Are you pro-life and support oral contraceptives?

[pajarito 0]

Damn...I did it again. I HATE when I forget to spell-check. I can't spell for crap!!!

"Beautiful"

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I just think that abortion is a big-time gray area

Their is nothing grey about the life that was created.. Nothing grey about killing an innocent child....

It's not an innocent child until it has been delivered to society by the mother. Until then it is a parasite in her body that she has the option of keeping or eliminating without interference from you or the US Government.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[weegegirl 2]

Quote

Quote

I just think that abortion is a big-time gray area

Their is nothing grey about the life that was created.. Nothing grey about killing an innocent child....

OK... let me get this straight... an innocent woman is violently raped and left for dead... as a result, she finds she is pregnant. she immediately decides (right away) that she does not want to carry this baby and has an abortion... that woman is therefor a "murderer"????????

[freeflygoddess 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just think that abortion is a big-time gray area

Their is nothing grey about the life that was created.. Nothing grey about killing an innocent child....

OK... let me get this straight... an innocent woman is violently raped and left for dead... as a result, she finds she is pregnant. she immediately decides (right away) that she does not want to carry this baby and has an abortion... that woman is therefor a "murderer"????????

Not just that but what if that woman is actually your 10 year old daughter, yes 10 year olds are able to make babies, not all but there are some, I started when I was 11.... What then Rino? Do you really think that you would feel the same if your 10 year old daughter was raped and then became pregnant? It can happen, it does happen. Should your 10 year old's life be jepordized by something completly out of her hands, or should all young girls start taking the pill, just incase they are raped?

[wmw999 2,456]

Quote

Should your 10 year old's life be jepordized by something completly out of her hands, or should all young girls start taking the pill, just incase they are raped?

To take the emotion out of both sides, I haven't heard anyone say this is a good situation. The most rabid anti-abortionists think this is a horrible and heartbreaking situation. Akin to finding out that your child is dying of some dread disease.

Because you can:
a. certainly sacrifice the child that is conceived from these vicious circumstances
b. possibly sacrifice the child who is already suffering.

B is not a certain death, and A is. People who believe that strongly against abortion honestly feel in their hearts that both children have the same degree of humanity, so it remains an excruciatingly difficult decision.

If you had to risk your life to save one of your children from a fire, would you? Again, the difference is that someone who is that strongly anti-abortion does not see a difference between the personhood of a fetus and a baby or child.

It's alien to me, but someone in another thread made the point, and I think it's valid, that it's really the only thing that really differentiates the honest feelings of the two sides, is when they think personhood starts. Because our feelings as people against hurting babies are exceedingly strong.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[freeflygoddess 0]

I agreed to that too. I even told Todd that if anything happend to me, and the babies were ok, this would be the only time I would want to be on life support to stay alive until they can safely deliver the babies, and then let me die in peace. I do however, feel that many people would change their views if put in the right (well really aweful) situtation. It just depends on what one can handle. Like how much money would it take for you to stop skydiving, everyone is different, but I am sure if someone was standing there right infornt of you with enough cash I am sure you would go for it. Now as far as when a baby becomes a person is very hard to determain. Esp when teenage mothers who kill their babies after birth because they are scared only gets a 4 year sentance, really what is up with that? Any ways, I am very against abortion for those that use it as birth control, but I can sympathis with rape victims and those with life threating complications. Or just the fact with all the prenatul testing they can do to see if the child will have downs syndrom or be born without legs and arms, I mean then would you really want to bring that child into the world to suffer their whole lives? I know that downs syndrom children seem to be happy, but are they really? Know one really knows what goes on in their heads....

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Now as far as when a baby becomes a person is very hard to determain.

Not just “very hard”……it’s not possible. We are NOT erring on the side of caution as (I believe) lawrocket stated.

Quote

Or just the fact with all the prenatul testing they can do to see if the child will have downs syndrom or be born without legs and arms, I mean then would you really want to bring that child into the world to suffer their whole lives? I know that downs syndrom children seem to be happy, but are they really? Know one really knows what goes on in their heads....

