Here is some stats for you concerning just the U.S.:
Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. Of those, 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health and 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health. That means that almost 94% of all abortions are due to reasons other than health, such as wanting to postpone childbearing, relationship issue, a child will disrupt their education or career, want no (more) children, etc. (stats found at http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm )
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.
"at the very least, they consider it morally wrong for Dan to put the flesh of a dead animal into his body when the animal was killed for this purpose. "
Surely they cannot think that everything that is immoral should be illegal.
I think the true debate is wheather the government should decide for women....
You are correct epedemic is probably the wrong word. The answer isnt making it illegal...the only thing that will cause is back alley abortions and death to women looking for a way out. There has to be a solution that women who are put in a position where they feel that is the only option to have more choices. Adoption is a great thing but realistically how many kids are in foster care now? How many have been praying to be adopted...what would happen if those million or so children a year were put up for adoption instead of being terminated? Would there be enough homes to take them? Because those who terminate their pregnancies are not wanting or able to care for a child. Other then making abortion illegal....what is the solution to the problem?  (just throwing ideas on the table for discussion)
'"When I ran for the Senate, I pledged to oppose drilling in ANWR," Coleman, R-Minn., said in a statement. "Today I kept that commitment. I was proud to vote again this year to strip ANWR drilling out of the budget because it is a distraction from where our focus should be."'
Why do you resort to personal attacks. I am in here involved in a debate on a subject. Not once have I said anything offesive. Just because I have an open mind and can see that both extremes believe whole heartedly in thier side does not make me confused. My personal stance is one that does not waver. I can however participate in an intelligent conversation without saying nanny nanny boo boo!! Where does me asking for solutions to a problem leave me morally confuseD? I dont understand how that works.
I think the true debate is wheather the government should decide for women....
The question is should it be legal to butcher defenseless, innocent human beings. I was wrong you are not morally confused you are morally corrupt.
You are correct epedemic is probably the wrong word. The answer isnt making it illegal...the only thing that will cause is back alley abortions and death to women looking for a way out. That would be their CHOICE.There has to be a solution that women who are put in a position where they feel that is the only option to have more choices. What law requires that?Â
The problem is, that even though the Government of Republicanism says, repeatedly , that we suffer under
too much Government, but then they turn right around and try to dictate, through laws and even appointments to the High Courts, (and based upon their ideas of "morality") more control over all of us than we have ever seen . Utter nonsense. IFthe current Chief Justice does not die before the end of Gdubbya's term, he will likely be replaced (appointed by Gdubbya) byÂ
Scalia to fill that job, and that will surely make us even MORE conservative.
It will certainly make us MORE intellectually honest.
But, that would be OK
because after all, making laws through the courts ISOK, IFthe courts are more conservative than say, the Board of Governors at Bob Jones University...and in fact, that is the goalnow, right?
B.S. If Roe is overturned it will not be "making" law, it will be rescinding the Court's previous legislative act.
The only problem is, that it will take a solid 20 years of Democratic majorities to reverse all the insanity that we have seen from just this ONE temporary resident of the White House, and his appointed lackeys in the federal-government.
You must live in one screwed up world if you see anything that Bush has done as insane.
Why do you resort to personal attacks.Because you, and others like you, deserve it. Anyone that thinks it may be okay to butcher unborn children has a serious moral problem. it ain't like we are discussing whether people should dope up.I am in here involved in a debate on a subject. Not once have I said anything offensive. You offended me with your lack of a moral compass. Just because I have an open mind and can see that both extremes believe whole heartedly in their side does not make me confused. I corrected myself you aren't confused you are morally corrupt.My personal stance is one that does not waver. I can however participate in an intelligent conversation without saying nanny nanny boo boo!! I despise people like you. You think there may be good reasons to butcher unborn children simply on a whim. That is a serious moral flaw.
