Roe Vs. Wade Roe is jumping ship

[GL]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
What my question is: How an pro-lifer can bomb an abortion clinic with the staff inside?

Why are there "pro-choice" advocates that are for gun control and seat-belt laws? "Pro choice" and "Pro life" are both euphemisms. Pro-lifers like the term because if somebody counters them, they would be anti-life and that looks bad. Pro-choicers like the term because if somebody counters them, they would be anti-choice and that looks bad. They're marketing terms.

There a pro-lifers that are pro-capital punishment and pro-killing during war. So they seem to have drawn a satisfactory gray area for them to be pro-life. There are pro-choicers that are pro-gun control and pro-seat belt laws. Also, they seem to have drawn a satisfactory gray area for them to be pro-choice.

Take these terms with a grain of salt. IMHO, if you want to cut to the chase, you have a group of people that think abortion is acceptable and a group of people that think it is not. But this would be much too long to say over and over to describe these two groups

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: nan0bug
Unfortunately, in THIS world, in THIS DAY IN AGE, you do not have the right to force your beliefs on others. You can try and convince people to believe what you believe, but when you start legislating personal opinions into law, thats where the line needs to be drawn. I mean, if we can legislate a personal opinion like anti-abortion into law, why should it end there? Lets just go ahead and make it against the law to eat fast food. In fact, why don't we make it against the law to play football since people get seriously injured and sometimes killed playing it. Who cares if it's someones personal choice?........



You also have every right to get your teeth kicked in by me if you ever harrass someone I know who's getting an abortion done.

Hmm, so personal opinions can't be law... I see. Alright then, let's decriminalize murder first off since I'm sure not everyone thinks it's wrong. While we're at it let's legalize all drugs since the person doing them is only hurting themselves after all. Plus who are all those square sober people to push their opinion on them? Let's also make stealing leagal since lots of people don't view it as bad. Etc, etc. The list goes on. I realize the point you're trying to make but your argument is completely stupid.

Also to the other ignorant part of your argument about us losing freedoms when opinions become law in case you've been sleeping through the past decade that's already happening. What do you call seat belt laws, the attempt (it'll happen) to ban ephedrine/ephedra, laws against doctor assisted suicide, etc? You can't blame something for having a potential outcome when said outcome is already here.

By the way, nice little threat at the end of your post. I've always wondered what makes geeks like you bust out the e-threats. Must make you feel really tough or something?

Anyway, to summarize my views of the pro-choice movement those people stand for one thing and one thing only. The movement to eliminate all forms of personal responsibility in our society. When you strip away all the crap that's what it really boils down to. I did something without thinking about it/with disreagard for the possible consequences. I don't want to pay the price for it. I shouldn't have to pay the price for it and that's my legal right. That's abortion in a nutshell, pure and simple.

Ok, the first part of your argument goes both ways. I think drugs should be legal. I think murder should be legal in certain circumstances (Like if some guy breaks into your house and you/your family are in danger, regardless of if he might not be armed or not). Stealing I don't think anyone views as 'iffy'. Its wrong, and the people who do it know its wrong, they just don't care.

Second part isn't ignorant. You're reiterating my point. All those things you listed and more shouldn't have laws for them. They're all personal choices that people should be allowed to make on their own, to their own peril.

Third part wasn't a threat. I don't make threats on the internet. I was just stating a fact -- If you're out harassing someone who's going to get an abortion (because lets face it, people don't go into abortion clinics all cheery with a 'Yay! I'm disposing of a fetus today!' attitude), and you get your ass kicked by someone, you deserve it. If I were walking my girlfriend/wife past some protesters and someone called my girlfriend/wife a baby killer or something along those lines, I'd kick their teeth down their throat. Make an example out of them and give the rest of the little whiny people who have nothing better to do with their lives but harass others something to think about. I mean, how the hell do those people know the people going into the clinic haven't been raped or something?

To summarize my views of the anti-abortion crowd and their ilk, their purpose is to only shove their ideas of a perfect conservative society down the throats of everyone else. You talk about pro-choice being about lack of personal responsibility? Anti-abortionists want to take everyone's personal responsibility away from them and dictate what's right and wrong to everyone.

These anti-abortionists are the same ones who preach about abstinence, a fate I wouldn't wish upon my own kids when they reach their teens, much less anyone elses.. I mean really, high school without sex is like baseball without hotdogs and beer.