Exactly…so who are we to judge whether they are allowed to live a life or not? What standards do we put on handicaps to decide who lives and who dies (I should say, gets killed)?

[Lindsey 0]

Or maybe we are erring on the side of caution by not prematurely taking away a woman's right to choose what happens to her body and her life.

And I'm not meaning to pick on you pajarito....just keeps turning out that your post contains what I feel the need to argue....lol. I have great respect for you...

Quote

Quote

Now as far as when a baby becomes a person is very hard to determain.

Not just “very hard”……it’s not possible. We are NOT erring on the side of caution as (I believe) lawrocket stated.

Quote

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[misskriss 0]

Quote

Or just the fact with all the prenatul testing they can do to see if the child will have downs syndrom or be born without legs and arms, I mean then would you really want to bring that child into the world to suffer their whole lives?

That goes into a whole 'nother discussion about making and keeping a genetically perfect child.

[billvon 3,006]

>Exactly…so who are we to judge whether they are allowed to live a life or not?

We get the right to choose from the same place we get the right to kill children in wars. As I've mentioned before, children have a right to life unless X, and there are several "unless" clauses. Abortion is one of them, war is another.

Is it bad? Definitely. I don't think there is anyone here who thinks the killing of _any_ child is OK. But sometimes it's the least bad of several different decisions. We kill kids in wartime because doing that might get us a result that we approve of; perhaps it's that in the future fewer children will be killed. We kill kids during abortion because doing that gives us a better result than the alternative; perhaps it's that the child will be born into an environment that will turn him into a criminal. Do we get it wrong in both cases sometimes? Definitely. Does that mean that we should outlaw either one? That's up to each person, but I think you have to come up with an answer that works for both cases.

[pajarito 0]

It's a stretch to try and compare war with abortion. In war, we're not targeting children. It's just a horrible consequence of war. In abortion, you are definitely targeting an innocent, defenseless, helpless, human, child.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

It's a stretch to try and compare war with abortion. In war, we're not targeting children. It's just a horrible consequence of war. In abortion, you are definitely targeting an innocent, defenseless, helpless, human, child.

In one instance you are trying to achieve a goal that you desire and as a side effect of achieving that goal is undesirable. Which scenario does that refer to?

[billvon 3,006]

>In war, we're not targeting children.

We have dropped atomic bombs on civilian cities. Of COURSE we were targeting children, along with the men and women of those cities. We made no attempt to stick to military targets.

And even when we do, we know children will die. If you drop the bombs you kill children. Only a fool would claim our bombs only find the bad guys.

> In abortion, you are definitely targeting an innocent, defenseless,
> helpless, human, child.

And when we dropped those bombs we killed tens of thousands of innocent, defenseless, helpless, human children. Killed them pretty horribly I might add - most of the people killed by those bombs were killed by radiation poisoning, not the blast. The lucky ones died within hours.

In both cases we do it as a last resort. In both cases children die. We have the power of life or death over them and we use it. That's where we get the "right" to kill children - by just doing it. Should it be different? It would be nice to think it could be. But to ignore one by saying "well, we know they're gonna die, but it's not our fault for dropping those bombs" is a copout. Either doing things that kill kids is acceptable or it isn't.

[cocheese 0]

Quote

Quote

Men have no right to even discuss this topic ever. Comprendae ? Should be a women only decision, discussion, and all the laws etc.

You're kidding, right? If my Fiance got pregnant, I would want to know. We would come to our conclusions together, as a couple.
I'm guessing you're not married, atleast I don't see how such a selfish attitude could let a marriage survive!
See, once again, its the extremist from both sides that make this such a hot issue. It seems to me that reasonable people tend to have intelligent conversations about this topic but the extremists tend to "yell" their opinion then get irrate when someone disagrees with them.
Sad.

What I'm trying to say is men should not be deciding if this is right or wrong. When you get a vagina and all the accessories then you can have your say. I's not a selfish thought at all. It's out of respect for women.
Of course if i was directly involed I would do the right thing and support any decision or help make a decision. I'm just trying to say it's not our bussiness to even get into a debate about it. I love women and think they don't need men telling them what's right and wrong for their body etc. I treat people how i would like to be treated.

