused of being complicit in "killing children" -- a medical, scientific and legal absurdity which strives to equate, essentially, obtaining an abortion with, say, robbing a convenience store and shooting to death the counter clerk in doing so. All part of the blatantly sexist anti-choice strategy of trying to make women in high states of anxiety and distress as it is...jump through assorted flaming hoops in an effort to PREVENT their legal reproductive option.
LIE NUMBER FIVE: "Abortion is un-Godly." Abortion is viewed very differently by different religions, and even within denominations of particular religions. That it's judged to be Satanic by fundamentalists, be they Islamic Taliban or American evangelicals, doesn't universalize its purported wickedness on faith-based terms. The abortion choice should be made by individual women, in carefully-weighed assessment of their circumstances, and in accordance with their beliefs, religious and otherwise. In countless cases worldwide, choosing abortion is actually religiously acceptable. Thus, to attempt to deny abortion is not only a violation of personal liberty, but it can be a violation of religious freedom as well. All part and parcel of the morally imperialistic tyranny -- and pervasive dishonesty -- upon which radical anti-choice interference is based.
The anti-choice mob wants us to envision abortion seekers coming from impoverished neighborhoods having ethnic and racial identities different than our own.
What utter nonsense.
That makes the demonization of abortion seekers that much easier.
It is easy to demonize anyone that wants to kill children or turns their head while others do it.
Do you have a daughter?
What would happen to her if she became pregnant under circumstances that made having the baby impossible -- but with abortion banned in America?
If "impossible" you mean the daughter couldn't suport the child, I would do so or see about adoption.
At best, they'd risk becoming outlaws.
That is true choice!
At worst, they could die under frighteningly dangerous blackmarket abortion conditions, as so many horribly did before Roe v. Wade.
Or they could have the child. Maybe they would be more careful if they had to be more responsible.
"I'm opposed to abortion. I'd personally never have one. But that's me. You're you. You have to reach your own conclusion."
"I'm opposed to murder. I'd personally never commit it. But that's me. You're you. You have to reach your own conclusion. But don't murder me."
Which would mean my female loved ones would be deprived of a safe and legal option they may require in the future, forcing them to become lawbreakers to acquire a bootleg pregnancy termination, with great risk to their health and very lives.
Lawbreaking is a choice.
I absolutely despise conservatives for working feverishly to place them in that dreadful position.
For someone who proclaims to seek truth you have no problem bending twisting or running it through the garbage disposal like a forgotten spoon.
For instance, it appeals to potential racial and class biases by getting us to attach the welfare question to negatively stereotyped residents from very poor and minority communities. Â Â
Same with things like privatization of public schools.
Well first of all Dennis, every survey of minority and underprivelaged families show an overwhelming majority of parents would love to be able to send their kids to private schools. Then again if they did you might have to actually start changing a horribly broken system that your bretheren helped create and you'd have less political pawns to use. Yea your pro-choice allright as long as it isn't a real choice or one that keeps underprivelaged kids in bad schools, you'd rather keep them there instead of giving them a choice. Sure thing Mr. freedom, I guess it's only freedom and choice when you decide. Hypocrites.
Abortion is no exception.
The anti-choice mob wants us to envision abortion seekers coming from impoverished neighborhoods having ethnic and racial identities different than our own.
Really, wow it's that easy. hmm yes throw a racist card in there it's easy predictable and so worn out that actual cases of racism get lost in the tidal wave of false accusations and inuendo that you and others choose to use. Oh you forgot to throw facist in there and a good Hitler line too. That'o.k , we understand, doing so actually saves you from having to have a real debate and you can run for the safe havens of dismissing anything you disagree with to racism, classism, etc. That's O.K I'm sure you're used to others doing the heavy lifting for you.
Doing so meshes with whatever bigotry we may already possess.
Really so you admit your a bigot. Great those self awareness classes are coming in handy I see.
That makes the demonization of abortion seekers that much easier.
Or those who oppose abortion simply because they feel it morally wrong. But if all these opposed to abortion were so racist thne wouldn't they be glad to see less of those people in the world ? Never thought of that did you, no, that would require actual critical thought. You would know all about the easy way out since you demonstrate it every day.
In countless cases worldwide, choosing abortion is actually religiously acceptable.
Really, can you list these worldwide religions that find it acceptable ? Naw that would actually be having to find the truth. You claim it's only the extremist sections of religion that disapprove of it or find it wrong. You're full of it. Most of Christianity, Judism, Buddism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Find it unacceptable I'm sure there's one or two and I won't count whatever cult you belong too. You quote scripture from time to time but know little about it. Yes Dennis, I'm sure God is just thrilled that we allow his creation to be wantonly destroyed. But you poorly attempt to portray it as the majority. Keep taking the easy way out, it's much easier for you to spew hatred and much easier for you to make up lies than it is to tell the truth.
Maybe they would be more careful if they had to be more responsible.
This statement and others like it just piss me off with their implied sexism. Everytime a woman gets pregnant when she didn't want to be, it's her own fault because she chose to have sex. The logical conclusion from that notion being that women should never have sex unless they're ready and willing to have a child. Which in turn leads to the notion that sex is only for procreation and it's the woman's responsibility to enforce that moral standard, and if she doesn't, then she must resign herself to being a baby-making machine. And you all find that perfectly acceptable?
