# Death sentence on television?



## billc (Jan 1, 2011)

Mtv apparently followed a young girl as she went through with an abortion. If you are pro-abortion, should it not follow that we should allow the execution of criminals on television as well as "unviable tissue masses?"

http://bigjournalism.com/lziganto/2...bortion-sales-pitch-its-just-a-ball-of-cells/


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 1, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Mtv apparently followed a young girl as she went through with an abortion.  If you are pro-abortion, should it not follow that we should allow the execution of criminals on television as well as "unviable tissue masses?"


If you want crime rates to go up, that would be the way to go. If you pay attention to this sort of thing, you will find that most maniacal killers beg for the death penalty once caught. Now they wouldn't even have to beg, they become instantly famous on your television program, and they die knowing their names will forever be etched on the minds of the public. Good plan.
Sean


----------



## billc (Jan 1, 2011)

Actually, just about every killer on death row fights the death penalty tooth and nail.  Gacy, Bundy, the woman that Bush allowed to be executed, the woman Chicago's Carol marin championed all tried to stay alive, even in jail under a life sentence.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 1, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Actually, just about every killer on death row fights the death penalty tooth and nail.  Gacy, Bundy, the woman that Bush allowed to be executed, the woman Chicago's Carol marin championed all tried to stay alive, even in jail under a life sentence.


Not a lie, but, I said, "when caught". Most sane people will eventually realize their plan for fame involves dying, and the same survival instinct that kept them from turning the gun on themselves is going to be the reason for the countless appeals.
Sean


----------



## billc (Jan 1, 2011)

No hostility intended here, they don't ask for the death penalty.  People can get used to a lot of things, living in extreme temperatures, living in extreme poverty.  Killers on death row get used to that the way people adapt to other things.  At any time they can say, okay, I'm done with the appeals, just execute me, and they don't.  If they can do an abortion show on Mtv, how about an execution show for a convicted killer.  At least the killer would have the advantage of having committed a crime before being put to death, unlike the baby.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 1, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Not a lie, but, I said, "when caught". Most sane people will eventually realize their plan for fame involves dying, and the same survival instinct that kept them from turning the gun on themselves is going to be the reason for the countless appeals.
> Sean



Your assertion is unsupported by facts clearly in evidence.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 1, 2011)

billcihak said:


> No hostility intended here, they don't ask for the death penalty.  People can get used to a lot of things, living in extreme temperatures, living in extreme poverty.  Killers on death row get used to that the way people adapt to other things.  At any time they can say, okay, I'm done with the appeals, just execute me, and they don't.  If they can do an abortion show on Mtv, how about an execution show for a convicted killer.  At least the killer would have the advantage of having committed a crime before being put to death, unlike the baby.


You are correct in that, no one on death row wants to die. However, lots of people asked for the death penalty when caught, at that moment.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 1, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Your assertion is unsupported by facts clearly in evidence.


Evidence? So, no one ever asks to be put to death? I just saw a news story last week where the killer asked for the death penalty.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 1, 2011)

While I think your proposal stinks to high heaven. I believe being on a show where you abort your baby is quite a big mistake; because, most women would choose to forget it ever happened. This girl will be famous and recognized everywhere. She might get a hug, or she might get punched in the face; one of the two. Either way, she won't be forgetting about this anytime soon.
Sean


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Evidence? So, no one ever asks to be put to death? I just saw a news story last week where the killer asked for the death penalty.
> Sean


 Sure some do but a vast majority do not.  They fight it until the end. To say that public executions will cause murders to go up is just silly.  Every murderer Ive ever talked to did not want to get caught, and most dont think the ever will.  So the "fame" of being on TV would not cause someone to comit murder.  Anyone who would think that way is crazy and will commit the cirmes anyway.  They still get all the attention and the fame.  Everyone knows who jeffery dalhmer, Ted bundy, Jack the ripper is and none of them were exicuted in public.  
What it would to is many stop some of the thug violence and murders.  These guys know 9 times out of 10 if you commit murder you will be out of jail in 8 to 10 years.  And now days Ive seen many out in 3 to 5.  They come out now with Street Creds and can walk thru the hood and say "im a real gangsta"


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> While I think your proposal stinks to high heaven. I believe being on a show where you abort your baby is quite a big mistake; because, most women would choose to forget it ever happened. Sean


 
But if its no big deal why try to hide?  Oh its not big deal its just a ball of cells right?  They hide because they know its wrong but they are too irresponsible to keep their legs shut.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> But if its no big deal why try to hide?  Oh its not big deal its just a ball of cells right?  They hide because they know its wrong but they are too irresponsible to keep their legs shut.


I don't think anyone ever said it was no big deal on either side.
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Jan 2, 2011)

If executions were public and publicized rather than held behind closed doors, one of two things would happen:
1 The public would be outraged and executions would be stopped.
or, and this is much more likely
B the deterrent effect of capital punishment would truly be seen in a drastic reduction in the rate of crimes for which the death penalty is available.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

Why don't you just have sex on television programmes like the rest of us do?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> I don't think anyone ever said it was no big deal on either side.
> Sean


 Well since the Alan Guttmacher Institute has found since Roe v Wade in 1973 there have been about 40 Million abortions in this country thats alot of woman that dont think its that big of a deal to just kill a baby.
And world wide its est. that approx 42 million a year.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Well since the Alan Guttmacher Institute has found since Roe v Wade in 1973 there have been about 40 Million abortions in this country thats alot of woman that dont think its that big of a deal to just kill a baby.
> And world wide its est. that approx 42 million a year.


