The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

[PostmodernProphet]

Because it is not a human being. I have explained to you and PmP that if put into practice it fails.

sure it is.....your "explanation" was wrong....when examined under the rules of science it is unavoidable that an unborn human is actually a human......

Otherwise, a woman's life would be equally weighed with that of the fetus when problem pregnancies arose. Actually, it would make more sense to weigh in on the side of the fetus, it being the healthy human being. Saying both the woman and the fetus are human beings but the defective one, the woman, has a right to kill the healthy one, the fetus, is absurd.

but you see, there's actually only one person in the world who is unable to solve that rather simple dilemma.....it was actually one that medicine and society were able to deal with for hundreds of years BEFORE Roe v Wade......we've met the problem, dealt with it.....you think it absurd and are stymied......

 

[Canceled2]

I wish you would make up your mind.....first your upset because you can't kill unborn children of rape victims.....then your upset because you CAN kill unborn children of rape victims...


????.......I should think the difference is obvious......the woman who was raped did not participate in the choice that resulted in the child......if you don't see the difference, I guess that I am the one who's prochoice and you aren't.......because you want the same results for those who chose and those who didn't.....

Besides the point that birth control is the choice not made. A woman with 3 children already certainly knows how to prevent having more. Nurses who have left planned parenhood have attested to the fact numerous women use abortion as a form of birth control. If we as a nation granted abortion as an option for rape victims; womens' actual physical saftey and even for socs emotional attepmt at using babies who are doomed to die within days of birth...we would be looking at about 4.5% of current abortions...Certainly this should suffice for the bloodshed.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

So kill the fetus because the woman did not choose to become pregnant? Like I said, you are pro-choice and so am I. You say fetuses conceived out of rape are less than fetuses conceived in a bedroom. I say that fetuses at less than 13 weeks are less than fetuses older than 24 weeks. I think that 24 weeks should be the cutoff, and life and health of the mother is a rarer than anyone thinks. There are damn few things that can be wrong with a mother after 24 weeks that medicine cannot take care of without aborting the child. I am glad that you have finally come to see it my way, some fetuses are less than others. Some life is not as sacred as others. If you were truely and consistently pro-life, you like Angel and Palin would not support abortion even in cases of rape and incest.

yes.....I am willing to let you kill the child because the woman was raped......I'm not saying the fetus is less a fetus.......I'm saying I am a heartless bastard who is willing to let you kill simply because it will save me all the rest of the children........I realize that makes me a bad person.....I'm willing to accept that.......but tell me something......how does that make me worse than you, who wants to kill the rest of them too?.......

 

[apple0154]

no, I support the sanctity of life for the other 6%....I'm just willing to use them as pawns to satisfy your lust for killing while saving the other 94% from you.........if you would be willing to forgo killing all of them I will certainly accept......

You'd accept having babies born knowing they would have to endure extreme suffering while death was certain within 4 or 5 years? Why would you want to subject a child to such a fate?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You'd accept having babies born knowing they would have to endure extreme suffering while death was certain within 4 or 5 years? Why would you want to subject a child to such a fate?

because I know that scenario only exists in your imagination.....so I save a child's life simply by ignoring delusion...it's full of win, as Damo would say.....

 

[apple0154]

listen to what I really said.....you want every woman who doesn't want a child to be free to kill her unborn child......not just the small percentage that are genetically deformed, not just the small percentage that are victims of rape.....you want ALL women who choose to kill to be able to kill......that is why all arguments about genetics, all arguments about rape are dishonest......admit it......

The only dishonesty is many pro-life people saying exceptions would be made for genetic defects and/or rape. If life is sacred NO exceptions can be permitted, otherwise, they are hypocrites and liars.

 

[Taichiliberal]

ditzyliberal, learn how to use the quotes. Not cleaning up your mess anymore.

Stop whining....you read every word and you CAN'T BS your way past it...so now it's these picayune complaints. You don't have the guts to copy & paste because an actual point for point exchange would expose the glaring flaws in your mantras. Grow the fuck up, String.

There is absolutely no doubt that within the population of people now married with children, some will divorce. To argue otherwise is simply idiotic.

And I never argued against this oft repeated moot point of yours, you idiot! The chronology of the post bares witness to this. My point was that YOU used this moot point as some sort of warped justification for gay married couples "having" kids. I deconstructed that bullshit, and you've been pissed ever since.