Which in turn leads to the notion that sex is only for procreaztion and it's the woman's responsibility to enforce that moral standard, and if she doesn't, then she must resign herself to being a baby-making machine.
This statement and others like it just piss me off with their implicit nonsense.
Everytime a woman gets pregnant when she didn't want to be, it's her own fault because she chose to have sex.
The trouble with this is that as it stands, women have all the power in regards to abortion. Men don't have a say after she becomes pregnant. Therefore by default the woman owns the brunt of the responsibility/blame. Sorry but it's just the way it is.
The logical conclusion from that notion being that women should never have sex unless they're ready and willing to have a child.
Pretty much sums it up. People should be willing to take responsibility for their actions. If they are unwilling, well, don't do the action.
Which in turn leads to the notion that sex is only for procreaztion and it's the woman's responsibility to enforce that moral standard, and if she doesn't, then she must resign herself to being a baby-making machine.
That's silly. I don't know anyone that has sex simply for procreation. Regarding a woman's responsibility, see above.
And you all find that perfectly acceptable?
Not by your description but I disagree with your description.
That's silly. I don't know anyone that has sex simply for procreation. Regarding a woman's responsibility, see above.
How can you come to any other conclusion? Contraceptives aren't completely reliable and sometimes fail. I know one woman who had three kids, each one the result of a different contraceptive failing. Yet you would say that was her fault because she chose to have sex (and she was married by the way). Well if that's the case, the only way to be sure to not get pregnant when you don't want to be is to enforce the idea that sex is for procreation only. Or are you saying it's ok to get an abortion if you tried not to get pregnant but did anyway?
Yet you would say that was her fault because she chose to have sex
Not fault but responsibility.
Yes, I will say, "If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex". This is a far cry from saying sex is for procreation only. It's a matter of taking responsibility for ones actions.
Tell me why it is that a man/woman has no choice in regards to child support? A person can't just say "I didn't want the kid so I'm not going to pay". The judge will say "Well you should have thought about that before you had sex".
Yes, I will say, "If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex". This is a far cry from saying sex is for procreation only.
It's not a far cry. It's exactly the same thing!
Tell me why it is that a man/woman has no choice in regards to child support? A person can't just say "I didn't want the kid so I'm not going to pay". The judge will say "Well you should have thought about that before you had sex".
I'm not so sure I agree with that either. But that's a rather compex subject that I'm not sure I have a good answer to yet.
And assuming your wife doesn't want any more kids at this point either, if she did get pregnant, would you say it was her fault for having sex with you and therefore she must take responsibility for it?
And assuming your wife doesn't want any more kids at this point either, if she did get pregnant, would you say it was her fault for having sex with you and therefore she must take responsibility for it?
By default, in regards to abortion, the responsibility rests on her for I have no choice in the matter. I don't like it but that's just the way it is.
I would like to have some legal say in the matter but truth is I don't.
So yes, therefore the "responsibility" rests on her.
Just as I know that I may potentially be paying child support for the next 21 years should she become pregnant. That is my "responsibility".
The problem is that if you ban abortion and force women who get pregnant when they don't want to, to have babies they either don't want or can't raise, then in the absence of perfect sex education and contraceptives, the only other alternative is to push for a sexually repressed, sex-is-for-procreation-only society. Maybe you can bear the burden of an unwanted/unexpected child, but you're saying that if you can't, then you shouldn't be allowed to have sex. And if you do anyway, then you have to bear the punishment of having your life ruined. And all this just to protect some physical body that has no soul or awareness of it's own existence.
I say the consequence to the action is you may have to get an abortion. You say the consequence is you have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, labor, and then years of devoting time and resources, perhaps even sacrificing your own happiness to support a child you didn't want and weren't ready for in the first place. Seems to me the punishment hardly fits the crime.
Yes, I will say, "If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex". This is a far cry from saying sex is for procreation only.
It's not a far cry. It's exactly the same thing!
Not exactly the same. You can have sex without getting pregnant. There are precautions. Even if precautions aren't taken there is no gurantee that pregnancy will result.
I say the consequence to the action is you may have to get an abortion. You say the consequence is you have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, labor, and then years of devoting time and resources, perhaps even sacrificing your own happiness to support a child you didn't want and weren't ready for in the first place.
Or the other choice, adoption. Then the woman has to go through nine months out of pregnancy and then labor. To spare the life of that child.
Seems to me the punishment hardly fits the crime.
Seems to me having an unwanted child isn't a punishment It's a responsibility.
The problem is that if you ban abortion and force women who get pregnant when they don't want to, to have babies they either don't want or can't raise, then in the absence of perfect sex education and contraceptives, the only other alternative is to push for a sexually repressed, sex-is-for-procreation-only society. And is there something really wrong with this? It would reduce the incidence of STD's. Or if you choose you could get involved in gay sex. That gurantees no pregnancy but still watch out for the STD's.Maybe you can bear the burden of an unwanted/unexpected child, but you're saying that if you can't, then you shouldn't be allowed to have sex. No one is saying anything about allowing people to have sex or preventing them from having sex.And if you do anyway, then you have to bear the punishment of having your life ruined. It ain't punishment it is life.And all this just to protect some physical body that has no soul or awareness of it's own existence. That is your value judgment in lieu of a living being. The child exists otherwise there would be no desire by the abortionist to end the life. As for the soul we don't even know if adults really have them. As for awareness the unborn child is aware of somethings.
