The W
Views: 97708269
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.7.07 1421
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Partial Birth Abortions Banned
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5(1214 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (95 total)
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 515/3336
EXP: 13014148
For next: 77205

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 13 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#81 Posted on 10.11.03 0746.32
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0746.43
    Originally posted by fuelinjected

    Originally posted by AWARulz
    It wasn't about STDs, although that was an issue. It was about pregnacy. You got a girl pregnant, you married her.


Great, so you both end up XXXX misserable and take it out on the kid.


My friend, this is the way it worked for hundreds of years before 1973. You can look it up. Now I can't speak from personal experience, since my parents (both previously divorced) were married over a year when I was conceived and lived as man and wife until my Mom died.

But, I know of several people who lived through just such a situation. And they survived. My question to you is: Is it right to take life away from the child because the parents are so selfish. Life has occured. Everything that makes you human is there minutes after conception. Just 4 weeks after conception, the body is almost fully developed, just is very small. Is it right?

You know what, I thought my parents were miserable much of the time when I was a kid. My Dad drank and my Mom hated it. They'd fight. I remember having to cancel a trip right in the middle of it because I got sick. We just drove home from somewhere. I was the only child and I think I was 6 or 7 at the time. Wouldn't it have been easier for my parents to kill me right then and there, finish their vacation and see if that made their life happy - and then, at the end, made a decision to love each other without the distraction of me, or to go their seperate ways, no harm, no foul.

Ah, if only I had been 5 and a half years younger and it had been after 1973. (I'm oooooooold - _ this event happened in 1962 or so). My parents might have made different decisions.

You know what - they didn't. Hardly anyone did in those days because we're talking about people with backbone, and morals. Not church morals - my parents didn't go to church until after I started. Just morals. The morals that won world war II. They morals that said people are important instead of your own pleasure.

It was a different era. I wish it could come back for others, but for the time being, it's at least in my house.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 334/641
EXP: 1093959
For next: 63167

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3612 days
Last activity: 3271 days
#82 Posted on 10.11.03 0825.03
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0827.42
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by fuelinjected

      Originally posted by AWARulz
      It wasn't about STDs, although that was an issue. It was about pregnacy. You got a girl pregnant, you married her.


    Great, so you both end up XXXX misserable and take it out on the kid.


My friend, this is the way it worked for hundreds of years before 1973. You can look it up. Now I can't speak from personal experience, since my parents (both previously divorced) were married over a year when I was conceived and lived as man and wife until my Mom died.

But, I know of several people who lived through just such a situation. And they survived. My question to you is: Is it right to take life away from the child because the parents are so selfish. Life has occured. Everything that makes you human is there minutes after conception. Just 4 weeks after conception, the body is almost fully developed, just is very small. Is it right?

You know what, I thought my parents were miserable much of the time when I was a kid. My Dad drank and my Mom hated it. They'd fight. I remember having to cancel a trip right in the middle of it because I got sick. We just drove home from somewhere. I was the only child and I think I was 6 or 7 at the time. Wouldn't it have been easier for my parents to kill me right then and there, finish their vacation and see if that made their life happy - and then, at the end, made a decision to love each other without the distraction of me, or to go their seperate ways, no harm, no foul.

Ah, if only I had been 5 and a half years younger and it had been after 1973. (I'm oooooooold - _ this event happened in 1962 or so). My parents might have made different decisions.

You know what - they didn't. Hardly anyone did in those days because we're talking about people with backbone, and morals. Not church morals - my parents didn't go to church until after I started. Just morals. The morals that won world war II. They morals that said people are important instead of your own pleasure.

It was a different era. I wish it could come back for others, but for the time being, it's at least in my house.




And it's that static way of thinking that has us running in circles on this issue.

Our society has been changing at an alarming rate over the last 50 years. Hell, think about how far we have come since the 50's.

There are too many people who sit and think, "it was better in the good old days...It should be more like that now. Let's make it that way again!"

Well, the rules have changed. It isn't the good old days and it never will be.

