Quote :

"This transcends economics and most everything else in the poltical arena today. "

you people scare me

2/15/2006 8:15:47 AM

So that's why Bush was reelected?

2/15/2006 8:42:15 AM

Quote :

" You would be under no obligation because it puts your life in immediate danger. This is not the case with the pregant mom ( except in extreme circumstances ). If saving the man did not put your life in danger, and you were the only person who could save him I think you have the moral obligation to help him live. In the same way the mother does not have the moral right to kill her unborn child."

Calling for help wouldnt put my life in danger, and yes I would have a moral obligation to save him. But not a legal obligation. And from what I hear, a pregnancy isnt exactly a walk in the park. For poor mothers who cannot afford going to the hospital, labor is still a risk. If they DO go to the hospital, they often suffer under debt from their medical bills.

2/15/2006 8:54:21 AM

Quote :

"Why not just say that it is HUMAN life if it has the potential of developing into an person. Almost every fetus has this capability, it just needs to be fed an nutured as I understand it. In contrast to say a sperm or an egg, which will never develop into a human."

This isn't true. Every one of my sperm has the potential of developing into a person. I just prevent them from bonding with an egg.

My girlfriend's eggs have the potential of developing into a human too. However, the way that we practice sex, we prevent this from happening. We're throwing a wrench in the "natural order" of things. Are we commiting murder, too?

2/15/2006 9:50:40 AM

even if killing a fetus is clearly murder i dont think it should be illegal
how about that

2/15/2006 10:41:20 AM

How about what?

Was I supposed to feel a zing when you revealed your edgy opinion?

You're entitled to think whatever the hell you want. I guess the next question would be: are all murders of convenience acceptable?

2/15/2006 11:05:09 AM

i think that while the mother would be doing a great justice to the child to bring it to term, its not something anyone can force her to do

the same way that if a woman woke up and a full grown human had been surgically attached to her i dont think she has any obligation to that person. while letting that person live would be the moral thing to do, she should not be prevented from removing herself from that person even if it means their sure death.

2/15/2006 11:08:07 AM

Nobody's forcing anybody to carry a baby, technically.

I don't HAVE to live next to loud neighbors. I could kill them. You couldn't force me not to.

But there could be legal consequences for causing that death.

2/15/2006 11:16:53 AM

well technically i don't think there should be legal consequences
if you want to argue semantics

2/15/2006 11:19:03 AM

Quote :

"The GOP strategists are, or should be, well aware that abortion only works for them as an issue if it's still legal."

True dat.

2/15/2006 12:30:29 PM

I'd like an anti-abortion crusader to address some issues for me:

-Portugal has banned abortions, yet has not been able to convict a single women woman or doctor for conducting an abortion. They've tried, but no jury would convict, so they've stopped.

-In Eastern Europe, where abortion is illegal, abortion rates are many times higher than Western Europe or the U.S., where it's legal. While it's clear that E. Europe is poorer, it's clearer still that laws have no impact on abortion rates.

-Roe v. Wade had no significant impact on the U.S.'s abortion rate. According to historical research.

-How intrusive would any affective "war on abortion" campaign would have to be so that we would not end up like E. Europe or Portugal?



[Edited on February 15, 2006 at 1:09 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2006 1:08:31 PM

i <3 abortion rights

2/15/2006 3:19:48 PM

Quote :

"mathman: Naw, cause there will always be the other side trying to legalize it again. People like me will continue to vote against the pro-abortion candidates. I will not vote for anyone who is pro-abortion, it's as simple as that. This transcends economics and most everything else in the poltical arena today."

Slow down, little buddy. You must've read my post a little too fast.

I didn't say that you or anyone of similar opinion wouldn't keep voting against pro-choice candidates. I said that if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the USSC, the issue won't be there to mobilize the GOP base anymore. No more flyers showing disgusting photos of dead fetuses to rile up the AFA/700 Club voters enough to go to the polls on election day.

The issue would be resolved as far as voters of your persuasion were concerned.

2/15/2006 4:45:31 PM

Quote :

"Naw, cause there will always be the other side trying to legalize it again."

Yes..if Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue heads back to the states where it belongs. Then you can vote for your favorite state pro-life/choice politician. So the issue will still rage, just on a more local level..which is good.

2/15/2006 11:05:46 PM

Quote :

"(JonHGuth) you people scare me"

happy day.

Quote :

"(Pupils DiL8t) So that's why Bush was reelected?"

in part.

Quote :

"(Lumex) Calling for help wouldnt put my life in danger, and yes I would have a moral obligation to save him. But not a legal obligation..."

