Question for Pro-choicers

[Brent]

Let is imagine the scenario that there is indeed a "gay gene," and that this gene is discovered sometime in the future. Let's also imagine this gene is detectable during pregnancy. Should a woman have the right to abort her baby because the baby, when he/she grows up, will turn out to be homosexual? Wouldn't that be discrimination which should be prohibited?

I, for one, would condemn such an abortion, as I condemn any abortion.

Every human being deserves a chance at life, and nobody should be judged before they're even born according to how we "think" they will turn out. Any baby, regardless of disability, is a gift from God. Destroying these infants is an INSULT TO THE LORD and people who commit such a terrible act should, in my opinion, be destroyed.

The only people who have forfeited their right to live are violent criminals, i.e. rapists, child molesters, and murderers; and anyone who has committed high treason. The unborn, by stark contrast, have done nothing to deserve being aborted. Abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.

No dodging the question, please.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That's Eugenics.

Although I do believe in some negative Euginics in some extreme cases, I could never embrace such frivolous abortions or positive eugenics at all.

[Brent]

That's Eugenics.

Although I do believe in some negative Euginics in some extreme cases, I could never embrace such frivolous abortions or positive eugenics at all.

So it's OK for a woman to abort her baby for no reason at all, but if she tries to abort it because he/she will turn out gay, you would stop her?

[maineman]

giving women the right to abort pregnancies in the early stages brings with it a plethora of nasty consequences.

I abhor the idea of women aborting pregancies....

I just abhor the idea of government telling a women what to do or not to do with her reproductive organs even more.

[toby]

Brent would you allow for the abortion if there was a proven criminal gene? a pedophile gene?

[Immanuel]

Here is another question for Brent, although, I assume he is still ignoring me, so maybe someone who wants to know the answer will pass it on?

Dear Brent,

Are you claiming that homosexuality is a disability?

I quote your words here: "Any baby, regardless of disability, is a gift from God."

Immie

[toby]

I wouldn't speak for Brent, but abnormal would seem to be a better word for it other than disability.

[tianabautre]

I think it would completely immoral and reprehensible however I find the gov't forcing its will on your body to be even more reprehensible and even more immoral.

I thought we'd all settled the abortion debate anyway: if we could some how not terminate the fetus and let it gestate (for lack of a better word) until maturity all parties would be happy: those of us who want to maintain ownership of their bodies and the anti-choisers.

[Brent]

Immanuel,

No, I am not saying homosexuality is a disability. When I wrote that sentence I had other conditions on my mind, such as Down's Syndrome. I knew a woman who, when she became pregnant, swore she would abort her baby if he/she had Down's. I for one think that is awfully sad. ALL babies are a gift from God; to abort them is an insult to His creation.

Edit: come to think of it, perhaps homosexuality is a sort of disability. All human beings are spirituall disabled by the sinful nature; everyone has their own faults. One of such faults is homosexuality. That is to say, some people are inclined towards sexual sins, whereas others might be inclined towards lying, or arrogance, or selfishness. Get what I'm saying?

[OrnotBitwise]

I think it would completely immoral and reprehensible however I find the gov't forcing its will on your body to be even more reprehensible and even more immoral.

I thought we'd all settled the abortion debate anyway: if we could some how not terminate the fetus and let it gestate (for lack of a better word) until maturity all parties would be happy: those of us who want to maintain ownership of their bodies and the anti-choisers.
Not really. Who's going to pay for such Herculean life support measures? My guess is that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to gestate a fetus in any sort of artificial womb. Perhaps millions at first. Who has to shell out for it?

[OrnotBitwise]

Immanuel,

No, I am not saying homosexuality is a disability. When I wrote that sentence I had other conditions on my mind, such as Down's Syndrome. I knew a woman who, when she became pregnant, swore she would abort her baby if he/she had Down's. I for one think that is awfully sad. ALL babies are a gift from God; to abort them is an insult to His creation.
Yes, well, your God deserves to be insulted. In fact, your God deserves to be relegated to the trash heap of history. Your God is hateful and unworthy of love.

[Brent]

Not really. Who's going to pay for such Herculean life support measures?

Well, tax-payers of course. You expect tax-payers to fund everything else -- why not this as well? Your motives here are suspicious to say the least.


My guess is that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to gestate a fetus in any sort of artificial womb. Perhaps millions at first. Who has to shell out for it?

I'd pay more taxes to support it. However, I do not support this program to begin with. Once a woman becomes pregnant, I believe she has entered an agreement to carry her baby to term. The only case where this program could be justified, in my opinion, is pregnancy resulting from rape.

[Brent]

Yes, well, your God deserves to be insulted. In fact, your God deserves to be relegated to the trash heap of history. Your God is hateful and unworthy of love.

I'm saddened to read you believe that way.

[Brent]

I wouldn't speak for Brent, but abnormal would seem to be a better word for it other than disability.

I believe homosexualy (to act on those desires) is a choice. Of course, everyone has faults which incline them towards a particular sort of sinful behavior. My fault is dishonesty. For another person, it might be homosexuality. But just because we have the fault does not justify acting out on it. I will be held accountable for lying just as someone inclined towards homosexuality will be held accountable for unlawful (sinful) sexual relations.

So, in a sense, I do believe people can be born inclined towards homosexuality. But I still believe it's a choice to act out on those feelings, and by the Grace of God, those desires CAN be overcome. The only way to overcome our faults is by the empowering Grace of God.

[tianabautre]

Not really. Who's going to pay for such Herculean life support measures? My guess is that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to gestate a fetus in any sort of artificial womb. Perhaps millions at first. Who has to shell out for it?

Oh, I'm sure all those anti-choicers will step up to the plate and willingly shell out the money to bring the fetuses to term and subsequently take care of the kids. Or are you insinuating that they are disingenuous in their outrage?

[BRUTALITOPS]

you honestly think all the outrage is a scam tiana?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

An embryo isn't a being. There's very little to say that it is.

[LadyT]

you honestly think all the outrage is a scam tiana?

Undoubtedly - yes. They have the convenience of not having to pony up any money or time to the problem now: its a 100% lipservice and judgemental BS. I'm pretty sure when the cons would be faced with the prospect of paying an additional $20-$30B (assuming high estimates of 1.3M abortions @ a conservative 20-30K per gestatinal period) in taxes just to gestate the fetus - not to mention the child rearing, they'd turn the measure down flat. Yes, I think most of the anti-choisers are disingenuous and only make noise because they have no consequences in the end result.

-having said that, I wouldn't be against such a measure, if they were to start cutting out military fat.

[Care4all]

An embryo isn't a being. There's very little to say that it is.

a Human Embryo is most certainly an Embryo containing a Human Being.

A Canine's Embryo is most certainly an Embryo containing a form of a Dog.

;)


Try again!


Is this Human Embryo of a Human being a "person" yet(?) would be the better question.... When do they receive all of the rights of a person, do you disregard personhood until they take their first breath? Has personhood of a fetus been considered by our ancestors of long ago in any society or in any religion? What have they writen about it over the years....? What are the differences among the various religious thoughts on this...?

Water, when the Bald Eagle was on the Endangered Species List, it was against the Law to harm or kill one, AND it was ALSO ILLEGAL to break one of their EGGS.....the same penalty as killing one of them.....

WHY do you think that is...?

care

[LadyT]

Is this Human Embryo of a Human being a "person" yet(?) would be the better question.... When do they receive all of the rights of a person, do you disregard personhood until they take their first breath? Has personhood of a fetus been considered by our ancestors of long ago in any society or in any religion? What have they writen about it over the years....? What are the differences among the various religious thoughts on this...

A "person" doesn't have the right to host on your body if you don't approve. To say that a fetus is a person is ridiculous.

[OrnotBitwise]

A "person" doesn't have the right to host on your body if you don't approve. To say that a fetus is a person is ridiculous."Person" and "human animal" are two different things. All human animals that have survived birth are, by nearly uncontested tradition and law, also persons. Unfortunately, so are some corporations. Fortunately, some technically living humans aren't -- e.g. Terri Schiavo.

Personhood is not biologically determined. It's not scientifically describable. It can't be measured or physically detected. It's a legally and ethically defined condition.

[LadyT]

Personhood is not biologically determined. It's not scientifically describable. It can't be measured or physically detected. It's a legally and ethically defined condition.

I can agree to that. I definitely don't agree that fetuses are people though. In said scenario, a "person" is granted the right to host off another person against that person's will in order get sustanence (sp??) and live. Do we really want to go down that slippery slope?

[OrnotBitwise]

I can agree to that. I definitely don't agree that fetuses are people though. In said scenario, a "person" is granted the right to host off another person against that person's will in order get sustanence (sp??) and live. Do we really want to go down that slippery slope?
I agree with you. It's irrational to extend personhood -- all of the legal protections and obligations -- to an unborn fetus in the early stages of development. I do think that setting an arbitrary line -- a legally defined point in gestation at which a fetus is assumed to be a baby or person -- is inevitable. Currently, states are free to do that after the second trimester of pregnancy.

[Immanuel]

The funny thing is that both Ornot and LadyT think they are the ultimate decision makers in this regard. You cannot argue with them. Their decisions are the only ones that count.

No one else is entitled to hold an opinion that human life is sacred and deserves protection from its earliest stages.

:(

Immie

[LadyT]

I agree with you. It's irrational to extend personhood -- all of the legal protections and obligations -- to an unborn fetus in the early stages of development. I do think that setting an arbitrary line -- a legally defined point in gestation at which a fetus is assumed to be a baby or person -- is inevitable. Currently, states are free to do that after the second trimester of pregnancy.

I think it should be when the baby is born. Anything else has grave potential to infringe on the rights of the woman. Also, if you set an arbitrary line, it will undoubtedly be pushed back and back and back. I see the only tangible option for declaring personhood is at birth.

