Mount Clemens, MI (LifeNews.com) -- A teenager has been charged in a bizarre case in which his pregnant girlfriend told him to hit her with a small baseball bat in order to cause the death of her unborn child.
Wichita, KS (LifeNews.com) -- A woman was rushed to a local hospital Thursday after a botched abortion at the facility of infamous late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller. The abortion business was accused of botching another abortion in September.Â
"The bottom line is this: if this country keeps rolling back freedom of choice and rolling back abortion rights, what you're going to see is more children attempting to perform back alley abortions on themselves," she said.
So, let me get this straight. Pro-life laws are to blame for a boyfriend hitting his girlfriend to cause a miscarriage?
Pro-life laws didn't compel the couple to have sex. They didn't cause the teens to hide the pregnancy from their parents.
While abortion would have been a poor choice, it was a legal and available option.
The pro-abortion argument has always been that abortion must be legal or back-alley abortions will happen. Abortion is legal and a "back alley abortion," as Massie calls it, still occurred.
The abortion movement has a hidden self-destruct mechanism. Ironically, the movement that has worked strenuously to sustain itself as "the women's movement" faces a problem that originates with, well, women themselves.
Until Roe is overturned, telling pro-lifers they need to be "changing hearts" is like telling the New England Patriots they need to practice more ñ- while never, ever letting them play in the Super Bowl. We've been changing hearts for 32 years – I think we're ready for the big match now. I think Americans would support massive restrictions on abortion. And NARAL agrees with me! How about it, liberals? Prove me wrong! Let Americans vote.
I'd have no problem with letting women vote on it, since they are the only one's who would be subject to the law. By why men think they should be able to vote on a law that could not be applied to them is beyond the pale. Just another example of how some men want to be able to control women.
Hillary went so far as to say she had "respect" for those who believe that "there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available."
Better yet, let's take a vote on how many Americans care what Hillary thinks.
By why men think they should be able to vote on a law that could not be applied to them is beyond the pale. Just another example of how some men want to be able to control women.Â
IÂ totally disagree...in fact, I think it's just the opposite.
If a man wants the baby, even if he is willing to raise it without the mother, he is without say in the matter.
If a man doesn't want the baby, and isn't willing to raise it with/without the mother, he is without say in matter AND is expected to support that child.
Who has the control?Â
It seems to me that if a man has sex with a woman he is expected take responsibility for his actions, however the woman can choose whether or not she wants to take on that very same responsibility.Â
It's like saying that even though two people buy a house together, only one has the right to sell it but they're both equally responsible for maintaining it.Â
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Jan 29, 2005 at 05:36pm.]
What part of the word "want" didn't you understand?
It's like saying that even though two people buy a house together, only one has the right to sell it but they're both equally responsible for maintaining it.
If a man doesn't want the baby, and isn't willing to raise it with/without the mother, he is without say in matter AND is expected to support that child.
If a man doesn't want a baby, he shouldn't impregnate one.
What part of the word "want" didn't you understand?
So in other words... it's okay for the woman to have full control, but it's not okay for the man to want any control. LOL
If a man doesn't want a baby, he shouldn't impregnate one.
So in other words...it's okay for a woman to get pregnant and not want the baby, but it's not okay for a man to get a woman pregnant and not want the baby.
It takes two to make a baby, the court system says both should be responsible, yet only one of them has any say about having an abortion.
Yeah, that's fair.
Except for that first nine months.
And what sane person would ever agree to such a deal? Would you buy a house with someone knowing that they could sell it out from under you during the first nine months?Â
Â
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 30, 2005 at 09:22am.]
"On the same day Mrs. Clinton spoke, the new Democratic minority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, introduced the Prevention First Act, a modestly revised version of a bill introduced in the last session, which sets forth a detailed agenda for addressing the problem of unintended pregnancies. It calls for medically accurate sex education, including but not limited to abstinence counseling; expanded access to family planning services for low-income women; easing the availability of morning-after emergency contraception for all women, including victims of sexual assault; and putting an end to the discriminatory practice of health care plans of covering prescription drugs like Viagra, but not prescription contraceptives for women.
"These are practical steps for cutting the nation's abortion rate. Perversely, they are also steps President Bush refuses to take. Thanks to Mrs. Clinton's frank talk, now everyone should know that."
Yes, Torp, but the smart ones know that she's only positioning herself for the next presidential election. She doesn't believe any of what she's saying.
I don't know what socialism has to with abortion, or whether she's a socialist. I doubt it. You can throw the term around easily, but I won't.
