I believe there is a social benefit to the social net that helps you personally.
On the flip side there's a point where it hurts me and hurts society as a whole.
I agree, sometimes people need help. But to what extent does society have a responsibility to people, and to what extent do people have a responsibility to society?
I never hear about the responsibility one owes to society. All I hear is about how society owes someone something.
"Ask not what your country can do for you........."
I can't reply at length right now, but suffice it to say that almost all the attriubutes and things you are trying to lay on me or claim I represent are not right.
I don't have much time right now either. But let me rephrase what was one of my main complaints with your post.
On the one hand you say people are capable of doing things like being responsible, quitting smoking, etc. To make that point, you cite examples where the people are put in extreme circumstances in order to choose the desired action. But unless you plan on using such extreme measures for real, then what have you really proven? If you use the extreme measures, then I don't think you've improved society. If you don't use the extreme measures, then of course some people are going to continue to be lazy and live off public assistance and so I'm not sure what your point is then.
Welfare has more delitirious effects on people then it helps in many cases. It has lead to a viscous cycle.
Actually, I'm not going to argue that it can lead to a cycle and just giving people money and nothing else isn't really likely to help them turn into a productive citizen. But if the choice were between that and just cutting them off, I'd rather give them the money. I'm not saying efforts shouldn't be made to break the cycle, I'm saying that I don't think simply cutting them off and leaving them with nothing is the best way to go.
But the predictions of mass starvations and riots didn't come true.
I wouldn't have expected such a thing to happen personally, but what if some people did starve? Again, I think there are ways to encourage people to lead better lives other than simply cutting them off.
Let's say your kids don't want to go to school and have no desire or ambition to do their homework.
Yes, but would you throw them out of the house for getting bad grades? Or would you continue to support them while encouraging them to do better?
Oh and in regards to your many assumptions that taking people off welfare would turn them into criminals.
I'm saying it could. It's hard to say how someone pushed to desperation will act.
So under the threat of someone doing criminal activities we shouldn't change the rules or requirements ? That's essentially blackmail
Hardly. It's about fixing a problem. To call it blackmail would be like saying that the possibility that taking the virus protection off your computer opens you up to virus attacks is blackmail. The problem is there, if you take away the solution, the problem may return.
and is saying or admitting that those who are poor would commit crime. I thought we weren't supposed to be judgemental?
I'm saying if you make a person desperate, you don't know how they might act. It's not a statement about being poor, it's about being desperate.
Minnesota has dropped many from the welfare rolls and crime is down so I don't see how you can make that leap.
I don't think you can answer that question with overall numbers. You'd have to see what percentage of people dropped from the welfare rolls ended up having a police record? Crime could be down overall for other reasons, but that wouldn't necessarily mean you haven't pushed some people into becoming criminals.
I am tired of the assumption (not saying you personally) that well if you're for welfare reform or personal responsibility than you must not care.
The ones who strike me as not caring are the ones who seem to have the attitude that if someone else made a mistake, it's entirely up to them to fix it...
Should there be that net, you bet. For those who are misplaced, laid off, mentally disabled and physically disabled. etc. Absolutely it should be there.
I don't think you're really one of those people based on this statement. Actually I think the only place you and I truly vary here is on the perennials. So now let's take the debate back to where it really belongs on this thread. The single mothers.
You say a woman shouldn't be able to have an abortion. If she gets pregnant, she should have to bear the child (in your ideal world). Now let's suppose the mother doesn't want to work for whatever reason. Maybe she just doesn't have the skills to find a job that would pay enough to cover her daycare expenses while she worked and all her other bills too. Maybe she's actually better off financially not working. Or let's even take a worst case scenario and say she just doesn't want to work. So now would any of you still say that the best answer is to just cut her off? Is that really helping the kids at all? Why should they be punished? Even if the mother does get a job because we forced her to, it doesn't mean the kids are going to be better off. What if all she can find is a minimum wage job and she has four kids?
I start a new job tomorrow so I don't know when I'll get to post again, but that should give you something to discuss.
Paula I - (PFID:13d102) - 07:16pm Apr 23, 2002 PST (#6 of 6) Living with the choice of having aborted a child is horrible. Knowing that you made the decision to have your child ripped apart and sucked out of your body piece by piece is an awful memory. Years go by and you wish you could take that moment back, but you cant.
You can grieve, you can defend your actions, you can forgive, you can move on, but you can never and will never forget, no matter what you do.
Years go by and you wonder... what if I would have made a different choice.... one that wouldn't have left me in such pain.
I would give anything to be contacted by my grown child that I gave up for adoption. How sad that I will not have that opportunity.
I would give anything to see how he or she turned out. Was it a boy or girl, brown eyes, hazel or blue... so many other kids turned out ok in imperfect circumstances.... If only I knew...If only I could go back in time......
I would give my life to tell my child I am sorry.
My only hope is that when I reach heaven, I will see my child in my child's heavenly body and we will be re-united.
Having the right to terminate a pregnancy is like justifying the inconvenience of the moment.
Life passes you by so quickly and a period of time that seems like months is but a moment years later.
But the decision of that moment has effects that will change you for the rest of your life........
We all do things that we sometimes regret later. We eat too much. We get drunk and have a hangover. We spend more money at the casino, or even shopping than we wish we would have. Does that mean we should make all these things illegal because there's the possibility we might regret them later?
You can certainly advise someone that if they get an abortion they might regret it later. In fact, I think that should be a very important part of the decision process. It's silly to base such a decision purely on the present. But if someone is making an informed decision, and they still decide it's what they want, I don't think we should tell them they can't do it.
We all do things that we sometimes regret later. We eat too much. We get drunk and have a hangover. We spend more money at the casino, or even shopping than we wish we would have. Does that mean we should make all these things illegal because there's the possibility we might regret them later?