[LadyT]

The funny thing is that both Ornot and LadyT think they are the ultimate decision makers in this regard. You cannot argue with them. Their decisions are the only ones that count.
Immie

"Think"? No my friend, we "are" the decisions makers in this regard.......:pke:
(j/k)

[OrnotBitwise]

The funny thing is that both Ornot and LadyT think they are the ultimate decision makers in this regard. You cannot argue with them. Their decisions are the only ones that count.

No one else is entitled to hold an opinion that human life is sacred and deserves protection from its earliest stages.

:(

ImmieYou're entitled to your opinion, naturally. That means you're entitled to be wrong. :p

Why not? You think I'm wrong, so . . . .

Look, all I'm saying -- here -- is that there are two entirely separate questions to consider: biological identity (species) and personhood. One can assert -- as you do, I believe -- that the two are inextricably tied together. One can assert that all members of the species Homo sapiens sapien, without regard to physical condition or development, must be considered legal persons. That is an assertion, however, not something either axiomatic or directly implied by any axiomatic statement(s). As an assertion, it must be defended: it isn't valid to expect others to simply accept it without question.

[Immanuel]

"Think"? No my friend, we "are" the decisions makers in this regard.......:pke:
(j/k)

I am sure you think so. :pke: returned. Even though you are oh so wrong. But that is okay. I was wrong in my vote for Bush. You can be wrong here. I'd say at least my error didn't cost any lives but then every time I turn on the TV I see and hear otherwise.

;)

Immie

[LadyT]

You Christo-facists are so judgemental.

[Immanuel]

You Christo-facists are so judgemental.

I'm no Christ-facist nor am I a new con. I'd rather be considered a deep left socialist before either of those.

Immie

[LadyT]

I'm no Christ-facist nor am I a new con. I'd rather be considered a deep left socialist before either of those.

Immie

I'm only kidding. I liked Ornot's new word. I'm trying to give it as much play as possible. That's a good one to pick up.

[Immanuel]

I'm only kidding. I liked Ornot's new word. I'm trying to give it as much play as possible. That's a good one to pick up.

Oh, believe me, I knew you were only kidding. If I didn't think you were kidding you would have gotten a 3-2-1. ;)

Immie

[Brent]

I am sure you think so. :pke: returned. Even though you are oh so wrong. But that is okay. I was wrong in my vote for Bush. You can be wrong here. I'd say at least my error didn't cost any lives but then every time I turn on the TV I see and hear otherwise.

;)

Immie

If you could change your vote, who would you have voted for instead?

I'd still vote for Michael Peroutka.

[Immanuel]

If you could change your vote, who would you have voted for instead?

I'd still vote for Michael Peroutka.


You. Hehe... did you see what I said about not wishing that job on my worst enemy? Hey Brent... want the job? ;)

Immie

[Immanuel]

If you could change your vote, who would you have voted for instead?

I'd still vote for Michael Peroutka.

Seriously though, either Peroutka or Badnarik.

Immie

[Damocles]

You Christo-facists are so judgemental.

As are you communofascists...

:D

[Damocles]

HeeHeee! Immie wishes he had voted for Badnarik like I did! LOL.

[LadyT]

I struggled between Ralph and John. I may go green next time around.

[Immanuel]

HeeHeee! Immie wishes he had voted for Badnarik like I did! LOL.

It is all Care4all, LadyT and USCitizen's faults. They did a shitty job of waking me up. Oh and MBL too!

My feelings of guilt be on all y'all's heads. ;)

Immie

[Brent]

You. Hehe... did you see what I said about not wishing that job on my worst enemy? Hey Brent... want the job? ;)

Immie

Sure. Il Duce, Brent. http://www.che.co.il/NewForum/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_twisted.gif

[Brent]

Seriously though, either Peroutka or Badnarik.

Immie

The thing I don't like about Badnarik is how he flipped on abortion in order to appease support within the party. He was 100% pro-life but shifted to the left on that issue. But I do like what he says about blowing up the UN Building. ;)

[Immanuel]

The thing I don't like about Badnarik is how he flipped on abortion in order to appease support within the party. He was 100% pro-life but shifted to the left on that issue. But I do like what he says about blowing up the UN Building. ;)

Even I have shifted to the left on that issue. :(

Not on my beliefs about the issue but on my beliefs about the other side. I used to think that they were thrilled to death every time a woman entered a clinic for an abortion. Now, I can see that this is not true. Just as I agree with the ideas of Welfare and Social Security but differ from them in regards to how these ideas should be implemented, they (the vast majority of them) too seem to share the repulsion I have at the thought of abortion, but they have different ideas on how eliminating them should be accomplished.

Immie

[LadyT]

I've somewhat changed my stance on gun control. I'm not completely anti-gun ownership. I used to be relatively anti-gun, however I realize that there are times when people really do need one: i.e. if you live out in the country and there are a lot of bears (my ex-boss has had bears snooping around his home) or if you hunt to eat. I feel if there are legitimate reasons for the need of such a thing than the gov't shouldn't have the right to withold them from its citizens. I still do think the right to bear arms and for protection from gov't is an incredibly weak argument.

[Immanuel]

I still do think the right to bear arms and for protection from gov't is an incredibly weak argument.

Weak? Only because a person (family or even militia) can not possibly hope to defend itself from the government. Not because we don't need to protect ourselves from the government. I guess you wouldn't have a problem if you fully trust the people in our government.

Immie

[Care4all]

I've somewhat changed my stance on gun control. I'm not completely anti-gun ownership. I used to be relatively anti-gun, however I realize that there are times when people really do need one: i.e. if you live out in the country and there are a lot of bears (my ex-boss has had bears snooping around his home) or if you hunt to eat. I feel if there are legitimate reasons for the need of such a thing than the gov't shouldn't have the right to withold them from its citizens. I still do think the right to bear arms and for protection from gov't is an incredibly weak argument..


Picture this totally made up Scenario:

Right before the elections in 2008, we have another major attack, and President Bush institutes Marshall Law and calls off all elections, and remains our leader, in full control of everything, with the Military being the ones pointing rifles at us, on our soil....for another 10 years or until infinity......

Wouldn't you be wishing then that you had the forsight to see the insight of our founding father's view on never letting the government or Military get bigger than you, we the People?

Our founding fathers were only able to first rebel and start the Revolution to break away from Britain with their own arms....to deny that this is what gave us the ability to rebuke the Tyranny that the British gvt was putting on to them, is denying history...ya know? So I kinda have to pay attention when it comes to this amendment....especially lately.... I am wishing BOOMSTICK would be visiting us again so I can make arrangements to buys a few of them... :) ESPECIALLY with moving to Maine...with all the Bears! :(

good morning!

care

[LadyT]

Realistically, we would not be able to fight our military with our little guns. They've got sophisticated weaponry which includes satellite, war planes, tanks, nuclear power, and some of the best trained soldiers on earth. If it ever came down to it our miliarty would undoubtedly crush any little bit of insurgency and unrest if it had to. For that argument to hold water IMO, civilians would have to have the same advanced technology as our military, and quite frankly I'm do not and will not support, any joe schmo being able to house weapons grade plutonium at his leisure. Please, we'd only be so lucky if they were only pointing rifles at us. 200 years ago, a gun was the height of weapon technology and it was practical and could be relatively safe for people to own them. I don't think its common sense for us as non-military trained citizens to own the "height of weapon technology".

[Damocles]

Realistically, we would not be able to fight our military with our little guns. They've got sophisticated weaponry which includes satellite, war planes, tanks, nuclear power, and some of the best trained soldiers on earth. If it ever came down to it our miliarty would undoubtedly crush any little bit of insurgency and unrest if it had to. For that argument to hold water IMO, civilians would have to have the same advanced technology as our military, and quite frankly I'm do not and will not support, any joe schmo being able to house weapons grade plutonium at his leisure. Please, we'd only be so lucky if they were only pointing rifles at us. 200 years ago, a gun was the height of weapon technology and it was practical and could be relatively safe for people to own them. I don't think its common sense for us as non-military trained citizens to own the "height of weapon technology".
If this were true then the "insurgency" would be worthless in Iraq. Our little guns would make a HUGE impact if it became necessary. There is also the fact that the military is made up of volunteers who likely would not do what was ordered if it was to fight their families....

[Care4all]

Realistically, we would not be able to fight our military with our little guns. They've got sophisticated weaponry which includes satellite, war planes, tanks, nuclear power, and some of the best trained soldiers on earth. If it ever came down to it our miliarty would undoubtedly crush any little bit of insurgency and unrest if it had to. For that argument to hold water IMO, civilians would have to have the same advanced technology as our military, and quite frankly I'm do not and will not support, any joe schmo being able to house weapons grade plutonium at his leisure. Please, we'd only be so lucky if they were only pointing rifles at us. 200 years ago, a gun was the height of weapon technology and it was practical and could be relatively safe for people to own them. I don't think its common sense for us as non-military trained citizens to own the "height of weapon technology".

Our founding father's arsenol was also pathetic, compared to the arsenol of the mighty British....

But we used our smarts, and we used other countries, to support our cause for various reasons, and supply us with the eventual ammunitions that we needed....

Without any arms at all, we call UNCLE before the fight begins....and,

they control all options and power....without the 2nd amendment, and that is not what Our founding fathers saw as a means to keep our government from becoming the same tyranny that they escaped and rebeled against imo.

care

[Immanuel]

Our founding father's arsenol was also pathetic, compared to the arsenol of the mighty British....

But we used our smarts, and we used other countries, to support our cause for various reasons, and supply us with the eventual ammunitions that we needed....

