Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on January 15, 2002, 05:34:31 AM
-
Will get you in legal trouble for hurting/killing the baby. Right?
Well the point is that this baby was killed by an outsider and this makes it different than an abortion. Right?
Well what are the fathers rights? Can he sue the mother if she has an abortion without his support/agreemet that then kills his child? Can he?
Do men have any rights?
-
nice troll ...............
-
We have the right to pay child support.
:eek:
-SW
-
Its not a troll, its just looking at the abortion issue from an unexplored and marginalized viewpoint, the Father's, its just as much his child as the mothers.
So what are the Father's rights here?
Or consider this:
If Father wants abortion and Mother refuses to have abortion, then the fathers legal/financial obligations are voided? What you think of this?
*READ THIS READ THIS*
For the record: (before the liberals attack me and so the conservatives can attack me :), IM NEITHER)
I support abortion up to a certain time limit very early in the pregnancy (maybe 3 months), after this time you carry the child to term unless it poses a serious health risk to the mother. In my view the life of the adult parent is more important/valuable than a baby, the parent can have other kids and thus continue the genetic line.
-
At this point in time, the father of the child has no rights regarding an abortion. The Supremes (Supreme Court) has specifically stated that the decision for an abortion rests on the shoulders of the mother, and the mother alone. The father has no input. Totally horseshit imho.
ANd yes, there is a crime for kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach, although many factors play into what type of crime would be charged. If the baby dies as a result, welll, did the attack know she was pregnant? Did he act with the intent to kill the baby or with reckless disregard for the babies life? How far along was the baby, 1 mos? 8 mos? Crimes charged can range from Murder -> Negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter.
And yes, Wulfe is right, us men have the right to pay a ridiculous amount of child support. In most cases its deserving, but in many its damn criminal. But thats another story :)
Nim
-
Well this issue has potential to get "hot". I agree that if you kick a woman in the stomach you should be charged. Whether she is pregnant or not! As for murder .... it is considered a fetus and not a person until it takes its first breath how can you be charges with murder? This seems a large loophole for scum errr I mean Lawyers to exploit.
As for father's rights. It is up to the woman to decide if she wants have an abortion. Can you imagine if she wanted to keep the baby and the father did not?? I guess he would just kick her in the stomach.......
-
The women has all the rights and decisions.
The father has no rights.
The baby/fetus has no rights.
The baby’s life and the father’s wallet are both at the mercy of her hormone charged whim.
-
hehe Skernsk, not quite :) I'll be honest I've forgotten the case law so I am kinda shootin' from the hip here ... You are kinda right. Here is the definition of a Human Being as I remember it (okay okay, I found my CrimLaw notes):
1. At common law, a fetus must be born alive to be considered a “human being” within the meaning of that term for the criminal statute.
2. There is a trend towards pushing the definition to include viable fetuses, however, all courts agree that the changes must be made by the legislature, and not the courts.
Keep in mind this is the common law, many (and in fact most) states have changed the elements to common law crimes. For example, at common law, one of the elements of burglary was that it must occur at night. Needless to say, most states have changed that so that burglarly can occur during the day as well.
So it looks like I might have misspoke in my previous post. To my knowledge, the trend toward getting a viable fetus has not officially been adopted by any State. But boy I sure thought I remembered reading some cases about Murder convictions based on the killing of a fetus. I guess I was wrong :)
Nim
-
Nimitz, wrt to the Supreme Court position, what's the alternative?
Certainly, the father should have some input in the decision, but ultimately control of the womb belongs to the mother, doesn't it?
I think it's one of those areas where the court should just stay out of it. It's the woman's body after all. The aches, the pain, the outright damage caused by the pregnancy are hers to bear alone. Until we men can share the physical burden of a pregnancy, we shouldn't expect to have any control of it.
The answer is simple. Marry a woman that wants to have your children. If she doesn't, find another (if that's your sole motivation for marriage).
As for the crime of injuring a fetus, the law isn't inconsistent. The woman has the right to control her own womb. If you violate that right and injure the fetus, you have committed a crime. If she decides to terminate the pregnancy, again it's her womb and it's within her right to do so. Same as Nimitz... I'm shooting from the hip here.
-
Good discussion so far fellas, keep it comming especially the legal experts.
Thanks!
