Has been tried before. Mrs. Gandhi, Prime Minister of India did this in 1975. Government middle managers were given quotas for male vasectomies and female tube tying. They rounded up poor villagers in trucks and sterilized them. Plan failed when in the next elections the perpetuators - including Mrs. Gandhi were defeated and sent to jail.
Will not work where thinking humans exist. In China though strict enforcement of one child policy - forced abortions are normal.
But your "No one can ever stop unwanted pregnancies" statement, is completely wrong.
Awwww! Now why'd ya have to go and ruin a good thing!
Just ask Jethro.
Ya know, if you two would stop trying to bury each other in shit ya just might see what the other one is saying.
He's not such a bad guy. And you're not such a bad guy either.
You just get each other's goat. Now BAAAAAACK up... BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHA!!!(sorry) ...a bit and realize you both have some credible things to contribute.
Is your context solely the USA - Canada perhaps. What about the hordes of unwanted babies in Mexico? And there are more continents than North America you know.
Yes I am aware of that. It is harder in other countries because of famine, poverty, tribal and primitive lifestyles compared to our developed society. But, I still stand by what I have said.
Any humane solution for theose outside NA?
Are you familiar with Mother Teresa of Calcutta? She is the saintly woman who cared for the lepers, the dying, the starving in the parts of the world where conditions exist like you sited. She still believed in respect for life at the moment of conception to natural death. This woman has had countless people, emancipated and disease ridden, die in her arms. She started a movement that has grown and gotten world wide attention for it's efforts to help the poor.
This woman lived daily and saw the horrid conditions in which people tried to overcome, things I have only read and weeped about and saw on documentaries. She loved every human with her whole soul. And she was pro-life.
Oh really? Then why have you so often said that "Teens" should just abstain? Why should they do that?
Why shouldn't they?
Developing a relationship by talking on the phone, going to the movies, hanging out with friends, getting to know each others hopes, dreams, goals, families, bad habits, etc. takes a while if it is in the right balance with the other things a teen should have going on in their lives. Holding hands, kissing closed mouth and just being together is really enough. Teens have a lot of drama in their worlds, with best friends one week- never speaking again the next week, etc, they don't need to be deep into anything. They need to make the right choices and learn by trial and error how to have a good relationship without the sex part involved. They need to learn what they like-don't like, what they will accept-not accept, etc.
Spin the bottle should be an awkward experience for a teen.
Why should they have all the privileges, experiences, pleasures, responsibilities, and liabilites as someone who is a little more emotionally, financially, and morally mature & more capable of handling those such experiences in a better way on all different levels that it takes to make a relationship.
Remember teens live in the moment, so it is just best not to put them in situations where a moment might arise.
Maybe they should all have blow up dolls. Britney Spears blow up dolls for the guys and hmmmmm maybe Mark McGrath (from Sugar Ray) for the girls. Oh, what an awful thing to say, Paula.... is that what you are thinking? I mean, really, do we need to teach them mutual masturbation in school to make sure they are skilled when the time comes??
Yes, I am intimately familiar with her. I am from India and my wife was born and lived her youth in Calcutta where Mother Theresa ( soon to be beatified by the Papacy) lived and worked. The only negative I have had against this true Saint is her opposition to abortion. She condemned many a child to eternal misery by convincing its mother not to have an abortion and bear the child. But the misery she created was far, far outweighed by the compassion she showed. We Indians were truly blessed to have have two of the pillars of humanity and perhaps the greatest humans of the 20th century in our midst - Gandhi and Mother Theresa.
Abortion is a wrteched procedure - but all it is a form of birth control. Till its use becomes unnecessary all over the globe , it should be allowed.
I am glad you think so highly of Mother Teresa that you yourself think she is a True Saint. She has seen the suffering of people and she struggled with certain issues that perplexed her regarding life on earth, but even still, she had the hope and the faith and the wisdom about those things and put the highest value on every life. I will try and find some of her writings regarding abortion and life.
Abortion is a wretched procedure - but all it is a form of birth control. Till its use becomes unnecessary all over the globe , it should be allowed
I understand you see it that way.
I see it differently. I see the real issue as the need for an enlightenment to each and every person for a "true and deep respect and love for your fellow man". If this occured with each individual as a kind of collective spirit of awakening all over the globe for every human being from conception to natural death than poverty and every other evil would end.
To give your life for another is a selfless act of love.
To commit abortion is a selfish act of _____________.
I want all parents that support abortion on demand to think about their children. Think about how you could have aborted your child. Think about what the consequences would have been had you had the abortion.
His ``theory'' is that an unborn baby--which has its own unique DNA complex, and which will, absent natural misfortune or deliberate attack (by abortion or someone like Pena) become a born human being--is not an ``other.'' But a Michigan court of appeals disagrees.
It has ordered a new trial, ruling that under Michigan law Kurr had a right to invoke the defense of ``others.''