Without any arms at all, we call UNCLE before the fight begins....and,

they control all options and power....without the 2nd amendment, and that is not what Our founding fathers saw as a means to keep our government from becoming the same tyranny that they escaped and rebeled against imo.

care

Do you think that the American people are smart enough to pull that off today? After all, half of us voted for Bush a second time around.

Guilty as charged.

Immie

[LadyT]

Do you think that the American people are smart enough to pull that off today? After all, half of us voted for Bush a second time around.

Guilty as charged.

Immie

And there is another good point. We give good lipservice, but as a whole, I highly doubt we would really be united in effort to overthrow the gov't for anything. We should all be united and marching on the WH front lawn with the atrocities this admin has committed. But we're not, there's vacation time to worry about, traffic, etc....... Our affliction with apathy is epidemic.

[LadyT]

Our founding father's arsenol was also pathetic, compared to the arsenol of the mighty British....



I don't think that is a good parallel at all. Yes, the brits were mighty but
a) they weren't on their home turf
b) The disparity between the brits and the militias weapons is definitely not as great as the dispartity between citizens with guns vs the US military.

As you can see, our military can relatively easily conquer nations' militaries almost effortlessly (please note conquered does not imply stabilization). And these nations have had home turf advantage. The only way you really be able to win would be to fight the US military is by infiltrating and using terrorist and guerilla methods which wouldn't necessarily be reliant on civilians owning guns. But before it would even get to that, I don't think our prozac-loving-paris-hilton-obsessed-politically uninformed nation would ever come together to do such a thing. No, I can see us fragmenting into various groups before I see anything like that. I don't think many people would really care if say texas decided to declare itself its own country or if the south wanted to cecede again. It would be good water cooler talk for a while, but then the new season of Lost would start or the playoffs would take top priority.

[OrnotBitwise]

I don't think that is a good parallel at all. Yes, the brits were mighty but
a) they weren't on their home turf
b) The disparity between the brits and the militias weapons is definitely not as great as the dispartity between citizens with guns vs the US military.

As you can see, our military can relatively easily conquer nations' militaries almost effortlessly (please note conquered does not imply stabilization). And these nations have had home turf advantage. The only way you really be able to win would be to fight the US military is by infiltrating and using terrorist and guerilla methods which wouldn't necessarily be reliant on civilians owning guns. But before it would even get to that, I don't think our prozac-loving-paris-hilton-obsessed-politically uninformed nation would ever come together to do such a thing. No, I can see us fragmenting into various groups before I see anything like that. I don't think many people would really care if say texas decided to declare itself its own country or if the south wanted to cecede again. It would be good water cooler talk for a while, but then the new season of Lost would start or the playoffs would take top priority.
Don't dismiss the problem of stabilization. That's the same mistake our military leaders are making. "Asymmetrical warfare" isn't just a catch phrase. It's a fancy new way of saying "guerrila warfare" without having to spell "guerrila."

Nevertheless, I agree with your take on the American people, sadly. We just aren't concerned with these issues. I believe we should be, but we're not.

[Damocles]

Don't dismiss the problem of stabilization. That's the same mistake our military leaders are making. "Asymmetrical warfare" isn't just a catch phrase. It's a fancy new way of saying "guerrila warfare" without having to spell "guerrila."

Nevertheless, I agree with your take on the American people, sadly. We just aren't concerned with these issues. I believe we should be, but we're not.

When the boot reaches their necks they will again be.

[Immanuel]

When the boot reaches their necks they will again be.

By then it will be too late.

Immie

[Damocles]

By then it will be too late.

Immie

I always hear this, but never quite grasp it. Too late for what?

If we can never fix what happened then I guess we shouldn't buy German because that was where Hitler led...

[Immanuel]

I always hear this, but never quite grasp it. Too late for what?

If we can never fix what happened then I guess we shouldn't buy German because that was where Hitler led...

Well, let me put it this way. It would be insane for the American People to even consider rising up in rebellion in any kind of a physical way. Our only hope is to wrest control legally from those who have stolen it by sending the offenders home packing and making them one of us. We'd have to put honest and reliable men and women into office and limit their power in a much more secure way than we do right now.

Immie

[LadyT]

Don't dismiss the problem of stabilization. That's the same mistake our military leaders are making. "Asymmetrical warfare" isn't just a catch phrase. It's a fancy new way of saying "guerrila warfare" without having to spell "guerrila."

Nevertheless, I agree with your take on the American people, sadly. We just aren't concerned with these issues. I believe we should be, but we're not.

Oh, I'm not dismissing. I'm merely pointing out, that our military effortlessly for lack of a better word was able to conquer for example the Iraq army and seize control of Afghanistan from Al Queda in a matter of months. Guns in the hands of their respective militaries and militias didn't really do them much good - and they were united and motivated - on the flip side you have your average American citizens.

[Damocles]

Well, let me put it this way. It would be insane for the American People to even consider rising up in rebellion in any kind of a physical way. Our only hope is to wrest control legally from those who have stolen it by sending the offenders home packing and making them one of us. We'd have to put honest and reliable men and women into office and limit their power in a much more secure way than we do right now.

Immie
The problem is neither main party puts forward those people. You have to get most of the US to vote against their party, and they just won't do it.

[Immanuel]

The problem is neither main party puts forward those people. You have to get most of the US to vote against their party, and they just won't do it.

Tell me about it. Thus the feeling that America will break up in my lifetime.

Immie

[uscitizen]

This thread kinda makes one wonder why the current administration is trying to take national guard control away from the states.......

[Damocles]

This thread kinda makes one wonder why the current administration is trying to take national guard control away from the states.......
That happened long ago when they were nationalized. This isn't any new thing with this Admin...

[OrnotBitwise]

Tell me about it. Thus the feeling that America will break up in my lifetime.

Immie
Honestly, I doubt it will. Things will have to get much, much worse before that happens. Ultimately, I believe that some drastic reorganization or breakup is inevitable: once you've started down the road to empire there's no going back. Except in my more . . . colorful, let's say . . . moments, though, I don't think it's going to happen within the next 60 or 70 years.

Consider what Tiana so aptly said about the complacency of the American people. We are profoundly lazy, if that's not an oxymoron.

[Immanuel]

Honestly, I doubt it will. Things will have to get much, much worse before that happens. Ultimately, I believe that some drastic reorganization or breakup is inevitable: once you've started down the road to empire there's no going back. Except in my more . . . colorful, let's say . . . moments, though, I don't think it's going to happen within the next 60 or 70 years.

Consider what Tiana so aptly said about the complacency of the American people. We are profoundly lazy, if that's not an oxymoron.

You are my age. Think back to what life was like when we were kids. Think back to what your parents told you of their lives. Think of all the progress that has happened in the last 100 years and how the rate of progress is increasing exponentially. Then tell me this can't happen in the next 40 years.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

You are my age. Think back to what life was like when we were kids. Think back to what your parents told you of their lives. Think of all the progress that has happened in the last 100 years and how the rate of progress is increasing exponentially. Then tell me this can't happen in the next 40 years.

ImmieI didn't say "can't", I said "won't." That's not the same thing. I think that the odds are it won't happen until about the end of this century. Gut feeling, I know.

I do think back to my childhood. Often. You know what I remember most? I remember that the country was far more divided and polarized then than it is today. Things came within the proverbial hair's bredth of open rebellion and/or military coup in the late 60s and early 70s. In a way, I saw it from both sides. I remember my dad standing in the door of his lab, defending the projects there from an angry mob. I remember friends dealing with the Weather Underground -- yeah, really. I remember contemplating the WU a lot in college. Yet few people were willing to step over that last line, myself included.

Was it just because there were too frightened or because they hadn't lost faith in the United States completely? In the end, the two answers are one and the same.

[Immanuel]

I didn't say "can't", I said "won't." That's not the same thing. I think that the odds are it won't happen until about the end of this century. Gut feeling, I know.

I do think back to my childhood. Often. You know what I remember most? I remember that the country was far more divided and polarized then than it is today. Things came within the proverbial hair's bredth of open rebellion and/or military coup in the late 60s and early 70s. In a way, I saw it from both sides. I remember my dad standing in the door of his lab, defending the projects there from an angry mob. I remember friends dealing with the Weather Underground -- yeah, really. I remember contemplating the WU a lot in college. Yet few people were willing to step over that last line, myself included.

Was it just because there were too frightened or because they hadn't lost faith in the United States completely? In the end, the two answers are one and the same.

Well, when it happens, I will say I told you so. I really do hope it does not happen.

Immie

[Brent]

Even I have shifted to the left on that issue. :(

Not on my beliefs about the issue but on my beliefs about the other side. I used to think that they were thrilled to death every time a woman entered a clinic for an abortion. Now, I can see that this is not true. Just as I agree with the ideas of Welfare and Social Security but differ from them in regards to how these ideas should be implemented, they (the vast majority of them) too seem to share the repulsion I have at the thought of abortion, but they have different ideas on how eliminating them should be accomplished.

Immie

You think abortion doctors want to want to see abortions reduced? Somehow, I doubt that. Abortionists depend on murdering babies -- it's their livelihood. :(

No, many pro-choicers don't believe unborn babies are life to begin with, so I don't think we share with them the same degree of sorrow. To them, sorrow might be similar to what we feel when we see a dead possum on the road. To us, we recognize that a sentient being, created in the image of God, has been shamelessly destroyed.

Remember the "clump of cells" arugment? Do you think they feel compassion for a "clump of cells," and sadness when it is destroyed?

[Immanuel]

You think abortion doctors want to want to see abortions reduced? Somehow, I doubt that. Abortionists depend on murdering babies -- it's their livelihood. :(

No, many pro-choicers don't believe unborn babies are life to begin with, so I don't think we share with them the same degree of sorrow. To them, sorrow might be similar to what we feel when we see a dead possum on the road. To us, we recognize that a sentient being, created in the image of God, has been shamelessly destroyed.