These are the ones who want to eliminate welfare and keep sex education and contraceptives out of schools, so when teenagers have kids, not if, they cant get abortions, can't get assistance to help them raise the kids, can't finish school because they have to work all the time. I guess that sounds like an ideal world to you, a bunch of babies who have a right to life but aren't getting taken care of. Then when they grow up all screwed up because they never had a shot in the first place, these SAME PEOPLE want to lock them up and throw away the key, because hey, its better to give them the cheap labor than let the mexicans get it, right?

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Great post, GL!

 

[Freejack2]

Nevermind. You people are hopeless.

 

[Orsorum]

I was born in the second trimester, 13 weeks early. Was I a fetus? If my brother and I were to be aborted on the spot, would we have been considered fetuses or human beings?

 

[DrPizza]

Just food for thought:
Says one side: abortion isn't murder.
Then, a couple tries for years to have a baby... fertility clinics, etc. Spends thousands and thousands of dollars, trying to get pregnant. Finally, they succeed... Stranger walks up to the pregnant wife, punches her in the stomach. Now, it's murder. (This is according to several state's laws.) So, sometimes, it's called abortion, and legally, it's not murder. Sometimes it's called murder. The only difference between the two being whether or not the baby was wanted.

Another one: wife is 6 months pregnant. Diagnosed with cancer. If she starts the cancer treatment immediately, there's a 50/50 chance she'll survive, but the chemotherapy will kill the unborn fetus/child (select your term). But, if she doesn't start the treatment right away, there's a 50/50 chance she'll die before the baby is born. Abortion opponents... what to do in this case??

And lastly, I know a lot of kids. I teach kids. I have my own kids. They know where babies come from. I can't believe that any student I know actually believes "if we're standing, she won't get pregnant." They must be really really dumb someplace, but that someplace isn't here. That sounds more like an urban legend type of thing. Someone knows someone who took a poll and a kid said they couldn't get pregnant standing up. (Or, even worse, we believe every single answer on a poll of 15 year olds is truthful) The biggest reasons, and probably the reason for 95% of child pregnancies is "but that won't happen to me" or a boyfriend who just doesn't say no.

 

[0roo0roo]

Then, a couple tries for years to have a baby... fertility clinics, etc. Spends thousands and thousands of dollars, trying to get pregnant. Finally, they succeed... Stranger walks up to the pregnant wife, punches her in the stomach. Now, it's murder. (This is according to several state's laws.) So, sometimes, it's called abortion, and legally, it's not murder. Sometimes it's called murder. The only difference between the two being whether or not the baby was wanted.

don't forget about all the excess discarded embreos the woman had as waste. she's a murderer too! hah

 

[Pacfanweb]

One question: If life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin?

When you can see a heart? Fingers? Genitals? When?

The argument about abortions in cases of rape or incest is weak. How many of the thousands of abortions performed are done for these reasons? Three? Five? Not very damn many, that's for sure. And for those women that are victims of of rape/incest, they are a strong case for the "morning after" pill. I think people could live with getting rid of a potentially fertilized egg rather than a viable embryo.

As far as what women do with their bodies not being any business of men, well that's just horseshlt. People that say that are the same ones who want to make damn sure that men have to pay ridiculous amounts of child support because "hey, it takes two to make a baby". You can't have it both ways. If a man gets a woman pregnant, and the man wants her to have an abortion and the woman goes ahead and has the baby, she can bust his ass for child support.......but you're going to tell me that if the woman is the one who wants the abortion and the man wants the child, that's ok?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: GL

Originally posted by: alkemyst
What my question is: How an pro-lifer can bomb an abortion clinic with the staff inside?

Why are there "pro-choice" advocates that are for gun control and seat-belt laws? "Pro choice" and "Pro life" are both euphemisms. Pro-lifers like the term because if somebody counters them, they would be anti-life and that looks bad. Pro-choicers like the term because if somebody counters them, they would be anti-choice and that looks bad. They're marketing terms.

There a pro-lifers that are pro-capital punishment and pro-killing during war. So they seem to have drawn a satisfactory gray area for them to be pro-life. There are pro-choicers that are pro-gun control and pro-seat belt laws. Also, they seem to have drawn a satisfactory gray area for them to be pro-choice.

