Anyone notice....

[doughgirl]

“At least the "Democrats" who are Pro-Life have an agenda that will begin saving babies as soon as it is implimented even while Roe stands.”

What have they done Christopher? Site actual laws and cases they have had effects on. Right now they are a lot of talk and no action.

Democrats want to get into the White House and they will do and say anything to get there. They are the party with the pro-choice stance.

The Republican Party was born on the principle that no human being should be considered the property of another. That goes against everything the Democratic party says and does.

Roe v. Wade, combined with its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, legalized the killing of the unborn baby throughout nine months of pregnancy, and that effectively makes the baby the property of the mother. That proposition is inconsistent with respect for individual human life. This is what your party has worked so hard to uphold.

As I said until the “big guns” in your party open their mouths and your party really kicks it into action there isn’t much to say. I pray that they do. I pray they work along with those whatever party they might be in, who are pro-life to over turn Roe v Wade. Your party seemed to kick it into action however when the last two guys were up for Supreme Court confirmation. The abortion issue was all they talked about. For a party you say is turning around their efforts to confirm two pro-life candidates went mute…. As they just about unanimously voted nay to both mens confirmation. No Chris, as of now your party does not want to overturn Roe.

The Republican Party has consistently upheld the right to life of unborn babies ever since the Roe v. Wade decision and as the voting record shows something the Democrats have never done.

This conflict will continue until Roe v Wade is overturned. Abortion is a moral issue because it confronts fundamental issues of right and wrong, of life and death. It is a social issue because it goes to the most deeply held of human relationships and our respect for the worth of our fellow human beings. It is also a political issue. Every year, dozens of bills pertaining to abortion are introduced into the Congress and state legislatures, and public officials must vote aye or nay on those bills. The record shows the Republicans vote for life, the Democrats to uphold the choice of the woman.

Democrats For Life….. shows that 33 Members of Congress score 100%. The 100% pro-life Democrats are: James Barcia (MI); Marion Berry (AR); Robert Borski (PA); Jerry Costello (IL); Mike Doyle (PA); Tony Hall (OH); Ralph Hall (TX); Tim Holden (PA); Chris John (LA); Paul Kanjorski (PA); Dale Kildee (MI); Dennis Kucinich (OH); John LaFalce (NY); James Langevin (RI); Ken Lucas (KY); Frank Mascara (PA); Mike McIntyre (NC); Michael McNulty (NY); Alan Mollohan (WV); John Murtha (PA); James Oberstar (MN); Solomon Ortiz (TX); Collin Peterson (MN); David Phelps (IL); Nick Rahall (WV); Tim Roemer (IN); Ronnie Shows (MS); Ike Skelton (MO); Charles Stenholm (TX); Bart Stupak (MI); Gene Taylor (MS); James Traficant (OH).

God Bless them all………and I pray they continue to influence others in the party.

As I have said I am neither Republican or Democrat. I work with religious and non-religious people, people from all parties towards ending abortion.

 

[ChristopherHall]

This conflict will continue until Roe v Wade is overturned.

Wrong. It will continue forever. Even if Roe is overturned (which I would support) the abortion wars will continue. First it would continue because the battle would simply go to the states. Second it would continue because Pro-Choice people will simply regroup.

What saddens me is that while the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life sides battle this out until Christ returns, children are dying. There are measures that have been proven to work in reducing the abortion rate (as in Belgium which has the lowest abortion rate) yet by and large only the Democrats support those measures. This is where the rubber meets the road...saving lives. I've discovered that Pro-Lifers don't care a bit about those millions of children that will be aborted while their fighting to overturn Roe v Wade. If they did they would support Democratic measures like the 95-10 Initiative...but they don't...and the Republican's especially don't.

I was a GOP Team Leader a few years ago and was discussing abortion with another Republican friend of mine. I had made a remark indicating that I thought we should support measures that will reduce the abortion rate. He looked at me and said point blank, "Why? The more they abort the more elections we can win." I was shocked, I said, "Don't you want to reduce the abortion rate and overturn Roe?" He said, "H*ll no, Roe is the best thing that has ever happened to the RNC."

If you only knew how some of these Republicans talk when they think nobody's paying attention you would know why I am so suspect of their "voting records", especially when they vote for lame bills purposely written to be overturned.

You never answered my question...

I asked about the United States, Peru, and Belgium.

United States
Abortion Rate: 17 per 1,000 pregnancies
Legal Status of Abortion: Legal

Peru
Abortion Rate: 51.8 per 1,000 pregnancies
Legal Status of Abortion: Illegal

Belgium
Abortion Rate: 8 per 1,000 pregnancies
Legal Status of Abortion: Legal

Which nation is actually saving more lives? Also which nation do you believe God is most pleased with?

 

[ChristopherHall]

Just looking at the abortion rates in countries throughout the world that have banned abortion shows us that merely banning abortion doesn't automatically save lives. Some of the highest abortion rates in the world are in nations that have banned abortion. We need policies like the 95-10 Initiative to save lives.

 

[doughgirl]

“What saddens me is that while the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life sides battle this out until Christ returns, children are dying.’

I totally agree. AND children in the womb should be included in this category. Actually they are being murdered, slaughtered, and dismembered alive.

“I've discovered that Pro-Lifers don't care a bit about those millions of children that will be aborted while their fighting to overturn Roe v Wade. If they did they would support Democratic measures like the 95-10 Initiative...but they don't...and the Republican's especially don't.”

How can you say that? You include me in this category. You lump all pro-lifers together. You are being unfair Chris. I will never vote Democratic until I see the party platform change. The Party is pro-choice…. they say it they live it they act it. The Senators in your party unanimously voted for partial birth abortion.
Say what you want but its all lip service so far.


You seem to be very political, involved with the Democratic Party. I asked you if you had ever worked in the area of educating woman about abortion? (present the medical facts) Have you ever gone to rallies, gone to universities and colleges and handed out literature talked to girls both who have had abortions or who were thinking about getting them….worked in crisis pregnancy centers? It's an education.
One person can’t do everything. I am not a lobbyist. But I am friends with a few who are and work in that area. That is great. I keep close tabs on the political side because I am a member of Concerned Woman of America. But I choose to witness to woman because I have had an abortion and I can speak first hand about the befores and the afters. I CAN’T DO EVERYTHING. BUT I AM DOING SOMETHING. I am on the front lines. That is more than I can say about a lot of people who only talk and give lip service.

“Which nation is actually saving more lives? Also which nation do you believe God is most pleased with?”

Well quite frankly I wouldn’t blame God if he did not bless America. I believe we live in a lost morally dark country. There is a war going on in America between the forces of good and evil.

This is evident in our culture…look around you at today’s waves of crime, violence, pornography, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, homosexuality, bisexuality, kidnappings…hmmm….. People with shattered dreams, broken hearts, and obsessions with violence and vulgarity…..

