For the "pro-choice" people...

[Mickey]

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 is also a chance when you drive a car that you will get in an accident, can you infer consent to be in an automobile to be consent to be in an accident? Is the failure to wear a seat belt tantamount to given consent to die in an accident?

 

What you are talking about as consent is really a concept well known in the law as "assumption of the risk". I don't imagine anyone keeps stats on this but if every women who ever got drunk then got pregnant or even a majority, there would be a lot more unwanted pregnancies than there are and our population would have "exploaded" beyond our resources long ago! Women only ovulate and are capable of conceiving for a short time each month. Even then, not every act of copulation results in a pregnancy. In fact, the odds are pretty strong that a random sexual encounter will not end in pregnancy. Is there a chance? Well of course there is always a chance but that isn't the question.

 

When do the odds become so great that a given behaviour will lead to a particular result that we will infer intent/consent to the result by virtue of the intent/consent to the behaviour? It is like a drunk driver. Drunk drivers do not intend to kill anyone. "I thought I was okay to drive" they always say. Now if the person had two beers, you might say that he didn't assume the risk of driving drunk because the likelihood that his ability to drive was all that impaired or that he knew it was from two lousy beers is too small. If he had 15 beers and then drove, it is easier to infer that he assumed the risk of killing someone, knew it was a risk and went ahead and drove anyway.

 

The inquiry depends on circumstances. Sexual encounters occur with an infinite number of variables. You can certainly take issue with the examples I gave but that misses the point. You can't make a one size fits all rule that all pregnancies except ones resulting from rape and incest are the result of irresponsible behaviour. Circumstances matter. That is what incest and rape are, they are simply "circumstances" under which there is some agreement, not necessarily complete, that the pregnancy is not the result of irresponsibility and is therfore ethically eligible to be terminated. Your position already acknowledges that circumstances matter, I am just trying to show that given the variety of human encounters and behaviour, you can't just make a universal judgment that all such pregnancies are the result of irresponsibility and therefore are not eligible for termination.

 

Ultimately the argument turns on the question of who will be given the power to make this decision. I think individuals should and not the government.

[Berg]

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]

 

Simple. This is not something the Federal Government should be involved in.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Simple.  This is not something the Federal Government should be involved in.

108187[/snapback]

 

 

Exactly. So NO abortion clinic should get federal or state monies.

[Mickey]

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!

108126[/snapback]

Gee, whenever I suggest that the pro-life position is really just a subtext for a government seizure the womb, I am told I am over reacting. Here it is, clear as an unmuddied lake. Forced sterilization. O brave new world.

 

You seem to assume that pregnant teenagers are the only ones having abortions. That is certainly not the case. You also assume that all pregnant teenagers are from broken homes which is also certainly not the case. You also assume that all pregnant teenagers are unable to care for themselves or their children which, unless being wealthy is a perfect form of birth control, is also certainly not the case.

 

Would pregnant teenagers from wealthy backgrounds who can care for themselves without help from the government be excluded from your program of forced sterilization? Would a mother who is pregnant in her thirties with a child she can ill afford to raise be eligible for forced sterilization as well? How do you determine when it is that a mother "can't afford" a child? What is the income level that would spare her entry into the forced sterilization program? What if a mother gets laid off from her job during her pregnancy, would she then be sent for a, how did you so gently put it, "snip-snip"? If a woman sentenced to forced sterilization refuses, can we jail her? Physically force her in to the stirrups? If someone helps her avoid arrest, can we arrest them for aiding and abetting a fugitive? If a doctor refuses to do the state's bidding, will he lose his license to practice medicine?

 

Since it really is money that you are focusing on, why not just automatically sterilize anyone making less than "X" amount of money? Even better, just sterilize everyone with a reversible procedure. Have them apply to the state when they reach a certain age and can afford the license, the price for which could be set so that only those who really can "afford" a child would be able to buy the license. We could check to make sure that the home is not a "broken" one and that the parenst are not likely to get divorced anytime soon. We could make whatever other rules seem like a good idea and save even more tax dollars. Then we would just reverse the sterilization procedure and off they go.

 

To the far left is socialism and to the right of that, liberals and to the right of them, conservatives and to the right of them, fascists. Since you are not a socialist or liberal, the line you have crossed is the last one, from conservative to fascist.

[Berg]

Exactly. So NO abortion clinic should get federal or state monies.