Women will continue to have abortions until all men lop off the ends of their penises and substitute them for Martini olives.
Which is another way of saying "forever".
So...
Let females freely deal with what the Wild Wangsmen of the World, in all their insistently horny irresponsibility, so regularly "give" them -- against their wishes, and often contrary to the possible circumstances of their lives.
Rightwingers invariably blame the ladies.
I say the chief onus is on the gents.
"C'mon, babe. I love you. It'll be okay."
Plus guys also control politics and economy, which sexistly scrimp on social supports for women "in trouble" while lavishing attention and money on things like aggressive war against Iraq.
(Ever wonder how many Iraqi women with swollen bellies will experience involuntary abortion by shrapnel when our bombs begin to fall?)
I think the point was that certain people find abortion or more specifically the legalized killing of unborn children is more important than anything else.
Actually all people should find the legalized killing of all humans abhorrent and distasteful - death penalty, war inclusive.
Great point Naradar. I've never understood anti-abortionists being pro capital punishment. Nor do I understand pro-abortionists that are anti capital punishment. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Of course war is horrible but it's sometimes necessary.
Which begs the question that starts the wars - is the fetus a human?
I figure, better safe than sorry in that regard.
And is the fetus more valuable than the mother?
Not more important but, I would allow abortion when the Mother's life is in danger.
In India me and my entire family and all my sisters children were born in Catholic hospitals. We would always have an insider in wards - a nurse or someone - to make sure the nuns did not select the fetus over the mother.
I've never understood anti-abortionists being pro capital punishment.
It isn't that difficult. Capital punishment is punishement based on the illegal and immoral act of the convicted. Abortion is not a punishment for anything and it is not based on any act of the unborn child.
fold, you are too stupid to understand it. Could it be because you are amoral? Certainly an amoral person wouldn't understand. Some people can forfeit their lives based on their conduct. I think Osama could be put in that category. Wouldn't you? But maybe you would invite him over to your house for Thanksgiving dinner.
I support the right of women to choose their own reproductive destiny because societally forcing them to bring unacceptable, unwanted pregnancies to term is, above all, an act of surpassing cruelty.
It's bad enough when Jethro Bodine evinces the dictatorial sentiment that some young girl in Phoenix, say, HAS to refrain from abortion, based solely on HIS biases.
A kid having a kid, after possibly being raped, but being too frightened to tell, and face the consequences, which commonly include the gratuitous charge that she "invited it".
No, the anti-choice enforcers want to get GOVERNMENT into our bedrooms, and into females' wombs, predicated on the screwy, unscientific, sexist notion that a fetus -- a developing embryonic entity -- is a "complete" human being, with full rights.
But that the already-born, definite person in which that fetus resides...is somehow irresponsible and supposedly morally deficient, for facing the reality that having a child when objective circumstances just wouldn't sensibly, sanely allow it...must be stripped of her inalienable right to choice and privacy!
With the net result that -- as abortion is outlawed for the masses -- "only outlaws will have abortions". In back alleys. In bloody desperation. Costing adult and teenaged females their lives, by the thousands, just as in the bad old days before Roe v. Wade.
Meanwhile, as they ponticicate about the sanctity of the fetus, conservatives continue to lavish money on corporate welfare and militarism, but never on the true, vital social supports that would make women in "trouble" feel more confident about bringing new life into this world.
Capital punishment?
I personally wouldn't put a criminal to death anymore than I'd step on a lady bug. Life, once its validated by birth and becomes independent, is sacred.
Additionally, our society is so fraught with racial, class, and political prejudices that the entirely innocent are often mistakenly accused and sentenced, or framed.
Society's job should be to rehabilitate criminals, and to obviate crime's causes. Certainly including Big Business "crime in the suites".
We need to build a just order of equal opportunity, where greed and violation of doing unto others as they would do unto you...have no dirt in which to grow.
Where our obscene emphasis on jails, guns, and war is replaced by sharing, caring and daring to be gentle.
Where men and boys would not look upon the opposite sex as little more than outlets for their unbrideld lust, adopting an enlightened sense of female rights and worth, thereby cutting down on unwanted pregnancies.
Where every born child would have maximal, equal chances for a happy, healthy upbringing -- aided by beneficial government help as needed -- in an America rooted in genuinely progressive and ennobling values.
The "revenge of God" that rightwingers said was being inflicted on "sinful" gays.
Consequently, early, broad efforts at control and cure were thwarted.
Delayed and deferred by a terrible prejudice.
So where are we now?
From an ABC report on World AIDS Day:
"...half of those infected are now women, meaning more babies could become infected through their mothers and eliminating female caregivers in populations that have already seen many of their male breadwinners perish."
40 million people are infected, globally.
But where are conservatism's priorities?
Focused on simplistic and ultimately mass-ineffective "just say no" abstinence efforts, with NO accompanying sex education and contraceptive availability that would both prevent unwanted pregnancies and immeasurably help to slow the spread of STD's, including AIDS.
