The abortion thread - if you dare ;-)

[4DAIVI PAI2K5]

Swallow: the best, most proven birth control method since the beginning of time.

hahaha i just about spit tea out

[jbot]

Swallow: the best, most proven birth control method since the beginning of time.

but... but... what about teh buttseckz?

the only babies coming out of there get flushed down the toilet.

[that dude]

they are not the only people,but they sure have allot of free time to lay around and screw! I'm just tired of paying for their babies they have just to get more of our $$$$$$

+100

[Likwid]

This reply is GOING to get flak, and I'm ok with that, this is, ONLY my opinion and you get what you paid for.

I don't feel like this is a case of state versus federal at all.

Given the choice of pro-life (with no exceptions) or pro-choice (with little regulations) I'm going to have to take pro-choice.

If the MOTHER is at risk no questions asked I'm for abortion (note, not pro choice, pro abortion. A mother is capable of having another child, there is no guarantee the child will be ok). Pauly told me there are very few cases where the mother's life is at risk, not sure the source but I trust him on this.

If the CHILD has little chance for a normal, happy life, I'm pro choice, but leaning towards the abortion side.

How many cases do we see on TV (fake I know) where they say "the baby is going to be retarded, have 1 arm, no eyes and won't ever be able to eat on their own" but yet the mother is staunchly against aborting the fetus. How is that fair? To the potential child, the mother/father, AND the rest of the economy that will inevitably have to pay for the support?

In terms of what you've said redkow, I agree that the people are so avidly against abortion need to propose a solution, and "wear a condom" doesn't solve cases of rape.

Here's the end of the story, there will NEVER be a happy solution for 100% of people. I think our current solution is flawed, but in the case of the extremes, I'll take what we have now over pro-life.

[smashweights]

and as for the best idea ever.. thast great lets promote sex and no consiquenses LIKE RAMPANT STD's.... great idea if you ask me...

let's tackle one problem at a time here! besides, we're looking at 14-20 years before the first run of this plan comes to the "testing" phase anyway, who knows how many STDs will be irrelevant by then.

[Kahooli]

I think it has nothing to do with the federal government, and should be left to the states to decide. Each state should put it to a vote. Fed should keep their noses out of it.

qft

[Kahooli]

This reply is /GOING to get flak, and I'm ok with that, this is, ONLY my opinion and you get what you paid for.

...

In terms of what you've said redkow, I agree that the people are so avidly against abortion need to propose a solution, and "wear a condom" doesn't solve cases of rape.

Here's the end of the story, there will NEVER be a happy solution for 100% of people. I think our current solution is flawed, but in the case of the extremes, I'll take what we have now over pro-life.

No flak from me, you're right. No policy will satisfy 100%. Rape isn't covered by education.

I think this is a scholarly article... worthy of debate. read the whole thing on your own if you want. Heres the syn:

Context: Current debates on how to reduce the high U.S. abortion rate often fail to take into account the role of unintended pregnancy, an important determinant of abortion.

Methods: Data from the 1982, 1988 and 1995 cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth, supplemented by data from other sources, are used to estimate 1994 rates and percentages of unintended birth and pregnancy and the proportion of women who have experienced an unintended birth, an abortion or both. In addition, estimates are made of the proportion of women who will have had an abortion by age 45.

Results: Excluding miscarriages, 49% of the pregnancies concluding in 1994 were unintended; 54% of these ended in abortion. Forty-eight percent of women aged 15-44 in 1994 had had at least one unplanned pregnancy sometime in their lives; 28% had had one or more unplanned births, 30% had had one or more abortions and 11% had had both. At 1994 rates, women can expect to have 1.42 unintended pregnancies by the time they are 45, and at 1992 rates, 43% of women will have had an abortion. Between 1987 and 1994, the unintended pregnancy rate declined by 16%, from 54 to 45 per 1,000 women of reproductive age. The proportion of unplanned pregnancies that ended in abortion increased among women aged 20 and older, but decreased among teenagers, who are now more likely than older women to continue their unplanned pregnancies. The unintended pregnancy rate was highest among women who were aged 18-24, unmarried, low-income, black or Hispanic.