I read just the other day in a book,”Bennett’s Index of leading Cultural Indicators: American Society at the End of the Twentieth Century”…….

"Violent crime up 467% in the last 40 years
The number of state and federal prisoners up 463% in 40 years
Out-of-wedlock births up 461 % in 40 years
The number of children living in single-parent households up threefold
Out of wedlock births account for 32 % of all births nationally-the highest rate in Washington D.C at 64% and the lowest in Utah at 17%

26% of all pregnancies aborted
Gonorrhea infection rates of 150 per 100,000 persons"

You tell me would God be pleased with this? Abortion is only one issue. You want me to look at the countries you have listed. Two isn’t very many to compare us too. Just because we might have fewer abortions than another country doesn’t make us better. A life is a life. I do not think we can be proud of the abortion record in our country.

“The abortion rate is highest in Europe (48 per 1,000 women aged 15–44), which includes both the subregion with the highest rate (Eastern Europe, with a rate of 90 per 1,000) and the subregion with the lowest rate (Western Europe, with a rate of 11 per 1,000). Eastern Europe has the highest proportion of pregnancies ended by abortion (65%). In Europe, few of the abortions performed are illegal, except in some of the former Soviet states, where some women seek to avoid the embarrassment and inconvenience of government health services but do not have access to or cannot afford a private physician; in Portugal, which has a restrictive law; and in Italy and Spain, where some physicians perform abortions that may not satisfy all legal requirements.”
(http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html)

In our country, Califonia seems to have the highest abortion rate.

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released state-by-state statistics for 1996, the latest year for which data is available. In that year, California recorded 280,180 abortions, or 39 for every 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. In 1995, there were a total of 289,987 abortions or 40 per 1,000. Wyoming had the lowest abortion and total abortions -- 208 in 1996 (up from 182 in 1995) or 2 per 1,000. The rate remained unchanged.” (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=10822)

Life is the prerequisite to every other right we have. Not just one issue, but the priority issue, because it doesn’t really matter what a candidate’s (Republican or Democrat) stands on education and health is if you’re dead. Abortion matters because it hurts woman and kills children. The body count from America’s 1973 abortion ruling is now over 45 million and counting.

This is about saving lives………..make abortion illegal.

 

[ChristopherHall]

My question was a simple one, I'll ask it again in a different way. In regards to the abortion issue which nation do you think had implimented the most desirable policies that protect life?

United States
Abortion Rate: 17 per 1,000 pregnancies
Legal Status of Abortion: Legal

Peru
Abortion Rate: 51.8 per 1,000 pregnancies
Legal Status of Abortion: Illegal

Belgium
Abortion Rate: 8 per 1,000 pregnancies
Legal Status of Abortion: Legal

I honestly feel that you are being driven by your personal guilt to the point of not considering how to actually fight abortion.

You can ban abortion and the abortion rate actually increase. THERE HAS TO BE CONCRETE MEASURES THAT WILL ASSIST WOMEN WITH UNPLANNED OR CRISIS PREGNANCIES. At this point, only the Democrats are supporting such measures.

Do you want to merely ban abortion or save lives? The two are not always the same.

You said that the Democratic Leadership is unanymously pro-abortion. You're taking ONE particular bill that was badly written and rejected to make your case. Here is Harry Reid on the issues:

Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)
Rated 29% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)


There are many more examples if you need them.

 

[doughgirl]

“You can ban abortion and the abortion rate actually increase. THERE HAS TO BE CONCRETE MEASURES THAT WILL ASSIST WOMEN WITH UNPLANNED OR CRISIS PREGNANCIES. At this point, only the Democrats are supporting such measures.”

Words……..

Out of the two you posted the United States had the lowest abortion rate. So what? What does this prove? List the other hundreds of countries around the world then rate our performance. Your list proves nothing.

You can’t come to terms with your party and their stance on abortion particularly partial birth abortion. You avoid this. If you would like me to post comments by the majority of those in your party who have spoken out against pro-lifers I can do that.

You seem to be condoning abortion simply because you think it will save lives in the end. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Abortion is killing and as a man of God that should be the first thing out of your mouth. Pastors and clergy all over this country sit back and avoid the truth. They do not preach it nor do they live it. That is why Barna in polls revealed that the majority of people who claim they are Christian are Christian in name only. Can you imagine if every head of every church in the United States were to condemn abortion from their pulpits? You talk about impact. That is where the power lies.

George Barna said,” When the church is doggedly and strategically fulfilling its biblical mandate, there is no group of people in the world that has as significant an impact on humanity.”

AMEN

If America is going to be saved from Secular humanism, it will take the combined efforts of the pro-moral majority and particularly the evangelical Christian community. We evangelical Christians are certainly not the only ones interested in morality, the family and the church... BUT most likely we will be the ones motivated to speak out on these issues, especially abortion. If we do millions of other pro-moralists will follow. Many in mainline churches who are sick of the liberalism of their denominations will gladly follow our lead, if they can but hear our voice. But as of yet, the Catholics are the loudest on this issue the only ones speaking up.

Morally minded people should take one word of caution with respect to politicians:Ignore what they say and carefully examine what they do. A professional politician will say anything to get elected. His voting record speaks more loudly than his rhetoric,and it reveals what HE REALLY BELIEVES. ANS it demonstrates how he responds to pressure. Any elected official who has voted for abortion on demand, for partial birth abortion, leniency on pornography, AND ESPECIALLY CHILDRENS RIGHTS OVER THAT OF THEIR PARENTS, is dangerous at best and immoral at worst. He should be exposed and replaced regardless of his party, race or religion.

I believe the only hope for America politically is that millions of the silent pro-moral majority will become militant about their morality and elect men and woman of conviction and character to public office. If we were diligent in exercising our right and responsibility to vote such representatives into government leadership we could see a rebirth of moral and spiritual sanity.

And I’ll tell ya, if half of the Bible believing pastors had this vision and courage, America would not be facing the current cultural breakdown and there wouldn’t be the need for abortion.

I encourage my pastor daily. I pray for him, volunteer to help him whenever he asks.
I am convinced that if the men of God who fill the pulpits of this country would actively urge their members to become responsible Christian citizens by voting for pro-moral men and woman in every election we could easily return our government to the moral base upon which it was founded.

If you look at history, it shows that the pastors of early America rallied the people to throw off the tyranny of England. It also shows that ministers of the gospel later rallied the people to oppose slavery and bring freedom to a whole race.

I would clearly say Christopher, your power does not lie in politics, it lies at the pulpit. If you daily speak out on this issue and touch lives there, that will make the biggest difference and the one God would be most pleased with.

God Bless

 

[ChristopherHall]

Words……..

Out of the two you posted the United States had the lowest abortion rate. So what? What does this prove? List the other hundreds of countries around the world then rate our performance. Your list proves nothing.

