For the "pro-choice" people...

[ofiba]

Could the people who are "pro-choice" please explain to me your reasons for wanting to keep abortions legal? Please try to leave out cases of rape or saving the mother's life because I can understand the thinking behind that. I am trying to understand why people thing killing an unborn child is ok. I'm not trying to attack you, I truly just want to see what your thoughts are on this issue and why you are "pro-choice".

 

I feel that the woman has the choice to choose not to get pregnant in the first place, and she should make that choice before it even gets to pregnancy. After that, it is the woman's (and father's) responsibility to take care of the child they created.

 

By the way, "Jane Roe" from Roe vs. Wade later admitted that she was not actually raped and has since tried to pass laws to abolish on demand abortion.

[KD in CA]

IMO, the whole concept of "pro-choice" is clever marketing. The left has successfully swung the debate from "should it be legal to kill my unwanted, unborn child" to this debate about a woman having the "right to decide what happens to her body". You correctly point out that she did have the control over her body at the time she became pregnant.

 

Now, having said that, I favor keeping abortion legal even though I find it personally distasteful. Why? Hell, if YOU don't want your kid here, I don't either. He'll probably end up on the dole or in prison anyway.

[Campy]

Could the people who are "pro-choice" please explain to me your reasons for wanting to keep abortions legal?  Please try to leave out cases of rape or saving the mother's life because I can understand that. I am trying to understand why people thing killing an unborn child is ok.  I'm not trying to attack you, I truly just want to see what your thoughts are on this issue and why you are "pro-choice".

 

I feel that the woman has the choice to choose not to get pregnant in the first place, and she should make that choice before it even gets to pregnancy.  After that, it is the woman's (and father's) responsibility to take care of the child they created.

105584[/snapback]

I think a popular pro-choice argument is, "Exactly when does the fertilized egg become an unborn human?"

 

I'm not a fan of abortion, but I feel it's not my place to impose my values on others regarding a choice that personal, so I guess that makes me pro-choice.

 

Similarly, I don't have a problem with a terminally ill patient recieving assisted suicide, it's their choice, not mine.

 

Who knows, maybe I'm just pro-death

 

I guess I'm something of a Deist in that I believe God gave us the ability to think and reason for ourselves and make the choices that we feel are best for ourselves, not neccesarily for others.

[ofiba]

I think a popular pro-choice argument is, "Exactly when does the fertilized egg become an unborn human?" 

 

I'm not a fan of abortion, but I feel it's not my place to impose my values on others regarding a choice that personal, so I guess that makes me pro-choice.

 

Similarly, I don't have a problem with a terminally ill patient recieving assisted suicide, it's their choice, not mine. 

 

Who knows, maybe I'm just pro-death

 

I guess I'm something of a Deist in that I believe God gave us the ability to think and reason for ourselves and make the choices that we feel are best for ourselves, not neccesarily for others.

105598[/snapback]

 

But if you do believe that an unborn child is still a living human being, which i do, what seperates abortion with killing your 2 month old son when you decide you just can't care for it?

[jjamie12]

But if you do believe that an unborn child is still a living human being, which i do, what seperates abortion with killing your 2 month old son when you decide you just can't care for it?

105616[/snapback]

 

 

For me, what separates it is pretty clear. Some people believe that a collection of cells implanted in a female womb is a child (I happen to agree). Other people believe that a collection of cells in a female womb is a collection of cells in a female womb. I completely disagree with that, but realize that there *might* be, just *maybe* two different ways of looking at this issue, and refuse to impose MY moral values on people who don't share them.

 

Reasonable people cannot (and do not) disagree that a 2 month old child isn't a human being. Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether a collection of cells (what I call life) inside a mother's womb is a child, or not.

 

I think people who have an abortion are going to have alot ot answer for when it comes time to 'meet the maker'. That doesn't mean that I think that there is no chance that I am wrong.

[ofiba]

For me, what separates it is pretty clear.  Some people believe that a collection of cells implanted in a female womb is a child (I happen to agree).  Other people believe that a collection of cells in a female womb is a collection of cells in a female womb.  I completely disagree with that, but realize that there *might* be, just *maybe* two different ways of looking at this issue, and refuse to impose MY moral values on people who don't share them.

 

Reasonable people cannot (and do not) disagree that a 2 month old child isn't a human being.  Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether a collection of cells (what I call life) inside a mother's womb is a child, or not.

 

I think people who have an abortion are going to have alot ot answer for when it comes time to 'meet the maker'.  That doesn't mean that I think that there is no chance that I am wrong.

105627[/snapback]

 

 

But I think the only reason there's a difference to people is because they can see a child at birth, but cannot necessarily look at a child when it is forming. From very early on, if you look at pictures, it is obvious that the unborn child is developing tiny hands and feet. If a child is born premature, does that mean it's ok to kill the child before 9 months are up just because it hasn't completely developed into a baby?

