My thoughts on subject

[doughgirl]

"DoughGirl I am glad to see someone like you around these days too, lol"

Pro-lifers need to stick together Blizzard. Thanks. I am glad you’re here as well…….Someone needs to teach Steen how to spell control…………


Steen states in BOLD LETTERS”, ..”theres little excuse for not using birth CONTROLL", and then having abortion." (post #10 in “My thoughts on the subject”…..) Wait did he put an apostrophe in theres? :2razz:



Steen you ask me…."Now, again, that second quote you have attributed to me, would you mind either documenting it or removing it as a blatant lie? Or are you just a lying coward who spew falsehood about others without the ability to back it up?"

It’s bothering you being on there isn’t it?
You said it live with it. But if you want to peek……….go to this thread to see what you said.
Pro-choice give me a break - December 2,05 post#11


YummyZoe7 said, “So your telling me that a 5 month fetus doesn't feel his or her limps getting ripped off by a vacuum?.... give me a break!”

In which you repied to him………..” That would be true, yes.”
Solve it for us once and for all Steen...........Are you telling us that a 5 month old fetus does not feel limbs being ripped off?


Read it and weep. Did I back it up ok?

 

[steen]

Ok in response to all your statistics, they were interesting, however I found them to be a little bit old, in todays rapidly changing society an almost decade old set of statistics doesnt help too much in realism, but it always does help and arguemnt.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm
For marriage:
For women whose marital status was adequately reported (39 reporting areas), 80% of women who obtained abortions were known to be unmarried (Table 11). The abortion ratio for unmarried women (570 per 1,000 live births) was 8.8 times that for married women (65 per 1,000).

For contraception:
Inconsistent method use of the pill (75.9%) or condoms (49.3%) was the most common reason that women became pregnant and obtained abortions (17). Unintended pregnancy is a pervasive public health problem for all population subgroups and women of reproductive age (29,55,62).

Although induced abortions usually result from unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception, the approximately 4.6 million women who have had intercourse in the previous 3 months but were not using contraception might be the most at risk for unintended pregnancy (63).

17. Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000--2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:294--303.
63. Mosher WD, Martinez GM, Chandra A, Abma JC, Willson SJ. Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982--2002. Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics; 2004. Advance data from vital and health statistics; no. 350.

Now also remember that sex ed, AND contrapction was much more expenive, and harder to come about 10 years ago, so I would think with a condom stand in every bathroom, and sex ed being taught in many schools this should definitly decrease.

Well, per the 2002 data (now that I dug it out), the CDC (Quoting AGI) does report inconsistent use as the main reason for unintended pregnancies that are aborted. So the sex-ed and/or availability obviously is still the BIGGEST problem in this area. Why is this? Well, many schools STILL provide lousy or no sex-ed. And in many areas, teens and adults may have difficulty obtaining steady supplies of contraceptives. Note that in many areas, right-wing religious types fight against contraception as well.

So is the problem per the couples being ignorant and irresponsible? Or does it also have something to do with prolife opposition to sex-ed and contraception?

Now it also doesnt help that abortions are legal. I mean if they are then why not have one? some ppl might unfortuanatly think.

Ah, yes. And since lung cancer surgery is legal, people still smoke, right? If we prohibit treatment for lung cancer, do you think people will stop smoking? Do you have ANY idea why there was a push to remove abortion restrictions at the time of Roe vs Wade? or why so many of those who pushed for this were physicians? Once you have seen a couple of girls douching with bleach or lye to stop their pregnancy, your perspective changes drastically. then the issue of whether the woman or the fetus matters the most will suddenly stop being academic and abstract.

But yes, why don't we outlaw anything we find immoral? You get to pick 4 and I get to pick 4. Would you be happy with that? Or is this a case where you want only YOUR morals imposed as law? Yes, that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?

Now if it were illegal people would think twice about it (said this before)

And history has already proved you wrong. You really need to look at what women did before Roe vs Wade. You don't need to go far. In most of the 3rd-world countries where abortions are illegal, women still use dangerous methods, and in most hospitals, you will find that 50% of the patients in the "women's wing" are there because of complications from illegal abortions.

is THAT the brave new future you envision?

Perhaps you should take ANOTHER history lesson from the other western countries. there, sex-ed is MUCH better and MUCH earlier, and contraception is readily available, often completely free and anonymously available for anybody with no moralistic oppression going on. And guess what, the abortion rates are much, much less.

That again indicates that the problem is not legality, it is right-wing, religious, moralistic oppression and misogyny, the desire to control women rather than being "prolife."

and actually use their sex ed knowledge,

The one they weren't taught due to their local fundie religious opposition?

and cheap forms of contraception.

The ones that the local fundie religious organization has made inaccessible?

Until prolife starts taking responsibility for its own shortcomings and role in the high abortion rates, you simply don't have a moral leg to stand on here.

Last time i checked killing a person is unethical

Irrelevant, as the fetus is not a person. See Roe vs Wade, section IX.

Partail birth abortion is right before the baby gets born,

No, it isn't. That is your misconception per incessant and consistent prolife lies. There is no such thing as a "partial birth" involvement in abortions. What prolifers lyingly call "pba" is a procedure done mainly in week 16-22. It is NOT done at 40 weeks. Do you kind of get why I am so attentive to the revisionist linguistics of prolifers and the outright lies and misrepresentations spewed? Your claim is false.

It is directly and completely false. Now, I don't necessarily believe that you deliberately spewed a falsehood (I have read enough of your posts to know that you are not deliberately dishonest), but I am sure that you uncritically are regurgitating stuff you read on a prolife site or heard from another prolife poster. But what prolifers and their pro-LIE sites have reported as "pba" in reality is what medically is known as D&X (Dilation and intact extraction), a substitute for the D&E (Dilation and extraction). This, as I mentioned, is a second-trimester procedure, NOT something occurring at "birth."

So when you listen to prolife revisionist linguistics, hyperbole, misrepresentations and outright lies, then you end up, instead of discussing the issues, being accused of lying. Is that productive, or is it time that we start using facts and honesty in the debate instead of us merely having to observe prolife dishonesty in the attempt of "winning" the emotional reaction?

and then they kill it, when a bill was put up in the senate to legalize it by aggressive lobbyists th senate voted it down 99-1 that person was Barrak Obama, at least thats the story I heard, if thats flase, i can double check my source and see what happened.

I frankly don't care. For one, these laws are not trying to eliminate the D&X procedure, or they would meet the requirements set up by the US Supreme Court in keeping the laws constitutional. Instead, you see laws that deliberately are vague and uses nonsense terminology that can apply to just about any abortion, and which consistently ignores the US Supreme Court requirement for a health exception for the woman.

these laws are NOT to eliminate the "pba" but rather to generate moral outrage among prolifers, demonstrating how the "evil prochoice" want to murder babies at birth." They are designed for prolife fund-raising, nothing else. If they passed, it would be pretty bad for prolife finances.