Let's work with what we have and not what we think we should have.

and BTW, a majority of "before 1973" was one sided. The Man's side. Women have more say in parenting and marriage. They have a real choice in these matters now. This is a prime example of how the times have changed and we need to adapt instead of trying to force what once was.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 124/2690
EXP: 8762090
For next: 226729

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#83 Posted on 10.11.03 0830.34
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0831.22
AWA, I am glad that it worked out for you, but I think he was really saying (and I don't want to put words in his mouth) it would be better to raise a child as an unwed mother rather than in an impossible, miserable, and likely abusive relationship. I would agree. Also for hundred of years, love and marriage often had little to do with each other. There are many things fom the past that are preferable to the way we live today but that isn't one of them.

You're anger (and again I don't want to put words in your mouth) seems to indicate that perhaps you would have had a better childhood if your mother and father had not wed. And really I don't understand what the trip analogy has to do with the issue.

It was a morality but in many ways a twisted one that made the children pay for the sins of the parents. It taught responsibilty but what you cite is responsibilty after the fact and their own pleasure. There just isn't a good answer to this dilema other than eliminating pegnancies outside of marriage by placing sex in its proper context.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 516/3336
EXP: 13014148
For next: 77205

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 13 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#84 Posted on 10.11.03 0925.31
Reposted on: 10.11.10 0926.11
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    Well, the rules have changed. It isn't the good old days and it never will be.

    Let's work with what we have and not what we think we should have.

    and BTW, a majority of "before 1973" was one sided. The Man's side. Women have more say in parenting and marriage. They have a real choice in these matters now. This is a prime example of how the times have changed and we need to adapt instead of trying to force what once was.


No they haven't. People are still people and they are worthwhile. Men still have the right not to have sex. So do women. They have chosen to me immoral.

The main thing that has changed is the definition of immorality. I see a desperate need to change it back to a less subjective standard. Saving lives has always been a desperate need.


    Originally posted by Dr. Dirt

    Your anger (and again I don't want to put words in your mouth) seems to indicate that perhaps you would have had a better childhood if your mother and father had not wed. And really I don't understand what the trip analogy has to do with the issue.



It wasn't an analogy and I had a WONDERFUL childhood. I noticed that what my parents had done all along was fight, mostly over drinking, as a teen. And it wasn't an analogy - it's something that really happened.

No, the concept is, today. Boy and girl get together. They have sex. Then they start to get to know each other. Whoops! She's PG. Guy pays for abortion (or leaves and dumps her). NEXT!

And supposedly, since the baby is now gone, life is freaking wonderful for everyone. But in reality, the woman lives with killing her kid forever. (You could look it up in many of the psychological reviews), she also lives with much, much higher than normal susequent issues regarding miscarriage and failure to conceive. The guy? More or less, he's cool. He didn't "pull the trigger" so to speak and his incidence of psychological trauma is much lower. So on to victim 2. The baby? Still dead.

The argument here is that without the baby to deal with, future Mommy and Daddy can decide if they're really "right" for eaqch other, so kill the baby so it doesn't get in the way. I think anyone will tell you that the huge majority of abortions do not result in the couple getting together - rather it is the opposite.

But before you could get an abortion easier than you can get codiene cold tablets, men had to deal (at least sometimes - see the earlier messages on shotguns and such - BTW, I don't advocate shotguns, I advocate a more hands-on approach) with the parenthood. So did the women and there was more reason to (on both the man and woman's side) keep your pants on until you were sure.

I'm sure you'll agree, that's not the case anymore. But is it right?

The only way this question is answered is in terms of right or wrong. I have a hard time with rationalizing abortions because "That's the morals now" is the law of the land. Killing a human just isn't right. No matter what the age.


(edited by AWArulz on 10.11.03 1342)
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 335/641
EXP: 1093959
For next: 63167

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3612 days
Last activity: 3271 days
#85 Posted on 10.11.03 1004.58
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1005.08
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Well, the rules have changed. It isn't the good old days and it never will be.

      Let's work with what we have and not what we think we should have.

      and BTW, a majority of "before 1973" was one sided. The Man's side. Women have more say in parenting and marriage. They have a real choice in these matters now. This is a prime example of how the times have changed and we need to adapt instead of trying to force what once was.


    No they haven't. People are still people and they are worthwhile. Men still have the right not to have sex. So do women. They have chosen to me immoral.