Take these terms with a grain of salt. IMHO, if you want to cut to the chase, you have a group of people that think abortion is acceptable and a group of people that think it is not. But this would be much too long to say over and over to describe these two groups

?!? I don't see your analogy with Pro-Choice....Pro-Choice is all about owning guns or not, and choosing to wear a seat belt or helmet or not, and doing drugs or not. Pro-lifer's seem to determine which lives get to live and which don't.

It's not a gray area at all, they are all about keeping out of another's business that doesn't affect them. The pro-lifer's want to make everything their business...these are also a large percentage of zealots and fanatics in many other areas.

You did not answer the Pro-lifer response to blowing up an abortion clinic or killing a doctor. I think it has to do with the Pro-lifer thinking they are God's wraith personified....lucky for us they will all burn in hell. God is pro-choice too according to many holy books and judgement is his and his (or hers or theirs) alone.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: GL
Which is why I advocate conception and in the case where these defenses falter, the so-called "morning after pill" which is effective up to 72 hours after the sexual encounter and does exactly what the body naturally does quite often - cease to begin the pregnancy (to a doctor, a pregnancy does not start until the fertilized egg has attached itself to the walls of the uterus).

for the record, that's not what the morning after pill does, the morning after pill prevents the egg from ever getting reached by the sperm. the egg is not ever fertilized, if the morning after pill does work. otherwise, the woman will get pregnant (in any sense of the word).

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: gopunk

yes they can go wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it. but there is something you can do to prevent abortion - just don't do it.

so what you meant to say was that aborting a fertilized egg is bad, not because the fate of that egg is set, but because you have no control over the fate of that egg?

1/3? where did you get that number? that seems like a lot.

it's a number i've heard in the news... the july 1998 issue of newsweek says on the cover "as many as 1 in 3 pregnancies fails"... article is about miscarriages.

People don't have the right to end other people's lives.

and is this something you just hold to be a fundamental right, or is there further reasoning behind that as well?

look i'm not going into a deep philosphical debate over why murder isn't right. jesus christ.

ok i'm done with this now, i can't stand the nitpicking/you trying to twist everything i say. it's gotten old.

look man, i was just asking some questions to better understand where you're coming from. frankly, this whole "abortion is wrong because you don't have control over the egg" concept is very novel to me.

 

[0roo0roo]

it's a number i've heard in the news... the july 1998 issue of newsweek says on the cover "as many as 1 in 3 pregnancies fails"... article is about miscarriages.

thats right its not alot. abortion is part of nature.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

And lastly, I know a lot of kids. I teach kids. I have my own kids. They know where babies come from. I can't believe that any student I know actually believes "if we're standing, she won't get pregnant." They must be really really dumb someplace, but that someplace isn't here. That sounds more like an urban legend type of thing. Someone knows someone who took a poll and a kid said they couldn't get pregnant standing up. (Or, even worse, we believe every single answer on a poll of 15 year olds is truthful) The biggest reasons, and probably the reason for 95% of child pregnancies is "but that won't happen to me" or a boyfriend who just doesn't say no.

I used to do peer counciling and it's mostly parents that contradict sex education by saying things like 'your teachers are lying to you' and proceed to give a false explaination.

What usually happens is the parents instead of avoiding the question or wanting too, make up some crap story about sex usually a lie and never correct it...the kid grows up believeing it (it's the same thing as the santa clause thing, when you are young it's as real as life itself).

Standing up is a myth, but kids hear it and believe it....same thing with withdrawl, jumping up and down after sex, cleaning with coke, and other non-safe sex methods. I had to talk to so many girls who were pregnant and said it's impossible and explained why....it defied logic, but they believed it.

Also in college health science a girl insisted chicken soup cured disease, and a ton of other old wives tales were true (we were discussing well-known, but false health remedies and cures) and actually brought her mother in the next class meeting who insisted our instructor was wrong that it didn't....she only left when the instructor told her if she didn't she would send someone to get security to have her removed. The girl withdrew and we didn't see her again.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: nan0bug

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: nan0bug
Unfortunately, in THIS world, in THIS DAY IN AGE, you do not have the right to force your beliefs on others. You can try and convince people to believe what you believe, but when you start legislating personal opinions into law, thats where the line needs to be drawn. I mean, if we can legislate a personal opinion like anti-abortion into law, why should it end there? Lets just go ahead and make it against the law to eat fast food. In fact, why don't we make it against the law to play football since people get seriously injured and sometimes killed playing it. Who cares if it's someones personal choice?........



