Don't know what it was like at the beginning, but I think it's changed a lot for the worse in the time I've been following it, albiet not that closely.
However, a lot of Christians seem to take this approach: rather than deal with the social causes (poverty, lack of education, including sex education) they'd rather punish the women.
Obviously they aren't paying attention to what Jesus said.
Also, criminalizing abortion will not keep abortions from happening; it will merely drive them underground, making them more dangerous. Also I don't want fundie Christian idiots dictating social policy any more than they already have; their trying to kick evolution out of
i science
class is beyond ridiculous. Its scary and embarrassing.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 21, 2004 at 02:32pm.]
However, a lot of Christiansseem to take this approach: rather than deal with the social causes (poverty, education, including sex education) they'd rather punish the women. Utter nonsense. Christinas deal with those problems all the time. Christians just don't think killing the child does anything to alleviate those problems.
Obviously they aren't paying attention to what Jesus said. Either you don't know anything about it or you are lying.
Also, criminalizing abortion will not keep abortions from happening; It will keep some, maybe a lot, from happening.it will merely drive them underground, making them more dangerous. Some will CHOOSE to attempt that, many won't. Also I don't want fundie Christian idiots dictating social policy any more than they already have; their trying to kick evolution out ofÂ
science
class is beyond ridiculous. Its scary and embarrassing.
You are an idiot. Go soak your head.
Also I don't want fundie Christian idiots dictating social policy any more than they already have; their trying to kick evolution out of science class is beyond ridiculous. Its scary and embarrassing. You are an idiot. Go soak your head.
How come the red states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy?
Is underage fornication a Christian value?
....speaking of Red vs. Blue states, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just published a report on teen pregnancy in the USA. Among its findings--highest and lowest birth rates for teen mothers:
Among the states, Maine had the lowest rate at 0.2 per 1,000, while Mississippi had the highest at 2 per 1,000.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 21, 2004 at 02:43pm.]
How come the red states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy? Maybe you should look at those red states closely instead of jumping to irrational conclusions.* They have a lot of "blue" people in them.
* not that I believe you are capable of anything more.
CHICAGO (AP) - A premature infant believed to be the smallest baby ever to survive was called "a great blessing" Tuesday by her mother, who is preparing to take the little girl and her twin sister home from the hospital.
The baby, named Rumaisa, weighed 8.6 ounces when she was delivered Sept. 19 at Loyola University Medical Center - less than a can of soda.
Shaik, 23, developed pre-eclampsia, a disorder characterized by high blood pressure and other problems, during pregnancy. The condition affected Rumaisa in the womb and her mother's health, prompting a Caesarean section at 25 weeks and 6 days. Normal gestation is 40 weeks.
"This is about doing something positive,"said Scott Fischbach, executive director of the MCCL. In the past, the group has been seen mainly as pushing for limits on legal abortion and providers of abortion."
"Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has supported many of the MCCL's past initiatives, said through a spokesman that the proposal was "a positive approach to an important issue." But traditional MCCL opponents greeted the proposal with a mixture of skepticism and surprise."
Rick: If they think the new effort is "about doing something positive" do they see that as some kind of change?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 22, 2004 at 06:31am.]
Minneapolis criminal profiler Pat Brown told her: "If the woman doesn't want the baby, she can get an abortion. If the guy doesn't want it, he can't do a damn thing about it. He is stuck with a child for the rest of his life, he is stuck with child support for the rest of his life, and he's stuck with that woman for the rest of his life. If she goes away, the problem goes away."
 If this is true, the perpetrators are simply taking the logic of Roe vs. Wade one step further. Roe instructed Americans that it is a woman's "right" to make "the problem go away" by aborting a child. Paternal perpetrators of maternal homicides make their "problem go away" by aborting the mother, too.
WASHINGTONÂ -- A Supreme Court vacancy may soon ignite a controversy involving two entangled issues -- abortion, and the role of courts in this constitutional democracy. Herewith a statement the president might usefully make sometime, somewhere, to disentangle the issues:
Let them fight it out locally. We need more decisions made closer to home. The federal government is too intrusive. We started out as a loose confederation of individual states and we need to get back to that. A large central government is too difficult for the people to control.
Are you making fun of my desire to see this country governed the way it was set up to be governed? Are you against people having more control over the government they are forced to pay for?