But yes, prolife COULD get a law passed that would eliminate the D&X procedure other than where the US Supreme Court have ruled it needs to have bypass options. Why do you think such a law has NOT been passed or even presented yet?

will skin tissue or a tumor every become a human? no...will fetal tissue become a human? yes.

And the potential is irrelevant. It remains non-sensate and non-sentient.

The WOMAN, on the other hand is sensate and sentient. And there you see where prolifers seem to not give a damn about the woman. There has yet to be, on this board even ONE prolife post that takes that woman into consideration other than for condemnation, blaming and guilt mongering. This shows prolifers as misogynists, "pro-faulters" instead of prolifers. take a look at this tread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6031
Not ONE prolifer will admit at "right to life," it is all about "fault." Would you care to give your input there?

DoughGirl I am glad to see someone like you around these days too, lol

Somebody who lies? How disappointing.

 

[steen]

Steen you ask me…."Now, again, that second quote you have attributed to me, would you mind either documenting it or removing it as a blatant lie? Or are you just a lying coward who spew falsehood about others without the ability to back it up?"

It’s bothering you being on there isn’t it?
You said it live with it.

Actually, you are showing that I DIDN'T say it, and that you are lying.

But if you want to peek……….go to this thread to see what you said.
Pro-choice give me a break - December 2,05 post#11


YummyZoe7 said, “So your telling me that a 5 month fetus doesn't feel his or her limps getting ripped off by a vacuum?.... give me a break!”

In which you repied to him………..” That would be true, yes.”

So what I said was "That would be true, yes." Funny, how you are quoting me saying something else. How sad and pathetic that you need to lie about me like that.

Solve it for us once and for all Steen...........Are you telling us that a 5 month old fetus does not feel limbs being ripped off?

At 5 months, the fetus is still 3-4 weeks away from being able to feel anything at all, whatsoever. THAT is what I am saying. the rest of your histrionics and deliberate LYING about my posts is your responsibility. Now that you yourself have PROVEN that I didn't say what you have me quoted to say, I must ask you to remove your outright LIE.

Read it and weep. Did I back it up ok?

You backed up the evidence that you LIED.

 

[steen]

Doughgirl, per your own evidence that you are lying, please remove the lie about me from your sig.

 

[doughgirl]

This is driving you nuts isnt it? I knew it would. When you remove what I didn't say and did not mean.........then I'll take off what you said, and meant.


YOU AGREED THAT A 5 MONTH OLD FETUS...............CAN'T FEEL HIS/HER LIMBS BEING RIPPED OFF BY A VACUUM...you agreed and confirmed when you said,


"THAT WOULD BE TRUE, YES."


Not a "no"............"not a maybe".............not a "I have no clue".....

YOU SAID,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"YES".

 

[vergiss]

You do realise that very few foetuses are aborted in the fifth month, right?

 

[steen]

you agreed and confirmed when you said,

"THAT WOULD BE TRUE, YES."

Not a "no"............"not a maybe".............not a "I have no clue".....

YOU SAID,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"YES".

And as such, when you make a claim as to what I said, you can quote the actual text of what I posted. That's all. You are attributiong another person's text to me, which is an outright lie. Not that this would bother you any. You have clearly demonstrated that you have NO sense of honesty what so ever.

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

-In the U.S. there are 2 reporting agencies. The U.S. Center for Disease Control is a passive recipient of reports voluntarily sent to it by the states. Since all states don’t report, and many report inaccurately, these totals are under-reported. The CDC does do a meticulous job of breaking down the categories, and so these are the percentages everyone uses. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a branch of Planned Parenthood, aggressively contacts hospitals and known abortionists, and the result is a more accurate and larger figure, which we use.(1)

-These ‘right-wing religious types’ are primarily Catholic groups; most protestant faiths are not against contraception. The only problem is that they don’t want unmarried people to begin using contraception over abstinence. However I do believe that you are talking to me, not to larger groups that are partly affiliated with what I believe in. So that is irrelevant to the debate. The problem is that the government needs to step up sex Ed in school, AND increase the availability of contraception methods.

-Now I don’t know how you can make that analogy, I mean I see what your saying but lung surgery is a method used to save a persons life, from doing something that injured them(smoking). Abortion is rarely used to save a persons life, from doing something that doesn’t injure people (sex). "The old law permitted abortion to save one life when two would otherwise die. The new law permits abortion to take one life when two would otherwise live." (2)

-Ok two things about your moral statement, first different people find different things immoral, therefore we should have a popular vote on it (a democracy) not 9 people in black robes with a hammer (oligarchy) ruling for us on morals. Also Right to life is guaranteed in the constitution, and I am not enforcing my morals on other people as much as I am protecting the rights of people who can’t protect themselves. What right has any religious body to impose its morality upon a woman?
“If this were a sectarian religious belief, there would be justice to such a complaint. In fact, this is not a religious question except in the broad sense of equal rights, dignity, and justice for all.
If any religious philosophy has been imposed upon a nation, it is Secular Humanism. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined Humanism as a religion. The officer corps of the pro-abortion movement is almost entirely made up of secular humanists who have imposed their beliefs upon our nation.
I have the right to swing my fist, but that right stops at your nose. A woman has certain (not total) rights to her own body, but not over another living human’s body just because he or she still happens to live inside her.
The Ten Commandments forbad murder and stealing. So do the laws of every civilized nation. Do those laws impose religious morality? Hardly!
This is a civil rights issue. It is a question of whether an entire class of living humans shall be deprived of their basic right to life on the basis of age and place of residence.
Perhaps the question should be turned around :
What Right Does a Mother and Her Abortionist
Have to Impose Their Morality Upon
Her Unborn Child . . . Fatally ?” (3)


-umm we live in America a 1st world country and that’s the premises of our debate, not 3rd world countries we can discuss that on another thread, and my “brave new future envision” is that abortion becomes a last resort to people when their (baby, mother, or both) lives in are danger and that people would use contraception or abstinence over abortion as a means for birth control.

-“Perhaps you should take ANOTHER history lesson from the other western countries. there, sex-ed is MUCH better and MUCH earlier, and contraception is readily available, often completely free and anonymously available for anybody with no moralistic oppression going on. And guess what, the abortion rates are much, much less.”-STEEN. Ok so you’re saying if we add moralistic oppression to Europe then abortion will dramatically increase? If you answer yes, then tell me why, if you answer no then you’re backing up my point by saying that with moralistic oppression and universal sex Ed & birth control abortion would steadily decrease.

-again typically Catholics (whom I disagree with on this point of their faith) protestants are rarely against contraception.

-I guess you could call me a “neo profiler” I understand that profilers have had their shortcomings but I still don’t see how my alternative approach is wrong.