You also have every right to get your teeth kicked in by me if you ever harrass someone I know who's getting an abortion done.

Hmm, so personal opinions can't be law... I see. Alright then, let's decriminalize murder first off since I'm sure not everyone thinks it's wrong. While we're at it let's legalize all drugs since the person doing them is only hurting themselves after all. Plus who are all those square sober people to push their opinion on them? Let's also make stealing leagal since lots of people don't view it as bad. Etc, etc. The list goes on. I realize the point you're trying to make but your argument is completely stupid.

Also to the other ignorant part of your argument about us losing freedoms when opinions become law in case you've been sleeping through the past decade that's already happening. What do you call seat belt laws, the attempt (it'll happen) to ban ephedrine/ephedra, laws against doctor assisted suicide, etc? You can't blame something for having a potential outcome when said outcome is already here.

By the way, nice little threat at the end of your post. I've always wondered what makes geeks like you bust out the e-threats. Must make you feel really tough or something?

Anyway, to summarize my views of the pro-choice movement those people stand for one thing and one thing only. The movement to eliminate all forms of personal responsibility in our society. When you strip away all the crap that's what it really boils down to. I did something without thinking about it/with disreagard for the possible consequences. I don't want to pay the price for it. I shouldn't have to pay the price for it and that's my legal right. That's abortion in a nutshell, pure and simple.

Ok, the first part of your argument goes both ways. I think drugs should be legal. I think murder should be legal in certain circumstances (Like if some guy breaks into your house and you/your family are in danger, regardless of if he might not be armed or not). Stealing I don't think anyone views as 'iffy'. Its wrong, and the people who do it know its wrong, they just don't care.

Second part isn't ignorant. You're reiterating my point. All those things you listed and more shouldn't have laws for them. They're all personal choices that people should be allowed to make on their own, to their own peril.

Third part wasn't a threat. I don't make threats on the internet. I was just stating a fact -- If you're out harassing someone who's going to get an abortion (because lets face it, people don't go into abortion clinics all cheery with a 'Yay! I'm disposing of a fetus today!' attitude), and you get your ass kicked by someone, you deserve it. If I were walking my girlfriend/wife past some protesters and someone called my girlfriend/wife a baby killer or something along those lines, I'd kick their teeth down their throat. Make an example out of them and give the rest of the little whiny people who have nothing better to do with their lives but harass others something to think about. I mean, how the hell do those people know the people going into the clinic haven't been raped or something?

To summarize my views of the anti-abortion crowd and their ilk, their purpose is to only shove their ideas of a perfect conservative society down the throats of everyone else. You talk about pro-choice being about lack of personal responsibility? Anti-abortionists want to take everyone's personal responsibility away from them and dictate what's right and wrong to everyone.

These anti-abortionists are the same ones who preach about abstinence, a fate I wouldn't wish upon my own kids when they reach their teens, much less anyone elses.. I mean really, high school without sex is like baseball without hotdogs and beer.

These are the ones who want to eliminate welfare and keep sex education and contraceptives out of schools, so when teenagers have kids, not if, they cant get abortions, can't get assistance to help them raise the kids, can't finish school because they have to work all the time. I guess that sounds like an ideal world to you, a bunch of babies who have a right to life but aren't getting taken care of. Then when they grow up all screwed up because they never had a shot in the first place, these SAME PEOPLE want to lock them up and throw away the key, because hey, its better to give them the cheap labor than let the mexicans get it, right?

Ok, I'll break this down paragraph by paragraph.

First paragraph: As far as murder you're right. In should be legal in instances of self defense. Of course, in that case it's self defense and not murder though. Drugs, I'm torn on. While it is personal choice it's never only the user that's affected. I'm not talking about family members but rather criminal activity that's drug related. As far as stealing there are absolutely people who don't think it's wrong. There are people with no moral values out there who don't really view anything as wrong. Besides, what's that really have to do with it. It's still an opinion. What are laws besides a collective set of beliefs? Beliefs are not absolutes, they're opinions.

Second paragraph: Of course I'm reiterating your point. Perhaps I wasn't clear about it though. You basiclly said 'if we do x (get rid of abortion based on peoples opinions) they y (loss of freedom) will happen'. My point was loss of personal freedoms is already happening so you can't say that if we do x, y will happen because it already is happening. That's like saying 'if we build more cars we'll be using natural resources'. You're attempting to blame something that's happening every day on something that hasn't even happened yet.