[pajarito 0]

War:
Your statement: “We kill kids in wartime because doing that might get us a result that we approve of; perhaps it's that in the future fewer children will be killed.”

That infers that we actually target children to get a desired outcome. We do not go to war with a country and target their children specifically. That is ludicrous.

PhillyKev stated: “In one instance you are trying to achieve a goal that you desire and as a side effect of achieving that goal is undesirable.”

He’s right, in a sense. We have bombed cities in the past and that has killed children. Our weaponry back then wasn’t as precise as some of what we have today. I dare say, however, that even back then we weren’t “targeting” schools, hospitals, churches, etc and trying to kill civilians. The atomic bomb instances, in my mind, are kind of a special and unique situation. I’m still not sure what I think about that. In current warfare, however, we make every effort to limit collateral damage to the civilian populace. We even drop leaflets, in some instances, to warn of upcoming attacks so the civilians can get themselves and “their children” out of the area before the bombs drop. Civilians are not the target although some do get killed. It is a horrible reality of war but war is sometimes necessary.

Abortion:
Your statement: “We kill kids during abortion because doing that gives us a better result than the alternative; perhaps it's that the child will be born into an environment that will turn him into a criminal.”

Better result than the alternative? What would that be? Killing the child for “what reason” would result in a better alternative? You said possibly to not have the child born so he might not turn into a criminal. Does that sound logical to you? I know you could come back with special cases of controversy like in instances of rape but what about the vast majority of cases? The aborted children are definitely the target specified in this action.

Big difference…

[billvon 3,006]

>That infers that we actually target children to get a desired outcome.

I did not say that. I said we kill kids, along with innocent adults and 'guilty' adults (i.e. enemy combatants) to get the results we want. We know we will kill kids. We do it anyway. On occasion we have specifically targeted civilians; children make up about 1/5 of any civilian population.

>He’s right, in a sense. We have bombed cities in the past and that
> has killed children. Our weaponry back then wasn’t as precise as
> some of what we have today.

Our nuclear weapons continue to be as undiscriminating as ever. We have better guided weapons, but I challenge you to find any claim anywhere that guided weapons eliminate civilian deaths. They may reduce them, but they do not eliminate them. When we drop bombs we kill children.

>In current warfare, however, we make every effort to limit collateral
>damage to the civilian populace.

Exactly right. And I think many people make every effort to avoid having to even consider an abortion i.e. birth control, abstience, monogamy.

>It is a horrible reality of war but war is sometimes necessary.

So is abortion, to some people. It is horrible and wrong. At the very best it is simply the least horrible of several bad choices. Yet it is sometimes necessary, to some people.

>You said possibly to not have the child born so he might not turn
>into a criminal. Does that sound logical to you?

It's more logical than killing kids in Iraq to give them a better future.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I did not say that. I said we kill kids, along with innocent adults and 'guilty' adults (i.e. enemy combatants) to get the results we want. We know we will kill kids. We do it anyway. On occasion we have specifically targeted civilians; children make up about 1/5 of any civilian population.

I didn’t try to take your quote out of context. It just sounded pretty specific to me.
I’ll quote it again: “We kill kids in wartime because doing that might get us a result that we approve of; perhaps it's that in the future fewer children will be killed.”
Like I said and I think most would agree, war is a last resort but is sometimes necessary for many reasons. The reality of war, regardless of how sophisticated your weaponry is, is that there might be undesired collateral damage (i.e. civilians killed including children). That is never the intention, however. You’re pointing out specific isolated incidents when you say we have targeted civilians in the past. Generally speaking, you must agree that this is not our policy.

Quote

Our nuclear weapons continue to be as undiscriminating as ever. We have better guided weapons, but I challenge you to find any claim anywhere that guided weapons eliminate civilian deaths. They may reduce them, but they do not eliminate them. When we drop bombs we kill children.

You’re right about nuclear weapons not being discriminate. What’s your point? When is the last time and the only time we’ve used them? I said I wasn’t sure how I felt about that. That is also an isolated and non-precedented (sp?) incident. Again, I agree that our most sophisticated weapon isn’t perfect. Again, civilians, women, children, dogs, cats are not the target. Just an undesirable circumstance.