-relevant just because 7 out of 9 people in black robes with hammers are ‘experts of constitutional law’ doesn’t permit them to tell us who is human and who isn’t based solely on age and residence, we the people should be able to decide that. Again democracy not oligarchy
-I am glad to know that you know I don’t deliberately spew falsehood, and I never ever intend to be dishonest in a debate, that would be immoral, thus hypocritical.

-the potential is realistically guaranteed; only by unnatural methods would it not becoming a human be unethical.

-Yes I would love to give my input here. I don’t intend on bring homosexuality debates up, but I would like to make an analogy here. People often see Right Wing Conservative Christians as being anti this anti that, and oppose everything and want to ban everything. But these compassionate conservatives also want to help these people. Women who have abortions often have severe feelings of guilt and feel much emotional strain when people demean women about abortions. We should and churches always have support groups for women who have had an abortion, and the beautiful thing is that as Christians we believe that Christ died for our sins, abortion being one of them and through Gods grace, and his death on the cross we are forgiven, and your right, profilers often miss the caring for women aspects of abortion in debates, but people often miss that millions of church goers who do help these women overcome their abortion complications.

-somebody who is pro life.


(1)From www.abortionfacts.com a site providing information to all sides of the abortion debate, and information to women’s right to know unbiased facts of abortion.
(2)Herbert Ratner, M.D.
(3)www.abortionfacts.com

 

[Busta]

.........What is left?

I hate to say this pro-lifers, but you need to find solutions to alot more than just making it illegal.

So I suppose I am pro-choice, but only because I yet to see any solutions to the complex side problems that will happen when making abortion illegal.

Self controle.

Believe it or not, women are so much more than sex objects.......I wish more women would start acting like it......and that more men would treat women less like sex objects.

How am I supposed to reinforce respecting women to my sons when there is this promiscuous, slutty, do-what-feels-good consequencelessness about?

Don't women realize that abortion-on-demand devalues them?

Short of self controle and self discipline, how about gov. or charity subsidized tubal ligation and vasectomies? Including reversales? Why can't Planned Parenthood offer vasectomies (or do they?.....) just as conveniently as they do abortions?
(Sorry ladies, tubal ligation is a surgery, which miens that you would have to go to a hospitole and *gasp* tell your parents......you know, those people who are responsible for you? No, not Mr. Judicial-Bypass the Judge....those other people....the ones who pay the bills.)

Hay, about that last bit....what would it take for P.P. to also offer tubal ligation at it's facilities? A little litigation and legislation? Some renovation? A few more Doctors on the staff?

 

[doughgirl]

Two people are talking....one says to the other.

A. Person A says, "So your telling me that there is no Santa
at the North Poll?...."
B. Person B says, "That would be true yes.............."


What could be said about person B.

1. Is person B saying there is a Santa at the North poll? No
2. Is person B saying there isn't a Santa at the North Poll? yes
3. Is person B answering question A completely? Yes


PERSON B SAYS, "THERE IS NO SANTA AT THE NORTH POLE."

What is the difference between what person A asked...and person B answered.........NOTHING.

B is telling A that they are right in their assumption, that indeed what they asked was true.

Bottom line....... Person B says, "There is no Santa at the North Poll."

 

[doughgirl]

I made my point. You said what you said Steen.


No one has ordered me to take these off, however....
I will take your statements off my signature because you are so horrified by them. I would be too had I made them.

To say or agree that the fetus can't feel limbs being ripped off by a vacuum is a horrific statement to make.....absolutely horrific.

 

[doughgirl]

Busta, said
" Believe it or not, women are so much more than sex objects.......I wish more women would start acting like it......and that more men would treat women less like sex objects.

How am I supposed to reinforce respecting women to my sons when there is this promiscuous, slutty, do-what-feels-good consequencelessness about?

Don't women realize that abortion-on-demand devalues them?"

YOU ARE SO SO RIGHT. BRAVO

Abortion has become the most effective means of sexism ever divised. It certainly rids the world of multitudes of unwanted females. The most basic premises of the abortion-rights movement are demeaning to woman.



Woman are far more than sex objects and men are important too, that is why they should not be shut out from the decision of abortion. Look at the way woman act today in society. All one needs today is to watch television, go to the movies. Men used to treat woman with repsect. but woman don't want it anymore. Obviously woman don't feel they need it.

I pray you teach your sons like I have tried with my son. I have always been open and honest with my kids. I have one daughter and thankfully she doesn't act like most her age. but they have watched their father and how he has treated me. And he treated me like a lady, and treated me as an equal. However I am a Christian woman and my husband is head of our household. I respect that and he loves me for it.

Leading by example always wins out. And if your a good role model and example, your boys most likely will be too.

 

[steen]

The problem is that the government needs to step up sex Ed in school, AND increase the availability of contraception methods.

We agree, then.

Now I don’t know how you can make that analogy, I mean I see what your saying but lung surgery is a method used to save a persons life, from doing something that injured them(smoking).

more basic, it is the person seeking a medical treatment to rectify the unwanted outcome of their own voluntary action.

Abortion is rarely used to save a persons life, from doing something that doesn’t injure people (sex). "The old law permitted abortion to save one life when two would otherwise die. The new law permits abortion to take one life when two would otherwise live." (2)

Irrelevant to the person seeking the treatment. Are they allowed treatments that help unwanted outcomes of their own actions, or are they to be "taught a lesson," punishing them for being "at fault" for their current situation?

-Ok two things about your moral statement, first different people find different things immoral, therefore we should have a popular vote on it (a democracy) not 9 people in black robes with a hammer (oligarchy) ruling for us on morals.

The US Constitution vigorously disagree with you.

Also Right to life is guaranteed in the constitution,

Not if you are a kidney patient dying because nobody want to give you a kidney. Because that patient doesn't have a right to take your kidney against your will. So the "right" doesn't exist. Prolifers have rather vigorously insisted that on this tread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6031

and I am not enforcing my morals on other people as much as I am protecting the rights of people who can’t protect themselves.

Ah, but there are only 'people" according to your morals.

What right has any religious body to impose its morality upon a woman?
“If this were a sectarian religious belief, there would be justice to such a complaint. In fact, this is not a religious question except in the broad sense of equal rights, dignity, and justice for all.

Except the woman. The prolife agenda is religiously driven. It is an attempt at theocratic oppression and control of the woman.

If any religious philosophy has been imposed upon a nation, it is Secular Humanism.

not a religion.

The U.S. Supreme Court has defined Humanism as a religion.

Evidence, please.

The officer corps of the pro-abortion movement is almost entirely made up of secular humanists who have imposed their beliefs upon our nation.

What stupid nonsense is this?

I have the right to swing my fist, but that right stops at your nose. A woman has certain (not total) rights to her own body, but not over another living human’s body just because he or she still happens to live inside her.

There is merely non-sentient, non-sensate tissue. It has no more awareness than the lung tumor that most assuredly can be removed. However, YOUR right to push your morals certainly ends at her body.