And also obsessively centered on "saving" fetuses, diverting vital attention and resources from saving the definite lives of real babies, plus millions of other children, suffering from scourges like disease, needless hunger, and unnecessary wars around the planet.
The "revenge of God" that rightwingers said was being inflicted on "sinful" gays.
That's just stupid. By this logic, lesbians are God's chosen people.
But where are conservatism's priorities?
Where are Liberal priorities? On one hand they ask that conservatives get out of people's bedrooms, on the other they ask for us to save same said people from their actions in their bedrooms.
Talk about hypocrisy.
You don't want AIDS, don't have unprotected sex. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
That's just stupid. By this logic, lesbians are God's chosen people.
Ummm, what? Just because God was supposedly targeting one segment doesn't make another segment "chosen". I went to a pretty conservative Lutheran high school when AIDS first started to become widely recognized and I do recall the sentiment there being that AIDS wasn't such a bad thing actually since it was only affecting gays mostly and that that was probably how God wanted it.
Where are Liberal priorities? On one hand they ask that conservatives get out of people's bedrooms, on the other they ask for us to save same said people from their actions in their bedrooms.
What's wrong with that? Are you saying that if people get AIDS we should just let them die because they chose to engage in some sort of activity that might lead to it (damn those people who need blood transfusions!). Or are you saying that the government should indeed be regulating our sex lives making sure we don't do anything dangerous?
You don't want AIDS, don't have unprotected sex. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
As if that was the only way to get it. Otherwise the implication of your statement is that if someone gets AIDS, then just go ahead and let them suffer and die since it's their own fault. Just don't ask you to contribute anything towards easing their suffering or saving their life.
You might be right. Technically conservatives are the middle of the road, preferring to keep the status quo while reactionaries, like liberals, want to see change, but in the other direction. I'm not quite sure how the labels got blurred or rearranged or whatever happened to them.
Just because God was supposedly targeting one segment doesn't make another segment "chosen".
It was sarcasm, directed at Dennis's general statement about conservatives.
Are you saying that if people get AIDS we should just let them die...
No, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.
Or are you saying that the government should indeed be regulating our sex lives....
No, I could care less what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, back seats, or bath houses. Once again, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of those that say "Stay out of our bedrooms" and then ask us to save them from their own actions.
Just don't ask you to contribute anything towards easing their suffering or saving their life.
I didn't say that. You bring up a good point, however. What responsibility do those that contracted AIDS through promiscuous sex have to society?
Otherwise the implication of your statement is that if someone gets AIDS, then just go ahead and let them suffer and die since it's their own fault.
No, just those that participate in unprotected, promiscuous sex. Like I said, in this day and age there's no reason for it. I have total sympathy for a woman that catches it from her cheating husband, the child that is born with the disease, those that got it from a blood transfusion.....
Yes, typical conservative selfishness.
LOL! Yes, I'm the selfish one. I've got my hand out saying "Give me, give me, give me".
No, I could care less what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, back seats, or bath houses. Once again, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of those that say "Stay out of our bedrooms" and then ask us to save them from their own actions.
So if you're not saying we should let people with AIDS just die, and you're not saying we should regulate sex, then are you not advocating that same so called "hypocrisy"? Personally I don't see anything hypocritical about it at all. I see nothing wrong with a society that allows it's citizens the freedom to do as they please, yet still endeavors to help them out when they, as all imperfect humans do, make the occasional mistake or bad decision. I'm willing to acknowledge the imperfect aspect of humanity and consider it a part of the cost of having a society. If we're just going to say, "it's your fault, you're on your own whether you can handle it or not," makes me wonder what the point is of even having a society.
No, just those that participate in unprotected, promiscuous sex. Like I said, in this day and age there's no reason for it.
There's no reason *you* would. But how can you possibly speak for every single person in every single situation and say there was no reason for it?
What responsibility do those that contracted AIDS through promiscuous sex have to society?
Every person should feel some sense of responsibility to try and not be a burden on their fellow citizens if they can help it, but I don't believe the penalty for failing to do so should necessarily be an unpleasant death.
....then are you not advocating that same so called "hypocrisy"?
I don't see how. I'm saying we should help those in bad situations because of circumstances, not because of bad actions/decisions on their part. I see those as two different circumstances and not contrary to each other.
I see nothing wrong with a society that allows it's citizens the freedom to do as they please, yet still endeavors to help them out when they, as all imperfect humans do, make the occasional mistake or bad decision.
With freedom comes responsibility. I think people should be responsible for themselves and their actions. Take welfare for instance, I agree people need help sometimes. I don't believe that generations of people should live their entire lives on the system. There's got to be a point where we say "Sorry, you're on your own now".
If we're just going to say, "it's your fault, you're on your own whether you can handle it or not," makes me wonder what the point is of even having a society.
