Which one are you ?
- Thread starter Mullen4Prez
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I do have a question to pro-choicers, and I expect a meaningful discussion to result from it.
How pro-choice are you?
Hillary Clinton-ish (Tragic choice for many, many women, let's work on making the number a minimum)
or
Howard Dean-ish (Abortion is NONE of the government's business)
or somewhere in between?
Is this something to be concerned about, or should we even care at all?
How pro-choice are you?
Hillary Clinton-ish (Tragic choice for many, many women, let's work on making the number a minimum)
or
Howard Dean-ish (Abortion is NONE of the government's business)
or somewhere in between?
Is this something to be concerned about, or should we even care at all?
trevster2k
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2001
- Messages
- 4,330
choice
Glad to see evervone on best behaviour.
Glad to see evervone on best behaviour.
Rono
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Pro choice but i don`t like abortion.
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
From The New York Times
For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: February 16, 2005
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 - In their search for middle ground on the subject of abortion, Democrats are encountering a mixture of resistance and retreat from abortion rights advocates in their own party.
Since its defeats in the November elections, nothing has put the fractured soul of the Democratic Party on display more vividly than abortion. Party leaders, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and the new chairman, Howard Dean, have repeatedly signaled an effort to recalibrate the party's thinking about new restrictions on abortion.
Adding to that, Congressional Democrats named a professed opponent of abortion rights, Harry Reid of Nevada, as the leader in the Senate. Some Democrats supported another abortion opponent, Timothy J. Roemer, for the party's chairmanship.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has actively recruited at least two abortion opponents to run for the Senate in 2006. And perhaps most symbolically, the party is seeking to enlist Robert P. Casey Jr., Pennsylvania's treasurer, to challenge Senator Rick Santorum, a stalwart foe of abortion rights.
Mr. Casey is the son of former Gov. Bob Casey, a hero to abortion opponents inside and outside the Democratic Party. After trying unsuccessfully to have the party's 1992 platform state that Democrats did not support "abortion on demand," Governor Casey denounced the party for refusing to let him speak at its convention in New York on behalf of other Democrats who shared his views.
In contrast, the younger Mr. Casey said that Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the party's senatorial campaign committee, had encouraged him to run as an opponent of abortion rights.
"He was very welcoming and very candid about the party's need to speak for a broad section of Americans," Mr. Casey said in an interview.
But Mr. Schumer's overture has roiled party loyalists who remain unyielding in their support for abortion rights, exposing a deepening rift in the party. Abortion rights groups that are major financial donors to Democratic campaigns say they may fight Mr. Casey in a primary with a candidate who shares their beliefs.
Karen White, political director of Emily's List, a group that raises money for female candidates who support abortion rights, said the group was "very excited" about possibly backing an abortion rights supporter, Barbara Hafer, a former Pennsylvania treasurer.
Emily's List and other groups have also sounded alarms about the direction the party leadership is taking over all. During the search for a national Democratic chairman, Ms. White posted a rallying cry on the group's Web site: "We fought like mad to beat back the Republicans. Little did we know that we would have just as much to fear from some within the Democratic Party who seem to be using choice as a scapegoat for our top-of-the-ticket losses."
Emily's List is circulating a study it commissioned by the pollster Mark Mellman stating that abortion "was not a factor in voters' decision-making" in the November elections.
Ann Stone, president of Republicans for Choice, an abortion rights group, said her organization's members had not been re-examining their positions, as their Democratic counterparts have. Ms. Stone added a cautionary note that cut across each party's support base.
"The Democrats have to be very careful about this because they could end up undercutting themselves with the donor base," Ms. Stone said. "The pro-choice donors in both parties tend to be the more wealthy."
Mr. Schumer, for his part, said abortion rights groups should worry about Republicans, not Democrats, if they want to preserve Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. "What we find is that even the most pro-choice Republican senators just vote down the line for judges that are chomping at the bit to overturn Roe," he said.
Another large abortion rights group, Naral Pro-Choice, is reversing course, saying it will drop its opposition to the proposed Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, a bill that would require doctors to offer anesthetic for the fetuses of women seeking abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v. Wade. "We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.
There are "bigger issues to fight," she added, "to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health." For example, in this week's edition of the conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion rights groups to "please, help us prevent abortions" by increasing access to birth control.
But Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Foundation, dismissed the invitation as an effort "to get the pro-life movement into a debate over birth control," on which her organization takes no position. Ms. Tobias called the Democrats' talk "pulling the wool over the eyes of voters."
Still, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a champion of abortion opponents and the sponsor of the fetal-pain bill, said he was watching the Democrats' steps with great interest. "Just the language that allows for the Democrats to open up and even encourage people to run for office as a pro-life candidate is an enormously positive development for me," Mr. Brownback said, adding that Naral's decision not to oppose his fetal-pain bill made him much more optimistic about its passage.
But abortion rights advocates warn of a bigger revolt within the party if its members start compromising on new abortion restrictions like parental notification laws or the fetal-pain bill. Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said some of her allies were saying that "to the degree that the Democrats move away from choice, that could be the real birth of a third-party movement."
But Ms. Pearl added, "When the day is done, I don't believe they will backslide," in part because of the importance of abortion rights advocates to the party's base of activists and contributors.
In a New York Times poll last month, 36 percent of respondents said abortions should be generally available, 35 percent said the procedure should be available but under stricter limits, and 26 percent said abortions should not be permitted.
The financial balance sheet is much more one-sided. Single-issue abortion rights groups gave over $1.4 million in the 2004 elections to candidates for national office, more than twice as much as the total from groups opposed to abortion rights, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In addition, Emily's List raised $34 million for female candidates who support abortion rights, according to the center. By comparison, the National Right to Life Committee, the largest donor opposed to abortion rights, raised about $1.7 million.
Senator Reid said that he welcomed the new "emphasis on recognizing the diversity of the party." He added, "We have had a lot of pro-life Democrats, but the pro-choice folk haven't reached out to them and haven't protected them."
He acknowledged some complaints from abortion rights groups about the party's shifting rhetoric. "They have to keep their folks geared up, just like people who work for more highways," Mr. Reid said. "That is what they do, just like the pro-life groups."
For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: February 16, 2005
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 - In their search for middle ground on the subject of abortion, Democrats are encountering a mixture of resistance and retreat from abortion rights advocates in their own party.
Since its defeats in the November elections, nothing has put the fractured soul of the Democratic Party on display more vividly than abortion. Party leaders, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and the new chairman, Howard Dean, have repeatedly signaled an effort to recalibrate the party's thinking about new restrictions on abortion.
Adding to that, Congressional Democrats named a professed opponent of abortion rights, Harry Reid of Nevada, as the leader in the Senate. Some Democrats supported another abortion opponent, Timothy J. Roemer, for the party's chairmanship.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has actively recruited at least two abortion opponents to run for the Senate in 2006. And perhaps most symbolically, the party is seeking to enlist Robert P. Casey Jr., Pennsylvania's treasurer, to challenge Senator Rick Santorum, a stalwart foe of abortion rights.
Mr. Casey is the son of former Gov. Bob Casey, a hero to abortion opponents inside and outside the Democratic Party. After trying unsuccessfully to have the party's 1992 platform state that Democrats did not support "abortion on demand," Governor Casey denounced the party for refusing to let him speak at its convention in New York on behalf of other Democrats who shared his views.
In contrast, the younger Mr. Casey said that Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the party's senatorial campaign committee, had encouraged him to run as an opponent of abortion rights.
"He was very welcoming and very candid about the party's need to speak for a broad section of Americans," Mr. Casey said in an interview.
But Mr. Schumer's overture has roiled party loyalists who remain unyielding in their support for abortion rights, exposing a deepening rift in the party. Abortion rights groups that are major financial donors to Democratic campaigns say they may fight Mr. Casey in a primary with a candidate who shares their beliefs.
Karen White, political director of Emily's List, a group that raises money for female candidates who support abortion rights, said the group was "very excited" about possibly backing an abortion rights supporter, Barbara Hafer, a former Pennsylvania treasurer.
Emily's List and other groups have also sounded alarms about the direction the party leadership is taking over all. During the search for a national Democratic chairman, Ms. White posted a rallying cry on the group's Web site: "We fought like mad to beat back the Republicans. Little did we know that we would have just as much to fear from some within the Democratic Party who seem to be using choice as a scapegoat for our top-of-the-ticket losses."