I mean the idea of setting a goal to reduce the number of abortions, and establishing a plan to get there is more than there is now. It's a winner-take-all battle between the two sides on this issue,
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Jan 30, 2005 at 04:29pm.]
A man can't be responsible for a pregnancy because he can't actually be pregnant.
Obviously you are reading what you want into my statements. The court system makes a man equally responsible for a child even if he didn't want that child. It shouldn't work that way - if a woman doesn't want the child she can choose to abort it. If the man doesn't want the child, well that's just too bad for him...he is made to be responsible for it.Â
Perhaps the man ought to have the right to opt out of responsibility at the time of pregnancy, which would prevent a woman from coming after him for money at a later time. If she can choose whether or not she wants the child, then he too should have that right.
And don't give me that crap about his having sex with her - she had sex with him also. In the eyes of the law they are equally responsible for the child - so on the flipside they should have equal say - if a man would prefer the woman have an abortion and she doesn't want to, then he should automatically be exempt from any future responsibility. It's BS that women think it should work in their favor either way.
If men got pregnant, abortion would be not only legal, but free. Â
Total nonsense. This sounds just like something a woman who feels threatened by men would say....a woman who blames everything wrong in her life on men and believes we live in a man's world. When it comes to the legal side of family issues, men get screwed over far more than women.
You are splitting hairs, crabgrass. You know quite well what I am talking about - I'm not interested in sarcasm or snide comments therefore I'll not attempt to discuss this any further with you.
Texas Teens Increased Sex After Abstinence Program
Mon Jan 31, 4:43 PM ET Health - Reuters
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President Bush (news - web sites)'s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers' behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.
Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.
"We didn't see any strong indications that these programs were having an impact in the direction desired," said Dr. Buzz Pruitt, who directed the study.
The study was delivered to the Texas Department of State Health Services, which commissioned it.
The federal government is expected to spend about $130 million to fund programs advocating abstinence in 2005, despite a lack of evidence that they work, Pruitt said.
"The jury is still out, but most of what we've discovered shows there's no evidence the large amount of money spent is having an effect," he said.
The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.
Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.
Abstinence-only programs, which have sprouted up in schools across the nation, cannot offer information about birth control and must promote the social and health benefits of abstaining from sex. [...]
do you have any idea of the physiological processes that take place during a lethal injection?
Let's see the person is given an IV and he goes to sleep and dies. Damn that is brutal! What the hell was I thinking? And all I was concerned about was the dismembering of little child when I should have been concerned about the brutal death of convicted murderers! Damn I should have known better!
Are you (the rat)Â against people having more control over the government they are forced to pay for?
Yes he is. Because he and his ilk know better than the ugly masses.
The Court didn't let the people decide about abortion, and the "chaos and rancor" has been going on for 30 years.
I think there was less chaos and rancor before the decision of Roe v. Wade was issued.
Rick, are you against the principle of "consent of the governed?"
No.
Mount Clemens, MI (LifeNews.com) -- A teenager has been charged in a bizarre case in which his pregnant girlfriend told him to hit her with a small baseball bat in order to cause the death of her unborn child.
http://www.lifenews.com/state824.html
Wichita, KS (LifeNews.com) -- A woman was rushed to a local hospital Thursday after a botched abortion at the facility of infamous late-term abortion practitioner George Tiller. The abortion business was accused of botching another abortion in September.Â
http://www.lifenews.com/state836.html
"The bottom line is this: if this country keeps rolling back freedom of choice and rolling back abortion rights, what you're going to see is more children attempting to perform back alley abortions on themselves," she said.
So, let me get this straight. Pro-life laws are to blame for a boyfriend hitting his girlfriend to cause a miscarriage?
Pro-life laws didn't compel the couple to have sex. They didn't cause the teens to hide the pregnancy from their parents.
While abortion would have been a poor choice, it was a legal and available option.
The pro-abortion argument has always been that abortion must be legal or back-alley abortions will happen. Abortion is legal and a "back alley abortion," as Massie calls it, still occurred.
http://www.lifenews.com/state828b.html
The abortion movement has a hidden self-destruct mechanism. Ironically, the movement that has worked strenuously to sustain itself as "the women's movement" faces a problem that originates with, well, women themselves.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1149.html
Until Roe is overturned, telling pro-lifers they need to be "changing hearts" is like telling the New England Patriots they need to practice more ñ- while never, ever letting them play in the Super Bowl. We've been changing hearts for 32 years – I think we're ready for the big match now. I think Americans would support massive restrictions on abortion. And NARAL agrees with me! How about it, liberals? Prove me wrong! Let Americans vote.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20050127.shtml
I'd have no problem with letting women vote on it, since they are the only one's who would be subject to the law. By why men think they should be able to vote on a law that could not be applied to them is beyond the pale. Just another example of how some men want to be able to control women.