 

I agree that you shouldn't impose your morals on other people, but at some point, you have to draw the line. There could be people that think beating their children is a good way to repremand them. Now this decision isn't affecting you, but don't you agree we should do what we can to protect the innocent, defenseless child? Some people say it may be extreme to compare abortion to child abuse, but I don't think so. What is worse, beating a child, or killing a baby before it even gets a chance to get to childhood?

[todd]

Answers, both republican and democrat. Both are equally stupid:

 

Democrat Stupidity:

Easy. It's OK to kill a fetus, but it's not OK to kill a criminal.

 

Republican Stupidity:

Additionally, it's not OK to Kill a fetus, but it's OK to kill a human being if they are guilty of a crime.

[ofiba]

Answers, both republican and democrat. Both are equally stupid:

 

Democrat Stupidity:

Easy. It's OK to kill a fetus, but it's not OK to kill a criminal.

 

Republican Stupidity:

Additionally, it's not OK to Kill a fetus, but it's OK to kill a human being if they are guilty of a crime.

105644[/snapback]

 

 

There is quite a difference there Todd. One of those is innocent and cannot avoid being killed. The other one is guilty of a crime and knew very well the consequences of his/her actions. Comparing a convicted criminal to an unborn child is laughable.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

If you make abortion illegal, you are inviting all sorts of desperate measures from women who simply cannot afford to have a child, or cannot care for one because they are so young. To me, THAT is more suffering and deplorable conditions for a CHILD who is really born to one of those women, instead of a fetus which hasn't even been born yet! I cannot imagine a more horrible thing than FORCING a woman to give birth under such conditions.

 

I KNOW you will come back with 'Well, she shouldn't have been stupid and gotten pregnant in the first place' and 'The KzooMike shouldn't be protected from their poor choices', but the alternative is MUCH MORE horrible; a young mother who is caring for a child she obviosuly cannot care for, or a mother who is poor and either lets her child suffer, or the whole family lives in deplorable conditions. I myself could NEVER let anyone be forced into that, and that is my reasoning.

[jjamie12]

But I think the only reason there's ...

Exactly... YOU think. Other people think differently. You're entitled to your opinion, shouldn't others be entitled to theirs? After all there is only one true judge, rigth? And isn't His punishment going to be worse than anything you can come up with?

I agree that you shouldn't impose your morals on other people,

Good, then we agree.

but at some point, you have to draw the line.

You've come up with your own problem... What do you think about 'the pill'? From my understanding about how 'the pill' works, a woman can actually get pregnant (egg fertilized, implanted in the womb), but 'the pill' tricks the body (thru hormones) into menstrating; in effect, 'aborting' that child... Would you ban 'the pill'? If not, why is that collection of cells not life, but a one month old fetus is? Where to draw the line, indeed...

 

(Note: I may be wrong about what 'the pill' does, but this is my understanding of how it works... If I am wrong, anyone, please chime in and tell me)

There could be people that think beating their children is a good way to repremand them.

Reasonable people do NOT make this argument. There is no argument to be made for 'beating' children. None. A spanking? Sure. Some people think that's effective, others don't, and BOTH of those people are free to parent their children in their own way.

What is worse, beating a child, or killing a baby before it even gets a chance to get to childhood?

You keep calling it a baby. Other people don't call it that. Are you right? I'm sure that you believe that you are. I am equally sure, however, that 'other' people think that they are right as well.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

There is quite a difference there Todd. One of those is innocent and cannot avoid being killed. The other one is guilty of a crime and knew very well the consequences of his/her actions.  Comparing a convicted criminal to an unborn child is laughable.

105646[/snapback]

Why don't we require the government to counsel each individual prior to having sex...that may resolve some abortions. Show me proof that a 2 week old fetus can think, reason, feel pain......cells are alive in a plant, in my cat...we don't consider them human....but hell they are full of living cells....damn guess i cannot go shop down the old tree in my backyard. Please define for me the characteristics of a human being

[todd]

There is quite a difference there Todd. One of those is innocent and cannot avoid being killed. The other one is guilty of a crime and knew very well the consequences of his/her actions.  Comparing a convicted criminal to an unborn child is laughable.

105646[/snapback]

 

But all life is precious!

[Chilly]

Sure, I can explain.

 

Actually I was very surprised about Kerry when he talked about his abortion views in the debate. I believe they are similar to mine.

 

I think abortion is immoral. I feel that the only legitimate argument against abortion is that it is the same thing as murder. When someone is murdered, why is it immoral? Because you took that person's future experiences away - whether he was going to be killed in 1 second or 100 years from now its still immoral. You are doing the same thing to a fetus that you are doing when you murder someone - taking away someone's future experiences. (Gore Vidal wrote an essay with this theory in the 1970s I believe for the New York Times if anyone is interested)

 

However, while I believe this, there are some legitimate philosophical arguments that are for abortion. Its a long standing debate between contemporary moral philosophers during our time. I recognize that it is a very divided issue.