108243[/snapback]

 

No Federal involvement PERIOD. States, well, that's a more complex question. My druthers would be they stay out too.

[TracyLee]

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.

 

 

What if she was raped?

 

What if a thirteen year old girl gets pregnant and her parents force her to have an abortion? She should be fixed so she can't have kids in the future?

 

Where are the irresponsible fathers in all of this? Not their body, not their problem? What if he says its not his kid at the time of the abortion to avoid the "snippity-snip"? Who pays for DNA extraction to prove he is or isn't? What if the mother won't say who is the father?

 

You cannot sterilize children under the age of 18. Kids make mistakes, that's why they're kids. That's why they need direction and guidance from their parents, even well past the age of 18. Even then, there are no guarantees that our kids will not make major mistakes somewhere along the way. They'll probably make bigger mistakes as adults then they would as kids. Like get divorced, be sued, get arrested, go to jail. Have five kids with five different people. Stuff like that.

 

Everybody makes mistakes. Abortion is not a cut and dried issue. No one really knows exactly when life begins.

[Mickey]

Exactly. So NO abortion clinic should get federal or state monies.

108243[/snapback]

Please show me what "abortion clinic" receives federal $? Provide link.

 

My understanding is that the Hyde Amendment, passed by congress in 1976, prohibited federal funding of abortion in that it is not covered by medicaid with the only exceptions being when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers the mother's life due to injury, illness or other physical disorder.

 

Four states provide funding for low income women as they would for any other procedure (HI, MD, NY and WA). Thirteen others do but only because their state courts determined that such funding was mandated by their state constitutions (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV). The remaining 32 states only provide funding in line with the sharp prohibitions of the Hyde Amendment.

 

Additional restrictions on such funding beyond those of the Hyde Amendment are also in place. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 allows HMO's serving medicaid recipients to refuse, on moral grounds (there's a hoot, HMO's as arbiters of morality), to provide counsleing or refferals for reproductive services including abortion.

 

The Hyde prohibitions do not apply just to medicaid recipients. Similar prohibitions apply to military personnel and their dependents, federal employess and their dependents, many Native Americans, Peace Corps volunteers, low income residents of DC and disabled women who are on medicare.

 

Unless you live in those few states, there is no tax money going to abortion. As for federal cash, they don't pay for abortion except in those limited circumstances. If your argument is that a woman who is too poor to pay for the procedure who is raped and impregnated as a result should be forced to carry the child to term simply because she is poor, you need to make that clear because that is when "federal funding" for abortion comes in.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

To the far left is socialism and to the right of that, liberals and to the right of them, conservatives and to the right of them, fascists.  Since you are not a socialist or liberal, the line you have crossed is the last one, from conservative to fascist.

108247[/snapback]

 

AHA.

 

Well if you REALLY think I believe that, then you haven't read a single thing I've posted. I am ANTI-ABORTION.

 

Therefore, I believe the sanctity of life is such that you don't mess with the womb. Period. So then, forced sterilization wouldn't be much of an option in my book, would it?

 

Ever heard of hyperbole? I was making a point that when you allow the state to futz with issues of "choice", you open the door to China-like interference. The point is here, Mick, that there is NO WAY federal or state tax monies should go to support abortion, even IF it's legal (which it shouldn't be).

 

It does, however, and that sets a dangerous precedent. The day will come in this country when social engineering such as this takes place...in the name of stem cells, research, "science" and environmental concerns. And easy access to abortion is the first step. It delegitimizes the BABY in the womb to the point where it's OK to do science fair experiments on it.

 

A fascist indeed....really Mick. Now who's exaggerating?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What if she was raped? 

 

What if a thirteen year old girl gets pregnant and her parents force her to have an abortion?  She should be fixed so she can't have kids in the future?

 

Where are the irresponsible fathers in all of this?  Not their body, not their problem?  What if he says its not his kid at the time of the abortion to avoid the "snippity-snip"?  Who pays for DNA extraction to prove he is or isn't?  What if the mother won't say who is the father?

 

You cannot sterilize children under the age of 18.  Kids make mistakes, that's why they're kids.  That's why they need direction and guidance from their parents, even well past the age of 18.  Even then, there are no guarantees that our kids  will not make major mistakes somewhere along the way.  They'll probably make bigger mistakes as adults then they would as kids.  Like get divorced, be sued, get arrested, go to jail.  Have five kids with five different people.  Stuff like that. 

