The funny thing is nobody is ever going to change their minds in this entire forum!
I think an outright ban is very wrong. But I also think it’s wrong how the system is set up today.
There was recently a “Friend of a friend” situation, this girl, 16, oooops, didn’t wanna have her guy wrap up cause she didn’t like how they felt. Well. “Wrong” time in her cycle, ended up getting pregnant.
This next part is the shocker for me.
She had an abortion and her parents have NO idea. None! If my 16 year old girl was going to go thru a medical procedure ID SURE AS HELL WANT TO KNOW!!!
I think it should be set up where a decision is made on a per-case basis. A few hours talking to a counselor is worth a life. (And I don’t care when life begins, it’s a life in that if you leave it alone for 9 months it will be human)
Okay, it’s a different debate, but there needs to be some age where people are treated as adults and are able to make their own decisions.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Ok my little rocket scientist, let me break this down for you; where in this new law does it require abstinence, restrict use of contraceptives or outlaw sex education?
Just because this State doesn’t want to kill babies, who just happen to come from irresponsible people, doesn’t mean that they would also restrict these very things that help people be more responsible with procreation.
This law will encourage all this things about, not discourage them.
Your comments are typical liberal reactionary talking points that are dumb-ass, even for you!
LOL.
You know. We have had debates around these parts about the federal government and how it chooses to based funding on compliance with teaching abstinence and so forth.
The state is not acting in a vacuum, and it certainly won’t hurt to look at the bigger picture and think about how various initiatives are going to interact.
I’ve been called lots of things in the politics forums, but I think “rocket scientist” is a new one![/quote]
Encouraging responsible behavior is not a problem. Why do you see that as an issue?
If everyone were responsible there would be no abortions, except in the case of rape.
Lorisco,
You know damned well they aren’t simply “encouraging” responsible behavior. If that was it… then it would be a non-issue.
ha americans, nuffsaid
[quote]Krollmonster wrote:
I just love how our President says he wants to create a culture of life, and his home state gives the death penalty.
[/quote]
You know, you really seem to have a great mind. Why you should be up there with the great thinkers of history…
…let’s see your logic…
…let the murderers live, but kill the kids…wow, what a wonderful thought!
Do you really read what you write and/or listen to what you say?
[quote]Krollmonster wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
The better question is if a pregnant mother was in the building and perishes – how man human beings died that day? I would answer 2 – the mother and the unborn person.
That is a good question. Here is a question for you, if someone asked that pregnant woman how many children she had, she would say, “None, but one on the way”. As in, -I don’t have any children-[/quote]
No, my “culture of death” ‘friend’ – she would be saying her baby is within her at the moment…
The greater question is why do people like you only seem to want to see death and not life? Why don’t you want for others what was given to you – life?
What’s the matter with you people anyway?
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Krollmonster wrote:
I just love how our President says he wants to create a culture of life, and his home state gives the death penalty.
You know, you really seem to have a great mind. Why you should be up there with the great thinkers of history…
…let’s see your logic…
…let the murderers live, but kill the kids…wow, what a wonderful thought!
Do you really read what you write and/or listen to what you say? [/quote]
When did I say let the murderers live? I don’t give a damn if they kill some mass murderer.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Krollmonster wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
The better question is if a pregnant mother was in the building and perishes – how man human beings died that day? I would answer 2 – the mother and the unborn person.
That is a good question. Here is a question for you, if someone asked that pregnant woman how many children she had, she would say, “None, but one on the way”. As in, -I don’t have any children-
No, my “culture of death” ‘friend’ – she would be saying her baby is within her at the moment…
[/quote]
She wouldn’t say her “baby is within her at the moment” if she has been pregnant a week though. Probably only if she was showing.
Anyway, I am just breaking balls here.
As far as my “thinking”, I post numerous well thought out, informative posts in the training forums.
Why are my tax dollars going to incarcirate a mother that ‘illegally’ terminates her pregancy and why do I have to have my tax dollars pay for a forensic OBGYN?
The wackos can not stop spending my money.
My tax dollars should not go to paying for or stopping abortions.
Period!
I wonder what a cultue of death would look like, anyway. Maybe it would:
Withhold resources and distort information that could save millions of potential AIDS victims and stop unwanted pregnancies.