The same is true concerning lying on any survey data. Census data has always been highly suspect. I have read censuses doing genealogical research. People lie or misstate all forms of data. No doubt about that.

67% or 63% do you really believe that makes much difference. It does nothing for your point. Here you go 63%...

http://www.mndaily.com/2009/07/07/study-children-thrive-calm-two-parent-households

You are arguing statistical certainties and 4% which other studies show.


Ahh, so your statement was NOT based on the CENSUS material that you initially sourced, but an independent study by Rutgers University. BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE, GENIUS. The CENSUS does NOT corroborate the Rutgers study.....so don't get pissed at me because YOU are contradicting yourself all over the damned place with a point YOU introduced. Next time, KNOW what the fuck you're talking about before your fingers hit the keys, because you look less foolish when trying to backpeddle and clean up the mess you made.

And what's REALLY pathetic is how you just personally decide you don't like information that contradicts your beliefs, so "it's suspect" and "people lie" and such, yet information that compliments your beliefs is exempt from your suspicisions. Pity no junior high school teacher corrected this flawed thinking pattern of yours.


Who has tried to hide the fact that two women can't have children through homosexual sex? No-fucking-body. My point is and always has been, who fucking cares? You have not answered.

Hey mastermind, if momma didn't tell you, I will.....just because you don't care doesn't mean facts and logic just disappear or becomes irrelevent. Bottom line: YOU CANNOT REFUTE OR DISPROVE WHAT I STATED..and therefore all the implications that derive from those facts remain...whether YOU like it or not. So ever time jokers like you feel the need to blather some blinder-wearing bullshit about gays & kids in comparison to hetersexuals, they'll always be those nagging little truths to bring you down a peg or two. Don't get pissed at me, go complain to God and Mother Nature.

There are plenty of couples that cannot conceive without outside help, asshole. You are telling them they are not on par with a couple that can? Again, fuck you and your normalcy.

Pull yourself together, String. As I stated previously (Jeez man, learn to retain what you read or go back and read it again, because I'm tired of repeating myself), the BIG difference is that when a heterosexual couple cannot naturally conceive a child, that is medical problem. Gay couples CANNOT naturally conceive a child because that is a BIOLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. So to pretend that gay couples "having kids" is normal and on par with heterosexual couples is delusional. Add to this that they are PURPOSELY introducing a heterosexual child to a situation were the ONLY parental role model is gay speaks volumes regarding selfishness. If you don't understand that, then I suggest you get an adult to explain it to you.

You don't understand simple language. I said homosexuals ARE procreating. That is a fact. Their kids need a stable home as much as anybody.

Yeah genius....why don't you toddle down to the NEMJ and give them the details on how two gay men had "sex" and one of them became pregnant and gave birth to a gay child. Or how two gay women did the same thing.

Compose yourself, String...you're looking more and more like a hysterical fool with each posting.

If you are not arguing that homosexuals cannot marry, then I don't care about your other stupid points.

Translation: I took String to task, and he couldn't fault me. Instead, you get a lot of dodges and attempts to pretend the discussion was on a parallel topic instead. String just represents the A-typical failed mindset of the gay parent advocacy...when faced with some harsh realities, their response is "it doesn't matter" or "who cares". As the chronology of the posts shows, String became more dishonest in his accusations and tactics as his argument became weaker.

String just became untied....and thus ends the discussion.

 

[Socrtease]

yes.....I am willing to let you kill the child because the woman was raped......I'm not saying the fetus is less a fetus.......I'm saying I am a heartless bastard who is willing to let you kill simply because it will save me all the rest of the children........I realize that makes me a bad person.....I'm willing to accept that.......but tell me something......how does that make me worse than you, who wants to kill the rest of them too?.......

I don't think it makes you bad. But to claim all life is sacred, but then find your own limit on the sacredness, but then condemn others for supporting a broader interpretation of what fetuses are beyond the reach of the government and only between a woman, god and her doctor is hypocritical. And Icedancer pretending that abortions would drop to 4.5% if we allowed for all the exceptions is bullshit. During the communist rule of Romania they had as many abortions as we did and only had 30 million people. They were all illegal.