Third paragraph: That's your choice I guess. As far as the rape scenario though I'm sure it's happened more than once. I'm also sure that the majority of the women who are streaming into abortion clinics aren't rape victims though but rather, women who don't want to take responsibility.

Fourth paragraph: Abortion has nothing to do with being conservative. It has to do with where your moral boundry (and to a lesser degree your view of science ie; fetus vs human life) lies. Also, personal responsibility and personal choice are two completely different things that should not be confused. So your argument of pro-life trying to take away personal responsibility holds no water. If you were to try to link the two together at all it would be that pro-life is trying to enforce personal reponsiblity. Not to take it away. Or do you belive that groups like law enforcement are trying to remove personal responsibility rather than enforce it?

Fifth paragraph: You may not with abstinence on your kids (and I really wouldn't either) but would you rather they were teenage parents? I wouldn't. Kind of the same way I wouldn't wish a life of poverty on my kids (have none, never plan on it) but that doesn't mean I'd like them to steal to live well.

Sixth paragraph: Blah blah blah. Whine some more would you? First off try to remember that in the not so distant future abortion was illegal. Just in case you haven't noticed the country wasn't half the sh*thole then it is now. So your bleak description of a world without abortion pretty much holds no water considering the history of abortion.

The second part of this paragraph is whiny garbage considering the country we live in. If you're healthy, and able to go to school there's no such thing as "have no chance". That's simply a garbage cop out. There are plenty of people who came from miserable situations and have turned out way better than me and probably (even though I don't know you) better than you also. So to say that here in America, where for the most part if you want it enough to work for it then it's yours, that there are people with no chance is pathetic and insulting to the people who have taken nothing and made something of their lives. The rest of that paragraph is to foolish to even bother with.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: GL
Which is why I advocate conception and in the case where these defenses falter, the so-called "morning after pill" which is effective up to 72 hours after the sexual encounter and does exactly what the body naturally does quite often - cease to begin the pregnancy (to a doctor, a pregnancy does not start until the fertilized egg has attached itself to the walls of the uterus).

for the record, that's not what the morning after pill does, the morning after pill prevents the egg from ever getting reached by the sperm. the egg is not ever fertilized, if the morning after pill does work. otherwise, the woman will get pregnant (in any sense of the word).

Actually what the morning-after-pill does is force a period and since a period is the shedding of the uterine lining the embryo whether or not it is fertilized is shed with it. After 72 hours or so it may still be shed, but the morning-after people don't want to enter the realm of abortion as they are already being attacked on this. After a certain gestation, the embryo isn't affected so much by periods, and some women may have them/or spot and still be pregnant.

Most of the time a morning-after-pill is simply a concentrated dosage of normal birth control pills given over up to 5 days post-coitus. Side effects can range from minimal to extremely serious.

Some have turned to anti-cancer medications, which have the same effect, but seem to cause fewer side effects for most.

 

[0roo0roo]

Sixth paragraph: Blah blah blah. Whine some more would you? First off try to remember that in the not so distant future abortion was illegal. Just in case you haven't noticed the country wasn't half the sh*thole then it is now. So your bleak description of a world without abortion pretty much holds no water considering the history of abortion.

you mean how back then they had legitimate presidents unlike our current?

or were you looking fondly back at the days where you could beat your n*gger as you pleased?

or when women were expected to be a dutiful wife and a piece of meat?

back when high school classes had cooking and cleaning etc for girls?

i'm asian, it was not a good time for me back in your nostolgic past, i couldn't even become a citizen until rather late in the game. way after blacks even got it.


its the right wing that thinks so lovingly of this nostolgic past and desperately wants to push the country back in time. sometimes repubs even slip up and spill their true feelings, like when republican trent lott said that we would have been better off with a segregationalist president

oops


republicans who are the party of the christian fundamentalists are much like the mulahs in the middle east who spew garbage about how they must return to their great past by oppressing women and becoming close minded.

 

[FredFredrickson]

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff
<-- Die hard anti-abortion, because no matter what life brings you, there is no excuse for intentionally killing an innocent child

Gimme a break... If you had to carry a child for that long, you'd wonder about it too. A woman should have the right to control what goes on in her body, especially if whatever is going on in there isn't going right, or isn't supposed to be there.
And besides, I am sure you don't think twice about killing some other living beings, which has the same spark of life in it that all thsoe aborted babies do. Or what about all the GROWN people who we just shipped off our troops to huint down and kill?