Spend huge sums to keep one brain-dead person alive, but spend next-to-nothing on basic health care for poor children.
Execute underage and mentally disabled people.
Train young men and women to kill strangers, then abandon them once they return from their missions.
What would a culture of death look like?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco,
You know damned well they aren’t simply “encouraging” responsible behavior. If that was it… then it would be a non-issue.[/quote]
Then explain to us how they are doing more than “encouraging” responsible behavior? Offering more money for contraceptive education and abstinence education than abortion is still “encouraging” in my book.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Why are my tax dollars going to incarcirate a mother that ‘illegally’ terminates her pregancy and why do I have to have my tax dollars pay for a forensic OBGYN?
The wackos can not stop spending my money.
My tax dollars should not go to paying for or stopping abortions.
Period![/quote]
So you are also against your tax money going to incarcerate woman who kill children, other people, or their husbands? If so, at least you are consistent. If not, you need to think about why human life is less valuable because of age?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
I wonder what a cultue of death would look like, anyway. Maybe it would:
Withhold resources and distort information that could save millions of potential AIDS victims and stop unwanted pregnancies.
[/quote]
Sounds like South Africa after Apartheid! Guess the British were not so bad after all?
Just Out for a Drive With My Fetus, Officer
I was quite sure that the National Right-to-Ride Carpool Coalition was a parody but in fact it doesn?t seem to be. The organization is trying to get pregnant women permission to use H.O.V. highway lanes. Here are a couple tips the group offers to pregnant women who might be pulled over for driving solo?well, seemingly solo:
Carry documentation of your pregnancy. Carry a copy of your pregnancy test results or a letter from your doctor. If you are far enough along, keep an ultrasound handy to show the officer.
If your pregnancy is advanced enough that you know the sex of your child and have named him or her, refer to the child as your son/daughter and use their name. Ex: ?Officer, my son Andrew and I were just on the way to our prenatal exam.? Or ?The twins and I were just running a few errands.? [Thanks to Longtermguy91 for the tip.]
On a related note, I also received this interesting e-mail not long ago, from a family-planning nurse named Judy K.:
I have a thought I?d like passed on. Should Roe vs Wade be overturned, and life declared ?begining at conception,? does that mean you get a tax deduction?
Let me explain. Twenty years ago I gave birth to a baby at 32 weeks gestation that lived for one hour. I was able to declare her as a dependent on my tax return for that year. My friend, who carried her baby full-term, delivered a stillborn. No live birth. No dependent. No tax deduction.
So if abortions are outlawed, just pretend, then it must be because you are carrying a baby, and if you lose that pregnancy (miscarriage, premature, stillborn) then you would be able to take a tax deduction for having had a baby even though it died. Taking this a step further, that would include any miscarriages after a positive pregnancy tests. Now it gets interesting. Perhaps as many as fifty percent of pregnancies do not end with a live birth, because of the large number of miscarriages. So take the # of births in the US in a year, double it, and add the tax deduction. How much is this choice of deciding that life begins at conception going to cost the American taxpayer? Because you can?t really have it both ways, either you get the tax deduction because you had a baby, or you don?t get a tax deduction because you didn?t have a baby.
I don?t agree with Judy K.?s conclusion?it?s not necessarily contradictory for someone to believe that a) life begins at conception AND b) life as tax dependent begins at live birth. But it?s an interesting question, perhaps even more so than the one raised by the Right-to-Ride people. Plainly, the human fetus presents a practically unlimited number of utilitarian scenarios.
The wackos can not stop spending my money.
My tax dollars should not go to paying for or stopping abortions.
Period![/quote]
First, who are the wackos…People who get pregnant? Second, don’t you think a lot more tax dollars will be spent if a woman with no finiancial support has a child?
Or is that when all of you will just forget about her?
I’d like to ask the men commenting what their experience with this issue is? If they have none, perhaps they should volunteer to help single mothers out. Then, they will see how difficult it is for a poor single mother to get out of poverty, and how difficult it is to have a child.
I find the lack of foresight disturbing as many of you speak as if a child being born is everything involved. I have seen children who would have been better off not born. Children with terrible teeth because they’ve been breast fed by a drug addict. Children beaten, malnourished and psychologically abused. Who pays the bill for them when they become unstable adults and end up in the prison system or at an orphanage?