Conclusion: Rates of unintended pregnancy have declined, probably as a result of higher contraceptive prevalence and use of more effective methods. Efforts to achieve further decreases should focus on reducing risky behavior, promoting the use of effective contraceptive methods and improving the effectiveness with which all methods are used.

Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(1):24-29 & 46

[wrillo]

Feds have no place in this topic.

Government doesn't really have a place in it either. WWTJD? (What Would Thomas Jefferson Do?)

BUT if we're going to vote on it, only women should vote.

[Disclaimer]

I agree that the people are so avidly against abortion need to propose a solution, and "wear a condom" doesn't solve cases of rape.

Their solution is abstinence. Don't talk about sex, don't think about sex, and if you do, you're dirty and should be feel ashamed of yourself for being such an impure being in the eyes of the Lord.

[redkow97]

wow - first, hats off to everyone for actually reading my first sentence and keeping it civil

we're bringing up a LOT of issues, and I wish we could handle them one at a time, so they all get a chance to be addressed.

And there are certainly some cases where I'm very much conflicted. Rape would be one of those cases.

It is NOT a woman's fault that she's raped. I don't believe she should be saddled with the responsibility, pain, and constant reminder of raising her attacker's child. Even arranging adoptions, or having state-funded care for her child isn't a full solution IMO.

BUT, at the same time, I have always struggled with aborting a baby simply because it's the result of a rape... What if my mother had been raped, and I was conceived during that rape? Does that give me any less of a right to be alive?

I hate the idea of punishing someone who hasn't done anything wrong, and rape resulting in pregnancy forces that decision. In that case, I think the decision falls 100% to the rape victim. the rapist certainly shouldn't have any say (there have been court battles where the 'father' attempted to argue long enough that the rape victim wouldn't be able to have an abortion in time. insane, but true.).

on a totally separate issue:

we should absolutely invest in education. Any 'pro-lifer' who is so conservative that they don't want schools teaching birth control techniques is simply out of touch with reality. People have sex. before marriage. Before they graduate high school. Before the have a freakin' drivers' license for god sake... KIDS ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX, and uber-conservatives need to accept that fact.

Birth control should prevent thousands of abortions a year. if the Maury Povich show is any credible source (joking - but this was a real episode), there are women out there who think "abortion IS my birth control." If you're telling me that alternative means wouldn't have prevented this girl's 4 (FOUR) abortions before age 22, you're dreaming.

next issue:

who pays? I hate that I feel this way, but I do: I'd rather pay for someone else's abortion, than someone else's child. I feel like an a-hole typing that, but it pisses me off when other people make their responsibilities MY responsibility, and to be blunt, the abortion affects me less. selfish? yes. but honest...

With that in mind, I think "the first one's free," or maybe financed. the government shouldn't be in the habit of giving ANYTHING away in unlimited quantities, or on an infinite timeline. That either puts an unfair burden on taxpayers, or bankrupts the government - it's just that simple. Help those who take initiative to help themselves.

which brings us to welfare:

hell yes on mandatory birth control. for people on welfare, a child is either an additional burden, or a paycheck - depends on whether or not the parent(s) actually take care of the kid, or if they blow the money on items for themselves. again, the government shouldn't be in the business of simply GIVING things away. i think birth control is a pretty reasonable requirement in order to receive foodstamps, etc.

there are some states, and even some other countries that have pretty decently functioning welfare systems. All have strict qualification requirements (drug tests, birth control, etc.) and a finite time limit - you can't stay on welfare forever. there's a timeline and plan to get you off welfare. It includes child care, GED programs, and job placement - but the parents have to take the initiative. tehy're not given anything without their commitment of time and effort, at the very least.

the miserable truth is that some people WILL fail. they will not lead happy lives, and they will not achieve any meaningful measure of success. But you can't force motivation into people. The government's only obligation is to 'lead the horse to water.'

the current systems allow people to exploit the programs. they get too much for doing too little. what's their incentive to change? I think you have to take their children into protective custody, and simply let dead-beat parents fail... harsh? absolutely - but I refuse to entertain the notion of allowing them to neglect their children, or raise more future drains on society.

