Racial turn for abortion debate

What these young studs don't realize is that all birth control does is prevent the fertilized egg from being able to implant itself. Birth control does in a sense kill, if they want to get technical. So, is it a life when fertilized or is it a life when implanted?

Right, I guess by birth control, I mean condoms, which is the only thing I really trust to use. Obviously, the pill is popular, and I consider everything else to be a joke. All the stuff they showed us in sex ed back in the day I just shook my head at, and wondered who the hell would trust that junk to work.
 
Right, I guess by birth control, I mean condoms, which is the only thing I really trust to use. Obviously, the pill is popular, and I consider everything else to be a joke. All the stuff they showed us in sex ed back in the day I just shook my head at, and wondered who the hell would trust that junk to work.

Good, one should protect oneself and not trust it to others. It also helps to protect against unwanted dis-ease!
 
I've given it considerable thought. Would I have wanted to be born in a ghetto, been a high school drop-out and spent the next 40 years living in poverty? Going through life slowly having my teeth removed because I couldn't afford a dentist for check-ups and fillings? Suffering physical ailments because I couldn't afford a doctor? Or joined a gang, got shot and spent the rest of my life in a wheelchair or jail?

As for asking someone which option they would choose, unfortunately, nature programs living creatures to fight for life regardless of the circumstances. They become "conditioned", for lack of a better word.

Witness a child that has been physically abused. It will still want to stay with it's parent. Even an abused animal, like a dog, will still try to protect it's abuser (master).

Why would anyone choose abject poverty over the option of not having been born at all? Why would anyone choose pain and constant hardship?

I encourage everyone here who is anti-abortion to answer that.

actually, I suspect EVERY unborn child, given the choice between any of the above and being killed, would opt NOT to be aborted......
 
I don't need to look at a link. I've been pregnant and given birth.

The difference to me is that there is no equivalence between having an abortion, and my teen-aged son being killed by a drunk driver, for example.

would that be because a third party was involved?....or because only the first was intentional?.......
 
I must be misunderstanding the above. Surely you aren't saying it should be ok for people to be killed by drunk drivers. please clarify the above for me if you would.

Okay, maybe that was a little obscure.

AAs call people like me "murderers" for being pro-choice. If my son was killed, let's say due to street violence or a drive-by, that would be murder. It's not equivalent to abortion and it's insulting to boot.
 
What these young studs don't realize is that all birth control does is prevent the fertilized egg from being able to implant itself. Birth control does in a sense kill, if they want to get technical. So, is it a life when fertilized or is it a life when implanted?

So true. I have a friend who started, then stopped using the pill because she considered it killing an ovum.
 
Christie, the 2nd Amendment is a radical document, even for its time. Rather than use the words "denied," "prohibited" or "banned," it chose to go with "infringed." Technically, every single act touching upon guns is unconstitutional. The Second also happens to be a cornerstone of American principles. If American = Pro-Death, then God help us all.

We've all argued the 2nd amendment ad nauseum here. Suffice it to say that gun violence is a huge problem in our society and cloaking the issue under Constitutional rights is just a cop-out, IMO.

I'm not sure what your obsession is with drunk driving, but if you want to see the laws changed, go for it.

I wouldn't call it an obsession. Maybe when you have children, you'll be less callous about it. Every day habitual drunkards get behind the wheel of a car and endanger the lives of everyone on the road. Their physical and mental responses are compromised. I don't know if you've ever driven drunk but many of those who do think they have it all under control. But it's just a figment of their drunken thinking.

As for relatives you have, I don't personally know them, and thus their deaths are no more significant to me than those of cancer victims, stroke victims, and abortion victims.

Ha, talk about callous. You don't personally know all the women who have had abortions but they're pretty significant to you. I guess your sympathies are limited to in utero.

Also, in the US, we have much better coal mine safety standards than exist in China and Chile, for example...

We don't live in those countries. Last year we had the country's worst mining disaster in 40 years. Massey Energy had years of flagrant safety violations. Blankenship had a cavalier disregard for the workers' welfare.

In 2005, Blankenship wrote a memo to employees telling them that maximizing coal production was more important than spending time constructing things like support beams or ventilation shafts:[49]

“ If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal (i.e., build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever) you need to ignore them and run coal.


