[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

at no time did I mention Iraq until the above was thrown out. I respond to arguments. So many posts out of pride. At some point I'm hoping common sense will prevail. Don't fall into traps like these out of nothing more than a need to speak dcmacdaddy. Kevin responded to the poster who derailed the thread. You're simply reacting in an adversarial manner.

Let see, Moderator, than ebuddy, then dcmacdaddy reference Iraq in a thread about abortion and Zimphy only feels need to criticize me about de-railing the thread? There seems to be a lack of consistency there. Is it wrong to expect him to be consistent in his criticisms of mis-posting in a thread to all those who do so?

Just out of curiosity, if you are hoping for common sense to prevail why did YOU take the bait and respond to Moderator about Iraq instead of keeping the issue focused on abortion? Seems to me you should not be giving me advice on how to respond to others if you can't do it yourself.


Anyway, as far as abortion is concerned. It is possible to simultaneously hold two somewhat conflicting view-points (e.g.: being Pro-Choice but against abortion) without falling into some logical paradox. What that seeming paradox usually points to, in regards to a discussion about abortion, is the underlying conflict as to when "life" begins. Most of those people who are absolutists in the issue assume life begins at fertilization whereas myself and others, while not necessarily knowing when life begins, assumes it is not at fertilization but at some later point.

So, the point Zimphy is trying to make regarding an inconsistency between being pro-choice yet opposed to abortion and being anti-abortion is really reflecting a fundamental belief on when life begins. Almost everyone who is anti-abortion advocates a stance that life begins at conception so they see any attempts to permit abortion as permitting murder. As far as I am concerned life doesn't begin until the fetus is viable enough to survive outside the womb without medical intervention. That is usally around five or six months. Up to that point I think the fetus is still questionable as to whether it is a biologically self-sustained "living" entity. So, I would not see that act as murder. Certainly during the third trimester an elective abortion for non life-saving reasons, either of the fetus or the mother, I would consider murder. But, during the first five or six month, no.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I would say it depended on if the women knew it would hurt it.

Um.. if the women knew coffee would hurt it, it's murder. No knowing is manslaughter.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It is indeed a living, growing human being. Saying otherwise is again fuzzy thinking.

The only reason to call it something else, is to sugar-coat what is actually going on during abortion.

"It's not a baby it's a fetus!" or a tumor!

Sure, and not calling a corpse a "human being" when you incinerate it is just a way to sugarcoat that as well, right? It couldn't possibly be that you think there's a difference between that human being and the normal human beings we deal with every day that's significant enough to merit a distinguishing term. Those damn pro-human-burning activists.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Um.. if the women knew coffee would hurt it, it's murder. No knowing is manslaughter.

Then it's murder.

I have no problem calling it what it is.

edited...

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Rather: another example that you have trouble defining spin (see: China/Pakistan thread from earlier this week).

All of these labels can be used in a spinning manner.

Pro-life is spin for the same reason you think pro-choice is.

Pro-abortion is spin because the people who support the legality of abortion (given restraints) do not necessarily believe that it is the right decision and are not pro- the decision of abortion, but pro- the legal availability at the discretion of individual mothers.

Anti-abortion is probably the closest to non-spin you're going to get, because anti-abortion people not only believe abortion is almost never the right decision, but they're also against its legality.

Pro-abortion choice is the term I will use. It is non-spin.

[smacintush]

The pro-abortion choice crowd continually argues that the aborted embryo is not yet a person, or a life, or that it cannot feel anyway etc. I have a question: If they really think that this is important then why do they fight against a ban on partial birth abortions?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Pro-abortion choice is the term I will use. It is non-spin.

If you're talking about people who actively encourage abortions, sure. Otherwise, it's definitely spin. So be careful, because there aren't a lot of people the term accurately describes.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I respond to arguments. .

Then respond to this. Anyone who thinks ALL abortions should be outlawed or ALL abortions should be legal is THE problem in this debate. Abortion will be legal, then it won't, then it will be again..this will go on and on until people become willing to view it as a complex matter rather than Good/Bad.