Remember the "clump of cells" arugment? Do you think they feel compassion for a "clump of cells," and sadness when it is destroyed?

I said the vast majority not all. Abortion doctors are different plus there is a conflict of interest in their case.

Did I say same degree of sorrow?

As for the pro-choicers don't believe argument, that is an attempt on their side to deflect guilt feeling and make themselves feel better. It also cannot be said that we do not do the same thing. We use the "murderer" emotional argument and gross pictures to bash them in the face with.

But, when you speak to a rational pro-choicer, Maineman, for one you can see that they have reasons for opposing governmental intervention into the womb of a woman. They would prefer abortion be non-existant, but they object to our intervention.

I don't agree with them but that does not mean that they jump for joy at the deaths of these children.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

I said the vast majority not all. Abortion doctors are different plus there is a conflict of interest in their case.

Did I say same degree of sorrow?

As for the pro-choicers don't believe argument, that is an attempt on their side to deflect guilt feeling and make themselves feel better. It also cannot be said that we do not do the same thing. We use the "murderer" emotional argument and gross pictures to bash them in the face with.

But, when you speak to a rational pro-choicer, Maineman, for one you can see that they have reasons for opposing governmental intervention into the womb of a woman. They would prefer abortion be non-existant, but they object to our intervention.

I don't agree with them but that does not mean that they jump for joy at the deaths of these children.

Immie
Great Caesar's ghost! Did a pro-lifer just admit that pro-choice people aren't necessarily cold-blooded baby killers? Damn! No wonder my feet got cold all of a sudden.

:eek2:

I will point out, just to keep things interesting, that at least in this state, there are no such things as "abortion doctors." There are doctors and clinics that perform abortions but none who do nothing but abortions.

[Immanuel]

Great Caesar's ghost! Did a pro-lifer just admit that pro-choice people aren't necessarily cold-blooded baby killers? Damn! No wonder my feet got cold all of a sudden.

:eek2:

I will point out, just to keep things interesting, that at least in this state, there are no such things as "abortion doctors." There are doctors and clinics that perform abortions but none who do nothing but abortions.

Did I really do that? I must be having a bad day!

What difference does it make whether they are called abortion doctors, abortionists or a sub-class of OB/GYNs. They do kill human beings.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

Did I really do that? I must be having a bad day!

What difference does it make whether they are called abortion doctors, abortionists or a sub-class of OB/GYNs. They do kill human beings.

Immie:bs:
Only in traffic accidents or cases of malpractice.

Brent's implication -- and one I see often promulgated by some in the anti-choice camp -- is that there are "abortion doctors" out there who do nothing other than abortions. This is a myth. That's "myth" in the sense of something untrue, not in the literal sense. Well, in the literal sense too, but I digress.

[Damocles]

It depends on what state you live in. In some there really are doctors that solely do that for a living.

I would define "Abortion Doctor" as a doctor who is willing to perform elective abortions.

[OrnotBitwise]

It depends on what state you live in. In some there really are doctors that solely do that for a living.

I would define "Abortion Doctor" as a doctor who is willing to perform elective abortions.You sure about that? I don't have the facts to dispute it but I wouldn't have thought it would be economically feasible. Maybe in a state where there's only one willing doctor for every million citizens . . . .

My point is that if you define "abortion doctor" as anyone who's willing to perform elective abortions then the term is both misleading and kind of pointless. In this state, anyway: it's basically synonymous with OB/GYN. Most OBs perform one or two every few years, perhaps. It's really an outpatient procedure, but some women insist on having their OB/GYN do it.

As the term is used, it implies someone who does these procedures regularly or as a specialty. That is misleading.

[LadyT]

Doctors that perform abortions are usually ob/gyns. They would make far more money treating the woman for nine months then they do performing an abortion. To say that they are financially motivated is a anti-choice myth.

[LadyT]

You sure about that? I don't have the facts to dispute it but I wouldn't have thought it would be economically feasible. Maybe in a state where there's only one willing doctor for every million citizens . . . .

My point is that if you define "abortion doctor" as anyone who's willing to perform elective abortions then the term is both misleading and kind of pointless. In this state, anyway: it's basically synonymous with OB/GYN. Most OBs perform one or two every few years, perhaps. It's really an outpatient procedure, but some women insist on having their OB/GYN do it.

As the term is used, it implies someone who does these procedures regularly or as a specialty. That is misleading.


you beat me to it!

[OrnotBitwise]

Doctors that perform abortions are usually ob/gyns. They would make far more money treating the woman for nine months then they do performing an abortion. To say that they are financially motivated is a anti-choice myth.
Excellent point. There really is no financial incentive for most doctors to do an abortion. Such an incentive would apply only in the case of those mythical abortion mills.

[Damocles]

Doctors that perform abortions are usually ob/gyns. They would make far more money treating the woman for nine months then they do performing an abortion. To say that they are financially motivated is a anti-choice myth.

Actually, if they can convince them to get pregnant every two or three months or so and abort the child they'd make far more money... But I digress...

BTW - Don't go jumping all over me for that, I don't think that is their goal...

OB/Gyn's are FAR less likely to get sued over an abortion case than they are over a birth. Many people no longer enter that field because of the HUGE cost of the insurance one has to carry....

[OrnotBitwise]

you beat me to it!I live but to serve. :D

[Damocles]

You sure about that? I don't have the facts to dispute it but I wouldn't have thought it would be economically feasible. Maybe in a state where there's only one willing doctor for every million citizens . . . .

M'eh... The only reason I think it is true is because of the guy they showed on the news who performs all of the abortions for a certain area... I don't even remember which area... It could be wrong. It wouldn't matter. My objection would never rest on this, and the Term "Abortion Doctor" isn't something that I would really use.



My point is that if you define "abortion doctor" as anyone who's willing to perform elective abortions then the term is both misleading and kind of pointless.


No, it isn't. There are many OB/Gyns that simply won't perform an elective abortion they should be separated from those that will.



In this state, anyway: it's basically synonymous with OB/GYN. Most OBs perform one or two every few years, perhaps. It's really an outpatient procedure, but some women insist on having their OB/GYN do it.

As the term is used, it implies someone who does these procedures regularly or as a specialty. That is misleading.
I don't believe that it is. I don't think it implies that.

[OrnotBitwise]

No, it isn't. There are many OB/Gyns that simply won't perform an elective abortion they should be separated from those that will.

I deal with OB/GYNs all the time in the course of business and I've never run across one who won't, but I'll grant you this point -- at least provisionally. I have to, considering how contemptuous I've been of people who generalize from their personal experience.

;)

[Immanuel]

I deal with OB/GYNs all the time in the course of business and I've never run across one who won't, but I'll grant you this point -- at least provisionally. I have to, considering how contemptuous I've been of people who generalize from their personal experience.

;)

Well, when my wife interviewed her OB/GYN in Florida, she specifically asked the doctor if he/she performed abortions. The first ones that she spoke to said yes. My wife moved on to the next until we found one who said he did not. He is still her doctor and the doctor of several other people whom we know.

Immie

[Damocles]

We went to a Catholic Hospital... They won't allow them except to save the mother's life...

[OrnotBitwise]

Well, when my wife interviewed her OB/GYN in Florida, she specifically asked the doctor if he/she performed abortions. The first ones that she spoke to said yes. My wife moved on to the next until we found one who said he did not. He is still her doctor and the doctor of several other people whom we know.

Immie
Which reinforces my position, I deem. Most will, if asked.

[Damocles]

Which reinforces my position, I deem. Most will, if asked.
I agree that most will. My statement was that there are many that will not and they deserve to be in a separate category, IMO.

[Immanuel]

Which reinforces my position, I deem. Most will, if asked.

I wasn't agruing against you. Just pointing out my experience.

Heck, it is even possible, that my wife's doctor would if asked. He's a Christian and told her that he did not, but that does not mean he is always 100% honest. To date we have no evidence that he lied and prefer to keep it that way.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

I wasn't agruing against you. Just pointing out my experience.

Heck, it is even possible, that my wife's doctor would if asked. He's a Christian and told her that he did not, but that does not mean he is always 100% honest. To date we have no evidence that he lied and prefer to keep it that way.

Immie
I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of those who will self-identify as Christian also.

:pke:

[Damocles]

Were I in that arena I would not. I am not a Christian.

[OrnotBitwise]

Were I in that arena I would not. I am not a Christian.
I know you're not. I'm trying to change the subject again. ;)

I find the phrase "he's a Christian" mildly annoying in this context. The label has been effectively hijacked in this country. There's a complex of traits most of us associate with it that actually have little to do with the majority of Christians.

[Immanuel]

I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of those who will self-identify as Christian also.

:pke:

Only 50%?

Thanks to the lies that your side has spread over the last 40 years, I am surprised that the number is that low. Your side has made abortion out to be at the very least a "necessary evil", but more like a "gift from God".

If your side doesn't start trying to reign itself in and at least declare abortion a national tragedy that should not be considered as an alternative to birth control then we will have a major issue on our hand. Oh wait we already do.

Then again if my side would attempt to show some of the compassion that they so frequently claim and stop working against your side's efforts to help the woman involved in a crisis pregnancy... oh well, we're doomed.

Immie

[Brent]

Then again if my side would attempt to show some of the compassion that they so frequently claim and stop working against your side's efforts to help the woman involved in a crisis pregnancy... oh well, we're doomed.

Immie

What are you talking about?

[Immanuel]

What are you talking about?

Is what I wrote that hard to understand?

If Pro-lifers would put their money where their mouths are, and if they would show compassion to unwed mothers we could possibly come to a compromise that might lead to a vastly reduced number of abortions.

Immie

[LadyT]

Is what I wrote that hard to understand?

If Pro-lifers would put their money where their mouths are, and if they would show compassion to unwed mothers we could possibly come to a compromise that might lead to a vastly reduced number of abortions.