    The main thing that has changed is the definition of immorality. I see a desperate need to change it back to a less subjective standard. Saving lives has always been a desperate need


"They?" Are you refering to the same "They" I referenced? (women) And if so, may I ask, "Waaaaaaa?"

"People are still people and they are worthwhile." Blanket terms only work when generalizing.

And you can't talk about morality and "less subjective" in the same paragraph. Morality is a relative thing. Never forget that. What works for you and what doesn't work for you doesn't always work for everyone else or even a good portion of "everyone else."

And the thing about what you construe as "immoral" is that perception of morals have a tendancy to change everyting. It sets new rules and parameters. So, once again, that was then and this is now. Let's stop pining for what we no longer have.

And saving lives is only desperate to those it directly affects. We (Americans, mostly) are very choosey when it comes to what lives we save.

Family member...we save

Yourself...you'll try to save

Friends...try to save

Criminal...kill them

Invader...kill them

Foreigners...kill them

Our childern...Save them

Other's childern...Who cares?

So, let's not start playing like we really care that much about "saving lives." Very few of the populace care so much about "saving lives" that they have no bias torwards what lives are worthy enough to be saved.

Sorry, but it just annoys the piss out of me when I hear people start talking about some kind of value to life. We kill all the time. Mostly for food, but other times it's for political issues, other times it's for revenge, other times we wrap it up in ideas like "it's good for society" or "it's good for the moral fiber." And even other times we just don't give a damn.

Sometimes we do it directly, other times we directly support the people who atually do it (or who don't do anything about it). Let's not get double standards now. Value of life is biased. We made it up to feel noble about our existance.

We are just as much a part of the cycle of life as any other creature on this planet. Killing, death, population control, and weeding out the bad elements (all forms of death) are all things put in place by nature. It's there for a reason, don't F with it.

Now before anyone takes this the wrong way, I'm not saying that people should start going out and murder eachother. Murderers fall under "weeding out the bad elements." What I am saying is that maybe we should take a cue from nature. Instead of what we "think" will work, let's go with what actually does work. Nature has been "working" just fine since the beginning of time. Why are we the only species that feels the need to fight it with everyting we do?

Balance people, balance.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 130/2690
EXP: 8762090
For next: 226729

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#86 Posted on 10.11.03 1020.42
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1024.10
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Well, the rules have changed. It isn't the good old days and it never will be.

      Let's work with what we have and not what we think we should have.

      and BTW, a majority of "before 1973" was one sided. The Man's side. Women have more say in parenting and marriage. They have a real choice in these matters now. This is a prime example of how the times have changed and we need to adapt instead of trying to force what once was.


    No they haven't. People are still people and they are worthwhile. Men still have the right not to have sex. So do women. They have chosen to me immoral.

    The main thing that has changed is the definition of immorality. I see a desperate need to change it back to a less subjective standard. Saving lives has always been a desperate need.


      Originally posted by Dr. Dirt

      You're anger (and again I don't want to put words in your mouth) seems to indicate that perhaps you would have had a better childhood if your mother and father had not wed. And really I don't understand what the trip analogy has to do with the issue.[/QUOTE]

      It wasn't an analogy and I had a WONDERFUL childhood. I noticed that what my parents had done all along was fight, mostly over drinking, as a teen. And it wasn't an analogy - it's something that really happened.

      No, the concept is, today. Boy and girl get together. They have sex. Then they start to get to know each other. Whoops! She's PG. Guy pays for abortion (or leaves and dumps her). NEXT!

      And supposedly, since the baby is now gone, life is freaking wonderful for everyone. But in reality, the woman lives with killing her kid forever. (You could look it up in many of the psychological reviews), she also lives with much, much higher than normal susequent issues regarding miscarriage and failure to conceive. The guy? More or less, he's cool. He didn't "pull the trigger" so to speak and his incidence of psychological trauma is much lower. So on to victim 2. The baby? Still dead.

      The argument here is that without the baby to deal with, future Mommy and Daddy can decide if they're really "right" for eaqch other, so kill the baby so it doesn't get in the way. I think anyone will tell you that the huge majority of abortions do not result in the couple getting together - rather it is the opposite.