Quote

Exactly right. And I think many people make every effort to avoid having to even consider an abortion i.e. birth control, abstience, monogamy.

Quote

So is abortion, to some people. It is horrible and wrong. At the very best it is simply the least horrible of several bad choices. Yet it is sometimes necessary, to some people.

I challenge you or anybody else to give me one “non-selfish” reason to terminate a child other than the more controversial exceptions like rape, incest, etc. Give me some data that proves most abortions are absolutely necessary. I mean, if you agree that you’re aborting a human life (and many of you don’t), I would think you’d only do it if it was “absolutely necessary” and not because it would inconvenience you in some way. Yet, it’s perfectly legal. How tragic…

Quote

It's more logical than killing kids in Iraq to give them a better future.

Logical? Nobody’s intentionally killing children over there. It’s war. We had war over here that, as a consequence, killed civilians in order to gain our independence. Was that whole endeavor a mistake? In your prior example, that would be like saying we should sterilize everyone living in poverty conditions so as to keep them from having children who would have to live in those conditions. They might grow up to be thieves, rapists, murderers because of the environment they were forced to grow up in.

[billvon 3,006]

>Like I said and I think most would agree, war is a last resort but is
>sometimes necessary for many reasons.

I agree. Sometimes you have to do something essentially evil and wrong to get the result you want.

>I challenge you or anybody else to give me one “non-selfish” reason
> to terminate a child other than the more controversial exceptions
> like rape, incest, etc.

To save the life (or increase the odds of survival) of another child in the womb. So parents can raise one child well instead of being unable to feed three. So a parent can protect the health of her pregnant 11 year old daughter. To prevent a child from growing up in an environment that the parents think will cause them pain and suffering.

>Give me some data that proves most abortions are absolutely
> necessary.

They are not, just as wars are not absolutely necessary. You can survive both without abortions and without war.

>Logical? Nobody’s intentionally killing children over there. It’s war.

We started a war that we knew would kill children. Would you forgive the Oklahoma City bomber because he didn't intentionally kill all those children in the child care center? If he said "Well, I knew there were kids there, but I didn't exactly target them" does that make his act any less vile?

>We had war over here that, as a consequence, killed civilians in order
>to gain our independence. Was that whole endeavor a mistake?

No. You're missing my point. That was an evil and bad thing to do. The only reason we could justify it is that it resulted in something we wanted (our independence.) In other words, we killed a lot of people (including children) for our own selfish reasons. Was it worth it in the end? I think most people would agree that it was. Does that make the act of slaughtering people less vile? No. Like you said, it's war.

From the Washington Post a few weeks ago:

"When the fighting is over in Fallujah, I will sell everything I have, even my home," said a resistance fighter who gave his name as Abu Taif Mashhadani. He wept as he recalled his 8-year-old daughter, who he said was killed by a U.S. sniper in Fallujah a week ago. "I will send my brothers north to kill the Kurds, and I will go to America and target the civilians. Only the civilians. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. And the one who started it will be the one to be blamed."

That's what happens during a war.

>In your prior example, that would be like saying we should sterilize
> everyone living in poverty conditions so as to keep them from
> having children who would have to live in those conditions. They
> might grow up to be thieves, rapists, murderers because of the
> environment they were forced to grow up in.

No, I did not say we should use force.

But to answer your question in a different way - yes, I think people in such an area absolutely should have the option to be sterile. They should be able to use condoms, birth control pills, IUD's, RU-486 etc to "sterilize" themselves to prevent births. I would even go so far as to say we should _give_ them condoms, if we thought it would help cut down the number of children living in poverty.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I agree. Sometimes you have to do something essentially evil and wrong to get the result you want.

War is an evil reality but it isn’t always wrong. Sometimes it is necessary. Do you not think war is the “right” course of action in order to defend yourself from attack or invasion? I know you disagree with the war in Iraq but I’m speaking of war in general.

Quote

To save the life (or increase the odds of survival) of another child in the womb. So parents can raise one child well instead of being unable to feed three. So a parent can protect the health of her pregnant 11 year old daughter. To prevent a child from growing up in an environment that the parents think will cause them pain and suffering.

