If you support no one preventing me from having a gun, then you aren't imposing on me and are in fact, helping to prevent others from imposing on me.
Sort of like not supporting those that would wish to kill an unborn child? Then I am not imposing on anyone and would in fact be helping to prevent others from imposing death on the unborn child?
and there's the problem. the system won't be as it is now.
Why not? I mean those people would pay into the system, the government would spend the money on something and then when they get old the government would pay them what it feels is fair. How is that any different than now?
Dan, I was speaking of the "Politics of The South" and in case you didn't know, there ISa difference between their "Values" and their "Morals" and especially their "Politics", as compared to mine, or yours for that matter. There is plainly a diference between the two. Do you disagree?
Yes. They are people just like you and me and all have varying "values" and "morals" just like you and I do. To lump the entire region into a neat little ball is the same as saying all black people are _____. Replace some of the words you are using with the word "Jews" or "blacks" and I think you will begin to see what I am getting at. I doubt that you would speak the same way about various ethnic groups as you are about the south and I do not understand why you can make such a distinction.
If you doubt that, then just go there and live for a year or two. Really.
I did live there for several years and graduated from a high school in Arkansas. We used to party on land that was so remote the cop cars couldn't get to our 4x4's. That land was known as "White Water Estates".
Yes, there are a few who actually still hold a grudge against the north to this day, but they are a few and not the masses that you are trying to portray. There are many more who like life slow and in the wilderness and don't like it when "yankees" go down there and try to make the area like the northern city that they came from. If they wanted a northern city life, then they would move to a northern city.
Outside of a few cosmetic changes to the infrastructure there, the entrenched racial and ethnic biases of 30 years ago, are unchanged...only the faces are diferent.
Utter crap. I hope that you do not believe that family members of mine that still live in Arkansas have these "racial and ethnic biases" that you speak of. Do you?
I have recently been to a plant that the place I work for has in Virginia. One thing that was pointed out to me there was that only a couple of generations ago a judge actually choose to close a school in that town rather than make whites and blacks intermingle in the school. Those that were talking about it (whites) were embarrassed about it and couldn't figure out how their relatives could have been that way. Today they work, shop, play and even fish and hunt together with blacks. I mean they go out together to do these things, not just happen to bump into each other like many around here do, but actually plan on doing things together as any friends would. Is this the "biases" that you are speaking of?
Again, I believe we can find racist in the south just like we can find them in the north, but I do not believe that it is "institutionalized" or a majority of the inhabitants of the south anymore than it is in the north.
BUT, let's try to remember that Bill Clinton also tried to make/propose changesbe made to SS (for instance), but the Republican Party flatly rejected his appeal for ANYÂ changes...
Odd of you to say that since you once said, "It would seem to me that the implications were discussed, but that very-real concerns about privatization existed and noconcensus was reached".
Actually, one thing he wanted to do is take away the earnings limits imposed on retirees. Basically giving more money to the rich which I thought was something the dems were against, but apparently not when they do it.
Another was a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. Republicans apparently agreed with him and have accomplished that.
Bill Clinton also wanted the federal government to have control of how a part of the SS money is invested and apparently didn't think that you were smart enough to know for yourself what is best in your situation.
See, they were chasing Clinton at the time, because of sexno less, and couldn't be diverted towards the country's actual needs.
Yeah, it's not like there is anything wrong with sex in the workplace. What the heck, all bosses should be able to use sex as a way for advances and favors.
IF the changes that are now being talked about by the Prez actually happen, the very first people affected will be those who need that system the most, and cannot afford to lose any income
This statement alone shows that you do not know what you are talking about or that you will use lies in an attempt to make a president look bad. There is no loss or decrease for those that are in the program now or chose to be in it instead of the investing choice. Why the left continues to state such easily proven lies is beyond me. Maybe they are hoping that if it is repeated enough that it will start to be believed.
Another thing, what promise do you have that you will receive a certain amount or any amount at all? From what I have seen and read, congress has the choice right now of what is paid or if anything is paid at all. I am sure that it would be political suicide for them to completely shut down SS, but that option is there. I have seen court cases that state there is no legal claim to monies in social security no matter how long you have paid in. I cannot find anything that guarantees a payment of any kind to anyone.
We have already seen JUST how much he cares about the VA ...
When he took office, the VA budget was $46.5 billion. It is now at $67.7 billion. An increase of about $21,200,000,000. That's right, $21.2 billion or about a 46% increase in funding.