The Ten Commandments forbad murder and stealing. So do the laws of every civilized nation. Do those laws impose religious morality? Hardly!

never claimed they did. Correlation is not causation.

This is a civil rights issue.

A civil rights issue over the woman's right to control her own bodily resources just like you do, without being relegated to second-class citizen by the religious, misogynistic oppression of the prolife movement, yes.

It is a question of whether an entire class of living humans shall be deprived of their basic right to life on the basis of age and place of residence.

There is no "right to life." But there IS an entire class of people, namely the women, whom prolifers are assaulting and seeking to oppress.

Perhaps the question should be turned around :
What Right Does a Mother and Her Abortionist
Have to Impose Their Morality Upon
Her Unborn Child . . . Fatally ?” (3)

There is no more an "unborn child" than you are an "undead corpse." It is silly and deceptive revisionist linguistic hyperbole. That aside, the woman has the same moral right to control her bodily resources as you do, not being forced to give of it for any reason whatsoever, unless you and she volunteers to do so.

and my “brave new future envision” is that abortion becomes a last resort to people when their (baby, mother, or both) lives in are danger and that people would use contraception or abstinence over abortion as a means for birth control.

Didn't we already look at the use of contraception in most cases of abortions?

-“Perhaps you should take ANOTHER history lesson from the other western countries. there, sex-ed is MUCH better and MUCH earlier, and contraception is readily available, often completely free and anonymously available for anybody with no moralistic oppression going on. And guess what, the abortion rates are much, much less.”

Ok so you’re saying if we add moralistic oppression to Europe then abortion will dramatically increase? If you answer yes, then tell me why,

My answer is yes. The moment moral oppression of sex-ed and contraceptive use is pushed, the number of unwanted pregnancies increase and the number of abortions will follow.

again typically Catholics (whom I disagree with on this point of their faith) protestants are rarely against contraception.

Oh, I have run into a lot of rightwing fundies who doesn't like contraception because it gives women a way to have sex outside of the moral framework these fundies have erected in their desire to oppress women. Ever heard of Phylis Schlafley, the leader of the very conservative "Eagle Forum," a very large women's organization, conservative, and fundie protestant. She deliberately oppose birth control because she thinks that it is good for girls to fear pregnancy and STD and thus scare them into not having sex. If you actually looked, you would find the leaders of the major protestant prolife organizations all opposing sex-ed and contraception. Hence, I blame prolife for the large number of abortions we have in the US.

-relevant just because 7 out of 9 people in black robes with hammers are ‘experts of constitutional law’ doesn’t permit them to tell us who is human and who isn’t based solely on age and residence,

Not "human." Their ruling was on "person." Please note the difference.

we the people should be able to decide that. Again democracy not oligarchy

Actually republic. Thus preventing the tyranny of the majority.

-I am glad to know that you know I don’t deliberately spew falsehood, and I never ever intend to be dishonest in a debate, that would be immoral, thus hypocritical.

Well, even though I disagree with you, you have shown integrity and honesty. That makes all the difference. It is a pleasure knowing you, actually.

-the potential is realistically guaranteed; only by unnatural methods would it not becoming a human be unethical.

???

-Yes I would love to give my input here. I don’t intend on bring homosexuality debates up, but I would like to make an analogy here. People often see Right Wing Conservative Christians as being anti this anti that, and oppose everything and want to ban everything. But these compassionate conservatives also want to help these people.

In the "we know what is best for you" way, yes. Funny how the rest of us are so unappreciative of this intrusive "helpfulness," isn't it?

Women who have abortions often have severe feelings of guilt

careful of your claims here. Research disagrees with you. Do you want the references?

and feel much emotional strain when people demean women about abortions.

Yes, the prolife hate mongering is what causes the distress. the solution is for the prolifers to stop doing that.

We should and churches always have support groups for women who have had an abortion, and the beautiful thing is that as Christians we believe that Christ died for our sins, abortion being one of them and through Gods grace, and his death on the cross we are forgiven,

But then, abortion is no more a 'sin" than is any other medical procedure.

and your right, profilers often miss the caring for women aspects of abortion in debates, but people often miss that millions of church goers who do help these women overcome their abortion complications.

And, as you pointed out in the remark about emotional strain, are actively contributing to the "complications.

-somebody who is pro life.

I miss the reference?

(1)From www.abortionfacts.com a site providing information to all sides of the abortion debate, and information to women’s right to know unbiased facts of abortion.
(2)Herbert Ratner, M.D.
(3)www.abortionfacts.com

A decidedly one-sided site. It is one of the better prolife sites as it doesn't spew as many lies as the typical prolife site. That doesn't mean that it provides unbiased info, though.

 

[steen]

Two people are talking....one says to the other.

A. Person A says, "So your telling me that there is no Santa
at the North Poll?...."
B. Person B says, "That would be true yes.............."


What could be said about person B.

1. Is person B saying there is a Santa at the North poll? No
2. Is person B saying there isn't a Santa at the North Poll? yes
3. Is person B answering question A completely? Yes


PERSON B SAYS, "THERE IS NO SANTA AT THE NORTH POLE."

FALSE, Person B is saying "That would be true yes." You can spew your sophist lies all you weant. You are atributing something to me that I didn't say. you are still lying.

What is the difference between what person A asked...and person B answered.........NOTHING.

Yes, as Person B did not reiterate the entire text and may only have agreed with the sentiment rather than the actual wording.

B is telling A that they are right in their assumption, that indeed what they asked was true.

Irrelevant when you are actually QUOTING person B. But keep up your dishonesty for the world to see, as is expected by a prolifer.

Bottom line....... Person B says, "There is no Santa at the North Poll."

A lie. Person B says: "That would be true yes."

 

[steen]

I made my point. You said what you said Steen.

And that was different than what you quoted me as saying. Yes, your point of showing that you were lying is duly noted.

No one has ordered me to take these off, however....
I will take your statements off my signature because you are so horrified by them. I would be too had I made them.

I am only horrified that you actually deliberately lied about what I said. I always stand by what I ACTUALLY say.

To say or agree that the fetus can't feel limbs being ripped off by a vacuum is a horrific statement to make.....absolutely horrific.

Not if it is factual. That you are so aversive to facts that you HAVE to latch on to your histrionic lies and misrepresentations, that certainly is no longer a surprise for anybody here.

 

[Busta]

Busta, said
" Believe it or not, women are so much more than sex objects.......I wish more women would start acting like it......and that more men would treat women less like sex objects.
How am I supposed to reinforce respecting women to my sons when there is this promiscuous, slutty, do-what-feels-good consequencelessness about?
Don't women realize that abortion-on-demand devalues them?"
YOU ARE SO SO RIGHT. BRAVO
Abortion has become the most effective means of sexism ever divised. It certainly rids the world of multitudes of unwanted females. The most basic premises of the abortion-rights movement are demeaning to woman.
Woman are far more than sex objects and men are important too, that is why they should not be shut out from the decision of abortion. Look at the way woman act today in society. All one needs today is to watch television, go to the movies. Men used to treat woman with repsect. but woman don't want it anymore. Obviously woman don't feel they need it.
I pray you teach your sons like I have tried with my son. I have always been open and honest with my kids. I have one daughter and thankfully she doesn't act like most her age. but they have watched their father and how he has treated me. And he treated me like a lady, and treated me as an equal. However I am a Christian woman and my husband is head of our household. I respect that and he loves me for it.
Leading by example always wins out. And if your a good role model and example, your boys most likely will be too.

