[Spliffdaddy]

whoa.

That's mighty profound.

Seems out of place to put a reasonable comment in this thread.

Ya know, if I could abort this thread - I would.

It's MY thread. Nobody can tell me what to do with it.

I mean, it's just a bunch of zeroes and ones all jumbled together.

So what if it's in the fifth trimester of development?

It's pretty obvious that somebody's done come along and sucked the brains right out of it.

Geez. It's an UNWANTED thread.

I don't have time to look after it. To raise it properly.

The world doesn't need another miserable unhappy thread.

Next time I'll be sure to use protection before I post another thread.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by isao bered

hmmmmm... following along the tenor of some of the posts. is there really such a tremendous number of women who would rather be dead and/or scarred criminals than law-abiding mothers? or insist on methods of birth control that prevent pregnancy?

No, but women do need to finish school before becoming mothers.

Originally Posted by isao bered

whether abortion is right or wrong; legal or illegal; a female mindset insisted upon by some here that would seeming equate a woman's zeal for abortion akin to the impulsiveness of a shoe sale is probably the most disturbing character issue...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by isao bered

hmmmmm... following along the tenor of some of the posts. is there really such a tremendous number of women who would rather be dead and/or scarred criminals than law-abiding mothers? or insist on methods of birth control that prevent pregnancy?

whether abortion is right or wrong; legal or illegal; a female mindset insisted upon by some here that would seeming equate a woman's zeal for abortion akin to the impulsiveness of a shoe sale is probably the most disturbing character issue...

be well.

laeth

Indeed. It's hyperbole.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

No, but women do need to finish school before becoming mothers.

This is a very good point lpk. Is the graduation rate of those women who've had an abortion higher than those who've carried their pregnancies to term?

[ebuddy]

The Association of Interdisciplinary Research compiled over 26 studies that found;

- women who've had an abortion are more likely to become pregnant again. Almost 50% of abortions are repeat abortions. Does having multiple abortions help women pursue their careers? On the surface, it would appear the abortion left the woman an unsatisfied customer. i.e. Can the societal affluence of women today be attributed to legalized abortion? Some links please.

- 60% of women who have had an abortion already have one or more children. Are the children they already have more wanted? In other words, has legalized abortion ensured that we have more wanted children? Is this evidenced by any external factoid? i.e. is the child abuse rate inclining or declining? While you may be able to state with confidence that legalized abortion has not caused an increase in child abuse, can you say with the same level of confidence that it has increased the number of wanted children?

- Has legalized abortion decreased the number of teen pregnancies? Link please

- Has legalized abortion decreased the number of single mothers? Links please.

- Has legalized abortion decreased the number of children born into poverty? Link please.

- Has legalized abortion helped more women pursue their career? Link please.

- Is legalized abortion empowering women? Is legalized abortion empowering society? How?

These questions are the result of several arguments I've seen in supporting abortion. I'm often surprised by these statements because as far as I can tell, there are no statistics that back these claims. I realize this debate is one between those who believe a fetus represents human life and as such warrants Constitutional protection and others who believe the fetus does not represent human life and as such is not worthy of Constitutional protection. This will not change for most. I would not seek to change your mind on whether or not a fetus is worthy of Constitutional protection. After all, this will be left in the hands of our legislators.

I am curious however, how the above arguments are supported by the facts.

* As an aside, until abortion clinic inspections move beyond "complaint-driven" only, and unless we're fighting to change this, concern over health of women and "safe" abortions should be avoided as an argument for abortion. Abortion is an unregulated industry. We'd do well to remember this when discussing the conditions of oil refineries and what "Big Oil" does to carribou. "Big Clinic" is a lucrative industry its own and we should consider what it does to women. Reports of less-than-sterile clinics and complications due to the procedure abound. It is nowhere near as safe and sterile as it should be and those holding to this argument need to stand at the front of the line calling for more stringent regulation.