I am debating with you....where in anything did I say what I do or do not believe. So you can in no way shape or form tell me I am corrupt and you dont even know where I stand. What I have been saying is pieces of arguments from both sides. But for myself I would love to hear constructive ideas to alternatives for women who are in this position. Not because the law requires it but because in order to invoke positive change you have to be part of the solution. "Judge not lest thee be judged"
"You are correct that some see it politically as a win or a loss."
So winning doesn't interest you? Then you probably don't deserve to win. Because this abortion issue is a tough fight. And you better be willing to do what it takes. If you don't have the belly for it, someone else will. But it won't be pretty. It won't be fine and handsome like the Supreme Court. It'll be fought in the street.
"I am not playing games though, I honestly believe that it is a wrong that needs to be corrected."
Then you better be willing to watch 18-year-old girls/women stand before a judge cold irons bound, and watch him send them away.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Mar 17, 2005 at 06:33pm.]
I am debating with you....where in anything did I say what I do or do not believe.(?)
You said enough. You said that you could see the argument for abortion. There is no valid argument for abortion. So maybe i was wrong about you being morally corrupt but you may certainly be intellectually challenged. So you can in no way shape or form tell me I am corrupt and you dont even know where I stand. Yes I can. And you know what-I did! What I have been saying is pieces of arguments from both sides. But for myself I would love to hear constructive ideas to alternatives for women who are in this position. A constructive idea is not to have an abortion. it is the only one necessary.  Not because the law requires it but because in order to invoke positive change you have to be part of the solution. "Judge not lest thee be judged" Yet another
person that takes the quote out contexts and misunderstands the phrase. Not surprising it is always taken out of context by your kind.
So winning doesn't interest you? Then you probably don't deserve to win.
Not everything is done for political gain and quite honestly, I wish all political organizations were pro-life. I don't argue this because it is a right wing thing or Republican thing or because it bugs the dems, I do it because I feel it is the right thing to do.
Then you better be willing to watch 18-year-old girls/women stand before a judge cold irons bound, and watch him send them away.
It would be sad to know that they ruined their life, but just like if they had killed their born child, something must be done to discourage it. I wouldn't "relish witnessing the moment" anymore than I think you would "relish" witnessing an abortion. Perhaps we should make you witness an abortion and see the dead "fetus"?
the only thing that will cause is back alley abortions and death to women looking for a way out.
So we shouldn't have laws against robbing banks because that causes the robber to use a gun and possibly kill someone?
There has to be a solution that women who are put in a position where they feel that is the only option to have more choices.
If abortion is the only choice you have, don't have sex then. If you can't control yourself, use the pill, get an operation so you can't get pregnant, use a rubber, etc. It isn't like it is a life or death matter whether you have sex or not. Use some common sense or live up to your responsibilities as a parent to be.
As I showed earlier, rape, incest, health matters are only a small percentage of the reasons given for abortions and are a totally different subject than abortion on a whim.
how long before you start saying that an abortion kills an adult?
Play word games all you like, but the fact remains that you have admitted that abortion kills a living being and that it is a human being.
and where does Dan stand on animal rights?
I do not think they should be killed or tortured for the fun of it. We were given canine teeth which are for the tearing of flesh, so I think that we are meant to eat animals to survive.
What makes humans so special?
I believe that humans have a soul and animals do not. What makes humans so special to you that we should not eat the flesh, but can eat the meat from a cow or chicken?
Hardly. It has different DNA, can have a different sex, different eye color, different hair color, different blood type, etc. In no way is it a part of the mother's body. Sure it is inside the mother, but it is not a part of the mother.
Our results have been impressive: We've averaged about 6.5% annual rate of return over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship, disability. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050316/oplede16.art.htm
Hardly. It has different DNA, can have a different sex, different eye color, different hair color, different blood type, etc. In no way is it a part of the mother's body. Sure it is inside the mother, but it is not a part of the mother.
A feeding tube does not make the unborn child a part of the mother anymore than tubes from a patient in a hospital attached to a machine make that person a part of the machine. They are different living human beings.
A feeding tube does not make the unborn child a part of the mother anymore than tubes from a patient in a hospital attached to a machine make that person a part of the machine.