 

There is no clear right or wrong on this issue - just two conflicting schools of thought. As such, I don't think that we should have laws on this to decide for us what to do. Our country was founded on the idea of freedoms and liberties, and it should be each person's right to decide this moral issue for themselves, and I don't mean by voting - that is society's overall collective view. I think it should be each individual peson's morality choice and not a legal choice. There is a big difference.

 

I also am concerned about the emergence of underground, nonsafe abortion clinics with a ban on abortion, endangering many more mothers lives then necessary (if people feel like abortion is their only option, they are going to get an abortion no matter what the laws).

 

This is why I am pro-choice, but anti-abortion.

 

BTW, in response to anyone saying its the woman's choice to get pregnant so they should not be able to have an abortion: I know one thing that I've learned in my life time. People are going to have sex. To take a slogan from ten - Sex happens. Every human gets horny and quite often I must say, and humans have a natural (whether it be from mother nature or god) to have sex. Irresponsible people are going to ahve sex, and so are reponsible people with ineffective contraceptives. Its not just reality to think its not going to happen and expect everyone to choose to stay abstinent if they don't want a child.

[ofiba]

Why don't we require the government to counsel each individual prior to having sex...that may resolve some abortions.  Show me proof that a 2 week old fetus can think, reason, feel pain......cells are alive in a plant, in my cat...we don't consider them human....but hell they are full of living cells....damn guess i cannot go shop down the old tree in my backyard.  Please define for me the characteristics of a human being

105656[/snapback]

 

 

I'm sure they have limited thinking and feel some amount of pain, just not as much as us. Just like babies are less developed than humans.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

I'm sure they have limited thinking and feel some amount of pain, just not as much as us. Just like babies are less developed than humans.

106157[/snapback]

I disagree...a four week old fetus does not have same brain functions of a newborn...there is just not enough actual development of organs

[ofiba]

I disagree...a four week old fetus does not have same brain functions of a newborn...there is just not enough actual development of organs

106331[/snapback]

 

 

I didn't say that they have the same brain functions as a newborn. I said they have underdeveloped brain function. Just like babies have underdeveloped (although more than a fetus) brain function. Under your reasoning, it's better to kill a baby than an adult because babies don't have as complex brains.

[Alaska Darin]

But all life is precious!

105691[/snapback]

Tell that to the families of the victims.

[VabeachBledsoefan]

I didn't say that they have the same brain functions as a newborn. I said they have underdeveloped brain function. Just like babies have underdeveloped (although more than a fetus) brain function.  Under your reasoning, it's better to kill a baby than an adult because babies don't have as complex brains.

106482[/snapback]

Is the ability for a cell to divide by mitosis...the same as a thinking human being...life (as a living human being) starts at birth. sorry my opinion. I would never want to be part in an abortion....but i will not force my beliefs on others...they shall be able to choose

[Wham Rocks]

The only righteous thing to do is join the Army of God!

 

We must stop the baby killing abortionists before there are no children left!

[UConn James]

From the Courant's Sunday commentary page...

 

For years, Republicans have been appeasing an conservative base with legislation chipping away at Roe vs. Wade and women's health choices. Ironically, these measures have led to an increase in abortions, which neither conservatives nor social moderates want. The United States experienced a 17.4 percent decline in the abortion rate in the 1990s because of education and family planning. But after four years of Republican control, abortion rates increased in Kentuckey by 3.2 percent, in Michigan by 11.3 percent and in Colorado by an overwhelming 111 percent. There are common-sense measures that both sides can embrace to reverse this trend. But social conservatives prefer to mislead and battle for turf rather than accept solutions....

 

With 73 percent of Republicans and more than 80 percent of Democrats supporting a woman's right to choose (according to an American Viewpoint poll), the reversal of Roe will be the Dred Scott case of our time.

 

Staunchly adhere to all the principles you want, but they don't make the number of abortions go down.

 

I agree with the others who've said that while abortion isn't something I personally would endorse. I'm not going to tell other people what to do with their bodies. They must live with the decisions they make.

 

It's also questionable whether Roe would be overturned even if Bush gets an anti-choice judge on the high court. After being the law for 30+ years, it's a little late in the day to be saying Oh, now you can't do this. The Latin phrase translates to Let the law stand.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

For me, what separates it is pretty clear.  Some people believe that a collection of cells implanted in a female womb is a child (I happen to agree).  Other people believe that a collection of cells in a female womb is a collection of cells in a female womb.  I completely disagree with that, but realize that there *might* be, just *maybe* two different ways of looking at this issue, and refuse to impose MY moral values on people who don't share them.

 

Reasonable people cannot (and do not) disagree that a 2 month old child isn't a human being.  Reasonable people can (and do) disagree about whether a collection of cells (what I call life) inside a mother's womb is a child, or not.