I say the consequence to the action is you may have to get an abortion. You say the consequence is you have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, labor, and then years of devoting time and resources, perhaps even sacrificing your own happiness to support a child you didn't want and weren't ready for in the first place. Seems to me the punishment hardly fits the crime.
Again its not punishment it is life. Deal with the reality instead of trying to escape it.
Denise,
Abortion stops a beating heart. End of story.
Let's make sure we never go back to the unsafe illegality that stopped so many female hearts in the bloody days before Roe v. Wade.
Abortion stops a beating heart. End of story.
so does a hunter's bullet. your point?
so does a hunter's bullet. your point?
An innocent human heart?
And, without question, the current extremism directed against prominent abortion providers -- ranging from anthrax threats to assassinations -- would gain implicit acceptance among that broad body of anti-choice rank-and-filers who are rigidly and irredeemably convinced that abortion is "evil" and just another form of "murder".
Oh puleeze! You've gone off the deep end. With the exception of one poster here, I've seen "anti-abortionists"condemn that sort of behavior.
Females have gotten abortions throughout history.
They will certainly continue to do so.
That's because women, and young girls, will go on getting pregnant not so much simply against their wishes, but contrary to the possibilities for motherhood (or being a mother of yet another child) that their conditions and circumstances objectively allow.
That being the undeniable case, the real "choice" pertaining to this whole question is whether the resulting abortions will occur in safe, legal, and freely accessible surroundings...or in the deadly dangerous venues of outlaw butchery performed by those, often with underworld links, who would exploit their "trouble" for blood money.
At every pro-choice rally there'll be older women who had firsthand experience with the
horrors that cost so many female lives before Roe v. Wade. I've often thought, that for the sake of balance, those women's memories should be excerpted on highway billboards to counter the anti-choice signs that manipulatively show cute, born babies which disingenuously suggest that they were identical in first-trimester time, practically playing with rattles in the womb.
Such billboards might say: "Sarah, only 15, hemorrhaged to death in a dingy waterfront hotel room, crying for her mother. All I could do was hold her hand..."
The outrageously presumptive, bogusly pious, and unabashedly tyrannical anti-choice movement's "values" incessantly intimate that those who find themselves unwantedly pregnant got that way because they were supposedly careless, irresponsible and
essentially promiscuous.
The onus is placed squarely on the female, who is portrayed as character deficient and un-Godly. NEVER is first blame put on the male involved, although guys are generally the sexual initiator, the physically stronger, and the carnally weaker.
All this is key to counterposing the "sin" of the girl or woman against the "innocence" of
the "baby" that she seeks to abort -- as an allegedly wanton killer.
There are some who try to set themselves apart from anti-choice extremism by claiming they'd support abortion in cases of incest or rape. Well, pregnancies resulting from incest are actually quite rare, certainly much smaller than those stemming from contraceptive failure. And can anyone doubt that date rape results in many more pregnancies than "real" rape in attacks, often by total strangers? So where do you draw the line?
More importantly, what business do any of us have trying to find out how the pregnancy came about? After all, this is the ultimate "privacy issue".
No female in that trying state should be grilled to ascertain if she meets somebody else's abortion criteria.
There ought to be no limiting factors whatever, with the words "I need an abortion" being sufficient to get the procedure quickly performed in the most free and safe way possible.
No moral stigmatizing, or second guessing by anyone else.
Just respect for a personal decision that should not be denied or qualified simply because Strom Thurmond doesn't like it.
NEVER is first blame put on the male involved, although guys are generally the sexual initiator, the physically stronger, and the carnally weaker.
If the decision to abort were up to the male, then you'd have a case.
I agree that the male is equally responsible as do the courts (Child support). However, they do not have equal rights. Men have no say in abortion. Therefore it's downright stupid to blame men for abortion.
Dennis,
Good luck with your sausage catapault. Try tin if availible, it will pick up on radar alot better.
You apparently arent here to debate or have conversation. Too bad, although you or I are diametricly opposed and about as opposite as two people can get politically I usually listen to what you have to say and try to keep an open mind. I disagree with you obviously 99% of the time as you do me. But I do try to keep an open mind and listen to others opinions and sometimes understand a posistion better.
Now if you'd like to debate, argue, discuss etc, that's great. I'd love to. If not, so be it, I shant lose any sleep.
Now again with a few rare exceptions and or posters I haven't seen anyone here say that they support filiming women having abortions, bobming clinics, killing doctors etc etc. I have heard nothing but the opposite of people who might oppose abortion yet detest or denounce those tactics. I think it's too easy to lump anyone who oposses abortion into an extreme element as the sure fire way to wite them off or associate their opinions with the fringe element.