 

Everybody makes mistakes.  Abortion is not a cut and dried issue.  No one really knows exactly when life begins.

108270[/snapback]

 

See my response to Mickey. My argument "for" sterilization was really one "against" abortion. No sane human being wwould advocate such barbarism.

 

Just making a point about "choice" in the face of the sanctity of life.

[Mickey]

What if she was raped? 

 

What if a thirteen year old girl gets pregnant and her parents force her to have an abortion?  She should be fixed so she can't have kids in the future?

 

Where are the irresponsible fathers in all of this?  Not their body, not their problem?  What if he says its not his kid at the time of the abortion to avoid the "snippity-snip"?  Who pays for DNA extraction to prove he is or isn't?  What if the mother won't say who is the father?

 

You cannot sterilize children under the age of 18.  Kids make mistakes, that's why they're kids.  That's why they need direction and guidance from their parents, even well past the age of 18.  Even then, there are no guarantees that our kids  will not make major mistakes somewhere along the way.  They'll probably make bigger mistakes as adults then they would as kids.  Like get divorced, be sued, get arrested, go to jail.  Have five kids with five different people.  Stuff like that. 

 

Everybody makes mistakes.  Abortion is not a cut and dried issue.  No one really knows exactly when life begins.

 

Legally, child who had not attained the age of majority, 18 in most states, is not capable of giving consent to any thing.  Therefore, they can't be held to the terms of a contract.  Any consent they give to a sexual encounter is disregarded and the other participant is guilty of statutory rape.  On the one hand, when it suits us, we take the position that a child is not mature enough to be able to appreciate the risks of an act so as to give meaningful consent.  At the same time, we want to impose adult responsibility on them when it suits us.

 

And the right accuses us of situational ethics.

108270[/snapback]

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Please show me what "abortion clinic" receives federal $?  Provide link.

108318[/snapback]

 

 

If your boy John Kerry had been elected, they would have. He REPEATEDLY stated his intent to make sure abortion was available in EVERY doctor's office in the nation.

 

Lovely. Think of all the bags of mangled baby parts and blood that would have produced. When introduced in conjunction with socialized medicine, well...there you have it. All of the sudden the federal government would have been sponsoring mass abortioneering.

[Mickey]

AHA.

 

Well if you REALLY think I believe that, then you haven't read a single thing I've posted. I am ANTI-ABORTION.

 

Therefore, I believe the sanctity of life is such that you don't mess with the womb. Period. So then, forced sterilization wouldn't be much of an option in my book, would it?

 

Ever heard of hyperbole? I was making a point that when you allow the state to futz with issues of "choice", you open the door to China-like interference. The point is here, Mick, that there is NO WAY federal or state tax monies should go to support abortion, even IF it's legal (which it shouldn't be).

 

It does, however, and that sets a dangerous precedent. The day will come in this country when social engineering such as this takes place...in the name of stem cells, research, "science" and environmental concerns. And easy access to abortion is the first step. It delegitimizes the BABY in the womb to the point where it's OK to do science fair experiments on it.

 

A fascist indeed....really Mick. Now who's exaggerating?

108331[/snapback]

 

Read my other post on funding, the idea that the government plays a major role in paying for abortions is overblown.

 

Giving the state control over the womb by giving it the power to forbid terminating a pregnancy is a step towards, not away from, the very "engineering" by the state you decry. It gives the government the right to interefere with reproductive choice. Roe keeps them out of the womb. The government has no right nor even an enhanced potential to have such a right to force an abortion. If you give it the power to force a birth, you give it the power to force an abortion. A point Justice O'Connor has made in abortion cases. Roe would prevent the state from forcing a woman who wants to take her child to term to have an abortion just as it prevents the state from stopping her from making that choice on her own.

 

If you don't want the state to "futz" with issues of choice, then why are you in favor of them not only "futzing" with choice but with making it illegal to make a

"choice" to terminate a pregnancy? If you are willing to give them that power, you are closer to giving them the power to force sterilization. You may have meant it as hyperbole but being in favor of forced sterilization and in favor of forcing a woman to carry a child to term are pretty consistent.

[Mickey]

If your boy John Kerry had been elected, they would have. He REPEATEDLY stated his intent to make sure abortion was available in EVERY doctor's office in the nation.