I guess the ensuing chaos and rancor of throwing this issue back to the states is less important to you than making sure the Constitution is followed to the letter.
That Constitution is fine, handsome document. Society is a bit messier.
Yes, I think the Constitution should be followed to the letter. Democracy IS messy, but it ensures that everyone who wants to can be heard.
The Court didn't let the people decide about abortion, and the "chaos and rancor" has been going on for 30 years. Better for it to be local than national. The possibility of dust-ups in state legislatures should certainly not be a reason to deny the people their right to decide an issue.
Strange, I automatically saw it as an infant in the womb.
Don't know what it was like at the beginning, but I think it's changed a lot for the worse in the time I've been following it, albiet not that closely.
Rest my case.
It is easy to see that the Rat has no heart.
I think every abortion is a tragedy.
However, a lot of Christians seem to take this approach: rather than deal with the social causes (poverty, lack of education, including sex education) they'd rather punish the women.
Obviously they aren't paying attention to what Jesus said.
Also, criminalizing abortion will not keep abortions from happening; it will merely drive them underground, making them more dangerous. Also I don't want fundie Christian idiots dictating social policy any more than they already have; their trying to kick evolution out of
i science
class is beyond ridiculous. Its scary and embarrassing.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 21, 2004 at 02:32pm.]
However, a lot of Christiansseem to take this approach: rather than deal with the social causes (poverty, education, including sex education) they'd rather punish the women. Utter nonsense. Christinas deal with those problems all the time. Christians just don't think killing the child does anything to alleviate those problems.
Obviously they aren't paying attention to what Jesus said. Either you don't know anything about it or you are lying.
Also, criminalizing abortion will not keep abortions from happening; It will keep some, maybe a lot, from happening.it will merely drive them underground, making them more dangerous. Some will CHOOSE to attempt that, many won't. Also I don't want fundie Christian idiots dictating social policy any more than they already have; their trying to kick evolution out ofÂ
science
class is beyond ridiculous. Its scary and embarrassing.
You are an idiot. Go soak your head.
And you say The Rat has no heart.
Where do you find it in your heart to talk like that to someone, jethro?
Also I don't want fundie Christian idiots dictating social policy any more than they already have; their trying to kick evolution out of science class is beyond ridiculous. Its scary and embarrassing. You are an idiot. Go soak your head.
How come the red states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy?
Is underage fornication a Christian value?
....speaking of Red vs. Blue states, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just published a report on teen pregnancy in the USA. Among its findings--highest and lowest birth rates for teen mothers:
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 21, 2004 at 02:43pm.]
Divorce rates run high in the Red States, too.
Lowest divorce rate in the country: Massachusetts.
[Edited by on Dec 21, 2004 at 02:44pm.]
Where do you find it in your heart to talk like that to someone, jethro?
Care to answer my question?
How come the red states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy? Maybe you should look at those red states closely instead of jumping to irrational conclusions.* They have a lot of "blue" people in them.
* not that I believe you are capable of anything more.
Care to answer my question?
Care to answer my question?
I did.
Where do you find it in your heart to talk like that to someone, jethro?
I think things like Mount St. Helens "just happen."
Humans are supposed to have a measure of self control.
Didn't I just read that somewhere today?
Â
CHICAGO (AP) - A premature infant believed to be the smallest baby ever to survive was called "a great blessing" Tuesday by her mother, who is preparing to take the little girl and her twin sister home from the hospital.
The baby, named Rumaisa, weighed 8.6 ounces when she was delivered Sept. 19 at Loyola University Medical Center - less than a can of soda.
Shaik, 23, developed pre-eclampsia, a disorder characterized by high blood pressure and other problems, during pregnancy. The condition affected Rumaisa in the womb and her mother's health, prompting a Caesarean section at 25 weeks and 6 days. Normal gestation is 40 weeks.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041221/D8748AEO0.html
Â
Â
Â
Humans are supposed to have a measure of self control.
Oh that WAS self control.
Maybe you should look at those red states closely instead of jumping to irrational conclusions.* They have a lot of "blue" people in them.
Almost 50%.
Almost
and the blue states have a lot of "red" people in them.
no wonder they are so evil.
Let's agree that only the blue people get pregnant out of wedlock and divorced and we can end this debate.