When a moral obligation is not a legal obligation then the law is wrong and should be changed. And again the analogy is wrong, the mom is not about to fall off a cliff if she brings the child to term.

Quote :

"(Lumex)...And from what I hear, a pregnancy isnt exactly a walk in the park. For poor mothers who cannot afford going to the hospital, labor is still a risk. If they DO go to the hospital, they often suffer under debt from their medical bills."

Medicaid covers all the delivery costs for poor mothers. Medicaid will cover 100% of maternity costs for single moms that make $1800/month or less I think, and for a 2-parent home the cutoff is $2400 for 100% coverage by medicare. If you make more $$ there is a program called babylove which will catch some of the costs. In the case of rape resulting in pregancy I would be in favor of a heavy $$ fine for the rapist to cover the costs that result.

Quote :

"(McDanger)This isn't true. Every one of my sperm has the potential of developing into a person."

not without an egg. The fertilized egg has all the genetic information necessary to define you.
Although, I suspect there is more to a person than just that, but that is probably a better comment for another thread...

Quote :

"(JonHGuth)even if killing a fetus is clearly murder i dont think it should be illegal how about that"

gee, surprise surprise. Should anything be illegal? If murder isn't illegal then what?

Quote :

"(JonHGuth)well technically i don't think there should be legal consequences if you want to argue semantics"

see now you've slid so far your endorsing murdering inconvenient neighbors. (just kidding). But, really what is to stop us from killing inconvenient old-folks. They're also a burden and their quality of life isn't the greatest, and what about the mentally retarded, the deaf, the paralized, ... why not just keep the really productive people around then once people get to the age of 30 we can euthanize them... people are just animals anyway, right?

Quote :

"(boonedocks)-Portugal has banned abortions, yet has not been able to convict a single women woman or doctor for conducting an abortion. They've tried, but no jury would convict, so they've stopped."

not that I'm an expert on the politics of Portugal, but your wrong (behold the google).

http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=/content/EXTRACT/RAWART/3805/57B.html

from the link above,

"MAIA, PORTUGAL – Abortion campaigners say they will increase their activities to liberalize the Portuguese abortion laws after Europe's first mass abortion trial in decades ended with a number of convictions. Forty-nine people were on trial in this northern Portugal community where a temporary court was set up at the local tennis club. A nurse who ran a backstreet abortion clinic was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in prison. Six other people who worked with her were given the option of fines or serving up to six months in jail. Seventeen of her clients were also on trial. One was convicted of having an illegal abortion. Before handing down the sentences, the panel of three judges said: "We are aware of the political, social and scientific debates surrounding this matter, but must stick to the law."

Quote :

"(boonedocks)-In Eastern Europe, where abortion is illegal, abortion rates are many times higher than Western Europe or the U.S., where it's legal. While it's clear that E. Europe is poorer, it's clearer still that laws have no impact on abortion rates. -Roe v. Wade had no significant impact on the U.S.'s abortion rate. According to historical research."

I'm not sure about Europe's abortion rates, but it would seem you are incorrect about US rates.For a not so great graph of it,

http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/usgraf.htm

as far as the claims of oodles of illegal abortions and the thousands of botched abortion victims before 1972 go, I think the following is very telling of such studies,

Quote :

"Didn't Illegal Abortions Kill Thousands of Women? Dr. Bernard Nathanson -- who was one of the original leaders of the American pro-abortion movement and co-founder of N.A.R.A.L. (National Abortion Rights Action League), and who has since become pro-life -- admits that he and others in the abortion rights movement intentionally fabricated the number of women who allegedly died as a result of illegal abortions. "How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L. we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of the revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics. The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason which had to be done was permissible." [Source: Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 193.] "

I'm sure you could construct a history based on the lies of people like him, but the statistics of legal abortions point to the number being less than what it is typically now (of course adjusted for population growth) See for example,

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

his statistics are from Planned Parenthood in part, so take from that what you will.

Quote :

"(boonedocks)-How intrusive would any affective "war on abortion" campaign would have to be so that we would not end up like E. Europe or Portugal?"

I think overall it is more about changing the hearts and minds of individuals. Certainly a number of
issues come into play. The value of human life, is it worth protecting? I hope we can convince more
people this is an applaudable goal. Is it just a "blob of tissue"? That might have flied in 1972, but the
humanity of the fetus is being unvealed more and more with every passing medical revolution. Lies
like the baby feels no pain during the abortion are being exposed by ultasound technology for
example. If the baby feels no pain then why does it squirm away from the instrument
seeking to destroy it( this has been documented in some late-term abortions ).