-
Hmm...interesting Sandman. But keep this in mind ... Abortions are legal yes, but not at viability. If the fetus is viable (capable of living on its own outside the womb) abortions are not possible. 6 months is usually the cut-off for abortions. Abortions are possible AFTER viability only if the mother's life/health is in jeopardy. So perhaps the law isnt so inconsistent after all?
WRT Supreme Court ... the argument exists that the father has just as much interest in the fetus as the mother. After all, he is 1/2 the creator. I briefly looked for some case law, but couldnt find what I was looking for and dont have the time right now to look any deeper. But, I did find this, which althought not exactly on point, does provide some insight as to the Court's thinking:
Coe v. Cook County (7th Circuit)
In establishing the constitutional right of a woman to have an abortion without having to notify the father, the United States Supreme Court necessarily as well as explicitly weighed the woman's interest in reproductive freedom against the man's interest in potential paternity, and found the former interest to be the weightier. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the man and the woman, the balance weighs in her favor.
Also, ...
Coe v. Cook County
If a fetus's right to life were deemed to outweigh the pregnant woman's interest in being allowed to make the choice for abortion without being impeded by the father of the fetus, the United States Supreme Court would not have forbidden the states to require such notification. The life, liberty, and property that the due process clauses protect are rights of persons, and the courts have decided that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of these clauses
Nim
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
The women has all the rights and decisions.
The father has no rights.
The baby/fetus has no rights.
The baby’s life and the father’s wallet are both at the mercy of her hormone charged whim.
And that's something that one should consider before sticking his wee wee into the particular female.
As someone who will be a father in 4 months, i believe that it is totally woman's decision. I can make a suggestion, but final call belongs to her. Thankfully, it appears that our baby is growing healthy, so we don't have to deal with those issues...
-
Originally posted by fd ski
And that's something that one should consider before sticking his wee wee into the particular female.
As someone who will be a father in 4 months, i believe that it is totally woman's decision. I can make a suggestion, but final call belongs to her. Thankfully, it appears that our baby is growing healthy, so we don't have to deal with those issues...
What about her responsibility for spreading her legs to let the wee wee in? It is a two way street in most cases.
Here's a form of abortion I might support. Woman goes to get baby removed from the womb, they should take the womb with the baby so she can murder no more inocent life.
Any body who would suck the brains out of a baby in the mothers womb I hope will find a nice flesh boiling spot in Hell right next to Mohamed Atta and his crew. I can't believe anybody would defend sucking the brains out of a live human being in what is supposed to be a "safe place" ie. it's mother's womb. :(
absolutely disgusting....
-
Does anyone have statistics on why people have abortions?
What % is for the mothers health?
What % is for an unhealthy baby?
What % is for the mothers unwilligness to to become a parent?
What % is for financial reasons?
etc.
So there is a legal time limit for abortions, you mention 6 months?
Good I support a time limit, but id like it a bit earlier.
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by Udie at Work
What about her responsibility for spreading her legs to let the wee wee in? It is a two way street in most cases.
Here's a form of abortion I might support. Woman goes to get baby removed from the womb, they should take the womb with the baby so she can murder no more inocent life.
Any body who would suck the brains out of a baby in the mothers womb I hope will find a nice flesh boiling spot in Hell right next to Mohamed Atta and his crew. I can't believe anybody would defend sucking the brains out of a live human being in what is supposed to be a "safe place" ie. it's mother's womb. :(
absolutely disgusting....
The trouble here Udie is that your definition of "Life" might differ from some other well meaning persons. Where does life begin?
Is a sperm a human? Why not? An egg?
Is a fertalized Egg? Why? Before or after attachment to the uterine wall?
How about at the 2 cell stage? 4 cell stage? Most zygotes are at 8 to 16 cells before they even settle into the uterus. How about then?
It is not a black and white issue and it causes so much pain and suffering because the proponents of each side are so adament. Personaly I feel that only women should be voting on abortion laws.
-
That only women should vote on abortion laws? I disagree strongly.
That could set a dangerous precedent, and is unconstitutional as it denies somebody their voting rights based solely on gender. Remember now that was bad....
-
Thanx Nimitz... funny you should mention it. I don't see the laws as being inconsistent either.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The trouble here Udie is that your definition of "Life" might differ from some other well meaning persons. Where does life begin?
Is a sperm a human? Why not? An egg?
Is a fertalized Egg? Why? Before or after attachment to the uterine wall?