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Sixth paragraph: Blah blah blah. Whine some more would you? First off try to remember that in the not so distant future abortion was illegal. Just in case you haven't noticed the country wasn't half the sh*thole then it is now. So your bleak description of a world without abortion pretty much holds no water considering the history of abortion.

you mean how back then they had legitimate presidents unlike our current?

or were you looking fondly back at the days where you could beat your n*gger as you pleased?

or when women were expected to be a dutiful wife and a piece of meat?

back when high school classes had cooking and cleaning etc for girls?

i'm asian, it was not a good time for me back in your nostolgic past, i couldn't even become a citizen until rather late in the game. way after blacks even got it.


its the right wing that thinks so lovingly of this nostolgic past and desperately wants to push the country back in time. sometimes repubs even slip up and spill their true feelings, like when republican trent lott said that we would have been better off with a segregationalist president

oops

No, I was looking back fondly at the time when there weren't high school shootings.
Back to the time when there wasn't gang violence where innocent people took bullets in freaking thug wars
Back to the time where you never found babies in dumpsters like you do today
Back to the time before aids
Back to the time before rampant drug use
I think you get my point. If you don't just stick your head back in the sand.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Sixth paragraph: Blah blah blah. Whine some more would you? First off try to remember that in the not so distant future abortion was illegal. Just in case you haven't noticed the country wasn't half the sh*thole then it is now. So your bleak description of a world without abortion pretty much holds no water considering the history of abortion.

you mean how back then they had legitimate presidents unlike our current?

or were you looking fondly back at the days where you could beat your n*gger as you pleased?

or when women were expected to be a dutiful wife and a piece of meat?

back when high school classes had cooking and cleaning etc for girls?

i'm asian, it was not a good time for me back in your nostolgic past, i couldn't even become a citizen until rather late in the game. way after blacks even got it.


its the right wing that thinks so lovingly of this nostolgic past and desperately wants to push the country back in time. sometimes repubs even slip up and spill their true feelings, like when republican trent lott said that we would have been better off with a segregationalist president

oops

No, I was looking back fondly at the time when there weren't high school shootings.
Back to the time when there wasn't gang violence where innocent people took bullets in freaking thug wars
Back to the time where you never found babies in dumpsters like you do today
Back to the time before aids
Back to the time before rampant drug use
I think you get my point. If you don't just stick your head back in the sand.

i point out issues that affect the entire society from blatent racism to blatent sexism and all you can come up with is a few school shootings? as a black person if he'd trade a few isolated school shootings for a trip back to the 50's.. lol, u are a fool.

in 1950~ a white kid went nuts and went into his university clock tower and started sniping away at people, killing many. you can look up the details if you please. its nothing new.

and don't even delude yourself about the past not having gangs and incredible poverty in the slums.

and babies in dumpsters is pervasive eh? or are you playing the michael moore game where you take a few isolated examples for your scare tactics.



and you know the liberals created aids, or was that the cia...

cookoo!

you think some lives woulda been saved with better sex education and no religious fundamentalists raving against use of contraceptives as evil? perhaps eh? the catholic church to this very day is against all contraception. kinda funny since they are also pro life and u know how they waffled on that one in the past already. anyhow..

rampant drug use? well many drugs weren't even illegal yet. not to mention black people were too busy trying to keep from being lynched by your wonderful kkk or putting out the fires in their churchs.


painting a past where inequality and intolerance was rampant as somehow ideal is my idea of having your head in the sand.

some nice quotes from good ol republican strom thurmond american US senator.

17 July 1948 ?And I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there?s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n*gger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.?

1948 "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the n*gger into our homes, our schools, our churches."


said behind closed doors? hell no! his words rang out loud in a proud speech! elect me!

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Sixth paragraph: Blah blah blah. Whine some more would you? First off try to remember that in the not so distant future abortion was illegal. Just in case you haven't noticed the country wasn't half the sh*thole then it is now. So your bleak description of a world without abortion pretty much holds no water considering the history of abortion.

you mean how back then they had legitimate presidents unlike our current?

You mean like Bill Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, JFK, Rutherford Hayes, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson and James Garfield? Oh, and add GWB to the list, since he just happens to be the most recent to win with a minority of the public vote. Around 20 of our presidents have been elected with a minority of the public vote. GWB is as legitimate as any.

or were you looking fondly back at the days where you could beat your n*gger as you pleased?