Of course it does. It is a part of her. It's organic. It's hers. If it's not a part of her, then she can disconnect it, right?
If I connect a tube to you and I need it to keep alive, you don't have to keep it connected. It's your body, not mine.
It is not a part of the mother, it is only inside of her. If the "fetus" kicks, the mother's brain is not controlling that movement but rather the unborn child's brain is.
If I connect a tube to you and I need it to keep alive, you don't have to keep it connected.
Irrelevant arguement.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 18, 2005 at 04:48am.]
If abortion is the only choice you have, don't have sex then. If you can't control yourself, use the pill, get an operation so you can't get pregnant, use a rubber, etc. It isn't like it is a life or death matter whether you have sex or not. Use some common sense or live up to your responsibilities as a parent to be.
I wonder what the odds are for a woman to get pregnant if she uses the pill, he has been snipped and he uses a rubber?
Dan, what if the mother has identical twins in the womb? Are they, all three, considered "Different Human Beings", or are two of them considered to be "Identical"? (Seriously, just asking.)
I get that abstaining from sex, using protection, and all that is first and foremost the best alternative to having an abortion. However, my question still remains unanswered. The obvious answers are for women not to have abortions and for them to take responsibility for their unborn child.....Also if you plan to have sex then be prepared for the responsibility.....however, women are doing what they feel is responsible if they can not care for a child because abortion is a legal option! So again I ask, what type of solutions are there to stop all this. We educate children from 6th grade about safe sex. I stated the issue with adoption. What can we do to chane society's view as a whole?
B.S. If Roe is overturned it will not be "making" law, it will be rescinding the Court's previous legislative act.
I think perhaps you should read the papers, try some evening newscasts, or perhaps even review the Law... Lawyer. (Yes Pay-Me, he does claim to be one of those.), Â because in South Dakota yesterday, three laws were affirmed that make it a crime to even HAVE an abortion, IF"Roe" is eventually overturned, and ONLY if it is. That, would be Makinglaw, by the judiciary.
No, Roe was legislation from the bench. There is nothing in the US Constitution about a right to privacy. But there is the 10th Amendment which left the issue of abortion to the states. Even most left wing lawyers will admit as much.
Of course, it would be making YOUR kind of law, so it's OK... right?
Right!
It would be correcting an egregious error. Do you have a problem with democracy? With representative government and letting the people choose what laws they live under?
Here is some stats for you concerning just the U.S.:
Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. Of those, 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health and 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health. That means that almost 94% of all abortions are due to reasons other than health, such as wanting to postpone childbearing, relationship issue, a child will disrupt their education or career, want no (more) children, etc. (stats found at http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm )
Society's rights end where my body starts.
deleting double post
[Edited by on Mar 16, 2005 at 04:06pm.]
Society's rights end where my body starts.
So you have the right to use illegal drugs?
You don't get to decide what a woman does or does not do with her body... and until it's born, it's a part of her body.
Absolutely.
Drug laws are a violation of my right to my own body. Absolutely.
I don't have the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own body.
[Edited by molegrass on Mar 16, 2005 at 04:11pm.]
Rat: I think society, as a whole sees wrong in it. I don't know where you get the idea it doesn't.
Dan: From the fact that it is still legal.
Should we make all that is immoral also illegal? That's what you seem to be saying.
[Edited by on Mar 16, 2005 at 04:13pm.]
embryo, fetus, infant, baby, child, teenager, adult
how long before you start saying that an abortion kills an adult?
and where does Dan stand on animal rights?
I know animal rights advocates that believe meat eaters are murders and should be killed. What makes humans so special?
"I know animal rights advocates that believe meat eaters are murders and should be killed."
Quite a crowd you run with.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 16, 2005 at 04:21pm.]
Do you run with everyone you know?
at the very least, they consider it morally wrong for Dan to put the flesh of a dead animal into his body when the animal was killed for this purpose.
animals are living beings, aren't they Dan?