[Monique]

When a pro-lifer is giving out numbers you can be sure they are not accurate and very bias.

It empowers women by giving them a chance to take decisions on their own and not to listen to men in their lives trying to control them.

If women are able to take important decisions they are able to contribute in a better way to society; then society benifits from these strong women.

And how by putting one million children more every year on the streets help child proverty.

And what are you going to do with one million plus children when those who are alive right now are not taken care of.

And why should it put on the shoulders of the women who are pregnant by accident and do not want to bring those pregnancies to term but are forced by law to do it.

How are you going to enforce those forced pregnancies and are you going to be there to pick the pieces; as a good right winger you will not because you do not.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

- Has legalized abortion decreased the number of teen pregnancies? Link please

- Has legalized abortion decreased the number of single mothers? Links please.

- Has legalized abortion decreased the number of children born into poverty? Link please.

- Has legalized abortion helped more women pursue their career? Link please.

- Is legalized abortion empowering women? Is legalized abortion empowering society? How?

It's difficult, as you know, to tease apart causal factors for these things. If more women have careers today than they did before abortion was legal in the US, does that mean legalized abortion caused more women to have careers? Maybe, maybe not. If there are more single parents today, did legalized abortion cause this? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps there is just a general trend toward single parenthood, and there would today be even more single parents if not for legal abortion.

So in the absence of definitive data, you're left with values and logic. My values and logic suggest to me that if people have more control over their own families, they will be better off than if the government dictates this for them. Perhaps other disagree.

I realize this debate is one between those who believe a fetus represents human life and as such warrants Constitutional protection and others who believe the fetus does not represent human life and as such is not worthy of Constitutional protection. This will not change for most. I would not seek to change your mind on whether or not a fetus is worthy of Constitutional protection. After all, this will be left in the hands of our legislators.

I have to say, although the debate often comes down to this, I personally don't see it that way. Even if I believed a newly-fertilized ovum was the same as a fully-developed human being, I still would believe in legal abortion, because pregnancy presents a unique situation. In no other circumstance in life is another person fully dependent-upon and fully contained-within another person. Under those conditions, I believe it is too intrusive for government to require that women undergo pregnancy and childbirth if they don't want to. However, I believe it's fair to balance the right to life of an unborn baby with the right of the woman to determine whether she wants to be a mother: Early in the pregnancy, the balance tips towards the mother, and as pregnancy progresses, the balance tips the other direction.

This, to me, is the core of where pro-lifers are wrong - it's not just about the rights (or lack of rights) of the fetus, it's also about the rights of mothers and families. As a pro-choicer, I think those rights have to be balanced, as rights are always balanced when they come into conflict. In my view, pro-lifers are looking only at the rights of the unborn baby, and not trying to balance them with the rights of the mother.

[lpkmckenna]

BRussell: awesome sig. F'n hilarious!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

- women who've had an abortion are more likely to become pregnant again. Almost 50% of abortions are repeat abortions. Does having multiple abortions help women pursue their careers? On the surface, it would appear the abortion left the woman an unsatisfied customer. i.e. Can the societal affluence of women today be attributed to legalized abortion? Some links please.

- 60% of women who have had an abortion already have one or more children. Are the children they already have more wanted? In other words, has legalized abortion ensured that we have more wanted children? Is this evidenced by any external factoid? i.e. is the child abuse rate inclining or declining? While you may be able to state with confidence that legalized abortion has not caused an increase in child abuse, can you say with the same level of confidence that it has increased the number of wanted children?

- Has legalized abortion decreased the number of teen pregnancies? Link please

- Has legalized abortion decreased the number of single mothers? Links please.

- Has legalized abortion decreased the number of children born into poverty? Link please.

- Has legalized abortion helped more women pursue their career? Link please.

- Is legalized abortion empowering women? Is legalized abortion empowering society? How?

Is this supposed to be a serious post? I count 14 question marks. If you think flooding the discussion with questions is meaningful debate you should think again.