Actually the listing proves that Belgium (not America), a progressive nation, has the lowest abortion rate in the world (and it's Pro-Choice). Of course...you don't care. See...for you it isn't about reducing the abortion rate and saving lives...it's merely about banning abortion. Your statement also proves you didn't read the information I gave you.

You can’t come to terms with your party and their stance on abortion particularly partial birth abortion. You avoid this. If you would like me to post comments by the majority of those in your party who have spoken out against pro-lifers I can do that.

I'm am a supporter of the DFLA and I am dead set against Partial Birth Abortion. The reason I am not a Republican is because I cannot agree with their economic policies. To defraud the widow, the fatherless, and the poor is a sin mentioned more than 3,000 times in the Bible. When Republicans cut Medicaid and Medicare that so many absolutely depend upon to facilitate tax cuts I cannot support them. The Democrats may be Pro-Choice but they support measures that will not only lift up those in poverty but they also support measures that will reduce the abortion rate. The Republicans want the abortion rate to remain sky high so they can continue to march people to the polls to vote for them.

You seem to be condoning abortion simply because you think it will save lives in the end.

Wrong. I have never condoned abortion. I have simply said that the Democrats support policies that have been proven to reduce abortion rates in other countries and those policies should be supported and implimented to reduce the number of those dying. My point is that while we fight to ban abortion we do not have to accept the death toll you so readilly accept. The Democrats have a plan to reduce the abortion rate by 95% in 10 years (The 95-10 Initiative). Once we reduce the abortion rate significantly we have not only saved lives but we will be in a better position to ban abortion seeing that most women will opt out of making such a terrible choice knowing that there is assistance should they face an unplanned or crisis pregnancy.

If America is going to be saved from Secular humanism, it will take the combined efforts of the pro-moral majority and particularly the evangelical Christian community. We evangelical Christians are certainly not the only ones interested in morality, the family and the church... BUT most likely we will be the ones motivated to speak out on these issues, especially abortion. If we do millions of other pro-moralists will follow. Many in mainline churches who are sick of the liberalism of their denominations will gladly follow our lead, if they can but hear our voice. But as of yet, the Catholics are the loudest on this issue the only ones speaking up.

Many Evangelicals speaking out against abortion and the other immoral issues we face are Democrats. The Republicans are just using morality as a political weapon to fleece America. At least the Democrats have a plan to not only secure the American economy, assist the most desperate among us, but they also have a plan to reduce the abortion rate by 95% in 10 years. That's far more than any Republican has offered. All the Republicans offer is a vague "ban on abortion" and a promise to throw women in jail.

You can ban abortion and the abortion rates stay the same or climb. Unless you fight the abortion rate you're accomplishing nothing....but I know...you only care about how it looks on paper.

I believe the only hope for America politically is that millions of the silent pro-moral majority will become militant about their morality and elect men and woman of conviction and character to public office. If we were diligent in exercising our right and responsibility to vote such representatives into government leadership we could see a rebirth of moral and spiritual sanity.

Leaders with conviction mean very little when you don't have a job to feed your family. Leaders with conviction mean nothing when your elderly and your Medicaid benfits are cut to facility a 70 BILLION dollar corporate tax cut. The Republicans vote "Pro-Life" but have not delivered. The abortion rate is still the same...some indicators show it may have increased with poverty.

A leader has to have more than just a conviction against abortion. I would rather vote for a man who has a convictions about protecting jobs, Medicaid, Medicare, and has a plan to reduce the abortion rate than a man who says he has convictions, votes on a few token abortion bills, and then fleeces the American people to pay off his corporate cronies...all the while the abortion rate is the same.

And I’ll tell ya, if half of the Bible believing pastors had this vision and courage, America would not be facing the current cultural breakdown and there wouldn’t be the need for abortion.

Remember...a national responsibility toward the poor is also a moral issue. You cannot say you are Pro-Life and support war or the death penalty. You cannot say you are Pro-Life and cut programs millions of poor children depend upon.

I encourage my pastor daily. I pray for him, volunteer to help him whenever he asks.
I am convinced that if the men of God who fill the pulpits of this country would actively urge their members to become responsible Christian citizens by voting for pro-moral men and woman in every election we could easily return our government to the moral base upon which it was founded.

There is more to morality than abortion. Would you call a man moral if all he wants to do is ban abortion? Banning abortion doesn't reduce the abortion rate. I believe a man is far more moral if he espouses policies that will reduce abortion and save lives.

If you look at history, it shows that the pastors of early America rallied the people to throw off the tyranny of England. It also shows that ministers of the gospel later rallied the people to oppose slavery and bring freedom to a whole race.

Amen...but banning abortion doesn't reduce the abortion rates. We see this proven all over the world. Even if you ban abortion you need policies to assist desperate women.

I would clearly say Christopher, your power does not lie in politics, it lies at the pulpit. If you daily speak out on this issue and touch lives there, that will make the biggest difference and the one God would be most pleased with.

Amen. We agree here. There's more power in preaching than Washington.

God Bless

God bless you too sis.

 

[tecoyah]

I must say I am extremely impressed ChristopherHall, as I find your demeanor and arguments wonderful....(and anyone who can debate with doughgirl for more than three posts without slamming head into brick wall is OK in my book). It is refreshing to see someone faithful...with such understanding of the politics, and logistics involved in this situation....Glad you have brought some level of sanity to this forum.

 

[ChristopherHall]

I must say I am extremely impressed ChristopherHall, as I find your demeanor and arguments wonderful....(and anyone who can debate with doughgirl for more than three posts without slamming head into brick wall is OK in my book). It is refreshing to see someone faithful...with such understanding of the politics, and logistics involved in this situation....Glad you have brought some level of sanity to this forum.

Thank you for your kind word tecoyah.

What doughgirl and so many others fail to see is that Pro-Choice people would also like to see less abortion. It's amazing how both sides of this debate fail to see how many lives they could save if they worked together. Of course there would need to be some give and take on both sides but both sides are so entrenched in their villianization of eachother it's a stalemate and while they argue...millions are dying. That's why both of them have blood on their hands in my opinion. Also many Pro-Lifers are irrational because they are trying to deal with guilt from an abortion. They feel if they can just get abortion banned somehow they can find closure. But they fail to see is that even if they succeed, merely banning abortion hasn't worked in other countries...and it will not work here. Concrete policies have to be in place to help women who are in trouble.

Belgium is very liberal and is Pro-Choice...yet their abortion rate is the lowest in the world...so low in fact, it's lower than the abortion rate EVER was in America even considering when abortion was illegal in most states.

This debate will never end. It will shift with public opinion and current attitudes. But REAL measures to help women will save lives regardless as to abortion's legality.