Thank you for that.

I feel the need to pose a question about Mr. Judicial-Bypass:

What happens when a minor child suffers from a...."neural-chemical" disorder; that her physician had "advised her to avoid pregnancy until such time as her condition has materially improved" (although a pregnancy at the present time would not present "a serious risk" to her life); that, pursuant to medical advice, she had discontinued use of birth control pills; and that if she should become pregnant, she would want to terminate the pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent, licensed physician under safe, clinical conditions.?
- Roe-v-Wade, section 2 paragraph 4.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=410&invol=113

We hear allot about children who are in emergency situations which mandate an abortion, and God help them, but in the typical argument there is one outstanding perversion: that the courts, NOT the parents, should be the ones informed about the situation and called to make a decision.

Parenting is a Fundamental Right.
This position was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Troxel et vir. v. Granville, 530 US 57, 67 (2000). The Court stated that parenting is a fundamental right protected by the US Constitution. In Troxel, the court wrote: "The liberty interest at issue in this case -- the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children -- is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court."

By bypassing the parent, you are bypassing the Constitution.

Originally, we were told that a right to abortion needed to exist for medical reasons (see above link on Roe-v-Wade). Today, however, it has become an on-demand service: From 744,600 abortions in 1973 to 1,293,000 abortions in 2004, for a total of 45,951,133 abortions since 1973.
Source:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm

Why should I assume that Judicial Bypass will be any different? Why shouldn't I expect anti-God liberals to continue to erode the Family? Just give me the date.....when will Judicial Bypass be used in non-emergency, non-proven abuse situations? Just tell me when Judicial bypass will apply to more than abortion.
(This, of-course, leads into my so-called "Slippery-Slope" legal argument against same-sex 'marriage when using the 14th. amendment, but that is another thread).
*********************************************************
The communist goals were entered into the Congressional record by Albert Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69).
15) Capture one or both of the political parties in the US.
[*cawf*-Democrats-*cawf*]

16) Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17) Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books.

25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

26) Present homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy."

27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

38) Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.

40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41) Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Source:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Albert Herlong, Jr.'s bio.
http://www.lib.usf.edu/tampa/spccoll/

The goals that he read were taken from "The Naked Communist" by Cleon Skousen, which can be purchased from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1568493673/

Keep pushing it, libs......go ahead, keep pushing it.....I double-dog-dare you.......civil unrest and "spiritual mallice" is what brought down Roam, you think it won't happen here?

Why do you think that a Western power is not mentioned in Revelations? There isn't one, that's why.

Keep pushing it.......

 

[ngdawg]

It's "Rome"....
Uh, the bible is not a book of factual predictions...it's not even a book of facts....

/me removes Busta's soapbox from the freeway....

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

We agree, then.
Quote:
sure
more basic, it is the person seeking a medical treatment to rectify the unwanted outcome of their own voluntary action.
Quote:
An unwanted outcome, but it should be known outcome (sex ed) and more basic isn’t necessarily better to prove points, only to reveal base motivations.
Irrelevant to the person seeking the treatment. Are they allowed treatments that help unwanted outcomes of their own actions, or are they to be "taught a lesson," punishing them for being "at fault" for their current situation?
Quote:
The consenting couple should have known that w/ out using contraception the female would get pregnant, but regardless of the situation, treatment (abortion I presume) would be at the expense of the person inside the mother’s womb. Which when someone’s betterment comes at the expense of another’s ones life, becomes unethical.
The US Constitution vigorously disagree with you.
Quote:
I am curious to where it disagrees.
Not if you are a kidney patient dying because nobody want to give you a kidney. Because that patient doesn't have a right to take your kidney against your will. So the "right" doesn't exist. Prolifers have rather vigorously insisted that on this tread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6031
Quote:
‘profilers’ is a title that you are giving me and like I said before you can call me a ‘neo profiler’ but your arguing me…not a group that has many beliefs affiliated with me. Now that patient dieing is by natural means, right to life is natural you are conceived naturally (sperm and egg) and you die naturally, that’s all ethical because ethics cant really go against a natural force. However unnatural intervention to kill a human is unethical.
Ah, but there are only 'people" according to your morals.
Quote:
??? reference maybe I missed something
Except the woman. The prolife agenda is religiously driven. It is an attempt at theocratic oppression and control of the woman.
Quote:
Uhh it’s a drive to protect the unborn, and its simply saying that a consenting couple should be responsible for their actions, as it may lead to a fragile life being conceived. Using your argument I could say that laws past to ban murder is a ‘theocratic attempt to control’ the human race. Couldn’t I?
not a religion.
Quote:
Supreme court defines it as a religion
Evidence, please.
Quote:
John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In fact, claiming that Humanism was "the new religion" was trendy for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue.
But then Christians began to challenge the "establishment of religion" which Secular Humanism in public schools represented. They used the same tactic Atheists had used to challenge prayer and Bible reading under the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. Now the ACLU is involved. Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is "scientific."(1)
(1)- http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm

What stupid nonsense is this?
Quote:
Can you disprove it?
There is merely non-sentient, non-sensate tissue. It has no more awareness than the lung tumor that most assuredly can be removed. However, YOUR right to push your morals certainly ends at her body.
Quote:
So if I went into a coma and went brain dead, had no awareness, and could be removed from society if they pulled the tube, does that auto. Nullify my right to life??? My right to push my morals to protect the basic right to life goes as far as it has to. So using your argument, I could say that my moral of thinking that murder is wrong I shouldn’t be able to ban it because I would be imposing my morals on another person down the street who is planning on killing her/his neighbor?
never claimed they did. Correlation is not causation.
Quote:
What I’m trying to say is that laws are exactly that, morals. When we pass laws we impose our morals on society. When we make smoking pot illegal aren’t we imposing our morals on everyone?
A civil rights issue over the woman's right to control her own bodily resources just like you do, without being relegated to second-class citizen by the religious, misogynistic oppression of the prolife movement, yes.
Quote:
If I want to use my body to rape someone isn’t that wrong? Again is refuted the whole ‘religious’ thing that your saying, and I am just trying to protect the unborn unfortunately God created the human race so that women are the ones stuck w/ pregnancy, however it should be a blessing not a burden. I cant see why you think Christians are trying to degrade women to second class.
There is no "right to life." But there IS an entire class of people, namely the women, whom prolifers are assaulting and seeking to oppress.
Quote:
Though we disagreed from whom it came from you acknowledged (I thought) that the right to life DOES exist. Again I am not oppressing women, I am simple making consenting adults responsible for their actions, and the cost of taking away an unwanted pregnancy is simple to high.
There is no more an "unborn child" than you are an "undead corpse." It is silly and deceptive revisionist linguistic hyperbole. That aside, the woman has the same moral right to control her bodily resources as you do, not being forced to give of it for any reason whatsoever, unless you and she volunteers to do so.
Quote:
no that’s not aside, I am not an undead corpse, I am a living breathing human with a purpose, a spirit, feelings and emotions. A past and a future, your devaluing human life as you speak. Btw a fetus can live outside a mother’s womb within 40 days after conception, and with newer scientific advancements that should decrease, so after 40 days you could realistically consider it ‘born’. I wouldn’t say so; can I volunteer my body to rape someone? And by having sex with a consenting partner she is in a sense signing a contract with the baby she is about to conceive to provide for him/her. Btw the mother isn’t really being forced, her some of her nutrients naturally are given to the baby.
Didn't we already look at the use of contraception in most cases of abortions?
Quote:
Yes but I think I talked about your statistics as well, and Im thinking if its fair to say that the foaming thing a female uses and the condom that the male uses together have a 99.5% prevention rate doesn’t really coexist with the fact that most abortion are done after contraception has been used?
My answer is yes. The moment moral oppression of sex-ed and contraceptive use is pushed, the number of unwanted pregnancies increase and the number of abortions will follow.
Quote:
Why though people would still have the same access and knowledge right?

sorry my quotes are messed up every 'quote' means an end or begging of a quote but the quotes are you own words so u should be able to recognize wht im saying about wht u said, sorry again

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

Oh, I have run into a lot of rightwing fundies who doesn't like contraception because it gives women a way to have sex outside of the moral framework these fundies have erected in their desire to oppress women. Ever heard of Phylis Schlafley, the leader of the very conservative "Eagle Forum," a very large women's organization, conservative, and fundie protestant. She deliberately oppose birth control because she thinks that it is good for girls to fear pregnancy and STD and thus scare them into not having sex. If you actually looked, you would find the leaders of the major protestant prolife organizations all opposing sex-ed and contraception. Hence, I blame prolife for the large number of abortions we have in the US.
Quote:
Its not their desire to oppress women, you cant prove that, the moral framework was erected by God. Girls meaning teen girls? Or girls over 18/21. then again like I said before your grouping me with a title, I am an individual, and of course there are exceptions but I still believe that most or majority aren’t against contraception.
Not "human." Their ruling was on "person." Please note the difference.
Quote:
What is the difference?
Actually republic. Thus preventing the tyranny of the majority.
Quote:
Republic is much similar to a democracy where the population elects people to represent them, if most people think one way, then most of the representatives will think that way as well, and tyranny of the majority isn’t a bad thing. The majority wants one thing then why not?
Well, even though I disagree with you, you have shown integrity and honesty. That makes all the difference. It is a pleasure knowing you, actually.
Quote:
Same to you, most of my pro-choicers are pretty dumb in their arguments and naive, but then again we teenagers aren’t the smartest group around.
???
Quote:
When a child is conceived s/he will become a human being guaranteed, and if it naturally doesn’t become a human born person then its ethical because ethics cant contradict natural facts. However when unnaturally intervention (abortion) takes place then that is unethical because it is murder.
In the "we know what is best for you" way, yes. Funny how the rest of us are so unappreciative of this intrusive "helpfulness," isn't it?
Quote:
Not so much just we but God also, and we know what’s best for you and for the sake of the life of your child.
careful of your claims here. Research disagrees with you. Do you want the references?
Quote:
I would, but you have to admit that many women to suffer from emotional pain/guilt
Yes, the prolife hate mongering is what causes the distress. the solution is for the prolifers to stop doing that.
Quote:
Also what about abortion survivalists? Have you heard their testimonies
But then, abortion is no more a 'sin" than is any other medical procedure.
Quote:
How is the killing of a human being no more a sin then artificial heart surgery?
And, as you pointed out in the remark about emotional strain, are actively contributing to the "complications.
Quote:
Ok?
I miss the reference?

About dough girl, u said it’s a pity that I like dishonest people, and I’m saying that I like her pro-life stance. Btw about that don’t get into it but I’m just saying I see what your saying but your getting techniquel w/ her. Realistically that’s what she’s saying is plausible, and people should get her point, but techniquely your right.


-again same probelm with a quotes....also this is an extension of my prevois statemnt it has a 10000 character limit, so i had to break it up, sorry for any inconveinineces-

 

[Blizzard Warrior]

wow Busta, i find it soo amazing and such a blessing to have someone who thinks almost identical to me. Judical tyranny, the example of the Roman empire, and the non-mention of western powers in revelations are all ideas and arugments that i ahve used, but never seen anyone else use...ever. that is amazingly cool I love how you think, i definitly need to check out some of your other threads.

now about the bible not being factual, there are many reasons why it is, 15,000 manuscripts in 5 diffrent langues have been found that back up the bible to the poitn where it is 99.4/6% textually pure. Also how do u explain all the biblical proheies that HAVE come true? both accratly, historicall, scientifcaily et cetera. AND thats like saying that tommorwow weather predictions are factual, even though they havent happend doesnt mean it wont, AND theres many reasons to belive them just like the bible. but anyway this is abortion thread, so i will stop their and not argue that again.

 

[steen]

....The communist goals were ..

Oh, I can't even believe it. Red-baiting? After the ruskies have failed completely? That got to be a joke, right?

 

[steen]

more basic, it is the person seeking a medical treatment to rectify the unwanted outcome of their own voluntary action.

An unwanted outcome, but it should be known outcome (sex ed) and more basic isn’t necessarily better to prove points, only to reveal base motivations.

Nearly ALL visits to the ER are per "should be known outcome" kind of stuff. yet, the ER remains open and treat these known risks of people's actions.

Irrelevant to the person seeking the treatment. Are they allowed treatments that help unwanted outcomes of their own actions, or are they to be "taught a lesson," punishing them for being "at fault" for their current situation?

The consenting couple should have known that w/ out using contraception the female would get pregnant,

Actually rather that she MIGHT get pregnant. Again, that is irrelevant. So what if they knew? the smoker knew that he MIGHT get lung cancer. The person driving knew that she MIGHT get into an accident. The dude eating chips and typing on the computer instead of exercising knew that he MIGHT get a heart attack. And yet we still treat the unwanted outcome of their voluntary actions done in full knowledge of the risks.

but regardless of the situation, treatment (abortion I presume) would be at the expense of the person inside the mother’s womb.

Mindless, non-sensate, non-sentient tissue; not a person.

Which when someone’s betterment comes at the expense of another’s ones life, becomes unethical.