How much do you want to see it increase and where do you want to get that money from?
Veterans PAY a LOT for what they were told would be health-care-forever, just because they were injured while in the service or even because they were unfortunate enough to take a bullet, for "Freedom".
Who pays what? What are their income guidelines? Are you talking priority group 8?
Are you disagreeing with what you said earlier?
well, I didn't say this...
Then I am not imposing on anyone and would in fact be helping to prevent others from imposing death on the unborn child?
I said this...
If you support no one preventing me from having a gun, then you aren't imposing on me and are in fact, helping to prevent others from imposing on me.
To call support for a woman's right to decide what to do about her pregnancy "imposing" is an abuse of the word "impose". To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
To say a woman is "imposing" on a fetus by having an abortion is to say she is imposing on herself. It's already inside her and attached. You can't get much more imposing than that.
But you will impose your beliefs about what I can and cannot do with my son who is not physically attached to me? You will impose your beliefs about what I can and cannot do to my neighbors as well? You will even impose your beliefs about what I can and cannot do with the money that I earn and have to give to Social Security?
You see, sometimes we need to impose our beliefs in order to have a healthy society. If it is such an imposition on people to help a healthy, innocent, unborn child have a chance just to experience his first breath of air, then that is just too bad. I see no reason to end such an innocent life just for the convenience of the mother.
At least I have got you to admit that it is a "living being" that is attached to the mother and not just some odd appendage. I guess that is a small step in the right direction.
But you will impose your beliefs about what I can and cannot do with my son who is not physically attached to me? You will impose your beliefs about what I can and cannot do to my neighbors as well? You will even impose your beliefs about what I can and cannot do with the money that I earn and have to give to Social Security?
They are called individual rights. Once you are born and become an individual, you got 'em. Until then you are a fetus that is a part of your mother.
I don't think anyone has the right to be inside your body and attach themselves and feed off you. If they do, it's your right to kill them. I won't interefere.
If you have some rare blood that I need to live, I still don't have the right to make you hook up an IV to me and carry me around to keep me alive.
If it is such an imposition on people to help a healthy, innocent, unborn child have a chance just to experience his first breath of air, then that is just too bad. I see no reason to end such an innocent life just for the convenience of the mother.
And if a parasite attaches itself to your body, can I force you to keep feeding it?
I do not have the right not to pay taxes. If I earn an income, I have to do it. Others are imposing their beliefs on me by forcing me to pay for what they want accomplished. You disagree with the president that we should be in Iraq, but that belief is being forced upon you and you pay taxes to support it. So the beliefs of others are imposed upon us in such ways.
I still don't have the right to make you hook up an IV to me and carry me around to keep me alive.
Difference is that I did not create you and am not responsible for you. My children I did have a part in creating and therefore must do the best I can to raise them. If I do not feed and cloth my children, how long before society forces their beliefs that I must do so on me? Would they not be imposing their belief system on me?
"Yes. They are people just like you and me and all have varying "values" and "morals" just like you and I do. To lump the entire region into a neat little ball is the same as saying all black people are _____. "
That's ridiculous. If there is no room for a certain degree of generalization, then neither side here can EVER make any kind of claim if there is even one deviation.
I think Red States of the south carry specific political traits that can be accurately be described en massewithout being accused of generalization. Over recent generations, the states have shifted to the Republican party, which has gained in numbers and increased its organizational ability. Organized fundamentalist religion has gained political power and is not reluctant to exercise it.
And I think those traits would be something that the people on the right would be proud of. After all, I hear in the New Media all the time that the south and the west are the "real America." Where the "real Amercans live."
They don't have any problem slapping a broad brush across the Northeast Corridor and Pacific Rim. Fine. I'd stand with New Yorkers, Botsonians and Angelinos any day of the week.
[Edited 7 times. Most recently by on Mar 14, 2005 at 06:19am.]
The point was that supporting keeping other people out of what happens in a woman's womb doesn't impose anything on you.
So if someone shoots their neighbor we shouldn't say anything because it does not impose on us? Part of the reason for having laws is so we do not impose on others and having an abortion surely imposes on the unborn child which you have admitted is a living being.
If women could transfer their pregnancy to the father, abortion would not only be legal, it would be free.
Nonsense. There would still be those that believe nothing is wrong with it and those that believe it is the wrong thing to do. Personally, I have changed my lifestyle since having children, comforted them through the flu season, changed my fair share of diapers, midnight feedings, etc. and am doing so now as my grandchild visits us while my daughter goes to work. It is part of being a family unit and living up to your responsibilities. If it was possible for me to get pregnant, I would still feel that abortion is wrong.