I can’t agree with the reason “so that one could be fed well.” Is that a reason to “kill” the others? I might go with, if one twin or triplet in the womb, in the professional opinion of a physician, probably wasn’t going to live, you wanted to increase the survivability of the other or others and give them a better chance for a healthy delivery. As your 11 year old example, my wife sees more of those than you might think in her OB/GYN office. There might be complications with the size of the pelvis or something like that but, (generally speaking) if they’re old enough to get pregnant, they’re old enough to carry the baby to term. We also have C-Section as a procedure for the small pelvis issue. Even grown women sometimes have that problem. There are also pregnancies with higher risk when the woman is over 40. That doesn’t mean you abort because you get pregnant over 40. We’re talking about a human life here. Your example of them potentially having to grow up in an environment that, by someone’s standard, is considered to be unacceptable is just ludicrous. Who’s to say that kids guardian doesn’t receive an inheritance or win the lottery after they are born and they move to Beverly Hills? I know that’s a far fetched example but all I’m saying is that nobody can predict the future or what’s to happen in someone’s life. That kid might grow up in the ghetto, win some scholarship, and become the first person to set foot on Mars. You just never know. That’s definitely not a reason to kill them before they even had a chance.

Quote

They are not, just as wars are not absolutely necessary. You can survive both without abortions and without war.

I agree, in the vast majority of cases, we can live without abortion and that it is not necessary. Therefore, I strongly believe that it should be outlawed except in the case of extreme circumstances. There are exceptions. You’re saying that you believe that war is never necessary? We wouldn’t exist as a country if that were the case.

Quote

We started a war that we knew would kill children. Would you forgive the Oklahoma City bomber because he didn't intentionally kill all those children in the child care center? If he said "Well, I knew there were kids there, but I didn't exactly target them" does that make his act any less vile?

No. I do not forgive him for killing those children. He obviously didn’t (or maybe he did; sick bastard) do a proper target analysis. If he did, he would have known there were children in the basement. I dare say he motives weren’t just in the first place, though. That makes it very different.

Quote

No. You're missing my point. That was an evil and bad thing to do. The only reason we could justify it is that it resulted in something we wanted (our independence.) In other words, we killed a lot of people (including children) for our own selfish reasons. Was it worth it in the end? I think most people would agree that it was. Does that make the act of slaughtering people less vile? No. Like you said, it's war.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

That’s not a selfish reason to go to war. It was to regain what all men were given by their creator…Freedom. Iraq invading Kuwait for oil would be an example of a “selfish” reason.

Quote

But to answer your question in a different way - yes, I think people in such an area absolutely should have the option to be sterile. They should be able to use condoms, birth control pills, IUD's, RU-486 etc to "sterilize" themselves to prevent births. I would even go so far as to say we should _give_ them condoms, if we thought it would help cut down the number of children living in poverty.

I’d agree with giving them birth control but not to use abortion as a form of birth control. That includes birth control methods that use abortive actions.

[billvon 3,006]

>War is an evil reality but it isn’t always wrong.

War is the worst thing there is. It is the intentional slaughter of as many people as possible - men, women and children. It may be the lesser of two evils (i.e. it may prevent a larger war or larger genocides) but it is never any more than that.

>I can’t agree with the reason “so that one could be fed well.” Is that
> a reason to “kill” the others?

It depends on the situation. If the situation is that desperate, then yes, having one child survive might be better than having three children starve.

>As your 11 year old example, my wife sees more of those than you
> might think in her OB/GYN office. There might be complications with
> the size of the pelvis or something like that but, (generally
> speaking) if they’re old enough to get pregnant, they’re old enough
> to carry the baby to term.

That may well be true, but it's simply not your decision to make. It is up to the 11 year old and her parents. They are better suited to decide what's best for their child than you are.

> Who’s to say that kids guardian doesn’t receive an inheritance or
> win the lottery after they are born and they move to Beverly Hills?

A silly argument. Who's to say Saddam wouldn't die of a heart attack in a month anyway? You go with what's reasonable, not with what might happen in a fantasy.