[Edited by molegrass on Mar 16, 2005 at 04:24pm.]
No one like that.
Why did you assume I "run with them"?
I'm just conversing. If you don't, then I'm wrong.
"at the very least, they consider it morally wrong for Dan to put the flesh of a dead animal into his body when the animal was killed for this purpose. "
Surely they cannot think that everything that is immoral should be illegal.
I think they think that the immorality of it is irrelevant to the law.
They think it's wrong morally regardless of the law, much like Dan thinks about abortion.
"I think they think that the immorality of it is irrelevant to the law. "
Whether you're PETA or an anti-abortion militant, this is a nation of laws. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
irrelevant... nice dogmatic platitudes though.
"irrelevant..."
If you think you look good in orange jumpsuits, and don't mind being traded for cigarettes, maybe so.
"nice dogmatic platitudes though."
What dogma am I espousing?
I think the true debate is wheather the government should decide for women....
You are correct epedemic is probably the wrong word. The answer isnt making it illegal...the only thing that will cause is back alley abortions and death to women looking for a way out. There has to be a solution that women who are put in a position where they feel that is the only option to have more choices. Adoption is a great thing but realistically how many kids are in foster care now? How many have been praying to be adopted...what would happen if those million or so children a year were put up for adoption instead of being terminated? Would there be enough homes to take them? Because those who terminate their pregnancies are not wanting or able to care for a child. Other then making abortion illegal....what is the solution to the problem?  (just throwing ideas on the table for discussion)
'"When I ran for the Senate, I pledged to oppose drilling in ANWR," Coleman, R-Minn., said in a statement. "Today I kept that commitment. I was proud to vote again this year to strip ANWR drilling out of the budget because it is a distraction from where our focus should be."'
<http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/breaking_news/11152866.htm>
He might have done it for his own reasons. Nonetheless, I won't call him Sen. Smoothy anymore.
I have opinions on this subject but I can see both points of view very clearly.Â
Then you are morally confused.
Society's rights end where my body starts.
Anyone that says the above is not only morally confused but simply out of touch with reality.
Why do you resort to personal attacks. I am in here involved in a debate on a subject. Not once have I said anything offesive. Just because I have an open mind and can see that both extremes believe whole heartedly in thier side does not make me confused. My personal stance is one that does not waver. I can however participate in an intelligent conversation without saying nanny nanny boo boo!! Where does me asking for solutions to a problem leave me morally confuseD? I dont understand how that works.
I think the true debate is wheather the government should decide for women....
The question is should it be legal to butcher defenseless, innocent human beings. I was wrong you are not morally confused you are morally corrupt.
You are correct epedemic is probably the wrong word. The answer isnt making it illegal...the only thing that will cause is back alley abortions and death to women looking for a way out. That would be their CHOICE.There has to be a solution that women who are put in a position where they feel that is the only option to have more choices. What law requires that?Â
[Edited by on Mar 17, 2005 at 10:59am.]
The problem is, that even though the Government of Republicanism says,
repeatedly
, that we suffer under
too much
Government, but then they turn right around and try to dictate, through laws and even appointments to the High Courts, (and based upon their ideas of "morality")Â more control over all of us than we have
ever seen
. Utter nonsense.
IFthe current Chief Justice does not die before the end of Gdubbya's term, he will likely be replaced (appointed by Gdubbya)Â byÂ
Scalia
to fill that job, and that will surely make us even MORE conservative.
It will certainly make us MORE intellectually honest.
But,
that would be OK
because after all, making laws through the courts ISOK, IFthe courts are more conservative than say, the Board of Governors at Bob Jones University...and in fact, that is the goalnow, right?
B.S. If Roe is overturned it will not be "making" law, it will be rescinding the Court's previous legislative act.
The only problem is, that it will take a solid 20 years of Democratic majorities to reverse all the insanity that we have seen from just this ONE temporary resident of the White House, and his appointed lackeys in the federal-government.
You must live in one screwed up world if you see anything that Bush has done as insane.
