This is What's Wrong With Abortion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…by outlawing abortion you’re denying half of your countries population the basic human right of self determination. Most of you would start an uprising to defend your right to bear arms, but actively seek the oppression of women. Why is that not hypocritical? If men were the ones giving birth, i’m sure you could get an abortion in any convenience store nationwide without any problem…

Self determination is made when they get pregnant. Your rights end where another’s begin. The question is where do the rights of the infant begin. If you think the infant is a human being than the mother does not have the right oppress the child.

Even if you are pro-abortion, you have to agree, at least do it before the child can breath on it’s own.

…who’s pro-abortion here? Abortion is limited by law already, and altough the law does not prevent excesses, it does the job just fine. If you want to limit the number of abortions performed you start by educating children and make contraception readily available, not by denying 150 million people basic human rights. Just think: if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, you can never say “Land of the Free!” anymore…
[/quote]

“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.

82

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…by outlawing abortion you’re denying half of your countries population the basic human right of self determination. Most of you would start an uprising to defend your right to bear arms, but actively seek the oppression of women. Why is that not hypocritical? If men were the ones giving birth, i’m sure you could get an abortion in any convenience store nationwide without any problem…

Self determination is made when they get pregnant. Your rights end where another’s begin. The question is where do the rights of the infant begin. If you think the infant is a human being than the mother does not have the right oppress the child.

Even if you are pro-abortion, you have to agree, at least do it before the child can breath on it’s own.

…who’s pro-abortion here? Abortion is limited by law already, and altough the law does not prevent excesses, it does the job just fine. If you want to limit the number of abortions performed you start by educating children and make contraception readily available, not by denying 150 million people basic human rights. Just think: if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, you can never say “Land of the Free!” anymore…

“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.[/quote]

Talk about living up to stereotypes, question is, could you point to his country on an unlabelled map? Could you find your own?

Only kidding. Abortion is one of those subjects that is always going to be difficult to discuss without emotion. My personal feeling is that I like to think that I would never want to abort a child (though you never know what circumstances you will be faced with. If my wife or sister were raped I may feel different.)

I would also never condemn a woman for making the difficult choice to have an abortion.

83

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:…who’s pro-abortion here? Abortion is limited by law already, and altough the law does not prevent excesses, it does the job just fine. If you want to limit the number of abortions performed you start by educating children and make contraception readily available, not by denying 150 million people basic human rights. Just think: if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, you can never say “Land of the Free!” anymore…

“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.[/quote]

…it isn’t disparaging if indeed abortion is outlawed, because that means that half your countries population lost it’s right to self determination, and is subject to the state. A fetus is not an other, it may become an other, but until it reaches a certain point in it’s development, it’s not an other and therefore does not have the same rights a living, breathing person has…

The Fetus
At this point the embryo is developed enough to call a fetus. All organs and structures found in a full-term newborn are present.

Weeks 9 to 12 – 3 inches, 1 ounce: The head comprises nearly half of the fetus? size and the face is well formed. The eyelids close now and will not reopen until about the 28th week. The tooth buds for the baby teeth appear. The genitalia are now clearly male or female.

Weeks 13 to 16 – 6 inches: These weeks mark the beginning of the second trimester. A lthough the skin of the fetus is almost transparent, fine hair develops on the head called lanugo. The fetus makes active movements, including sucking, which leads to some swallowing of the amniotic fluid. A thin dark substance called meconium is made in the intestinal tract. The heart beats120-150 beats per minute and brain waves detectable.

Weeks 17 to 20 – 8 inches: Eyebrows and lashes appear and nails appear on fingers and toes. This is an exciting time for the parents: The can mother feel the fetus moving (“quickening”) and the fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope.

Weeks 21 to 24 – 11.2 inches, 1 lb. 10 oz.: All the eye components are developed, footprints and fingerprints are forming, and the entire body covered in cream-cheese-like vernix caseosa. The fetus now has a startle reflex.