>That kid might grow up in the ghetto, win some scholarship, and
> become the first person to set foot on Mars. You just never know.
> That’s definitely not a reason to kill them before they even had a
> chance.

We killed thousands of those potential Mars explorers in Iraq. Apparently we decided that it was OK to deny all those children the chance to do any of those things. The next Einstein, the next Pasteur, the next Newton - killed so we could accomplish political goals.

And what if one of those children we killed was going to grow up and be the Middle Eastern Mahatma Gandhi? We willingly took that risk, and eliminated someone who might have brought peace to the Middle East. It's silly to say that's OK if we're only killing Iraqi children.

>I agree, in the vast majority of cases, we can live without abortion
> and that it is not necessary.

Agreed. But that's true of a lot of things - handguns, alcohol, refined sugar. Are you willing to outlaw any of those things?

>Therefore, I strongly believe that it should be outlawed except in the
>case of extreme circumstances.

As long as you let the parents decide when those extreme circumstances are, I agree. We should make it clear that is is never an acceptable thing to do, and should only be considered in the direst of straits.

> There are exceptions. You’re saying that you believe that war is
> never necessary? We wouldn’t exist as a country if that were the case.

No, I am saying it is an absolute last resort when everything else fails. It should never be used as a means of diplomacy, or coercion, or winning an election.

>No. I do not forgive him for killing those children. He obviously didn’t
> (or maybe he did; sick bastard) do a proper target analysis.

?? We've bombed WEDDINGS. We've bombed embassies. Does that make us evil? It's just a part of war. We screw up sometimes. Innocent people die. We accept that.

>“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created
> equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
> inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
> of happiness.”

>That’s not a selfish reason to go to war. It was to regain what all
>men were given by their creator…Freedom.

You're honestly going to tell me that we are engaged in a holy war? I can't agree with you there. We invaded Iraq because we wanted a certain political objective - stability in the middle east - for ourselves. The plans have been there for years, with the reasons well laid out. God had nothing to do with it.

Also, we have recently made it very clear that the provisions of the constitution do not apply outside the US.

[winsor 236]

I support abortion until the fetus can vote.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

It depends on the situation. If the situation is that desperate, then yes, having one child survive might be better than having three children starve.

Your analogy disturbs me. You’d be willing to kill one so that the other might not starve later when nobody can predict what might happen or change in the future. There are other options. Adoption, foster parents, shelters, etc. I’d call that a selfish reason for not giving them a chance at life.

Quote

That may well be true, but it's simply not your decision to make. It is up to the 11 year old and her parents. They are better suited to decide what's best for their child than you are.

It should be up to all of us to determine the legality and limitations of abortion. That is, if it is eventually decided that we’re actually dealing with the life of another human being and not just a “parasitic organism.” Then it would be in the same ballpark as killing another person which is against the law.

Quote

A silly argument. Who's to say Saddam wouldn't die of a heart attack in a month anyway? You go with what's reasonable, not with what might happen in a fantasy.

You only quoted this from my paragraph in reference to your answer above:

“Who’s to say that kids guardian doesn’t receive an inheritance or
win the lottery after they are born and they move to Beverly Hills?”

I tried not to take what you said out of context but you’re doing a good job of that to mine. I’ll restate what I said in the paragraph below with emphasis on the sentence that followed the one you quoted. The first was kind of a joke. What I was trying to get across was explained after.

“Who’s to say that kids guardian doesn’t receive an inheritance or win the lottery after they are born and they move to Beverly Hills? I know that’s a far fetched example but all I’m saying is that nobody can predict the future or what’s to happen in someone’s life.”

I’m trying to say that it is wrong to take the life of an unborn child just because you think his/her life might be substandard in the future. You just don’t know that and cannot predict the future.

Quote

We killed thousands of those potential Mars explorers in Iraq. Apparently we decided that it was OK to deny all those children the chance to do any of those things. The next Einstein, the next Pasteur, the next Newton - killed so we could accomplish political goals.