So, you support the right of a raped woman to abort, right?
Tough question. I would like to see the child put up for adoption if the mother is that bothered by it, but what percentage of abortions are we talking about anyway?
I believe it was you who was worried about those that speak for the president having a southern twang in their voice. By the way, you never answered my wuestion of who those folks are.
I was speaking of THE POLITICSof the "South", which are now "The Politics of America".
Them evil southerners taking over the world now?
You might want to check your pressure-cooker attitude at the door, and then STOP trying to claim that I have some sort of hatred for "Southerners". Cheap Shot
No "pressure cooker attitude". Merely pointing out what I read here. I mean, look at what you have written:
Sorry Man... You're right. There is noinstitutional racism in the South, anymore... (Funny...) 'Bill - Fold' 11/11/04 2:57am
That is why I quicklysay I am FROM Minnesota, whenever I am in any other state. I really do. 'Bill - Fold' 11/9/04 6:06am
They are ... Funny people that way, and they come from(Mostly) South
of the Mason-Dixon
Now I am certain that one or two will disagree with that, but then...They don't live there. I do, and I can tell you for a fact that "N" jokes are more frequent than "Blonde" jokes are here, but with one important distinction...? They mean it when they tell them-there jokes, and they are more often than not, humilitating, demeaning and sub-human "Jokes". Most of the worst of these racists wear their hatred on their sleeves and there are TONS of them. 'Bill - Fold' "The Civil War" 8/28/03 5:06am
Oh and, you wouldn't know a "Priority 8" from a "Priority 3" Veteran, so don't lecture me about it. Try spending some TIME out there, then lecture me. K?
You have no clue what I do and don't know, so please do not lecture me. I asked a question and you have once again found a way to avoid it.
Fact is, we ALLÂ spend more money on the Health-Care for our fucking prison inmates than we spend for Veterans, and that is a fact that superceeds party-afiliations.
I Would like to know where you got those stats from. All I can find is an old article that claims the U.S. spent $3 billion annually in 1999. link I am not saying you are wrong, just that I need help verifying what you claim.
What is your party doing to change that?
Since I belong to no party all I can say is that the president has significantly raised the budget for the VA and their healthcare. Page back throught the posts to see what I mean and we will save a little bandwith.
Nothing, and that is exactly what we are doing for our Veterans.
$21.2 billion or about a 46% increase in funding is nothing to you? Again, how much do you request and what programs are you willing to cut to get it?
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Fold and I disagree on almost everything, but I will stick up for his veteran status and for what he does for them. If that is what you are getting at, you are wrong.
and being pregnant surely imposes on a mother's body.
But the government, as far as I know, does not impregnate women. In most instances women choose to have sex and all know, or should know, the potential for pregnancy. Abortion is almost entirely about women, and any man that pushes them into it, avoiding responsibility.
What percentage of pregnant mothers die due to pregnancy and what percentage of unborn children die due to an abortion? It does not seem to me that it is the reason that abortions are performed.
well, it certainly hasn't "sprung off" yet... but technically I guess we should call the first trimester an "embryo"
Yes I did and I see you are falling for the propaganda of the terrorist. It is a well known fact that they killed many and said that we did it. You know how our precision bombs work and how accurate they are, or are you saying that our own people purposely attacked unarmed children? Is this how you actually feel about those that are protecting your freedoms?
So, the life of a woman is your decision based on the odds?
As you know, the point was that a fractional percent of abortions have anything to do with the health of the mother. You on the other hand choose to kill the child based on the whim of the mother. Nice.
It is a well known fact that they killed many and said that we did it.
So, if someone else does it, it's okay for you to do it too?
You know how our precision bombs work and how accurate they are, or are you saying that our own people purposely attacked unarmed children?
Talk about falling for propoganda. We knew going in that we would kill a lot of civilians. We called it "collateral damage". To pretend otherwise is foolish.
You on the other hand choose to kill the child based on the whim of the mother.
I don't choose to kill or not kill anything. I just don't make that decision for a pregnant woman.
the point was that a fractional percent of abortions have anything to do with the health of the mother
Like I said, you choose for her and give her odds.
So, if someone else does it, it's okay for you to do it too?
So now you believe that we are purposely killing woman and children so we can blame it on the terrorist? You sure do not think much of our boys and girls in the military.