Immie

Yeah - well a good start would be begin adopting children OF ALL RACES, at least then you're side will seem a little less disingenous and perhaps you can ween some of those on the other side of the spectrum to your side and they will not take your sanctimonius rants as empty rhetoric. But that ain't gonna happen.

[Immanuel]

Yeah - well a good start would be begin adopting children OF ALL RACES, at least then you're side will seem a little less disingenous and perhaps you can ween some of those on the other side of the spectrum to your side and they will not take your sanctimonius rants as empty rhetoric. But that ain't gonna happen.


Why are you attacking me?

Immie

[LadyT]

Why are you attacking me?

Immie

I'm not attacking. I'm merely pointing out that if the anti-choisers were genuinely concerned with welfare and livelihood of these children as they pretend to be there would be no children in orphanages and that its no secret that minority children are in much less deman than white children for adoption. There's a huge opportunity for you guys to show the world you're not disingenuine.

[Immanuel]

I'm not attacking. I'm merely pointing out that if the anti-choisers were genuinely concerned with welfare and livelihood of these children as they pretend to be there would be no children in orphanages and that its no secret that minority children are in much less deman than white children for adoption. There's a huge opportunity for you guys to show the world you're not disingenuine.

Sorry, but your solution is not always feasible.

I find it funny though how your side believes that it is the requirement of the other side to jump through hoops while your side will not do anything to bring about a compromise. I guess your side thinks they have the high road and don't need to compromise. ;)

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

Sorry, but your solution is not always feasible.

Neither is carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term always feasible.

[LadyT]

Sorry, but your solution is not always feasible.

I find it funny though how your side believes that it is the requirement of the other side to jump through hoops while your side will not do anything to bring about a compromise. I guess your side thinks they have the high road and don't need to compromise. ;)

Immie

You're the ones actively trying to interfere with people's lives. We are simply saying the gov't should stay out of it. Pro-choicers "comprise" is free will, anti-choicers are the one's actively trying to impede on that free will. And lets be clear: its the anti-choicers that want other people to jump through hoops to live by a set of ethical standards that they believe in. I'm simply saying:put your money where you mouth is.

[Immanuel]

Neither is carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term always feasible.

Except in the case of rape the woman was not forced into the pregnancy. I assume that most women who get pregnant know how they got that way.

Immie

[Immanuel]

You're the ones actively trying to interfere with people's lives. We are simply saying the gov't should stay out of it. Pro-choicers "comprise" is free will, anti-choicers are the one's actively trying to impede on that free will. And lets be clear: its the anti-choicers that want other people to jump through hoops to live by a set of ethical standards that they believe in. I'm simply saying:put your money where you mouth is.

That is a matter of opinion but let us be honest as far as you are concerned yours is the only one that counts. As far as I am concerned we should always err on the side of life.

Immie

[Damocles]

I'll adopt your child if you promise not to abort it... I'll thankfully do that and celebrate our newfound "compromise". Even if it is all "my side" that has to "compromise" in that way.

[Cypress]

the common ground we all have, is to limit unwanted pregnancies. That will dramatically reduce the demand for abortions.

We need over the counter Plan B contraception and universal health care, so women have access to reproductive health care. And please: realistic sex education plays a role in limiting unwanted contraception. The "abstinence-only" education won't work.

Western european Countries that promote contraception and provide univershal health care, generally have much lower abortion rates than the United States.

[OrnotBitwise]

Except in the case of rape the woman was not forced into the pregnancy. I assume that most women who get pregnant know how they got that way.

Immie
:lolup: Ah HA! There we go. There's that judgmental, paternalistic need for retribution popping it's ugly head up again.

"She knew what she was doing; she brought it on herself!" Yeah, right. Revenge and retribution. Make 'em suffer for their bad choices, damnit!

The fact is that, in any specific instance, you don't know what she knew or how she got into the situation. You may think you do but it's all just generalization.

[Damocles]

Where is the responsibility? Attempting to define it as retribution when all I want to do is save a life really isn't a fair characterization.

[Immanuel]

And please: realistic sex education plays a role in limiting unwanted contraception. The "abstinence-only" education won't work.


If that is addressed to me you will play hell finding anywhere on all three sites where I have ever once promoted "abstinence-only" sex education. I have, however, much to the scagrin (sp?) of the left promoted abstinence being included and highlighted in sex education and yes even stressed.

Immie

[LadyT]

I'll adopt your child if you promise not to abort it... I'll thankfully do that and celebrate our newfound "compromise". Even if it is all "my side" that has to "compromise" in that way.

I think we both know you're an exception to the rule. If all "pro-lifers" were like you, we wouldn't have orphanages.

[LadyT]

Where is the responsibility? Attempting to define it as retribution when all I want to do is save a life really isn't a fair characterization.

You mean like plan B ya know the birth control that christo-facists are trying to outlaw?

[Damocles]

I think we both know you're an exception to the rule. If all "pro-lifers" were like you, we wouldn't have orphanages.
I'd let them all come along... It is far more important to save their lives than it is to be "right"...

[Damocles]

You mean like plan B ya know the birth control that christo-facists are trying to outlaw?
They are not illegal, this is a strawman. "Trying to outlaw" is not the same thing as "unable to get".

[Cypress]

You mean like plan B ya know the birth control that christo-facists are trying to outlaw?

I would say a strong case can easily be made, that it is the rightwing christo-fascists who are actually the ones increasing unwanted pregnancies -- by fighting contraception, universal healthcare, and adequate sex education ever step of the way ;-)

[Cypress]

They are not illegal, this is a strawman. "Trying to outlaw" is not the same thing as "unable to get".


Turn on any of the rightwing cable news shows.

They're constanly parading a gallery of rightwing "christian" nuts, who are trying to limit contraception, universal health care, and adequate sex education.

Its not liberals who are "causing" more unneccessary unwanted pregnancies. Its Jerry Fallwell, and those types ;)

[LadyT]

They are not illegal, this is a strawman. "Trying to outlaw" is not the same thing as "unable to get".

Are you saying the christo-facists don't want to get the product outlawed?

[Cypress]

Are you saying the christo-facists don't want to get the product outlawed?


Bush's hack appointees to the FDA tried for years to keep Plan B, from becoming OTC available. Even though the FDA scientific experts recommended it.

Thankfully, I think liberal and women's health groups have exerted enough presuure on Bush's hacks, that Plan B is finally scheduled to be OTC available in the near future. but, it took liberals, moderates, scientists, and sane people to cause this to happen.

[LadyT]

Bush's hack appointees to the FDA tried for years to keep Plan B, from becoming OTC available. Even though the FDA scientific experts recommended it.

Thankfully, I think liberal and women's health groups have exerted enough presuure on Bush's hacks, that Plan B is finally scheduled to be OTC available in the near future. but, it took liberals, moderates, scientists, and sane people to cause this to happen.

If I recall correctly there was a c-fascist on the panel that tried to block it from the market. I can't remember his name though, but they fought hard to out law it or as damo likes to put it, "unable to get" {legally in the US market}.

[Cypress]

If I recall correctly there was a c-fascist on the panel that tried to block it from the market. I can't remember his name though, but they fought hard to out law it or as damo likes to put it, "unable to get" {legally in the US market}.

Why do these right wing loons want there to be more unwanted pregnancies? Why on earth wouldn't they support contraception that will limit unwanted pregnacies and abortions?

If I was a cynic, I'd almost say that they want more unwanted pregnancies and abortions, to hang onto as a "political" issue to win religious voters allegiance....... ;)

[Damocles]

Turn on any of the rightwing cable news shows.

They're constanly parading a gallery of rightwing "christian" nuts, who are trying to limit contraception, universal health care, and adequate sex education.

Its not liberals who are "causing" more unneccessary unwanted pregnancies. Its Jerry Fallwell, and those types ;)
Trying to is not equivalent to "SUCCESSFULLY" limiting. This is still a strawman.

[Damocles]

Are you saying the christo-facists don't want to get the product outlawed?
No, I am saying "wanting" and "successfully" doing something are two separate things. Saying that suddenly because Religio-Conservatives "want" to do something that those who want legal product can't get it is a strawman.

[Immanuel]

This thread has turned into a circle jerk.

Immie

[LadyT]

They were trying to keep it off the market, that's not a strawman!

[Immanuel]

:lolup: Ah HA! There we go. There's that judgmental, paternalistic need for retribution popping it's ugly head up again.

"She knew what she was doing; she brought it on herself!" Yeah, right. Revenge and retribution. Make 'em suffer for their bad choices, damnit!

The fact is that, in any specific instance, you don't know what she knew or how she got into the situation. You may think you do but it's all just generalization.


That is right so you punish the baby. Way to go Ornot!!!! Punish the innocent. Makes a hell of a lot of sense to you doesn't it?

As I said before, err on the side of life. I can see that compassion is something you have not got a clue about.

No one said a word about revenge or retribution. You are the only one that wants revenge. You want revenge on that poor child because it had the gall to be conceived.

Immie

[Damocles]

Once again "trying" is not "successful at"... Trying means that they were unsuccessful, the product is still available, therefore people still have a responsibility for their actions. Pretending like they are no longer responsible for procuring the product that is legally available just because another person "tried" to make it "illegal" is preposterous.

[Cypress]

Sorry Immie. Not disrespect intended.

Its just that if you really want to limit abortions, you have to have adequate acces to a wide range of contraception, universal healthcare, and realistic sex education.

Not to take these steps, is in fact promoting more unwanted pregnancies. And abortions.

A bunch of overweight white men in a legistlature passing bills, and trying to overturn Rove v. Wade, isn't going to stop one abortion.

The steps I outline above, will.