Many times I have seen you defend the Palestinain people and the Islamic faith as a good cause taken over by extremists. Perhaps you could apply the same standards and give the ones as mentioned above the same benefit of the doubt.
Yesterday you asked why pro life people arent concerned with the children being killed by U.S bombs, sanctions etc. Although I feel it's not comparible I guess I could ask the same of you. Continually you rail against the war on terrorism, the policy in Iraq, etc. etc. ad nauseum. So I could ask the same of you, why don't you care about these children being aborted. There are two sides to a coin and the same questions you ask could also be asked of you. Now I think I know your answer as you know what mine and others are. So for this thread perhaps we can limit it to abortion as much as possible.
There are many things you attribute to anyone who opposes abortion. Mainly, you classify it as sexist. O.K what about women opposed to abortion? Have they just surrendered to this male dominated world and are unable to think for themselves ? If so that in itself is sexist and dgrading. You also assert that people view women who have an abortion as slutty, easy etc. Quite the contrary. Any women can get pregnant if biologicly possible regardless of her promiscuity or lack there of. Even if someone is responsible a pregnancy can result because there's no guarantee with birth control, nothing is 100%. It's a matter of what happens when the unexpected occurs. How or what actions does that person take once she finds out she's pregnant ?
You claimed that there are barriers for women who wish to give their child up for adoption. Perhaps you could provide some information on that.
One more thing as Columbo used to say. You claim that you would never force your values or morals on someone. Do you really believe that you don't ? Perhaps you could explain better but being completly nuetral means you aren't for taxation since you are imposing values morals or wishes upon someone else. Do you favor gun control ? Do you favor drug laws ? Do you favor or oppose porn availible in libraries ?
"There ought to be no limiting factors whatever, with the words "I need an abortion" being sufficient to get the procedure quickly performed in the most free and safe way possible."
I'm not sure that even I agree with this notion. If someone wants to have something like a sex change operation, they have to go through all kinds of things to make sure they are making the right decision before they can actually undergo the operation. Even if you just wanted something like breast implants or a face lift, I assume there is some kind of consultation that goes on where you are informed of the benefits vs. the risks so you can make an informed decision. I don't see why abortion should be any different. And I don't have any actual statistics, but I would suspect that if not a majority, at least a significant amount of women who get abortions are teenagers. If they already knew everything they needed to know, they wouldn't be in that situation. There really are women out there who get abortions and regret it all their lives. Consequently I don't think anyone should get one without first being informed of all the risks and all their options. While I'm in favor of having abortion legal, I wouldn't generally recommend it as a first choice.
And then as for Luv2Fly's comment on how people in the future will look back on abortion, I imagine it will be something more like this: "Can you believe back then people were still getting pregnant indiscriminantly? They'd even get pregnant sometimes when they didn't want to and would actually abort the baby!" Outlawing abortion isn't the answer. Preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place is.
I would agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is the FIRST step absolutely no question, no pregnancy = no abortion. But there will always be exceptions and then from there is what is at question but I agree whole heartedly that we need to prevent them first and foremost.
Dennis,
You are against ANY restrictions, waiting peiod, or PARENTAL notification.
How about a new chain of clinics, called McAbortion. Hell you could have a drive through.
McAbortion... a drive thru... I love it.
Just goes to show what some extremeist Abortion supporters would like to see it become.
Abortion stops the beating heart of an innocent child. No child deserves for such a horrid death to be a "legal choice".
Have you read or heard any interviews from the women in the Ros VS Wade case, you know the women who was pressured by big business abortion providers to lie?
Her lie has haunted her ever since that horrid day.
She is now one of the BIGGEST Pro-Life supporters.
Does welfare reform hurt kids and moms? - Article by Maggie Gallagher
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20020604.shtml
"When President Clinton signed the welfare reform act of 1996, critics prophesied disaster. Would women and children pay the price? Concerned scholars and foundations thoughtfully put together studies to monitor not just how many welfare cases got closed, but how mothers and children fared under welfare reform."
...
"But the larger good news, impossible to disguise, is that since welfare reform, the trends in family formation have, for the first time, begun to reverse. Unwed childbearing stopped rising. Marriage rates in low-income parents rose, especially among African-Americans. Previous economic booms produced no such family turnaround. Looking (as this study does) only at single moms of preschool children who enter welfare ignores the biggest beneficiaries of welfare reform: women (and men) who because of welfare reform decided to postpone pregnancy, or to marry, or to avoid welfare altogether."
"Can we make welfare more marriage-friendly? Yes. Should we try? Of course. The good news is that by highlighting the alleged bad news about marriage rates, even The New York Times is now conceding that marriage matters."
Contact Maggie Gallagher | Read her biography
They contained a positive message of encouragement for women experiencing "crisis" pregnancies. A list of resources was included to help women who choose life for their babies. She explained that she had printed hundreds of copies and was distributing them throughout her area. These are her words:
Did you know that God can turn a mistake into a miracle?
I am living proof. I gave my life to the Lord two years ago and since then he has performed many miracles in my life despite my disobedience.
I am 22 years old and I am expecting my second child. Most would consider this a tragedy. Another statistic.