Why do you resort to personal attacks.Because you, and others like you, deserve it. Anyone that thinks it
may
be okay to butcher unborn children has a serious moral problem. it ain't like we are discussing whether people should dope up.I am in here involved in a debate on a subject. Not once have I said anything offensive. You offended me with your lack of a moral compass. Just because I have an open mind and can see that both extremes believe whole heartedly in their side does not make me confused. I corrected myself you aren't confused you are morally corrupt.My personal stance is one that does not waver. I can however participate in an intelligent conversation without saying nanny nanny boo boo!! I despise people like you. You think there may be good reasons to butcher unborn children simply on a whim. That is a serious moral flaw.
[Edited by on Mar 17, 2005 at 11:07am.]
I am debating with you....where in anything did I say what I do or do not believe. So you can in no way shape or form tell me I am corrupt and you dont even know where I stand. What I have been saying is pieces of arguments from both sides. But for myself I would love to hear constructive ideas to alternatives for women who are in this position. Not because the law requires it but because in order to invoke positive change you have to be part of the solution. "Judge not lest thee be judged"
"So you can in no way shape or form tell me I am corrupt and you dont even know where I stand. "
Jethro can do whatever he wants.
He's perfect.
Dan:
"You are correct that some see it politically as a win or a loss."
So winning doesn't interest you? Then you probably don't deserve to win. Because this abortion issue is a tough fight. And you better be willing to do what it takes. If you don't have the belly for it, someone else will. But it won't be pretty. It won't be fine and handsome like the Supreme Court. It'll be fought in the street.
"I am not playing games though, I honestly believe that it is a wrong that needs to be corrected."
Then you better be willing to watch 18-year-old girls/women stand before a judge cold irons bound, and watch him send them away.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Mar 17, 2005 at 06:33pm.]
I am debating with you....where in anything did I say what I do or do not believe.(?)
You said enough. You said that you could see the argument for abortion. There is no valid argument for abortion. So maybe i was wrong about you being morally corrupt but you may certainly be intellectually challenged. So you can in no way shape or form tell me I am corrupt and you dont even know where I stand. Yes I can. And you know what-I did! What I have been saying is pieces of arguments from both sides. But for myself I would love to hear constructive ideas to alternatives for women who are in this position. A constructive idea is not to have an abortion. it is the only one necessary.  Not because the law requires it but because in order to invoke positive change you have to be part of the solution. "Judge not lest thee be judged" Yet another
person that takes the quote out contexts and misunderstands the phrase. Not surprising it is always taken out of context by your kind.
Jethro can do whatever he wants.
He's perfect.
You'd relish witnessing the moment, wouldn't you jethro?
So winning doesn't interest you? Then you probably don't deserve to win.
Not everything is done for political gain and quite honestly, I wish all political organizations were pro-life. I don't argue this because it is a right wing thing or Republican thing or because it bugs the dems, I do it because I feel it is the right thing to do.
Then you better be willing to watch 18-year-old girls/women stand before a judge cold irons bound, and watch him send them away.
It would be sad to know that they ruined their life, but just like if they had killed their born child, something must be done to discourage it. I wouldn't "relish witnessing the moment" anymore than I think you would "relish" witnessing an abortion. Perhaps we should make you witness an abortion and see the dead "fetus"?
I corrected myself you aren't confused you are morally corrupt.
Cheap shot Jethro. Please try debating in a constructive manner.
the only thing that will cause is back alley abortions and death to women looking for a way out.
So we shouldn't have laws against robbing banks because that causes the robber to use a gun and possibly kill someone?
There has to be a solution that women who are put in a position where they feel that is the only option to have more choices.
If abortion is the only choice you have, don't have sex then. If you can't control yourself, use the pill, get an operation so you can't get pregnant, use a rubber, etc. It isn't like it is a life or death matter whether you have sex or not. Use some common sense or live up to your responsibilities as a parent to be.