I see what you are saying but I think it's a bad comparison to say going to the casino, getting drunk or spending more at the mall compared to ending another life or at the very least making a decision that has far greater implications than any of the above. They are vastly different and uncomparible.
We all do things that we sometimes regret later. We eat too much. We get drunk and have a hangover. We spend more money at the casino, or even shopping than we wish we would have.
I can't wait until the Supreme Court says it's ok to kill those that inconvenience my life.
"Stop fighting Mom! You've been a big pain in the ass ever since you got alzheimers. Now drink your kool aid cocktail and keep quiet. You'll be in a better place soon.".
Why? We tell people they can't do things all the time.
The things you mention involve things that affect another person in addition to yourself. Whether a fetus qualifies as another person whose rights are to be considered is a separate question.
If we were to say that a fetus is in fact a person, would you then agree that abortion is wrong?
Yes. But I don't consider it to be one and many others don't consider it to be one. It's not an easy thing to prove depending on just how you define a person.
Ironically, it seems easier to me for a religious person to support abortion than a non-religious one. A religious person can call into question whether the fetus has a soul or not and like me, contend that if it doesn't have a soul then it must not be a person. As for athiests, who don't believe a person ever has a soul, it kind of makes me wonder what criteria they use to distinguish between a fetus and a person. But that's just a random side thought.
But now we're back to the basic question. If someone people say it's a person, and others say it is not, what policy do you use? If you don't believe a fetus is a person, there's no reason for you not to get an abortion if you really want one. So can a woman be forced to go through a pregnancy and bear a child based only on the beliefs of others that she herself does not hold?
What if you had a son, and you didn't believe in circumcision, and yet you were forced to make sure he got one anyway simply because some people out there believe it's wrong not to be circumcised?
Q: If we were to say that a fetus is in fact a person, would you then agree that abortion is wrong?
A: Yes. But I don't consider it to be one and many others don't consider it to be one. It's not an easy thing to prove depending on just how you define a person.
Yes and at one time white people didn't consider that black people to be persons. That was based on how they defined person, too.
If someone people say it's a person, and others say it is not, what policy do you use? If you don't believe a fetus is a person, there's no reason for you not to get an abortion if you really want one.
How does the following sound?: If someone says blacks are persons and others say they are not, what policy do you use? If you don't believe ablacks are persons, there's no reason for you not to have oen as a slave if you really want one.
Yes. But I don't consider it to be one and many others don't consider it to be one. It's not an easy thing to prove depending on just how you define a person.
I'd rather err on the side of caution. I'd say it's easier to prove it's a person than not. It certianly isn't a monkey.
How does the following sound?: If someone says blacks are persons and others say they are not, what policy do you use? If you don't believe ablacks are persons, there's no reason for you not to have oen as a slave if you really want one.
Good comeback. :-)
But now that kind of brings us back to the Civil War again where what you describe was pretty much the case. A lot of people didn't think of blacks as people and they did own slaves without a guilty conscience. And there were enough people who thought that way that those who did believe they were just as human as anyone else still tolerated those who didn't.
But times changed and people's thinking changed and more and more people came to think of the slaves as humans with just as many rights to liberty as anyone else. The Constitution originally defined them as 3/5 of a person. But once they were considered citizens with rights equal to everyone else, it became the responsibility of the government to look out for those rights as much as it did for anyone else. Thus one person, no matter what they believed, could not enslave another unless it was consensual.
So going back to abortion...unless and until the government decides to grant a fetus all the rights of citizenship, and consider it a person equal to any other, there's no legal reason abortion should be outlawed. But as it is now, you can't legally name a child, obtain a social security number, or even claim a tax exemption for a child until it's born, which would imply that the government doesn't consider it a citizen until the time of it's birth. If it has no rights until then, then the rights of the mother take precedence.
So it seems to me that if you want abortion outlawed, you'd have to make some major changes, perhaps even to the Constitution, to assign citizenship and all the rights pertaining thereto starting at the time of conception.
So going back to abortion...unless and until the government decides to grant a fetus all the rights of citizenship, and consider it a person equal to any other, there's no legal reason abortion should be outlawed. The government decides what is legal and illegal so I don't know what you mean. But the government does not have to recognize all rights to an unborn child only the right to life.But as it is now, you can't legally name a child, obtain a social security number, or even claim a tax exemption for a child until it's born, which would imply that the government doesn't consider it a citizen until the time of it's birth. And none of that would have to change by simply outlawing abortion on demand.If it has no rights until then, then the rights of the mother take precedence. That is the law but it is not an argument for keeping it the law.
So it seems to me that if you want abortion outlawed, you'd have to make some major changes, perhaps even to the Constitution, to assign citizenship and all the rights pertaining thereto starting at the time of conception. An unborn child does not have to have all the rights or privileges of citizenship and that should not be the case if abortion on demand were to be outlawed. While a Constitutional amendment would accomplish the end to abortion all it takes is for the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade. Roe was poorly decided just read Byron White's dissent. It was a usurpation by liberal judges that knew they could not get the result through the legitimate political process.
Non citizens of the U.S. are not granted rights by the Constitution. Are they then not considered people because they are not defined in the Constitution?
Non citizens of the U.S. are not granted rights by the Constitution. Are they then not considered people because they are not defined in the Constitution?
I think the entire crux of the abortion debate from a legal and moral standpoint is that the issue of when the baby is a person. (the following is not directed at you in any way.)I find it odd that someone who isn't religious claims that the baby doesn't have a soul, from my beliefs that's nonsense, but It just seems odd that someone would invoke religion into it when it suits them or their argument.
But as it is now, you can't legally name a child, obtain a social security number, or even claim a tax exemption for a child until it's born, which would imply that the government doesn't consider it a citizen until the time of it's birth. If it has no rights until then, then the rights of the mother take precedence.