How about at the 2 cell stage? 4 cell stage? Most zygotes are at 8 to 16 cells before they even settle into the uterus. How about then?
It is not a black and white issue and it causes so much pain and suffering because the proponents of each side are so adament. Personaly I feel that only women should be voting on abortion laws.
I understand that. My personal belief is that it starts at conception, the moment that little sperm gets in and the thing splits. I guess my post was pointed more towards the partial-birth disgusting procedure that I can't believe any doctor could even think about doing, don't they take an oath? ;) I also know there's not really squat I can do about it, I don't even know why I posted here because this is a wasted debate. I deplore the fact that my tax dollars have paid for some of these too. I feel that it makes me almost as guilty as the person doing it and having it done and this pisses me off the most. As a FREE American I have no sayso no choice but to do what the murderers want. Where's the liberty in that? Why can't I say NO I don't want my tax dollars spent on this? OOOOH I'm a bad person and hate women if I take that stance.
The one thing that has made me so anti-abortion, not extreme like some, is what I saw when I was 13 yrs old. I was watching what I think was the 700 Club (i seem to remember Pat R. though I'm not sure what show it was) and they showed video of an abortion (it was like xrays or ultra sound or something but you could clearly make out the baby. The baby was 3 months or so. It owned arms legs and a head, but it was still forming. No eyes nose or mouth and such. Well you see this long skinny tube go into the womb. It first hit a leg and broke the leg in two. The baby then started to push away from what was hurting it. The baby KNEW something bad was happening to it and tried to get away. Next the tube hit the baby's abdomen which broke the baby and then it was sucked down the tube. At thirteen I didn't care about toejam but what video game was coming out. I sat there and cried and cried at what I had seen. To this day I can't get that image out of my head. THE BABY KNEW IT WAS DYING knew enough to try and get away anyway.
better stop now :)
-
Thats an extremist and irrelevant argument udie.
Wait a second its not and it makes me diddlying uncomfortable, huh???
Where is all that liberal care and compassion for the weak? Sucked down a diddlying tube eh?
-
I think the common cultural tradition of our society as reflected by our laws is pretty clear:
Once you deposit your sperm into a woman's body, you lose your rights of ownership to it.
You may enter into some preliminary explicit arrangement (rental agreement, future rights/responcibilities contract) but if woman decides not to honor it - tough luck, you took the risk. No court would induce a women to terminate or keep her pregnancy.
To be completely equal with a woman, you may want to spend ~$12,000 on in-vitro fertilisation and ~$50,000 for surrogate mother. Even then you will not be able to enforce termination of pregnancy but at least you can get custody of the child.
Don't like it - wear a condom. Or make sure she will agree to abortion or to preserving the baby or whatever you want.
My wife knew that she would have to change her life drastically for few months before conception, nine months while being pregnant and half a year while nursing my baby. That involves eating habits, recreational activities, career choices etc.
miko
P.S. Wotan - please delete your "nice troll..." reply. If you are too ignorant to realize the seriousness of the issue (or so wise as to realise it's silliness) - go an play in your sandbox (particle accelerator) and do not interfere with our reading this thread.
-
Well if the spending of your tax dollars is the basis of your argument regarding abortion, I guess you have to weight social security expense versus abortion clinic costs.
Personally, I have no problem with abortion before the formation of the central nervous system. The line starts to blur the closer you get to this point.
Anyway, we have the 'Morning After Pill' available at most pharmacies over here for 20 quid (30 dollars?) a time. If it reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies I'm all for it.
-
The idea of fathers' rights as spin off of abortion rights is not a new one. It's just being ignored like many other politically inconvenient contradictions. You can have an all-womens college but not an all-mens college, a gym for women only but not one for men only. Women want to be treated equally so long as it's convenient. Abortion has almost nothing to do with medical needs, it's just birth control after the fact.
ra
-
In such a case I would say you should pick more carefully a mate who's ideals and beliefs match your own. Aside from that, tough toejam. I can't say I'm in tears that there's one less overpopulated person anyway, despite what good ol' Pat Buchanan says.
-
Udie, two things:
- where the heck were your parents when you watched something like that at age of 13 ?
- without advocating abortions, once could bring hundereds of examples of people dying in most grusome fashions unnessesarely. They would be just as bad. What next ? We start showing 24-hour always live "watch the poor kid in africa die of starvation" to move our conciousness ?