As I showed earlier, rape, incest, health matters are only a small percentage of the reasons given for abortions and are a totally different subject than abortion on a whim.
you don't want a woman to be in a position to abort a pregnancy, don't have sex with her.
how long before you start saying that an abortion kills an adult?
Play word games all you like, but the fact remains that you have admitted that abortion kills a living being and that it is a human being.
and where does Dan stand on animal rights?
I do not think they should be killed or tortured for the fun of it. We were given canine teeth which are for the tearing of flesh, so I think that we are meant to eat animals to survive.
What makes humans so special?
I believe that humans have a soul and animals do not. What makes humans so special to you that we should not eat the flesh, but can eat the meat from a cow or chicken?
you don't want a woman to be in a position to abort a pregnancy, don't have sex with her.
I don't with anyone other than my wife. I also took that a step further and have had an operation so I do not get my wife pregnant.
and until it's born, it's a part of her body.
Hardly. It has different DNA, can have a different sex, different eye color, different hair color, different blood type, etc. In no way is it a part of the mother's body. Sure it is inside the mother, but it is not a part of the mother.
Our results have been impressive: We've averaged about 6.5% annual rate of return over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship, disability. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050316/oplede16.art.htm
Of course it is. It's called an umbilical cord.
It's called an umbilical cord.
A feeding tube does not make the unborn child a part of the mother anymore than tubes from a patient in a hospital attached to a machine make that person a part of the machine. They are different living human beings.
Of course it does. It is a part of her. It's organic. It's hers. If it's not a part of her, then she can disconnect it, right?
If I connect a tube to you and I need it to keep alive, you don't have to keep it connected. It's your body, not mine.
[Edited by molegrass on Mar 17, 2005 at 09:47pm.]
It is not a part of the mother, it is only inside of her. If the "fetus" kicks, the mother's brain is not controlling that movement but rather the unborn child's brain is.
If I connect a tube to you and I need it to keep alive, you don't have to keep it connected.
Irrelevant arguement.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Mar 18, 2005 at 04:48am.]
Cheap shot Jethro. Please try debating in a constructive manner.
First, it wasn't debate. Second, there is nothing constructive that can be achieved on the topic.
If abortion is the only choice you have, don't have sex then. If you can't control yourself, use the pill, get an operation so you can't get pregnant, use a rubber, etc. It isn't like it is a life or death matter whether you have sex or not. Use some common sense or live up to your responsibilities as a parent to be.
I wonder what the odds are for a woman to get pregnant if she uses the pill, he has been snipped and he uses a rubber?
Dan, what if the mother has
identical twins
in the womb? Are they, all three, considered "Different Human Beings", or are two of them considered to be "Identical"? (Seriously, just asking.)
Seriously? Really?
I get that abstaining from sex, using protection, and all that is first and foremost the best alternative to having an abortion. However, my question still remains unanswered. The obvious answers are for women not to have abortions and for them to take responsibility for their unborn child.....Also if you plan to have sex then be prepared for the responsibility.....however, women are doing what they feel is responsible if they can not care for a child because abortion is a legal option! So again I ask, what type of solutions are there to stop all this. We educate children from 6th grade about safe sex. I stated the issue with adoption. What can we do to chane society's view as a whole?
B.S. If Roe is overturned it will not be "making" law, it will be rescinding the Court's previous legislative act.
I think
perhaps
you should read the papers, try some evening newscasts, or perhaps even review the Law... Lawyer.
(Yes Pay-Me, he does claim to be one of those.),
 because in South Dakota yesterday, three laws were affirmed that make it a crime to even HAVE an abortion, IF"Roe" is eventually overturned, and ONLY if it is. That, would be Makinglaw,
by the judiciary.
No, Roe was legislation from the bench. There is nothing in the US Constitution about a right to privacy. But there is the 10th Amendment which left the issue of abortion to the states. Even most left wing lawyers will admit as much.
Of course, it would be making YOUR kind of law, so it's OK... right?
Right!
It would be correcting an egregious error. Do you have a problem with democracy? With representative government and letting the people choose what laws they live under?