As BRussell noted, there are too many other trends developing. I'm not a statistician so I'm not qualified.

Some of your questions are silly anyways. "Are the children they already have more wanted?" How would anybody measure this?

Besides, I don't need stats to know that if I were pregnant, having and keeping the baby would make finishing school financially onerous, and an exhaustive ordeal regardless.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I realize this debate is one between those who believe a fetus represents human life and as such warrants Constitutional protection ...

It seems most "pro-lifers" on this board think the Constitution is silent on this issue, and the states are holding all the cards. (I don't agree, and neither does the US Supreme Court.)

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

BRussell: awesome sig. F'n hilarious!

Did you get the reference?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Did you get the reference?

Yeah, I got it. Ha ha!

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

It seems most "pro-lifers" on this board think the Constitution is silent on this issue, and the states are holding all the cards. (I don't agree, and neither does the US Supreme Court.)

Doh. Welcome to the topic of this thread.

What the hell have you been babbling about up until now?

Starting in July, abortion will become illegal in South Dakota. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide the legality of South Dakota's new law - else the law will just go into effect unimpeded.

The Supreme Court has different Justices than it did back in 1973. The current Justices will likely strike down the previous Supreme Court ruling - and allow states to decide whether or not they will allow abortion, and under what circumstances they will or will not allow it.

And there's nothing Canada can do about it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Doh. Welcome to the topic of this thread. What the hell have you been babbling about up until now?

Obviously, I was talking to ebuddy, who didn't know this.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The current Justices will likely strike down the previous Supreme Court ruling - and allow states to decide whether or not they will allow abortion, and under what circumstances they will or will not allow it.

Don't hold your breath. The reception on your crystal ball is fuzzy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Doh. Welcome to the topic of this thread.

What the hell have you been babbling about up until now?

Starting in July, abortion will become illegal in South Dakota. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide the legality of South Dakota's new law - else the law will just go into effect unimpeded.

The Supreme Court has different Justices than it did back in 1973. The current Justices will likely strike down the previous Supreme Court ruling - and allow states to decide whether or not they will allow abortion, and under what circumstances they will or will not allow it.

And there's nothing Canada can do about it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's difficult, as you know, to tease apart causal factors for these things.

Agreed, meaning it's really impossible to say legalized abortion will ensure more wanted children, yet I continue to hear this. Statistics simply don't support the notion. That's all I'm saying.

If more women have careers today than they did before abortion was legal in the US, does that mean legalized abortion caused more women to have careers? Maybe, maybe not. If there are more single parents today, did legalized abortion cause this? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps there is just a general trend toward single parenthood, and there would today be even more single parents if not for legal abortion.

Maybe, maybe not. We know a majority of women having abortion already have one or more children so... it would be somewhat of a stretch to make the claim with confidence.

So in the absence of definitive data, you're left with values and logic. My values and logic suggest to me that if people have more control over their own families, they will be better off than if the government dictates this for them. Perhaps other disagree.

To be clear, it would seem entirely logical that family control is an issue answered by abortion. The facts unfortunately do not support what would otherwise seem to make sense logically. This occurs sometimes in society. It's unfortunate and at times unpredictable. In short, I would be one that disagrees.

I have to say, although the debate often comes down to this, I personally don't see it that way. Even if I believed a newly-fertilized ovum was the same as a fully-developed human being, I still would believe in legal abortion, because pregnancy presents a unique situation. In no other circumstance in life is another person fully dependent-upon and fully contained-within another person. Under those conditions, I believe it is too intrusive for government to require that women undergo pregnancy and childbirth if they don't want to. However, I believe it's fair to balance the right to life of an unborn baby with the right of the woman to determine whether she wants to be a mother: Early in the pregnancy, the balance tips towards the mother, and as pregnancy progresses, the balance tips the other direction.

While I disagree, I can understand your position.