I firmly believe that if the Democrats embrace and empliment the 95-10 Initiative it will reduce the abortion rate drastically. Their goal is to reduce abortion rates by 95%. That's astounding. Yes...the Democrats are talking about actually doing something about abortion beyond the abortion war. If they are elected and impliment these measures, it will be the Democrats who will have done more to save the unborn than the Republicans. Republicans don't want to fully fund SCHIP and extend it to pregnant women who need some help...they promised that money to some billionare.

If the Democrats really get a hold of this it will look real bad for the Republicans.

 

[steen]

You can ban abortion and the abortion rates stay the same or climb. Unless you fight the abortion rate you're accomplishing nothing....but I know...you only care about how it looks on paper.

I still think you will find most pro-lifers refusing any intitative that lowers the NEED for abortions. For them, abortion restrictions are about punishment and concemnation, a tool for oppressing and controlling women. reducing the number of abortions instead of banning them will loosen the fundamentalist ability to control women, and they will fight you on it.

I trust that you have begun to now see that on this forum, the true face of pro-life?

 

[ChristopherHall]

I still think you will find most pro-lifers refusing any intitative that lowers the NEED for abortions. For them, abortion restrictions are about punishment and concemnation, a tool for oppressing and controlling women. reducing the number of abortions instead of banning them will loosen the fundamentalist ability to control women, and they will fight you on it.

I trust that you have begun to now see that on this forum, the true face of pro-life?

I don't believe that they see it as being about punishment and concemnation. I believe they really think all they have to do is ban a procedure. I also believe they have the best of intentions and truly do care. They're just misguided.

Let me be completely honest...I'd love to see abortion banned. But I'm honest enough to admit that merely banning abortion offers no promise of reducing the abortion rate.

 

[ngdawg]

Guess we've all noticed that, while one proclaims to 'speak for God' but prattles on, one lives by God and speaks with knowledge?
Such a difference between hot air and a warm breeze

 

[steen]

I don't believe that they see it as being about punishment and concemnation. I believe they really think all they have to do is ban a procedure. I also believe they have the best of intentions and truly do care. They're just misguided.

I must disagree. It always start out with a "right to life" argument, but when it truly is pressured, it turns into "but she chose to have sex,..." "she needs to take responsibility.." kind of stuff. It always ends up turning from pro-life to pro-fault.

It very much is about teaching her a lesson for not living up to the moral schema of fundie pro-life of apparently being a chaste, good little Christian girl who then afterwards can be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Pro-life is simply a side-branch of the theocratic, misogynistic oppression of women. If it quacks like a duck...

Let me be completely honest...I'd love to see abortion banned. But I'm honest enough to admit that merely banning abortion offers no promise of reducing the abortion rate.

And I will fight the oppression of banning abortion. But I will always work on anything that makes women less needing of abortions, incl. better sex-ed, better birth control and better support of pregnant women and new families. Typically, though, I end up fighting pro-lifers on that, as it is contrary to their agenda.

Hence my observation above about the true goal of pro-life.

 

[ChristopherHall]

I must disagree. It always start out with a "right to life" argument, but when it truly is pressured, it turns into "but she chose to have sex,..." "she needs to take responsibility.." kind of stuff. It always ends up turning from pro-life to pro-fault.

It very much is about teaching her a lesson for not living up to the moral schema of fundie pro-life of apparently being a chaste, good little Christian girl who then afterwards can be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Pro-life is simply a side-branch of the theocratic, misogynistic oppression of women. If it quacks like a duck...

And I will fight the oppression of banning abortion. But I will always work on anything that makes women less needing of abortions, incl. better sex-ed, better birth control and better support of pregnant women and new families. Typically, though, I end up fighting pro-lifers on that, as it is contrary to their agenda.

Hence my observation above about the true goal of pro-life.

I also believe in responsibility. If a person drives a car, they are accepting the possibility of having an accident, even if they wear a seat belt. If a person allows doctors to perform surgery knowing the possible complications and or failures they are accepting those possibilities. If two people have sex they are accepting the possibility of pregnancy, sex after all is a reproductive act. If two people have sex and use protection they are accepting the lesser chance that said protection or birth control may fail. It's a reproductive act. One would be very ignorant to commit a reproductive act if they absolutely didn't want to risk pregnancy. When my wife and I were first married we had sex and used protection because we wanted to enjoy eachother before having kids...but we both knew there was a chance of our actions resulting in pregnancy. We consented to the possiblity when choosing to engage in sexual behavior.

This argument is not meant to demean women. In my opinion pretending that women are so naive that they do not know and are not consenting to the possible result of sexual behavior is far more demeaning in my eyes. Women are very intelligent human beings who know that sex is a reproductive act and by choosing to have sex BOTH parties are accepting and consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.

This particular perspective is meant to clearly discredit any false notion that any two individuals choosing to have sex were not consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.

The Pro-Life position here is far superior than the Pro-Choice position. First, it upholds the reality that women are thinking human beings who know what they are doing and have weighed possible results of their actions and made informed choices. Second, it holds BOTH parties responsible for their actions. Men are notorious for leaving women high and dry after finding out their main squeeze is pregnant. They claim, "I didn't want to have children." Baloney. They consented to the possibility of having children by having sex with the woman who trusted them to be faithful. That is why such men are still legally responsible for child support.

So in my opinion the Pro-Life position both affirms the intelligence of women and the responsibility of both partners for the results of their choices.

I know it may be hard to stand in my shoes but I now want to try to communicate how the Pro-Choice side sounds to me. First it assumes that women are ignorant and don't know sex may lead to pregnancy. It also reinforces the notion that either parent is not responsible for their actions. For example a Pro-Choice person believes that a woman is ignorant and didn't consent to the possibility of pregnancy because she somehow forgot or didn't know sex would lead to pregnancy...since this was an unexpected result she should have the right to abort. In addition since both parties didn't know or forgot that sex often leads to pregnancy the male is perfectly justified in abandoning his female partner...after all...he didn't want children.

In my opinion, the Pro-Life side affirms a woman's full control and knowledge of her actions and their possible results. It is also morally superior in that since it fully affirms both parties full consent to possible pregnancy both parties it allows for them both (including the male) to be held fully responsible for their actions.

Notice...God and/or religion hasn't even come into the picture. The theological side of this debate only begins when the spiritual aspects regarding life's origins are brought into play.

 

[steen]

This particular perspective is meant to clearly discredit any false notion that any two individuals choosing to have sex were not consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.

Consenting that there is a potential outcome is not the same as consenting that this outcome must be endured. THAT is the point here. You smoke, you might get lung cancer. That does NOT mean that you are irresponsible for seeking treatment for that unwanted outcome of your voluntary activity.

The Pro-Life position here is far superior than the Pro-Choice position. First, it upholds the reality that women are thinking human beings who know what they are doing and have weighed possible results of their actions and made informed choices. Second, it holds BOTH parties responsible for their actions. Men are notorious for leaving women high and dry after finding out their main squeeze is pregnant. They claim, "I didn't want to have children." Baloney. They consented to the possibility of having children by having sex with the woman who trusted them to be faithful. That is why such men are still legally responsible for child support.