Emily's List is circulating a study it commissioned by the pollster Mark Mellman stating that abortion "was not a factor in voters' decision-making" in the November elections.
Ann Stone, president of Republicans for Choice, an abortion rights group, said her organization's members had not been re-examining their positions, as their Democratic counterparts have. Ms. Stone added a cautionary note that cut across each party's support base.
"The Democrats have to be very careful about this because they could end up undercutting themselves with the donor base," Ms. Stone said. "The pro-choice donors in both parties tend to be the more wealthy."
Mr. Schumer, for his part, said abortion rights groups should worry about Republicans, not Democrats, if they want to preserve Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. "What we find is that even the most pro-choice Republican senators just vote down the line for judges that are chomping at the bit to overturn Roe," he said.
Another large abortion rights group, Naral Pro-Choice, is reversing course, saying it will drop its opposition to the proposed Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, a bill that would require doctors to offer anesthetic for the fetuses of women seeking abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v. Wade. "We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.
There are "bigger issues to fight," she added, "to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health." For example, in this week's edition of the conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion rights groups to "please, help us prevent abortions" by increasing access to birth control.
But Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Foundation, dismissed the invitation as an effort "to get the pro-life movement into a debate over birth control," on which her organization takes no position. Ms. Tobias called the Democrats' talk "pulling the wool over the eyes of voters."
Still, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a champion of abortion opponents and the sponsor of the fetal-pain bill, said he was watching the Democrats' steps with great interest. "Just the language that allows for the Democrats to open up and even encourage people to run for office as a pro-life candidate is an enormously positive development for me," Mr. Brownback said, adding that Naral's decision not to oppose his fetal-pain bill made him much more optimistic about its passage.
But abortion rights advocates warn of a bigger revolt within the party if its members start compromising on new abortion restrictions like parental notification laws or the fetal-pain bill. Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, said some of her allies were saying that "to the degree that the Democrats move away from choice, that could be the real birth of a third-party movement."
But Ms. Pearl added, "When the day is done, I don't believe they will backslide," in part because of the importance of abortion rights advocates to the party's base of activists and contributors.
In a New York Times poll last month, 36 percent of respondents said abortions should be generally available, 35 percent said the procedure should be available but under stricter limits, and 26 percent said abortions should not be permitted.
The financial balance sheet is much more one-sided. Single-issue abortion rights groups gave over $1.4 million in the 2004 elections to candidates for national office, more than twice as much as the total from groups opposed to abortion rights, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In addition, Emily's List raised $34 million for female candidates who support abortion rights, according to the center. By comparison, the National Right to Life Committee, the largest donor opposed to abortion rights, raised about $1.7 million.
Senator Reid said that he welcomed the new "emphasis on recognizing the diversity of the party." He added, "We have had a lot of pro-life Democrats, but the pro-choice folk haven't reached out to them and haven't protected them."
He acknowledged some complaints from abortion rights groups about the party's shifting rhetoric. "They have to keep their folks geared up, just like people who work for more highways," Mr. Reid said. "That is what they do, just like the pro-life groups."
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
Macfistowannabe said:
I don't see that those two views are all that different. I don't think the government (or the neighbors, or anyone else) has the right to dictate whether or not an individual woman has an abortion. However, if people are uncomfortable with abortions, they should try to make sure alternatives to abortion and serious birth control are readily and cheaply available. Open, honest, and BLUNT sex education is also very important to reduce the number of unintended and unwanted pregnancies. I think most women who know and have access to the options would much rather take birth control than have an abortion. Let's face it, an abortion isn't like getting a manicure. But accessible (which also means affordable or even free) birth control is absolutely key to reducing the number of abortions.
Last edited:
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Macfistowannabe said:
I agree that it's not the government's business if a woman has an abortion-that's for her and her doctor to deal with, and her family, if she wishes for them to be involved. I wouldn't like the idea of the government intruding on my personal life like that-their job is to deal with issues that affect this entire country as a whole, and that affect the world in general, not to deal with an issue that only I would have to experience.