Society is what we make it. I'm not saying "It's your fault" to everyone. Just those that knew the possible consequences and did it anyway. They knew the risk and accepted said risk.
But how can you possibly speak for every single person in every single situation and say there was no reason for it?
Of course we can't address every single situation. Does this mean we do not attempt to draw some sort of line?
Every person should feel some sense of responsibility to try and not be a burden on their fellow citizens if they can help it, but I don't believe the penalty for failing to do so should necessarily be an unpleasant death.
I'm willing to provide a comfortable and painless death. I'm not willing to pump millions of tax payer money into R&D on a disease that most likely a cure will never be found for.
I'm pretty sure that is what Fox news was saying but I cannot pull up the article at the moment.
>Well how about this then... Here's a good article from Maggie Gallagher
December 2, 2002
Abortion and the new generation
"If you want to know the deepest reason why liberals have such trouble digesting the election news, take a look at the Harper's cover story by blast-from-the-past uberliberal George McGovern. The title says it all: "The Case for Liberalism: A Defense of the Future Against the Past."
"The liberal myth of Progress assumes that, as the older generation, steeped in mystifying ancient religious taboos, gradually dies off, a new pro-abortion consensus would emerge as pols realized there was no profit in pro-life principles."
"Instead, something remarkable and unheralded has happened. Not only is the country in general becoming more conservative in its attitudes toward abortion, but two new polls find that young people are significantly more anti-abortion than their parents' generation are."
"Polls like this show two things: There is something about targeting the unborn for extinction that does not sit well, 30 years after Roe vs. Wade. And the idea that history marches inevitably in any direction is just plain wrong."
>Interesting point! I hope you are right Maggie!
I find this information fascinating that the morals of our youth are staying intact in a day and age where it seems like religion is taking a backseat for more and more youth, and the MTV generation is subjected to so much promiscuity.
Maybe my hope can be renewed! Maybe all the seeds of wisdom planted on our youth hasn't fallen on deaf ears.
Ok then, how about if our citizens are illegally jailed, arrested for no reason, or even murdered in a foreign country? Do they get the support of our government if they take a vacation on the high seas, and terrorists attack the ship?
Depends on the situation. I wouldn't put much effort towards some idiot American that decided to vacation in Afghanistan right now.
There are many situations in which the people can and do intervine to save people from the sad and terrible things that life can sometimes throw at them. The fact is that you don't seem to want that priviledge to be extended to those who get a disease that kills them in a most unpleasant way just because it is transmitted sexually, in some cases.
In most cases. Anyway, I didn't say I didn't want to help. I guess where we disagree is to what extent.
But are you FOR the research and development of new drugs to fight cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimers and any number of other ravages that attack the human body, and for which our government supports with billions in research grants? Sure, but just not AIDS.
THX 1138 10/8/02 9:15am
Forced sterilization?
Has been tried before. Mrs. Gandhi, Prime Minister of India did this in 1975. Government middle managers were given quotas for male vasectomies and female tube tying. They rounded up poor villagers in trucks and sterilized them. Plan failed when in the next elections the perpetuators - including Mrs. Gandhi were defeated and sent to jail.
Will not work where thinking humans exist. In China though strict enforcement of one child policy - forced abortions are normal.
Will not work where thinking humans exist.
LOL!
'Bill - Fold' 10/8/02 4:49am
Thank you!
Awwww! Now why'd ya have to go and ruin a good thing!
Ya know, if you two would stop trying to bury each other in shit ya just might see what the other one is saying.
He's not such a bad guy. And you're not such a bad guy either.
You just get each other's goat. Now BAAAAAACK up... BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHA!!!(sorry) ...a bit and realize you both have some credible things to contribute.
Naradar 10/8/02 9:08am
Yes I am aware of that. It is harder in other countries because of famine, poverty, tribal and primitive lifestyles compared to our developed society. But, I still stand by what I have said.
Are you familiar with Mother Teresa of Calcutta? She is the saintly woman who cared for the lepers, the dying, the starving in the parts of the world where conditions exist like you sited. She still believed in respect for life at the moment of conception to natural death. This woman has had countless people, emancipated and disease ridden, die in her arms. She started a movement that has grown and gotten world wide attention for it's efforts to help the poor.
This woman lived daily and saw the horrid conditions in which people tried to overcome, things I have only read and weeped about and saw on documentaries. She loved every human with her whole soul. And she was pro-life.
welcome back, paula.
I saw a news reporter this morning with the last name Bodine.
Oh really? Then why have yo so often said that "Teens" should just abstain? Why should they do that?
Why shouldn't they? It is the responsible thing to do. Now how does that have anything to do with the point I was making, fold?
ares 10/8/02 7:52pm
Thank you! Nice to see you here.
Some people say I'm a dreamer.....
But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join me....
And ...the ....wor..ld ...will live as one.
Why shouldn't they?