 

[Socrtease]

good lord, what a pile of dishonesty crammed into a single posts......ranging from the fact that more women die today from legal abortions than died in 1970 from illegal abortions.....passing through the fact that there are FAR more abortions today than there were before Roe v Wade......move on through the fact that despite abortions declining we still have nearly a million die every year in this country........dropping into the left lane to speed past your claim that despite the fact you demand the right of every woman to kill their unborn child for no other reason than she wants to, you really aren't in favor of dead children.....and creeping right up to the front door of the fact that just because I'm willing to let you kill a handful of children to appease the hunger, you somehow feel you can claim some higher level of morality......now, was there anything at all honest in your post?.....I don't see it......

First off more women don't die today from legal abortions. In 2003 (the most recent year for which data are available), 10 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion (CDC). The number of deaths attributable to legal induced abortion was highest before the 1980s (CDC). In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions (CDC).[1]This is a pro-life site. YOu just talk out of your ass and expect all of us to buy it. Romania was your anti abortion dream world and there were as many abortions in a small country as there were here.

 

[apple0154]

????.......I should think the difference is obvious......the woman who was raped did not participate in the choice that resulted in the child......if you don't see the difference, I guess that I am the one who's prochoice and you aren't.......because you want the same results for those who chose and those who didn't.....

Yes! Exactly! If zygotes/fetuses are human beings then, yes, they have a right to live regardless of how they came into being.

Gee, now you're telling us the value you place on a human being is based on how they started their life? That's pretty sick, you know.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I wish you would make up your mind.....first your upset because you can't kill unborn children of rape victims.....then your upset because you CAN kill unborn children of rape victims...


????.......I should think the difference is obvious......the woman who was raped did not participate in the choice that resulted in the child......if you don't see the difference, I guess that I am the one who's prochoice and you aren't.......because you want the same results for those who chose and those who didn't.....

 

[apple0154]

sure it is.....your "explanation" was wrong....when examined under the rules of science it is unavoidable that an unborn human is actually a human......

When using DNA as the sole defining criteria. Of course, DNA can't tell the difference between what is human material and what is a human being but that's good enough for some people to make a bogus argument.

but you see, there's actually only one person in the world who is unable to solve that rather simple dilemma.....it was actually one that medicine and society were able to deal with for hundreds of years BEFORE Roe v Wade......we've met the problem, dealt with it.....you think it absurd and are stymied......

Many problems were believed to have been dealt with in the past, however, we now know it wasn't so. Slavery. Prohibition. Denying women rights. There's quite a list.

Of course that's where Conservatives excel. "If it was good enough for Grandpa it's good enough for me."

Thank God for Liberals.

 

[apple0154]

Besides the point that birth control is the choice not made. A woman with 3 children already certainly knows how to prevent having more. Nurses who have left planned parenhood have attested to the fact numerous women use abortion as a form of birth control. If we as a nation granted abortion as an option for rape victims; womens' actual physical saftey and even for socs emotional attepmt at using babies who are doomed to die within days of birth...we would be looking at about 4.5% of current abortions...Certainly this should suffice for the bloodshed.

You and other posters issuing similar remarks (make exceptions in 4.5%, 6%, in the case of rape, in the case of incest) are missing the point. The anti-abortion argument is based on zygotes/fetuses being human beings, therefore, there are no exceptions. No compromises can be justified when it comes to human lives. We, as a society, do not barter over who is more human.

Either zygotes/fetuses are human beings, in which case no compromises are allowed, or they are not human beings. One can not argue both positions, morally or legally.

 

[apple0154]

because I know that scenario only exists in your imagination.....so I save a child's life simply by ignoring delusion...it's full of win, as Damo would say.....

Do some research, my son. Your ignorance is not becoming.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Not all aborted babies would have fit that criteria, however, if abortion is outlawed some definitely will in the future.

I have no objection to doing all we can to lower the abortion rate but declaring zygotes/fetuses human beings will ensure such babies are brought into the world.

How do I know? I know because euthanasia is illegal. Adults suffering from diseases such as ALS, even when pleading to a court, are not permitted to retain the help of a doctor to aid them in ending their misery. If society will not allow an adult of sound mind to end their life society certainly will not allow a woman to end the life of a severely deformed fetus IF a fetus is declared a human being.