I think convincing mothers that it is not acceptable is the first and best defense against abortion. However, there will likely be people who choose to murder the unborn ( it's no so new really, the
ancient cannanites used to offer there newborns as burnt sacrifices to a god named Molech, we
sacrifice our children to the god of selfishness, which is better?).

So your choice is false, abortion statisitics seem to indicate that legalizing abortion has encouraged people to have them ( at least in the USA ). Wether or not making it illegal would increase the number I still have this crazy idea that what is morally wrong ought to be legally wrong especially when it comes to the infringement of one individuals rights on another's. Here the right of the baby to life is being violated by the mother.

We should protect the powerless with our laws, that is one of the primary functions of law.

I know that everyone would not follow the law, that's no reason to not have one. That's a reason once we have it to enforce it and make public example of how unpleasant it could be to break the law.

Quote :

"(Gamecat)Slow down, little buddy. You must've read my post a little too fast. I didn't say that you or anyone of similar opinion wouldn't keep voting against pro-choice candidates. I said that if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the USSC, the issue won't be there to mobilize the GOP base anymore. No more flyers showing disgusting photos of dead fetuses to rile up the AFA/700 Club voters enough to go to the polls on election day. The issue would be resolved as far as voters of your persuasion were concerned."

no I understood you, but remember that the fliers would still be very much relevant. Like pictures of the Holocaust, the fact that it is not happening now doesn't make it any less salient. The democrats will likely still continue their love-affair with the radical leftist groups, I'd be very surprised if one of their main campaign points wasn't legalizing abortion. As such, it will be the natural and politically obvious counter-response to try to gain popularity by championing the protection of innocent life.

I'll consider voting democrat just as soon as they change their position on this point, I feel no special allegiance to the republicans in particular. My peoples are social conservatives first, and fiscal conservatives second.

Quote :

"(EarthDogg)Yes..if Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue heads back to the states where it belongs. Then you can vote for your favorite state pro-life/choice politician. So the issue will still rage, just on a more local level..which is good. "

another good point.

[Edited on February 16, 2006 at 12:01 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2006 11:54:36 PM

Quote :

"The sperm and egg are discreet objects that do not have the capability to form a living human body on their own. There is no ethical issue for me regarding preventing them from meeting; but once they DO meet, it is unethical, to me, to actively prevent them from reaching their natural conclusion."

So just for clarification, do you have ethical issues with the morning-after pill?

2/15/2006 11:59:08 PM

Quote :

"So just for clarification, do you have ethical issues with the morning-after pill?"

It's funny you should ask that, as I am currently in a debate with someone else about it.

I am currently against the morning after pill for the following reason from the "Plan B" website:

Quote :

"Emergency contraception is similar to a birth control pill and is believed to act by: * Preventing ovulation * Preventing fertilization by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or egg * May inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium "

Citation: http://www.go2planb.com/ForPharmacists/AboutPlanB/faqs.aspx#AL1

Possibly preventing implantation, to me, is ethically wrong. If it didn't prevent implantation, I'd be ok with plan b. I have no problems with preventing fertilization... but once the egg is fertilized, I say hands off.

Someone else pointed me to some medical journals tonight that might refute the Plan B endometrium claim, which I'm going to read over. As long as it's clear to me, though, that it could prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, i.e. zygote, yes, I have ethical problems with it.

[Edited on February 16, 2006 at 12:08 AM. Reason : Emphasis mine]

2/16/2006 12:07:50 AM

Thats a pretty hard-line stance.

On a related note, Wal-mart has now been ordered by courts to sell the morning-after pill in at least 2 states.

2/16/2006 12:21:57 AM

^ Well, what can I say? I'm a hard-lined girl

2/16/2006 12:40:26 AM

So I assume you're opposed to hormonal birth control as well?

2/16/2006 1:36:59 AM

y'all scare me

2/16/2006 2:53:41 AM

Quote :

"For poor mothers who cannot afford going to the hospital, labor is still a risk. If they DO go to the hospital, they often suffer under debt from their medical bills."

Actually the only people that end up suffering under medical bill debt is the middle class. The poor get a free ride through Medicaid. It's the people that make just enough that end up suffering the most. It's a shame too, as health insurance is becoming harder and harder for the middle class to afford.

"Sorry sir, you made $100 too much last month so you are on the hook for the entire $20K."