We never used to give out S.S #'s until they were 12 and there wasn't a tax exemption unti around the early 70's. Were they kids before then ? Of course they were. But if someone isn't a citizen do they have no rights ? So I see some guy from Zimbabwe tooling down the street can I kill him ? No. Of course not, well I could but it would be murder.
The law already in a way does see a baby in utero as a person. If you kill intentionally or unintentionally a pregnant woman or her "fetus" or both, you can be tried for two homocides. Now this is regardless of wether that mother was to have an abortion or not. If she was scheduled to have an abortion in 2 days you could still be tried with homocide if you killed one or both. The word itself homo in homocide denotes man, man as in a person.
So it seems to me that if you want abortion outlawed, you'd have to make some major changes, perhaps even to the Constitution, to assign citizenship and all the rights pertaining thereto starting at the time of conception.
See above.
Now when do we consider it a person ? Some claim only when their first breath of outside air is drawn. Take a 6 month old baby still in the womb. It has all the functions of any babay that age that's out of the womb. They feel pain, they eat or take nourishment, they sleep, they deficate, they urinate, they think, etc.
Now take that baby in the womb and one out. Let's say they were concieved at the same time, heck, let's say they're twins. The first twin comes out and the second is still in. What's the difference between the two ? Not much except the umbilical cord that they get food from the first one out gets it from a bottle but the parent still has to feed it. They still need oxygen and both get it, one is just supplied differently. But you say it's not a person ? So what is it ? a mass of tissue ?
That's how some look at it and they cut it up in pieces and vaccum it out or drill a hole in its head and suck the brain out or inject it with poision first. Do you know why they have to inject it with poision or hit the brain with the needle ?.......To KILL it first before they remove it, if it's not alive and just a useless glob of tissue some look at as a tumor why does it need to be killed first ? Actually it really doesnt have to be killed first, why do they do so ? Guess why ? one reason of course is that it makes it easier for the people who do the procedure to stomach.
But the BIG reason and legal reason is that if it's ALIVE outside the womb now they have to kill it and THAT by law ladies and gents is murder. But it's o.k to do it in the womb, cuz then it's o.k so kill the kid before you suck em out and your o.k just make sure they are good and dead before you do.
I also believe there should be a nationwide "Sexism 101" class taught in all U.S. schools, by NOW-certified instructors, payed for by a special "BIG Tax".
BIG standing for "Bigoted Intolerant Goofs", on whom it would be imposed.
So, "good" old boys, get your guns loaded while you've still got the time, before the IRS shows up at your doorstep with collection cans the size of oil barrels.
In the meantime, women and girls, be sure to carry hatpins, ready for abruptly locating the heart of any guy who insists on getting his hoggin's even though you've said "No!".
You can always say the sweaty oinker croaked from a...stroke.
A woman doesn't have to have an abortion because it is legal. Therefore it becomes a personal moral decision. As it is often said, morality can't be legislated, and that is just what the rigid, right wingers are trying to do.
Abortions have happened for thousands of years, and passing a law against it isn't going to stop it.
It remains a matter of choice, and of personal conviction, and we can't force ours on the rest of the country. As jethro himself says "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " and that is exactly what he advocates, denying the right to lawful, safe abortion to those who don't believe as he does.
You are right on the fact that morality can't be legislated. But as a society we make laws based on what benefits it has towards society if that society so decides that it's beneficial as a whole. That's what we are are debating here the pros cons. Murder is also illegal and it has happend for thousands of years as well. it hasn't stopped it. But because some would break those laws is not a reason to not have them. We have many laws that are broken all the time but we don't pass laws because we are afraid of who might break them. So if we apply that logic does it mean we should not have laws against, murder, drunk driving, rape, etc.? Of course not. Because your rights end when you take the rights of another away and life itself is probably the most basic right And that's what it all comes down to is if it's a person or not. Contrary to your assertion it's not just rigid right wingers as you say. Almost half the country thinks abortion is wrong, it's a large segment of the population from all walks of life. So the debate continues and the number of people who are opposed to it are growing and law will be based on that opinion that's the way it works fortunatley.
see, luv, that's the difference between abortion, and drunk driving, murder, rape, (and since jethro will no doubt bring it up, slavery). the latter all have an obvious benefit to society to be illegal. with abortion that benefit is a lot smaller, if it even exists in the first place.
i think you may have misunderstood me, jethro, and reading what i posted, i can see why :) what i meant to say is that there is a benefit to society to outlaw murder, rape, drunk-driving. you don't get a similar benefit by outlawing abortion.
see, luv, that's the difference between abortion, and drunk driving, murder, rape, (and since jethro will no doubt bring it up, slavery). the latter all have an obvious benefit to society to be illegal. with abortion that benefit is a lot smaller, if it even exists in the first place.
And it's in your opinion that keeping abortion legal is an obvious benefit to society where I see it to be the opposite. You say the benefit with abortion is alot smaller, well that's one mans opinion but there are many laws that are of small benefit that we still make law regardless. I and almost half the country wouldn't say it's smaller benefit either. They see it as denying themost basic human right in the world and that's the right to live.
Take a look at drunk driving for instance. That law is based on the presumption or guess that a drunk person could injure or kill another due to being inebriated. Now some could say it violates there rights to consume a legal product. And there's no proof that they specifically were harming anyone at that moment they got pulled over. Or again using that same logic we could say that we shouldn't have that law since people break it all the time. Would I defend it or say we shouldn't ? No, of course I wouldn't. But we impose laws on people all the time that could be considered infringing on their rights or being an inconvienence. in most states it's against the law to commit suicide by jumping off a building, it's against the law to do drugs, Those laws take away someones personal freedom but we've decided they were a big enough benefit.