      But before you could get an abortion easier than you can get codiene cold tablets, men had to deal (at least sometimes - see the earlier messages on shotguns and such - BTW, I don't advocate shotguns, I advocate a more hands-on approach) with the parenthood. So did the women and there was more reason to (on both the man and woman's side) keep your pants on until you were sure.

      I'm sure you'll agree, that's not the case anymore. But is it right?

      The only way this question is answered is in terms of right or wrong. I have a hard time with rationalizing abortions because "That's the morals now" is the law of the land. Killing a human just isn't right. No matter what the age.



    AWA. I don't think anyone here is denying the possible negative consequences of abortion or its use as birth control being undesirable. I haven't seen a post in this thread that suggests what you are saying. Maybe I am just reading them naively. I think if you reread most of these posts, much of what you say has been agreed to by both sides.

    I am glad your childhood was happy. Many kids in those circumstances would not frame it as such. We all respond differently to our environment. You were fortunate. Growing up around fighting in general and with what sounds like alcohol abuse would scar many.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 517/3336
EXP: 13014148
For next: 77205

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 13 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#87 Posted on 10.11.03 1250.57
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1251.10

    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    Well, the rules have changed. It isn't the good old days and it never will be.

    Originally posted by AWARulz
    No they haven't. People are still people and they are worthwhile.

    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    "They?" Are you refering to the same "They" I referenced?


No, it was "the rules"

Threep, as long as you don't have an objective standard for living, you have to deal with this. But I don't consider people and ants essentially of the same worth. Or People and a steer, for example. You hold to your unsubstantiated belief about us rising out of the muck and I will hold to my belief regarding intelligent design. To me, at least, that makes a certain amount of sense, considering the complexity of our functions. When you consider how amazing that two disperate cell types fuse and form a sentient being that can be nurtured for several years, make decisions and later argue his or her eternal antecedentism, it's pretty amazing. I can't give chance that one.

The problem with a belief in intelligent design is that it more or less mandates a series of objective facts - unchangeables, not relative things. So I am tied to that.

Hope you have a great day.



(edited by AWArulz on 10.11.03 1355)
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1866/3273
EXP: 12654045
For next: 17939

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 110 days
Last activity: 110 days
#88 Posted on 10.11.03 1936.43
Reposted on: 10.11.10 1937.36
Sorry, I don't mean to be piling on AWA here, I just feel that this discussion has taken (yet another) interesting turn, and I'd like to add my own thoughts to it.

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    ...My friend, this is the way it worked for hundreds of years before 1973. You can look it up. Now I can't speak from personal experience, since my parents (both previously divorced) were married over a year when I was conceived and lived as man and wife until my Mom died....


    ...The main thing that has changed is the definition of immorality. I see a desperate need to change it back to a less subjective standard. Saving lives has always been a desperate need.



I have to disagree here. The definition of immorality is not the only thing that's changed. In the hundreds of years before 1973, beating your wife was a generally accepted practice, but not something that goes over too well these days (though still more than I'd like). Today, if you beat your wife, she can divorce your ass and take a good-sized chunk out of your financial assests when she's done. Marriage has changed. Because of that, the way families operate have changed. I don't think the "You knock her up, you marry her." approach is feasible anymore because of how many couples end up in divorce court anyway.



    Originally posted by MoeGates
    teenage boys are God's punishment for humanity's sins incarnate. Teaching your daughter self-respect, etc. might give her a good edge against them, it's true. But a Dad with shotgun on the porch is a sure thing. There are certain stupid mistakes that each teenager needs to make for themselves, and learn from. There are others that it's the parent's job to protect them from. Not educate them about, protect.


I agree with the feeling here, and personally feel like every guy my daughter brought home should know that he's just inches away from death. However, this sends the wrong kind of message.

1) It says I don't trust my daughter, or her choices.
2) I become the parent enforcing the rules. Since when do teenagers ever think their parents know what's best for them?
3) Along the same lines, breaking the rules is a way to rebel against your parents wishes. The last thing I want to do is come across as the asshole parent who you'd be glad to disobey.

I'd rather teach my daughter about being responsible and what the consequences of the choices she might make are. And then I'm just going to have to smile at her dates, try and get to know them as much as possible, and trust in her judgement.

