John G. Roberts Nominated as Next SCOTUS Justice

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I DO wish that all of you that cry about the First gave a shit about the Second.

Well put!

We got a lot of gun lovers that are gung ho for a flag burning amendment.

WTF? So I wish many of the 2nd defenders would give a shit about the First.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

About freedom of choice. I really don’t know. I feel a woman should have the right to choose but lately I am not so sure. You should have the right to choose only when your choice of conceiving or engaging in intercourse was not given. In cases of rape, molestation, incest, or if the form of birth control that was used did not work. It will be very hard to determine the last one. I guess if it were a black or white issue there would not be so much to debate.

It is pretty black and white until moralists redefine it to suit their agenda.

A fetus is not a baby. Nor is a fertilized egg. Millions of those are spontaneously aborted every year, sometimes unknown, sometimes in the form of a miscarriage. Were these babies that died? Of course not. The woman's body rejected it for a reason.

The appropriate standard is viability. Once the fetus can survive on its own, and doesn't pose a risk to the woman, then it's fair to call abortion murder. Until then, it's her choice. The line is the third trimester.

And as Wendy alludes to, it's fucking idiotic to promote abstinence as the only birth control while running a pro life agenda.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

And as Wendy alludes to, it's fucking idiotic to promote abstinence as the only birth control while running a pro life agenda.

I support (barely, I think) a womans right to an abortion in the case of rape or non-consensual incest, but to promote abortion as simply another option for birth control is detestable. Why shouldn't people be forced to live with the conseequences of their actions? Because it's inconvenient? That's rubbish.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Nightingale 0]

I don't think anyone here is promoting abortion as birth control.

Logically, if people want to reduce the number of abortions, they should want to increase the number of people using contraceptives (because they're probably not going to be able to stop people from having sex...that just isn't going to work), but they seem to want to campaign to ban education about birth control AND decrease or eliminate abortion. That makes no sense.

And even if they don't like oral contraceptives or IUDs, because they can prevent implantation, um...what argument have they got against condoms?

[Ron 10]

Quote

We got a lot of gun lovers that are gung ho for a flag burning amendment.

WTF? So I wish many of the 2nd defenders would give a shit about the First.

Burn it...I don't care

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Birth control is good.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

what she said.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

but they seem to want to campaign to ban education about birth control

Who is 'they'?

Regardless, there's nothing wrong with preaching abstinence to our children first and birth control later. I'd rather that abstinence be the path in favor of "well, you're only 12, but when you do have sex (tomorrow) you should use a condom, or perhaps the pill, or perhaps . . . but if all those fail, there's always abortion"

However, birth control isn't the root of the problem. The real issue here is why are people so eager to hop in the sack the moment they hit puberty, or in some cases even before. Better yet - Why is it "OK" today when it wasn't yesterday? That's probably a discussion more interesting than the path we're traveling now.

Sheesh - what in the hell happened to this thread? Why aren't we discussing John G. Roberts?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Nightingale 0]

Well, how about saying "You're only 12, so you shouldn't be having sex now, and these are the reasons why..." and then add "when you're older and ready (and if ready to you means married, explain that), to make sure you don't have a baby before you're ready to be a mom or dad, there are ways to drastically reduce the chances of a pregnancy. These are what they are and how they work..." It's better that people have information before they need it rather than after.

The problem with teaching "just don't have sex" is that children's peers will fill them in on what parents and schools don't, and a lot of the times the information they pass on is wrong, such as "you can't get pregnant the first time" and other myths that still get passed around. And if they don't find out from their friends, they'll find out from the internet, and we all know how much misinformation is out there.

It isn't about preaching abstinance or not. It's about making sure that the information kids do get is accurate. It's far better if child gets their information from informed, responsible adults than their friends and schoolmates, who are often just as clueless as the child in question.

Oh, to answer your question about who I was referring to when I used the term "they"... "They" is a pronoun, and pronoun usually takes the place of a noun which appeared earlier in the text. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough for you. To clarify, when I used the word "they," I was referring to people who wish to reduce the number of abortions, and, taken in the context of the sentence, specifically those people who also want to ban education about the contraceptives that could make abortions a non-issue. Again, I apologize if I was unclear.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It isn't about preaching abstinance or not. It's about making sure that the information kids do get is accurate. It's far better if child gets their information from informed, responsible adults than their friends and schoolmates, who are often just as clueless as the child in question.

Two points:

1) This is not a Constitutional discussion, is it? This is a political discussion or a personal one. This abortion discussion has hijacked a thread from a legitimate discussion about a Supreme Court nominee to one of politics, sociology and personal choices. Amazingly, I expect the same thing to happen with the confirmation proceedings.

2) Regarding education, it should be the same with everything. And education doesn't seem to work too well. As a parent, I plan on telling my son that sex is an extremely fun activity, but has a lot of risks to it. These risks include pregnancy and venereal disease. The risks also include a degree of psychosis.

Kids and adults alike are educated to use condoms to avoid VD. Yet, they do not and VD and pregnancy occur. Kids and adults know about birth conrtol but they don't use it and therefore pregnancy occurs.

I find it striking that so much of the pro-choice crowd says, "Teaching abstinence does not work" when the alternative also does not seem to be doing a good job. Education does not seem to be doing any good in this stuff.

Sex education, like drug education, is filled with lies and propoganda. Kids actually are pretty perceptive and can see right through most of it. I personally think that a lot more honesty and integrity on BOTH sides is called for.

My wife is hotter than your wife.