Some countries may have worse standards but we're not just comparing statistics, we're talking about making the work environment as safe as possible for our people.
 
That is a simple question to answer. Because I would have a chance. Even if born in the worst ghetto, I would not HAVE to be a high school dropout. I could CHOOSE to learn. I could CHOOSE to graduate. Yes, the deck would be stacked against me.... but people do it every day. They CHOOSE to fight.... for themselves. While many will certainly end up living the life you described above, it is still better than having been given no chance at all.

You talk about choice but a person does not get to choose into what life they’ll be thrown. The individual bringing that person into the world made the choice for them and as far as the person choosing to fight, as I mentioned before, nature has instilled in living creatures the desire to live, regardless of circumstances.

Just to clarify... your answer to my previous question is that you would choose to have been killed?

It is not a choice I could have made. Zygotes/embryos/fetuses do not and can not make choices. It is up to the pregnant women to determine the degree of suffering to which she’s willing to subject her offspring.

Not to get to far off topic, but a follow up question. Based on the above rationale of 'why would anyone want to live in such a state'... would you consider it humane to put those people who do live in such circumstances out of their misery? Would you advocate the death penalty vs. life in prison without parole as a more humane act?

Note: The above are not attempts at 'gotcha's'.... I just think it could lead to an interesting discussion.

Once a person has entered the world the decision becomes theirs. That is the reason I believe in assisted suicide. Freedom means nothing if the most basic right, that being the choice to live or die, is not ones decision to make.

As for putting one out of their misery that is currently practiced, in some fashion. Pain relief is requested for loved ones knowing it will hasten their death.

Regarding the death penalty I support the right of people sentenced to lengthy imprisonment to be given the option of death.

It’s important to note one of the main reasons suicide was and still is illegal, in many jurisdictions, goes back to feudal times. The King or War Lord owned his people. Those attempting suicide and failing were subjected to severe punishment. One can’t own something if that “something” is capable of eliminating itself.
 
Look out folks... here comes the racist.... now to be fair, he spews enough bullshit that he should actually know what it smells like. That said, I see your call of bullshit and raise it with a double bullshit.

Abortion is rarely used to save the life of the mother (in terms of percentage of total abortions).

You are correct in that some women do indeed pretend abortion is simply 'birth control'.

You are quite incorrect in stating that there is a moral grey area. While the pro-abortion crowd has certainly done an admirable job to pretend that their is ambiguity... the bottom line is that an abortion ends a human life. Period. That is SCIENTIFIC FACT.

If we want to talk about a moral grey area the height of hypocracy is anti-abortionists preaching the sanctity of life while allowing abortions for rape/incest. Kill a human being depending on who it's father is? Can we get any more absurd?
 
actually, I suspect EVERY unborn child, given the choice between any of the above and being killed, would opt NOT to be aborted......

Really? So you would opt to be born knowing you would spend the rest of your life in an institution, paralyzed or suffering from an insidious genetic affliction? Knowing you would never have a family (partner), children, a regular job, vacations.....

I definitely wouldn't.
 
Really? So you would opt to be born knowing you would spend the rest of your life in an institution, paralyzed or suffering from an insidious genetic affliction? Knowing you would never have a family (partner), children, a regular job, vacations.....

I definitely wouldn't.

You also never deal with the 98% of abortions that are performed for convenience and wish only to use the most extreme and severe cases to make your argument-making your argument disingenuous in the extreme.
 
Okay, maybe that was a little obscure.

AAs call people like me "murderers" for being pro-choice. If my son was killed, let's say due to street violence or a drive-by, that would be murder. It's not equivalent to abortion and it's insulting to boot.

If AA has a problem with you, then stop drinking.
 
If we want to talk about a moral grey area the height of hypocracy is anti-abortionists preaching the sanctity of life while allowing abortions for rape/incest. Kill a human being depending on who it's father is? Can we get any more absurd?

I don't know if you understand how politics works (this is a political site, though...), but generally a political victory comes via compromise. Most Americans demand this stipulation before the abortion debate can move forward to the next square.
 
We've all argued the 2nd amendment ad nauseum here. Suffice it to say that gun violence is a huge problem in our society and cloaking the issue under Constitutional rights is just a cop-out, IMO.