We knew going in that we would kill a lot of civilians. We called it "collateral damage".
Yup, same thing as what the terrorist do.
I don't choose to kill or not kill anything. I just don't make that decision for a pregnant woman.
By not standing up on behalf of those that cannot for themselves, you are just as guilty. And again, you just admitted that there is life there.
Like I said, you choose for her and give her odds.
How you get that out of my statement that you are talking about a very few cases and most are just done on a whim is beyond me. You are using this miniscule amount of abortions to justify allowing a healthy woman to kill her healthy baby. Then you claim that you didn't do it, they did. That is the same as saying you didn't kill that person's neighbor they did, so we as a society shouldn't do anything about it. It was his decision. Pretty assinine idea.
It's not my business if it occurs inside a woman's body and is attached to her.
We're not talking about some wart, we are talking about what you agreed was a living human being. To say it is none of your business if the mother kills it says a lot about your character and it is not good.
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush."
You miss the one where men kept women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen do you?
Again, I do not see how you get this out of my caring about children. I am not telling these women whether to have sex or not, just not to kill their child when they do.
Where is the morality in making what happens inside someone's body your business?
The morality is in keeping a child alive at the most vulnerable and helpless time of their life.
Grandpa Dan, I respect you 100000000 percent.
Thank you very much.
I honestly am not argueing this point on abortion just to make political points, but rather because I believe that an unborn child should not be reduced to a lump of stuff that a mother can just remove on a whim. We as a society need to protect those that are the most vulnerable among us and I cannot think of anything more vulnerable than an unborn child that hasn't even taken his first breath yet. It really gets to me that some look at it as if it were a cancer on the mother that should be removed or something.
I find it truely sad that our society sees nothing wrong with killing a healthy baby that is not affecting the mother's health in any way. I am not sure what the correct answer is when a mother's life is at stake, but that is a totally different topic.
"I find it truely sad that our society sees nothing wrong with killing a healthy baby that is not affecting the mother's health in any way."
I think society, as a whole sees wrong in it. I don't know where you get the idea it doesn't. It's seen as a tough, wrenching decision with lasting consequences. One that shouldn't be taken lightly. Some people do. They shouldn't.
Legality is what society debates.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 16, 2005 at 03:42pm.]
"Food for thought....what would a solution to this epidemic be?"
I don't think epidemic is really a correct term. The issue has been hijacked by extremes on both sides. Solutions aren't important. Winning is important.
See, I dont see being prochoice as that. But that is me.
How do you see it?
I have opinions on this subject but I can see both points of view very clearly.
Then join the discussion. The more we have discussing, the better.
Food for thought....what would a solution to this epidemic be?
For starters, making abortion on a whim against the law. I do not feel that as a society we should sanction having an abortion just because it would inconvieniance the mother's career or lifestyle. To me, that is the worst reason to have an abortion.
I think society, as a whole sees wrong in it. I don't know where you get the idea it doesn't.
From the fact that it is still legal. If we see it as wrong, then we should correct the legalities that allow it to go on. Our society saw the wrong in not allowing women to vote and we found a way to correct that. We can do it again if we so desire.
The issue has been hijacked by extremes on both sides. Solutions aren't important. Winning is important.
You are correct that some see it politically as a win or a loss. I am not playing games though, I honestly believe that it is a wrong that needs to be corrected. I am sure that there is also those on the other side that see it as a right that needs protecting, but I strongly disagree with them.
If you support no one preventing me from having a gun, then you aren't imposing on me and are in fact, helping to prevent others from imposing on me.
Sort of like not supporting those that would wish to kill an unborn child? Then I am not imposing on anyone and would in fact be helping to prevent others from imposing death on the unborn child?
and there's the problem. the system won't be as it is now.
Why not? I mean those people would pay into the system, the government would spend the money on something and then when they get old the government would pay them what it feels is fair. How is that any different than now?
how you can get "not imposing" out of "prevent others" is beyond me.
Dan, I was speaking of the "Politics of The South" and in case you didn't know, there ISa difference between their "Values" and their "Morals" and especially their "Politics", as compared to mine, or yours for that matter. There is plainly a diference between the two. Do you disagree?
Yes. They are people just like you and me and all have varying "values" and "morals" just like you and I do. To lump the entire region into a neat little ball is the same as saying all black people are _____. Replace some of the words you are using with the word "Jews" or "blacks" and I think you will begin to see what I am getting at. I doubt that you would speak the same way about various ethnic groups as you are about the south and I do not understand why you can make such a distinction.