[Cypress]

Once again "trying" is not "successful at"... Trying means that they were unsuccessful, the product is still available, therefore people still have a responsibility for their actions. Pretending like they are no longer responsible for procuring the product that is legally available just because another person "tried" to make it "illegal" is preposterous.

I'll take that as a "thanks" from you to liberal groups, womens' health groups, and scientists who fought Bush, his appointees, and the religious right for almost six years, to get Plan B accepted, and elevated to an OTC product.

Without these groups it may not have happened. ;)

[Immanuel]

Sorry Immie. Not disrespect intended.

Its just that if you really want to limit abortions, you have to have adequate acces to a wide range of contraception, universal healthcare, and realistic sex education.

Not to take these steps, is in fact promoting more unwanted pregnancies. And abortions.

A bunch of overweight white men in a legistlature passing bills, and trying to overturn Rove v. Wade, isn't going to stop one abortion.

The steps I outline above, will.

Quote where I have ever said anything about limiting contraception or realistic sex education. Universal healthcare is a separate matter, one that I am beginning to fear we are going to be forced into regardless if it is the right way to go or not because the medical and insurance industries are forcing us into it.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

That is right so you punish the baby. Way to go Ornot!!!! Punish the innocent. Makes a hell of a lot of sense to you doesn't it?

As I said before, err on the side of life. I can see that compassion is something you have not got a clue about.

No one said a word about revenge or retribution. You are the only one that wants revenge. You want revenge on that poor child because it had the gall to be conceived.

Immie
Preventing a baby from forming is not punishing anyone. There is no "innocent" involved. You have (what I deem) a mystical belief that the potential infant represented by a developing fetus is already a person from the moment of conception. Frankly, that's rubbish -- to borrow Damo's favorite phrase.

You're entitled to your belief, of course. Erect little teeny weenie headstones for blastula, for all I care. What you're not entitled to do is to force everyone else to conform to a code of conduct based on the assumption that your belief is fact.

Erring on the side of caution is normally a good precept, I'll grant you. In this case, however, the notion you're promoting is so enormously counter-intuitive and the effect on millions of women so drastic that I have to balk.

[LadyT]

Once again "trying" is not "successful at"... Trying means that they were unsuccessful, the product is still available, therefore people still have a responsibility for their actions. Pretending like they are no longer responsible for procuring the product that is legally available just because another person "tried" to make it "illegal" is preposterous.

I wasn't saying that at all. My point was that the christo-fascists were trying to limit women taking responsibility for their actions by trying to restrict access to the pill.

[Immanuel]

Preventing a baby from forming is not punishing anyone. There is no "innocent" involved. You have (what I deem) a mystical belief that the potential infant represented by a developing fetus is already a person from the moment of conception. Frankly, that's rubbish -- to borrow Damo's favorite phrase.

You're entitled to your belief, of course. Erect little teeny weenie headstones for blastula, for all I care. What you're not entitled to do is to force everyone else to conform to a code of conduct based on the assumption that your belief is fact.

Erring on the side of caution is normally a good precept, I'll grant you. In this case, however, the notion you're promoting is so enormously counter-intuitive and the effect on millions of women so drastic that I have to balk.

Ah yes, the my perspective is the only right perspective argument.

Arrogance! The height of arrogance.

Immie

[Damocles]

I'll take that as a "thanks" from you to liberal groups, womens' health groups, and scientists who fought Bush, his appointees, and the religious right for almost six years, to get Plan B accepted, and elevated to an OTC product.

Without these groups it may not have happened. ;)
However, if it is there, saying that girls getting pregnant is the fault of people that "stopped" this is a strawman.

It's like saying, it is my sister's fault I didn't finish my homework, she ALMOST took away my math book!

[OrnotBitwise]

Ah yes, the my perspective is the only right perspective argument.

Arrogance! The height of arrogance.

Immie
If I am arrogant than you are equally so. We're each asserting that our own perspective is the correct one. ;)

Unfortunately, there's little room for compromise on this issue. Lest we forget, Roe v. Wade itself is a compromise.

[Immanuel]

If I am arrogant than you are equally so. We're each asserting that our own perspective is the correct one. ;)

Unfortunately, there's little room for compromise on this issue. Lest we forget, Roe v. Wade itself is a compromise.

Wrong! I'm willing to give a little. In this very thread I said that you guys weren't the devil himself. That is a major gift coming from me. ;)

Roe V. Wade a compromise. Like hell it was.

Immie

[LadyT]

However, if it is there, saying that girls getting pregnant is the fault of people that "stopped" this is a strawman.

It's like saying, it is my sister's fault I didn't finish my homework, she ALMOST took away my math book!

I never said they succeeded damo! I said, "trying to outlaw"

[Damocles]

I never said they succeeded damo! I said, "trying to outlaw"
Yes, but used it as a reason why they were not responsible for their own action...

One cannot have it both ways, the product is legal and accessible, they can get it regardless of what that "Evil Rightwinger" wanted to happen. They can, and should be, held responsible for their own action without some odd attempt at making me a "big meanie" for stating such an obvious thing.

One cannot say, "It's all R's fault because they want so and so..." when so and so hasn't come to pass.

[Cypress]

Yes, but used it as a reason why they were not responsible for their own action...

One cannot have it both ways, the product is legal and accessible, they can get it regardless of what that "Evil Rightwinger" wanted to happen. They can, and should be, held responsible for their own action without some odd attempt at making me a "big meanie" for stating such an obvious thing.

One cannot say, "It's all R's fault because they want so and so..." when so and so hasn't come to pass.

First, it demonstrates the christian rightwing is actively delaying steps that can reduce unwanted pregnancies. They are not to be trusted with public policy that will REDUCE abortions.

Second, its not going to end here. Even though liberals had to fight for six years to get Plan B, that's not where it stops. Christo-fascists are and will fight to keep it out of pharmacies. Remember the big fight at WalMart, where christo-fascists were succeeding in forcing Walmart pharmacies not to carry Plan B? The fight goes on, dude.

[Immanuel]

"One cannot say, "It's all R's fault because they want so and so..." when so and so hasn't come to pass."

Yes they can. It is all my fault. I personally caused every unwanted pregnancy in the history of human kind simply because I believe in the right to life.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

Wrong! I'm willing to give a little. In this very thread I said that you guys weren't the devil himself. That is a major gift coming from me. ;)

Roe V. Wade a compromise. Like hell it was.

Immie
Immie, it is. Quite apart from the history, which you can get anywhere, look at it objectively.

First, let me state the two positions. These are the two pure -- or most extreme, if you prefer -- positions. Obviously, most people fall somewhere between the two. They define the two sides, however.

1) Elective abortion is wrong in all cases: it is the willful taking of the life of an innocent child. This argument is based on the idead that "personhood" begins at conception -- or the argument that it might and therefore we should assume that it does. This is the position of those who advocate criminalizing or severly restricting abortion.

2) Only the mother can decide whether abortion would be right or wrong in her prticular case. This argument hinges on the idea that no one can know, in any particular case, when a fetus becomes a baby -- a person. Therefore, the argument goes, it must be left up to the mother's own conscience. This is the position of those who advocate keeping abortion legal and a matter of personal moral choice.

The compromise that the Supreme Court settled on really satisfies neither side completely. They decided to allow states to regulate abortion, though not in the first trimester of pregnancy. Abortion in the first trimester (only) is legally a woman's right.

This is not either of the two positions. It is a compromise staked out between them. The fact that few states have imposed strong regulations on even third trimester abortions is NOT due to Roe v. Wade. That, I think, is due to the fact that adherents of postion (2) outnumber adherents of position (1) in almost every state.

[Immanuel]

The compromise that the Supreme Court settled on really satisfies neither side completely. They decided to allow states to regulate abortion, though not in the first trimester of pregnancy. Abortion in the first trimester (only) is legally a woman's right.

This is not either of the two positions. It is a compromise staked out between them. The fact that few states have imposed strong regulations on even third trimester abortions is NOT due to Roe v. Wade. That, I think, is due to the fact that adherents of postion (2) outnumber adherents of position (1) in almost every state.

Sorry but that is pure hogwash. Since Roe v. Wade became law every single regulation that has been presented in reference to abortion after the first trimester has been shot down as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Every single one! By this fact, one can see that this is not a compromise but an f'ing gift to the pro-abortion (as distinguished from the pro-choice) movement.

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

Sorry but that is pure hogwash. Since Roe v. Wade became law every single regulation that has been presented in reference to abortion after the first trimester has been shot down as being unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Every single one! By this fact, one can see that this is not a compromise but an f'ing gift to the pro-abortion (as distinguished from the pro-choice) movement.

Immie
They get shot down because people insist on wording them in such a way that they must be shot down. They do this specifically in order to be able to claim that it isn't a compromise. They want confrontation. They don't want compromise.

Try some regulations that wouldn't have made Draco himself flinch. That might do the trick.

[Immanuel]

They get shot down because people insist on wording them in such a way that they must be shot down. They do this specifically in order to be able to claim that it isn't a compromise. They want confrontation. They don't want compromise.

Try some regulations that wouldn't have made Draco himself flinch. That might do the trick.


Sorry, it is the other way around, you guys want loopholes that an aircraft carrier could float through in order pass the bill. Hell, the wording you guys insist on for health of the mother puts hangnails and hemorhoids as a medical reason for abortion.

Compromise my ass.

Immie

[Brent]

If Pro-lifers would put their money where their mouths are, and if they would show compassion to unwed mothers we could possibly come to a compromise that might lead to a vastly reduced number of abortions.

Immie

Okay. What are you doing about it?

If people began taking responsibility for themselves, wouldn't that solve the problem?

[OrnotBitwise]

If people began taking responsibility for themselves, wouldn't that solve the problem?
If people would stop assuming that other people don't take responsibility for their choices, that would solve the problem too.