I wouldn't call it an obsession. Maybe when you have children, you'll be less callous about it. Every day habitual drunkards get behind the wheel of a car and endanger the lives of everyone on the road. Their physical and mental responses are compromised. I don't know if you've ever driven drunk but many of those who do think they have it all under control. But it's just a figment of their drunken thinking.



Ha, talk about callous. You don't personally know all the women who have had abortions but they're pretty significant to you. I guess your sympathies are limited to in utero.



We don't live in those countries. Last year we had the country's worst mining disaster in 40 years. Massey Energy had years of flagrant safety violations. Blankenship had a cavalier disregard for the workers' welfare.

In 2005, Blankenship wrote a memo to employees telling them that maximizing coal production was more important than spending time constructing things like support beams or ventilation shafts:[49]

“ If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal (i.e., build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever) you need to ignore them and run coal.


Some countries may have worse standards but we're not just comparing statistics, we're talking about making the work environment as safe as possible for our people.

None of these things are arguments. First, only three "life" issues consist of placing a gun to another person's head and directly pulling the trigger: abortion, capital punishment, and war. I oppose 2/3 of these, with the stipulation that war be used to save the lives of my countrymen and not as an ideological tool to transform the world.

As for debating the merits of current DUI mine-safety standards, these have little to do with the PL/PD sides. Plenty of PLs are huge DUI nazis, for example. The PLs helped to prevent passage of a WA State initiative last November, which would have privatized the liquor industry, on the grounds that it would lead to more DUIs and minors getting possession.

Finally, I may be callous, but I am a better defender of life than you are. I think my outward compassion for life has become exhausted through pointless and futile political debates online. I used to be a much more serious poster, but I've been doing this since high school, and just got burned out by the agony of dealing with leftists and neocons.
 
You also never deal with the 98% of abortions that are performed for convenience and wish only to use the most extreme and severe cases to make your argument-making your argument disingenuous in the extreme.

The disingenuousness is the anti-abortionists' stand that the fetus is a sacred life while condoning abortion for rape/incest and the mother's health. Are we to kill people because we don't agree with the way they came into being? Are we to kill people because someone else has a defective body?

The laws we have regarding privacy, health, protection, etc. are based on recognizing human beings are separate, individual entities. Two individuals sharing a body sort of throws a wrench in the gears, as the old saying goes.

Let's suppose a fetus requires an in utero operation. While every operation carries a degree of risk what degree should be set by law? Would a woman have the right to refuse? If she refuses is she libel for child neglect? Or do we, as a society, say it's OK to do nothing and let ones child suffer/die?

I think most people agree the number of abortions should be reduced if for no other reason the fewer the number of medical procedures, the better. The problem in wanting to classify a fetus as a human being is the laws that govern human beings would apply to neither the fetus nor the pregnant woman. The exceptions and exclusions ultimately cheapen the value of all human beings.
 
The disingenuousness is the anti-abortionists' stand that the fetus is a sacred life while condoning abortion for rape/incest and the mother's health. Are we to kill people because we don't agree with the way they came into being? Are we to kill people because someone else has a defective body?

The laws we have regarding privacy, health, protection, etc. are based on recognizing human beings are separate, individual entities. Two individuals sharing a body sort of throws a wrench in the gears, as the old saying goes.

Let's suppose a fetus requires an in utero operation. While every operation carries a degree of risk what degree should be set by law? Would a woman have the right to refuse? If she refuses is she libel for child neglect? Or do we, as a society, say it's OK to do nothing and let ones child suffer/die?

I think most people agree the number of abortions should be reduced if for no other reason the fewer the number of medical procedures, the better. The problem in wanting to classify a fetus as a human being is the laws that govern human beings would apply to neither the fetus nor the pregnant woman. The exceptions and exclusions ultimately cheapen the value of all human beings.

Your argument is old and the rationale wanting. To choose to save your own life is a valid right- I do not whole heartedly support abortion for rape (which includes incest) but given the small number of abortions for this purpose, could make a consession that the violation of the rape carries with it a "special" circumstance that grants the victim of said rape a unique right.

Again you wish to make the argument about less then 1% of actual abortions...it's again disingenuous.
 
Back
Top