If the country could get past taking sides and put reason above ideology we could put in place a system that would prevent most abortions, keep the ones that do happen to very early term, and preserve the right to privacy. Furthermore its fair, reasonable, practical ..and demonstrates that both sides have a case. And since both sides have a case..this cannot be an either or issue. Compromise is the only long term solution.

Here's my suggestion:

3rd Trimester: Outlaw all abortions: Exceptions for health/lif of mother only.
2nd Trimester: Outlaw all abortions: Exceptions for health/life of mother & rape/incest
1st Trimester: Legalize all abortion, just as it is now. But require parental notification except for extreme cases.

Morning after pill: Make it over the counter. This is NOT an abortion pill. It prevents a woman from getting pregnant. Anyone who wants fewer abortions should seriously consider supporting the Day after pill.

RU 486: This is for women pregnant 8 weeks or less. It should be legal but not over the counter.

Women ought to be educated about these pills, as well as about protection. Thats the best defense. They alone could cut abortions in half. Don't argue abstinance because many people find nothing morally wrong with sex...its natural as far as I'm concerned. But you ought to be wise enough to do it carefully..removing all mention of condoms in health class isn't helping matters.

At any rate. There's my proposal. I'd estimate that we could cut abortions down by 75% with that policy and the ones that did take place would be very very early...

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Then respond to this. Anyone who thinks ALL abortions should be outlawed or ALL abortions should be legal is THE problem in this debate. Abortion will be legal, then it won't, then it will be again..this will go on and on until people become willing to view it as a complex matter rather than Good/Bad.

If the country could get past taking sides and put reason above ideology we could put in place a system that would prevent most abortions, keep the ones that do happen to very early term, and preserve the right to privacy. Furthermore its fair, reasonable, practical ..and demonstrates that both sides have a case. And since both sides have a case..this cannot be an either or issue. Compromise is the only long term solution.

Here's my suggestion:

3rd Trimester: Outlaw all abortions: Exceptions for health/lif of mother only.
2nd Trimester: Outlaw all abortions: Exceptions for health/life of mother & rape/incest
1st Trimester: Legalize all abortion, just as it is now. But require parental notification except for extreme cases.

Morning after pill: Make it over the counter. This is NOT an abortion pill. It prevents a woman from getting pregnant. Anyone who wants fewer abortions should seriously consider supporting the Day after pill.

RU 486: This is for women pregnant 8 weeks or less. It should be legal but not over the counter.

Women ought to be educated about these pills, as well as about protection. Thats the best defense. They alone could cut abortions in half. Don't argue abstinance because many people find nothing morally wrong with sex...its natural as far as I'm concerned. But you ought to be wise enough to do it carefully..removing all mention of condoms in health class isn't helping matters.

At any rate. There's my proposal. I'd estimate that we could cut abortions down by 75% with that policy and the ones that did take place would be very very early...

Excellent proposal. I would only have minor quibbles with it. Few if any from the anti-abortion crowd would agree to this though. They want abortion to be outlawed in all cases, and with Spliffdaddy even in cases of rape. I don't think there will ever be an acceptable compromise on this issue. So we will just continue fighting back and forth.

It looks like access to abortions will become more restrictive in the coming years so maybe it will be another generation or two before the pendulum swings back the other way and access to abortions becomes less restricted.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Then respond to this. Anyone who thinks ALL abortions should be outlawed or ALL abortions should be legal is THE problem in this debate. Abortion will be legal, then it won't, then it will be again..this will go on and on until people become willing to view it as a complex matter rather than Good/Bad.

If the country could get past taking sides and put reason above ideology we could put in place a system that would prevent most abortions, keep the ones that do happen to very early term, and preserve the right to privacy. Furthermore its fair, reasonable, practical ..and demonstrates that both sides have a case. And since both sides have a case..this cannot be an either or issue. Compromise is the only long term solution.

Here's my suggestion:

3rd Trimester: Outlaw all abortions: Exceptions for health/lif of mother only.
2nd Trimester: Outlaw all abortions: Exceptions for health/life of mother & rape/incest
1st Trimester: Legalize all abortion, just as it is now. But require parental notification except for extreme cases.