-
first of all its the right to privacy in relation to doctor patient that allows abortion to be legal.
Basically abortion is a medical issue between the women and her doctor and the state cant step and demand to know what happened.
All the other arguements are meaningless until such a time when a law is passed specifically making the act of abortion illegal.
However in the case of minors laws can be passed because the parent or guardian has responsibility over the child.
If a male had the right to decide to have the women abort there child then adulter's and philanders could use that as a trump when ever he found himself in that circumstance.
When a women goes to the doctor to seek an abortion, a current legal medical procedure nether she nor the doctor has any responsibilty to inform the sperm doner.
So basically your arguing the wrong point.........its the right to privacy that allows abortion to be legal. The women is under no obligation to explain to the state why an abortion is necessary or even that shes pregnant.
I am against abortion in all circumstances its murder. But the law that we all live buy allows it. Assualting a pregnant women is different because the medical status of the women becomes evidence in proving an assault occured. Should that evidence show she was with child and the baby was killed again is evidence and the perp should and is charged with murder.
miko dont pressume to judge me this a game called Aces High not a political forum. This thread is a troll to get a reponse not a commentary. Read the words and phrases of the originally post. Looks like an invitation to a civil discussion about abortion ey.......:rolleyes:
piss off
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Udie, two things:
- where the heck were your parents when you watched something like that at age of 13 ?
Mom was working, stepdad was out drinking...
That show started out w/ backmasking on records and I was having a blast laughing at them until they next segment started.
- without advocating abortions, once could bring hundereds of examples of people dying in most grusome fashions unnessesarely. They would be just as bad. What next ? We start showing 24-hour always live "watch the poor kid in africa die of starvation" to move our conciousness ?
That's a pretty bad argument for abortions :) And they have been showing us the starving kids from Africa and other poor continents for years and it does work. Gloria Bunker ;)
I wonder how man scientist or doctors were killed in the womb. I wonder if the guy or gal that was to find the cure for aids was killed in the womb, or maybe his/her father/mother was. I wonder if one of my oldest friends back in Houston will ever forgive herself for what she did when she was a teenager, ever seen somebody live w/ depression for 18 years? It leaves them hollow inside and outside.
I guess I will agree to disagree with you on this. I'm not posting to this thread again I hate this debate. It litteraly makes me sick to my stomach that we even need this debate....
-
Wotan, thats just not true. Its the right to privacy that allows birth control to be used - but not abortions. The right to an abortion exists only because the Supremes have said it exists. (Roe v. Wade).
Udie, I agree, partial-birth abortions are a horrific act and should be outlawed except in extreme cases. You would be comforted to learn that far and away the majority (if not all by now) have banned partial birth abortions except in cases of danger to the mother.
Nim
-
Wotan, is that your opinion or fact? If fact, please direct me to your sources that show abortion is legal due to patient doctor confidentiality.
Abortion (for birth control only) as it exists in the US is a necessary evil. First point, let's eliminate all abortions for birth control. You now have lots of unwanted babies entering the world. Who's going to take care of them? In most cases of "law enforced" births I'd guess the babies would be put up for adoption. There are kids bouncing around from foster home to foster home now, and you want to inject more children into this system? Sure a good portion would be adopted, but some wouldn't and would be foster kids possibly their entire childhood. Basically, if you aren't willing to adopt a child, you shouldn't be trying to force someone to take an unwanted child to term. Second, some girls/women would attempt abortions even if they were illegal. Some doctors would still perform them, but some women would try something on their own, much to the risk of their own lives. Abortions, if they are going to take place, need to be done in a professional environment. Personally, this argument doesn't hold the significance of the first, IMO.
I'm obviously pro-choice (but pro-death penalty until a better alternative is found, so don't ya slap any political labels on me) I just hope that most women find a way to choose life for the baby.
I'm not even gonna get into the male vs female rights in all of this. Too complicated. ;)
-
The other night, I was watching some guy on TV explain why it is white Americas fault that 70 percent of black babys are born out of wedlock. SEVENTY PERCENT? Oh, well. I'm not trying to reroute the thread. My point is that men can walk away, if they feel like it. Women have to deal with the problem whether they like it or not. It should be their decision as to how they will deal with the situation.
-
The legislation wasn't necessary. Partial birth abortions weren't generally done unless the circumstances were extreme.