That reminds me, I need to get Blazing Saddles on DVD next time I'm at Walmart.

or when women were expected to be a dutiful wife and a piece of meat?

Yeah, those were the days

back when high school classes had cooking and cleaning etc for girls?

They should have kept it that way. Cooking is fine, but hang it up at the pillow making! Of course they could have just not bothered w/ Home Ec...all I learned in that class was that real Saran Wrap is a hell of a lot easier to use than the cheap stuff.

i'm asian, it was not a good time for me back in your nostolgic past, i couldn't even become a citizen until rather late in the game. way after blacks even got it.

its the right wing that thinks so lovingly of this nostolgic past and desperately wants to push the country back in time.

Old people often do that. Especially when they are isolated from the real world.

sometimes repubs even slip up and spill their true feelings, like when republican trent lott said that we would have been better off with a segregationalist president

Slip up? You sure that wasn't just a retirement speech?

oops

republicans who are the party of the christian fundamentalists are much like the mulahs in the middle east who spew garbage about how they must return to their great past by oppressing women and becoming close minded.

No, just closed-minded. I like the analogy though, especially since in the Arabs' great past, the middle east was a center of learning.

<- Cerb, a right-wing non-republican who isn't about to touch the thread's real argument with a 10' pole. Or even a 100' pole. A lightyear-long pole, maybe.

 

[0roo0roo]

You mean like Bill Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, JFK, Rutherford Hayes, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson and James Garfield? Oh, and add GWB to the list, since he just happens to be the most recent to win with a minority of the public vote. Around 20 of our presidents have been elected with a minority of the public vote. GWB is as legitimate as any.

difference being he was selected by a partisan supreme court. he's illegitimate.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
the Story

"The woman once known as "Jane Roe" whose case led to the legalization of abortion in the United States 30 years ago filed a new court challenge on Tuesday in a bid to overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision."

Obviously the abortion law will never be overturned, but isn't it a bit of a morale blow to the prochoice movement to have one of their pioneers working against them?

People change their minds all the time.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

You mean like Bill Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, JFK, Rutherford Hayes, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson and James Garfield? Oh, and add GWB to the list, since he just happens to be the most recent to win with a minority of the public vote. Around 20 of our presidents have been elected with a minority of the public vote. GWB is as legitimate as any.

difference being he was selected by a partisan supreme court. he's illegitimate.

That's mostly Al Gore's fault. And when did we have a non-partisan supreme court (after all, there is an odd number of people...the best you can get is 4 R, 4 D and 1 I, and that is more than unlikely)? About as often as non-partisan presidents (only two or three to my knowledge)? I don't like most of what he's done, and won't be voting for him in '04, but he's legitimate. The procedures were followed properly to get him to office. No paying off of anyone in the investigation committee to my Knowledge or anything of the sort. Having a supreme court of a single partisan affiliation has almost nothing to do with it. In recounts he ended up winning, so nothing went awry. He just didn't have as many people vote for him.

Edit: See my sig, for a certain something I jotted down from a certain professor that proves very true, even (over?) 140 years after it started happening.

 

[Revolutionary]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Kev

ok, but then if we knew that a woman was going to get pregnant from some load of semen, using a condom during that session (of intercourse) would then be murder?

same idea, if you are preventing a specific person from being born in the future, it's the same as murder. contraception (without knowing the absolute future) is not.

i assume then, you draw a distinction between contraception without knowing the absolute future and aborting a fertilized egg? because a fertilized egg does not have an absolute future at all, as you pointed out, things can go wrong. in fact, in about a third of all pregnancies, something does go wrong, and the baby is not born (all naturally).

yes they can go wrong, but there's nothing you can do about it. but there is something you can do to prevent abortion - just don't do it.

1/3? where did you get that number? that seems like a lot.

that and i believe all human beings have a right to life.

so what is the reasoning behind that belief?

I was given a chance to live...why should I be specially priveleged and not somebody else? People don't have the right to end other people's lives.

So I'm safe in assuming that all those voicing pro-life opinions in this thread oppose the death penalty and war in all cases?

haha right.

safe to say 99% of em do not adopt. and frankly if you don't adopt, you have no friggin right to complain.

for most lifers, once your born your on your own. its just important you get born no matter what apparently these people waste their time protesting in front of clinics for potential children when real life children go hungry, get abused, die in the US every day, not to mention what goes on around the world. the pro life position is rather clean and convenient cause for the lazy activist who likes to keep their hands clean. sitting on a sidewalk and yelling is easier then helping real people.