2/16/2006 7:41:27 AM

Let me try this again.

mathman-

1. type this "[ u s e r ]{username}[ / u s e r ]" without the spaces between the brackets or characters between them

2. you do not represent the majority of pro-life voters who actually form the voting bloc i'm talking about

2/16/2006 6:33:17 PM

^
1. don't like coding , if they had a button for it like these lovely emoticons that'd be nice. But I'll
try to make the word red if it makes you happy.

2. just curious, precisely what's the difference?

2/16/2006 7:50:05 PM

Well...for starters...this:

Quote :

"I'll consider voting democrat just as soon as they change their position on this point..."

Believe it or not, there are anti-abortion Democrats. The bloc I'm talking about would include people like Wolfpack2K; those whose primary motivation for voting is to elect candidates who claim they will make abortion illegal, and for the most part, think it's a sin to vote for a Democrat period. To most of them, every other issue comes in at a distant second.

And I'm only anticipating an effect on a national level. EarthDogg hit the nail on the head on this one. National elections wouldn't produce the hard-liners from the pro-life crowd like they used to (and have increasingly done thus far); you'd see a smaller form of that kind of mobilization in elections for state politicians like governors.

2/17/2006 5:51:13 PM

Quote :

"The bloc I'm talking about would include people like Wolfpack2K; those whose primary motivation for voting is to elect candidates who claim they will make abortion illegal, and for the most part, think it's a sin to vote for a Democrat period. To most of them, every other issue comes in at a distant second."

those people scare the shit out of me
and make me cry

2/17/2006 6:06:24 PM

I'm not a fan of single issue voters of any party to be honest.

2/17/2006 6:08:04 PM

Quote :

"boonedocks: I'd like an anti-abortion crusader to address some issues for me: -Portugal has banned abortions, yet has not been able to convict a single women woman or doctor for conducting an abortion. They've tried, but no jury would convict, so they've stopped. -In Eastern Europe, where abortion is illegal, abortion rates are many times higher than Western Europe or the U.S., where it's legal. While it's clear that E. Europe is poorer, it's clearer still that laws have no impact on abortion rates. -Roe v. Wade had no significant impact on the U.S.'s abortion rate. According to historical research. -How intrusive would any affective "war on abortion" campaign would have to be so that we would not end up like E. Europe or Portugal?"

hey, if thats the case, then why would you have a problem with abortion being made illegal in the US? I mean, it doesn't affect anything, so why care?

2/18/2006 9:12:12 PM

probably because the number of people being charged for it would go from zero to not zero

2/18/2006 9:31:33 PM

The governor signed the ban, so unless challenged, it'll go into effect this year. But the one abortion clinic in South Dakota, Planned Parenthood, plans to challenge it.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortionban.ap/index.html

The law: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs//abortion/sdabortionlaw06.html

There was a task force that gathered testimonies and information before getting the act through, and you can read all about it:
http://www.feministing.com/SD_abortion_taskforce_report.pdf

It's pretty interesting.

I personally am anti-abortion, although I don't want a ton of illegal abortions being performed. One main concern was that the clinic wasn't supplying the patients with enough information about the fetus, which is one of the biggest reasons why various women experienced mental distress over the sudden realization later that they had terminated the life of an unborn child. Another concern was that many patients were pressured to have an abortion. Similarly to my childhood friend who had an abortion after her brother (her guardian) drove her to the abortion and waited while it took place to ensure she had it done. She has hated him since, even though it's partially her fault for being weak enough to give into his pressuring. But I can understand since she probably didn't know where else to go, who else to go to.

[Edited on March 6, 2006 at 6:09 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2006 6:06:33 PM

I'm not anti-abortion so much as I am pro-coat hanger.

3/7/2006 12:49:42 AM

Quote :

"I am currently against the morning after pill for the following reason from the "Plan B" website:"

are you against The Pill or The Patch?

3/7/2006 1:36:35 AM

Yeah, she said she was.

3/7/2006 1:47:03 AM

Ok, fair enough, then.

I think that most would agree that the abortion debate essentially boils down to at what point you consider the beginning of human life. The two obvious marks are conception and birth, but I don't see why people are so bound to those. I don't think it's sensible at all to draw the line at birth, but neither do I see any particularly good reason to draw the line at conception.

I mean, if you really think about it, those two times aren't REALLY any less arbitrary than, say, 1 month after conception...or two months after conception (which I think is more sensible, although not as convenient for legislating purposes).

3/7/2006 1:52:12 AM

to keep it simple...although i hate this fact...it will be overturned by the supreme court because john roberts believes in stare decis. Overturning this will be like overturning Brown v. the Board of Education.