How sad. How sad? No, how wonderful!
I wanted to share this with you because through my pain God has done a miraculous work in me. Through my tears He has been by my side.
I turned my back on Him when my son's father decided he wanted to get back together with me. I hid from my close friends who know Christ. I didn't want to share that I was back enjoying my sin. I was getting all of my physical needs met consistently, but my soul ached to be right again.
I knew it wasn't God who had put us back together because the relationship was pulling me away from God. God would not do that. But it felt Oh, so good to be held, to be loved, to be desired by someone I had prayed would love me again.
He promised me the world on a platter: marriage after graduation, a big house, trips and the family I always wanted. I trusted him and gave myself to him.
Now, I'm 8 months pregnant and he hasn't spoken a kind word to me in about 7 months. I refused to have an abortion and he walked away from me, without looking back.
This child of mine is one of many miracles that God has blessed me with. If it had not been for my love for God, he would not be growing inside of me right now.
By showing God that I appreciate the gift he has blessed me with, he has provided me with a wonderful place to live, a healthy baby (thank god) and a wonderful son who's almost two and loves me to no end. the most beautiful thing is, I see God's reflection in his smile.
I have faith that since God has allowed me to face this situation, he will bring me through it. It was a big mistake to reunite with sin. But, God had a plan. And now I have a powerful testimony to share and encourage others.
I now know that one of my tasks as a child of God is to use my tears to wash away the tears of others. I am working diligently to help women like myself who are pregnant and have considered abortion to erase the pain. An abortion may take away the physical responsibility of a child, but a drastic act like that will leave a permanent mark on your soul.
If you are facing a situation similiar to mine and you need help or some encouraging words, contact me. I have a pamplet to send you and I can put you in touch with other women like you.
Remember: Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy. Psalms 126:5
This issue cries out for reasonable debate, but there's not give in either side.
There should be no "debate" when it comes to killing an innocent child.
Welcome back, Jethro!
Where you been? We were starting to worry.
"I said: This issue cries out for reasonable debate, but there's not give in either side.
Jethro said: There should be no "debate" when it comes to killing an innocent child. "
I rest my case.
Keep advocating killing children, Rick. It is very becoming.
Rick,
Did you see my last post to you or are you ignoring it ?
jethro bodine 6/4/02 1:48pm
Hello! I missed you and I am glad you are back to squash the one who seems to be getting paid by the word from that baby killing organization.
Rick 6/4/02 2:32pm
"Fight hard. Fight to win, and cheat."
Yep. That is exactly how the Abortion Rights extremists have gotten this far.
Bread gets moldy,
Roses have thorns,
Extremist comments grow oldy,
Go get de-horned.
The Right always sneaks exploitable prejudice into its positions.
For instance, it appeals to potential racial and class biases by getting us to attach the welfare question to negatively stereotyped
residents from very poor and minority communities.
Same with things like privatization of public schools.
Abortion is no exception.
The anti-choice mob wants us to envision abortion seekers coming from impoverished neighborhoods having ethnic and racial identities different than our own.
Doing so meshes with whatever bigotry we may already possess.
That makes the demonization of abortion seekers that much easier.
But what if they're seated across the supper table from us, under our own roofs?
Are you a parent?
Do you have a daughter?
What would happen to her if she became pregnant under circumstances that made having the baby impossible -- but with abortion banned in America?
Ask the same question about your sisters, nieces, aunts, and female cousins.
Maybe even your wife.
At best, they'd risk becoming outlaws.
At worst, they could die under frighteningly dangerous blackmarket abortion conditions, as so many horribly did before Roe v. Wade.
Is that a chance you'll take for your loved ones, based solely on the fetus fetishism of extremists?
That's why the only "pro-life" stance I'll accept is one which
expresses itself this way:
"I'm opposed to abortion. I'd personally never have one. But that's me. You're you. You have to reach your own conclusion."
Anything less tolerant or broadminded facilitates abolishing abortion.
Which would mean my female loved ones would be deprived of a safe and legal option they may require in the future, forcing them to become
lawbreakers to acquire a bootleg pregnancy termination, with great risk to their health and very lives.
I absolutely despise conservatives for working feverishly to place them in that dreadful position.
WELFARE REFORM'S FAILURE
AUG. 22 marks the five-year anniversary of welfare reform – "ending welfare as we know it." The new policy has been touted as a success by politicians and the media. Welfare caseloads are at a historic low; thousands of former welfare recipients are in the workforce. But we can't forget the real face of welfare: women, mothers, workers, survivors, and most important, children. Women and their children represent the vast majority of people on welfare.
To really understand the impact of welfare reform, we can't simply count the numbers; we must look at the quality of life of people on welfare. Have we reduced poverty at the same rate as we have our caseloads? Are the food lines shorter at St. Anthony? Are our families better off after welfare reform? The answer is no.
Mothers on welfare often have to make tough decisions about whether to pay for housing, utilities, child care, or food. Since welfare "reform" was enacted, emergency food assistance programs have seen a 76 percent increase in requests. While welfare caseloads have been cut by an average of 50 percent, there has been only a 2 percent decrease in poverty. (Keep in mind that these numbers are from the economic "boom" years.) Women are being forced into low-wage service-sector jobs with few benefits and less job security. In general, women make 75¢ for every white man's dollar. African American women make only 65¢, and Latinas make only 55¢.