Genetic testing will be moot. It won't matter what mutations a fetus has. Society will insist it be brought to term and delivered and endure extreme suffering and slowly die just as society demands that of adults.

Are you aware there are a variety of illnesses with a prognosis a child will die before starting school? Imagine knowingly bringing a child into the world having been told it will spend the majority, if not all, of it's 4 or 5 or 6 year life span in a hospital undergoing treatments. The word "sadistic" doesn't begin to describe such actions.

That's one of the major problems with classifying a fetus as a human being. Society will insist a 2 or 3 month old fetus continue to develop and be born knowing how that child will suffer. Surely you do not condone that. Do you?

Besides the complete, unnecessary suffering society will insist the child undergo there is the woman to consider. For the next 6 or 7 months she will know the child she is carrying will be sentenced to 4 or 5 years of suffering and then die. During those 4 or 5 years she will witness the suffering every time she makes that trip to the hospital. Can you imagine the toll it will take on her, her other children, her husband and other family members?

As for catch phrases my favorite is "Visit a hospital specializing in sick children."

Anti-abortionists insist women see pictures of fetuses before having an abortion. Perhaps pro-choice should insist on anti-abortionists visiting such hospitals before being permitted to show their pictures.

If anti-abortionists want to educate women on the stages of pregnancy and development of the fetus perhaps pro-choice should insist on women watching a documentary on the life of a neglected/abused child. From the dysfunctional home, to ridicule from peers, to dropping out of school, to poverty and/or prison.

Maybe if more people realized the responsibility of bringing a child into the world there may be fewer neglected/abused children.

After reading your entire post, it became apparent that only the first sentence addressed the matter at hand and the rest was just part of your manifesto.

Bringing the post back, to the matter at hand:

You keep repeating certain catch phrases, in what appears to be an attempt to either convince others or yourself.
Let's take one of those pharases and look at it.

"It means demanding bringing a child into the world knowing it will endure extreme suffering until it's little body exhausts itself and dies."

Please tell what you're using that shows that all aborted babies would have fit that criteria.

Not all aborted babies would have fit that criteria, however, if abortion is outlawed some definitely will in the future.

Then what solution do you propose; that would allow those that don't fit your criteria, to have an opportunity to survive and succeed??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

All of this reminds me of that Simpson's episode when Kang and Kodos ran for President.

"Abortions for all!" "Boooooo!" "Abortions for some, little American Flags for everybody!" "Yaaaay!"

Does anybody think there will ever be a true resolution to this wedge issue?

YEP, as soon as they create the artifical womb.

 

[apple0154]

After reading your entire post, it became apparent that only the first sentence addressed the matter at hand and the rest was just part of your manifesto.

It's not a manifesto. Whether we look at the norms in society today or look at the Constitution EVERY human being has the same legal rights. We can no more say human being Fetus is inferior to human being Woman IF a fetus is classified as a human being.

I'm not all that hung-ho on the slippery slope philosophy but it's readily apparent that if any woman wants an abortion for any reason a member of society could and would contest it. Indeed, it would be as much a moral obligation as fighting for the life of any other human being.

Take the biological father, for instance. Is the State going to sanction the execution of his "son" because mommy may lose a kidney due to high blood pressure?

Unfortunately, people believe striking down Roe vs Wade will simply result in returning to the days prior. That's not what will happen. The world changed during the "Freedom Revolution" (60s). Today people demand reasoned arguments and justifiable laws. Authority has to justify it's actions.

Look at the Alabama 10 Commandments fiasco.
(Excerpt)U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled the granite carving was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. (End)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/

The reason I mention it is who would have thought something like that would happen 30 or 40 years ago? Who would have imagined it even being contested? But the law is the law and religion is separate from government.

The same thing applies to abortion. Is it logical the health of one human being is more important than the life of another? Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect women to deal with almost any misfortune (loss of a kidney, diminished eye sight, etc) when pregnant rather than resort to the killing of an innocent human being?

Those questions were never pursued before whether it be because husbands and wives were more "attuned" to each other or people just accepted things more readily. Not to sound cliche but it's a different world today.

Then what solution do you propose; that would allow those that don't fit your criteria, to have an opportunity to survive and succeed??

Sex education and more sex education. Make it dinner table conversation.