I'm anxious to hear where the liberal-leaning members of the board disagree with me. I consider myself socially moderate and fiscally conservative, so this blend of abortion and paying for the results is a weird place for me politically. I've historically pissed off liberals and conservatives alike. I guess neither like common sense ;-) (i kid, i kid.)

Edited October 20, 2009 by redkow97

[redkow97]

BUT if we're going to vote on it, only women should vote.

BS - if i get a girl pregnant, and she decided to have the kid, I have to pay child support for the next 18 years.

If i get that same girl pregnant and she wants an abortion, but I want to raise the child on my own, I will have a VERY hard time trying to stop her.

the law is NOT balanced in this regard. The woman can obligate me for 18 years, but I can't obligate her for 9 months? I say men get a vote.

[Disclaimer]

Unfortunately' date=' this is common but I personally feel that if you aren't mature enough to handle raising a child you aren't mature enough to make sexy time.[/quote']

Also unfortunate is that you don't get to decide if others are mature enough.

The only decision maker is the genetics. When balls drop and ovaries start releasing eggs.

I had this conversation the other day with a coworker. If God didn't want you to have sex before marriage, he would've made you incapable of doing so, same thing with kids. It just goes back to the fact that regardless of your emotional/intellectual/psychological state - people are PHYSICALLY capable of sex and conception usually before they're even teenagers.

I'm sorta with Redkaw... fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, the deciding factor for me is 99 times out of 100, based on economics. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it's cheaper to abort a child than keep it. That being said, what is the value of a life? Well, that one isn't so cut and dry, economically. Did you just abort the next Einstein, or the next Dahmer?

But, what I don't understand, is that many pro-lifers are also pro-capital punishment. If it's wrong to murder an infant, it's wrong to murder a criminal. Murder is wrong, period. And two wrongs, don't make a right. How do they reconcile that?

[redkow97]

there are a lot of problems that could be fixed with better parenting... unwanted pregnancy is certainly among them. You (Isaac's papa) are a responsible father - not everyone is.

The burden of teaching kids how to properly use birth control, and having free birth control prescriptions and free condoms available is so low compared to the burden of paying for abortions, or supporting mothers/children, I just don't see how anyone can argue against it.

the parents who are up in arms over it are obviously involved in, and concerned with their children's lives already - i don't see how another option negates their parents' teachings or beliefs.

[Cypress]

This thread needs moved to EFS.

[redkow97]

But, what I don't understand, is that many pro-lifers are also pro-capital punishment. If it's wrong to murder an infant, it's wrong to murder a criminal. Murder is wrong, period. And two wrongs, don't make a right. How do they reconcile that?

i am so not a mouthpiece for the conservatives, but I'll hazard a couple answers on this... (not that I believe them)

1) a criminal has done something to 'deserve' to be put to death. there is no comparable 'crime' for an unborn child. our legal system requires conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal offenses, so there is theoretically no 'reasonable' chance of executing someone who has not actually committed an offense that society says warrants the death penalty.

2) I think there are quite a few people who hold the incorrect belief that it's cheaper to execute a prisoner than detain them.

This should be a correct belief, but the legal appeal process ends up costing more than simply feeding and housing an inmate for 80 years... That's a whole separate issue - start your own thread!

there are certainly holes in both arguments when it comes to reconciling them with religious beliefs. on a personal level, I am comfortable suggesting that there is a difference between aborting an un-born child, and executing someone who was witnessed committing a brutal murder. One had a chance to do right, and chose to do wrong. One never had a chance at anything.

[redkow97]

Punishment for murder isn't murder. It's killing. It's justice. It's setting things right.

I think that's a stretch. "setting things right" would be bringing the murder victim back to life.

let's not confuse justice and revenge. IS there a suitable punishment for murder? does any punishment really end up being "just?" I don't believe there is.

