The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes

Bush appoints anti-birth control fundamentalist to run family planning program

<< < (7/18) > >>

Sheriff Roland:

--- Quote from: jpwagoneer1964 on November 18, 2006, 11:11:29 am ---The name is Mark

--- End quote ---

First let me apologise about the spelling error (I'm french & sometimes the spelling comes out wrong). Believe me, it was nothing more than a typo.


--- Quote from: jpwagoneer1964 on November 18, 2006, 11:29:48 am ---The child had a chance at life. And the 9 months with be a hell of a lot easer versis a whole lifetime of regreat, loss, suffering by the woman. Most private adoption will support the mother during this time. Tthere are other choices. Most women live to regret ever having abortion, something that years of therapy can't ever cure.
--- End quote ---

I believe I've adressed this before:

--- Quote from: Sheriff Roland on November 17, 2006, 11:05:54 pm ---One hopes that the choice for or against abortion is a well informed one, but it MUST remain a woman's choice - not a religion based politically imposed decision.
Now let's respect that we have differing opinions.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote from: jpwagoneer1964 on November 18, 2006, 11:29:48 am ---Society shouldn't have to fund the misjudgement of others, I think the father should always pay. We seem to live in a society where we are not accountable for our actions.

--- End quote ---

again both of us have expressed our views on this one before:

--- Quote from: jpwagoneer1964 on November 18, 2006, 10:46:37 am ---Aparently no one has heard of adoption. And why should it ever be tax payer funded!

--- End quote ---
and

--- Quote from: Sheriff Roland on November 18, 2006, 11:04:08 am ---Mark, you're doing it again. you're repeating yourself:

As for taxpayers paying for it, it's part a being in a society that takes care of it's own (citizen's health matters to all - ergo the public purse should pay)


--- End quote ---

So allow me to suggest that going around in circles is great for increasing out post counts, but little else. Our views are out there and need not be repeated endlessly.

nakymaton:
If you haven't been pregnant, you can't really know what those nine months are like. Your body is simultaneously your body and not your body. Your mind is simultaneously your old mind, and some strange, bizarre thing that is transformed by hormones: emotional, irrational, capable of new things and incapable of old ones. The fetus is simultaneously part of you and something of its own, and changes throughout those nine months, from something indistinguishable from the experience of bad PMS during the first month (and how many menstrual periods may involve the natural self-aborting of a fertilized egg, or the failed implantation of an egg?), to something that wriggles and kicks and responds to music and movement. It is a terrible and wonderful experience. Nobody should be forced to experience it. Nobody should be forced not to experience it. And the physical and mental experience does not end with the separation of the fetus/child from the woman, whether the pregnancy ends with birth or with abortion or with miscarriage; whether a child is adopted or raised by its birth mother.

There are no easy answers. Life does not have a simple beginning. An egg is a living cell. A sperm is a living cell. A fertilized egg will not live unless it is implanted. Without intervention, some fertilized eggs will go on to become fetuses and then babies; many will never be successfully implanted, or will be miscarried, or will be stillborn. With medical intervention, some fertilized eggs that would otherwise not have survived will go on to become adult human beings. Intervention may prevent some eggs from being fertilized, or it may prevent some fertilized eggs from being implanted, or may prevent some fetuses from being born. And human intervention may prevent some children from living to adulthood, or may keep some children alive. Humans keep some young men and women alive when they would otherwise have died, and kill others who would otherwise have lived. Humans can keep a brain-dead woman alive on a machine, and can use machines to kill convicted criminals.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a far more complicated commandment than it may seem at the surface.

Arad-3:
 Abortion will always be an issue that there will never be a right or wrong answer to. There are just to many pro's and con's to this subject.

Yes men women and men use abortion repeatedly as a quick remedy to careless sex. This is wrong.  But there are alot of reasons that a abortion is justified.( my opinion)  Like a violent rape. birth defects, mental and phisical health of the mothers and fathers. Poverty. and Age .etc. Is is wrong or is it right? i don't know. but unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary.

injest:

--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on November 18, 2006, 10:42:07 am ---The foundations of Christianity are in Judeaism, the first successful paternalistic religion. In those days, a man could take a female and impregnate her and there wasn't a damn thing she could do about it, under the law. Women developed the ability to abort unwanted pregnancies, which enraged men, and so the oppressive system of laws and morality was a counter-invention of men.

Actually the situation hasn't changed much even today, especially for poor women. They have little access to birth control and men use them for cheap entertainment and to assert their territorial claims.  Access to abortion is for many women the only way out of a life-long sentence to poverty and submission to men. 

--- End quote ---

actually abortion has been found in even earlier civilizations...but you are right that men reacted to it by using the draconian means we see in the Middle East and Africa...(ok...everywhere...LOL)

jpwagoneer1964:

--- Quote from: injest on November 18, 2006, 08:58:30 pm ---Oh? and what about rape and incest? babies with major deformities?

Society funds the misjudgement of a lot of people. you are contradicting yourself here...if the woman is permanently traumatized seems she is being 'held accountable for her actions'

and what about the man? Studies here in Texas show that with teenage mothers the FATHERs AVERAGE age is over seven years older than the girl. Where would we imprison these men? Because I would assume that if you advocating forcing girls to carry babies to term that you will want the men similarly 'inconvenienced'

Never having carried a child yourself; you can have NO idea of the pain and suffering you go thru. I WANTED my children..and spent a total of six months flat on my back too sick to move...I very nearly died. A young girl forced to carry a child will have  permanent physical problems.





--- End quote ---
Sadly I don't think changing the legal status is the answer. I certainly do not disagree that in cases of rape,  incest and  the heath or imaturity of the mother preventing carrying full term.

I do think our citizens should he held accoutable for there actions. I never suggested that we imprission the father only have the pay the costs, not the taxpayers. This could be done just like deadbeat dad were it is collected thru Social Security. if the dad is a minor should be split between parents.

In California a minor teenage girl is requred parent permission to get her ears pierced but not to have an abortion!

Giveng up a baby to a family for adoption is an honorable thing.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page