People are people. Wishing they were other than they are is usually foolish. Working to change the way people are is called social engineering. While I've no objection to social engineering in principle, I want it to be very explicit and very public.

[klaatu]

I can agree to that. I definitely don't agree that fetuses are people though. In said scenario, a "person" is granted the right to host off another person against that person's will in order get sustanence (sp??) and live. Do we really want to go down that slippery slope?

My oldest daughter was born premature at 1lb9oz ... she is now 26 years old with 2 children of her own. So as you can see.. It is vey dificult for me to hear someone say that a fetus is not a person ... thats rubbish ..

[OrnotBitwise]

My oldest daughter was born premature at 1lb9oz ... she is now 26 years old with 2 children of her own. So as you can see.. It is vey dificult for me to hear someone say that a fetus is not a person ... thats rubbish ..
How many weeks premature was she?

[klaatu]

How many weeks premature was she?


My recollection is my wife was a week or two before the 7th month .....

[tianabautre]

My oldest daughter was born premature at 1lb9oz ... she is now 26 years old with 2 children of her own. So as you can see.. It is vey dificult for me to hear someone say that a fetus is not a person ... thats rubbish ..

If she was born, she was no longer a fetus.

[OrnotBitwise]

My recollection is my wife was a week or two before the 7th month .....
Very late second trimester then. That's what I thought. Premies born before the third trimester almost never survive. You are very fortunate.

As always, I am talking about first trimester abortions, primarily. Those and only those are protected constitutionally. Something like 90% of all abortions in the United States are done before the end of the 12th week, so I'm concerned with the overwhelming majority of all abortions, not some arbitrary sample.

A first trimester fetus is not a person, in the estimation of most people. Not yet a person, any more than an acorn is an oak tree. It just isn't. It's almost impossible to look at one and say "hey, that's a person." Some people can and I respect that -- I honestly do -- but most people can't.

[Damocles]

It doesn't have to be a "person" to deserve compassion or the chance to develop as it was designed.

[Immanuel]

Very late second trimester then. That's what I thought. Premies born before the third trimester almost never survive. You are very fortunate.

As always, I am talking about first trimester abortions, primarily. Those and only those are protected constitutionally. Something like 90% of all abortions in the United States are done before the end of the 12th week, so I'm concerned with the overwhelming majority of all abortions, not some arbitrary sample.

A first trimester fetus is not a person, in the estimation of "most people". Not yet a person, any more than an acorn is an oak tree. It just isn't. It's almost impossible to look at one and say "hey, that's a person." Some people can and I respect that -- I honestly do -- but most people can't.

Yet, in everything you say, you make it sound as if you approve of killing the child thirty seconds before it would naturally leave the birth canal.

Also, where do you come up with this, "Most people"?

Immie

[OrnotBitwise]

It doesn't have to be a "person" to deserve compassion or the chance to develop as it was designed.
"Designed?" I don't believe in design, intelligent or otherwise.

The entire anti-abortion argument hinges on the idea that aborting a fetus is morally equivalent to murder -- killing an innocent baby, more explicitly. Without that equivalence they have no case.

Quite honestly, all I'm saying is that neither you nor I nor anyone else has either the wisdom or the moral authority to decide for everyone -- every woman -- in all cases that a fetus she is carrying at any given moment is a human person or not. I want that decision left in her hands and up to her conscience. It's not a decision any woman makes easily: I don't believe most women need the paternal omniscience to make it for her.

Now, one *can* make compelling arguments for restricting third trimester abortions. You know what? Most abortion rights activists whom I know would be quite willing to compromise on that point. The fact is, though, that the American anti-abortion movement, as a movement, has been traditionally unwilling to work within the guidelines of Roe. I did some quick digging last night and each and every statute overturned in the last 20 years I could find was obviously and deliberately crafted to challenge Roe, not work within it.

[Damocles]

"Designed?" I don't believe in design, intelligent or otherwise.

The entire anti-abortion argument hinges on the idea that aborting a fetus is morally equivalent to murder -- killing an innocent baby, more explicitly. Without that equivalence they have no case.


It doesn't in my opinion. I don't believe you should end any life for the convenience of another. Necessity should drive such a choice. It isn't necessary to be "murder" for something to be morally wrong.

And by "design" I meant as it's DNA gives it a design. As any life is "designed" to do, live. Each thing of life, whether created or evolved is designed specifically by either some Higher Being or by Natural Selection to continue its existence and to work toward perpetuation.... I didn't mean to suggest that "God" had a hand in this. I think you know my beliefs better than that anyway.



Quite honestly, all I'm saying is that neither you nor I nor anyone else has either the wisdom or the moral authority to decide for everyone -- every woman -- in all cases that a fetus she is carrying at any given moment is a human person or not.


Once again, I don't believe that it being a "person" changes the fact that killing anything at all just for the convenience of another isn't "moral".



I want that decision left in her hands and up to her conscience. It's not a decision any woman makes easily: I don't believe most women need the paternal omniscience to make it for her.


I have not argued that this is a decision made easily by another. Just wrongly by many.



Now, one *can* make compelling arguments for restricting third trimester abortions. You know what? Most abortion rights activists whom I know would be quite willing to compromise on that point. The fact is, though, that the American anti-abortion movement, as a movement, has been traditionally unwilling to work within the guidelines of Roe. I did some quick digging last night and each and every statute overturned in the last 20 years I could find was obviously and deliberately crafted to challenge Roe, not work within it.

I would be ecstatic if we limited third trimester abortions to "life only" decisions....

I would also continue working to limit all abortion to the same standard and to replace abortion with a new choice and direction.

It has never been my contention that women should be forced to continue a pregnancy, only that we shouldn't work to kill the fetus when ending the pregnancy.

[OrnotBitwise]

Yet, in everything you say, you make it sound as if you approve of killing the child thirty seconds before it would naturally leave the birth canal.

Also, where do you come up with this, "Most people"?

Immie
I come up with "most people" based, I admit, on personal experience and that common sense I so often denigrate. Even so, I believe it's quite true. Show a hundred people a photograph or sonogram of a 10 or 11 week fetus and I doubt more than seven or eight will see a person in it.

As I sort of said before, this particular fight is very hard to compromise on. Both sides tend to cling to absolute positions because each sees the other as duplicitous and, frankly, evil.

One thing I do believe quite firmly is that the American anti-abortion movement -- as a movement in general, not speaking of any individuals in particular -- is totally and absolutely unwilling to compromise. They are only interested in overturning Roe v. Wade, not regulating second and third trimester abortions within its framework. That perception is quite general on my side of the divide and is in turn the reason why so many pro-choice advocates fight any abortion regulation with such ferocity.

We've gotten into a self-sustaining cycle of emotional violence over this issue. This is true, and both sides are contributing to it. What I don't see, however, is a straightforward way out of it.

[Immanuel]

"Designed?" I don't believe in design, intelligent or otherwise.

The entire anti-abortion argument hinges on the idea that aborting a fetus is morally equivalent to murder -- killing an innocent baby, more explicitly. Without that equivalence they have no case.

Quite honestly, all I'm saying is that neither you nor I nor anyone else has either the wisdom or the moral authority to decide for everyone -- every woman -- in all cases that a fetus she is carrying at any given moment is a human person or not. I want that decision left in her hands and up to her conscience. It's not a decision any woman makes easily: I don't believe most women need the paternal omniscience to make it for her.

Now, one *can* make compelling arguments for restricting third trimester abortions. You know what? Most abortion rights activists whom I know would be quite willing to compromise on that point. The fact is, though, that the American anti-abortion movement, as a movement, has been traditionally unwilling to work within the guidelines of Roe. I did some quick digging last night and each and every statute overturned in the last 20 years I could find was obviously and deliberately crafted to challenge Roe, not work within it.

You cannot honestly believe that Pro-abortion (ie NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Emily's List etc.) forces will give one damned inch to limit one single abortion. Tell me you are not that foolish. They fight tooth and nail and lie through their teeth about abortion from claiming it is not human to lies about pro-life individuals. It is big business for them and they are not willing to give up one damned dime of it.

Immie

[Damocles]

I come up with "most people" based, I admit, on personal experience and that common sense I so often denigrate. Even so, I believe it's quite true. Show a hundred people a photograph or sonogram of a 10 or 11 week fetus and I doubt more than seven or eight will see a person in it.


Wow, at work here they bring the sonogram pictures to work and everybody gathers to coo and drool over the "cuteness"...



As I sort of said before, this particular fight is very hard to compromise on. Both sides tend to cling to absolute positions because each sees the other as duplicitous and, frankly, evil.


Very true, hence the physical compromise I have put forward....




One thing I do believe quite firmly is that the American anti-abortion movement -- as a movement in general, not speaking of any individuals in particular -- is totally and absolutely unwilling to compromise. They are only interested in overturning Roe v. Wade, not regulating second and third trimester abortions within its framework. That perception is quite general on my side of the divide and is in turn the reason why so many pro-choice advocates fight any abortion regulation with such ferocity.

We've gotten into a self-sustaining cycle of emotional violence over this issue. This is true, and both sides are contributing to it. What I don't see, however, is a straightforward way out of it.

The thing is, the expectation that they would simply give up and be satisfied is unrealistic. Look at it from a different perspective. If you truly believed that abortion was the same as killing a child would there be any way you could support it? Be honest. If it was the same to you as killing an infant where would you compromise?

[Damocles]

You cannot honestly believe that Pro-abortion (ie NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Emily's List etc.) forces will give one damned inch to limit one single abortion. Tell my you are not that foolish. They fight tooth and nail and lie through their teeth about abortion from claiming it is not human to lies about pro-life individuals. It is big business for them and they are not willing to give up one damned dime of it.

Immie
Or even their special exemptions... My child can't get a bandaid at school without my permission but internal surgery that may damage their psyche can be given without even knowledge.