My point was that But just because we know that some would break the law ie: having back alley abortions is not a reason at all to not make a law. No matter which side of the debate you come down on If society decides it of benefit than they pass the law regardless of whom might break it. If you go down the road of saying well we shouldn't outlaw this or make this or that illegal because some might and probably will break it you'd have to repeal every law because they've all been broken. That's all I'm saying, so no matter if you're in favor or against abortion it needs to be argued on it's merits and benefits, not some exuse of some might break it.
what i meant to say is that there is a benefit to society to outlaw murder, rape, drunk-driving. you don't get a similar benefit by outlawing abortion.
How so? there are still murders, rape and drunk-driving although they are all illegal.
probably luv, because there's no argument at all that if the fetus is delivered live, it becomes infanticide. i also don't think that there are a whole lot of people who support third-trimester abortions either, except to save the life of the mother. i mean think about it, you've been pregnant for 6 months and you just now want to end it? um, why?
probably luv, because there's no argument at all that if the fetus is delivered live, it becomes infanticide.
Exactly, so obviously it's ALVIE it's not just some mass of tissue, So it's o.k to kill it when it's on the inside ? Obviously it's living or it wouldn't have to be killed. And the ways that they are killed are horrendous. But either way in or out they ARE living. Not to mention the doctor's hypocratic oath obligations. How they can and sleep at night is amazing. So if we suck the brains out in the womb and then remove it and throw it in the trash it's okey dokey with us but if they do it on the table it's murder. O.K Sure, right whatever. Just make sure it's good and dead before you remove it then you are a murder. But it's not life right ?
i also don't think that there are a whole lot of people who support third-trimester abortions either, except to save the life of the mother. I mean think about it, you've been pregnant for 6 months and you just now want to end it? um, why?
More than you think, every time a call to end late term and partial birth abortions the pro abortion crowd goes nuts because they see it as a foot in the door so to speak so many support abortions at 6 months. Late term abortions happen quite a bit I think they are horrendous but would agree that if the mothers life is in danger than it should be allowed. Frankly that's where the hardcore anti abortion crowd loses me. As in everything there's a balance.
Late term abortions happen quite a bit I think they are horrendous but would agree that if the mothers life is in danger than it should be allowed. Frankly that's where the hardcore anti abortion crowd loses me.
I see you have bought into the proabortion crowd's rhetoric.
exactly! and ya know, for the most part, i'm anti-abortion. if the mother's life is in danger, then definitely abortion should be an option. and this is something that i'll concede that probably all but the most hard-core anti-abortion crowd would agree with. but i also think that it should be available as an option if the pregnancy was caused by criminal activity as well, which is where i separate from that group. my attitude is, for the most part, one of "if you got pregnant because you were irresponsible, live with the consequences of it." and since the anti-abortion group sees everything, in general, as black and white, that forces me into the pro-choice camp.
I see you have bought into the proabortion crowd's rhetoric.
No, unlike SOME here I make my own opinions Jethro. If the mother is going to lose her life because of complications due to pregnancy than she should be allowed to do so. If your wife was pregnant and they said that you had to choose which would you do? It's VERY easy for YOU to say until you have to make that decision, as hard a decision that would be, MOST rational people would choose the life of the mother and would be saddened and devistated at the loss of the child.
And in my opinion Jethro that's on of the reasons that abortion is still legal. Many who are against abortions and late term abortions would know the obvious answer to that question and it would have ALOT more support in the general populace for abortion restrictions. They might be in place or have many more supporters today. If the calls for restriction were more realistic it would get more support from those undecided. if the hardcore element would realize and take advantage of it. The hardcore element needs to learn how to compromise for the greater good or at least be realistic. You or I might not like it one way or the other but less abortion is good. I think you'd agree. If that would mean banning it unless in the case of the mothers life being in danger it would cut the number of abortions by 90% at least. Abortions where the mothers life is in danger are rare comparitively. And I think reducing them by 90% would be good Unless you don't think it would be ?
my attitude is, for the most part, one of "if you got pregnant because you were irresponsible, live with the consequences of it." and since the anti-abortion group sees everything, in general, as black and white, that forces me into the pro-choice camp.
It's pretty much exactly how I feel as well except for being forced into the pro-choice camp. But it's the perfect example I was trying to show Jethro of someone who might just be in favor of restricting it if it weren't for the militant aspect of the pro life movement. I'm sure there are many more like you. See what I mean Jethro. Here's someone who might just be in favor of dramatically reducing abortions except in those cases. But instead of using that power or proxy you stick to the absolutist view or insult their views and say it's all or nothing. That keeps us stuck where we have been for 20 years. Pick the battles you can win and win them if they are there for the taking, they are. Fight the other battles another day. I feel that we could have saved hundreds of lives by starting there. If we had picked the fruit that is ripe, instead we will let the whole tree rot waiting for a few apples to ripen. Take what you can get and work from there.
Let me more specific in what you bought into. You have bought into the proabortion propaganda that prolifers don't care about the life of the mother, even the "hard core" prolifers. That is myth.
Let me more specific in what you bought into. You have bought into the proabortion propaganda that prolifers don't care about the life of the mother, even the "hard core" prolifers. That is myth.
I haven't bought into shit Jethro. It's MY belief. Not what a pro life movement tells me it should be. It's MY belief that if my wife is pregnant and the doc comes in and says your wife is going to die unless we take the baby I'd pick my wife every time as most rational sane people would who love their wife. Would it be sad ? You bet, it would be devastating to lose a child. Can you say you'd do different ? I guarantee it's EASY to say until faced with that situation.
But if I misunderstood specifically your posistion I'll ask you flat out. If the mothers life is at risk should she be allowed to have an abortion ?
I believe there is a social benefit to the social net that helps you personally.
On the flip side there's a point where it hurts me and hurts society as a whole.
I agree, sometimes people need help. But to what extent does society have a responsibility to people, and to what extent do people have a responsibility to society?
I never hear about the responsibility one owes to society. All I hear is about how society owes someone something.
"Ask not what your country can do for you........."
I can't reply at length right now, but suffice it to say that almost all the attriubutes and things you are trying to lay on me or claim I represent are not right.