 

I think people who have an abortion are going to have alot ot answer for when it comes time to 'meet the maker'.  That doesn't mean that I think that there is no chance that I am wrong.

105627[/snapback]

 

Read "The Pre-persons" by Philip K. Dick. It's an eloquent argument against abortion.

[jjamie12]

Read "The Pre-persons" by Philip K. Dick. It's an eloquent argument against abortion.

107291[/snapback]

 

I'll look into that. Thanks for the suggestion.

[KD in CA]

But all life is precious!

105691[/snapback]

 

No it's not.

 

The life of an innocent child is precious.

 

The life of a heatless, murdering scumbag is worth less than the dog stevestojan I stepped in yesterday and he should be treated accordingly.

[Paco]

If you make abortion illegal, you are inviting all sorts of desperate measures from women who simply cannot afford to have a child, or cannot care for one because they are so young. To me, THAT is more suffering and deplorable conditions for a CHILD who is really born to one of those women, instead of a fetus which hasn't even been born yet! I cannot imagine a more horrible thing than FORCING a woman to give birth under such conditions.

 

I KNOW you will come back with 'Well, she shouldn't have been stupid and gotten pregnant in the first place' and 'The KzooMike shouldn't be protected from their poor choices', but the alternative is MUCH MORE horrible; a young mother who is caring for a child she obviosuly cannot care for, or a mother who is poor and either lets her child suffer, or the whole family lives in deplorable conditions. I myself could NEVER let anyone be forced into that, and that is my reasoning.

105651[/snapback]

I would add to this, maybe a bit on the unpopular side, that in such situations the onus now falls on society to help and protect these children. A woman is not permitted to have an abortion, gives birth, and either raises the child in a squalor or dumps them on a doorstep or into a dumpster. It happens now, and in my mind it would only get worse if it were illegal.

 

At that point, people would be dusting off their Swift Proposals and coming up with other options.

[RuntheDamnBall]

No it's not.

 

The life of an innocent child is precious.

 

The life of a heatless, murdering scumbag is worth less than the dog stevestojan I stepped in yesterday and he should be treated accordingly.

107399[/snapback]

What about the life of someone who has wrongly been given the death penalty, and is later exonerated, or even worse, found to be innocent after execution?

 

For me it is too much to have that risk on my hands. There are too many problems with our legal system, namely that it can be had with the best lawyers money can buy while a person of lesser means gets the public defender who falls asleep during trials.

[blzrul]

Since it appears to be the general concensus that the lives of children are precious then I have to wonder why people scream about social programs that are intended to benefit children as being big giveaways for leeches.

 

Head Start, school lunches, CHIP, etc...all are for the benefit of those innocent children who didn't ask to be born. Yet those programs are being cut and I don't see too many people upset by it.

 

I'd like to see people worry more about the day-to-day suffering of children who are born into poverty. Somehow once they're born, the majority of American's don't give a rat's ass and the ones who do are labeled "tax and spend liberals".

 

Everyone's entitled to an opinion but it's the woman who has to make the choice and then live with it. Come the day when more men take responsibility for their half of creating an unwanted child, then perhaps abortions will decline even further (as they have over the past several years). I still remember the day they hauled in a local right-to-lifer in western NY for vandalizing a clinic and while they were at it arrested the bastard hypocrite for non-payment of back child support. Give me a break.

[UConn James]

What about the life of someone who has wrongly been given the death penalty, and is later exonerated, or even worse, found to be innocent after execution?

 

For me it is too much to have that risk on my hands.  There are too many problems with our legal system, namely that it can be had with the best lawyers money can buy while a person of lesser means gets the public defender who falls asleep during trials.

107477[/snapback]

 

Relatives in the CT Judicial Marshals, who are basically paid to sit there and watch trials, have said as much. The line is thin b/w being a trustworthy citizen and being demonized and thrown into prison for something you didn't do.

 

Granted, many of the people there are sneering scumbags and they pray for them to do something so "street justice" can be administered (they haven't). Especially for a rich kid who bilked a lot of people out of about half a mil, and got off w/ 1 year, out in 6 mos b/c daddy could afford slick lawyers. But all it takes for the rest of us is a bogus charge and not being wealthy enough to get a good defense, and the only thing you get is advice to cop a plea. Justice? Ha.

[UConn James]

Since it appears to be the general concensus that the lives of children are precious then I have to wonder why people scream about social programs that are intended to benefit children as being big giveaways for leeches.

 

Head Start, school lunches, CHIP, etc...all are for the benefit of those innocent children who didn't ask to be born.  Yet those programs are being cut and I don't see too many people upset by it.

 

I'd like to see people worry more about the day-to-day suffering of children who are born into poverty.  Somehow once they're born, the majority of American's don't give a rat's ass and the ones who do are labeled "tax and spend liberals".