3/7/2006 2:55:28 AM

^ Hmm, Roe v wade has already largely been overturned, back in 1994.

States are already free to regulate abortion clinics to the point of closure.

3/7/2006 10:15:31 AM

ps

those of you who think the christian conservative base will fall off once abortion is "illegal"

have you forgotten how much they hate the gays?

3/7/2006 10:29:01 AM

yeah, I'm guessing the GOP turns this midterm into a slam dunk with this abortion thing and probably something to ban gay marriage.

3/7/2006 10:31:21 AM

Quote :

"it will be overturned by the supreme court because john roberts believes in stare decis. Overturning this will be like overturning Brown v. the Board of Education."

Precedent, while important, is not the end-all be-all. I think Roberts will look at the constitutionality of Roe instead of relying on it solely because it is precedent. Brown v. Board overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. What now?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 10:33 AM. Reason : quote]

3/7/2006 10:31:58 AM

Quote :

"have you forgotten how much they hate the gays?"

You're a moron. Christians don't hate gays. They hate the act of homosexuality, just like they hate adultery, etc.

3/7/2006 11:21:21 AM

I know plenty of Christians who hate gays. I don't know any who narrow it down to hating "the act of homosexuality", which, by the way, is equally as ignorant, hateful, and stupid.

3/7/2006 11:23:52 AM

you saying no christian hates gay people carries as much weight as me saying they all hate them
(which i didn't say, since i am a christian and i don't hate gay people)

i suppose in fairness i should have put "Christian" in quotation marks

when is the last time a straight person got kicked out of a church for having premarital sex?

hell, my church has a group almost entirely for divorcees
is divorce not a sin, a continual existence outside of a bond sealed by God?

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 11:28 AM. Reason : ?]

3/7/2006 11:26:38 AM

^haha, when i was little that happened at my church. they were hardcore

but my parents were thankfully very apathetic and we eventually got kicked out too for non-attendance

3/7/2006 11:27:58 AM

Quote :

"which, by the way, is equally as ignorant, hateful, and stupid. "

No it's really not if you're thinking in sexual terms.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 11:31 AM. Reason : ]

3/7/2006 11:29:36 AM

homosexuality is more than buttsex hun

3/7/2006 11:35:20 AM

There's more to it than just buttsex.

I can understand loving someone of the same sex, so I do think the controversy stems over the marriage of the two, and the sexuality.

3/7/2006 11:46:00 AM

How about I just recap the *relevant* part of that argument ncsutiger?

"Christians hate"

Shame that I want religion out of my government. Civil Liberties, not laws based on little other than moral opinion. If you dont want an abortion (back to the original topic) then dont have one. OMG problem solved. but no, I as a grown woman shouldn't be allowed to make my own moral and life decisions, becuase they're "evil" according to the GOP.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

3/7/2006 11:46:35 AM

Hey, let's outlaw sex outside the bounds of marriage

and then only marry certain people.

GOOD IDEA!!!

p.s. When's the last time Christians tied a kid to the back of their truck and drove him down a gravel road until he died for having heterosexual, premarital sex?

p.p.s. Homosexuality is an abomination. You know what else is an abomination? Gossip. What else? Wearing mixed fibers. What else? Eating shelfish.


OH MODERN DAY SODDOM, THY NAME IS RED LOBSTER!

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 11:53 AM. Reason : I feel a hate crime coming on]

3/7/2006 11:47:15 AM

I'm not going to continue the argument b/c you guys are set in your beliefs and I in mine.

Wow LadyWolff you managed to make the worst blanket statement I've seen on TWW.

Gay ppl can do whatever they want. I'm just expressing personal beliefs. I'm not forcing them on others. I'm all about compromise to achieve harmony since I do recognize people have their own beliefs.

spookyjon find me the verse where it calls shellfish an abomination. I know it as "unclean" and suggested not to be eaten.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

3/7/2006 11:56:30 AM

Quote :

"I as a grown woman shouldn't be allowed to make my own moral and life decisions"

No, you are allowed to make your moral and life decisions. It's just that killing another human being is not your decision to make.

Quote :

"p.p.s. Homosexuality is an abomination. You know what else is an abomination? Gossip. What else? Wearing mixed fibers. What else? Eating shelfish."

OOOOOOooooo... wrong there chief, I'm afraid you get no points on that one.

Quote :

""Christians hate""

And what was that statement? A statement full of "love"? Silly one.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 12:01 PM. Reason : add]

3/7/2006 12:00:30 PM