That said, I do think that, if people really want abortion to stop ('cause while I do support a woman's right to choose to have one if she wants to, I also think a lot of the situations that lead women to have abortions are very tragic, sad ones), they've got to realize flat out banning it will not work. Instead, they need to focus on the problems that lead to women having abortions in the first place and fix those. Once those problems are taken care of, you will see the number of abortions decrease significantly, I'm sure of it.
Angela
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Riiiiiiggggghhht, 'cause that's totally gonna solve the problem.
Don't agree with that at all
.
Angela
Don't agree with that at all
.Angela
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Good, well-thought responses so far. Let's keep this discussion positive. 
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Macfistowannabe said:Good, well-thought responses so far. Let's keep this discussion positive.
. Works for me.Angela
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
life.
pot.
no guns.
that's fym for me done for the next 6 months.
pot.
no guns.
that's fym for me done for the next 6 months.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
I agree with what Indra and Moonlit_Angel have said.
Pro-choice.
If people don't want others to have an abortion put in place some seriously decent sex education, make contraception widely available, and most importantly of all - value the parents of this new child and make sure they have the necessary support mechanisms to cope with/look after their children. Don't tell people you can't have an abortion and then not support them!!!
If people don't want others to have an abortion put in place some seriously decent sex education, make contraception widely available, and most importantly of all - value the parents of this new child and make sure they have the necessary support mechanisms to cope with/look after their children. Don't tell people you can't have an abortion and then not support them!!!
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Generally, life.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Both personally and politically, I am anti-abortion. I think it's possible to look after the life of both the mother and the child. If the mother has a maternal issue, it should be an exception. You can't force someone to give a birth that can't be given. If the mother did not consent - in the case of rape/incest, her pregnancy was not her responsibility. The child, because they should not be deprived of life, liberty, and prosperity.
However, I don't approve of abortion on demand. I think you can be compassionate for the woman without supporting what she is doing. One of my fiance's friends recently had one done, which is disappointing, but I don't hate her for it. What I can't be compassionate for is the act. Why should we be compassionate for apathy? Legalized abortion hasn't worked since 1973, 1.5 million innocent lives a year is far too many to waste. These children are supposed to be the future, and to think, you could be killing the person who could cure cancer.
I believe that legalized abortion has caused us to undermine our moral standards, and I also believe that since we made it legal, we have encouraged abortions to take place. As far as it being the government's business, if there is enough public outcry against it, we should be concerned about it. It is not a myth that many women come to regret their abortions. While raging feminists will tell you that abortion "increases your self-esteem", they are dismissed by any credible source.
If you want a real set of facts, here they are:
http://www.pscstark.com/pregnancyinfo/abortionfacts.html
Abortion Facts
Scientific and Medical Facts
Every human life begins at conception - "In biology and medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception, or fertilization". (Dr. Micheline M. Matthews Roth, Principal Research Associate, Harvard Medical School).
The developing pre-born child is not part of the mother's body! The pre-born child is a separate living being with a separate genetic make-up and a separate blood system from the mother - "The individuality of the unborn baby is established at conception. It is genetically related to its parents, but it is also very different...the 23 chromosomes each parent contributes to the baby can be rearranged in 8,388,608 different ways to produce the 46 chromosome complement of the new individual. There are more than 8 million ways in which the baby might differ from his/her parents". (Dr. Hymie Gordon, Professor and Chairman, Department of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN).
Abortion is a surgical procedure. Like all such procedures, abortion has certain associated risks. Abortion can result in:
Damaged cervix - may lead to bleeding, miscarriage, and/or premature births in later pregnancies.
Perforation of the uterus - results in internal bleeding, which may lead to death.
Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) - infection leading to fever and infertility - common and serious complications reported in up to 30% of all cases.
Ectopic pregnancy (pregnancies outside the womb) - risk is double for women who have had one abortion, and up to four times for women with two or more previous abortions.
Breast cancer - women who abort a pregnancy during the first trimester may have twice the risk of developing breast cancer; the risk is higher in women who have had multiple abortions. (Abortion Industry Monitor).
Infertility.
Low birth weight babies/premature births in later pregnancies.
Infection and bleeding.
Potential death to the mother - between 1972 and 1980, 164 women died from legal abortion.
Abortion is the only medical/surgical procedure in which parental knowledge or consent for a minor is not required, it is also the only procedure in which the physician is not legally required to inform the patient of all possible risks and side effects.