Morning after pill: Make it over the counter. This is NOT an abortion pill. It prevents a woman from getting pregnant. Anyone who wants fewer abortions should seriously consider supporting the Day after pill.

RU 486: This is for women pregnant 8 weeks or less. It should be legal but not over the counter.

Women ought to be educated about these pills, as well as about protection. Thats the best defense. They alone could cut abortions in half. Don't argue abstinance because many people find nothing morally wrong with sex...its natural as far as I'm concerned. But you ought to be wise enough to do it carefully..removing all mention of condoms in health class isn't helping matters.

At any rate. There's my proposal. I'd estimate that we could cut abortions down by 75% with that policy and the ones that did take place would be very very early...

Excellent post

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush

The pro-abortion choice crowd continually argues that the aborted embryo is not yet a person, or a life, or that it cannot feel anyway etc. I have a question: If they really think that this is important then why do they fight against a ban on partial birth abortions?

Because the law that the pro-life side supports and passed makes an exception only for the life of the mother. The problems with that are:

1. It's unconstitutional, and in fact the law has been repeatedly struck down just as opponents said it would. I can't remember if it's going to the Supreme Court, but the law is not in effect right now because it is unconstitutional.

2. There are (rare) cases in which a baby cannot live but continuing the pregnancy could severely harm the women even if it wouldn't kill her. The best example of this is hydrocephalus, in which the baby has no functioning brain, but fluid has enlarged the head of the child so that it is damaging the insides of the woman. It is rare, but it happens dozens or maybe hundreds of times per year. I really don't see the point of ripping up the insides of a woman just to give birth to a brain-dead baby, and I really don't think a bunch of demagoging politicians ought to be making those kinds of medical decisions.

Clinton vetoed it, and many Democrats like Kerry voted against it, because they wanted a health exception in addition to the life exception, for the above reasons.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Because the law that the pro-life side supports and passed makes an exception only for the life of the mother. The problems with that are:

1. It's unconstitutional, and in fact the law has been repeatedly struck down just as opponents said it would. I can't remember if it's going to the Supreme Court, but the law is not in effect right now because it is unconstitutional.

2. There are (rare) cases in which a baby cannot live but continuing the pregnancy could severely harm the women even if it wouldn't kill her. The best example of this is hydrocephalus, in which the baby has no functioning brain, but fluid has enlarged the head of the child so that it is damaging the insides of the woman. It is rare, but it happens dozens or maybe hundreds of times per year. I really don't see the point of ripping up the insides of a woman just to give birth to a brain-dead baby, and I really don't think a bunch of demagoging politicians ought to be making those kinds of medical decisions.

Clinton vetoed it, and many Democrats like Kerry voted against it, because they wanted a health exception in addition to the life exception, for the above reasons.

Isn't it the technique itself that is the real problem?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Isn't it the technique itself that is the real problem?

I don't know, I don't have a problem with it under the conditions that I gave. But you can see why you might need to use that technique if the head is enlarged - a normal vaginal delivery would be impossible. So they put the baby in breach, drain the head of the fluid, and then pull it all the way out. Gruesome and yucky, but it should be up to the doctor who has the health of his or her patient in mind, not a politician.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Moderator

3rd Trimester: Outlaw all abortions: Exceptions for health/lif of mother only.
2nd Trimester: Outlaw all abortions: Exceptions for health/life of mother & rape/incest
1st Trimester: Legalize all abortion, just as it is now. But require parental notification except for extreme cases.

Morning after pill: Make it over the counter. This is NOT an abortion pill. It prevents a woman from getting pregnant. Anyone who wants fewer abortions should seriously consider supporting the Day after pill.

RU 486: This is for women pregnant 8 weeks or less. It should be legal but not over the counter.

Seems very reasonable. Anyone know at what point you can tell if an fetus/baby will have severe physical or mental disabilities? That could also be an exception to an abortion for 2nd Trimester.

Also, what about an abusive husband/boyfriend who forces the wife/girlfriend to wait until the 3rd trimester, by which time she seeks protection from police and wants an abortion?