I don't have much time right now either. But let me rephrase what was one of my main complaints with your post.
On the one hand you say people are capable of doing things like being responsible, quitting smoking, etc. To make that point, you cite examples where the people are put in extreme circumstances in order to choose the desired action. But unless you plan on using such extreme measures for real, then what have you really proven? If you use the extreme measures, then I don't think you've improved society. If you don't use the extreme measures, then of course some people are going to continue to be lazy and live off public assistance and so I'm not sure what your point is then.
Welfare has more delitirious effects on people then it helps in many cases. It has lead to a viscous cycle.
Actually, I'm not going to argue that it can lead to a cycle and just giving people money and nothing else isn't really likely to help them turn into a productive citizen. But if the choice were between that and just cutting them off, I'd rather give them the money. I'm not saying efforts shouldn't be made to break the cycle, I'm saying that I don't think simply cutting them off and leaving them with nothing is the best way to go.
But the predictions of mass starvations and riots didn't come true.
I wouldn't have expected such a thing to happen personally, but what if some people did starve? Again, I think there are ways to encourage people to lead better lives other than simply cutting them off.
Let's say your kids don't want to go to school and have no desire or ambition to do their homework.
Yes, but would you throw them out of the house for getting bad grades? Or would you continue to support them while encouraging them to do better?
Oh and in regards to your many assumptions that taking people off welfare would turn them into criminals.
I'm saying it could. It's hard to say how someone pushed to desperation will act.
So under the threat of someone doing criminal activities we shouldn't change the rules or requirements ? That's essentially blackmail
Hardly. It's about fixing a problem. To call it blackmail would be like saying that the possibility that taking the virus protection off your computer opens you up to virus attacks is blackmail. The problem is there, if you take away the solution, the problem may return.
and is saying or admitting that those who are poor would commit crime. I thought we weren't supposed to be judgemental?
I'm saying if you make a person desperate, you don't know how they might act. It's not a statement about being poor, it's about being desperate.
Minnesota has dropped many from the welfare rolls and crime is down so I don't see how you can make that leap.
I don't think you can answer that question with overall numbers. You'd have to see what percentage of people dropped from the welfare rolls ended up having a police record? Crime could be down overall for other reasons, but that wouldn't necessarily mean you haven't pushed some people into becoming criminals.
I am tired of the assumption (not saying you personally) that well if you're for welfare reform or personal responsibility than you must not care.
The ones who strike me as not caring are the ones who seem to have the attitude that if someone else made a mistake, it's entirely up to them to fix it...
Should there be that net, you bet. For those who are misplaced, laid off, mentally disabled and physically disabled. etc. Absolutely it should be there.
I don't think you're really one of those people based on this statement. Actually I think the only place you and I truly vary here is on the perennials. So now let's take the debate back to where it really belongs on this thread. The single mothers.
You say a woman shouldn't be able to have an abortion. If she gets pregnant, she should have to bear the child (in your ideal world). Now let's suppose the mother doesn't want to work for whatever reason. Maybe she just doesn't have the skills to find a job that would pay enough to cover her daycare expenses while she worked and all her other bills too. Maybe she's actually better off financially not working. Or let's even take a worst case scenario and say she just doesn't want to work. So now would any of you still say that the best answer is to just cut her off? Is that really helping the kids at all? Why should they be punished? Even if the mother does get a job because we forced her to, it doesn't mean the kids are going to be better off. What if all she can find is a minimum wage job and she has four kids?
I start a new job tomorrow so I don't know when I'll get to post again, but that should give you something to discuss.
Thirteen years later, (Justice) White dissented in another case reaffirming abortion rights, warning the court against "the unrestrained imposition of its own, extraconstitutional value preferences." By then, the court's "value preferences" had replaced the Constitution in too many cases.
WASHINGTON — House Republicans want to make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion to circumvent parental consent laws.
Have you fire-bombed any clinics lately Andy?
Paula I - (PFID:13d102) - 07:16pm Apr 23, 2002 PST (#6 of 6)
Living with the choice of having aborted a child is horrible. Knowing that you made the decision to have your child ripped apart and sucked out of your body piece by piece is an awful memory. Years go by and you wish you could take that moment back, but you cant.
You can grieve, you can defend your actions, you can forgive, you can move on, but you can never and will never forget, no matter what you do.
Years go by and you wonder... what if I would have made a different choice.... one that wouldn't have left me in such pain.
I would give anything to be contacted by my grown child that I gave up for adoption. How sad that I will not have that opportunity.
I would give anything to see how he or she turned out. Was it a boy or girl, brown eyes, hazel or blue... so many other kids turned out ok in imperfect circumstances.... If only I knew...If only I could go back in time......
I would give my life to tell my child I am sorry.
My only hope is that when I reach heaven, I will see my child in my child's heavenly body and we will be re-united.
Having the right to terminate a pregnancy is like justifying the inconvenience of the moment.
Life passes you by so quickly and a period of time that seems like months is but a moment years later.
But the decision of that moment has effects that will change you for the rest of your life........
That's a great post.
We all do things that we sometimes regret later. We eat too much. We get drunk and have a hangover. We spend more money at the casino, or even shopping than we wish we would have. Does that mean we should make all these things illegal because there's the possibility we might regret them later?
You can certainly advise someone that if they get an abortion they might regret it later. In fact, I think that should be a very important part of the decision process. It's silly to base such a decision purely on the present. But if someone is making an informed decision, and they still decide it's what they want, I don't think we should tell them they can't do it.
Why? We tell people they can't do things all the time.
You cannot rape your neighor.
You cannot steal from that bank.
You cannot murder your parents.
You cannot punch your boss in the nose.
Alison Wonderland,
I see what you are saying but I think it's a bad comparison to say going to the casino, getting drunk or spending more at the mall compared to ending another life or at the very least making a decision that has far greater implications than any of the above. They are vastly different and uncomparible.