Weeks 25 to 28 – 15 inches, 2 lbs. 11 oz.: Now we are entering the third trimester. During these weeks, we see rapid brain development. The nervous system is developed enough to control some body functions, and the eyelids open and close. A baby born at this time may survive, but the chances of complications and death are high.

Weeks 29 to 32 – 15 -17 inches, 4 lbs. 6 oz.: These weeks see further development towards independent life: There is a rapid increase in the amount of body fat and the fetus begins storing its own iron, calcium, and phosphorus. The bones are fully developed, but still soft and pliable. There are rhythmic breathing movements present, the fetal body temperature is partially self-controlled, and there is increased central nervous system control over body functions.

Weeks 33 to 36 – 16 -19 inches, 5 lbs. 12 oz. to 6 lbs. 12 oz.: The lanugo (body hair) begins to disappear. A baby born at 36 weeks has a high chance of survival.

Weeks 37 to 40 – 19 - 21 inches 7 or 8 pounds: At 38 weeks, the fetus is considered full term. It fills the entire uterus, and its head is the same size around as its shoulders. The mother supplies the fetus with the antibodies it needs to protect it against disease.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyfetaldev.html

84

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…by outlawing abortion you’re denying half of your countries population the basic human right of self determination. Most of you would start an uprising to defend your right to bear arms, but actively seek the oppression of women. Why is that not hypocritical? If men were the ones giving birth, i’m sure you could get an abortion in any convenience store nationwide without any problem…

Self determination is made when they get pregnant. Your rights end where another’s begin. The question is where do the rights of the infant begin. If you think the infant is a human being than the mother does not have the right oppress the child.

Even if you are pro-abortion, you have to agree, at least do it before the child can breath on it’s own.

…who’s pro-abortion here? Abortion is limited by law already, and altough the law does not prevent excesses, it does the job just fine. If you want to limit the number of abortions performed you start by educating children and make contraception readily available, not by denying 150 million people basic human rights. Just think: if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, you can never say “Land of the Free!” anymore…

“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.

Talk about living up to stereotypes, question is, could you point to his country on an unlabelled map? Could you find your own?

Only kidding. Abortion is one of those subjects that is always going to be difficult to discuss without emotion. My personal feeling is that I like to think that I would never want to abort a child (though you never know what circumstances you will be faced with. If my wife or sister were raped I may feel different.)

I would also never condemn a woman for making the difficult choice to have an abortion.[/quote]

I do agree it’s a difficult choice, but I start the question on when does life start. Recently I watched a show about twins. I have 14 year old twins, btw. The doctor on the show stated how behavior in ultrasound studies shows interaction between the babies at an earlier age than what was thought before. they kick each other, seem to play, comfort each other and so on.

This was not an abortion show also. Just a show about twins. now my whole point is we should err on the side of caution if we do an abortion. Make sure it is not alive so to speak. When do you draw the line?

I do know that a fertilized eff is the same DNA as a fully grown person, child, or older person. I also know a baby can’t survive on it’s own. it needs care and nutrition, not a whole lot different than a fetus.

I truly believe that the more we learn, the more we will see that life starts way early and these abortions have been a huge mistake. I’m 45 years old and have seen the age of life or what doctors and scientists think of life earlier all the time. An example is the US studies i mentioned earlier.

And what if you can tell a person, that is life? will their thoughts change? Will they go through with an abortion? Just because a decison is difficult, doesn’t make it just.

85

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…by outlawing abortion you’re denying half of your countries population the basic human right of self determination. Most of you would start an uprising to defend your right to bear arms, but actively seek the oppression of women. Why is that not hypocritical? If men were the ones giving birth, i’m sure you could get an abortion in any convenience store nationwide without any problem…

Self determination is made when they get pregnant. Your rights end where another’s begin. The question is where do the rights of the infant begin. If you think the infant is a human being than the mother does not have the right oppress the child.

Even if you are pro-abortion, you have to agree, at least do it before the child can breath on it’s own.