Hillary went so far as to say she had "respect" for those who believe that "there are no circumstances under which any abortion should ever be available."
Better yet, let's take a vote on how many Americans care what Hillary thinks.
By why men think they should be able to vote on a law that could not be applied to them is beyond the pale. Just another example of how some men want to be able to control women.Â
IÂ totally disagree...in fact, I think it's just the opposite.
If a man wants the baby, even if he is willing to raise it without the mother, he is without say in the matter.
If a man doesn't want the baby, and isn't willing to raise it with/without the mother, he is without say in matter AND is expected to support that child.
Who has the control?Â
It seems to me that if a man has sex with a woman he is expected take responsibility for his actions, however the woman can choose whether or not she wants to take on that very same responsibility.Â
It's like saying that even though two people buy a house together, only one has the right to sell it but they're both equally responsible for maintaining it.Â
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on Jan 29, 2005 at 05:36pm.]
What part of the word "want" didn't you understand?
Except for that first nine months.
If a man doesn't want a baby, he shouldn't impregnate one.
What part of the word "want" didn't you understand?
So in other words... it's okay for the woman to have full control, but it's not okay for the man to want any control. LOL
If a man doesn't want a baby, he shouldn't impregnate one.
So in other words...it's okay for a woman to get pregnant and not want the baby, but it's not okay for a man to get a woman pregnant and not want the baby.
It takes two to make a baby, the court system says both should be responsible, yet only one of them has any say about having an abortion.
Yeah, that's fair.
Except for that first nine months.
And what sane person would ever agree to such a deal? Would you buy a house with someone knowing that they could sell it out from under you during the first nine months?Â
Â
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Jan 30, 2005 at 09:22am.]
Seems to me someone over at the old PP used to post as Lisa Douglas.
That be you?
[Edited by on Jan 30, 2005 at 08:58am.]
Is reducing abortion rates really on the Bush agenda?
"On the same day Mrs. Clinton spoke, the new Democratic minority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, introduced the Prevention First Act, a modestly revised version of a bill introduced in the last session, which sets forth a detailed agenda for addressing the problem of unintended pregnancies. It calls for medically accurate sex education, including but not limited to abstinence counseling; expanded access to family planning services for low-income women; easing the availability of morning-after emergency contraception for all women, including victims of sexual assault; and putting an end to the discriminatory practice of health care plans of covering prescription drugs like Viagra, but not prescription contraceptives for women.
"These are practical steps for cutting the nation's abortion rate. Perversely, they are also steps President Bush refuses to take. Thanks to Mrs. Clinton's frank talk, now everyone should know that."
No more than it's okay for a woman to want control of a man's testicles, no. I can see why you might have a problem with that.
it's not okay for a man to want to be pregnant because.. well.. he can't.
But only one can actually be pregnant. It only happens to a woman's body. And what happens to one's body is the sole domain of that self's body.
A man can't be responsible for a pregnancy because he can't actually be pregnant.
Because only one of them can actually have an abortion. If men got pregnant, abortion would be not only legal, but free.
What sane person would ever agree to a deal that gave control of their body to someone else?
Only the woman can own this particular house, since you are using the house as a metaphor for pregnancy.
There are still people that actually listen to Hillary?
[Edited by on Jan 30, 2005 at 02:05pm.]
Yes, Torp, but the smart ones know that she's only positioning herself for the next presidential election. She doesn't believe any of what she's saying.
You can be positioning and be right while your doing it.
Suggesting that the two sides to show the willingness for some movement on this issue certainly isn't wrong. More than you have, now.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Jan 30, 2005 at 03:40pm.]
First of all, Hillary is an out-and-out socialist and wants to run people's lives. I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth.
Secondly, what does "more than you have, now" mean?
Â
I don't know what socialism has to with abortion, or whether she's a socialist. I doubt it. You can throw the term around easily, but I won't.
I mean the idea of setting a goal to reduce the number of abortions, and establishing a plan to get there is more than there is now. It's a winner-take-all battle between the two sides on this issue,
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Jan 30, 2005 at 04:29pm.]