We all do things that we sometimes regret later. We eat too much. We get drunk and have a hangover. We spend more money at the casino, or even shopping than we wish we would have.
None of these things end a human life.
I can't wait until the Supreme Court says it's ok to kill those that inconvenience my life.
"Stop fighting Mom! You've been a big pain in the ass ever since you got alzheimers. Now drink your kool aid cocktail and keep quiet. You'll be in a better place soon.".
Just cuz it's legal doesn't make it right.
Yeah, to some people. I'm sure there's plenty out there that wouldn't have a problem killing their ill parents.
Whatever's best for them and whatever's most convenient.
No, but the Supreme Court has given permission to these citizens to take such action, should they want or need to.
That's just the way it is.
And at one time the Supreme Court said it was okay to own slaves, should they want to or need to.
That's just the way it was.
Why? We tell people they can't do things all the time.
The things you mention involve things that affect another person in addition to yourself. Whether a fetus qualifies as another person whose rights are to be considered is a separate question.
Whether a fetus qualifies as another person whose rights are to be considered is a separate question.
Any person with a heart knows the answer to that question.
Whether a fetus qualifies as another person whose rights are to be considered is a separate question.
If we were to say that a fetus is in fact a person, would you then agree that abortion is wrong?
If we were to say that a fetus is in fact a person, would you then agree that abortion is wrong?
Yes. But I don't consider it to be one and many others don't consider it to be one. It's not an easy thing to prove depending on just how you define a person.
Ironically, it seems easier to me for a religious person to support abortion than a non-religious one. A religious person can call into question whether the fetus has a soul or not and like me, contend that if it doesn't have a soul then it must not be a person. As for athiests, who don't believe a person ever has a soul, it kind of makes me wonder what criteria they use to distinguish between a fetus and a person. But that's just a random side thought.
But now we're back to the basic question. If someone people say it's a person, and others say it is not, what policy do you use? If you don't believe a fetus is a person, there's no reason for you not to get an abortion if you really want one. So can a woman be forced to go through a pregnancy and bear a child based only on the beliefs of others that she herself does not hold?
What if you had a son, and you didn't believe in circumcision, and yet you were forced to make sure he got one anyway simply because some people out there believe it's wrong not to be circumcised?
Q: If we were to say that a fetus is in fact a person, would you then agree that abortion is wrong?
A: Yes. But I don't consider it to be one and many others don't consider it to be one. It's not an easy thing to prove depending on just how you define a person.
Yes and at one time white people didn't consider that black people to be persons. That was based on how they defined person, too.
If someone people say it's a person, and others say it is not, what policy do you use? If you don't believe a fetus is a person, there's no reason for you not to get an abortion if you really want one.
How does the following sound?: If someone says blacks are persons and others say they are not, what policy do you use? If you don't believe ablacks are persons, there's no reason for you not to have oen as a slave if you really want one.
Doesn't make much sense now does it?
Yes. But I don't consider it to be one and many others don't consider it to be one. It's not an easy thing to prove depending on just how you define a person.
I'd rather err on the side of caution. I'd say it's easier to prove it's a person than not. It certianly isn't a monkey.
How does the following sound?: If someone says blacks are persons and others say they are not, what policy do you use? If you don't believe ablacks are persons, there's no reason for you not to have oen as a slave if you really want one.
Good comeback. :-)
But now that kind of brings us back to the Civil War again where what you describe was pretty much the case. A lot of people didn't think of blacks as people and they did own slaves without a guilty conscience. And there were enough people who thought that way that those who did believe they were just as human as anyone else still tolerated those who didn't.
But times changed and people's thinking changed and more and more people came to think of the slaves as humans with just as many rights to liberty as anyone else. The Constitution originally defined them as 3/5 of a person. But once they were considered citizens with rights equal to everyone else, it became the responsibility of the government to look out for those rights as much as it did for anyone else. Thus one person, no matter what they believed, could not enslave another unless it was consensual.
So going back to abortion...unless and until the government decides to grant a fetus all the rights of citizenship, and consider it a person equal to any other, there's no legal reason abortion should be outlawed. But as it is now, you can't legally name a child, obtain a social security number, or even claim a tax exemption for a child until it's born, which would imply that the government doesn't consider it a citizen until the time of it's birth. If it has no rights until then, then the rights of the mother take precedence.
So it seems to me that if you want abortion outlawed, you'd have to make some major changes, perhaps even to the Constitution, to assign citizenship and all the rights pertaining thereto starting at the time of conception.
So going back to abortion...unless and until the government decides to grant a fetus all the rights of citizenship, and consider it a person equal to any other, there's no legal reason abortion should be outlawed. The government decides what is legal and illegal so I don't know what you mean. But the government does not have to recognize all rights to an unborn child only the right to life.But as it is now, you can't legally name a child, obtain a social security number, or even claim a tax exemption for a child until it's born, which would imply that the government doesn't consider it a citizen until the time of it's birth. And none of that would have to change by simply outlawing abortion on demand.If it has no rights until then, then the rights of the mother take precedence. That is the law but it is not an argument for keeping it the law.
So it seems to me that if you want abortion outlawed, you'd have to make some major changes, perhaps even to the Constitution, to assign citizenship and all the rights pertaining thereto starting at the time of conception. An unborn child does not have to have all the rights or privileges of citizenship and that should not be the case if abortion on demand were to be outlawed. While a Constitutional amendment would accomplish the end to abortion all it takes is for the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade. Roe was poorly decided just read Byron White's dissent. It was a usurpation by liberal judges that knew they could not get the result through the legitimate political process.
Non citizens of the U.S. are not granted rights by the Constitution. Are they then not considered people because they are not defined in the Constitution?
Non citizens of the U.S. are not granted rights by the Constitution. Are they then not considered people because they are not defined in the Constitution?