 

Lovely. Think of all the bags of mangled baby parts and blood that would have produced. When introduced in conjunction with socialized medicine, well...there you have it. All of the sudden the federal government would have been sponsoring mass abortioneering.

108345[/snapback]

Yes, and all we would have had to do was repeal the Hyde Amendment by getting a republican controlled congress and senate to agree. Yeah.

 

Is that what all those posts were about? Staking out your opposition to that which is not occurring and hasn't been since 1976 and is unlikely to ever occur unless there is a dramatic shift in the political makeup of both houses of Congress? Glad we got that straight. Now maybe you can tell us where you stand on flying cars, anti-gravity boots and warp drive?

[OnTheRocks]

Exactly. So NO abortion clinic should get federal or state monies.

108243[/snapback]

 

 

something that makes me madder than a wet hen.

[OnTheRocks]

What if she was raped? 

108270[/snapback]

 

 

i don't want to get pulled too deeply into this thread because...well....just because and let me leave it that....but

 

does anyone know what percentage of women who are raped....get pregnant?

i am not looking to play devil's advocate...i am just curious.

[Mickey]

something that makes me madder than a wet hen. 

108380[/snapback]

They don't get any federal cash. Only 17 get state money and that is because in 4 of them, the legislatures, ie "the people" decided that they wanted too.

[Arondale]

Just a couple of comments.

 

I am pro-life and I do not believe abortion is right in any circumstance, so that is where I am coming from.

 

One of the arguments that has come up several times is the fear of future consequences if abortion is made legal. In other words, what impact will the 1 million plus aborted babies have on the nation if they are all allowed to live. Someone said it would be worse to allow a child to be born into poverty and to parents that did not want her than to be killed in the womb. Someone else said once abortion is legal it will make it more dangerous for women since they will have to risk getting an "underground" abortion. Another said the problem of poor, single mothers would only get worse.

 

The issue with all of these arguments is taking one life over another. I believe most of those that posted along these lines said they were personally against abortion, but still pro-choice. Using these arguments basically is dangerous for several reasons. First, by doing so you are valuing one life more so than another based on their impact to society. In other words, an unwanted child's life is of no value. A woman's life is of more value than the baby she carries. A baby born into poverty is of no value and erodes the value of the mother. Who are we to determine which life is more valuable? What do we use to make that determination? Is value determined by potential, economic factors, age, sex, etc? If we start putting a value to each person's life, then we are in trouble. It won't be long before the elderly that are stuck in nursing homes are viewed as expendable. After that, kids with disabilities and down syndrome will be killed at birth.

 

I fully realize there are issues to deal with if abortion is to be made illegal. I don't believe, as someone mentioned, that pro-life advocates only care about the nine month period during a pregnancy and don't pay attention to pre-natal care and after birth care. You can have your opinion, but that is certainly not the case with the people and organizations I am familiar with. The reality is that things would have to be improved, but just because current social programs may not be ready, does not mean we should continue to allow abortion.

 

To the woman who said she did not know anyone who waited until marriage - now you do, and I could get you in touch with hundreds of others. Abstinence is a valid solution, just as it is a valid solution in the fight against AIDS. Your solution of having sex to test out a potential spouse is part of the problem that started abortion. I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but history supports the fact that sex was intended to be part of marriage only. If you don't think so, then look at reality. Think about this, if an entire generation practiced abstinence and sex within marriage what would happen - AIDS would be virtually eliminated and abortions would be greatly diminished. A worldview that supports sexual promiscuity is a worldview that accepts the consequences of STD's and huge abortion numbers.

[OnTheRocks]

They don't get any federal cash.  Only 17 get state money and that is because in 4 of them, the legislatures, ie "the people" decided that they wanted too.

108388[/snapback]

 

 

and who decided for the other 9 states?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If you give it the power to force a birth, you give it the power to force an abortion.  A point Justice O'Connor has made in abortion cases.  Roe would prevent the state from forcing a woman who wants to take her child to term to have an abortion just as it prevents the state from stopping her from making that choice on her own.

108376[/snapback]

 

Roe, AFAIK has NO PROVISION explicitly stating that the government cannot force an abortion, even as it does have one that prevents the state from making such an abortion illegal.

 

Do you have a link that shows where such a provision exists?

 

And, in the future, what would stop the courts from broadening Roe's domain?

 

Once you open a legal door, it's kind of hard to close it again.

[Berg]

and who decided for the other 9 states?