[Kahooli]

If it were my choice maximum prison terms would be 10-20 years, anything requiring a longer sentence results in execution at the end of the final year if they aren't exonerated or pardoned.

Tough luck if you were wrongly convicted. You're 1 of billions. You don't matter to the species.

[Disclaimer]

I don't understand how you can draw a hard line in the sand stating "Abortion is wrong, regardless of circumstances", but I'm not allowed to draw the same line saying "Murder is wrong, regardless of circumstances" Same thing.

If you won't allow for exceptions for valid reasons to abort, then I don't have to allow for exceptions for valid reasons to not use the justice system to put someone to death.

Edited October 20, 2009 by JRMMiii

[RVTPilot]

but... but... what about teh buttseckz?

the only babies coming out of there get flushed down the toilet.

jbot, i luvs u.

[redkow97]

Isaac's Papa and Kahooli - we're drifting into "what's the purpose of prisons? punishment, or rehabilitation?"

I'd be game for a thread on that.

[Disclaimer]

I don't understand how you can draw a parallel between an innocent life and a murderer. Our definitions of murder are different. Killing isn't the same as murder. An unborn child (or born in some cases)' date=' who has done absolutely nothing except be conceived, is not the same as a full grown human being that willingly took the life of an innocent.[/quote']

I'm not saying a killer shouldn't be punished... but I thought our discussion was based on capital punishment as a viable judicial technique. So, if abortion is wrong in your views, so should the death penalty.

Because in the same vein then, the woman or person that chose to take an innocent infants life - should be charged with murder and therefore be judged accordingly, as the choice for abortion is premeditated, a felony in the 1st degree.

Women who abort their children should be tried and put to death. No? According to your logic.

[Disclaimer]

I didn't say 'regardless of the circumstances'' date=' either. I said if there is a medical emergency where the mother's life is in jeopardy and the only way to save her is to terminate the pregnancy then it should be done with immediacy.[/quote']

Ok, so that circumstance would be analogous to killing in the name of self-defense. (Add that to my prior post)

[Disclaimer]

I didn't say you said that. I said you view the child and the murderer as having the same equity. Our discussion is about whether or not killing a child for the sake of convenience is appropriate.

No' date=' the child is the victim, and the murderer victimiz[b']es. What do you want to focus on? I'm focusing on the punishment aspect of the murderer. The victim of abortion is murdered as is the victim of a murderer...so that's pretty much moot - they're both victims and we feel bad for them.

So, focusing on the murderers...it's just semantics that we use the term abortion to hide the fact that it's murder, and the term murderer to hide the fact that it's a mother, correct?

So in effect, its equitable to compare a murderer (mother) who chooses to murder (abort) a victim (child) out of convenience or personal gain, and should be treated accordingly - given your stance on this issue, your morals and your values. Right?

Murder is murder. I don't like the idea of putting anyone to death' date=' but it seems my logic clearly steers my morality bus towards that lane.[/quote']

So, you're a pro-life conservative, and a liberal pussy for not supporting the death penalty. No one should be put to death.

You can't have it both ways to reconcile it logically - this is an emotional call.

[NinjaNick]

Yeah, I'll just say my piece.

I'm 100% against abortion and thinks it's heartless and spinless to do.

Also, I'm all for the death penalty because they are fully developed human beings and have been living their own life.

These babies haven't murdered anyone.

and....these threads are never good. It's best to keep our opinions to ourselves.

Edited October 20, 2009 by NinjaNick

[Disclaimer]

Pro-life conservative' date=' yes. I fully and without question believe that abortion is murder.[b'] I don't like the death penalty, but that doesn't mean I don't support it. There are a lot of things in life that cause me grief, but I accept them as they are a necessary function in order to sustain society. I don't like war, but am not so obtuse in my observation as to not realize it's necessity from time to time. (our current war is not necessary.. but that's another thread altogether)

And the truth shall set you free. That's pretty much how a lot of pro-choice view this issue. So - I think we've found common ground here.