If you doubt that, then just go there and live for a year or two. Really.
I did live there for several years and graduated from a high school in Arkansas. We used to party on land that was so remote the cop cars couldn't get to our 4x4's. That land was known as "White Water Estates".
Yes, there are a few who actually still hold a grudge against the north to this day, but they are a few and not the masses that you are trying to portray. There are many more who like life slow and in the wilderness and don't like it when "yankees" go down there and try to make the area like the northern city that they came from. If they wanted a northern city life, then they would move to a northern city.
Outside of a few cosmetic changes to the infrastructure there, the entrenched racial and ethnic biases of 30 years ago, are unchanged...only the faces are diferent.
Utter crap. I hope that you do not believe that family members of mine that still live in Arkansas have these "racial and ethnic biases" that you speak of. Do you?
I have recently been to a plant that the place I work for has in Virginia. One thing that was pointed out to me there was that only a couple of generations ago a judge actually choose to close a school in that town rather than make whites and blacks intermingle in the school. Those that were talking about it (whites) were embarrassed about it and couldn't figure out how their relatives could have been that way. Today they work, shop, play and even fish and hunt together with blacks. I mean they go out together to do these things, not just happen to bump into each other like many around here do, but actually plan on doing things together as any friends would. Is this the "biases" that you are speaking of?
Again, I believe we can find racist in the south just like we can find them in the north, but I do not believe that it is "institutionalized" or a majority of the inhabitants of the south anymore than it is in the north.
BUT, let's try to remember that Bill Clinton also tried to make/propose changesbe made to SS (for instance), but the Republican Party
flatly rejected
his appeal for ANYÂ changes...
Odd of you to say that since you once said,
"It would seem to me that the implications were discussed, but that very-real concerns about privatization existed and noconcensus was reached".
'Bill - Fold' 2/5/05 5:55am
 Which is it?
Actually, one thing he wanted to do is take away the earnings limits imposed on retirees. Basically giving more money to the rich which I thought was something the dems were against, but apparently not when they do it.
Another was a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. Republicans apparently agreed with him and have accomplished that.
Bill Clinton also wanted the federal government to have control of how a part of the SS money is invested and apparently didn't think that you were smart enough to know for yourself what is best in your situation.
See, they were chasing Clinton at the time, because of sexno less, and couldn't be diverted towards the country's actual needs.
Yeah, it's not like there is anything wrong with sex in the workplace. What the heck, all bosses should be able to use sex as a way for advances and favors.
IF the changes that are now being talked about by the Prez actually happen, the very first people affected will be those who need that system the most, and cannot afford to lose any income
This statement alone shows that you do not know what you are talking about or that you will use lies in an attempt to make a president look bad. There is no loss or decrease for those that are in the program now or chose to be in it instead of the investing choice. Why the left continues to state such easily proven lies is beyond me. Maybe they are hoping that if it is repeated enough that it will start to be believed.
Another thing, what promise do you have that you will receive a certain amount or any amount at all? From what I have seen and read, congress has the choice right now of what is paid or if anything is paid at all. I am sure that it would be political suicide for them to completely shut down SS, but that option is there. I have seen court cases that state there is no legal claim to monies in social security no matter how long you have paid in. I cannot find anything that guarantees a payment of any kind to anyone.
We have already seen JUST how much he cares about the VA ...
When he took office, the VA budget was $46.5 billion. It is now at $67.7 billion. An increase of about $21,200,000,000. That's right, $21.2 billion or about a 46% increase in funding.
How much do you want to see it increase and where do you want to get that money from?
Veterans
PAY
a LOT for what they were told would be health-care-forever, just because they were injured while in the service or even because they were unfortunate enough to take a bullet, for "Freedom".
Who pays what? What are their income guidelines? Are you talking priority group 8?
how you can get "not imposing" out of "prevent others" is beyond me.
I do not know why it would be "beyond me" since I simply copied what you had already said. Are you disagreeing with what you said earlier?
well, I didn't say this...
I said this...
To call support for a woman's right to decide what to do about her pregnancy "imposing" is an abuse of the word "impose". To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
To say a woman is "imposing" on a fetus by having an abortion is to say she is imposing on herself. It's already inside her and attached. You can't get much more imposing than that.
You can't get much more imposing than that.
Yeah, you can't get much more imposing than to take the life of a living being can you?
When you have a living being attached to you and inside of you, I won't impose my beliefs on what you should do about it.