108412[/snapback]

 

Is this a trick question or "fuzzy math"?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The issue with all of these arguments is taking one life over another.  I believe most of those that posted along these lines said they were personally against abortion, but still pro-choice.  Using these arguments basically is dangerous for several reasons.  First, by doing so you are valuing one life more so than another based on their impact to society.  In other words, an unwanted child's life is of no value.  A woman's life is of more value than the baby she carries.  A baby born into poverty is of no value and erodes the value of the mother.  Who are we to determine which life is more valuable?  What do we use to make that determination?  Is value determined by potential, economic factors, age, sex, etc?  If we start putting a value to each person's life, then we are in trouble.  It won't be long before the elderly that are stuck in nursing homes are viewed as expendable.  After that, kids with disabilities and down syndrome will be killed at birth.

108389[/snapback]

 

Exactly. And I think another compelling argument is that the Nazis and oviet Communists used abortion for eugenic purposes. The potential for social engineering is far too great to allow such a barbaric thing to continue.

[KD in CA]

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]

 

Our system of appeals is designed to prevent that from happening. To my knowledge, no one has been executed in this country since the DP was reinstated that was later proven to be innocent. If I'm wrong on that, I'd like to see the case.

 

Also, the fact that an OJ can get away with it is not a sufficent reason to scrap the whole DP system. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It doesn't make Ted Bundy or Tim McVeigh any less guilty.

[KD in CA]

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.

107785[/snapback]

 

 

Bingo. I am anxiously awaiting Debbie's rebuttal.

[ofiba]

Just a couple of comments.

 

I am pro-life and I do not believe abortion is right in any circumstance, so that is where I am coming from.

 

One of the arguments that has come up several times is the fear of future consequences if abortion is made legal.  In other words, what impact will the 1 million plus aborted babies have on the nation if they are all allowed to live.  Someone said it would be worse to allow a child to be born into poverty and to parents that did not want her than to be killed in the womb.  Someone else said once abortion is legal it will make it more dangerous for women since they will have to risk getting an "underground" abortion.  Another said the problem of poor, single mothers would only get worse.

 

The issue with all of these arguments is taking one life over another.  I believe most of those that posted along these lines said they were personally against abortion, but still pro-choice.  Using these arguments basically is dangerous for several reasons.  First, by doing so you are valuing one life more so than another based on their impact to society.  In other words, an unwanted child's life is of no value.  A woman's life is of more value than the baby she carries.  A baby born into poverty is of no value and erodes the value of the mother.  Who are we to determine which life is more valuable?  What do we use to make that determination?  Is value determined by potential, economic factors, age, sex, etc?  If we start putting a value to each person's life, then we are in trouble.  It won't be long before the elderly that are stuck in nursing homes are viewed as expendable.  After that, kids with disabilities and down syndrome will be killed at birth.

 

I fully realize there are issues to deal with if abortion is to be made illegal.  I don't believe, as someone mentioned, that pro-life advocates only care about the nine month period during a pregnancy and don't pay attention to pre-natal care and after birth care.  You can have your opinion, but that is certainly not the case with the people and organizations I am familiar with.  The reality is that things would have to be improved, but just because current social programs may not be ready, does not mean we should continue to allow abortion.

 

To the woman who said she did not know anyone who waited until marriage - now you do, and I could get you in touch with hundreds of others.  Abstinence is a valid solution, just as it is a valid solution in the fight against AIDS.  Your solution of having sex to test out a potential spouse is part of the problem that started abortion.  I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but history supports the fact that sex was intended to be part of marriage only.  If you don't think so, then look at reality.  Think about this, if an entire generation practiced abstinence and sex within marriage what would happen - AIDS would be virtually eliminated and abortions would be greatly diminished.  A worldview that supports sexual promiscuity is a worldview that accepts the consequences of STD's and huge abortion numbers.

108389[/snapback]

 

Good post.

Just because a lot of people have sex before marriage doesn't make it right. Should we give up on punishing killers because no matter what some people are going to become murderers? The worst argument in the world is "Come on, everyone has sex before marriage so we can't prevent unwanted pregnancies." because not everyone has sex before marriage.

[jjamie12]

Exactly. And I think another compelling argument is that the Nazis and oviet Communists used abortion for eugenic purposes. The potential for social engineering is far too great to allow such a barbaric thing to continue.