 

Everyone's entitled to an opinion but it's the woman who has to make the choice and then live with it.  Come the day when more men take responsibility for their half of creating an unwanted child, then perhaps abortions will decline even further (as they have over the past several years).  I still remember the day they hauled in a local right-to-lifer in western NY for vandalizing a clinic and while they were at it arrested the bastard hypocrite for non-payment of back child support.  Give me a break.

107529[/snapback]

 

 

Just like every dollar spent on prenatal care saves six dollars of treatment after things go horribly wrong. I can barely contain myself when the so-called pro-life advocates apparently care so much about what happens nine months before the birth. But they can't be bothered with advocating BASIC prenatal check-ups. Then after the birth, it's every baby for itself.

 

Wait, wait, I know what's coming.... 'But the federal budget is $2.5 Trillion!!!!!' Why practice what you preach when doing so costs money?

 

And yeah, that guy was a real piece of work.

[Adam]

Could the people who are "pro-choice" please explain to me your reasons for wanting to keep abortions legal?  Please try to leave out cases of rape or saving the mother's life because I can understand the thinking behind that. I am trying to understand why people thing killing an unborn child is ok.  I'm not trying to attack you, I truly just want to see what your thoughts are on this issue and why you are "pro-choice".

 

I feel that the woman has the choice to choose not to get pregnant in the first place, and she should make that choice before it even gets to pregnancy.  After that, it is the woman's (and father's) responsibility to take care of the child they created.

 

By the way, "Jane Roe" from Roe vs. Wade later admitted that she was not actually raped and has since tried to pass laws to abolish on demand abortion.

105584[/snapback]

 

I see it as being like the Prohibition- its just too dangerous to attack the problem (and I do agree, it is a problem) that way. Illegal abortions would put many lives-the child's and the mother's in jeopardy. And to say that because it is illegal, that she deserves whatever happens is just wrong.

 

I think a better idea is to educate people- and start young. People are too squeemish about sex education at a young age- well, I hate to tell you this, but if they dont learn in school, they will learn from friends or from TV. Start at a young age, and teach about birth control, and that using abortion as birth control is bad.

 

Leave abortions legal, but teach people not to lean on it, and teach them while they are impressionable.

[Mickey]

Could the people who are "pro-choice" please explain to me your reasons for wanting to keep abortions legal?  Please try to leave out cases of rape or saving the mother's life because I can understand the thinking behind that. I am trying to understand why people thing killing an unborn child is ok.  I'm not trying to attack you, I truly just want to see what your thoughts are on this issue and why you are "pro-choice".

 

I feel that the woman has the choice to choose not to get pregnant in the first place, and she should make that choice before it even gets to pregnancy.  After that, it is the woman's (and father's) responsibility to take care of the child they created.

 

By the way, "Jane Roe" from Roe vs. Wade later admitted that she was not actually raped and has since tried to pass laws to abolish on demand abortion.

105584[/snapback]

The same arguments have been made over and over by both sides with each having pretty clearly set forth their positions more times than I can recall. This is probably the last place to come for enlightened discussion of this topic which is covered amply elsewhere. Maybe you are too young to have participated in the political and ethical debate on this issue which has been going on now since the late '50's. There are plenty of places to go for this information besides here.

 

Clearly, your position is that a full fledged life exists at the instant of conception, many disagree. Just as certain as you are that it does, others are just as certain that it doesn't. It is likely an "unknowable" and as such some believe that the government should not make that decision for us, that we should be able to decide it for ourselves. Others would take their personal decision on this issue and turn it into law to be enforced by the government on all of us. Though this is clearly a breach of what government in a democracy means, they believe so certainly that they are right that they are willing to give government that kind of power in this limited instance. Their righteousness becomes their justification for doing that which otherwise, even they would admit is a grievous governmental interference into the private lives of citizens.

 

You seem to be saying that the decision to engage in sex is tantamount to a decision to become pregnant. That is a sweeping conclusion deciding the details of thousands of millions of events occurring daily between people about which you have zero knowledge. I could envision many sexual encounters where the persons engaged had no intention at all that it result in a pregnancy and were conscientiously trying to be sure it didn't and yet it did. I could think of just as many where people were admittedly careless and irresponsible and yet certainly did not intend a pregnancy to result. The continuum you could draw and the circumstances that could come into play are infinite. What about a couple that is told they are not fertile and so forgo contraception? How many people have had too much to drink and had their drunkeness lead to a sexual encounter they had not intended and under circumstances, no contraception, they certainly did not intend? Is the decision to drink the equivalent of deciding to get pregnant?

 

If terminating a pregnancey is "killing an unborn child" as you believe, would a mother who neglects her prenatal care and has a miscarriage guilty of murder?

My wife was prone to miscarriages and miscarried our first child. Afterwards, we went to see a fertility specialist who helped us minimize the possibility of a miscarriage the next time around and thankfully, that specialist's skill and the knowledge accumulated by so many scientists unfettered in their research by the bounds of religious dogma, enabled us to get through the pregnancy all the way and now we have two beautiful girls. If we were more careful the first time and went to see that specialist, we would have three children, not just two. Are we responsible, complicit in killing our own child?