She'll be declaring herself a centrist by the end of the year and the party sheep will believe her.
A man can't be responsible for a pregnancy because he can't actually be pregnant.
Obviously you are reading what you want into my statements. The court system makes a man equally responsible for a child even if he didn't want that child. It shouldn't work that way - if a woman doesn't want the child she can choose to abort it. If the man doesn't want the child, well that's just too bad for him...he is made to be responsible for it.Â
Perhaps the man ought to have the right to opt out of responsibility at the time of pregnancy, which would prevent a woman from coming after him for money at a later time. If she can choose whether or not she wants the child, then he too should have that right.
And don't give me that crap about his having sex with her - she had sex with him also. In the eyes of the law they are equally responsible for the child - so on the flipside they should have equal say - if a man would prefer the woman have an abortion and she doesn't want to, then he should automatically be exempt from any future responsibility. It's BS that women think it should work in their favor either way.
If men got pregnant, abortion would be not only legal, but free. Â
Total nonsense. This sounds just like something a woman who feels threatened by men would say....a woman who blames everything wrong in her life on men and believes we live in a man's world. When it comes to the legal side of family issues, men get screwed over far more than women.
[Edited by on Jan 30, 2005 at 06:56pm.]
Not when it's a fetus.
What universe do you live in that a man can be pregnant?
Can't you understand that when a child is born, the woman is no longer pregnant?
You really can't tell the differnce between a fetus and a child, can you?
Let me help, the child is the one that is outside of their mother's body.
You are splitting hairs, crabgrass. You know quite well what I am talking about - I'm not interested in sarcasm or snide comments therefore I'll not attempt to discuss this any further with you.
Amazing how some things just never change.
I know that when I say "pregnant", you respond with "child"
They aren't the same thing and you know it.
Muffin?
...pumpkins...wax paper...Caledonia, Mahoganies, elbows...green things in general...
Suggesting that the two sides to show the willingness for some movement on this issue certainly isn't wrong. More than you have, now.
She'll be declaring herself a centrist by the end of the year and the party sheep will believe her.
it's not butchering
it's not butchering
it's an inaccurate description
by saying it's butchering, you attempt to put a gruesome, yet innaccurate association with it.
it's simple propaganda
it's simple propaganda
No. It is butchering by definition. Bye, bye fool.
by who's definition? certainly not Webster's
Jethro, DUMon was booted from City Hall for being obnoxious, annoying and stupid. Go figure.
Torpid's dictionary defines obnoxious, annoying, and stupid as beating down the board owner with facts and citations about a certain historical period
unless, of course, you think the Cossacks attacked Napoleon in Moscow?
butcher-To kill brutally
you mean like executions. gotcha.
War is the butchering of human beings. It's not even a question of belief, it's a simple fact. What's so hard to understand about that?
that is not the definition of butchering, jethro
you mean like executions. gotcha.
No one who has gotten one has ever complained.
lethal injection isn't brutal.
well i guess that depends on your definition of brutal. do you have any idea of the physiological processes that take place during a lethal injection?
why do red states have a higher percentage of teen pregnancies than blue states?
Texas Teens Increased Sex After Abstinence Program
Mon Jan 31, 4:43 PM ET Health - Reuters
HOUSTON (Reuters) - Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President Bush (news - web sites)'s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers' behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.
Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University.
"We didn't see any strong indications that these programs were having an impact in the direction desired," said Dr. Buzz Pruitt, who directed the study.
The study was delivered to the Texas Department of State Health Services, which commissioned it.
The federal government is expected to spend about $130 million to fund programs advocating abstinence in 2005, despite a lack of evidence that they work, Pruitt said.
"The jury is still out, but most of what we've discovered shows there's no evidence the large amount of money spent is having an effect," he said.
The study showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.
Boys in the tenth grade, about 14 to 15 years old, showed a more marked increase, from 24 percent to 39 percent, after receiving abstinence education.
Abstinence-only programs, which have sprouted up in schools across the nation, cannot offer information about birth control and must promote the social and health benefits of abstaining from sex. [...]
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&e=8&u=/nm/health_abstinence_texas_dc
do you have any idea of the physiological processes that take place during a lethal injection?
Let's see the person is given an IV and he goes to sleep and dies. Damn that is brutal! What the hell was I thinking? And all I was concerned about was the dismembering of little child when I should have been concerned about the brutal death of convicted murderers! Damn I should have known better!
why do red states have a higher percentage of teen pregnancies than blue states?
Is that a queston or a statement, jethro?