[Edited by on Dec 22, 2004 at 05:59am.]
Anti abortion group wants millions from State of MN
"This is about doing something positive,"said Scott Fischbach, executive director of the MCCL. In the past, the group has been seen mainly as pushing for limits on legal abortion and providers of abortion."
"Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has supported many of the MCCL's past initiatives, said through a spokesman that the proposal was "a positive approach to an important issue." But traditional MCCL opponents greeted the proposal with a mixture of skepticism and surprise."
Rick: If they think the new effort is "about doing something positive" do they see that as some kind of change?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 22, 2004 at 06:31am.]
I don't get your point, Rick.
Inre?
Let's agree that only the blue people get pregnant out of wedlock and divorced and we can end this debate.
Minneapolis criminal profiler Pat Brown told her: "If the woman doesn't want the baby, she can get an abortion. If the guy doesn't want it, he can't do a damn thing about it. He is stuck with a child for the rest of his life, he is stuck with child support for the rest of his life, and he's stuck with that woman for the rest of his life. If she goes away, the problem goes away."
 If this is true, the perpetrators are simply taking the logic of Roe vs. Wade one step further. Roe instructed Americans that it is a woman's "right" to make "the problem go away" by aborting a child. Paternal perpetrators of maternal homicides make their "problem go away" by aborting the mother, too.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20041222.shtml
If they think the new effort is "about doing something positive" do they see that as some kind of change?
I don't understand what you're saying.
Why do they stress that they're doing something positive? What were they doing before? -- something negative?
I don't know.
My guess is, the opposite of them, which is condoning of killing a child, in their eyes isn't very positive.
sure there is, he can not impregnate the woman in the first place.
sure there is, he can not impregnate the woman in the first place.
Strange
That very argument doesn't work with you when roles are reversed.
sure there is, he can not impregnate the woman in the first place.
I thought abstinence doesn't work.
Bwaaaah!
in what world can a woman impregnate a man?
in what world can a woman impregnate a man?
In what world can a woman not spread her legs?
uh...a world without rape?
let's see, you are suggesting it's the woman's responsibility?
then it's not the man's choice.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by molegrass on Dec 22, 2004 at 09:56pm.]
Rape accounts for just a tiny percentage of all abortions.
Try again.
so, you want it to be the woman's responsibility and the man's choice?
Merry Christmas Crabby
WASHINGTONÂ -- A Supreme Court vacancy may soon ignite a controversy involving two entangled issues -- abortion, and the role of courts in this constitutional democracy. Herewith a statement the president might usefully make sometime, somewhere, to disentangle the issues:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/georgewill/gw20050102.shtml
The best point made in that article: Let the people in each state decide how they want to handle abortion.
You wanna make a bad siutation worse, throw it to the individual states.
Imagine the legistlative battles, state by state. The protests and riots.
That we need for sure.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 7, 2005 at 06:44am.]
Let them fight it out locally. We need more decisions made closer to home. The federal government is too intrusive. We started out as a loose confederation of individual states and we need to get back to that. A large central government is too difficult for the people to control.
"Let them fight it out locally. "
Who would the localities and states thank for that grand opportunity?
"We need more decisions made closer to home. The federal government is too intrusive. "
Cue the drum and fife. Let's turn the decision over the the Sheriff of the Shire.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 7, 2005 at 06:52am.]
"Cue the drum and fife."
Are you making fun of my desire to see this country governed the way it was set up to be governed? Are you against people having more control over the government they are forced to pay for?
I guess the ensuing chaos and rancor of throwing this issue back to the states is less important to you than making sure the Constitution is followed to the letter.
That Constitution is fine, handsome document. Society is a bit messier.
Yes, I think the Constitution should be followed to the letter. Democracy IS messy, but it ensures that everyone who wants to can be heard.
The Court didn't let the people decide about abortion, and the "chaos and rancor" has been going on for 30 years. Better for it to be local than national. The possibility of dust-ups in state legislatures should certainly not be a reason to deny the people their right to decide an issue.
Â
In the street we'd probably be seeing more than "dust-ups."
You wanna make a bad siutation worse, throw it to the individual states.
A bad situation? Worse? Hardly. Besides it si what the Cosntitution requires despite lies to the contrary.
Imagine the legistlative battles, state by state. The protests and riots. I see you have little regard for democracy.