…why would anyone propose and/or argue for taking away basic civil rights of half the population?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why would anyone propose and/or argue for taking away basic civil rights of half the population?[/quote]
Pardon! Three-fifths was the ratio enacted by the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m sure you can see where I’m going with this - if you agree that the thing in question (child?) has a right to life, then you should be able to justify taking away that right before saying that someone else’s other right supercedes that right.
Some in this thread have argued that the thing in question does not gain the right in question until it is breathing on it’s own, which means (to me, anyway), that at any time up to and including the mother’s final contractions, any doctor can(with the mother’s consent, of course) open mommy up and turn the thing in question into steak tartar, sew her back up, and everyone can go out for some beers.
Am I mis-stating the argument? Am I missing something important? Is a person’s right to Life dependant upon something other than the fact that that person is alive?
i’m not one to argue that the “thing” inside a woman isn’t a human being and doesn’t have the right to life. It does.
However, I also see that every woman has a right to decide if she will get, be, or remain pregnant.
So, untill the baby can live independently of the mother, the baby exercising the right to life is dependant on infringing on the mothers right to govern her own body (should she not want to continue supporting said life).
I can also see that the woman exercising her right to govern her own body as infringing on the childs right to life.
I believe the only fair solution would be to find a way to extract the baby from the mother and incuabate it so it can continue living. However, the pro-lifers dont seem to want to invest in researching this idea, but only to take away the right of the woman.
Till that alternative can be reached, it simply becomes a matter of whos rights supercede whos. And I believe that the womans right to choose (hence the term pro-choice) come before the babys right to life (such as a pro-life person would).
I hope this clarifies my position better.
You’re pro-choice. That’s not surprising coming from someone who’s so stupid that they can’t distinguish plural from possessive.
http://www.wecosoft.com/School/English/nouns2.htm
http://papundit.wordpress.com/…-gay-abortions/ [/quote]
I always consider it a victory when people on the other side of the table have to resort to “Yer stoopit!!” instead of actually trying to defeat my points. Especially when the whole of your counter argument is my spelling.
Are you ever going to bring anything of substance?
[quote]John S. wrote:
Pookie to answer your question, Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in there mouth, or have parents that do everything right for them. Hell your logic every child that was beaten should have been killed because “Its not the best kind of life” or maybe we should blow up africa because they dont have “the best life”.
Hell if you had anything less of “the best life” please kill yourself if that is your logic.
See not everyone who is against abortions will run away from your questions.[/quote]
I like your answers… I did NOT run away from answering… Just haven’t been online for a bit (had to take care of my own two babies (it’s not easy ya know!), but thanks for backing me up!
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I always consider it a victory when people on the other side of the table have to resort to “Yer stoopit!!” instead of actually trying to defeat my points. Especially when the whole of your counter argument is my spelling.
Are you ever going to bring anything of substance?[/quote]
You? A victory? Just because you are called “stoopid” means someone thinks you are stupid. Don’t get ahead of yourself
[quote]derek wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I always consider it a victory when people on the other side of the table have to resort to “Yer stoopit!!” instead of actually trying to defeat my points. Especially when the whole of your counter argument is my spelling.
Are you ever going to bring anything of substance?
You? A victory? Just because you are called “stoopid” means someone thinks you are stupid. Don’t get ahead of yourself
[/quote]
Yes, by itself, someone calling me stupid only means they think I’m stupid.
But when they call me stupid without addressing any points I’ve made (save to call the points stupid without legitimate counterarguments), or worse yet there whole argument being that I’m stupid because earlier in this sentence I should have used “their” instead of “there”…
What I read is “I disagree but I’m unable to actually argue or debate this topic with you. I’ll resort to name calling.”
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yes, by itself, someone calling me stupid only means they think I’m stupid.
But when they call me stupid without addressing any points I’ve made (save to call the points stupid without legitimate counterarguments), or worse yet there whole argument being that I’m stupid because earlier in this sentence I should have used “their” instead of “there”…
What I read is “I disagree but I’m unable to actually argue or debate this topic with you. I’ll resort to name calling.”
[/quote]
Agreed. Well said.
[quote]pookie wrote:
derek wrote:
Who’s deciding that the children will all lead miserable, sad and painful lives if someone had allowed them to live, you?
That’s pretty damn presumtuous of you.
Every girl I know that had an abortion was at the very LEAST middle class with good families. I know that’s not the case with every child but how can anyone predict that a child will lead such a life?
Shall we even get into all the great people that were born into very tough circumstances yet made one heck of a life for themselves?
You didn’t answer the first part of the question, which is actually the most important one:
[/quote]
According to the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth there are an estimated 3.3 adoption seekers for every actual adoption.
A pretty good start dontcha’ think Pookie?
1,600,000 - Total Number of Adoptions in the U.S. in 2000
-U.S. Census, 2000
U.S. Census Bureau publishes adoption statistics
1.6 million children under age 18 were adopted, comprising 2.5 percent of all children under 18.
Just imagine, with birth control, assistance to those that choose adoption or keeping the baby over abortion and making adoption easier, maybe we can stop all or most abortions.