No. Child support is the duty to support a child, should it exist. But having sex still is not consent to parenthood.

So in my opinion the Pro-Life position both affirms the intelligence of women and the responsibility of both partners for the results of their choices.

And pro-choice affirms the intelligence of women by letting them make their own decisions regarding their own bodies rather than patronizingly trying to force women to act according to somebody else's moralistic plan for their life through oppression and enslavement.

I know it may be hard to stand in my shoes but I now want to try to communicate how the Pro-Choice side sounds to me. First it assumes that women are ignorant and don't know sex may lead to pregnancy.

Nope. It assumes that women are the experts in their own lives and that only they know what the best actions are in regard to their own lives. It might "sound" otherwise to you, but I am not sure that is relevant. Do you want to hear how pro-life sounds to pro-choice? (Well, you probably already do per my previous posts.)

It also reinforces the notion that either parent is not responsible for their actions.

Nope. Rather, there is no responsibility to tissue.

For example a Pro-Choice person believes that a woman is ignorant and didn't consent to the possibility of pregnancy because she somehow forgot or didn't know sex would lead to pregnancy...

No, we don't believe this. You may feel that we believe this, but that doesn't make it so.

since this was an unexpected result she should have the right to abort.

Nope, whether it was expected is irrelevant. The question is whether it is wanted or not, that's all.

In addition since both parties didn't know or forgot that sex often leads to pregnancy

Hmm, nothing in the pro-choice position stipulates this at all.

the male is perfectly justified in abandoning his female partner...after all...he didn't want children.

And this is what you see the pro-choice position as condoning? I would be VERY curious about where you get this impression?

In my opinion, the Pro-Life side affirms a woman's full control and knowledge of her actions and their possible results.

How can you affirm a woman's control by taking that control away from her? This sounds utterly "1984"ish. :spin:

It is also morally superior in that since it fully affirms both parties full consent to possible pregnancy both parties it allows for them both (including the male) to be held fully responsible for their actions.

It is utterly immoral per its position of enslaving and oppressing women and taking charge of her body against her will.

Notice...God and/or religion hasn't even come into the picture. The theological side of this debate only begins when the spiritual aspects regarding life's origins are brought into play.

Or when fundies claim that "it is God's will that..." or that "The Bible says that..."

 

[doughgirl]

“The Democrats may be Pro-Choice but they support measures that will not only lift up those in poverty but they also support measures that will reduce the abortion rate. The Republicans want the abortion rate to remain sky high so they can continue to march people to the polls to vote for them.’

Yes they are pro-choice abortion. I put abortion above the issue of poverty. For you to say that Republicans want abortion for political gain is absolutely pathetic. I will hold my tongue here.

“I have never condoned abortion.”

You do not think abortion should really be banned. I’d say that is a vote for the vacumm machine.

The Democrats have squat. Nothing. Their record proves nothing. They are big talkers. All talk and NO action. They do NOT VALUE THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD. If they had I think Kerry might have gotten himself elected. America saw through the policies and the lies of the party. Now we see the Democrats changing their tune. They have to to get votes.

You said, “Many Evangelicals speaking out against abortion and the other immoral issues we face are Democrats.”

There might be a few. Why are they not more vocal? Put them in television instead of Kennedy. WHERE ARE THEY????????????????????????????

“but they also have a plan to reduce the abortion rate by 95% in 10 years. That's far more than any Republican has offered. All the Republicans offer is a vague "ban on abortion" and a promise to throw women in jail.”

Oh pleaseeeeeeeeeeee That is laughable. You have got to be kidding. Where do you get this throw woman in jail? Could you please give me any Republican politician in congress or the senate who has said jail woman for abortion. PLEASE SITE SOME.
Reduce abortion……….? Yea right.

“A leader has to have more than just a conviction against abortion. I would rather vote for a man who has a convictions about protecting jobs, Medicaid, Medicare, and has a plan to reduce the abortion rate than a man who says he has convictions, votes on a few token abortion bills, and then fleeces the American people to pay off his corporate cronies...all the while the abortion rate is the same.”

See you think abortion is not really that important that crucial an issue. You put the other issues along side it. You make my point about pastors who don’t give a rip about standing for life. Your comment here really makes me sad Chris.

“Remember...a national responsibility toward the poor is also a moral issue. You cannot say you are Pro-Life and support war or the death penalty. You cannot say you are Pro-Life and cut programs millions of poor children depend upon. “

Feeding the poor is important. Who said I was pro-war? Who said I was pro-death penalty? I am against the death penalty. I am pro-life, I stand up for the unborn……..and I am Republican. I am an independant. All I said was that the Democratic party is NOT PRO-LIFE, AND THEY ARE NOT. You can talk until the cows come home but your party is for partial birth abortion, for abortion period. And when you say that you are a Democrat you associate yourself with pro-choice/ and abortion.

“Also many Pro-Lifers are irrational because they are trying to deal with guilt from an abortion. They feel if they can just get abortion banned somehow they can find closure. But they fail to see is that even if they succeed, merely banning abortion hasn't worked in other countries...and it will not work here. Concrete policies have to be in place to help women who are in trouble.”

First off Chris your a man. You have never been pregnant, never had a child, never had an abortion. To say that woman are irrational because they might have felt guilt over one of these is unfair and I can't believe you said this. You are very insensitive.

I have had an abortion and I am sure Christopher you are calling me out here …which is fine I do not care. Although I regret my abortion I have no guilt at all. Jesus Christ forgave me. Closure for me was when He forgave me. You don’t listen Christopher .... I not only work for the right To Life, but at Crisis Pregnancy centers. I travel around the state educating woman on fetal development. You say you want to reduce abortion? What are you doing to educate woman Chris? I do not mean go to Democratic meeting with suit and tie.......I mean manning booths, handing out fliers, talkign to woman of all ages.

The key to this issue is education. And you need not be a politicaian to do that, or a Preacher.

Chris you might think I am misguided but I don’t care. I know what I am doing in my heart is right. I am 50 years old and have lived a good life. I have made mistakes and have been around the block more than a few times. You look very very young, I probably could be your mother. For over 10 years I have worked in this field. I have seen it all. And unless you are at ground zero, instead of just simply attending your Democratic meetings I believe you have no clue to what woman really say and mean.

Well tecoyah………I am surprised you haven’t called Christopher names because he is a Christian. You like him because his views are similar to yours. He is more politically correct. I say what is on my heart and my mind. I believe abortion is murder, and I believe that no one on earth has the right to dismember a human living thing alive. As you know I don’t give a rip what people think of me. I do not say things to be politically correct or to make friends.
Jesus didn’t care if He was politically correct either, so your harsh words to me mean nothing.

“Notice...God and/or religion hasn't even come into the picture.”

And I might add that I find this sad………..