Women of color face greater discrimination. Studies show that women of color are being diverted from the welfare rolls and forced off welfare at much higher rates than white women. Research also shows that white recipients receive more encouragement, support, and direct assistance – child care, education, and training – than women of color. They are also leaving the rolls at a higher rate, because they've found employment.
Welfare in California mandates the "work first" model: recipients are supposed to get a job, any job. For many women, those are dead-end jobs. Welfare reform limits vocational training, and bachelor's degrees are not an option for women on welfare. These draconian restrictions contradict the supposed goals of the legislation. Higher education has proved to be the number-one determinant in income earning ability. Numerous studies shows that two-thirds of women who leave welfare as a result of education will not return to the rolls. More important, their children will not need assistance during their adult lives.
Women are the primary caregivers in our society. However, poor women's role as caregiver is undermined and dismissed by current welfare legislation. Mothers are being forced into the workforce even if they have to resort to unsafe and tenuous child care. Many are victims of domestic violence and are trying to overcome other barriers to prepare themselves not just to get a job but to get a job with a living wage – and to keep that job.
Welfare legislation must be reauthorized by Oct. 1, 2002. So Congress has a real opportunity to eliminate poverty and increase the standard of living for poor families. Congress must stop welfare time limits for women working in low-wage jobs, for women in an education or training program, and for women caring for their young children or overcoming domestic violence. Congress must boldly address racism and sexism, discrimination that is destroying the potential of an entire class. This capitalist society must invest in human capital, if we are to survive.
--Martina Gillis, S.F. Bay Guardian
Let's all fight for the establishment of a living wage for America's
citizens, particularly its women.
It could prove to be THE greatest abortion reducer.
Dennis Rahkonen 6/4/02 4:27pm
#1) you incorrectly ASSUME abortion is safe.
#2) You never answered me on what you think about the woman (Norma) from Roe vs Wade changing her position, feeling bad about her lie, and being one of the top Pro-life supporters??????????????????
How about an answer???????
Nope!!!!!!!
The question to be answered is:
Who decides whether Jessie has an abortion?
Jessie or Jesse Helms?
when was it that she lied? during the appeals process?
Dennis Rahkonen 6/4/02 7:36pm
Who decides whether Jessie has an abortion?
Jessie or Jesse Helms?
How about neither?
I don't think either has the mental capacity to make such a decsion.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Rightwing anti-choice abortion fanaticism is built on a foundation of lies:
LIE NUMBER ONE: "Abortion is unsafe." This is an outrageous fallacy purposely spread to attempt to frighten women from exercising their reproductive rights. In a sanitary setting with the procedure performed by trained personnel, abortion is perhaps THE safest of all invasive medical acts. In outlaw circumstances such as those which prevailed before Roe v. Wade, however, where bartenders and beauticians moonlight as "doctors", in the deadliest of septic settings, abortions obtained by desperate women and girls are often fatal.
LIE NUMBER TWO: "Those who get pregnant against their wishes are irresponsible or careless." Nobody can actually know the hows and whys of specific, unwanted pregnancies, but it can be generally stated that they range all the way from teenage inexperience and lack of knowledge to contraceptive failure among married couples with existing families. No condemnatory judgments should be made in this area, but anti-choice demagogues routinely do, to demonize females who feel a need to terminate their unacceptable pregnancies, in full accordance with law.
LIE NUMBER THREE: "Babies" are aborted. The manipulative use of terms like "person" or "child" to define an in utero fetus is common in anti-choice propaganda, reaching absurdities that were subsequently thoroughly debunked by medical professionals
viewing the purposely inflammatory video, "The Silent Scream".
LIE NUMBER FOUR: "Abortion is murder". Once females with pregnancies their life circumstances can't allow to be brought to term are maliciously painted as promiscuously immoral for "permitting" their condition to have arisen in the first place, and once they're
cruelly depicted as "selfish" for entering a women's health clinic, they then get accused of
being complicit in "killing children" -- a medical, scientific and legal absurdity which strives to equate, essentially, obtaining an abortion with, say, robbing a convenience store and shooting to death the counter clerk in doing so. All part of the blatantly sexist anti-choice strategy of trying to make women in high states of anxiety and distress as it is...jump through assorted flaming hoops in an effort to PREVENT their legal reproductive option.
LIE NUMBER FIVE: "Abortion is un-Godly." Abortion is viewed very differently by different religions, and even within denominations of particular religions. That it's judged to be Satanic by fundamentalists, be they Islamic Taliban or American evangelicals, doesn't universalize its purported wickedness on faith-based terms. The abortion choice should be made by individual women, in carefully-weighed assessment of their circumstances, and in accordance with their beliefs, religious and otherwise. In countless cases worldwide, choosing abortion is actually religiously acceptable. Thus, to attempt to deny abortion is not only a violation of personal liberty, but it can be a violation of religious freedom as well. All part and parcel of the morally imperialistic tyranny -- and pervasive dishonesty -- upon which radical anti-choice interference is based.