It's really hard to draw lines as to what's an acceptable exception. Of course, laws are sometimes encyclopedias thick.

[Spliffdaddy]

There's no middle ground and no room for any exclusions.

It's either right or it's wrong.

Pick one.

[Chuckit]

By the third trimester, all she has to do is wait a short time and her body will remove the baby itself.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It's really hard to draw lines as to what's an acceptable exception. Of course, laws are sometimes encyclopedias thick.

So, why bother trying to make the decision or draw lines? Let the one who is actually pregnant decide what to do with her body.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

There's no middle ground and no room for any exclusions.

It's either right or it's wrong.

Pick one.

You are Exhibit A in the case for abortion.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Nicko

So, why bother trying to make the decision or draw lines? Let the one who is actually pregnant decide what to do with her body.

Because there is a point at which you really are dealing with a human being in there. One who can think and hurt. I'm as liberal as they come..but stabbing a baby in the head, premature or not, is pretty fcuked up.

But the other side of the argument is just as valid..there is a period of time where you are not dealing with a human being..you are dealing with a mass of cells with the potential to become human.

[Spliffdaddy]

And at what point would that be?

(bet you can't answer that question)

[Chuckit]

Age 20.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

And at what point would that be?

(bet you can't answer that question)

When it has a brain.

[Spliffdaddy]

So five weeks after conception is your answer?

[Moderator]

That's a good place to start.

[Spliffdaddy]

well that wasn't the answer I expected.

let me regroup and form some sort of reply.

[hyteckit]

Hehe... okay, let's make give human rights to embryos and fetuses. I'll see half the female population in jail for manslaughter for drinking coffee during their pregnancy. That would be funny. What would I care, I'm not a woman.

[hyteckit]

Oh, what that would be murder if they not coffee cause miscarriages. Hmm.. let me think about that. Too costly for courts with all the manslaughter and murder miscarriages cases. Hmm...

[Monique]

The Conservatives on this panel are against using contraception because they are men and do not care about women.

They do not want women to have legal abortions because they enjoy seeing them die or be mutilated by backstreet abortions.

And they never adopted an older kid or be a foster parent because they could not care less about older children in need of parents right now.

Instead they want to open old fashioned orphanages in which children would be abused and open factories to children so they would produce unecessary products, those children without parents and unable to find some because they are too many and since nowadays parents want only 2 children.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

The Conservatives on this panel are against using contraception because they are men and do not care about women.

I'm not really a conservative but my feelings on contraception have nothing to do with the fact that I hate women.

They do not want women to have legal abortions because they enjoy seeing them die or be mutilated by backstreet abortions.

Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

And they never adopted an older kid or be a foster parent because they could not care less about older children in need of parents right now.

I for one would be happy to adopt a 16 year old girl. That's a good age to do the housework and 16 just happens to be the age of sexual consent here.

Instead they want to open old fashioned orphanages in which children would be abused and open factories to children so they would produce unecessary products, those children without parents and unable to find some because they are too many and since nowadays parents want only 2 children.

Hmmm…well yeah that would be pretty cool.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Let see, Moderator, than ebuddy, then dcmacdaddy reference Iraq in a thread about abortion and Zimphy only feels need to criticize me about de-railing the thread?

Because for all intents and purposes, I had pretty much silenced Moderator. You, obviously feeling the need to pick up his mantel and continue on, decided to blow on the kindling. i.e. I had closed the subject, you re-opened it, Kevin called you out, you started crying about what ebuddy is doing.

There seems to be a lack of consistency there. Is it wrong to expect him to be consistent in his criticisms of mis-posting in a thread to all those who do so?

Not in this case. Not at all.

Just out of curiosity, if you are hoping for common sense to prevail why did YOU take the bait and respond to Moderator about Iraq instead of keeping the issue focused on abortion?

Because Moderator derailed the thread, I shut him down, you felt bad for him and tried to help pick him back up by continuing the derailing. You got called out for it because the case was closed and you for whatever reason decided to reopen it. You don't want to get called out for derailing a thread, don't derail a thread.

Seems to me you should not be giving me advice on how to respond to others

just did son.