And what if one of those children we killed was going to grow up and be the Middle Eastern Mahatma Gandhi? We willingly took that risk, and eliminated someone who might have brought peace to the Middle East. It's silly to say that's OK if we're only killing Iraqi children.
The goal was not to deny children specifically the chance to have a life so they could eventually grow up to do great things and contribute to the world. You seem to think in most of your comments that it is our goal to travel the world and kill children. You’re usually a pretty logical person Billvon, but I’m just not following you very well in this line of argument apparently.

***Agreed. But that's true of a lot of things - handguns, alcohol, refined sugar. Are you willing to outlaw any of those things?

Boy…that’s a generalization. I thought it was a stretch when you started comparing the topic of abortion with that of war. I don’t think I can hang with you on that one either. So you’re putting the legality of abortion in the same category as whether bubblegum should be outlawed because we don’t “have” to have it? One deals with a much more serious issue (i.e. Right to live).

Quote

As long as you let the parents decide when those extreme circumstances are, I agree. We should make it clear that is never an acceptable thing to do, and should only be considered in the direst of straits.

If it is decided eventually that the “unborn” are in fact still human beings sometime in the future, then it could very well be considered some form of murder to perform abortions. There are exceptions, however. Some think there are more exceptions than I do but that’s beside the point. If it becomes considered to be a crime, it would then have to be legislated. A law would then have to be put in place to determine what those extreme circumstances making abortion acceptable would be. That would not be up to the parent, you, or me. Just making it clear that it “is never an acceptable thing to do, and should only be considered in the direst of straits” isn’t good enough when you’re dealing with another human life. You know as well as I do that most people act or react in their own selfish interests and abortions will continue to occur mostly for reasons that are not necessary.

Quote

No, I am saying it is an absolute last resort when everything else fails. It should never be used as a means of diplomacy, or coercion, or winning an election.

I totally agree. It is used only when diplomacy fails as in Iraq.

Quote

?? We've bombed WEDDINGS. We've bombed embassies. Does that make us evil? It's just a part of war. We screw up sometimes. Innocent people die. We accept that.

It does not make us evil. We do make mistakes as does everybody. Again, it depends on our motives in the first place. I agree with your statement, however.

Quote

You're honestly going to tell me that we are engaged in a holy war? I can't agree with you there. We invaded Iraq because we wanted a certain political objective - stability in the middle east - for ourselves. The plans have been there for years, with the reasons well laid out. God had nothing to do with it.

Keep it in context, Billvon. My quote was in reference to the US War of Independence and not Iraq. No, I’m not telling you that we are engaged in a “holy war” in the Middle East. I agree that we’re trying to achieve a political objective there. Most importantly, the goal is for us with the goal of our own national security. Stability in the region benefits us all in the long run. As to your reference to God, however, I believe that God has his hand in all things. I admit that I can’t “prove” that to you, though.

Quote

Also, we have recently made it very clear that the provisions of the constitution do not apply outside the US.

My quote was from the Declaration of Independence. All men (women) have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “Freedom.” That doesn’t just apply to us. It applies to all men, women, and children (even if they’re still in the womb).

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Or maybe we are erring on the side of caution by not prematurely taking away a woman's right to choose what happens to her body and her life.

Ok Lindsey…one more. You’re doing your OB/GYN rotation now. A woman comes in for an ultra-sound at, let’s say, 20 weeks. One of the things you do (correct me if I’m wrong) is check the babies heartbeat. I would think it would be obvious to you that there’s more than one “life” and more than one “body” that you’re dealing with. Not just the mother’s. Correct me if I’m way out of the ballpark.

[piisfish 140]

if you don't want a baby, ORAL is one of the best contraceptions

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Or maybe we are erring on the side of caution by not prematurely taking away a woman's right to choose what happens to her body and her life.

Ok Lindsey…one more. You’re doing your OB/GYN rotation now. A woman comes in for an ultra-sound at, let’s say, 20 weeks. One of the things you do (correct me if I’m wrong) is check the babies heartbeat. I would think it would be obvious to you that there’s more than one “life” and more than one “body” that you’re dealing with. Not just the mother’s.

which one can survive on its own? which one is providing nearly every basic function for the other? you think these two are in anyway seperate or equal?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.