This, to me, is the core of where pro-lifers are wrong - it's not just about the rights (or lack of rights) of the fetus, it's also about the rights of mothers and families. As a pro-choicer, I think those rights have to be balanced, as rights are always balanced when they come into conflict. In my view, pro-lifers are looking only at the rights of the unborn baby, and not trying to balance them with the rights of the mother.

This is kind of a blanket statement here on Pro-Lifers. For one thing, there is also a balance in idealism. Without the staunch pro-lifers for example, procedures like partial-birth abortion and the like would be more common, without staunch pro-choicers, abortion would be illegal altogether. The answer usually lies in the mad middle. The middle I see is making allowances for health of mother, rape, and incest.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

It seems most "pro-lifers" on this board think the Constitution is silent on this issue, and the states are holding all the cards. (I don't agree, and neither does the US Supreme Court.)

I understand it has been a while since I've piped up on the matter so I'll clarify in case you didn't know. I realize the Federal government has taken a stance on this matter. I believe this is intrusive government and complex social issues such as this should be left up to those at the State level. SD will pose a direct challenge to Roe V Wade in a climate those in SD believe is more favorable to do this. i.e. the Federal Government should remain silent on this, but we'll see if they agree.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Is this supposed to be a serious post? I count 14 question marks. If you think flooding the discussion with questions is meaningful debate you should think again.

So, meaningful debate is either dictated by you in general or illustrated by you in the above statement. Which is it?

Some of your questions are silly anyways. "Are the children they already have more wanted?" How would anybody measure this?

I've not lodged any insults at your posts lpk, I simply posed some questions. I guess there were 14 of them. I don't know how anyone could measure this lpk, that's why I posed the questions in such a way that perhaps some of the pro-choicers who've tried to make this claim could explain for me how this has any basis in fact.

Besides, I don't need stats to know that if I were pregnant, having and keeping the baby would make finishing school financially onerous, and an exhaustive ordeal regardless.

That's a good point lpk, I can't argue with it. What I can say is that there is no data to support the claim that more women who abort, further their careers or finish school to greater degree than those who carry a pregnancy to term. It might be more difficult, but I'm not seeing data that claims it's prohibitive.

[lpkmckenna]

So much for "the law arm of the law."

[Spliffdaddy]

Good idea. I understand that healthcare is free in Canada.

At least it'll keep the USA abortion-free.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That's a good point lpk, I can't argue with it. What I can say is that there is no data to support the claim that more women who abort, further their careers or finish school to greater degree than those who carry a pregnancy to term. It might be more difficult, but I'm not seeing data that claims it's prohibitive.

And of course as we all know. Furthering one's career is more important than human life.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

No, but women do need to finish school before becoming mothers.

Wow, where did you pull that one out of? Of course they don't need to. Many women in fact choose NOT to finish school first. For many women, home and family is more important than advancing in a career or finishing college. If more women took raising their children more serious than raising their salary we would have a lot less trouble in this world (IMHO).

I know that it is good to have the options open for when you need to get a job, but making a blanket statement like "women do need to finish school before becoming mothers" is ridiculous. I'm sorry, that's just a bad argument for abortion in my opinion.

I believe that abortion is wrong unless the life/health of the mother is in danger or the woman has been raped (and then it should still be a tough choice for the mother). Having a baby is not the end of the world for people that do not want it... many many people would glady adopt your baby if you go full term and then are willing to give it up. Heck, you can even go to school for the whole year, have your baby, and be back in school two weeks later without a baby in tow if that is your choice. Many pro-choicers seem to forget that adoption is a very valid option.

If it's a matter of being embarased by being pregnant, well, I hate to break it to you, but people will most likely already know that you have had/are having sex with someone regradless of whether you are pregnant.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Wow, where did you pull that one out of? Of course they don't need to. Many women in fact choose NOT to finish school first. For many women, home and family is more important than advancing in a career or finishing college. If more women took raising their children more serious than raising their salary we would have a lot less trouble in this world (IMHO).