Ah, but there isn't "someone." But there certainly is a sentient, sensate woman with a full mind that you end up enslaving and end up taking control of her body in your moral fervor to impose your subjective beliefs as facts in her life. THAT is unethical, this desire to enslave women for the sake of mindless tissue with no more individual mind than a tumor.

Not if you are a kidney patient dying because nobody want to give you a kidney. Because that patient doesn't have a right to take your kidney against your will. So the "right" doesn't exist. Prolifers have rather vigorously insisted that on this tread:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=6031

‘profilers’ is a title that you are giving me and like I said before you can call me a ‘neo profiler’ but your arguing me…not a group that has many beliefs affiliated with me.

Ok, you are anti-women's-right-to-an-abortion. Is that better? We kind of call that "anti-choice" also.

Now that patient dieing is by natural means, right to life is natural you are conceived naturally (sperm and egg) and you die naturally, that’s all ethical because ethics cant really go against a natural force. However unnatural intervention to kill a human is unethical.

Ah, so it is not about "life," but about "natural"? Are you saying that you refuse antibiotics because they are manufactured pills? or is it only when it comes to that woman that "natural" suddenly becomes an argument? I would suggest that you withdraw that argument as it makes you seem hypocritical.

Ah, but there are only 'people" according to your morals.

??? reference maybe I missed something

The fetus or embryo are not "people" outside of your personal belief, driven by your personal morals.

Except the woman. The prolife agenda is religiously driven. It is an attempt at theocratic oppression and control of the woman.

Uhh it’s a drive to protect the unborn, and its simply saying that a consenting couple should be responsible for their actions, as it may lead to a fragile life being conceived.

AH, back to "responsible. responsible is to take control over your own situation. The woman making a choice certainly is her taking charge and thus acting responsible.

Using your argument I could say that laws past to ban murder is a ‘theocratic attempt to control’ the human race. Couldn’t I?

Yes, you could. We can do all sorts of stuff. But murder directly impacts other sentient, sensate persons.

If any religious philosophy has been imposed upon a nation, it is Secular Humanism.

not a religion.

Supreme court defines it as a religion

Evidence, please.

John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In fact, claiming that Humanism was "the new religion" was trendy for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue.
But then Christians began to challenge the "establishment of religion" which Secular Humanism in public schools represented. They used the same tactic Atheists had used to challenge prayer and Bible reading under the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. Now the ACLU is involved. Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is "scientific."(1)
(1)- http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm

"spoke off" is not the same as 'defined." if the US Supreme Court defined secular humanism as a religion, it would be in a ruling.

There is merely non-sentient, non-sensate tissue. It has no more awareness than the lung tumor that most assuredly can be removed. However, YOUR right to push your morals certainly ends at her body.

So if I went into a coma and went brain dead, had no awareness, and could be removed from society if they pulled the tube, does that auto. Nullify my right to life???

That would be braindead, and you would have no rights, all decisions would be made by others, yes.

My right to push my morals to protect the basic right to life goes as far as it has to.

Like my morals to protect the basic right of women to not be enslaved for the sake of tissue.

So using your argument, I could say that my moral of thinking that murder is wrong I shouldn’t be able to ban it because I would be imposing my morals on another person down the street who is planning on killing her/his neighbor?

Again, you could. But then the reality of the harm to a person, as defined by the law will end up affecting the law.

never claimed they did. Correlation is not causation.

What I’m trying to say is that laws are exactly that, morals. When we pass laws we impose our morals on society. When we make smoking pot illegal aren’t we imposing our morals on everyone?

Well, yes you are right. But the issues relating to how laws are imposed and what laws can be imposed do matter as well. the law is clear that there is a constitutional "right to privacy, that people have the right to control their own bodies and bodily resources. The woman can not be forced to give bodily resources to keep an embryo alive. You can not be forced to keep a kidney patient alive.

A civil rights issue over the woman's right to control her own bodily resources just like you do, without being relegated to second-class citizen by the religious, misogynistic oppression of the prolife movement, yes

If I want to use my body to rape someone isn’t that wrong?

Way to go, avoiding the issue of PERSONAL BODILY RESOURCES.

Again is refuted the whole ‘religious’ thing that your saying, and I am just trying to protect the unborn unfortunately God created the human race so that women are the ones stuck w/ pregnancy, however it should be a blessing not a burden.

Hmm, so you are trying to "avoid" the religious stuff, yet call on God in your justification? Sorry, but that doesn't really work.

And if you say that it "should" be a blessing rather than a burden, then what do you do when it IS a burden?

I cant see why you think Christians are trying to degrade women to second class.

Because the fundie Christians are trying to force women to be the only persons who do not have the right to control their own bodily resources, to make them slaves. If they tried to make the same rule for everybody, then it would be different. But you never see them insisting that everybody have to provide bodily resources to keep even other persons alive. They yammer and cry and object to that vehemently, yet insist that the pregnant woman do just that. Such hypocrisy is evidence of the double-standard of the fundies in their goal to oppress women, to misogynistically control them. It is theocratic patriarchy at its worst.

 

[steen]

(continued)

There is no "right to life." But there IS an entire class of people, namely the women, whom prolifers are assaulting and seeking to oppress.

Though we disagreed from whom it came from you acknowledged (I thought) that the right to life DOES exist.

We don't, actually. As long as the kidney patient can die just because nobody want to volunteer a kidney for him, there is no right to life.

Again I am not oppressing women, I am simple making consenting adults responsible for their actions,

but you are not arguing against medical treatment for any OTHER action. Your argument sounds very false on that background.

and the cost of taking away an unwanted pregnancy is simple to high.

The cost of enslaving the woman is simply to high.

There is no more an "unborn child" than you are an "undead corpse." It is silly and deceptive revisionist linguistic hyperbole. That aside, the woman has the same moral right to control her bodily resources as you do, not being forced to give of it for any reason whatsoever, unless you and she volunteers to do so.

no that’s not aside, I am not an undead corpse, I am a living breathing human with a purpose, a spirit, feelings and emotions.

Ah, so you agree that trying to portray you at a developmental stage that is beyond your current existence is not valid. Undead corpse is not valid as you are not a corpse. hence, unborn child is not valid when there is not yet a child. That is, unless your argument is hypocritical.

A past and a future, your devaluing human life as you speak.

Nonsense. Your subjective beliefs are not reality.

BTW a fetus can live outside a mother’s womb within 40 days after conception,

40 days after conception, there is an embryo and it will be quite a bit before there is a fetus. And no, at 40 days there is no survival. Viability, the time when 50% of preemies survive to one year of age is at 24 weeks of pregnancy.

and with newer scientific advancements that should decrease, so after 40 days you could realistically consider it ‘born’.

Complete and utter nonsense. I have no idea where you were fed these false numbers, but I would suggest you not using that as a source anymore.

I wouldn’t say so; can I volunteer my body to rape someone?

No more than the fetus can volunteer its body to use the woman's body against her will.