…who’s pro-abortion here? Abortion is limited by law already, and altough the law does not prevent excesses, it does the job just fine. If you want to limit the number of abortions performed you start by educating children and make contraception readily available, not by denying 150 million people basic human rights. Just think: if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, you can never say “Land of the Free!” anymore…

“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.

Talk about living up to stereotypes, question is, could you point to his country on an unlabelled map? Could you find your own?

Only kidding. Abortion is one of those subjects that is always going to be difficult to discuss without emotion. My personal feeling is that I like to think that I would never want to abort a child (though you never know what circumstances you will be faced with. If my wife or sister were raped I may feel different.)

I would also never condemn a woman for making the difficult choice to have an abortion.[/quote]

I was sarcastically making the point that for some reason everyone seems to have a striking critique of the US and it’s citizens, and put it under a microscope the never subject other countries to, much less their own.

It just gets old after a while.

I admittedly don’t know a lot about the Holland but at least it’s admittedly. If I went by the standard portrayal it would involve mostly windmills and wooden shoes. So you know what, I refrain myself from making criticisms of a culture I’m ignorant of.

BTW I could at least pick out the Netherlands on a map… I think.

And yes I agree that rape is an entirely different issue.

86

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…it isn’t disparaging if indeed abortion is outlawed, because that means that half your countries population lost it’s right to self determination, and is subject to the state. A fetus is not an other, it may become an other, but until it reaches a certain point in it’s development, it’s not an other and therefore does not have the same rights a living, breathing person has…

[/quote]

Living breathing external babies are being killed as in this case.

All countries limit self determination. You cannot just do anything you want. Outlawing anything makes us “not free”. Do they let you kill people in Holland? If not, then you have no “self determination”.

87

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.[/quote]

Well, Duce, if you ever do find the time to Google his country, you may find that the Dutch enjoy a few freedoms that we in this country do not.

Drugs are technically illegal, but possession and use of some drugs in moderation are not prosecuted. For example, the possession of a maximum amount of five grams of marijuana or hashish for personal use isn’t prosecuted. You can light up a doobie in a coffee shop (provided you are 18 or older) and the cops will likely look the other way (try that in any Starbucks in Tennessee: see what happens). You can even grow up to five marijuana plants without penalty.

It is legal to consume alcohol at any age in the Netherlands, but you must be 16 to buy beer and wine, and 18 to buy hard liquor. Same for tobacco: legal to smoke it at any age, but you must be 16 to buy it.

Prostitution is perfectly legal, provided both the prostitute and the customer are over the age of 18. Again, try propositioning an 18-year-old hooker on the streets of downtown Nashville. You may be in for some jail time, especially if you happen to be within 100 feet of a church (!)

You say that choices are limited when the choice affects others. Well, in the case of marijuana use, the person most affected is the user, and he’s affected far less adversely by marijuana than he his by tobacco or alcohol. Yet one is illegal, while the other two are legal. It may be argued that the drug user endangers others when he drives while high, but the same may be said for when he is under the influence of alcohol, cough medicine or sleeping pills. And yet, the use of these drugs remains legal, so this argument is meaningless.

The only people affected by a consensual agreement to exchange sex for money are the buyer and the seller. It may be argued that prostitution puts both parties at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, the prostitute for pregnancy, and the customer, if he is married, at risk of destroying his marriage. True, but the same is true for any non-commercial, consensual sex act, so the argument fails.

As a point of interest, why is it legal to provide a woman with dinner, a movie, candy, flowers, and jewelry in exchange for sex, but illegal to provide her with cash?

For that matter, why is the contractual exchange of money for a single night of consensual sex considered illegal and immoral, while the contractual exchange of half of your worldly possessions for a lifetime of very little sex considered not only legal, but a sacred institution and moral imperative? But I digress.

Speaking of consensual sex, the Netherlands does not criminalize any form of it, whereas in the United States sodomy was illegal in many states until quite recently, and consensual sex between related adults is still a felony in 47 states and the District of Columbia.