-Jag

And the moment she comes home in tears, I ask her what's wrong, I give her a hug, and then I go break some poor fool's bones. Geez, I'd make a swell Dad...
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 136/2690
EXP: 8762090
For next: 226729

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#89 Posted on 10.11.03 2236.40
Reposted on: 10.11.10 2237.11
Jag's sentiments seem right on target. If the past is closely examined, while there was a lot to admire, much was bad to say the least. The rate of women dieing in childbrith was quite high as was infant mortality. As a practical matter, the nation and families themselves (particularly on farms) needed large families for two reasons. Large pool of child labor and lots never made it to adulthood. Hence a very good reason to frown on any practice that did not increase population. In a lot of ways morality had little to do with it. And lest anyone be too deluded, there was alot of conceptin outside of wedlock. A lot.

Teaching responsibilty and trust really is the key. Well Said Jag
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 519/3336
EXP: 13014148
For next: 77205

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 13 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#90 Posted on 11.11.03 0613.19
Reposted on: 11.11.10 0615.57
    Originally posted by Jaguar

    In the hundreds of years before 1973, beating your wife was a generally accepted practice, but not something that goes over too well these days (though still more than I'd like). Today, if you beat your wife, she can divorce [you] and take a good-sized chunk out of your financial assests when she's done.



There's a big difference between this and killing your child. Straw man arguement, Jag.

    Originally posted by Jaguar

    And the moment she comes home in tears, I ask her what's wrong, I give her a hug, and then I go break some poor fool's bones. Geez, I'd make a swell Dad...


My only difference is that I like them to know I am entirely capable of doing just this from the onset- just so we understand each other.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 139/2690
EXP: 8762090
For next: 226729

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#91 Posted on 11.11.03 0852.40
Reposted on: 11.11.10 0859.01
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by Jaguar

      In the hundreds of years before 1973, beating your wife was a generally accepted practice, but not something that goes over too well these days (though still more than I'd like). Today, if you beat your wife, she can divorce [you] and take a good-sized chunk out of your financial assests when she's done.



    There's a big difference between this and killing your child. Straw man arguement, Jag.

      Originally posted by Jaguar

      And the moment she comes home in tears, I ask her what's wrong, I give her a hug, and then I go break some poor fool's bones. Geez, I'd make a swell Dad...


    My only difference is that I like them to know I am entirely capable of doing just this from the onset- just so we understand each other.


AWA, Not really a straw man argument. Many things that were acceptable in the "good old days" aren't now and vice versa. Many like yourself consider an abortion in the first two trimesters killing a baby, others do not. This is a philosphical/religous question which IMO there can be legitimate disagrement. I know you don't agree and that is fine. In spite of what many think, we as a society have made progress in terms of the rights and protections afforded our citizens. We have evolved to a point where persons are more secure in their persons from abuse and medical advances have secured a longer, better style of life for most. I think that is Jag's point and I agree. Just the fact that we are having this thread proves our society is progressing. The real progress will be made when this thread becomes moot because we have almost no need for abortion.

Further proof of progress will be made when we don't feel we need a shotgun or the right to beat the crap out of your daughter's boyfriend to instill morality.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 336/641
EXP: 1093959
For next: 63167

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3612 days
Last activity: 3271 days
#92 Posted on 11.11.03 0858.42
Reposted on: 11.11.10 0859.06
    Originally posted by AWArulz

      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Well, the rules have changed. It isn't the good old days and it never will be.

      Originally posted by AWARulz
      No they haven't. People are still people and they are worthwhile.

      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      "They?" Are you refering to the same "They" I referenced?


    No, it was "the rules"

    Threep, as long as you don't have an objective standard for living, you have to deal with this. But I don't consider people and ants essentially of the same worth. Or People and a steer, for example. You hold to your unsubstantiated belief about us rising out of the muck and I will hold to my belief regarding intelligent design. To me, at least, that makes a certain amount of sense, considering the complexity of our functions. When you consider how amazing that two disperate cell types fuse and form a sentient being that can be nurtured for several years, make decisions and later argue his or her eternal antecedentism, it's pretty amazing. I can't give chance that one.