108428[/snapback]

 

So then, it's safe to assume that, if you were able to, you would ban all abortions, regardless of circumstance?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

So then, it's safe to assume that, if you were able to, you would ban all abortions, regardless of circumstance?

108493[/snapback]

 

Not at all. In cases of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother, abortion is not wrong.

 

WILLFUL abortion is where I have a problem. People who determine a baby just won't be convenient, or they can't afford it, or they just don't WANT it.

 

That's wrong, murderously wrong.

[UConn James]

Our system of appeals is designed to prevent that from happening.  To my knowledge, no one has been executed in this country since the DP was reinstated that was later proven to be innocent.  If I'm wrong on that, I'd like to see the case.

 

Also, the fact that an OJ can get away with it is not a sufficent reason to scrap the whole DP system.  That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  It doesn't make Ted Bundy or Tim McVeigh any less guilty.

108451[/snapback]

 

There have been cases. The gov of Illinois (and IIRC he was, and still is, a pro-death-penalty Republican) stayed all executions pending review b/c of this.

 

Link

"How do you prevent another Anthony Porter -- another innocent man or woman from paying the ultimate penalty for a crime he or she did not commit?" Governor Ryan said referring to the former inmate whose execution was stayed by the Illinois Supreme Court after new evidence emerged clearing him of the capital offense. "Today, I cannot answer that question."

 

And if you think that these are the only ones, maybe you just don't want to accept what has been done in the name of "the people." The quasi-judicial hangings from the magnolia trees of the South weren't all that long ago, relatively. If you think the justice system is fine and dandy, just hope that you never get railroaded. It does happen, even now.

[TracyLee]

Just a couple of comments.

 

 

To the woman who said she did not know anyone who waited until marriage - now you do, and I could get you in touch with hundreds of others.  Abstinence is a valid solution, just as it is a valid solution in the fight against AIDS.  Your solution of having sex to test out a potential spouse is part of the problem that started abortion.  I'm sure I'll get hammered for this, but history supports the fact that sex was intended to be part of marriage only.  If you don't think so, then look at reality.  Think about this, if an entire generation practiced abstinence and sex within marriage what would happen - AIDS would be virtually eliminated and abortions would be greatly diminished.  A worldview that supports sexual promiscuity is a worldview that accepts the consequences of STD's and huge abortion numbers.

108389[/snapback]

 

I don't support sexual promiscuity. But tell me something, how many different sexual partners do you think a person must have to be called sexually promiscuous? Say a thirty-two year old woman or man who is getting married for the first time? How many sexual relationships or just sexual relations must said woman/man be involved in prior to marriage, before you would deem him/her promiscuous? I'm sure my idea and your idea of promiscuity differ. Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes as sexual promiscuity.

 

I didn't say that my 'solution' "was having sex to test out a potential spouse"! I said I don't recommend "saving oneself" until marriage. I just think its a good idea to know if you're sexually compatible before you spend the rest of your life with an inadequate or lousy lover and wind up in divorce court anyway. Couples who aren't happy in the bedroom usually wind up looking for satisfaction elsewhere which helps contribute to this abortion problem all over again. So, no, I don't think saving oneself for marriage is the answer either. That just creates a whole 'nother set of potential problems.

 

Abstinence IS a valid solution to avoid abortion, I agree. BUT, I don't believe it is realistic or even commonplace. And what reality are you referring to? As for what history shows, I see a whole lotta cheatin' and runnin' around and children born out of wedlock in our history! Wasn't it George Washington who fathered children with one of his slaves? As for AIDS, you will still have homosexuals, needle sharing etc. It's unrealistic and pure fantasy to think that an entire generation would ever practice abstinence. It's just not gonna happen.

 

Let me just say this, I am pro-choice, to a point. I am against abortion as a method of birth control. But there are instances where abortion should be an option. No government should have the right to tell a person what they can and can't do with their own body.

 

In my opinion, that grouping of cells at conception is not a human, if it looks like a group of cells, it is a group of cells. If it ain't got a beating heart, it ain't winking at me and it ain't wiggling any fingers or toes at me, then it ain't human....yet. When it begins to take on those characteristics, that's where I draw the line. At that point, barring extenuating circumstances, I'm against it. Up until that point, there should be an option.

[blzrul]

Bingo.  I am anxiously awaiting Debbie's rebuttal. 