You are just another victim of Ipk's personal beliefs treated as fact.

Something he has been doing since he started posting in here. Something he has asked to stop doing.

I guess it's his insecurity vice. If he speaks as if he bizarre opinions are facts, no one is going to question them!



He said he was going to show us how it was in the last abortion thread. He failed to do so.

And I see he still isn't keeping his word in this one.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by torsoboy

If more women took raising their children more serious than raising their salary we would have a lot less trouble in this world (IMHO).

When you are done blaming women for the troubles of the world, can we go back to discussing abortion?

Originally Posted by torsoboy

I know that it is good to have the options open for when you need to get a job, but making a blanket statement like "women do need to finish school before becoming mothers" is ridiculous.

I was specifically thinking of high school girls. Far from "being ridiculous," finishing high school before motherhood is a Damn Good Idea™. Finishing college first is pretty smart, too.

Originally Posted by torsoboy

Having a baby is not the end of the world for people that do not want it... many many people would glady adopt your baby if you go full term and then are willing to give it up.

When you say "many, many people," do you mean 1.5 million every year? Besides, while young white babies are snapped up fast now, non-white or non-healthy babies are left to the care of the state. Planning to adopt 2 or 3 handicapped minority babies, are you?

Originally Posted by torsoboy

If it's a matter of being embarased by being pregnant, well, I hate to break it to you, but people will most likely already know that you have had/are having sex with someone regradless of whether you are pregnant.

No one cares about this.

[Monique]

torsoboy

Who knows if a person has sex or not; do you go around and do not mind your own business?

Do you have 1.5 million families that are ready to adopt year after year?

What are you going to do with babies that are not wanted and with mothers that do not want to raise them for lots of reasons and will not get adopted?

And since you will take up the responsibilites of raising children, why should a woman gives up everything for a child she does not want for making the huge mistake of trusting a man.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

What are you going to do with babies that are not wanted and with mothers that do not want to raise them for lots of reasons and will not get adopted?

"Lots of reasons" usually mean selfish ones.

The problem here is not the babies that are killled, but people who don't want to take responsibilities for their actions.

[BRussell]

This is an interesting article about abortion in El Salvador, where it is completely illegal. Some highlights:

There are other countries in the world that, like El Salvador, completely ban abortion, including Malta, Chile and Colombia. El Salvador, however, has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus — the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor's office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal.

In the event that the woman's illegal abortion went badly and the doctors have to perform a hysterectomy, then the uterus is sent to the Forensic Institute, where the government's doctors analyze it and retain custody of her uterus as evidence against her.

According to Sara Valdés, the director of the Hospital de Maternidad, women coming to her hospital with ectopic pregnancies cannot be operated on until fetal death or a rupture of the fallopian tube. "That is our policy," Valdés told me. She was plainly in torment about the subject. "That is the law," she said. "The D.A.'s office told us that this was the law." Valdés estimated that her hospital treated more than a hundred ectopic pregnancies each year. She described the hospital's practice. "Once we determine that they have an ectopic pregnancy, we make sure they stay in the hospital," she said. The women are sent to the dispensary, where they receive a daily ultrasound to check the fetus. "If it's dead, we can operate," she said. "Before that, we can't." If there is a persistent fetal heartbeat, then they have to wait for the fallopian tube to rupture.

Oh, why can't America be more like that?

[Kevin]

Apples to oranges

[Monique]

Russel, you are not serious you want more dead women.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Monique

Russel, you are not serious you want more dead women.

I'm considering moving to El Salvador to become a Forensic Vagina Inspector.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by BRussell

This is an interesting article about abortion in El Salvador, where it is completely illegal.

F'n scary.

[Kevin]

While they do do that there, to say it would be the same here is a stretch.