Okay, I tried to stay out of this. But, in a thread full of ad hominem, appeal to pity, argument from ignorance (the idea that because something is not known to be true -- ie, the humanity of a fetus -- then it is assumed to be false), hasty generalization, equivalency, consequential argument, and false dilemma logical fallacies (just to name a few that I've noticed without looking too hard), this takes the cake for the stupidest statement of them all. Honestly, this just demonstrates, once again, my core political belief that American liberals have lost the ability to reason. If you don't know what even 2 of the above fallacies represents, than you are the case in point.

Your fallacy, OrooOroo, is that you are creating a moral equivalence between killing -- an action -- (be the fetus technically alive or dead, no one asserts that it isn't killed, much in the same manner, at the least, that a tumor is killed upon removal) and NOT choosing to accept responsiblity for another person's actions. In other words, you are creating an equivalence between those who kill and those who merely protest that killing but cannot intervene. But those two things are not equivelent. If I were present at the moment of an abortion and had the opportunity to intervene and save the child's life, but failed to do so, then I would be guilty of your equivalence and the child's death. But reality dictates that my intervention is both illegal in any one instance (I'd be arrested for interfering in the procedure) and impossible in all instances (you couldn't possibly find adoptive homes for all 4,000 children aborted daily, even if every pro-life individual in the country were to take one). To borrow from the totally unrelated comparison to capital punishment, I would be guilty of the death of an inmate if I merely standing outside with a candle and a sign and not trying my hardest to cut the power to the penitentiary.

You also have a false dilemma fallacy: the only two choices are not adoption and abortion. Both suit the mother's fundamental goal of avoiding responsibility for a biologically unavoidable reality. The third, and most practical and economical option, is for that mother to care for the child. That is what pro-life supporters want to see happen. It is not invalidated because it is a moral argument. Ultimately you have a moral system just like everyone else: it is an argument from a moral absolute to insist that moral-absolute arguments are invalid. Its not a trump card, its just one more wrinkle in the debate that we have to iron out.

The rest of your post is not a fallacy, it's just ignorant. Um, Christians and other religious/conscientious objectors to abortion are all "conveniently" absent from the care of humanity? Huh? I suppose Mother Teresa, for a patent example, was merely moved by a democratic, self-actualized love of the not-self. Or that the Catholic Church as a whole doesn't run enough hospitals? That's absurd! Go to any major US city and find a soup kitchen. There is a 90 percent chance that it is run by a church, synagogue, mosque, or non-denominational religious ministry, like a mission. Go to a free clinic in this country or any third world country. There is a 90 percent chance that it is funded by a religious organization and that its staff are religious believers. Sponsor a child in an impoverished country: those are all religious organizations that allow you to make that convenient, minimal donation that funds the inconvenient, sacrificial work of the religious believers who take care of those kids every day. Come to my church sometime and come along as we go to hospitals to spend time with kids in the pediatric unit, or for one of the weekly trips that church members make to inner-city Baltimore to pass out food and clothes to the homeless. Or volunteer for one of our Vacation Bible Schools for poor kids during the summer. The fact that you do not know of the impact of faith-based organizations on the poor, disadvantaged, sick, and oppressed in this world merely demonstrates that you've never gone farther than your front door to help someone else, and that you've never needed to be helped yourself. You've never descended into that world, so how could you know its landscape? Without the influence of Christians and other religious groups in caring for those whom you so eloquently imply that we don't give a damn about, the world would indeed be a miserable, unlivable place. You should fear the day when we aren't here to clean up anymore.

EDIT: And yes, I oppose the death penalty and most modern wars (there are exceptions that are Just).

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ILikeStuff <-- Die hard anti-abortion, because no matter what life brings you, there is no excuse for intentionally killing an innocent child

You know everything that happens in other peoples' lives? Are YOU going to adopt to that child? If the answer was No to either of those, then kindly STFU. edit: btw, this happened years ago and is VERY old news. Apparently Roe got born again or what not...

Why is it you always tell people who disagree with you to STFU? They have a right to express their stupid POV, whatever it is.

I would happily adopt an unwanted child. There are thousands out there like me. Kindly STFU.