We tell kids to use condoms but if a parent finds a condom on laundry day, stuffed in a pocket, guess what happens to the kid. Or a condom falls out of a girl's purse/bag. Grounded and a verbal battle. So, what is the kid going to do next time? To hell with a condom.

Maybe if we had a law that stipulated if any parent punished a kid for having a condom and their daughter became pregnant or their son impregnated a girl the parents would be subject to a fine equal to a percentage of their combined income. I bet every teen would carry a condom and be reminded to use it every time they left the house!

Put condoms near the check-out counters. Run public service ADS.

Look what they did for cigarettes and drinking and driving.

If people complain about the appropriateness of such ADS ask them what they think about the appropriateness of abortion. I'm sure a good AD company can make it the "in thing" to be sexually responsible.

Maybe an AD like, "Carrying a condom does not mean you are having sex. It's means you're a mature, responsible individual."

Publicly educate people. That will do more to ensure the survival of fetuses than anything else. What is more important: ensure the survival of fetuses or refrain from offending some folks?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It's not a manifesto. Whether we look at the norms in society today or look at the Constitution EVERY human being has the same legal rights. We can no more say human being Fetus is inferior to human being Woman IF a fetus is classified as a human being.

I'm not all that hung-ho on the slippery slope philosophy but it's readily apparent that if any woman wants an abortion for any reason a member of society could and would contest it. Indeed, it would be as much a moral obligation as fighting for the life of any other human being.

Take the biological father, for instance. Is the State going to sanction the execution of his "son" because mommy may lose a kidney due to high blood pressure?

Unfortunately, people believe striking down Roe vs Wade will simply result in returning to the days prior. That's not what will happen. The world changed during the "Freedom Revolution" (60s). Today people demand reasoned arguments and justifiable laws. Authority has to justify it's actions.

Look at the Alabama 10 Commandments fiasco.
(Excerpt)U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled the granite carving was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. (End)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/

The reason I mention it is who would have thought something like that would happen 30 or 40 years ago? Who would have imagined it even being contested? But the law is the law and religion is separate from government.

The same thing applies to abortion. Is it logical the health of one human being is more important than the life of another? Wouldn't it be reasonable to expect women to deal with almost any misfortune (loss of a kidney, diminished eye sight, etc) when pregnant rather than resort to the killing of an innocent human being?

Those questions were never pursued before whether it be because husbands and wives were more "attuned" to each other or people just accepted things more readily. Not to sound cliche but it's a different world today.



Sex education and more sex education. Make it dinner table conversation.

We tell kids to use condoms but if a parent finds a condom on laundry day, stuffed in a pocket, guess what happens to the kid. Or a condom falls out of a girl's purse/bag. Grounded and a verbal battle. So, what is the kid going to do next time? To hell with a condom.

Maybe if we had a law that stipulated if any parent punished a kid for having a condom and their daughter became pregnant or their son impregnated a girl the parents would be subject to a fine equal to a percentage of their combined income. I bet every teen would carry a condom and be reminded to use it every time they left the house!

Put condoms near the check-out counters. Run public service ADS.

Look what they did for cigarettes and drinking and driving.

If people complain about the appropriateness of such ADS ask them what they think about the appropriateness of abortion. I'm sure a good AD company can make it the "in thing" to be sexually responsible.

Maybe an AD like, "Carrying a condom does not mean you are having sex. It's means you're a mature, responsible individual."

Publicly educate people. That will do more to ensure the survival of fetuses than anything else. What is more important: ensure the survival of fetuses or refrain from offending some folks?

Since the first part of your post was just more from your manifesto, I skipped down to your response to the question.

After slogging through your explanation, I take it boils down to a solution of condoms and education.

Is this your way of saying that women who get an abortion are risk takers and stupid??

 

[apple0154]

YEP, as soon as they create the artifical womb.

Artificial womb? You mean like female robots??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Artificial womb? You mean like female robots??

no

 

[apple0154]

Since the first part of your post was just more from your manifesto, I skipped down to your response to the question.

After slogging through your explanation, I take it boils down to a solution of condoms and education.

Is this your way of saying that women who get an abortion are risk takers and stupid??

HA! HA! Was that supposed to be funny?

No, my intellectually stunted friend. It means the only way things are going to change is if they are addressed. The longer sex is treated as some forbidden subject unwanted pregnancies are going to happen.

Not all that complicated to understand, is it?