Developing a relationship by talking on the phone, going to the movies, hanging out with friends, getting to know each others hopes, dreams, goals, families, bad habits, etc. takes a while if it is in the right balance with the other things a teen should have going on in their lives. Holding hands, kissing closed mouth and just being together is really enough. Teens have a lot of drama in their worlds, with best friends one week- never speaking again the next week, etc, they don't need to be deep into anything. They need to make the right choices and learn by trial and error how to have a good relationship without the sex part involved. They need to learn what they like-don't like, what they will accept-not accept, etc.
Spin the bottle should be an awkward experience for a teen.
Why should they have all the privileges, experiences, pleasures, responsibilities, and liabilites as someone who is a little more emotionally, financially, and morally mature & more capable of handling those such experiences in a better way on all different levels that it takes to make a relationship.
Remember teens live in the moment, so it is just best not to put them in situations where a moment might arise.
Maybe they should all have blow up dolls. Britney Spears blow up dolls for the guys and hmmmmm maybe Mark McGrath (from Sugar Ray) for the girls. Oh, what an awful thing to say, Paula.... is that what you are thinking? I mean, really, do we need to teach them mutual masturbation in school to make sure they are skilled when the time comes??
Paula I 10/8/02 7:16pm
Are you familiar with Mother Teresa of Calcutta?
Yes, I am intimately familiar with her. I am from India and my wife was born and lived her youth in Calcutta where Mother Theresa ( soon to be beatified by the Papacy) lived and worked. The only negative I have had against this true Saint is her opposition to abortion. She condemned many a child to eternal misery by convincing its mother not to have an abortion and bear the child. But the misery she created was far, far outweighed by the compassion she showed. We Indians were truly blessed to have have two of the pillars of humanity and perhaps the greatest humans of the 20th century in our midst - Gandhi and Mother Theresa.
Abortion is a wrteched procedure - but all it is a form of birth control. Till its use becomes unnecessary all over the globe , it should be allowed.
Naradar 10/9/02 4:09pm
I am glad you think so highly of Mother Teresa that you yourself think she is a True Saint. She has seen the suffering of people and she struggled with certain issues that perplexed her regarding life on earth, but even still, she had the hope and the faith and the wisdom about those things and put the highest value on every life. I will try and find some of her writings regarding abortion and life.
I understand you see it that way.
I see it differently. I see the real issue as the need for an enlightenment to each and every person for a "true and deep respect and love for your fellow man". If this occured with each individual as a kind of collective spirit of awakening all over the globe for every human being from conception to natural death than poverty and every other evil would end.
To give your life for another is a selfless act of love.
To commit abortion is a selfish act of _____________.
I want all parents that support abortion on demand to think about their children. Think about how you could have aborted your child. Think about what the consequences would have been had you had the abortion.
Australian scientists believe they have rediscovered an effective use for lemon juice -- as a contraceptive and also a killer of the AIDS virus.
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=N05AQSLLZMHTOCRBAEKSFFA?type=humannews&StoryID=1559279
Do they have lemon trees in India and Africa and other areas where this could be useful?
Convicted of voluntary manslaughter, Kurr was sentenced as a habitual offender to five to 20 years' imprisonment. The trial judge denied her request that the jury be instructed that she had a right to use deadly force in ``defense of others,'' namely her babies.
****
His ``theory'' is that an unborn baby--which has its own unique DNA complex, and which will, absent natural misfortune or deliberate attack (by abortion or someone like Pena) become a born human being--is not an ``other.'' But a Michigan court of appeals disagrees.
It has ordered a new trial, ruling that under Michigan law Kurr had a right to invoke the defense of ``others.''
Support the war in Iraq.
In 2002, this is what it's all about. The Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, Normandy Beach -- it all comes down to abortion. Nothing else is close. As for those who would lay rude hands on this sacred right, the righteous will rise up indignantly. Il ne passeront pas -- "They shall not pass" -- in Marshal Petain's stirring words.
Women will continue to have abortions until all men lop off the ends of their penises and substitute them for Martini olives.
Which is another way of saying "forever".
So...
Let females freely deal with what the Wild Wangsmen of the World, in all their insistently horny irresponsibility, so regularly "give" them -- against their wishes, and often contrary to the possible circumstances of their lives.
Rightwingers invariably blame the ladies.
I say the chief onus is on the gents.
"C'mon, babe. I love you. It'll be okay."
Plus guys also control politics and economy, which sexistly scrimp
on social supports for women "in trouble" while lavishing attention and money on things like aggressive war against Iraq.
(Ever wonder how many Iraqi women with swollen bellies will experience involuntary abortion by shrapnel when our bombs begin to fall?)
Deuces wild Joe!
DOH!
Support the war--- Bump!
I don't know if you read the article, but it was actually a sarcastic statement. I guess you can fault him for taking it out of context though.
I think the point was that certain people find abortion or more specifically the legalized killing of unborn children is more important than anything else.
Actually all people should find the legalized killing of all humans abhorrent and distasteful - death penalty, war inclusive.