[Monique]

russell

What do you think it is a forensic vagina inspector. Are you going to force some women to have sex with you. You think it is funny that some women are dying because your total ban on abortions includes some women dying of an ectopic pregnancy. Does that make you laugh, give you some great pleasure. So if you wife has unfortunatly an ectopic pregnancy will you tell her that she has to die because you are a pro-lifer. Is that funny?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

russell

What do you think it is a forensic vagina inspector. Are you going to force some women to have sex with you. You think it is funny that some women are dying because your total ban on abortions includes some women dying of an ectopic pregnancy. Does that make you laugh, give you some great pleasure. So if you wife has unfortunatly an ectopic pregnancy will you tell her that she has to die because you are a pro-lifer. Is that funny?

Mon dear, sweety, BRussell has a dry sarcastic sense of humor. He isn't being serious.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The problem here is not the babies that are killled, but people who don't want to take responsibilities for their actions.

Do you even listen to yourself when you talk? Or is this dry humor too?

[lpkmckenna]

Skeleton, that's just "pro-life logic" at work: it's not the dead babies that count, it's the lack of responsibility that counts.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Do you even listen to yourself when you talk? Or is this dry humor too?

I wasn't talking. And that is what the problem is. People not wanting to take responsibilities for their actions.

And those who also don't think they should be liable for their actions, also support such things.

How is that dry humor in any way.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Skeleton, that's just "pro-life logic" at work: it's not the dead babies that count, it's the lack of responsibility that counts.

You simply don't understand what I am saying. The babies being killed is a RESULT of the problem. If mothers would start taking responsibilities for their actions, babies being killed wouldn't be a problem.

[Monique]

Again men should take some responsibilities. I know many of conservative men are raised that they should never take responsibilities especially when they have sex but it is also your fault for not wanting to help.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

Again men should take some responsibilities.

And so should women. It's just not the Man's job.

I know many of conservative men are raised that they should never take responsibilities especially when they have sex but it is also your fault for not wanting to help.

What a crock of crap Monique. Don't even bother posting that nonese anymore. It makes you look like a loon.

I suggest you go get some therapy to deal with the hatred you have for men.

You can't blame them for your poor decisions all your life.

[Monique]

What do you mean just the men's job. Men have not taken any responsibilities for centuries and when we are caught by our desire we are the one that have to take care of the consequences of trusting some conservative men that could not care less about us. Then you wine that we would like to have one abortion because we consider ourselves important and want to continue to have a descent life. Having an abortion is taking some responsibilities about a difficult problem. Since conservative men do not care about anything that happens into a woman's life; we (this is true) should never trust you, protect ourselves against you, and ignore you afterward because first sign of trouble you will be out the door so fast. You were raised into not respecting women, not taking any resposibilities.

[Spliffdaddy]

In that respect, killing witnesses to a bank robbery you committed would be taking responsibility, as well.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Monique

What do you mean just the men's job.

I never said Just the mens job. I said it's BOTH parties responsibilities. Such things should be talked about before hand.

Men have not taken any responsibilities for centuries

Hon, men are the only on in this scenerio that doesn't have a choice to be a parent or not.

You claim you deserve that choice to become a parent. What about men? Do they not?

and when we are caught by our desire

Caught by our desire is a slippry way of saying being irresponsible

we are the one that have to take care of the consequences of trusting some conservative men that could not care less about us.

Again enough of the hyperbole. You do know in the US the men are required to pay child support or get thrown in jail right?

Then you wine that we would like to have one abortion because we consider ourselves important and want to continue to have a descent life.

Millions of mothers out there have decent lives. And you are the one that is whining.

Having an abortion is taking some responsibilities about a difficult problem.

Pregnancy is not a difficult problem. I would say sexual promiscuity was

Since conservative men do not care about anything that happens into a woman's life; we (this is true) should never trust you, protect ourselves against you, and ignore you afterward because first sign of trouble you will be out the door so fast. You were raised into not respecting women, not taking any resposibilities.

Again you have no clue what you are talking about. How do you know how I was raised? You don't.

Yours is a classic case of blame shift.