Many people are not ready to have children…So what give them up for adoption. Lots of woman will still do drugs, smoke, drink and be negative during pregnancy…Is this what you want? Are these the type of children you are fighting for? And don’t forget many women will need support while they can’t work. Tax dollars?
Then there is still the cost to an individual woman’s body. Nine months of pregnancy takes a toll on your body well after the 9 months has past. I know I’ve been through both a full pregnancy and an a abortion. I regret neither, but the pregnancy was was much harder on me and harder to recover from. Luckily, I had support, or I may have ended up in a shelter because I couldn’t have handled working while being pregnant or after. I made my decisions based on my position in life so I wouldn’t become a burden on society and end up in a hole that, lets be realistic, no goverment help would have got me out of.
One guy wrote that people who make the mistake should “pay the consequences”. Perhaps, people who eat poorly should not be helped when they have heart problems.OR, people who smoke should not be helped with any health problems! People who choose not to exercise…My point is, if modern medicine can help an adult in need who has made a decision about their own body shouldn’t it?
Also, going back to what I was saying before, who pays, many times it is the child as well.
And, many times, woman are on contraseptives that don’t work (Like in my case), perhaps what you’re saying then (since the mistake was the pills)is that we should sue for help during our pregnany? And what about women who are raped? What was they’re mistake? Walking home the wrong way? Being a woman?
Or perhaps sex is the mistake. I suppose in some of your minds we should engage in sex for the sole pupose of pregnancy. To that I would say the world is very different than it used to be. The days where a small community would support everyone in it are gone. The poor sections of the world are inhospitable places no one wants to end up but they do. Are people who can’t afford children expected to never experience love? Should woman who are too poor to afford a child or pregnancy be forced to see it through and in many cases condemned to theese poor neighbourhoods? And don’t forget these are the places where many, many rapes occur.
In todays world, people need to be competetive to survive which is difficult while pregnant or with a child. This new world is also far too populated. Should we all stop having sex? Perhaps, but this is not going to happen.
And don’t forget, woman have been making the decision too self-abort for years. If a harsh winter was coming, a male supporter died, or if family had too many children many woman would self-abort. in the wild many animals will eat or leave their young that are weak. This is not something new. What is new, is a person being forbidden to do it.
Another person commented that woman will go underground to seek abortions. This is true, but some people who replied to this seemed to dismiss this fact as meaningless. Do you think a woman dying from self-abortions is nothing? Perhaps all of you who are against abortions should visit a poor country and research how many and how woman die from trying to give themselves abortions. Coat hangers take on a new meaning…Oh, it happens in the states too, just not as often, (well not since abortions became leagal) but I’m sure there will be more cases in South Dakota now.
Of course I’m happy my mother had me because she and my father wanted to and were ready but if they weren’t I would have rather they didn’t. I’m very serious…I wouldn’t have known anything about it anyway! But this is an impossible discussion.
This decision will mostly affect the health and future of poor women…Too bad they don’t have the time or aren’t in the position to comment on it more!
There is so much more I could say…All I ask, is that before any of you form an opinion, try meeting and talking to real live people on all sides of the issue. I’m pro choice for the very simple reason that ADULTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THIER OWN DECISIONS REGARDING THEIR OWN BODIES…Including things living in and on them that wouldn’t survive or be there at all without them in the first place. Let the adult mother decide for herself and then offer her a safe way to follow through with her decision. It’s the right answer…You may not agree with her decision but it’s her’s to make just like yours are yours. Think about it.
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25
Kill a fetus=civil offense in God’s eyes
Hurt the mom=crime
[quote]doogie wrote:
“And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Exodus 21:22-25
Kill a fetus=civil offense in God’s eyes
Hurt the mom=crime[/quote]
There is a bit of difference between attacking a pregnant woman and her consenting to a medical procedure. Quoting the bible doesn’t have much meaning for those who don’t study/follow its teachings.
[quote]Krollmonster wrote:
doogie wrote:
“And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Exodus 21:22-25
Kill a fetus=civil offense in God’s eyes
Hurt the mom=crime
There is a bit of difference between attacking a pregnant woman and her consenting to a medical procedure. Quoting the bible doesn’t have much meaning for those who don’t study/follow its teachings.
[/quote]
“Medical Procedure”? So if I kill someone with a medical instrument and call it surgery, it’s ok?