Which begs the question that starts the wars - is the fetus a human? And is the fetus more valuable than the mother?
Actually all people should find the legalized killing of all humans abhorrent and distasteful - death penalty, war inclusive.
Great point Naradar. I've never understood anti-abortionists being pro capital punishment. Nor do I understand pro-abortionists that are anti capital punishment. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Of course war is horrible but it's sometimes necessary.
Which begs the question that starts the wars - is the fetus a human?
I figure, better safe than sorry in that regard.
And is the fetus more valuable than the mother?
Not more important but, I would allow abortion when the Mother's life is in danger.
Rational people think like you - THX 1138 11/26/02 11:31am
In India me and my entire family and all my sisters children were born in Catholic hospitals. We would always have an insider in wards - a nurse or someone - to make sure the nuns did not select the fetus over the mother.
And is the fetus more valuable than the mother?
That is not a legitmate question. It is a question that proabortionists pose to misdirect attention from the real question.
I've never understood anti-abortionists being pro capital punishment.
It isn't that difficult. Capital punishment is punishement based on the illegal and immoral act of the convicted. Abortion is not a punishment for anything and it is not based on any act of the unborn child.
fold, you are too stupid to understand it. Could it be because you are amoral? Certainly an amoral person wouldn't understand. Some people can forfeit their lives based on their conduct. I think Osama could be put in that category. Wouldn't you? But maybe you would invite him over to your house for Thanksgiving dinner.
---Support the war---
Maybe I can help you out, J.T.
I support the right of women to choose their own reproductive destiny
because societally forcing them to bring unacceptable, unwanted pregnancies to term is, above all, an act of surpassing cruelty.
It's bad enough when Jethro Bodine evinces the dictatorial sentiment that some young girl in Phoenix, say, HAS to refrain from abortion, based solely on HIS biases.
A kid having a kid, after possibly being raped, but being too frightened to tell, and face the consequences, which commonly include the gratuitous charge that she "invited it".
No, the anti-choice enforcers want to get GOVERNMENT into our bedrooms, and into females' wombs, predicated on the screwy, unscientific, sexist notion that a fetus -- a developing embryonic entity -- is a "complete" human being, with full rights.
But that the already-born, definite person in which that fetus resides...is somehow irresponsible and supposedly morally deficient, for facing the reality that having a child when objective circumstances just wouldn't sensibly, sanely allow it...must be stripped of her inalienable right to choice and privacy!
With the net result that -- as abortion is outlawed for the masses -- "only outlaws will have abortions". In back alleys. In bloody desperation. Costing adult and teenaged females their lives, by the thousands, just as in the bad old days before Roe v. Wade.
Meanwhile, as they ponticicate about the sanctity of the fetus, conservatives continue to lavish money on corporate welfare and militarism, but never on the true, vital social supports that would make women in "trouble" feel more confident about bringing new life into this world.
Capital punishment?
I personally wouldn't put a criminal to death anymore than I'd step on a lady bug. Life, once its validated by birth and becomes independent, is sacred.
Additionally, our society is so fraught with racial, class, and political prejudices that the entirely innocent are often mistakenly accused and sentenced, or framed.
Society's job should be to rehabilitate criminals, and to obviate crime's causes. Certainly including Big Business "crime in the suites".
We need to build a just order of equal opportunity, where greed and violation of doing unto others as they would do unto you...have no dirt in which to grow.
Where our obscene emphasis on jails, guns, and war is replaced by sharing, caring and daring to be gentle.
Where men and boys would not look upon the opposite sex as little more than outlets for their unbrideld lust, adopting an enlightened sense of female rights and worth, thereby cutting down on unwanted pregnancies.
Where every born child would have maximal, equal chances for a
happy, healthy upbringing -- aided by beneficial government help
as needed -- in an America rooted in genuinely progressive and ennobling values.
Dennis, your justification of killing makes no more sense to me than Jethro's.
Being personally opposed to abortion is one thing.
Putting on tall boots and a brown shirt to try to prevent others who think differently is quite another.
I'm pretty certain you have no such items in your wardrobe, THX.
Well, Jethro's got a good point on this one.
If someone truly believes abortion to be murder, maybe they should use every legal means to try and stop it.
btw: No tall boots, but my Cub Scouts leader uniform shirt is brown.
AIDS.
The "revenge of God" that rightwingers said was being inflicted on "sinful" gays.
Consequently, early, broad efforts at control and cure were thwarted.
Delayed and deferred by a terrible prejudice.
So where are we now?
From an ABC report on World AIDS Day:
"...half of those infected are now women, meaning more babies could become infected through their mothers and eliminating female caregivers in populations that have already seen many of their male breadwinners perish."
40 million people are infected, globally.
But where are conservatism's priorities?
Focused on simplistic and ultimately mass-ineffective "just say no" abstinence efforts, with NO accompanying sex education and contraceptive availability that would both prevent unwanted pregnancies and immeasurably help to slow the spread of STD's, including AIDS.