What that seeming paradox usually points to, in regards to a discussion about abortion, is the underlying conflict as to when "life" begins. Most of those people who are absolutists in the issue assume life begins at fertilization whereas myself and others, while not necessarily knowing when life begins, assumes it is not at fertilization but at some later point.

I don't know why you're referring to Pro-Lifers as absolutist. Again, there is no going back on abortion. Abortion is most absolute. I believe it warrants more careful consideration than current statistics suggest it's getting.

You're in doubt as to whether or not a fertilized egg constitutes life so... you're okay with someone making the absolute decision to eliminate the potentiality up to 2nd trimester? I don't understand. Third trimester? These are all well beyond fertilization.

So, the point Zimphy is trying to make regarding an inconsistency between being pro-choice yet opposed to abortion and being anti-abortion is really reflecting a fundamental belief on when life begins. Almost everyone who is anti-abortion advocates a stance that life begins at conception so they see any attempts to permit abortion as permitting murder. As far as I am concerned life doesn't begin until the fetus is viable enough to survive outside the womb without medical intervention.

This may very well be what you believe. Many disagree. They would also disagree with your definition of "viable enough". There are many cases of people requiring medical intervention, including perhaps your grandmother? Is her life viable enough? Hmm.

That is usally around five or six months. Up to that point I think the fetus is still questionable as to whether it is a biologically self-sustained "living" entity.

I'm glad you came up with such a cut and dry way of determining viability Dr.... is it macdaddy?

So, I would not see that act as murder. Certainly during the third trimester an elective abortion for non life-saving reasons, either of the fetus or the mother, I would consider murder. But, during the first five or six month, no.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Hmmm, Zimphy, you did notice I was replying to a post from ebuddy about the situation in Iraq. Any chance you might go back and reply to his post with a similar sentiment, castigating him for discussing the Iraq war in a thread about abortion? If not, why not? Why would you choose to selectively criticize certain posters for straying off-topic in a thread?

PM me when you have posted a thread telling ebuddy to "quit this obnoxiousness" in regards to his post about the situation in Iraq. Thanks!

He wasn't attempting to argue about Iraq, but was giving an example. You took it, spun it off topic arguing about Iraq. You did the SAME thing in the other Iraq thread even when you were asked not to. Even when I requested you delete the off topic banter, you refused. If you are having self control issues with the Iraq issue I suggest maybe you need a break from the PL?

Zimphy

I haven't gone by Zimphire in awhile. Never went as "Zimphy" ever. I would appreciate from now on, you refer to me as Kevin. Thanks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I'm not really a conservative but my feelings on contraception have nothing to do with the fact that I hate women.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
I for one would be happy to adopt a 16 year old girl. That's a good age to do the housework and 16 just happens to be the age of sexual consent here.
Hmmm…well yeah that would be pretty cool.

Brilliant!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Moderator

When it has a brain.

Well that would make half the forum abortable.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well that would make half the forum abortable.

Don't be afraid. It's just a suggestion. (Ooh, COUNTER-ZING!)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Then respond to this. Anyone who thinks ALL abortions should be outlawed or ALL abortions should be legal is THE problem in this debate. Abortion will be legal, then it won't, then it will be again..this will go on and on until people become willing to view it as a complex matter rather than Good/Bad.

If the country could get past taking sides and put reason above ideology we could put in place a system that would prevent most abortions, keep the ones that do happen to very early term, and preserve the right to privacy. Furthermore its fair, reasonable, practical ..and demonstrates that both sides have a case. And since both sides have a case..this cannot be an either or issue. Compromise is the only long term solution.

I agree. My suggestion was one legal abortion. One. This ensures careful consideration, covers rape, incest, and health of mother without having to give all the dirty details if one desires not to. My idea would immediately cut abortions in half.

Here's my suggestion:

3rd Trimester: Outlaw all abortions: Exceptions for health/lif of mother only.

cool except, then the cases of health/life of mother would increase from where it is presently at less than 3%, to 40%.