You may expect, if you believe government propaganda, that in such a country as the Netherlands, with its permissive attitudes toward drugs, alcohol, tobacco and sex, that drug-related violence, alcoholism, lung cancer and sexual depravity would be at very high levels. However, it just isn’t so. Not nearly as high as here in the good old United States, which severely restricts all four.

88

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.

Well, Duce, if you ever do find the time to Google his country, you may find that the Dutch enjoy a few freedoms that we in this country do not.

Drugs are technically illegal, but possession and use of some drugs in moderation are not prosecuted. For example, the possession of a maximum amount of five grams of marijuana or hashish for personal use isn’t prosecuted. You can light up a doobie in a coffee shop (provided you are 18 or older) and the cops will likely look the other way (try that in any Starbucks in Tennessee: see what happens). You can even grow up to five marijuana plants without penalty.

It is legal to consume alcohol at any age in the Netherlands, but you must be 16 to buy beer and wine, and 18 to buy hard liquor. Same for tobacco: legal to smoke it at any age, but you must be 16 to buy it.

Prostitution is perfectly legal, provided both the prostitute and the customer are over the age of 18. Again, try propositioning an 18-year-old hooker on the streets of downtown Nashville. You may be in for some jail time, especially if you happen to be within 100 feet of a church (!)

You say that choices are limited when the choice affects others. Well, in the case of marijuana use, the person most affected is the user, and he’s affected far less adversely by marijuana than he his by tobacco or alcohol. Yet one is illegal, while the other two are legal. It may be argued that the drug user endangers others when he drives while high, but the same may be said for when he is under the influence of alcohol, cough medicine or sleeping pills. And yet, the use of these drugs remains legal, so this argument is meaningless.

The only people affected by a consensual agreement to exchange sex for money are the buyer and the seller. It may be argued that prostitution puts both parties at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, the prostitute for pregnancy, and the customer, if he is married, at risk of destroying his marriage. True, but the same is true for any non-commercial, consensual sex act, so the argument fails.

As a point of interest, why is it legal to provide a woman with dinner, a movie, candy, flowers, and jewelry in exchange for sex, but illegal to provide her with cash?

For that matter, why is the contractual exchange of money for a single night of consensual sex considered illegal and immoral, while the contractual exchange of half of your worldly possessions for a lifetime of very little sex considered not only legal, but a sacred institution and moral imperative? But I digress.

You may expect, if you believe government propaganda, that in such a country as the Netherlands, with its permissive attitudes toward drugs, alcohol, tobacco and sex, that drug-related violence, alcoholism, lung cancer and sexual depravity would be at very high levels. However, it just isn’t so. Not nearly as high as here in the good old United States, which severely restricts all four.

[/quote]

I must inform you that “smoking up a doobie” can get you arrested in the Netherlands too.

If it contains tobacco.

http://forum.poppies.org/index.php?showtopic=16087

Plus, FYI there has never been a documented case of a licensed Austrian prostitute with HIV.

89

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Living breathing external babies are being killed as in this case.

All countries limit self determination. You cannot just do anything you want. Outlawing anything makes us “not free”. Do they let you kill people in Holland? If not, then you have no “self determination”.[/quote]

If Ephrem were a medical doctor, he could, actually. It’s called euthanasia, otherwise known as “assisted suicide.”

The decision to terminate must be made by the patient himself or herself, and two doctors, plus a psychiatrist if there’s any doubt about the patient’s competency to make the decision (in other words, you can’t have just take your batty old auntie into the hospital and have her put down).

So in that sense, a Dutchman, who has a right to die if he chooses, has more actual self-determination than do you, who no matter how sick, in pain, or old you are, will be kept alive by medical science whether you want to be or not.

90

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.

Well, Duce, if you ever do find the time to Google his country, you may find that the Dutch enjoy a few freedoms that we in this country do not.

Drugs are technically illegal, but possession and use of some drugs in moderation are not prosecuted. For example, the possession of a maximum amount of five grams of marijuana or hashish for personal use isn’t prosecuted. You can light up a doobie in a coffee shop (provided you are 18 or older) and the cops will likely look the other way (try that in any Starbucks in Tennessee: see what happens). You can even grow up to five marijuana plants without penalty.