And also obsessively centered on "saving" fetuses, diverting vital attention and resources from saving the definite lives of real babies, plus millions of other children, suffering from scourges like disease, needless hunger, and unnecessary wars around the planet.
The "revenge of God" that rightwingers said was being inflicted on "sinful" gays.
That's just stupid. By this logic, lesbians are God's chosen people.
But where are conservatism's priorities?
Where are Liberal priorities? On one hand they ask that conservatives get out of people's bedrooms, on the other they ask for us to save same said people from their actions in their bedrooms.
Talk about hypocrisy.
You don't want AIDS, don't have unprotected sex. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
There, as a Conservative, I've done my duty.
Every LEGAL means, is the key.
It is? Many people are using perfectly legal means to try and make abortion illegal. I haven't gotten the impression that's the side you're on?
That's just stupid. By this logic, lesbians are God's chosen people.
Ummm, what? Just because God was supposedly targeting one segment doesn't make another segment "chosen". I went to a pretty conservative Lutheran high school when AIDS first started to become widely recognized and I do recall the sentiment there being that AIDS wasn't such a bad thing actually since it was only affecting gays mostly and that that was probably how God wanted it.
Where are Liberal priorities? On one hand they ask that conservatives get out of people's bedrooms, on the other they ask for us to save same said people from their actions in their bedrooms.
What's wrong with that? Are you saying that if people get AIDS we should just let them die because they chose to engage in some sort of activity that might lead to it (damn those people who need blood transfusions!). Or are you saying that the government should indeed be regulating our sex lives making sure we don't do anything dangerous?
You don't want AIDS, don't have unprotected sex. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
As if that was the only way to get it. Otherwise the implication of your statement is that if someone gets AIDS, then just go ahead and let them suffer and die since it's their own fault. Just don't ask you to contribute anything towards easing their suffering or saving their life.
There, as a Conservative, I've done my duty.
Yes, typical conservative selfishness.
True conservatives are not known for such callousness.
Reactionaries are, though.
You might be right. Technically conservatives are the middle of the road, preferring to keep the status quo while reactionaries, like liberals, want to see change, but in the other direction. I'm not quite sure how the labels got blurred or rearranged or whatever happened to them.
Just because God was supposedly targeting one segment doesn't make another segment "chosen".
It was sarcasm, directed at Dennis's general statement about conservatives.
Are you saying that if people get AIDS we should just let them die...
No, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.
Or are you saying that the government should indeed be regulating our sex lives....
No, I could care less what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, back seats, or bath houses. Once again, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of those that say "Stay out of our bedrooms" and then ask us to save them from their own actions.
Just don't ask you to contribute anything towards easing their suffering or saving their life.
I didn't say that. You bring up a good point, however. What responsibility do those that contracted AIDS through promiscuous sex have to society?
Otherwise the implication of your statement is that if someone gets AIDS, then just go ahead and let them suffer and die since it's their own fault.
No, just those that participate in unprotected, promiscuous sex. Like I said, in this day and age there's no reason for it. I have total sympathy for a woman that catches it from her cheating husband, the child that is born with the disease, those that got it from a blood transfusion.....
Yes, typical conservative selfishness.
LOL! Yes, I'm the selfish one. I've got my hand out saying "Give me, give me, give me".
What responsibility do those that contracted AIDS through promiscuous sex have to society?
The same responsibility those who overdulge and end up with cardiovascular disease have.
The same responsibility that couples with known genetic defects have when they are confronted with the decision to procreate or not.
Naradar, I don't disagree with your statements at all.
A guy that eats McDonalds every day shouldn't expect the government to bail him out when he needs a triple bypass....
No, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.
No, I could care less what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, back seats, or bath houses. Once again, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of those that say "Stay out of our bedrooms" and then ask us to save them from their own actions.
So if you're not saying we should let people with AIDS just die, and you're not saying we should regulate sex, then are you not advocating that same so called "hypocrisy"? Personally I don't see anything hypocritical about it at all. I see nothing wrong with a society that allows it's citizens the freedom to do as they please, yet still endeavors to help them out when they, as all imperfect humans do, make the occasional mistake or bad decision. I'm willing to acknowledge the imperfect aspect of humanity and consider it a part of the cost of having a society. If we're just going to say, "it's your fault, you're on your own whether you can handle it or not," makes me wonder what the point is of even having a society.
No, just those that participate in unprotected, promiscuous sex. Like I said, in this day and age there's no reason for it.
There's no reason *you* would. But how can you possibly speak for every single person in every single situation and say there was no reason for it?
What responsibility do those that contracted AIDS through promiscuous sex have to society?
Every person should feel some sense of responsibility to try and not be a burden on their fellow citizens if they can help it, but I don't believe the penalty for failing to do so should necessarily be an unpleasant death.
....then are you not advocating that same so called "hypocrisy"?