    The problem with a belief in intelligent design is that it more or less mandates a series of objective facts - unchangeables, not relative things. So I am tied to that.

    Hope you have a great day.



    (edited by AWArulz on 10.11.03 1355)


Well, you kind of hit on my point exactly...

Unchangeables...So far, the only design that we know of that has:

A) Unchanged
B) Perfectly balanced

is

Nature.

And just because we are part of this concept called Intellignet Design doesn't mean that we are above the rules of the design nature gave to us.

We are bound by some of the same rules that, yes, even ants and steers are held to. Not all, but some of the very basic rules apply to all living things.
(hence, why I asked for balance)

We, as a species, tend to think that a lot of the basic rules do not apply to us because we are the top of the food chain. Also, considering that we CAN change a lot of the rules of nature to our will, we get a bit arrogant.

Nature is objective. Humans are relative.

BTW, Intelligent Design is not objective. First off, we just made it up, secondly, we have nothing to compare it to. Just a set of standards that has changed throughout our existence.

Natural Phenomena is the only true "objective" that we can claim.
DMC
Liverwurst
Level: 69

Posts: 1110/1180
EXP: 2743672
For next: 126086

Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3386 days
Last activity: 3380 days
#93 Posted on 11.11.03 1356.11
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1356.45
"AWA, Not really a straw man argument. Many things that were acceptable in the "good old days" aren't now and vice versa. Many like yourself consider an abortion in the first two trimesters killing a baby, others do not. This is a philosphical/religous question which IMO there can be legitimate disagrement. I know you don't agree and that is fine. In spite of what many think, we as a society have made progress in terms of the rights and protections afforded our citizens. We have evolved to a point where persons are more secure in their persons from abuse and medical advances have secured a longer, better style of life for most. I think that is Jag's point and I agree. Just the fact that we are having this thread proves our society is progressing."

That's all nice and flowery, but none of the above is any reason to take the life of an innocent human being for any reason other than the mother's life being at risk. Bottom line. And whenever you get around to looking at the evidence against partial birth abortions and seeing how unjust they are, please let me know.

DMC
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 143/2690
EXP: 8762090
For next: 226729

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#94 Posted on 11.11.03 1444.31
Reposted on: 11.11.10 1448.29
    Originally posted by DMC
    "AWA, Not really a straw man argument. Many things that were acceptable in the "good old days" aren't now and vice versa. Many like yourself consider an abortion in the first two trimesters killing a baby, others do not. This is a philosphical/religous question which IMO there can be legitimate disagrement. I know you don't agree and that is fine. In spite of what many think, we as a society have made progress in terms of the rights and protections afforded our citizens. We have evolved to a point where persons are more secure in their persons from abuse and medical advances have secured a longer, better style of life for most. I think that is Jag's point and I agree. Just the fact that we are having this thread proves our society is progressing."

    That's all nice and flowery, but none of the above is any reason to take the life of an innocent human being for any reason other than the mother's life being at risk. Bottom line. And whenever you get around to looking at the evidence against partial birth abortions and seeing how unjust they are, please let me know.

    DMC


DMC, I am not saying it is. I think most of us posting on the "opposite" side agree with you. The point about the god old days is that in many ways they weren't. With any luck, 40 or 50 years, people will look back and say that these were the bad old days where abortion was used as birth control. Thank God that now it is only used under extreme circumstances.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 523/3336
EXP: 13014148
For next: 77205

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 13 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#95 Posted on 12.11.03 0646.54
Reposted on: 12.11.10 0656.38
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Thank God that now it is only used under extreme circumstances.


I assume you're talking Partial Birth abortions here, because there were over 1.3 million abortions in the US alone last year, all but 5 (or generously, 6) percent for birth control. That's stats from womensissues.about.com


I can't really find good stats on Partial Birth, but I am given to understand that some 5 to 10 thousand at least are performed. Pretty barbaric.



(edited by AWArulz on 12.11.03 0748)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5Thread ahead: Jessica Lynch Laments Military Portrayal
Next thread: CNN Planted Questions for "Rock the Vote" Debate
Previous thread: New Political Parties?
(1214 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Partial Birth Abortions BannedRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.245 seconds.