108465[/snapback]

Just tell me how you would administer it. Through a church? As long as the institution or bureau or entity is run by human beings - and in particular men - there's bound to be inefficiency.

 

So because there is no perfect way to ensure ALL the money reaches ALL the children, we should just give up?

 

"Suffer the little children". Doesn't seem Christian to me.

[Albany,n.y.]

I'm pro-choice for 1 main reason: I'm old enough to remember when women were dying because they couldn't find safe abortions and they were going to get them no matter what. It was impossible to stop women from getting abortions, the question was basically: Should they risk their own death based on their socio-economic status? It was common practice for those (or their daughters) who could afford it to leave the country and get a safe abortion abroad. For the women in the USA who couldn't afford it it was a period of desperation, followed by a backalley illegal and dangerous abortion. Since the poorer were the ones dying, it made sense at the time abortion became legal to save the lives of the living, not the potential living. If making abortion illegal would have stopped all abortions, which in the "pro-life" mindset (or should I say -let the mother die mindset) is the goal, the case for outlawing it would have made a lot more sense. The reality of dead daughters, mothers, wives etc made the choice to make it legal much more supportable than to continue the practice of only the rich getting safe abortions.

[Alaska Darin]

We'll stop abortions right about the time we end terrorism and drug use.

[ofiba]

We'll stop abortions right about the time we end terrorism and drug use.

108669[/snapback]

 

 

Perfect, i can't wait.

 

Do you propose we shall give up then? If we can't stop them altogether, why even bother right?

[Alaska Darin]

Perfect, i can't wait. 

 

Do you propose we shall give up then?  If we can't stop them altogether, why even bother right?

108699[/snapback]

I don't care if you want to change it. Good luck with that. I'm just telling you the government making it illegal ain't going to do anything but put doctors and women in prison next to real criminals. That's an excellent solution that will have a similiar affect to what the Rockefeller laws have on NYS.

 

If that's the solution you're looking for, have at it.

[Kelly the Dog]

I said it before and I will say it again: If men were the ones that got pregnant and not women, and men were the ones carrying the babies for nine months and giving birth, and men were the ones getting raped, and men were the ones having to decide what to do with their bodies, men SURELY would not let a bunch of women politicians decide what is best for them. I would guess, conservatively, it would be like 80-20 in favor of legalized abortion. Just an opinion. Go ahead, say nah, it's your religious belief all you want. But just think about how much you don't like your wife or girlfriend or any girl telling you what to do, or that you can't do something, virtually ANYTHING.

[aussiew]

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!

 

I hope you're joking. Most of the medical community had this attitude and were already practicing sterilization in institutions to eradicate "feeblemindedness" when Hitler came to power. And we all know where that led to.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

I'm pro-choice for 1 main reason: I'm old enough to remember when women were dying because they couldn't find safe abortions and they were going to get them no matter what.  It was impossible to stop women from getting abortions, the question was basically:  Should they risk their own death based on their socio-economic status?  It was common practice for those (or their daughters) who could afford it to leave the country and get a safe abortion abroad.  For the women in the USA who couldn't afford it it was a period of desperation, followed by a backalley illegal and dangerous abortion.  Since the poorer were the ones dying, it made sense at the time abortion became legal to save the lives of the living, not the potential living.  If making abortion illegal would have stopped all abortions, which in the "pro-life" mindset (or should I say -let the mother die mindset) is the goal,  the case for outlawing it would have made a lot more sense.  The reality of dead daughters, mothers, wives etc made the choice to make it legal much more supportable than to continue the practice of only the rich getting safe abortions.

108621[/snapback]

 

EXACTLY my stance, eloquently stated. I have faith in the sanity of humans!

[Arondale]

Abstinence IS a valid solution to avoid abortion, I agree.  BUT, I don't believe it is realistic or even commonplace.  And what reality are you referring to?  As for what history shows, I see a whole lotta cheatin' and runnin' around and children born out of wedlock in our history! Wasn't it George Washington who fathered children with one of his slaves?  As for AIDS, you will still have homosexuals, needle sharing etc.  It's unrealistic and pure fantasy to think that an entire generation would ever practice abstinence.  It's just not gonna happen.

108567[/snapback]

 

I never meant that looking back on history there has never been sex outside of marriage. But you can't deny that from the middle of the 20th century through the present, that practice has increased exponentially.