Just another case of politicians passing laws simply to show they are "doing something" about the "problem."
-
Udie theres a film maker (forget his name) that filmed a fetus from a point when you could just see it form till is born (film session once a week through out). Pretty powerfull stuff.
Especially when you see the result of late term abortion where they crush the "fetus's" skull and cut off the arms and legs to get it out.
You all wanna dance around it well lets get too it. at 4 weeks you could tell in detail that it was a human fetus. The fetus will respond to cold and heat and at later stages sound and light.
I have no kids of my own but I have 9 nephews and 2 nieces. What the descion ultimately comes down to is whats best for "me" without regard to responsibility. Fathers whether they want the child or should pay to bring up that child if not then society picks up his bill.
The chatholic pope a few years ago made a speech about the "Culture of Death". You dont just write human beings off as surplus population. You should join together to see to it life remains "special". Not inconveniences.
I am nether religious nor rightwing but choosing to kill then be burdened by doing what is right or shuck off your responsibility to me is wrong.
To clarify I as much anti-abortion as I am anti death penalty.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Udie theres a film maker (forget his name) that filmed a fetus from a point when you could just see it form till is born (film session once a week through out). Pretty powerfull stuff.
Especially when you see the result of late term abortion where they crush the "fetus's" skull and cut off the arms and legs to get it out.
You all wanna dance around it well lets get too it. at 4 weeks you could tell in detail that it was a human fetus. The fetus will respond to cold and heat and at later stages sound and light.
I have no kids of my own but I have 9 nephews and 2 nieces. What the descion ultimately comes down to is whats best for "me" without regard to responsibility. Fathers whether they want the child or should pay to bring up that child if not then society picks up his bill.
The chatholic pope a few years ago made a speech about the "Culture of Death". You dont just write human beings off as surplus population. You should join together to see to it life remains "special". Not inconveniences.
I am nether religious nor rightwing but choosing to kill then be burdened by doing what is right or shuck off your responsibility to me is wrong.
To clarify I as much anti-abortion as I am anti death penalty.
WOW! I seriously thought that I was one of the only people that is against both abortion and the death penalty. (Osama has made me a bit hypocritical on the death penalty)
S!
-
The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entireity of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.
I can fill this thread with quotes from the descision but I'll post a link
Roe v Wade (http://www.roevwade.org/court.html)
you can read it your self......
I am correct in my assertion that abortion is protected under the "right to privacy".
-
Wotan, I have read it, many times :) And you are not correct. In order for abortions to be legal, and a woman to be entitled to them as a matter of right, the Court had to find somwhere to stick them. So, the stuck them under privacy. It has nothing to do with Doctors and Patients per se, it has to do with the fact that its the womans body, and what she does with it is, to a certain extent, her business, and within her right of privacy. Go read the case yourself and you'll see that this is clear.
Nim
-
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
Edited miss read your last point granted its not patient doctor confidentiality that needed to be proctected. but the right of the individual. My mistake
but abortions are protected under the right to privacy not as a seperate act no matter where the court "stuck it"
-
Wotan, before you start insulting people, read that excerpt, and the rest of the case, and tell me where it says that a woman is entitled to an abortion because of the doctor/patient priviledge. She is entitled to it as a matter if her right to privacy. The Court has decided to throw this subject matter into the realm of privacy. Doctor/Patient priviledge is something entirely different.
Nim
-
misread your reply was in the process of editing when you posted my apologies...........
-
No worries mate.
Nim
-
Originally posted by Wotan
miko dont pressume to judge me this a game called Aces High not a political forum. This thread is a troll to get a reponse not a commentary. Read the words and phrases of the originally post. Looks like an invitation to a civil discussion about abortion ey.......:rolleyes:
piss off
I see a pretty long thread in which many people discuss quite meaningfull issues - quite a lot of content.
I see your post (the very first one) that there is no content to the thread. So either every other participant is an idiot or you are mistaken to it's nature.
Especially since you are posting voluminous messages right in the same thread as a part of a discussion. Did you change your opinion? It's not a troll anymore? Then why continue saying so?
All I did was point out your own inconcistency so that you could discretely edit your reply.
If someone pointed such stupidity to me, I would consider it a favor and hastened to correct it.
Also, this is a political (among other things) forum, not a game Aces High. Aces High game is where you fly simulated airplanes, not talk politics...