Are citizens allowed to kill non-itizens?
Are citizens allowed to kill non-itizens?
According to some logic we should be able to.
Alison Wonderland,
I think the entire crux of the abortion debate from a legal and moral standpoint is that the issue of when the baby is a person. (the following is not directed at you in any way.)I find it odd that someone who isn't religious claims that the baby doesn't have a soul, from my beliefs that's nonsense, but It just seems odd that someone would invoke religion into it when it suits them or their argument.
We never used to give out S.S #'s until they were 12 and there wasn't a tax exemption unti around the early 70's. Were they kids before then ? Of course they were. But if someone isn't a citizen do they have no rights ? So I see some guy from Zimbabwe tooling down the street can I kill him ? No. Of course not, well I could but it would be murder.
The law already in a way does see a baby in utero as a person. If you kill intentionally or unintentionally a pregnant woman or her "fetus" or both, you can be tried for two homocides. Now this is regardless of wether that mother was to have an abortion or not. If she was scheduled to have an abortion in 2 days you could still be tried with homocide if you killed one or both. The word itself homo in homocide denotes man, man as in a person.
See above.
Now when do we consider it a person ? Some claim only when their first breath of outside air is drawn. Take a 6 month old baby still in the womb. It has all the functions of any babay that age that's out of the womb. They feel pain, they eat or take nourishment, they sleep, they deficate, they urinate, they think, etc.
Now take that baby in the womb and one out. Let's say they were concieved at the same time, heck, let's say they're twins. The first twin comes out and the second is still in. What's the difference between the two ? Not much except the umbilical cord that they get food from the first one out gets it from a bottle but the parent still has to feed it. They still need oxygen and both get it, one is just supplied differently. But you say it's not a person ? So what is it ? a mass of tissue ?
That's how some look at it and they cut it up in pieces and vaccum it out or drill a hole in its head and suck the brain out or inject it with poision first. Do you know why they have to inject it with poision or hit the brain with the needle ?.......To KILL it first before they remove it, if it's not alive and just a useless glob of tissue some look at as a tumor why does it need to be killed first ? Actually it really doesnt have to be killed first, why do they do so ? Guess why ? one reason of course is that it makes it easier for the people who do the procedure to stomach.
But the BIG reason and legal reason is that if it's ALIVE outside the womb now they have to kill it and THAT by law ladies and gents is murder. But it's o.k to do it in the womb, cuz then it's o.k so kill the kid before you suck em out and your o.k just make sure they are good and dead before you do.
I support abortion on demand.
No waiting periods.
No parental notification.
I also believe there should be a nationwide "Sexism 101" class taught in all U.S. schools, by NOW-certified instructors, payed for by a special "BIG Tax".
BIG standing for "Bigoted Intolerant Goofs", on whom it would be imposed.
So, "good" old boys, get your guns loaded while you've still got the time, before the IRS shows up at your doorstep with collection cans the size of oil barrels.
In the meantime, women and girls, be sure to carry hatpins, ready for abruptly locating the heart of any guy who insists on getting his hoggin's even though you've said "No!".
You can always say the sweaty oinker croaked from a...stroke.
Thoughtless and rash.
A woman doesn't have to have an abortion because it is legal. Therefore it becomes a personal moral decision. As it is often said, morality can't be legislated, and that is just what the rigid, right wingers are trying to do.
Abortions have happened for thousands of years, and passing a law against it isn't going to stop it.
It remains a matter of choice, and of personal conviction, and we can't force ours on the rest of the country. As jethro himself says "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " and that is exactly what he advocates, denying the right to lawful, safe abortion to those who don't believe as he does.
Lady Lou,
You are right on the fact that morality can't be legislated. But as a society we make laws based on what benefits it has towards society if that society so decides that it's beneficial as a whole. That's what we are are debating here the pros cons. Murder is also illegal and it has happend for thousands of years as well. it hasn't stopped it. But because some would break those laws is not a reason to not have them. We have many laws that are broken all the time but we don't pass laws because we are afraid of who might break them. So if we apply that logic does it mean we should not have laws against, murder, drunk driving, rape, etc.? Of course not. Because your rights end when you take the rights of another away and life itself is probably the most basic right And that's what it all comes down to is if it's a person or not. Contrary to your assertion it's not just rigid right wingers as you say. Almost half the country thinks abortion is wrong, it's a large segment of the population from all walks of life. So the debate continues and the number of people who are opposed to it are growing and law will be based on that opinion that's the way it works fortunatley.
see, luv, that's the difference between abortion, and drunk driving, murder, rape, (and since jethro will no doubt bring it up, slavery). the latter all have an obvious benefit to society to be illegal. with abortion that benefit is a lot smaller, if it even exists in the first place.
It will probably reduce the number.
with abortion that benefit is a lot smaller, if it even exists in the first place.
It doesn't.
i think you may have misunderstood me, jethro, and reading what i posted, i can see why :) what i meant to say is that there is a benefit to society to outlaw murder, rape, drunk-driving. you don't get a similar benefit by outlawing abortion.
Ares,
see, luv, that's the difference between abortion, and drunk driving, murder, rape, (and since jethro will no doubt bring it up, slavery). the latter all have an obvious benefit to society to be illegal. with abortion that benefit is a lot smaller, if it even exists in the first place.
And it's in your opinion that keeping abortion legal is an obvious benefit to society where I see it to be the opposite. You say the benefit with abortion is alot smaller, well that's one mans opinion but there are many laws that are of small benefit that we still make law regardless. I and almost half the country wouldn't say it's smaller benefit either. They see it as denying themost basic human right in the world and that's the right to live.