But you will impose your beliefs about what I can and cannot do with my son who is not physically attached to me? You will impose your beliefs about what I can and cannot do to my neighbors as well? You will even impose your beliefs about what I can and cannot do with the money that I earn and have to give to Social Security?
You see, sometimes we need to impose our beliefs in order to have a healthy society. If it is such an imposition on people to help a healthy, innocent, unborn child have a chance just to experience his first breath of air, then that is just too bad. I see no reason to end such an innocent life just for the convenience of the mother.
At least I have got you to admit that it is a "living being" that is attached to the mother and not just some odd appendage. I guess that is a small step in the right direction.
They are called individual rights. Once you are born and become an individual, you got 'em. Until then you are a fetus that is a part of your mother.
I don't think anyone has the right to be inside your body and attach themselves and feed off you. If they do, it's your right to kill them. I won't interefere.
If you have some rare blood that I need to live, I still don't have the right to make you hook up an IV to me and carry me around to keep me alive.
And if a parasite attaches itself to your body, can I force you to keep feeding it?
They are called individual rights.
I do not have the right not to pay taxes. If I earn an income, I have to do it. Others are imposing their beliefs on me by forcing me to pay for what they want accomplished. You disagree with the president that we should be in Iraq, but that belief is being forced upon you and you pay taxes to support it. So the beliefs of others are imposed upon us in such ways.
I still don't have the right to make you hook up an IV to me and carry me around to keep me alive.
Difference is that I did not create you and am not responsible for you. My children I did have a part in creating and therefore must do the best I can to raise them. If I do not feed and cloth my children, how long before society forces their beliefs that I must do so on me? Would they not be imposing their belief system on me?
The point was that supporting keeping other people out of what happens in a woman's womb doesn't impose anything on you.
If women could transfer their pregnancy to the father, abortion would not only be legal, it would be free.
So, you had a part in creating every fetus in every pregnant woman? What a stud!
So, you support the right of a raped woman to abort, right?
"Yes. They are people just like you and me and all have varying "values" and "morals" just like you and I do. To lump the entire region into a neat little ball is the same as saying all black people are _____. "
That's ridiculous. If there is no room for a certain degree of generalization, then neither side here can EVER make any kind of claim if there is even one deviation.
I think Red States of the south carry specific political traits that can be accurately be described en massewithout being accused of generalization. Over recent generations, the states have shifted to the Republican party, which has gained in numbers and increased its organizational ability. Organized fundamentalist religion has gained political power and is not reluctant to exercise it.
And I think those traits would be something that the people on the right would be proud of. After all, I hear in the New Media all the time that the south and the west are the "real America." Where the "real Amercans live."
They don't have any problem slapping a broad brush across the Northeast Corridor and Pacific Rim. Fine. I'd stand with New Yorkers, Botsonians and Angelinos any day of the week.
[Edited 7 times. Most recently by on Mar 14, 2005 at 06:19am.]
68 billion is doing nothing for vets, fold?
I'd stand with New Yorkers, Botsonians and Angelinos any day of the week.
The point was that supporting keeping other people out of what happens in a woman's womb doesn't impose anything on you.
So if someone shoots their neighbor we shouldn't say anything because it does not impose on us? Part of the reason for having laws is so we do not impose on others and having an abortion surely imposes on the unborn child which you have admitted is a living being.
If women could transfer their pregnancy to the father, abortion would not only be legal, it would be free.
Nonsense. There would still be those that believe nothing is wrong with it and those that believe it is the wrong thing to do. Personally, I have changed my lifestyle since having children, comforted them through the flu season, changed my fair share of diapers, midnight feedings, etc. and am doing so now as my grandchild visits us while my daughter goes to work. It is part of being a family unit and living up to your responsibilities. If it was possible for me to get pregnant, I would still feel that abortion is wrong.
So, you support the right of a raped woman to abort, right?
Tough question. I would like to see the child put up for adoption if the mother is that bothered by it, but what percentage of abortions are we talking about anyway?
YOUsay so pal, not ME.
I believe it was you who was worried about those that speak for the president having a southern twang in their voice. By the way, you never answered my wuestion of who those folks are.
I was speaking of THE POLITICSof the "South", which are now "The Politics of America".
Them evil southerners taking over the world now?
You might want to check your pressure-cooker attitude at the door, and then STOP trying to claim that I have some sort of hatred for "Southerners".