 

 

My stance on abortion does not prevent anyone from teaching their children and all who will listen to them that abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong. My position does not force anyone to be involved with an abortion against their will. My position simply leaves it to people to decide on their own the mystery of when a human life deserving of legal, ethical and moral protection even against the competing rights of another human being begins. I leave to them the difficult and terrible decision that must be faced when an unwanted child is conceived. Your position takes that decision away from individuals and gives it to the government.

 

If you absolutely believe that a fully formed human life, a life deserving of protection to the same extent as a person living and born begins at conception and your certainty and righteousness are without doubt, then I don't see why you make an exception in any case at all. If there is the slightest doubt that maybe you do not have all the answers that maybe your certainty is matched by the certainty of others that the opposite is true, then I don't see why you would be for the government robbing us of the right to solve this mystery ourselves in any but the most outrageous circumstances.

[OnTheRocks]

What about the life of someone who has wrongly been given the death penalty, and is later exonerated, or even worse, found to be innocent after execution?

107477[/snapback]

 

 

how's about you provide an example.

[Alaska Darin]

Since it appears to be the general concensus that the lives of children are precious then I have to wonder why people scream about social programs that are intended to benefit children as being big giveaways for leeches.

 

Head Start, school lunches, CHIP, etc...all are for the benefit of those innocent children who didn't ask to be born.  Yet those programs are being cut and I don't see too many people upset by it.

 

I'd like to see people worry more about the day-to-day suffering of children who are born into poverty.  Somehow once they're born, the majority of American's don't give a rat's ass and the ones who do are labeled "tax and spend liberals".

 

Everyone's entitled to an opinion but it's the woman who has to make the choice and then live with it.  Come the day when more men take responsibility for their half of creating an unwanted child, then perhaps abortions will decline even further (as they have over the past several years).  I still remember the day they hauled in a local right-to-lifer in western NY for vandalizing a clinic and while they were at it arrested the bastard hypocrite for non-payment of back child support.  Give me a break.

107529[/snapback]

On abortion: I find it an abhorrent practice and can't imagine EVER making the choice. However, there is no way in hell our society could bear the social or financial cost of the millions of unwanted children that are murdered annually in clinics. Education and better parenting are the answer, not the courts.

 

On social programs: I don't think too many people have a problem with helping their fellow man (hence the reason we give so much money to charity). We just understand that giving heinous amounts of money to a faceless bureaucratic organization to redistribute as THEY see fit, taking a cut for themselves at each level.

[ofiba]

The same arguments have been made over and over by both sides with each having pretty clearly set forth their positions more times than I can recall.  This is probably the last place to come for enlightened discussion of this topic which is covered amply elsewhere.  Maybe you are too young to have participated in the political and ethical debate on this issue which has been going on now since the late '50's.  There are plenty of places to go for this information besides here. 

 

Clearly, your position is that a full fledged life exists at the instant of conception, many disagree.  Just as certain as you are that it does, others are just as certain that it doesn't.  It is likely an "unknowable" and as such some believe that the government should not make that decision for us, that we should be able to decide it for ourselves.  Others would take their personal decision on this issue and turn it into law to be enforced by the government on all of us.  Though this is clearly a breach of what government in a democracy means, they believe so certainly that they are right that they are willing to give government that kind of power in this limited instance.  Their righteousness becomes their justification for doing that which otherwise, even they would admit is a grievous governmental interference into the private lives of citizens.

 

You seem to be saying that the decision to engage in sex is tantamount to a decision to become pregnant.  That is a sweeping conclusion deciding the details of thousands of millions of events occurring daily between people about which you have zero knowledge.  I could envision many sexual encounters where the persons engaged had no intention at all that it result in a pregnancy and were conscientiously trying to be sure it didn't and yet it did.  I could think of just as many where people were admittedly careless and irresponsible and yet certainly did not intend a pregnancy to result.  The continuum you could draw and the circumstances that could come into play are infinite.  What about a couple that is told they are not fertile and so forgo contraception?  How many people have had too much to drink and had their drunkeness lead to a sexual encounter they had not intended and under circumstances, no contraception, they certainly did not intend?  Is the decision to drink the equivalent of deciding to get pregnant?

 

If terminating a pregnancey is "killing an unborn child" as you believe, would a mother who neglects her prenatal care and has a miscarriage guilty of murder?

My wife was prone to miscarriages and miscarried our first child.  Afterwards, we went to see a fertility specialist who helped us minimize the possibility of a miscarriage the next time around and thankfully, that specialist's skill and the knowledge accumulated by so many scientists unfettered in their research by the bounds of religious dogma, enabled us to get through the pregnancy all the way and now we have two beautiful girls.  If we were more careful the first time and went to see that specialist, we would have three children, not just two.  Are we responsible, complicit in killing our own child? 