You deal with and justify the bad decisions you have made in life by blaming a imaginary "conservative boogieman"

That way, you wont have to feel guilt for anything you've done.

Classic example of people that don't want to take responsibilities for their own actions.

Classic case of the type of person that gets abortions.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

In that respect, killing witnesses to a bank robbery you committed would be taking responsibility, as well.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The problem here is not the babies that are killled, but people who don't want to take responsibilities for their actions.

Originally Posted by Kevin

That is what the problem is. People not wanting to take responsibilities for their actions.

You used to say the problem was whether "babies" were killed, regardless of the rights of women to control their own bodies (in other words, women's rights while important are less important than "babies"). Now you're saying instead the problem is whether women are making the "right" decisions with their bodies, regardless of whether "babies" are killed. I predict you will say I'm twisting your words and post an oversized cartoon to that effect, so here's some more evidence:

"You simply don't understand what I am saying. The babies being killed is a RESULT of the problem."

This statement indicates that the deaths of "babies" is merely a side effect of the real problem, which I can only guess is women choosing behavior that you think is immoral (sex, or some particular method of it). Either your earlier stance (that "babies" should not be killed) was dishonest (or merely inaccurate due to your own failure to understand your own words), or your current one is. I suggest you examine your own talking points and make them more consistent with your true beliefs before further flooding these topics with them. If you wish to be taken seriously by anyone outside your cheer squad, that is (hi spliff).

I didn't really think it was humor, I just couldn't believe you would be so transparently hypocritical.

-------------------------

PS. I use the term "babies" because I know from experience (with you specifically; this is not a monique style stereotype) that you won't respond on-topic if I use anything else, even though you and I both know the term is inaccurate for what we're both talking about* (more hypocrisy)

*I believe your favored exchange is:
pro-choice: "a fetus is not a person"
pro-life: "why don't you call it what it is: a baby"
pro-choice: "it's not a baby, it's a fetus. you do know that a fetus is not a baby don't you?"
pro-life: "and a baby is not a teenager. so what?"
pro-choice: <shakes head in pity>
pro-life: <beams in oblivious smugness>

[Kevin]

Uncle, go back and re-read this

You simply don't understand what I am saying. The babies being killed is a RESULT of the problem. If mothers would start taking responsibilities for their actions, babies being killed wouldn't be a problem.

Thanks

[Uncle Skeleton]

read it? I quoted it. I suspect you don't know what the words mean. They mean that the deaths of "babies" is a peripheral issue, the primary one being responsibility. Is that what you meant to say?

They also imply an assumption not supported by the evidence, namely that if one acts responsibly or correctly that bad things won't happen. You must lead quite a sheltered life. How nice for you.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

read it? I quoted it.

You quoted it out of context. AKA left the important bits out.

I suspect you don't know what the words mean. They mean that the deaths of "babies" is a peripheral issue, the primary one being responsibility. Is that what you meant to say?

I am saying, like most drug abuse, it's not the drugs that are the problem. But the reason they are being abused. (Usually self medication)

Babies being aborted is not the problem, that is the outcome of the problem.

You get rid of the problem, and no babies will be aborted.

A mother not take responsibilities for her actions IS the cause of babies being killed.

They also imply an assumption not supported by the evidence, namely that if one acts responsibly or correctly that bad things won't happen. You must lead quite a sheltered life. How nice for you.

Wow, I never said that. Not once.

I was speaking about this very instance.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

[Monique]

Again you always put it on the women shoulders like she is alone in bed. I know it is difficult for conservative men to take some of the responsibilities but you do not want to be a father use some condoms.

If you do not want to take your responsibilities you have no say to the outcome of that problem.

You might be perfect Kevin but women are human beings and they sometime make the mistake to trust a conservative man.

[Spliffdaddy]

We can't help it if liberal men never score with chicks.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

We can't help it if liberal men never score with chicks.

Heh. Actually the only reason men become liberal is so they can score with chicks.