It is legal to consume alcohol at any age in the Netherlands, but you must be 16 to buy beer and wine, and 18 to buy hard liquor. Same for tobacco: legal to smoke it at any age, but you must be 16 to buy it.

Prostitution is perfectly legal, provided both the prostitute and the customer are over the age of 18. Again, try propositioning an 18-year-old hooker on the streets of downtown Nashville. You may be in for some jail time, especially if you happen to be within 100 feet of a church (!)

You say that choices are limited when the choice affects others. Well, in the case of marijuana use, the person most affected is the user, and he’s affected far less adversely by marijuana than he his by tobacco or alcohol. Yet one is illegal, while the other two are legal. It may be argued that the drug user endangers others when he drives while high, but the same may be said for when he is under the influence of alcohol, cough medicine or sleeping pills. And yet, the use of these drugs remains legal, so this argument is meaningless.

The only people affected by a consensual agreement to exchange sex for money are the buyer and the seller. It may be argued that prostitution puts both parties at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, the prostitute for pregnancy, and the customer, if he is married, at risk of destroying his marriage. True, but the same is true for any non-commercial, consensual sex act, so the argument fails.

As a point of interest, why is it legal to provide a woman with dinner, a movie, candy, flowers, and jewelry in exchange for sex, but illegal to provide her with cash?

For that matter, why is the contractual exchange of money for a single night of consensual sex considered illegal and immoral, while the contractual exchange of half of your worldly possessions for a lifetime of very little sex considered not only legal, but a sacred institution and moral imperative? But I digress.

Speaking of consensual sex, the Netherlands does not criminalize any form of it, whereas in the United States sodomy was illegal in many states until quite recently, and consensual sex between related adults is still a felony in 47 states and the District of Columbia.

You may expect, if you believe government propaganda, that in such a country as the Netherlands, with its permissive attitudes toward drugs, alcohol, tobacco and sex, that drug-related violence, alcoholism, lung cancer and sexual depravity would be at very high levels. However, it just isn’t so. Not nearly as high as here in the good old United States, which severely restricts all four.

[/quote]

I think you misunderstand what I’m getting at. I’m not saying we don’t have problems, just that a lot of outsiders seize every opportunity to point fingers when they hear the word America.

I’m an actual conservative, meaning I’m for the government getting out of everything they possibly can.

Further, no country is completely free. You say no consensual sex is illegal. Could you then have consensual sex next to the guy smoking a joint in the coffee shop? Or do they have laws against that?

The question in everything is where you chose as a society to draw that line. He being outside of this society has no right to come on here and offer snide remarks about where our line is.

Then again, I don’t know that Minnesota is in the same social circles as Tennessee.

91

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Living breathing external babies are being killed as in this case.

All countries limit self determination. You cannot just do anything you want. Outlawing anything makes us “not free”. Do they let you kill people in Holland? If not, then you have no “self determination”.

If Ephrem were a medical doctor, he could, actually. It’s called euthanasia, otherwise known as “assisted suicide.”

The decision to terminate must be made by the patient himself or herself, and two doctors, plus a psychiatrist if there’s any doubt about the patient’s competency to make the decision (in other words, you can’t have just take your batty old auntie into the hospital and have her put down).

So in that sense, a Dutchman, who has a right to die if he chooses, has more actual self-determination than do you, who no matter how sick, in pain, or old you are, will be kept alive by medical science whether you want to be or not.[/quote]

Well, I was really discussing murder.

Consent is the key huh…? how do you ask a newborn?

92

[quote]orion wrote:

I must inform you that “smoking up a doobie” can get you arrested in the Netherlands too.

If it contains tobacco.

http://forum.poppies.org/index.php?showtopic=16087 [/quote]

Priceless.

Well, there you go. Legalizing things makes them safer.

Once abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will perform abortions. Outlaws with dirty tools and far less medical training than the Haitian hack in the linked story.