Not a bad goal, right everybody?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Especially when the whole of your counter argument is my spelling.
[/quote]
You really are stupid. You can’t even differentiate spelling from syntax.
[quote]Juan Blanco wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Especially when the whole of your counter argument is my spelling.
You really are stupid. You can’t even differentiate spelling from syntax.[/quote]
j00 R ||07 73|=| 1337357. |30// |33|=0R3 //\3.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
pookie,
We are not going to be able to put every child in a stable home, nor assure that every child will avoid a sad, miserable, poverty-stricken life. Life ain’t fair. But that in no way means that we should just kill the child rather than do the best we can to give it a fair shot.
I think we could do better than we’re doing now, and we’re trying.
To deny a child even a chance at life because
1.) The parents were irresponsible,
2.) WE have decided that THEIR life will be sad and miserable,
and
3.) We think it will be too inconvenient to raise them and give them as good as a shot at life as we can,
is a judgement that I cannot stomach.
Where will all these children go? Some will be adopted, some will go to orphanages, and some will fall through the cracks.
It is very likely that these children will not have ideal upbringings and will face significant disadvantages. But is that reason enough to kill them before they’re even born?
[/quote]
Actually, it’s not “WE” who have decided, it’s the parents of the unborn child. I don’t think “WE”, not being in the actual situation, are adequately informed to make the decision in their place.
And I agree that reducing abortions, even eliminating them, is a worthwhile goal, I simply don’t think that achieving that goal by making them illegal is the best way to proceed.
Shouldn’t anti-abortion groups prone better sex education, access to birth control (even “oops” birth control as Plan-B)?
Wouldn’t more be achieved by revising the adoption criterias now in place that make it so extremely difficult for couples to adopt an American child?
Shouldn’t counseling and support be provided to young mothers and their families to help them cope with what can be, for some families, a devastating ordeal? Wouldn’t it be better if society showed understanding and compassion, rather than condemn the “sinner”?
There is a lot that could be done to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to reduce abortions when unwanted pregnancies occur. Unfortunately, I see very little sensible action being proposed and defended. I see a lot of judgemental and “I know better than you” arguments being thrown around, most showing complete disregard for the persons (the adult, conscious, fully developed ones) involved. Not much more compassion is shown towards the kids, other than insuring they get born.
Wouldn’t a multi-pronged approach, combining education, prevention, accessible birth control coupled with understanding and support and with better adoption policies do a lot more to curb the problem?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Wouldn’t a multi-pronged approach, combining education, prevention, accessible birth control coupled with understanding and support and with better adoption policies do a lot more to curb the problem?
[/quote]
Absolutely! Great points.
[quote]derek wrote:
pookie wrote:
Wouldn’t a multi-pronged approach, combining education, prevention, accessible birth control coupled with understanding and support and with better adoption policies do a lot more to curb the problem?
Absolutely! Great points.
[/quote]
This branches into another issue; this same multi-pronged approach to family planning could save countless lives in piss poor parts of the developing world, raising standards of living and preventing cyclical Malthusian collapses. Our government’s attitude on that needs to change, if not for their sake, then for the sake of our interests.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Wouldn’t a multi-pronged approach, combining education, prevention, accessible birth control coupled with understanding and support and with better adoption policies do a lot more to curb the problem?
[/quote]
Making the morning after pill avaiable to anyone in need would help reduce abortions.
[quote]etaco wrote:
This branches into another issue; this same multi-pronged approach to family planning could save countless lives in piss poor parts of the developing world, raising standards of living and preventing cyclical Malthusian collapses. Our government’s attitude on that needs to change, if not for their sake, then for the sake of our interests.[/quote]
Oh no. We can’t be pushing our agenda on other nations/societies, remember?
If we can’t spread democracy, we can’t go spreading birth control either.
Let’s not interfere.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pookie wrote:
Wouldn’t a multi-pronged approach, combining education, prevention, accessible birth control coupled with understanding and support and with better adoption policies do a lot more to curb the problem?
Making the morning after pill avaiable to anyone in need would help reduce abortions.[/quote]
The morning after pill is a form of abortion.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The morning after pill is a form of abortion.[/quote]
That depends on which pill you’re talking about.
“Plan B” works by retarding ovulation for a few (4-5) days, giving time for the sperms to die out.
No conception, no abortion.
(Even with the other pills, the “prevented” conception is far from a guaranteed event. In most cases, there would have been no pregnancy anyway.)
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The morning after pill is a form of abortion.
That depends on which pill you’re talking about.
“Plan B” works by retarding ovulation for a few (4-5) days, giving time for the sperms to die out.
No conception, no abortion.
[/quote]
Good point
In which case the pill would not be necessary.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
In which case the pill would not be necessary.[/quote]
Well, yeah, but you can’t tell which is which the next day.
My point was that to assume everyone who’s taken a morning after pill has had an abortion is incorrect.
It’s like those firing squads with 5 men and 4 bullets. Every man can think he had the blank, there’s no way to know.