I don't see how. I'm saying we should help those in bad situations because of circumstances, not because of bad actions/decisions on their part. I see those as two different circumstances and not contrary to each other.
I see nothing wrong with a society that allows it's citizens the freedom to do as they please, yet still endeavors to help them out when they, as all imperfect humans do, make the occasional mistake or bad decision.
With freedom comes responsibility. I think people should be responsible for themselves and their actions. Take welfare for instance, I agree people need help sometimes. I don't believe that generations of people should live their entire lives on the system. There's got to be a point where we say "Sorry, you're on your own now".
If we're just going to say, "it's your fault, you're on your own whether you can handle it or not," makes me wonder what the point is of even having a society.
Society is what we make it. I'm not saying "It's your fault" to everyone. Just those that knew the possible consequences and did it anyway. They knew the risk and accepted said risk.
But how can you possibly speak for every single person in every single situation and say there was no reason for it?
Of course we can't address every single situation. Does this mean we do not attempt to draw some sort of line?
Every person should feel some sense of responsibility to try and not be a burden on their fellow citizens if they can help it, but I don't believe the penalty for failing to do so should necessarily be an unpleasant death.
I'm willing to provide a comfortable and painless death. I'm not willing to pump millions of tax payer money into R&D on a disease that most likely a cure will never be found for.
3-4 million people have left Sadaam's regime because of his many horrid acts of violence against his own people.
Sadaam Hussein's regime cuts and rips the tongues out of those who speak against him.
He plucks the eyes out of those whom he chooses to.
These things we find abhorrent. Is there anyone who thinks these acts are ok?
And the anti-american organization called "Amnesty International" has the nerve to bad mouth those who have put together this information.
But ripping a child out of it's temporary home, it's mothers womb, some find nothing wrong with. What a shame!
When will the madness stop?
And today kids think you are still a virgin if you engage in oral sex because oral sex is technically not real sex. (Thanks alot Slick Willy, etc.)
When will the corruption of the innocent stop?
Today someone will tell a scared teen that having an abortion will not hurt, that they will be just fine afterwards and they can start life anew.
When will the lies stop?
Abortion is murder and those who support abortions at random are very much like those who support Sadaam Hussein and his madness.
Stop the madness.
Abortion is murder and those who support abortions at random are very much like those who support Sadaam Hussein and his madness.
Who supports abortion at random? I've only seen people support abortions for the people that really want them and need them.
"Abortion is murder and those who support abortions at random are very much like those who support Sadaam Hussein and his madness."
Inflammatory and directionless.
And the anti-american organization called "Amnesty International" has the nerve to bad mouth those who have put together this information.
Really?
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde14.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/mde14.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar97/mde14.htm
Rick 12/2/02 11:28am
Rick, Well, it is Monday... Sorry, you are right.
Allison Wonderland 12/2/02 11:10am
Allison, hi! What I was referring to by "at random" was as a means of birth control and not in the case of life of the mother or rape.
THX 1138 12/2/02 11:39am
I'm pretty sure that is what Fox news was saying but I cannot pull up the article at the moment.
>Well how about this then... Here's a good article from Maggie Gallagher
December 2, 2002
Abortion and the new generation
"If you want to know the deepest reason why liberals have such trouble digesting the election news, take a look at the Harper's cover story by blast-from-the-past uberliberal George McGovern. The title says it all: "The Case for Liberalism: A Defense of the Future Against the Past."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20021202.shtml
"The liberal myth of Progress assumes that, as the older generation, steeped in mystifying ancient religious taboos, gradually dies off, a new pro-abortion consensus would emerge as pols realized there was no profit in pro-life principles."
"Instead, something remarkable and unheralded has happened. Not only is the country in general becoming more conservative in its attitudes toward abortion, but two new polls find that young people are significantly more anti-abortion than their parents' generation are."
"Polls like this show two things: There is something about targeting the unborn for extinction that does not sit well, 30 years after Roe vs. Wade. And the idea that history marches inevitably in any direction is just plain wrong."
>Interesting point! I hope you are right Maggie!
Ok then, how about if our citizens are illegally jailed, arrested for no reason, or even murdered in a foreign country? Do they get the support of our government if they take a vacation on the high seas, and terrorists attack the ship?
Depends on the situation. I wouldn't put much effort towards some idiot American that decided to vacation in Afghanistan right now.
There are many situations in which the people can and do intervine to save people from the sad and terrible things that life can sometimes throw at them. The fact is that you don't seem to want that priviledge to be extended to those who get a disease that kills them in a most unpleasant way just because it is transmitted sexually, in some cases.
In most cases. Anyway, I didn't say I didn't want to help. I guess where we disagree is to what extent.
But are you FOR the research and development of new drugs to fight cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimers and any number of other ravages that attack the human body, and for which our government supports with billions in research grants? Sure, but just not AIDS.
Can you tell me where I stated such things?