Cheap Shot
No "pressure cooker attitude". Merely pointing out what I read here. I mean, look at what you have written:
Oh and, you wouldn't know a "Priority 8" from a "Priority 3" Veteran, so don't lecture me about it. Try spending some TIME out there, then lecture me. K?
You have no clue what I do and don't know, so please do not lecture me. I asked a question and you have once again found a way to avoid it.
Fact is, we ALLÂ spend more money on the Health-Care for our fucking
prison inmates
than we spend for Veterans, and that is a fact that superceeds party-afiliations.
I Would like to know where you got those stats from. All I can find is an old article that claims the U.S. spent $3 billion annually in 1999. link I am not saying you are wrong, just that I need help verifying what you claim.
What is your party doing to change that?
Since I belong to no party all I can say is that the president has significantly raised the budget for the VA and their healthcare. Page back throught the posts to see what I mean and we will save a little bandwith.
Nothing, and that is exactly what we are doing for our Veterans.
$21.2 billion or about a 46% increase in funding is nothing to you? Again, how much do you request and what programs are you willing to cut to get it?
And what Priority are you?
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Fold and I disagree on almost everything, but I will stick up for his veteran status and for what he does for them. If that is what you are getting at, you are wrong.
and being pregnant surely imposes on a mother's body.
actually, we have a more specific word... fetus.
living being kill and eat other living beings on a regular basis, so saying it's a living being doesn't really mean that much.
and being pregnant surely imposes on a mother's body.
Not to the extent of death.
actually, we have a more specific word... fetus.
living being kill and eat other living beings on a regular basis, so saying it's a living being doesn't really mean that much.
Babies, the other white meat.
sometimes
well, it certainly hasn't "sprung off" yet... but technically I guess we should call the first trimester an "embryo"
embryo... fetus.... birth.... baby.
next you will be calling them men and women, right?
BTW, your sperm are millions of living beings too. You just wiped out an entire city the last time you jerked off.
Engaging repartee going on here....
and being pregnant surely imposes on a mother's body.
But the government, as far as I know, does not impregnate women. In most instances women choose to have sex and all know, or should know, the potential for pregnancy. Abortion is almost entirely about women, and any man that pushes them into it, avoiding responsibility.
sometimes
What percentage of pregnant mothers die due to pregnancy and what percentage of unborn children die due to an abortion? It does not seem to me that it is the reason that abortions are performed.
well, it certainly hasn't "sprung off" yet... but technically I guess we should call the first trimester an "embryo"
So no matter what you want to call it, it is a human animal and that is what you are advocating killing at it's most vulnerable time.
embryo... fetus.... birth.... baby.
human... human... human... human. At no point is it anything other than a human and you have already admitted that it is a living being.
next you will be calling them men and women, right?
That would be one stage of human development that they have not grown into yet. They are male and female though.
BTW, your sperm are millions of living beings too.
They only contain half the genetic information needed to create life, so your argument makes no sense.
human...
human...
human...
human...
human...
you supported this war, right?
[Edited by molegrass on Mar 15, 2005 at 05:04pm.]
So, the life of a woman is your decision based on the odds?
you supported this war, right?
Yes I did and I see you are falling for the propaganda of the terrorist. It is a well known fact that they killed many and said that we did it. You know how our precision bombs work and how accurate they are, or are you saying that our own people purposely attacked unarmed children? Is this how you actually feel about those that are protecting your freedoms?
So, the life of a woman is your decision based on the odds?
As you know, the point was that a fractional percent of abortions have anything to do with the health of the mother. You on the other hand choose to kill the child based on the whim of the mother. Nice.
So, if someone else does it, it's okay for you to do it too?
Talk about falling for propoganda. We knew going in that we would kill a lot of civilians. We called it "collateral damage". To pretend otherwise is foolish.
I don't choose to kill or not kill anything. I just don't make that decision for a pregnant woman.
Like I said, you choose for her and give her odds.
So, if someone else does it, it's okay for you to do it too?
So now you believe that we are purposely killing woman and children so we can blame it on the terrorist? You sure do not think much of our boys and girls in the military.
We knew going in that we would kill a lot of civilians. We called it "collateral damage".
Yup, same thing as what the terrorist do.
I don't choose to kill or not kill anything. I just don't make that decision for a pregnant woman.
By not standing up on behalf of those that cannot for themselves, you are just as guilty. And again, you just admitted that there is life there.
Like I said, you choose for her and give her odds.