93

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…by outlawing abortion you’re denying half of your countries population the basic human right of self determination. Most of you would start an uprising to defend your right to bear arms, but actively seek the oppression of women. Why is that not hypocritical? If men were the ones giving birth, i’m sure you could get an abortion in any convenience store nationwide without any problem…

Self determination is made when they get pregnant. Your rights end where another’s begin. The question is where do the rights of the infant begin. If you think the infant is a human being than the mother does not have the right oppress the child.

Even if you are pro-abortion, you have to agree, at least do it before the child can breath on it’s own.

…who’s pro-abortion here? Abortion is limited by law already, and altough the law does not prevent excesses, it does the job just fine. If you want to limit the number of abortions performed you start by educating children and make contraception readily available, not by denying 150 million people basic human rights. Just think: if Roe vs Wade gets overturned, you can never say “Land of the Free!” anymore…

“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.

Talk about living up to stereotypes, question is, could you point to his country on an unlabelled map? Could you find your own?

Only kidding. Abortion is one of those subjects that is always going to be difficult to discuss without emotion. My personal feeling is that I like to think that I would never want to abort a child (though you never know what circumstances you will be faced with. If my wife or sister were raped I may feel different.)

I would also never condemn a woman for making the difficult choice to have an abortion.

I was sarcastically making the point that for some reason everyone seems to have a striking critique of the US and it’s citizens, and put it under a microscope the never subject other countries to, much less their own.

It just gets old after a while.

I admittedly don’t know a lot about the Holland but at least it’s admittedly. If I went by the standard portrayal it would involve mostly windmills and wooden shoes. So you know what, I refrain myself from making criticisms of a culture I’m ignorant of.

BTW I could at least pick out the Netherlands on a map… I think.

And yes I agree that rape is an entirely different issue.[/quote]

Was really just pulling your leg having seen the vids where they go up to people on the street and ask them about Iraq whilst holding a map of Australia.

You were most of the way there with the description of Holland, you missed out dykes, drugs and Total Football.

94

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
You may expect, if you believe government propaganda, that in such a country as the Netherlands, with its permissive attitudes toward drugs, alcohol, tobacco and sex, that drug-related violence, alcoholism, lung cancer and sexual depravity would be at very high levels. However, it just isn’t so. Not nearly as high as here in the good old United States, which severely restricts all four.

[/quote]

I think you will find that there are high incidents of all of those things in Holland though it is mainly due to British Idiots on holiday.

95

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
“Choices” can be limited when your “choice” effects others. I can’t shoot my neighbor in the foot, so we aren’t free by your ignorant definition of freedom anyway.

I would retort with some disparaging remark about the stat of your country, but I honestly don’t find it important enough to even Google much less read about. But thanks for your thoughts anyways.

Well, Duce, if you ever do find the time to Google his country, you may find that the Dutch enjoy a few freedoms that we in this country do not.

Drugs are technically illegal, but possession and use of some drugs in moderation are not prosecuted. For example, the possession of a maximum amount of five grams of marijuana or hashish for personal use isn’t prosecuted. You can light up a doobie in a coffee shop (provided you are 18 or older) and the cops will likely look the other way (try that in any Starbucks in Tennessee: see what happens). You can even grow up to five marijuana plants without penalty.

It is legal to consume alcohol at any age in the Netherlands, but you must be 16 to buy beer and wine, and 18 to buy hard liquor. Same for tobacco: legal to smoke it at any age, but you must be 16 to buy it.

Prostitution is perfectly legal, provided both the prostitute and the customer are over the age of 18. Again, try propositioning an 18-year-old hooker on the streets of downtown Nashville. You may be in for some jail time, especially if you happen to be within 100 feet of a church (!)

You say that choices are limited when the choice affects others. Well, in the case of marijuana use, the person most affected is the user, and he’s affected far less adversely by marijuana than he his by tobacco or alcohol. Yet one is illegal, while the other two are legal. It may be argued that the drug user endangers others when he drives while high, but the same may be said for when he is under the influence of alcohol, cough medicine or sleeping pills. And yet, the use of these drugs remains legal, so this argument is meaningless.