I could list a host of other such lies.
But I'm off to work.
Have a pleasant day.
Enjoy your freedoms...
fold, I see you are still a big jerk.
The anti-choice mob wants us to envision abortion seekers coming from impoverished neighborhoods having ethnic and racial identities different than our own.
What utter nonsense.
That makes the demonization of abortion seekers that much easier.
It is easy to demonize anyone that wants to kill children or turns their head while others do it.
Do you have a daughter?
What would happen to her if she became pregnant under circumstances that made having the baby impossible -- but with abortion banned in America?
If "impossible" you mean the daughter couldn't suport the child, I would do so or see about adoption.
At best, they'd risk becoming outlaws.
That is true choice!
At worst, they could die under frighteningly dangerous blackmarket abortion conditions, as so many horribly did before Roe v. Wade.
Or they could have the child. Maybe they would be more careful if they had to be more responsible.
"I'm opposed to abortion. I'd personally never have one. But that's me. You're you. You have to reach your own conclusion."
"I'm opposed to murder. I'd personally never commit it. But that's me. You're you. You have to reach your own conclusion. But don't murder me."
Which would mean my female loved ones would be deprived of a safe and legal option they may require in the future, forcing them to become
lawbreakers to acquire a bootleg pregnancy termination, with great risk to their health and very lives.
Lawbreaking is a choice.
I absolutely despise conservatives for working feverishly to place them in that dreadful position.
I despise you Rahkonen.
Well, we're back to a good start.
Dennis,
For someone who proclaims to seek truth you have no problem bending twisting or running it through the garbage disposal like a forgotten spoon.
Well first of all Dennis, every survey of minority and underprivelaged families show an overwhelming majority of parents would love to be able to send their kids to private schools. Then again if they did you might have to actually start changing a horribly broken system that your bretheren helped create and you'd have less political pawns to use. Yea your pro-choice allright as long as it isn't a real choice or one that keeps underprivelaged kids in bad schools, you'd rather keep them there instead of giving them a choice. Sure thing Mr. freedom, I guess it's only freedom and choice when you decide. Hypocrites.
Really, wow it's that easy. hmm yes throw a racist card in there it's easy predictable and so worn out that actual cases of racism get lost in the tidal wave of false accusations and inuendo that you and others choose to use. Oh you forgot to throw facist in there and a good Hitler line too. That'o.k , we understand, doing so actually saves you from having to have a real debate and you can run for the safe havens of dismissing anything you disagree with to racism, classism, etc. That's O.K I'm sure you're used to others doing the heavy lifting for you.
Really so you admit your a bigot. Great those self awareness classes are coming in handy I see.
Or those who oppose abortion simply because they feel it morally wrong. But if all these opposed to abortion were so racist thne wouldn't they be glad to see less of those people in the world ? Never thought of that did you, no, that would require actual critical thought.
You would know all about the easy way out since you demonstrate it every day.
Really, can you list these worldwide religions that find it acceptable ? Naw that would actually be having to find the truth. You claim it's only the extremist sections of religion that disapprove of it or find it wrong. You're full of it. Most of Christianity, Judism, Buddism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Find it unacceptable I'm sure there's one or two and I won't count whatever cult you belong too. You quote scripture from time to time but know little about it. Yes Dennis, I'm sure God is just thrilled that we allow his creation to be wantonly destroyed. But you poorly attempt to portray it as the majority. Keep taking the easy way out, it's much easier for you to spew hatred and much easier for you to make up lies than it is to tell the truth.
Maybe they would be more careful if they had to be more responsible.
This statement and others like it just piss me off with their implied sexism. Everytime a woman gets pregnant when she didn't want to be, it's her own fault because she chose to have sex. The logical conclusion from that notion being that women should never have sex unless they're ready and willing to have a child. Which in turn leads to the notion that sex is only for procreation and it's the woman's responsibility to enforce that moral standard, and if she doesn't, then she must resign herself to being a baby-making machine. And you all find that perfectly acceptable?
Maybe they would be more careful if they had to be more responsible.
This statement and others like it just piss me off with their implied sexism.
Maybe they would be more careful if they had to be more responsible.
Which in turn leads to the notion that sex is only for procreaztion and it's the woman's responsibility to enforce that moral standard, and if she doesn't, then she must resign herself to being a baby-making machine.
This statement and others like it just piss me off with their implicit nonsense.
Everytime a woman gets pregnant when she didn't want to be, it's her own fault because she chose to have sex.
The trouble with this is that as it stands, women have all the power in regards to abortion. Men don't have a say after she becomes pregnant. Therefore by default the woman owns the brunt of the responsibility/blame. Sorry but it's just the way it is.
The logical conclusion from that notion being that women should never have sex unless they're ready and willing to have a child.
Pretty much sums it up. People should be willing to take responsibility for their actions. If they are unwilling, well, don't do the action.
Which in turn leads to the notion that sex is only for procreaztion and it's the woman's responsibility to enforce that moral standard, and if she doesn't, then she must resign herself to being a baby-making machine.
That's silly. I don't know anyone that has sex simply for procreation. Regarding a woman's responsibility, see above.