Abortion - Psychological Facts
Abortion is identified by the American Psychiatric Association as a "psychosocial stressor." It is highly unlikely that a woman will be able to know before an abortion how she will deal emotionally with this "psychosocial stressor" after the abortion is over. Therefore, abortion carries with it certain risks to the mental health of women.
Many women have experienced "post-abortion trauma" and post-abortion depression" following their abortions. Some of the most common symptoms of these two syndromes are:
Guilt
Depression
Anger
Nightmares
Withdrawal
Regret and remorse
A sense of loss, grief, emptiness
Feelings of dehumanization/low self-esteem
Self-destructive behavior - drugs and alcohol
Preoccupation with "would be" due date of birth
Inability to forgive self and others
You may want to know - Abortion affects men as well as women.
Abortion diminishes the process of procreation, and the "bond" between a man and a woman.
Abortion alters one's value of life and may conflict with his moral and spiritual values.
Guilt, fear, anger, or anxiety from abortion may affect his ability to trust others.
Unresolved psychological effects from abortion may affect future relationships in the roles of husband and/or father.
However, I don't approve of abortion on demand. I think you can be compassionate for the woman without supporting what she is doing. One of my fiance's friends recently had one done, which is disappointing, but I don't hate her for it. What I can't be compassionate for is the act. Why should we be compassionate for apathy? Legalized abortion hasn't worked since 1973, 1.5 million innocent lives a year is far too many to waste. These children are supposed to be the future, and to think, you could be killing the person who could cure cancer.
I believe that legalized abortion has caused us to undermine our moral standards, and I also believe that since we made it legal, we have encouraged abortions to take place. As far as it being the government's business, if there is enough public outcry against it, we should be concerned about it. It is not a myth that many women come to regret their abortions. While raging feminists will tell you that abortion "increases your self-esteem", they are dismissed by any credible source.
If you want a real set of facts, here they are:
http://www.pscstark.com/pregnancyinfo/abortionfacts.html
Abortion Facts
Scientific and Medical Facts
Every human life begins at conception - "In biology and medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception, or fertilization". (Dr. Micheline M. Matthews Roth, Principal Research Associate, Harvard Medical School).
The developing pre-born child is not part of the mother's body! The pre-born child is a separate living being with a separate genetic make-up and a separate blood system from the mother - "The individuality of the unborn baby is established at conception. It is genetically related to its parents, but it is also very different...the 23 chromosomes each parent contributes to the baby can be rearranged in 8,388,608 different ways to produce the 46 chromosome complement of the new individual. There are more than 8 million ways in which the baby might differ from his/her parents". (Dr. Hymie Gordon, Professor and Chairman, Department of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN).
Abortion is a surgical procedure. Like all such procedures, abortion has certain associated risks. Abortion can result in:
Damaged cervix - may lead to bleeding, miscarriage, and/or premature births in later pregnancies.
Perforation of the uterus - results in internal bleeding, which may lead to death.
Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) - infection leading to fever and infertility - common and serious complications reported in up to 30% of all cases.
Ectopic pregnancy (pregnancies outside the womb) - risk is double for women who have had one abortion, and up to four times for women with two or more previous abortions.
Breast cancer - women who abort a pregnancy during the first trimester may have twice the risk of developing breast cancer; the risk is higher in women who have had multiple abortions. (Abortion Industry Monitor).
Infertility.
Low birth weight babies/premature births in later pregnancies.
Infection and bleeding.
Potential death to the mother - between 1972 and 1980, 164 women died from legal abortion.
Abortion is the only medical/surgical procedure in which parental knowledge or consent for a minor is not required, it is also the only procedure in which the physician is not legally required to inform the patient of all possible risks and side effects.
Abortion - Psychological Facts
Abortion is identified by the American Psychiatric Association as a "psychosocial stressor." It is highly unlikely that a woman will be able to know before an abortion how she will deal emotionally with this "psychosocial stressor" after the abortion is over. Therefore, abortion carries with it certain risks to the mental health of women.