The only people affected by a consensual agreement to exchange sex for money are the buyer and the seller. It may be argued that prostitution puts both parties at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, the prostitute for pregnancy, and the customer, if he is married, at risk of destroying his marriage. True, but the same is true for any non-commercial, consensual sex act, so the argument fails.

As a point of interest, why is it legal to provide a woman with dinner, a movie, candy, flowers, and jewelry in exchange for sex, but illegal to provide her with cash?

For that matter, why is the contractual exchange of money for a single night of consensual sex considered illegal and immoral, while the contractual exchange of half of your worldly possessions for a lifetime of very little sex considered not only legal, but a sacred institution and moral imperative? But I digress.

Speaking of consensual sex, the Netherlands does not criminalize any form of it, whereas in the United States sodomy was illegal in many states until quite recently, and consensual sex between related adults is still a felony in 47 states and the District of Columbia.

You may expect, if you believe government propaganda, that in such a country as the Netherlands, with its permissive attitudes toward drugs, alcohol, tobacco and sex, that drug-related violence, alcoholism, lung cancer and sexual depravity would be at very high levels. However, it just isn’t so. Not nearly as high as here in the good old United States, which severely restricts all four.

I think you misunderstand what I’m getting at. I’m not saying we don’t have problems, just that a lot of outsiders seize every opportunity to point fingers when they hear the word America.

I’m an actual conservative, meaning I’m for the government getting out of everything they possibly can.

Further, no country is completely free. You say no consensual sex is illegal. Could you then have consensual sex next to the guy smoking a joint in the coffee shop? Or do they have laws against that?

The question in everything is where you chose as a society to draw that line. He being outside of this society has no right to come on here and offer snide remarks about where our line is.

Then again, I don’t know that Minnesota is in the same social circles as Tennessee. [/quote]

From experience it depends which coffee shop you go to. In some of them you might have to tell them to stop fucking the donkey first.

96

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Well, I was really discussing murder.

Consent is the key huh…? how do you ask a newborn?[/quote]

Obviously a “newborn” would not be able to consent to his own termination. Of course, killing a “newborn” is generally considered to be a crime.

Most of us agree that all people are born with the right to life.

Whether they are conceived with the same right to life is not at all clear. If it were, abortion would be illegal. As the law stands, as long as the life is within its mother’s body, her rights trump its rights.

There is a distinction also, between killing something, and letting it die. If a baby comes out before it’s able to survive (generally until about 20 weeks), we call that a miscarriage, not a birth.

Between 20 and 27 weeks lies a vast moral gray area. To resuscitate or not to resuscitate? To abort or not to abort.

For the right to life laymen, there is no gray area. Never abort at any stage of gestation, and always resuscitate.

But for real doctors, and real mothers, it isn’t so clear-cut.

Myself, I would say no resuscitation before 24 weeks, and no abortions after. But I am neither a doctor nor a mother, so my opinion counts for little. As does yours.

97

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…it isn’t disparaging if indeed abortion is outlawed, because that means that half your countries population lost it’s right to self determination, and is subject to the state. A fetus is not an other, it may become an other, but until it reaches a certain point in it’s development, it’s not an other and therefore does not have the same rights a living, breathing person has…

Living breathing external babies are being killed as in this case.

All countries limit self determination. You cannot just do anything you want. Outlawing anything makes us “not free”. Do they let you kill people in Holland? If not, then you have no “self determination”.[/quote]

…people are killed everywhere, for various reasons. That does not mean that basic human rights should be curtailed just because we want to prevent certain things. These excesses, deplorable as they are, do not justify the oppression of every virtile woman in your country. The consequences of that are too far reaching…

…6 countries in Europe: Ireland, Poland, Malta, Cyprus, Lichtenstein and Portugal have still not legalized abortion. Altough that’s their prerogative, as it would be your countries prerogative to outlaw abortion, i also feel that in these cases that fact is deplorable…

…a few years back, a dutch organisation, caused quite a storm in europe by building a abortion-boat and sail to those countries accessable by sea, and take on board women who want an abortion, sail to international waters and perform the abortion there: Abortion Facts @ Women on Waves and they’re still going strong. It would be sad to have them sail the atlantic ocean to help your women out, wouldn’t it?