And you all find that perfectly acceptable?
Not by your description but I disagree with your description.
That's silly. I don't know anyone that has sex simply for procreation. Regarding a woman's responsibility, see above.
How can you come to any other conclusion? Contraceptives aren't completely reliable and sometimes fail. I know one woman who had three kids, each one the result of a different contraceptive failing. Yet you would say that was her fault because she chose to have sex (and she was married by the way). Well if that's the case, the only way to be sure to not get pregnant when you don't want to be is to enforce the idea that sex is for procreation only. Or are you saying it's ok to get an abortion if you tried not to get pregnant but did anyway?
Yet you would say that was her fault because she chose to have sex
Not fault but responsibility.
Yes, I will say, "If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex". This is a far cry from saying sex is for procreation only. It's a matter of taking responsibility for ones actions.
Tell me why it is that a man/woman has no choice in regards to child support? A person can't just say "I didn't want the kid so I'm not going to pay". The judge will say "Well you should have thought about that before you had sex".
Yes, I will say, "If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex". This is a far cry from saying sex is for procreation only.
It's not a far cry. It's exactly the same thing!
Tell me why it is that a man/woman has no choice in regards to child support? A person can't just say "I didn't want the kid so I'm not going to pay". The judge will say "Well you should have thought about that before you had sex".
I'm not so sure I agree with that either. But that's a rather compex subject that I'm not sure I have a good answer to yet.
It's not a far cry. It's exactly the same thing.
No, it's not. I don't want any more kids yet I would take responsibility for them if my wife should become pregnant.
And assuming your wife doesn't want any more kids at this point either, if she did get pregnant, would you say it was her fault for having sex with you and therefore she must take responsibility for it?
And assuming your wife doesn't want any more kids at this point either, if she did get pregnant, would you say it was her fault for having sex with you and therefore she must take responsibility for it?
By default, in regards to abortion, the responsibility rests on her for I have no choice in the matter. I don't like it but that's just the way it is.
I would like to have some legal say in the matter but truth is I don't.
So yes, therefore the "responsibility" rests on her.
Just as I know that I may potentially be paying child support for the next 21 years should she become pregnant. That is my "responsibility".
So if your wife really doesn't want to become pregnant, and really doesn't want an abortion, then she should stop having sex?
So if your wife really doesn't want to become pregnant, and really doesn't want an abortion, then she should stop having sex?
Is there some sort of alternative out there that I'm not aware of?
If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. If you don't want to pay child support for the next 21 years, don't have sex.
Even if I stated for shits & giggles that sex is only for procreation, what does it change?
The issue here is consequences to actions.
The problem is that if you ban abortion and force women who get pregnant when they don't want to, to have babies they either don't want or can't raise, then in the absence of perfect sex education and contraceptives, the only other alternative is to push for a sexually repressed, sex-is-for-procreation-only society. Maybe you can bear the burden of an unwanted/unexpected child, but you're saying that if you can't, then you shouldn't be allowed to have sex. And if you do anyway, then you have to bear the punishment of having your life ruined. And all this just to protect some physical body that has no soul or awareness of it's own existence.
The issue here is consequences to actions.
I say the consequence to the action is you may have to get an abortion. You say the consequence is you have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, labor, and then years of devoting time and resources, perhaps even sacrificing your own happiness to support a child you didn't want and weren't ready for in the first place. Seems to me the punishment hardly fits the crime.
Yes, I will say, "If you don't want to have kids, don't have sex". This is a far cry from saying sex is for procreation only.
It's not a far cry. It's exactly the same thing!
Not exactly the same. You can have sex without getting pregnant. There are precautions. Even if precautions aren't taken there is no gurantee that pregnancy will result.
Or the other choice, adoption. Then the woman has to go through nine months out of pregnancy and then labor. To spare the life of that child.
Seems to me having an unwanted child isn't a punishment It's a responsibility.
The problem is that if you ban abortion and force women who get pregnant when they don't want to, to have babies they either don't want or can't raise, then in the absence of perfect sex education and contraceptives, the only other alternative is to push for a sexually repressed, sex-is-for-procreation-only society. And is there something really wrong with this? It would reduce the incidence of STD's. Or if you choose you could get involved in gay sex. That gurantees no pregnancy but still watch out for the STD's.Maybe you can bear the burden of an unwanted/unexpected child, but you're saying that if you can't, then you shouldn't be allowed to have sex. No one is saying anything about allowing people to have sex or preventing them from having sex.And if you do anyway, then you have to bear the punishment of having your life ruined. It ain't punishment it is life.And all this just to protect some physical body that has no soul or awareness of it's own existence. That is your value judgment in lieu of a living being. The child exists otherwise there would be no desire by the abortionist to end the life. As for the soul we don't even know if adults really have them. As for awareness the unborn child is aware of somethings.
I say the consequence to the action is you may have to get an abortion. You say the consequence is you have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, labor, and then years of devoting time and resources, perhaps even sacrificing your own happiness to support a child you didn't want and weren't ready for in the first place. Seems to me the punishment hardly fits the crime.
Again its not punishment it is life. Deal with the reality instead of trying to escape it.