Many women have experienced "post-abortion trauma" and post-abortion depression" following their abortions. Some of the most common symptoms of these two syndromes are:
Guilt
Depression
Anger
Nightmares
Withdrawal
Regret and remorse
A sense of loss, grief, emptiness
Feelings of dehumanization/low self-esteem
Self-destructive behavior - drugs and alcohol
Preoccupation with "would be" due date of birth
Inability to forgive self and others
You may want to know - Abortion affects men as well as women.
Abortion diminishes the process of procreation, and the "bond" between a man and a woman.
Abortion alters one's value of life and may conflict with his moral and spiritual values.
Guilt, fear, anger, or anxiety from abortion may affect his ability to trust others.
Unresolved psychological effects from abortion may affect future relationships in the roles of husband and/or father.
Macfistowannabe said:
Of course, they don't mention the women who died from illegal abortions prior to 1972.
Like I said, I don't encourage abortion, and nor would I ever advise anyone to have one. However, like I said before, if 7% of women account for 50%+ of abortions, then there is a lot we can do to prevent these abortions in these 7% without making it overtly illegal.
The question, obviously, is whether the "pro-life" movement is serious about doing anything besides making political noise. As far as I see it, most of this "abortion debate" is more of a political power struggle than anything else.
Melon
Choice - I think whether a mother wishes to go through the pain of child birth or undertake the responsibility of child rearing is her choice only. There are many things that could factor into her choice; poverty, necissity or fear for herself or child. I really think mandating child birth is a violent assault on a woman's body and a big-brother, inflexible, and simplistic response to a complex issue that requires perhaps the greatest contextual personalization and flexibility.
Jon
Jon
tiny dancer
Blue Crack Distributor
Pro-Choice
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I'd like to know the stats as well if anyone can grab ahold of them.melon said:
As far as handing that 7% (and the rest who might need them) contraceptives and proper education, I agree. If it prevents this permanent solution to a temporary problem from happening, I'm for it, even if it means higher taxes. I'm glad Hillary Clinton is doing what she's doing, I think she is reaching out to both sides of the debate by discussing the issue and preventing abortions from taking place. If more democrats were with her, I think a lot of right-wingers would have more respect for them.melon said:
The anti-abortion movement (to be more universal) is bringing the issue up all the time, to make a difference in society. I think there are too many on the other side of the fence who either believe that abortion is empowering to women, or who couldn't care less. I was kind of surprised when you said that you think even tobacco should be banned. Eliminating any nonsense anyone might think of the idea, if we banned tobacco, the government would lawfully discourage its use, protect the public's well-being, and hopefully result in having a less self-destructive society.melon said:
In a lot of ways, I feel that way about abortion. I won't deny that there would be a flipside if banning abortion for consenting, maternally healthy women: angry feminists, social division, and some illegal abortions. I don't see myself as "making noise" over the issue, but abortion is a political divider for quite a few people. It seems the lesser the right wing politicans obsesses over the issue, the more progress we make on fighting the issue.
Pro- Life, which is why if I was an American I wouldn't vote for either major party, the pro- choice anti death penalty democrats and the pro life pro death penalty republicans, wow the contradictions would really make it hard for me to throw my lot in with either, murder is murder, I may seem ignorant to some, but human life is human life in my book, maybe if a pregnancy was terminated really and i mean really early I could live with it but only in the circumstances of rape or such, otherwise it's plain selfishness imo
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Zero, according to my Business Law textbook, 2/3 of Americans support the death penalty. Clinton and Gore both supported it (democrats). The argument over legalized abortion is split in half. The majority oppose partial-birth, which is now illegal, while the majority also seem to support the first trimester abortion.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
No it's cool, I just wanted to add a side comment.
pax
ONE love, blood, life
Pro-choice, and one million thumbs up to everyone for staying civil so far.
Moonlit_Angel
Blue Crack Addict
Macfistowannabe said:
Yes, or you could also be killing the next Hitler. You don't know any of that kind of stuff before the birth takes place.
Angela
deep
Blue Crack Addict
and a condum would have the same effect
as would spilling your seed
give me a break
as would spilling your seed
give me a break
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Macfistowannabe said:
these last few comments strike me as value judgements rather than facts.
the "bond" between a man and a woman? waht does that mean?
how does it dminish the process of procreation?
alters one's value of life?
all this sounds like wishful thinking on the part of those who would make abortion illegal rather than anything approximating facts.
Similar threads