98

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Well, I was really discussing murder.

Consent is the key huh…? how do you ask a newborn?

Obviously a “newborn” would not be able to consent to his own termination. Of course, killing a “newborn” is generally considered to be a crime.

Most of us agree that all people are born with the right to life.

Whether they are conceived with the same right to life is not at all clear. If it were, abortion would be illegal. As the law stands, as long as the life is within its mother’s body, her rights trump its rights.

There is a distinction also, between killing something, and letting it die. If a baby comes out before it’s able to survive (generally until about 20 weeks), we call that a miscarriage, not a birth.

Between 20 and 27 weeks lies a vast moral gray area. To resuscitate or not to resuscitate? To abort or not to abort.

For the right to life laymen, there is no gray area. Never abort at any stage of gestation, and always resuscitate.

But for real doctors, and real mothers, it isn’t so clear-cut.

Myself, I would say no resuscitation before 24 weeks, and no abortions after. But I am neither a doctor nor a mother, so my opinion counts for little. As does yours.[/quote]

First, you cannot let adults die. why the difference?

And no, we aren’t doctors or mothers, but were were babies once.

99

[quote]Varqanir wrote: DoubleDuce wrote: Living breathing external babies are being killed as in this case.

All countries limit self determination. You cannot just do anything you want. Outlawing anything makes us “not free”. Do they let you kill people in Holland? If not, then you have no “self determination”.

If Ephrem were a medical doctor, he could, actually. It’s called euthanasia, otherwise known as “assisted suicide.”

The decision to terminate must be made by the patient himself or herself, and two doctors, plus a psychiatrist if there’s any doubt about the patient’s competency to make the decision (in other words, you can’t have just take your batty old auntie into the hospital and have her put down).

So in that sense, a Dutchman, who has a right to die if he chooses, has more actual self-determination than do you, who no matter how sick, in pain, or old you are, will be kept alive by medical science whether you want to be or not.[/quote]

…ohyeah, forgot about good ol’ euthanasia!

100

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…it isn’t disparaging if indeed abortion is outlawed, because that means that half your countries population lost it’s right to self determination, and is subject to the state. A fetus is not an other, it may become an other, but until it reaches a certain point in it’s development, it’s not an other and therefore does not have the same rights a living, breathing person has…

Living breathing external babies are being killed as in this case.

All countries limit self determination. You cannot just do anything you want. Outlawing anything makes us “not free”. Do they let you kill people in Holland? If not, then you have no “self determination”.

…people are killed everywhere, for various reasons. That does not mean that basic human rights should be curtailed just because we want to prevent certain things. These excesses, deplorable as they are, do not justify the oppression of every virtile woman in your country. The consequences of that are too far reaching…

…6 countries in Europe: Ireland, Poland, Malta, Cyprus, Lichtenstein and Portugal have still not legalized abortion. Altough that’s their prerogative, as it would be your countries prerogative to outlaw abortion, i also feel that in these cases that fact is deplorable…

…a few years back, a dutch organisation, caused quite a storm in europe by building a abortion-boat and sail to those countries accessable by sea, and take on board women who want an abortion, sail to international waters and perform the abortion there: Abortion Facts @ Women on Waves and they’re still going strong. It would be sad to have them sail the atlantic ocean to help your women out, wouldn’t it?

[/quote]

Really?

You don’t curtail rights to protect life? What’s the deal with them there gun control laws then? Please use little words, I’m a southern bible belt American.

We as a nation even force women and men to take care of their children after birth. Oh the horror. I’m assuming you don’t have laws against neglecting children, cause sometimes a mother wants to party right?

The hell is the difference between making parents take at least some measure of responsibility with there DNA inside or outside the womb?

If a mother or has the choice not to care for a child inside the womb how can you force her to care for it when born?