 

I also never meant that it is realistic for an entire generation to practice abstinence. Obviously that is impossible. However, in theory it does prove my point, that sex outside of marriage is the major issue in this.

 

As far as AIDS or abortion, it is proven that abstinence is a realistic and effective solution. In Africa where AIDS is a dangerous epidemic, Uganda has been a pioneer in educating the people about abstinence and monogomous relationships. Since the 1980's when the program started, pregnant women infected with HIV has gone from over 20% to close to 5%. If that isn't realistic and effective, I don't know what is. It is not unrealistic to expect similar results if used to reduce abortions.

[Arondale]

I'm pro-choice for 1 main reason: I'm old enough to remember when women were dying because they couldn't find safe abortions and they were going to get them no matter what.  It was impossible to stop women from getting abortions, the question was basically:  Should they risk their own death based on their socio-economic status?  It was common practice for those (or their daughters) who could afford it to leave the country and get a safe abortion abroad.  For the women in the USA who couldn't afford it it was a period of desperation, followed by a backalley illegal and dangerous abortion.  Since the poorer were the ones dying, it made sense at the time abortion became legal to save the lives of the living, not the potential living.  If making abortion illegal would have stopped all abortions, which in the "pro-life" mindset (or should I say -let the mother die mindset) is the goal,  the case for outlawing it would have made a lot more sense.  The reality of dead daughters, mothers, wives etc made the choice to make it legal much more supportable than to continue the practice of only the rich getting safe abortions.

108621[/snapback]

 

Let's assume that abortion is made illegal; should the law then be at fault for making it dangerous for anyone to kill another innocent human being? A bank robbery can be very risky and dangerous to the robber, does that mean we should make robbery legal?

 

In the past some women chose dangerous, illegal abortions. People choose to do many stupid things when there are better alternatives available. That's just the point: they choose. Sometimes they are bad choices, but it is still their own choice. There's no coercion and no one is forcing anyone to have a "backalley illegal" abortion. A woman is no more forced into the back alley when abortion is outlawed than a young man is forced to rob banks because he refuses to find employment. Both have better and safer options.

 

These women are not risking "their own death based on their socio-economic status". They are risking their own death because they choose to do so. No one can deny that there are better options. My wife works as a labor and delivery nurse and often has 15-17 year old girls giving birth - some keep the babies and others give them up for adoption. Adoption is is a reasonable and realistic alternative that will solve any "socio-economic" issues they might have. It does not have to be a "period of desparation", nor do they have to choose dangerous, backalley abortions.

 

Choice has its limits. Our right to choose ends where harm to another individual begins. That's true with every law.

[Alaska Darin]

Let's assume that abortion is made illegal; should the law then be at fault for making it dangerous for anyone to kill another innocent human being? A bank robbery can be very risky and dangerous to the robber, does that mean we should make robbery legal?

 

In the past some women chose dangerous, illegal abortions. People choose to do many stupid things when there are better alternatives available. That's just the point: they choose.  Sometimes they are bad choices, but it is still their own choice. There's no coercion and no one is forcing anyone to have a "backalley illegal" abortion. A woman is no more forced into the back alley when abortion is outlawed than a young man is forced to rob banks because he refuses to find employment. Both have better and safer options.

 

These women are not risking "their own death based on their socio-economic status".  They are risking their own death because they choose to do so.  No one can deny that there are better options.  My wife works as a labor and delivery nurse and often has 15-17 year old girls giving birth - some keep the babies and others give them up for adoption.  Adoption is is a reasonable and realistic alternative that will solve any "socio-economic" issues they might have.  It does not have to be a "period of desparation", nor do they have to choose dangerous, backalley abortions.

 

Choice has its limits. Our right to choose ends where harm to another individual begins. That's true with every law.

109126[/snapback]

There is no bandaid for the issue. The adoption argument is nothing more than a panacea or "pie in the sky" when you are talking in the millions ANNUALLY.

 

Our society of instant gratification and blame placement instead of patience and personal responsibility are the biggest reasons this is even an issue.

[Kelly the Dog]

There is no bandaid for the issue.  The adoption argument is nothing more than a panacea or "pie in the sky" when you are talking in the millions ANNUALLY.

 

Our society of instant gratification and blame placement instead of patience and personal responsibility are the biggest reasons this is even an issue.

109199[/snapback]

Or, as Robin Williams said, "God gave us a brain and a penis but only enough blood to run one at a time."