My stance on abortion does not prevent anyone from teaching their children and all who will listen to them that abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong.  My position does not force anyone to be involved with an abortion against their will.  My position simply leaves it to people to decide on their own the mystery of when a human life deserving of legal, ethical and moral protection even against the competing rights of another human being begins.  I leave to them the difficult and terrible decision that must be faced when an unwanted child is conceived.  Your position takes that decision away from individuals and gives it to the government. 

 

If you absolutely believe that a fully formed human life, a life deserving of protection to the same extent as a person living and born begins at conception and your certainty and righteousness are without doubt, then I don't see why you make an exception in any case at all.  If there is the slightest doubt that maybe you do not have all the answers that maybe your certainty is matched by the certainty of others that the opposite is true, then I don't see why you would be for the government robbing us of the right to solve this mystery ourselves in any but the most outrageous circumstances.

107684[/snapback]

 

 

Thanks for the well thought out answer. I understand the majority of your points except for the one about accidental births. People need to understand that there is always going to be a chance to get pregnant when they have sex. If they absolutely do not want to have a child, they should not be having sex. Period. Also, blaiming getting pregnant on being drunk is amazingly irresponsible. I have no sympathy for people who are just careless. I hope you were simply giving examples of how some people get pregnant and not justifying their pregnancies.

[Alaska Darin]

Thanks for the well thought out answer.  I understand the majority of your points except for the one about accidental births.  People need to understand that there is always going to be a chance to get pregnant when they have sex.  If they absolutely do not want to have a child, they should not be having sex. Period.  Also, blaiming getting pregnant on being drunk is amazingly irresponsible.  I have no sympathy for people who are just careless.  I hope you were simply giving examples of how some people get pregnant and not justifying their pregnancies.

107817[/snapback]

There's a post based in reality.

[TracyLee]

People need to understand that there is always going to be a chance to get pregnant when they have sex.  If they absolutely do not want to have a child, they should not be having sex. Period.  I have no sympathy for people who are just careless.  I hope you were simply giving examples of how some people get pregnant and not justifying their pregnancies.

107817[/snapback]

 

stevestojan happens pal. People can take every precaution and still get pregnant. I have a friend who is married with three kids. After the third one she got a tubal ligation. Guess who's pregnant? Oh, yeah, she's happily keeping the baby. But, what if they couldn't afford another baby or there were some other extenuating circumstances, like an imminent divorce or a catastrophic illness? But it's her own fault for having sex with her husband, right? I guess she shouldn't have been so carelessly having sex if she didn't want any more kids right? Riiiiiight. No birth control is foolproof, not even tubal ligations obviously. People don't just have sex to have babies in case you didn't know. Abstinence? Keep dreaming. I do not know one single person in my lifetime that saved themselves for marriage. I don't recommend it either. Better to know if you're compatible before joining in eternal matrimony eh?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

stevestojan happens pal.  People can take every precaution and still get pregnant.  I have a friend who is married with three kids.  After the third one she got a tubal ligation.  Guess who's pregnant?  Oh, yeah, she's happily keeping the baby.  But, what if they couldn't afford another baby or there were some other extenuating circumstances, like an imminent divorce or a catastrophic illness?  But it's her own fault for having sex with her husband, right?  I guess she shouldn't have been so carelessly having sex if she didn't want any more kids right?  Riiiiiight.  No birth control is foolproof, not even tubal ligations obviously.  People don't just have sex to have babies in case you didn't know.   Abstinence?  Keep dreaming. I do not know one single person in my lifetime that saved themselves for marriage.  I don't recommend it either.  Better to know if you're compatible before joining in eternal matrimony eh?

107901[/snapback]

 

Male sterilization is 100% effective. If the swimmers can't get there, it ain't happening.

 

Oh, and BTW, IMO if we're gonna allow government-supported (read: taxpayer supported) abortion, then I damn well want to see everyone who takes advantage of a government supported abortion at the same time be sterilized. (That would include the conceiver as well as the conceivee, just to be fair).

 

That's a sure way to ensure that the abortion issue goes away.

 

Then they can "choose" what to do with their bodies all they want without the inconvenience of creating a life.

[Alaska Darin]

Male sterilization is 100% effective. If the swimmers can't get there, it ain't happening.

 

Oh, and BTW, IMO if we're gonna allow government-supported (read: taxpayer supported) abortion, then I damn well want to see everyone who takes advantage of a government supported abortion at the same time be sterilized. (That would include the conceiver as well as the conceivee, just to be fair).

 

That's a sure way to ensure that the abortion issue goes away.

 

Then they can "choose" what to do with their bodies all they want without the inconvenience of creating a life.

107943[/snapback]

Just another thing taxpayer money shouldn't be funding, though I'd consider funding sterilization of a significant portion of the population.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just another thing taxpayer money shouldn't be funding, though I'd consider funding sterilization of a significant portion of the population. 