 

[ngdawg]

I also believe in responsibility. If a person drives a car, they are accepting the possibility of having an accident, even if they wear a seat belt. If a person allows doctors to perform surgery knowing the possible complications and or failures they are accepting those possibilities. If two people have sex they are accepting the possibility of pregnancy, sex after all is a reproductive act. If two people have sex and use protection they are accepting the lesser chance that said protection or birth control may fail. It's a reproductive act. One would be very ignorant to commit a reproductive act if they absolutely didn't want to risk pregnancy. When my wife and I were first married we had sex and used protection because we wanted to enjoy eachother before having kids...but we both knew there was a chance of our actions resulting in pregnancy. We consented to the possiblity when choosing to engage in sexual behavior.

And not everyone is as lucky or as educated as you. I have one friend who had one ovary, one good tube, used BC and STILL got pregnant; she had 5 kids and when she finally went for tubal ligation, they cut and tied off both anyway. Birth control pills, when taken correctly, have a 98% success rate-those other 2% shouldn't be forced to go through something they had no intention of going through.

This argument is not meant to demean women. In my opinion pretending that women are so naive that they do not know and are not consenting to the possible result of sexual behavior is far more demeaning in my eyes. Women are very intelligent human beings who know that sex is a reproductive act and by choosing to have sex BOTH parties are accepting and consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.

Ask a 15 year old girl or boy if that was foremost in their heads. We'd like to think that everyone says "Oh, this is what makes babies, I better not", but we are talking about human beings here and we are all quite fallible. But fallibility shouldn't force a woman to do something she otherwise is not prepared to do.

This particular perspective is meant to clearly discredit any false notion that any two individuals choosing to have sex were not consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.

This might surprise you, but by using BC, you are NOT consenting to pregnancy-you're making the best attempt for yourself to prevent it.

The Pro-Life position here is far superior than the Pro-Choice position. First, it upholds the reality that women are thinking human beings who know what they are doing and have weighed possible results of their actions and made informed choices. Second, it holds BOTH parties responsible for their actions. Men are notorious for leaving women high and dry after finding out their main squeeze is pregnant. They claim, "I didn't want to have children." Baloney. They consented to the possibility of having children by having sex with the woman who trusted them to be faithful. That is why such men are still legally responsible for child support.

I have seen NO evidence of 'pro-life' supporters holding women more responsible and making informed choices. Instead I see such phrases as 'she should take her punishment', 'it's only nine months', and variations on a 'embryo's rights' are more important than her own. If you are speaking of education of abstinence, etc., it will never be 100% across the board followed.

So in my opinion the Pro-Life position both affirms the intelligence of women and the responsibility of both partners for the results of their choices.

No, it considers those who seek abortions to be lower lifeforms who should pay for their fornicative sins, choice be damned.

I know it may be hard to stand in my shoes but I now want to try to communicate how the Pro-Choice side sounds to me. First it assumes that women are ignorant and don't know sex may lead to pregnancy. It also reinforces the notion that either parent is not responsible for their actions. For example a Pro-Choice person believes that a woman is ignorant and didn't consent to the possibility of pregnancy because she somehow forgot or didn't know sex would lead to pregnancy...since this was an unexpected result she should have the right to abort. In addition since both parties didn't know or forgot that sex often leads to pregnancy the male is perfectly justified in abandoning his female partner...after all...he didn't want children.

In my opinion, the Pro-Life side affirms a woman's full control and knowledge of her actions and their possible results. It is also morally superior in that since it fully affirms both parties full consent to possible pregnancy both parties it allows for them both (including the male) to be held fully responsible for their actions.

Those look entirely backwards. Pro-choice leaves the decision of what a woman should do with her own life and body to her, understanding that a woman knows best what IS best for her and not have some strangers telling her what she should or must do. Yes, she has every right to abort, whether we like it or not. It is her body, her life, her decision. And why on earth would anyone who thinks someone was irresponsible enough to get pregnant when they didn't want to would suddenly become responsible enough to have a healthy kid, be a good mom, etc?

Notice...God and/or religion hasn't even come into the picture. The theological side of this debate only begins when the spiritual aspects regarding life's origins are brought into play.

It shouldn't. This is a legal, albeit privacy issue, not a religious one. If your religion or conscious is anti-choice, fine. When it is forced on those who desire to live their lives differently, it becomes a bone of contention and begs a fight.

 

[MCS117]

We are travelling way off topic now, is the argument that Abortion should be legal or not. Abortion sohuld be allowed for medical reason especially. If you say that immoral, well if the baby has complications when it will be born and you can do abortion, would you do it? If you say that it should live it's life to fullest, the infant have a disorder that would cause excruciating pain for the rest of its life. Would you still go for it. If you are that infant, you would want to die and not feel pain instead of living and feel a lot of pain. There might be a few that would say that the infant should experience life so it could know what it is. If it understands pain, it would know that death is better.

And a fetus doesn't have the ability to understand what is going on. Its nervous system doesn't start to grow until later during pregnancy. Also if the fetus have a say in life, then every living thing has the same ability to have a say in life. Plants are considered living things. Don't they have a say in whether they should be kept alive and not eaten. And how about bacteria, every time you breather, your esophagus has a mucus that would trap the bacteria and soon it would die when your immune system digests it. Don't bacteria also have a say in life. If they do, then I am adding more confusion into my growing supply.

 

[ChristopherHall]

Yes they are pro-choice abortion. I put abortion above the issue of poverty. For you to say that Republicans want abortion for political gain is absolutely pathetic. I will hold my tongue here.

It's true. If the abortion issue were resolved all they would have is gay marriage to rally the religious troops. I spent years being a Republican and watched them talk about it quite a bit during election time...and put it on the back burner when elected. They need the issue alive to destract people from jobs, healthcare costs, social security, medicaid, madicare, and other things that effect EVERY American family.

You do not think abortion should really be banned. I’d say that is a vote for the vacumm machine.

I believe before we ban abortion we should lift up women and assist those who are in absolute desperation.

The Democrats have squat. Nothing. Their record proves nothing. They are big talkers. All talk and NO action. They do NOT VALUE THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN CHILD. If they had I think Kerry might have gotten himself elected. America saw through the policies and the lies of the party. Now we see the Democrats changing their tune. They have to to get votes.

The Republicans are no better. Within the next few years it's going to hit the fan and record corruption in high places will be revealed.

I know man Democrats who really care about people. Your words only show your political bias. It's because you're more Republican than Pro-Life.

There might be a few. Why are they not more vocal? Put them in television instead of Kennedy. WHERE ARE THEY????????????????????????????

They are quite vocal. It just isn't something the media is willing to carry. Do your homework.

Oh pleaseeeeeeeeeeee That is laughable. You have got to be kidding. Where do you get this throw woman in jail? Could you please give me any Republican politician in congress or the senate who has said jail woman for abortion. PLEASE SITE SOME.
Reduce abortion……….? Yea right.