2nd Trimester: Outlaw all abortions: Exceptions for health/life of mother & rape/incest

cool except, then the cases of health/life of mother, rape, and incest would increase from where it is presently at less than 3%, to over 40%.

1st Trimester: Legalize all abortion, just as it is now. But require parental notification except for extreme cases.

Morning after pill: Make it over the counter. This is NOT an abortion pill. It prevents a woman from getting pregnant. Anyone who wants fewer abortions should seriously consider supporting the Day after pill.

Great...and the day after that, and the day after that, and the day after that. Can you pop these bad boys like m&ms? I'm just checking for Monique.

Women ought to be educated about these pills, as well as about protection. Thats the best defense. They alone could cut abortions in half.

Perhaps. The ideas aren't wholly bad, but I'm at work and need more time to work out the implications.

Don't argue abstinance because many people find nothing morally wrong with sex...its natural as far as I'm concerned.

Great, except as far as I'm concerned you're wrong. Sex can be very wrong in many different instances and is causing many societal problems. Granted, we can't climb into bed, but statistics do show that abstinence focused education is effective in reducing early sexual activity. This afterall, the most profoundly affected demographic in abortion.

But you ought to be wise enough to do it carefully..removing all mention of condoms in health class isn't helping matters.

Who has suggested this??? However, you're asking people generally engaged in irresponsible behavior to all of a sudden react responsibly at the very moment of passion. Not smart and not effective enough as a stand-alone approach to the problem. You're saying DON'T talk about abstinence, but DO talk about condoms. IMHO, you're reasoning is all over the place on this one.

At any rate. There's my proposal. I'd estimate that we could cut abortions down by 75% with that policy and the ones that did take place would be very very early...

Maybe, but then again maybe not. I believe all you'd see is a massive and I mean massive increase in the number of "instances" of mother's health risk, rape, and incest. Period.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Don't be afraid. It's just a suggestion. (Ooh, COUNTER-ZING!)

That was a zing?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I agree. My suggestion was one legal abortion. One. This ensures careful consideration, covers rape, incest, and health of mother without having to give all the dirty details if one desires not to. My idea would immediately cut abortions in half.

How would your idea immediately cut abortions in half?

And what happens if a woman use her one get-an-abortion-free card because she got raped and has a subsequent pregnancy with severe health issues, for her or the fetus, that requires a second abortion? Is she just stuck then?


What I would like to know is how many in here feel--and would be willing to come out and say that's how they feel--that they value life, or potential life, growing inside a woman more than the woman itself? Spliffdaddy has come out and said that. Is that how you feel ebuddy? What about you, Kev? [See, I'm doing as you asked. Aren't you happy?] Which do you think is more valuable, a potential, un-born life or the life of a living person.
Me, I value the life of a living person more and no matter where the abortion debate goes I am going to persist in that stance, namely that the life of woman carrying a child is more valuable than the life, or potential life, growing inside of her. So, my stance on the abortion debate will always give precedence to the woman over that of the life growing inside of her.

[Spliffdaddy]

Now do you see why the 'zero tolerance for abortions' concept makes sense?

What if...?what if...?what if....?

It eliminates all the 'what ifs'.

Because the answer is always no.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Now do you see why the 'zero tolerance for abortions' concept makes sense?

What if...?what if...?what if....?

It eliminates all the 'what ifs'.

Because the answer is always no.

We know where you stand. (And you all know where I stand.) I want to know where ebuddy and Kev stand? Do they advocate a "zero tolerance for abortions" approach to the issue?

[Spliffdaddy]

Well, ebuddy is in the "one abortion" camp.

If you get raped twice - you're either lying or you're dressing too sexy.

Oh yeah...where can I adopt one of those hot 16 year old orphan chicks?

I'll take a redhead.

Or better yet, twins!

[Spliffdaddy]

of course I'm kidding, Monique.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Well, ebuddy is in the "one abortion" camp.

If you get raped twice - you're either lying or you're dressing too sexy.

Oh yeah...where can I adopt one of those hot 16 year old orphan chicks?

I'll take a redhead.

Or better yet, twins!

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

of course I'm kidding, Monique.