107956[/snapback]

 

 

Seriously, would it be such a bad thing to not allow idiots to reproduce?

 

As much as I'm interested in freedom, this particularly tyrannical practice has its appeal to me.

 

The other thing is, I'd be willing to wager any amount that those who've had an abortion once are more than likely to do it again, so why not? Why not tie em up and let em hump like rabbits? That way, everybody's happy and we, the responsible adult working population are off the hook of supporting their ridiculous promiscuous behavior.

 

You should walk around Allentown some time. See how many 14-16 YO girls are pushing their babies. Note, I said BABIES. It DISGUSTS me. They should have been tied after the first. Those are children that have no hope to be anything other than leeches on the teet of the state.

[Mickey]

Seriously, would it be such a bad thing to not allow idiots to reproduce?

 

As much as I'm interested in freedom, this particularly tyrannical practice has its appeal to me.

 

The other thing is, I'd be willing to wager any amount that those who've had an abortion once are more than likely to do it again, so why not? Why not tie em up and let em hump like rabbits? That way, everybody's happy and we, the responsible adult working population are off the hook of supporting their ridiculous promiscuous behavior.

 

You should walk around Allentown some time. See how many 14-16 YO girls are pushing their babies. Note, I said BABIES. It DISGUSTS me. They should have been tied after the first. Those are children that have no hope to be anything other than leeches on the teet of the state.

107975[/snapback]

There are a lot less deserving "leeches on the teet of the state" than children who didn't ask to be brought in to the world as the offspring of other children. When those leeches are weaned first, then I'll worry that my tax dollars are being "wasted" feeding a child that would otherwise not be fed.

 

Children being born to people who are not able to provide for them is not exactly a new phenomena. It has always been thus. Nothing changes but the numbers. The basic choices are to 1) let them fend entirely for themselves and make do on what charities they can find 2) have the government take over entirely by having them raised by the state in institutions, orphanages and the like 3) provide government assisstance to the mother to help her raise them tied to numerous incentives and disincentives encouraging responsibility and work and discouraging sloth and irresponsibility. Not one of those choices is a perfect solution and will end for all time the problem of people having children they are unable to care for. Pointing out the shortcomings of each accomplishes nothing but pointing out the obvious. Neither abstinence, easily available contraception, forced sterilization nor "faith based" charities are a magic wand that can be waived to save us from this reality. I don't like the first choice at all, the second choice is even worse thus by default, I think we just need to do the best we can with the third option and that is basically what most states are trying to do.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

There are a lot less deserving "leeches on the teet of the state" than children who didn't ask to be brought in to the world as the offspring of other children.  When those leeches are weaned first, then I'll worry that my tax dollars are being "wasted" feeding a child that would otherwise not be fed. 

 

Children being born to people who are not able to provide for them is not exactly a new phenomena.  It has always been thus.  Nothing changes but the numbers.  The basic choices are to 1) let them fend entirely for themselves and make do on what charities they can find 2) have the government take over entirely by having them raised by the state in institutions, orphanages and the like 3) provide government assisstance to the mother to help her raise them tied to numerous incentives and disincentives encouraging responsibility and work and discouraging sloth and irresponsibility.  Not one of those choices is a perfect solution and will end for all time the problem of people having children they are unable to care for.  Pointing out the shortcomings of each accomplishes nothing but pointing out the obvious.  Neither abstinence, easily available contraception, forced sterilization nor "faith based" charities are a magic wand that can be waived to save us from this reality.  I don't like the first choice at all, the second choice is even worse thus by default, I think we just need to do the best we can with the third option and that is basically what most states are trying to do.

108089[/snapback]

 

 

Draconian measures are necessary in this case, IMO.

 

Here's the problem, it's of the chicken and egg variety:

 

1) Most children sired by teenagers happen to be born to parents who themselves come from broken homes, and most likely poor households.

 

2) These children of children are themselves going to grow up in a fractured home, and one that is likely impoverished to boot.

 

3) Since the children who are born to these teenage mothers are more likely to grow up poor themselves, they are far more likely to grow up under-educated and therefore are much more likely to spawn children of their own before their 18th birthday.

 

So, at some point the cycle has to be broken and the more I think about it....

 

If the "logic" of abortion is that it's OK to kill unborn children for whatever reason, then shouldn't the government, in all its wisdom, put an end to the cycle of abortioneering by breaking the poverty/youth pregnancy cycle through mandatory sterilization of anyone who fathers or mothers a child under the age of 18?

 

I mean, if we're talking about the good of the country here, I think it'd be far more humane and effective to cut off the baby-making machine at the source, not the end product.

 

So my solution is this...allow these kids to have their one child. Then snippity-snip and the problem goes away. Same for anyone who receives an abortion at a taxpayer-funded clinic for reasons other than the health of the mother.

 

Snip-snip, we suddenlyhave population growth control AND a reduction in poverty! Brilliant!