If you REALLY believe abortion is "murder"...you have to at least advocate jail time for abortion. If I beat a dog in the street with a baseball bat I could up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine; the maximum penalty for the misdemeanor is a year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Are you meaning to tell me you are against abortion...but you don't think an unborn child is of greater value than a dog?

Again Belgium has the lowest abortion rate in the world and it is a Pro-Choice country. Belgium has policies that assist women facing unplanned or crisis pregnancies. Their strategy works and there are lives saved who can testify to that right now. Canada has policies that assist women who find themselves faced with an unplanned pregnancy. A friend of mine once told me point blank that if it were not for the help she received she fears she would have had an abortion.

The problem is so many Republicans who say they are "Pro-Life" care more about the almighty dollar than they do the unborn. They will refuse to give a poor woman facing an unplanned pregnancy assistance, but turn around and give BILLIONS to their corporate buddies. Jesus said,

Matthew 6:21
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Is our treasure with struggling women or is it with corporate profiteers?

See you think abortion is not really that important that crucial an issue. You put the other issues along side it. You make my point about pastors who don’t give a rip about standing for life. Your comment here really makes me sad Chris.

Social issues are often interconnected. Think about this, 2 out of 3 women who procure abortions live under the poverty level. Again this same 2 out of 3 women answer that they saught abortion for reasons directly connected with their financial disposition. They feared they couldn't afford to be a good parent. I know one woman who wept about her abortion in her kitchen. She said, "No woman ever said, 'Mommy I want to have an abortion when I grow up.'" This woman was terrified, emotionally devistated because she was abandoned, her job didn't offer maternity leave, she had no health insurance, and she could barely pay her rent as a single woman. With tears in her eyes she said, "Being poor...abortion was my only choice." She didn't want to get on welfare because it's been so "stigmatized". You need to remember what it was like. The fear, the poverty, the desperation. There is a direct link between poverty and abortion. Women don't just wake up and say, "Hmmmm...I think I'll have an abortion today!" They are often overwelmed both emotionally and financially. If you really worked with women in this state...you would know that. Or maybe you're denying it because you couldn't reconcile the truth with your politics.

Feeding the poor is important. Who said I was pro-war? Who said I was pro-death penalty? I am against the death penalty. I am pro-life, I stand up for the unborn……..and I am Republican. I am an independant. All I said was that the Democratic party is NOT PRO-LIFE, AND THEY ARE NOT. You can talk until the cows come home but your party is for partial birth abortion, for abortion period. And when you say that you are a Democrat you associate yourself with pro-choice/ and abortion.

You're right about the Democratic Party not being "Pro-Life". However, my point is that most Democrats are not "Pro-Abortion". Many have reasons ranging from a desire to limit Government authority over individual women's health issues to simply believing it boils down to a woman's choice right or wrong. However, most Democrats I know have often discussed how the abortion rate can be reduced. Most Republicans I've worked with simply talk about banning abortion. But as other countries have shown us...banning abortion doesn't reduce the abortion rate.

There are Pro-Life Democrats in the Democratic Party fighting for a "conscience clause" with their eyes on a "Pro-Life Plank" in the platform. Many of the old Pro-Choice stalwarts are getting older and will soon pass off the sene. Most up and coming Democrats are more moderate and are either Pro-Life or are willing to support greater regulation of abortion. The Party is changing...it will take time. Think of your Democratic Pro-Life friends as being "behind enemy lines" trying to work to bring down the "Pro-Choice" stronghold. Don't ridicule us. We need your prayers. But again you show your true colors. Your merely a Republican hack. If you truly were Pro-Life you, like many Pro-Lifer's I know would be in awsome support for Pro-Life Democrats.

[To be continued.]

 

[ChristopherHall]

First off Chris your a man. You have never been pregnant, never had a child, never had an abortion. To say that woman are irrational because they might have felt guilt over one of these is unfair and I can't believe you said this. You are very insensitive.

Since I have never been pregnant, had a child, or had an abortion I can see it without emotion with pure logic. Your proving my point....Mrs. Irrational. :2razz:

I have had an abortion and I am sure Christopher you are calling me out here …which is fine I do not care. Although I regret my abortion I have no guilt at all. Jesus Christ forgave me. Closure for me was when He forgave me. You don’t listen Christopher .... I not only work for the right To Life, but at Crisis Pregnancy centers. I travel around the state educating woman on fetal development. You say you want to reduce abortion? What are you doing to educate woman Chris? I do not mean go to Democratic meeting with suit and tie.......I mean manning booths, handing out fliers, talkign to woman of all ages.

Those are noble things you do, however you're doing nothing for the millions of poor women who are facing unplanned or crisis pregnancies and are in desprate need of assistance. I'm not talking charity here. I'm talking concrete measures like federally subsidized daycare, more funding for WIC, and expanding SCHIP just to mention a few.

The key to this issue is education. And you need not be a politicaian to do that, or a Preacher.

Education is good. It really does lay the foundations. But most women I know who have had abortions knew what they were doing. They were economically desperate and in that valley of hopelessness they made the only choice they felt they could make. It's like some elderly people who are having to choose between their perscription drugs and eating or paying the rent. Desperate people often are cornered into making painful choices. And the Republicans care nothing about any of this. Being Pro-Life means more than just being against abortion. It means wanting to help people live. Republicans act like they care about an unborn child up until birth...but once it's born and family needs health insurance Republicans could care less. Pro-Life Democrats care about people both before and after their born. That's the difference between Pro-Life Republicans and Pro-Life Democrats. The Pro-Life Republicans will drop a little charity. The Pro-Life Democrats want to uphold and sustain.

Chris you might think I am misguided but I don’t care. I know what I am doing in my heart is right. I am 50 years old and have lived a good life. I have made mistakes and have been around the block more than a few times. You look very very young, I probably could be your mother. For over 10 years I have worked in this field. I have seen it all. And unless you are at ground zero, instead of just simply attending your Democratic meetings I believe you have no clue to what woman really say and mean.

I do think your looking at abortion through the old paradyme. Abortion has a direct link to poverty. When 2 out of 3 women procuring abortions live below the poverty level...you have to admit, it's something to notice.

Well tecoyah………I am surprised you haven’t called Christopher names because he is a Christian. You like him because his views are similar to yours. He is more politically correct. I say what is on my heart and my mind. I believe abortion is murder, and I believe that no one on earth has the right to dismember a human living thing alive. As you know I don’t give a rip what people think of me. I do not say things to be politically correct or to make friends.
Jesus didn’t care if He was politically correct either, so your harsh words to me mean nothing.

Christ's friends were the Publicans and sinners. His greatest enemies were the highly idological and the self righteous religious Pharasees.

Matthew 9:11
And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

Would you accuse Jesus of being "politically correct" because he loved people and was willing to see their desperation instead of issue religious mandates?