What part are you kidding about?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

We know where you stand. (And you all know where I stand.) I want to know where ebuddy and Kev stand? Do they advocate a "zero tolerance for abortions" approach to the issue?

Where I stand? I wouldn't fight either way. I wouldn't be upset if it was banned, nor would I go "march" if it isn't.

I think it's legal murder.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

How would your idea immediately cut abortions in half?

conservatively, 48% of abortions performed are repeat abortions. It is being used as birth control.

And what happens if a woman use her one get-an-abortion-free card because she got raped and has a subsequent pregnancy with severe health issues, for her or the fetus, that requires a second abortion? Is she just stuck then?

Yes unfortunately they are screwed, but no less screwed than the .00000001% that are blind, deaf, mentally ill, and clumsy enough to trip on a sewer grate, fall into the street and get run over by a Mac semi. We can't possibly outlaw semi trucks now can we? Before you ask; "you mean it's impossible to legislate against every miniscule percentage of potential harm?!?" The answer is unfortunately yes it is impossible.

What I would like to know is how many in here feel--and would be willing to come out and say that's how they feel--that they value life, or potential life, growing inside a woman more than the woman itself?

I do not. In fact, a woman might live to birth again and again propogating the species. The baby may be less important on a hierarchic scale purely in the survival sense. That said, it's only in the most complex affairs that we should be required to make this decision. We should not be placing ourselves in this position every single time someone wants to assume the doggystyle position. Poetic enough for ya? I mean really, that's what 98% of this issue boils down to. It's all about the feel goodz and ya can't stop that.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Where I stand? I wouldn't fight either way. I wouldn't be upset if it was banned, nor would I go "march" if it isn't.

I think it's legal murder.

So, why all the arguing in here if you don't care either way? You don't care if abortions are outlawed and you don't care if they are not so why all the froth, spittle and blather from you on this issue? I argue in here because I do care if abortion is outlawed and want to fight to see that it doesn't happen. But if you don't care, why are you even here bothering with this issue?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

What part are you kidding about?

I think he was kidding about the twins remark. One 16 year old redhead should be plenty for him.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Yes unfortunately they are screwed, but no less screwed than the .00000001% that are blind, deaf, mentally ill, and clumsy enough to trip on a sewer grate, fall into the street and get run over by a Mac semi. We can't possibly outlaw semi trucks now can we?

No, but we could simply not legislate that semis have to run over anyone who falls in front of them. This is not some act of nature that's screwing them over under your system — it's the system itself. If your restriction did not exist, they wouldn't have to get run over.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, why all the arguing in here if you don't care either way?

I didn't SAY I didn't care either way. I said I wouldn't FIGHT for either way. What is going to happen will. Regardless of what I do.

You don't care if abortions are outlawed and you don't care if they are not so why all the froth, spittle and blather from you on this issue?

froth, spittle and blather? Wow you got quite the imagination there dc. I'll just ignore that trollish comment.

I argue in here because I do care if abortion is outlawed and want to fight to see that it doesn't happen. But if you don't care, why are you even here bothering with this issue?

AGAIN, I never said I didn't care. Pay attention.

I think it's funny that those that are "pro-choice" say no one is pro-abortion because abortion really isn't that "cool" of an act.

Well if said "tumor" is just a tumor, and not a living growing human, who gives a crap? People SHOULD BE FOR abortion if that is the case.

But that isn't the case. It's just hypocritical stance.

[myisha]

There are some "pro-choicers" out there don't view abortion as a neccessary evil. There a people out there for have no moral or ethical qualms about it.I know alot of people like that including myself .I consider myself pro-abortion, but also pro-choice because i believe a women should make her own reproductive decisions.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by myisha

There are some "pro-choicers" out there don't view abortion as a neccessary evil. There a people out there for have no moral or ethical qualms about it.I know alot of people like that including myself .I consider myself pro-abortion, but also pro-choice

There are members here that say you don't exist

because i believe a women should make her own reproductive decisions.

I do as well. But I think those choices should start before she is pregnant. Too many women don't want to makea choice till after it happens. That is bad practice. Abortion shouldn't be used for birth control. That's a selfish act.