People here post messages to get responce or commentary (however you separate one from the other).
It is funny that you are the one asking not a judge - since your reply is the first in this thread and it is pure unadulterated judgment without any justifications, arguments or content - in other words, pure troll.
BTW, why the heck do you care if I judge you or not? It's not like I have any influence over you.
And what's that about original post? How do I see it? And if it is an invitation to discuss abortion, what is wrong with that?
As for being civil, it's not a requirement for any posters, but funny that you are the one mentioning it...
miko
-
WOW! I seriously thought that I was one of the only people that is against both abortion and the death penalty. (Osama has made me a bit hypocritical on the death penalty)
nah you're not alone here's another.
-
View of abortion is deeply based on the culture. In Russia average woman used to have about a dozen abortion because that was pretty much the only method of birth control.
A lot of much worse stuff goes on in many contries - some of them geographically closer to US states then other US states. We do not seem to care much what is going on there.
A huge difference between US cultural landscape and other countries is that in US there are many completely separate cultures coexisting without ever mixing up.
There is usualy no reason for individual of one culture to worry much about self-directed actions of a person from another culture regardless whether that individual lives in the same country or not.
Or he/she may have a clear but pretty limited reason - like I do not care if certain ethnic group is having abortions but I do not want my tax money paying for it (actually some do - they think it cheaper to pay for abortion then for welfare and jail). So I would vote to stop state subcidies but not outlaw abortions.
The clearest example are religious jews in US. Those are as anti-abortion as they come. All strive to have as many children as they can and would never think of aborting one. At the same time they consistently vote Democratic, despite the abortion issue?
Why? It is quite logical. The abortion does not affect them in any way. No one can force them to have the abortion and as for preventing someone else - why would they interfere in someone else's affairs that do not concern any outsiders?
Why is all that uproat about the abortion then? Here is my theory. Among many peacefully coexistant cultures residing in US (amish, hindu, muslim, capitalist, altruist, etc...) there are a couple fundamentalist ones that hold it as one of their main tenets that they are the one true culture and must interfere with everyone else for their own benefit.
Kind like Talban or medieval catholics burning people for their own benefit and out of best intentions.
Personally, I don't give a damn about abortions because it does not exist for me or my relatives other then as a word in a dictionary. Why would you care?
Is it possible to be "pro-life" and "pro-choice" at the same time?
miko
-
You should see the polls for pro-life vs pro-choice in the US. Looks like, for at least the past five years anyway, pro-choice has been beating pro-life, has down.
If I was pro-life I would not want this to go to a referendum right now.
-
just a thought I've always had.....
Why is it when pro-life protesters walk around with signs that have pictures of aborted featus' on them they are hated called gross or disgusting? Not the nutcases who shoot the doctors, but the protesters. Do people not like what remains after an abortion? Is it guilty consciences? I'm not trying to piss anybody off I really want to know. Why is it gross or disgusting if it wasn't a "life" yet? Carrying that logic out wouldn't it just be biological matter?
This is really sad :( How many millions of babies have been killed in the womb since it was made legal?
I just don't understand :(
-
Because they are wackos, Udie. Its a shallow attempt to sway opinion through shock value images. No different than running around throwing animal blood on people wearing fur coats.
Or, say, if I was a hardcore christian scientest opposed to amputations I ran around with a sack of severed gangrenous feet. Or if I thought neutering pets was a sin against nature I ran around with a pale full of feline testicles.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Because they are wackos, Udie. Its a shallow attempt to sway opinion through shock value images. No different than running around throwing animal blood on people wearing fur coats.
Or, say, if I was a hardcore christian scientest opposed to amputations I ran around with a sack of severed gangrenous feet. Or if I thought neutering pets was a sin against nature I ran around with a pale full of feline testicles.
oh toejam I get your point though it would have some humorous value seeing a bunch of people running around with bags of rotted feet :D what a stench though.
waddaya doin fer lunch tomarow or thursday? I just got paid today :) You guys drinking this weekend? I may go to Houston, but I'm looking for a reason to get out of the drive :)
-
I'm up for some beer and wings for the playoffs, will put something up on the bastards boards (btw they're working now, and that is the correct forum for disgusting images)
-
Ahh, didn't add Udie at Work to the list, I'll send it in but I imagine it's backlogged a bit.