Take a look at drunk driving for instance. That law is based on the presumption or guess that a drunk person could injure or kill another due to being inebriated. Now some could say it violates there rights to consume a legal product. And there's no proof that they specifically were harming anyone at that moment they got pulled over. Or again using that same logic we could say that we shouldn't have that law since people break it all the time. Would I defend it or say we shouldn't ? No, of course I wouldn't. But we impose laws on people all the time that could be considered infringing on their rights or being an inconvienence. in most states it's against the law to commit suicide by jumping off a building, it's against the law to do drugs, Those laws take away someones personal freedom but we've decided they were a big enough benefit.
My point was that But just because we know that some would break the law ie: having back alley abortions is not a reason at all to not make a law. No matter which side of the debate you come down on If society decides it of benefit than they pass the law regardless of whom might break it. If you go down the road of saying well we shouldn't outlaw this or make this or that illegal because some might and probably will break it you'd have to repeal every law because they've all been broken. That's all I'm saying, so no matter if you're in favor or against abortion it needs to be argued on it's merits and benefits, not some exuse of some might break it.
what i meant to say is that there is a benefit to society to outlaw murder, rape, drunk-driving. you don't get a similar benefit by outlawing abortion.
How so? there are still murders, rape and drunk-driving although they are all illegal.
I asked this the other day and noticed no one had attempted to debate it.
Why is it that they have to kill a fetus before they remove it from the woman ?
probably luv, because there's no argument at all that if the fetus is delivered live, it becomes infanticide. i also don't think that there are a whole lot of people who support third-trimester abortions either, except to save the life of the mother. i mean think about it, you've been pregnant for 6 months and you just now want to end it? um, why?
Ares,
Exactly, so obviously it's ALVIE it's not just some mass of tissue, So it's o.k to kill it when it's on the inside ? Obviously it's living or it wouldn't have to be killed. And the ways that they are killed are horrendous. But either way in or out they ARE living. Not to mention the doctor's hypocratic oath obligations. How they can and sleep at night is amazing. So if we suck the brains out in the womb and then remove it and throw it in the trash it's okey dokey with us but if they do it on the table it's murder. O.K Sure, right whatever. Just make sure it's good and dead before you remove it then you are a murder. But it's not life right ?
More than you think, every time a call to end late term and partial birth abortions the pro abortion crowd goes nuts because they see it as a foot in the door so to speak so many support abortions at 6 months. Late term abortions happen quite a bit I think they are horrendous but would agree that if the mothers life is in danger than it should be allowed. Frankly that's where the hardcore anti abortion crowd loses me. As in everything there's a balance.
Late term abortions happen quite a bit I think they are horrendous but would agree that if the mothers life is in danger than it should be allowed. Frankly that's where the hardcore anti abortion crowd loses me.
I see you have bought into the proabortion crowd's rhetoric.
As in everything there's a balance.
exactly! and ya know, for the most part, i'm anti-abortion. if the mother's life is in danger, then definitely abortion should be an option. and this is something that i'll concede that probably all but the most hard-core anti-abortion crowd would agree with. but i also think that it should be available as an option if the pregnancy was caused by criminal activity as well, which is where i separate from that group. my attitude is, for the most part, one of "if you got pregnant because you were irresponsible, live with the consequences of it." and since the anti-abortion group sees everything, in general, as black and white, that forces me into the pro-choice camp.
No, unlike SOME here I make my own opinions Jethro. If the mother is going to lose her life because of complications due to pregnancy than she should be allowed to do so. If your wife was pregnant and they said that you had to choose which would you do? It's VERY easy for YOU to say until you have to make that decision, as hard a decision that would be, MOST rational people would choose the life of the mother and would be saddened and devistated at the loss of the child.
And in my opinion Jethro that's on of the reasons that abortion is still legal. Many who are against abortions and late term abortions would know the obvious answer to that question and it would have ALOT more support in the general populace for abortion restrictions. They might be in place or have many more supporters today. If the calls for restriction were more realistic it would get more support from those undecided. if the hardcore element would realize and take advantage of it. The hardcore element needs to learn how to compromise for the greater good or at least be realistic. You or I might not like it one way or the other but less abortion is good. I think you'd agree. If that would mean banning it unless in the case of the mothers life being in danger it would cut the number of abortions by 90% at least. Abortions where the mothers life is in danger are rare comparitively. And I think reducing them by 90% would be good Unless you don't think it would be ?
Ares.
It's pretty much exactly how I feel as well except for being forced into the pro-choice camp. But it's the perfect example I was trying to show Jethro of someone who might just be in favor of restricting it if it weren't for the militant aspect of the pro life movement. I'm sure there are many more like you. See what I mean Jethro. Here's someone who might just be in favor of dramatically reducing abortions except in those cases. But instead of using that power or proxy you stick to the absolutist view or insult their views and say it's all or nothing. That keeps us stuck where we have been for 20 years. Pick the battles you can win and win them if they are there for the taking, they are. Fight the other battles another day. I feel that we could have saved hundreds of lives by starting there. If we had picked the fruit that is ripe, instead we will let the whole tree rot waiting for a few apples to ripen. Take what you can get and work from there.
Let me more specific in what you bought into. You have bought into the proabortion propaganda that prolifers don't care about the life of the mother, even the "hard core" prolifers. That is myth.
prolifers are realistic. they have been demonized by the wacko proabortionists.
I haven't bought into shit Jethro. It's MY belief. Not what a pro life movement tells me it should be. It's MY belief that if my wife is pregnant and the doc comes in and says your wife is going to die unless we take the baby I'd pick my wife every time as most rational sane people would who love their wife. Would it be sad ? You bet, it would be devastating to lose a child. Can you say you'd do different ? I guarantee it's EASY to say until faced with that situation.
But if I misunderstood specifically your posistion I'll ask you flat out.
If the mothers life is at risk should she be allowed to have an abortion ?
prolifers are realistic. they have been demonized by the wacko proabortionists.
The fanatics within their ranks haven't helped them much either.
Bingo. I would add to it and say the fanatics on both sides have each hurt thier cause.