[OrnotBitwise]

It doesn't in my opinion. I don't believe you should end any life for the convenience of another. Necessity should drive such a choice. It isn't necessary to be "murder" for something to be morally wrong.

Where does "convenience" end and necessity begin, though? That's the real question. I think that question can only be answered for an individual case, not by a general rule. That is why I oppose imposing a standard by law.

And by "design" I meant as it's DNA gives it a design. As any life is "designed" to do, live. Each thing of life, whether created or evolved is designed specifically by either some Higher Being or by Natural Selection to continue its existence and to work toward perpetuation.... I didn't mean to suggest that "God" had a hand in this. I think you know my beliefs better than that anyway.
Given the historical overtones -- if you'll pardon the cliche -- of this debate, "designed" is a very poor choice of expression in this context. "Designed" tends to imply intent and that's exactly where we start getting our purposes crossed. Evolution by natural selection is devoid of intent, as you know.

Once again, I don't believe that it being a "person" changes the fact that killing anything at all just for the convenience of another isn't "moral".
Rightly or wrongly, we kill things for what you might see as convenience all the time. Remember that there is no absolute standard, in my view, by which we can decide where convenience fades into necessity.

I'm willing to posit that if Buddhism or Jaynism ever became the nation's dominant philosophy, we'd probably all be better off. I am, however, totally unwilling to impose that philosophy by statute. As I suspect you are too.

;)


I have not argued that this is a decision made easily by another. Just wrongly by many.

I'm sure that you haven't. Many have, however. The myth of the serial slut, aborting baby after baby as easily as she changes her underwear, is rampant among the more voiciferous of the anti-abortion folk.


I would be ecstatic if we limited third trimester abortions to "life only" decisions....

While I won't claim that I'd be ecstatic, I'd probably applaud it. I certainly wouldn't oppose it.


I would also continue working to limit all abortion to the same standard and to replace abortion with a new choice and direction.

It has never been my contention that women should be forced to continue a pregnancy, only that we shouldn't work to kill the fetus when ending the pregnancy.
<*sigh*> Nasty can of worms there, doc. Who's going to pay for extra-utero gestation? The cost is likely to be astronomical, at least in the early days.

[OrnotBitwise]

You cannot honestly believe that Pro-abortion (ie NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Emily's List etc.) forces will give one damned inch to limit one single abortion. Tell my you are not that foolish. They fight tooth and nail and lie through their teeth about abortion from claiming it is not human to lies about pro-life individuals. It is big business for them and they are not willing to give up one damned dime of it.

Immie
I do indeed believe it. In fact, I know it, having spoken of it often with people in reasonably high positions within those organizations.

[Damocles]

Where does "convenience" end and necessity begin, though? That's the real question. I think that question can only be answered for an individual case, not by a general rule. That is why I oppose imposing a standard by law.

Given the historical overtones -- if you'll pardon the cliche -- of this debate, "designed" is a very poor choice of expression in this context. "Designed" tends to imply intent and that's exactly where we start getting our purposes crossed. Evolution by natural selection is devoid of intent, as you know.

If one is not going to die then there is no necessity. Necessity is clear. Each reason other than the life of the mother is a convenience issue and life is taken because either it will be convenient to society to feed and clothe them, or inconvenient to the mother in some way or another.



Rightly or wrongly, we kill things for what you might see as convenience all the time. Remember that there is no absolute standard, in my view, by which we can decide where convenience fades into necessity.


I believe that you are wrong. Necessity is very clear. You need to eat, we kill things to eat. You need shelter, we kill to create shelter.



I'm willing to posit that if Buddhism or Jaynism ever became the nation's dominant philosophy, we'd probably all be better off. I am, however, totally unwilling to impose that philosophy by statute. As I suspect you are too.

;)

I'm sure that you haven't. Many have, however. The myth of the serial slut, aborting baby after baby as easily as she changes her underwear, is rampant among the more voiciferous of the anti-abortion folk.

While I won't claim that I'd be ecstatic, I'd probably applaud it. I certainly wouldn't oppose it.

<*sigh*> Nasty can of worms there, doc. Who's going to pay for extra-utero gestation? The cost is likely to be astronomical, at least in the early days.

I don't believe that consideration of cost should be the determining factor in doing the right thing.

[Immanuel]

One thing I do believe quite firmly is that the American anti-abortion movement -- as a movement in general, not speaking of any individuals in particular -- is totally and absolutely unwilling to compromise. They are only interested in overturning Roe v. Wade, not regulating second and third trimester abortions within its framework. That perception is quite general on my side of the divide and is in turn the reason why so many pro-choice advocates fight any abortion regulation with such ferocity.

When you believe that all life is sacred you cannot and should not compromise and allow the taking of some of that life. The vast majority of abortions (per Planned Parenthood's own polling company Alan Guttmacher Inst.) says that 95% of all abortions are performed for birth control reasons. Mommy has no compelling reason beyond "I just don't want this baby". That is sad and quite frankly immoral.


We've gotten into a self-sustaining cycle of emotional violence over this issue. This is true, and both sides are contributing to it. What I don't see, however, is a straightforward way out of it.

There really is no straight forward way out. My side won't compromise because we see killing a human being for selfish purposes to be morally wrong. Your side sees forcing a woman to undergo the difficult situation of an unwanted pregnancy to be morally wrong. Neither side is willing to budge an inch.

We could reduce abortions IF we would teach sex education, including but not limited to abstinence, and birth control methods were readily available. Some on the right are unwilling to compromise on this issue. They should be slapped silly!

There will be no compromise on this ever. Instead we will fight each other steadily while 1.4 million children die in America every single year. Both sides claiming the moral high ground and neither side deserving of that claim.

Immie

[Immanuel]

I do indeed believe it. In fact, I know it, having spoken of it often with people in reasonably high positions within those organizations.

Actions speak louder than lies. They make no, zero, zilch, nada efforts at all. They are proven liars, greedy individuals who make a hell of a lot of money for just a few minutes worth of effort. Then they leave the woman to a life time of problems that may come back and haunt her.

Immie

[IHateGovernment]

Children as early as 22 weaks have survived which is smack in the center of the second trimester.

[OrnotBitwise]

Actions speak louder than lies. They make no, zero, zilch, nada efforts at all. They are proven liars, greedy individuals who make a hell of a lot of money for just a few minutes worth of effort. Then they leave the woman to a life time of problems that may come back and haunt her.

Immie
<*sigh*> This is why I hate abortion threads. I can't let 'em alone -- which is my own failing -- but they never, ever get anywhere.

Enough. You believe whatever you want. You're not listening and, like all anti-abortion fanatics, you never will.

[OrnotBitwise]

Children as early as 22 weaks have survived which is smack in the center of the second trimester.
And how many first trimester premies have ever survived?

And in which trimester is a woman's right to an abortion constitutionally protected?

[Immanuel]

"And in which trimester is a woman's right to an abortion constitutionally protected?"

If you ask the group I mentioned above, the answer is in every trimester.

Immie

[Brent]

The Constitution does not protect any "right" to abortion.

If anything, the 14th Amendment prohibits abortion.


You cannot honestly believe that Pro-abortion (ie NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Emily's List etc.) forces will give one damned inch to limit one single abortion. Tell my you are not that foolish. They fight tooth and nail and lie through their teeth about abortion from claiming it is not human to lies about pro-life individuals. It is big business for them and they are not willing to give up one damned dime of it.

Amen.

[OrnotBitwise]

The Constitution does not protect any "right" to abortion.

If anything, the 14th Amendment prohibits abortion.



Amen.The Supreme Court says you're wrong and they are the final authority in such matters. By definition, the right to abortion -- in the first trimester -- is indeed constitutionally protected. The constitution changes and so that may change, but it is indisputably true now.

[Brent]

The Supreme Court says you're wrong and they are the final authority in such matters.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
- Thomas Jefferson

http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html

We have an amendment process to alter the Constitution. If the founders intended the Constitution to be flexible, they wouldn't have bothered with the amendments.

[maineman]

gosh...it must suck to be you knowing that Tom Jefferson's words were not heeded and that the Supremes DO get the final say!

Don't like living in America with that sort of judical power? Move.... and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!

[robdastud]

Let is imagine the scenario that there is indeed a "gay gene," and that this gene is discovered sometime in the future. Let's also imagine this gene is detectable during pregnancy. Should a woman have the right to abort her baby because the baby, when he/she grows up, will turn out to be homosexual? Wouldn't that be discrimination which should be prohibited?

I, for one, would condemn such an abortion, as I condemn any abortion.

Every human being deserves a chance at life, and nobody should be judged before they're even born according to how we "think" they will turn out. Any baby, regardless of disability, is a gift from God. Destroying these infants is an INSULT TO THE LORD and people who commit such a terrible act should, in my opinion, be destroyed.

The only people who have forfeited their right to live are violent criminals, i.e. rapists, child molesters, and murderers; and anyone who has committed high treason. The unborn, by stark contrast, have done nothing to deserve being aborted. Abortion is the destruction of innocent human life.

No dodging the question, please.



its not a disability to be gay, it could be a gift... LOL.

[robdastud]

Immanuel,

No, I am not saying homosexuality is a disability. When I wrote that sentence I had other conditions on my mind, such as Down's Syndrome. I knew a woman who, when she became pregnant, swore she would abort her baby if he/she had Down's. I for one think that is awfully sad. ALL babies are a gift from God; to abort them is an insult to His creation.

Edit: come to think of it, perhaps homosexuality is a sort of disability. All human beings are spirituall disabled by the sinful nature; everyone has their own faults. One of such faults is homosexuality. That is to say, some people are inclined towards sexual sins, whereas others might be inclined towards lying, or arrogance, or selfishness. Get what I'm saying?


lol your waaaayyyy out there in right field...