-
one thing that has always confused me about the political parties (both of them) position on the issues of abortion and death penalty.
the democratic party suports abortion while being against the death penalty (it's ok to take the life of someone as long as i haven't met them yet, while taking the life of a killer is out)
the republican party is 'pro-life' but also pro-death penalty and anti-assisted suicide. basicly i guess their position is that death is ok as long as the courts sentence you to it, but not by a citisens personal choice. (but wait don't they constantly say they are for less gov't involvement in our life)
i guess my point is both parties suck
-
Originally posted by Udie at Work
oh toejam I get your point though it would have some humorous value seeing a bunch of people running around with bags of rotted feet :D what a stench though.
waddaya doin fer lunch tomarow or thursday? I just got paid today :) You guys drinking this weekend? I may go to Houston, but I'm looking for a reason to get out of the drive :)
OH MY GOD!
Did you just transition directly from references to bags full of rotted feet to beer and wings?
Fricking FDPs.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
OH MY GOD!
Did you just transition directly from references to bags full of rotted feet to beer and wings?
Fricking FDPs.
AKDejaVu
hey man give me a break here! I was born in louisiana! :D
-
IMO, the biggest problem with abortion is the fact that it has become a political issue when it is really a personal/religious issue.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
one thing that has always confused me about the political parties (both of them) position on the issues of abortion and death penalty.
the democratic party suports abortion while being against the death penalty (it's ok to take the life of someone as long as i haven't met them yet, while taking the life of a killer is out)
the republican party is 'pro-life' but also pro-death penalty and anti-assisted suicide. basicly i guess their position is that death is ok as long as the courts sentence you to it, but not by a citisens personal choice. (but wait don't they constantly say they are for less gov't involvement in our life)
The Democratic Party is pro-choice. That's not the same thing as pro-abortion. I know many people that are pro-choice but would never ever consider aborting a pregnancy of their own.
-
I am a moderated republican
Pro-Life (except when mother's life is in danger)
Anti-Capital Punishment
Pro Assited suicide (especially after a recent friends death)
The whole abortion issue could be solved if people would just be more responsible I know I am being idealistic, but if people would just think before acting that would cut down on 90% of abortions right there.
Even myself by practice use a condom and a spermicide.
(bit much info I know ;) )
-
Originally posted by narsus
Even myself by practice use a condom and a spermicide.
(bit much info I know ;) )
I thnk your looking for the gaytv thread, please move along.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
:D :D :D :D
j/k hehe
-
LOL Udie
-
My opinion is that if a mother cannot handle having a child it is her responsibility to have an abortion (or not).
I am a catholic but I also believe that bringing a child into a world of poverty and hate without hope for it is worse then not letting it be born at all.
In the end, the best idea is to use birth control if you don't want children.
oh, and I'm a full supporter of the death penalty for henious acts. Maybe not for every murder one but definitely in the case of a local woman being stabbed *37* times and then left dead with her 2year old child beside her trying to figure out why she wasn't moving. Tragic.
http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/archives/2002/jan/8/policehunt8.htm
-
My basic problem with the death penalty is that it is irreversible, I cant remember the exact statistic but I saw a item on TV that they did DNA tests on a bunch of deathrow inmates and in over half those tested, who had been sitting on deathrow for years they where proven innocent by the DNA evidence (if I can find the complete details of the study I’ll post it later)
I know we say we prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but before you use the death penalty guilt should be proven beyond ANY doubt. If we only used it in cases where the evidence was irrefutable (several eyewitnesses, video, whatever) I could probably support the death penalty.
-
Originally posted by moose
I am a catholic but I also believe that bringing a child into a world of poverty and hate without hope for it is worse then not letting it be born at all.
This is a good argument BUT it is not valid in the United States. Further, it's not much of an argument anywhere. There are children surviving lots of extremely unforgiving environments.
Find me someone who can say they'd rather have been aborted. If you can...please also hand them a gun or a big bottle of sleeping pills so we can let them stop themselves from wasteing air.
Abortion has it's place in the interest of health. Abortion should not be a means of birth control for the irresponsible. Abortion (whether or not) should not rest soley with the mother. Those are my own hard fast rules.
Abortion as an "easy out" because some woman (or man and woman for that matter) is afraid of ruining her career or similar circumstances. This is the excuse that really pisses me off. I suppose if it's considered a good excuse, it should be legal for me to kill my parents to get to my inheritance when "I" think I deserve it.