And by having sex with a consenting partner she is in a sense signing a contract with the baby she is about to conceive to provide for him/her.

No, she isn't. Even the very existence of birth control is evidence that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Btw the mother isn’t really being forced, her some of her nutrients naturally are given to the baby.

Only if she is forced to continue the pregnancy.

Didn't we already look at the use of contraception in most cases of abortions?

Yes but I think I talked about your statistics as well, and Im thinking if its fair to say that the foaming thing a female uses and the condom that the male uses together have a 99.5% prevention rate doesn’t really coexist with the fact that most abortion are done after contraception has been used?

A small percentage of a very high number can still be a significant number.

My answer is yes. The moment moral oppression of sex-ed and contraceptive use is pushed, the number of unwanted pregnancies increase and the number of abortions will follow.

Why though people would still have the same access and knowledge right?

Not the new kids who start having sex.

sorry my quotes are messed up every 'quote' means an end or begging of a quote but the quotes are you own words so u should be able to recognize wht im saying about wht u said, sorry again

No problem. Look at this:

{quote}abc{/quote}
replace { with [ and } with ]

abc

and you can do {quote}{quote}abc{/quote}def{/quote}

abc

def

 

[Busta]

It's "Rome"....

Ttah's my kbeyord's fidt.....see my sig.

Uh, the bible is not a book of factual predictions...it's not even a book of facts....

The bdlie povres otehrsiwe.

/me removes Busta's soapbox from the freeway....

@*$#%!...so YOUR the one!!!!
Leave my soapbox alone!!!

 

[steen]

Its not their desire to oppress women, you cant prove that,

I have Phyllis Schlafley's own word that women need to be biblical and be submissive to their husbands. I have her very own word that blocking access to birth control will scare girls into not having sex.

the moral framework was erected by God.

Evidence, please.

Girls meaning teen girls? Or girls over 18/21.

Sorry, Phyllis is not taking my calls, so I can't ask her.:lol:

then again like I said before your grouping me with a title, I am an individual, and of course there are exceptions but I still believe that most or majority aren’t against contraception.

But among the prolife leaders, among those who push the political agenda, your claim is not true.

Not "human." Their ruling was on "person." Please note the difference.

What is the difference?[/quote]"Human" is a species designation, a biological term. "Person" is a legal term relating to rights, duties and privileges.

Actually republic. Thus preventing the tyranny of the majority.

Republic is much similar to a democracy where the population elects people to represent them, if most people think one way, then most of the representatives will think that way as well,

Ah, but in US, it still is not one person one vote in Congress.

and tyranny of the majority isn’t a bad thing. The majority wants one thing then why not?

Well, because it is against the US Constitution, perhaps? You are arguing directly against what makes us Americans. As I have pointed out, rightwingers and fundies DON'T like the US Constitution because it stops them from oppressing others. You just proved me right.

When a child is conceived s/he will become a human being guaranteed,

Not really. We are back to the meaning of words here. "Being" is a biological individual. In human development, that happens at birth. The zygote MIGHT become an individual eventually, but for sure 65%+ of all zygotes never make it per miscarriages of some form or another, most often before the woman realizes she is pregnant or even before implantation.

and if it naturally doesn’t become a human born person then its ethical because ethics cant contradict natural facts.

Oh really? So when fundies are yammering about ethics in opposition to homosexuality, they are wrong? Glad we agree on that.

However when unnaturally intervention (abortion) takes place then that is unethical because it is murder.

"Murder" is the illegal killing of a person, so obviously this is not true. That aside, if you really want to get into the natural/unnatural, what do you feel about medical treatment of any kind?

In the "we know what is best for you" way, yes. Funny how the rest of us are so unappreciative of this intrusive "helpfulness," isn't it?

Not so much just we but God also, and we know what’s best for you and for the sake of the life of your child.

That is such an incredibly narcissistic and elitist attitude. Clearly I can not accept it. **I** am the expert in my own life, you are not. The woman is the expert in her own life, prolifers are not. NOBODY knows what is best for another person other than that person themselves. That is the individual freedom that the US is founded on.

careful of your claims here. Research disagrees with you. Do you want the references?

I would, but you have to admit that many women to suffer from emotional pain/guilt

Some do; the vast majority do NOT:

Major B et al. (2000). "Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 777-784.

Russo NF et al. (1997). The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 23-31.

Lydon J et al. (1996). Pregnancy decision making as a significant life event: A comittment approach. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 71, 141-151.

Gilchrist AC et al. (1995). Termination of pregnancy and psychiatric morbidity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 243-248.

Cozzarelli C et al. (1994). The effects of anti-abortion demonstrators and pro-choice escorts on women's psychological response to abortions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 404-427.

Major B et al. (1992). Psychosocial predictors of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 121-142.

Russo NF et al. (1992). Abortion, childbearing and women's well-being. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 269-280.

Adler NE et al. (1992). Psychological factors in abortion: An overview. American Journal of Psychology, 47, 1194-1204.

Adler NE et al. (1990). Psychological responses after abortions. Science, 47, 248, 41-43.

Dag g PKB (1991). The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion-Denied and completed. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 578-585.

Blumenthal SJ (1991). Psychiatric consequenses of abortion, an overview. In NL Scotland (ed.). Psychiatric aspects of abortion, pp. 17-38. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Zabin LS et al. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: Effects on education, psychological status, and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspective, 21, 248-255.

Mueller P et al. (1989). Self-blame, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 57, 1059-1068.

Schwartz RA (1986). Abortion on request: The psychiatric implications. In JD Butler et al. (eds.). Abortion, medicine, and the law (3rd ed.; pp. 323-340). NY: File.

Major, B et al. (1985). Attributions, expectations, and coping with abortion. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 48, 585-599.

David HP (1981). Postpartum and postabortion psychotic reactions. Family Planning Perspective, 13, 88-92.

Shusterman L (1979). Predicting the psychological consequenses of of abortion: Social Science Medicine, 13, 683-689.

National Academy of Sciences (1975). Legalized abortion and the public health. Washington, DC: author.

Adler, NE (1975). Emotional responses of women following therapeutic abortion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 446-454.

Athanasiou R et al. (1975). Psychiatric sequellae to term birth and induced early and late abortions. Family Practice Perspectives, 5, 227-231.

Yes, the prolife hate mongering is what causes the distress. the solution is for the prolifers to stop doing that.

Also what about abortion survivalists? Have you heard their testimonies

After prolifers spewed lies at them for decades? Still the vast, vast majority feels mainly relief. Go check a couple of the references above. Many of them have abstracts available on pubmed, and some even can link to the entire research on-line.

But then, abortion is no more a 'sin" than is any other medical procedure.

How is the killing of a human being no more a sin then artificial heart surgery?

But then, I have never seen anything that convinced me that the embryo or fetus is a "being" to begin with. So to me, there isn't much difference. Non-sensate, non-sentient tissue is simply that.