Matthew 21:32
For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Mark 2:15
And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

Mark 2:16
And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

Luke 5:30
But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?

Luke 15:1
Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.

Publicans were tax collecting Roman sympathizers. The sinners were theives, liars, prostitutes, and the immoral. They were drawn to Jesus because they could tell that he cared about them. He cared about their poor condition and their desperation. The Pharasees couldn't see this. They couldn't understand this...and your not getting it either.

I guess you can call me "politically correct", but the tuth is that the average Democrat doesn't agree with me and the average Republican doesn't agree with me either! :lol: I'm anything but "politically correct". If sinners and publicans find my words to make sense I can't help it.

 

[ChristopherHall]

ngdawg,

I was just trying to explain the Pro-Life perspective. I have nothing against standard birth controls (condoms, the pill, foam, diaphragm, etc.). Of course I'm not Catholic, I'm Pentecostal.

 

[ChristopherHall]

Of course, let me be fair, I'm not a fan of big government programs. I believe that more funding should be offered to the necessary non-profits to assist women. It' uspets me how the Republicans squander the treasury.

 

[Dogger807]

I also believe in responsibility. If a person drives a car, they are accepting the possibility of having an accident, even if they wear a seat belt. If a person allows doctors to perform surgery knowing the possible complications and or failures they are accepting those possibilities. If two people have sex they are accepting the possibility of pregnancy, sex after all is a reproductive act. If two people have sex and use protection they are accepting the lesser chance that said protection or birth control may fail. It's a reproductive act. One would be very ignorant to commit a reproductive act if they absolutely didn't want to risk pregnancy. When my wife and I were first married we had sex and used protection because we wanted to enjoy eachother before having kids...but we both knew there was a chance of our actions resulting in pregnancy. We consented to the possiblity when choosing to engage in sexual behavior.

I think I'll start by saying your an impressive debater. I may not agree with everything you say, but you are logical, well thought out, and compelling.

I normally avoid saying anything in abortion debates because I can see both sides are right and both sides are wrong. Everyone draws the line where they perceive the cells become a sentient being. Whether this be conception, birth or something in between.

I'm gonna throw a curveball at you. I'm gonna talk about a side of the debate that most find too cold blooded to even bring up.

That is , the resources of this world are finite and the human populations already consume a staggering percentage of the biomass. We have no predators, we are conjuring disease, and we are just generally living longer. There is no balance, the circle of life is in peril, species are going extinct as their habitats shrink. Pro-life only makes the problem multiply faster.

Yes we find new technologies and ways to feed , cloth and live. But there are limits. Lowering abortion rates maybe (for some or even the majority.) the moral thing to do in the short run. But in the long run is it practical? moral? feasible? or even smart?

Food for thought isn't always pretty.

 

[ChristopherHall]

I think I'll start by saying your an impressive debater. I may not agree with everything you say, but you are logical, well thought out, and compelling.

I normally avoid saying anything in abortion debates because I can see both sides are right and both sides are wrong. Everyone draws the line where they perceive the cells become a sentient being. Whether this be conception, birth or something in between.

I'm gonna throw a curveball at you. I'm gonna talk about a side of the debate that most find too cold blooded to even bring up.

That is , the resources of this world are finite and the human populations already consume a staggering percentage of the biomass. We have no predators, we are conjuring disease, and we are just generally living longer. There is no balance, the circle of life is in peril, species are going extinct as their habitats shrink. Pro-life only makes the problem multiply faster.

Yes we find new technologies and ways to feed , cloth and live. But there are limits. Lowering abortion rates maybe (for some or even the majority.) the moral thing to do in the short run. But in the long run is it practical? moral? feasible? or even smart?

Food for thought isn't always pretty.

Hmmm...I'm tired so I might regret some of the things I might say here, so forgive me.

I do not believe that we are anywhere near being in danger of approaching the limits of earth's resources. But I will try to look at this from your point of view and share my thoughts.

The answer wouldn't be abortion or euthanasia. Abortion and euthenasia combined wouldn't eliminate enough of the human race to secure our survival. The answer would be war. Not that war is a good thing. War is hell. However the baser instincts of our leaders would cause them to engage in war (perhaps manufactured and unprovoked) to secure much needed resources (food or oil) to insure our survival as a nation or block of nations. This war would no doubt ignite already unstable regions of the world. In the end the estimated death toll would be unbelievable for no doubt there may be a limited use of tactical nuclear weapons. The war itself will thin the population significantly to perhaps open a recovery period and life would slowly get back to normal.

Another option would be "passive genocide". I would never advocate this either but again, our leaders would do the dirty work to ensure our survival. Passive genocide would be something like releasing a manufactured biological agent (a deadly virus) into the general population of a region of the world, let's say for example Africa. Such a virus would have to be something that would spread through the population, yet spread in a way that a national domestic policy would protect those who heeded it. No doubt the authorities would never reveal that they are behind the epidemic and therefore their domestic policies to protect our own population may seem out of place.

Some might say the powers that be may have already started these necessary actions years ago. But you didn't hear that from me.

There are other options...but I'm really tired and need to get to bed.

 

[Dogger807]

Hmmm...I'm tired so I might regret some of the things I might say here, so forgive me.

I do not believe that we are anywhere near being in danger of approaching the limits of earth's resources. But I will try to look at this from your point of view and share my thoughts.

The answer wouldn't be abortion or euthanasia. Abortion and euthenasia combined wouldn't eliminate enough of the human race to secure our survival. The answer would be war. Not that war is a good thing. War is hell. However the baser instincts of our leaders would cause them to engage in war (perhaps manufactured and unprovoked) to secure much needed resources (food or oil) to insure our survival as a nation or block of nations. This war would no doubt ignite already unstable regions of the world. In the end the estimated death toll would be unbelievable for no doubt there may be a limited use of tactical nuclear weapons. The war itself will thin the population significantly to perhaps open a recovery period and life would slowly get back to normal.

Another option would be "passive genocide". I would never advocate this either but again, our leaders would do the dirty work to ensure our survival. Passive genocide would be something like releasing a manufactured biological agent (a deadly virus) into the general population of a region of the world, let's say for example Africa. Such a virus would have to be something that would spread through the population, yet spread in a way that a national domestic policy would protect those who heeded it. No doubt the authorities would never reveal that they are behind the epidemic and therefore their domestic policies to protect our own population may seem out of place.

Some might say the powers that be may have already started these necessary actions years ago. But you didn't hear that from me.

There are other options...but I'm really tired and need to get to bed.

Very very good :lol: You proved my statement that we have no predator to be false, and you moved the population reduction to mainly take place in the reproductive age group (abortion in the extreme .. taking out the eggs and sperm before they can even combine.) . Your example is more efficient than mine, but possibly less moral.

Oh .. and yes I do believe it's man made.