How you get that out of my statement that you are talking about a very few cases and most are just done on a whim is beyond me. You are using this miniscule amount of abortions to justify allowing a healthy woman to kill her healthy baby. Then you claim that you didn't do it, they did. That is the same as saying you didn't kill that person's neighbor they did, so we as a society shouldn't do anything about it. It was his decision. Pretty assinine idea.
Â
If that person was inside and attached to the neighbor's body, I'd stay out of it, yes.
So, if someone else does it, it's okay for you to do it too?
I'll take that as a "yes"
It's not my business if it occurs inside a woman's body and is attached to her.
I'll take that as a "yes"
I figured you would.
It's not my business if it occurs inside a woman's body and is attached to her.
We're not talking about some wart, we are talking about what you agreed was a living human being. To say it is none of your business if the mother kills it says a lot about your character and it is not good.
To say what happens inside another person's body is your business says a lot about you, and it's not good.
Saying that I care about how a mother treats her child makes me look bad? What has happened to our society?
Chill out, Dan. He's toying with you. Seems to me, you started the character assessment. Don't be surprised if you get it back at you.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 16, 2005 at 04:57am.]
You miss the one where men kept women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen do you?
It's not my business if it occurs inside a woman's body and is attached to her.
Only the morally depraved or the morally bankrupt are could actually believe the above.
Where is the morality in making what happens inside someone's body your business?
[Edited by molegrass on Mar 16, 2005 at 10:41am.]
That's a damn shame
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush."
Grandpa Dan, I respect you 100000000 percent.
I read these boards but usually never post. The one thing that struck me was this.
How does being pro-choice show that someone doesnt have good character?Â
abortion is the killing of an unborn child. being prochoice means one supports the killing.
[Edited by on Mar 16, 2005 at 03:07pm.]
Chill out, Dan. He's toying with you.
I wasn't upset, just making an observation.
You miss the one where men kept women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen do you?
Again, I do not see how you get this out of my caring about children. I am not telling these women whether to have sex or not, just not to kill their child when they do.
Where is the morality in making what happens inside someone's body your business?
The morality is in keeping a child alive at the most vulnerable and helpless time of their life.
Grandpa Dan, I respect you 100000000 percent.
Thank you very much.
I honestly am not argueing this point on abortion just to make political points, but rather because I believe that an unborn child should not be reduced to a lump of stuff that a mother can just remove on a whim. We as a society need to protect those that are the most vulnerable among us and I cannot think of anything more vulnerable than an unborn child that hasn't even taken his first breath yet. It really gets to me that some look at it as if it were a cancer on the mother that should be removed or something.
I find it truely sad that our society sees nothing wrong with killing a healthy baby that is not affecting the mother's health in any way. I am not sure what the correct answer is when a mother's life is at stake, but that is a totally different topic.
See, I dont see being prochoice as that. But that is me.
I have opinions on this subject but I can see both points of view very clearly.Â
Food for thought....what would a solution to this epidemic be?
"I find it truely sad that our society sees nothing wrong with killing a healthy baby that is not affecting the mother's health in any way."
I think society, as a whole sees wrong in it. I don't know where you get the idea it doesn't. It's seen as a tough, wrenching decision with lasting consequences. One that shouldn't be taken lightly. Some people do. They shouldn't.
Legality is what society debates.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 16, 2005 at 03:42pm.]
"Food for thought....what would a solution to this epidemic be?"
I don't think epidemic is really a correct term. The issue has been hijacked by extremes on both sides. Solutions aren't important. Winning is important.
See, I dont see being prochoice as that. But that is me.
How do you see it?
I have opinions on this subject but I can see both points of view very clearly.
Then join the discussion. The more we have discussing, the better.
Food for thought....what would a solution to this epidemic be?
For starters, making abortion on a whim against the law. I do not feel that as a society we should sanction having an abortion just because it would inconvieniance the mother's career or lifestyle. To me, that is the worst reason to have an abortion.
I think society, as a whole sees wrong in it.
I don't know where you get the idea it doesn't.
From the fact that it is still legal. If we see it as wrong, then we should correct the legalities that allow it to go on. Our society saw the wrong in not allowing women to vote and we found a way to correct that. We can do it again if we so desire.
Â
The issue has been hijacked by extremes on both sides. Solutions aren't important. Winning is important.
You are correct that some see it politically as a win or a loss. I am not playing games though, I honestly believe that it is a wrong that needs to be corrected. I am sure that there is also those on the other side that see it as a right that needs protecting, but I strongly disagree with them.