 

Really? and that shows how much you know about women ie nothing.

It must be easy for you to just type in that condemnation of women. Of course as you are male, and how it shows, you will never know the heartache, the responsibility and the horrors that women have to go through so carry on denigrating women won't you.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Really? and that shows how much you know about women ie nothing.
> 
> It must be easy for you to just type in that condemnation of women. Of course as you are male, and how it shows, you will never know the heartache, the responsibility and the horrors that women have to go through so carry on denigrating women won't you.


 Well since men cant get an abortion.  However I blame the "baby daddy" also he has just as much responsibility to keep his pants on.

Why so much heartache?  Its not a baby right?  Its just a ball of cells.  Thats what my wife told me when we found out she was pregnant, "honey guess what were having a ball of cells."  
Could it be that you feel "heartache" because you know what your doing is wrong.  You cry about oh poor poor woman what did she have to go thru.  How about what the baby went thru.  Oh thats right we cant ask them they are dead.


----------



## crushing (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Why don't you just have sex on television programmes like the rest of us do?



Because I'm not attractive enough for television, or even a grainy podcast video.  Well, I suppose if there were a special episode of Fear Factor...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

Ah I just love ignorance.

Ballen, firstly no one is pro abortion, what people are for is pro choice.

My friend had an abortion, it was the saddest day of her life, she didn't make the decision lightly but really there was no decision, it was that or give birth at term of a dead baby. 
You would of course advocate the birth of a dead baby. You would also advocate that raped women should give birth, that women who have been victims of incest give birth and women whose baies would be doomed to a life of horrendous disablement should give birth. You would advocate too that a druggie gives birth to a drug addict baby? Or an alcoholic? 
If you could persuade a woman not to have an abortion would you personally look after and raise that child? Or are all your arguments academic along the lines of you mustn't have an abortion it's wrong because I say it is?

I've heard all the arguments for the anti abortion people, how they hold the belief that life is scared while they justify killing medical staff, old hat that. I'v heard all the arguments about how abortion is used for contraception because women are too lazy to get the pill etc. 

The truth is something you won't want to believe because it doesn't suit you and that's that women because they are ones that carry the baby are the ones that have the right to chose. Few women have an abortion lightly and most carry the knowledge of what they have done for the rest of their lives but they believe it was right to do what they did. It's not for you to say and it's not for you to condemn them, in fact it's nothing to do with you what another women does, it's not your baby and it's not your body.

You condemn abortion but you live in a country that allows the death sentence, many innocent people are murdered by the state but that doesn't seem to bother you.

Lets make women like these suffer even more shall we by not allowing abortions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/24/congo-rebels-rape-un-rwanda


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 2, 2011)

I love some of the logic of the anti abortion people

Keep government out of our lives, no government interference, we have rights under the constitution!!! Oh yeah BTW, lets interfere in that womans right to have an abortion because we think its for her own good, and we know better on how to run her life then she does.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Ah I just love ignorance.
> 
> Ballen, firstly no one is pro abortion, what people are for is pro choice.
> 
> ...


 
 Well Im not against an abortion if its for a real medical reason and puts the mothers life at risk but it better be a real medical condition.

You friend would have given birth to a dead baby?  Then the baby was dead when she had the abortion correct because if not how did she know?  Ive seen guys shot in the face with a shot gun that should be dead and are not.  if the baby is dead then there is no birth.

Rape is a very horrible thing Ive seen the effects first hand.  Ive interviewed rape victims. However is it the babys fault his father is a criminal?  But Ill play what % of abortions are done on rape victims?  The facts say less *than* 1%.  So sure Ill even say let rape and incest victims have an abortion.

Should druggies have babies? nope.  They should keep their legs shut.

If a woman is "forced" to have the baby no I dont need to take care of them (even though I already due thru taxes)  Give the baby up for adoption.  OR Keep their legs shut and they wont have to worry about it.

Ive not once said killing medical staff is ok.  So Im not sure how that is even relevant


The truth is something you won't want to believe because it doesn't suit you that 93% of Abortions are done for social reason like, darn it I dont want no baby that would be a drag, 6% are for medical reasons, and 1% is a victim of rape or incest.  So it is used as a form of contraception because women are too lazy to get the pill etc. 

Show me one innocent person that was put to death since we reinstated the death penalty that fact is there have been zero.  

Fact is a simple one but is not the "Fun" choice.  Fact is you dont want a baby dont have sex but thats no fun.  You want to be able to go out on a Friday night sleep with whoever you want and not be burden with a baby.  Take some responsibility keep your legs closed and we wont have to have this argument but its just easier to kill the baby later.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> I love some of the logic of the anti abortion people
> 
> Keep government out of our lives, no government interference, we have rights under the constitution!!! Oh yeah BTW, lets interfere in that womans right to have an abortion because we think its for her own good, and we know better on how to run her life then she does.


 
What about the baby's right to stay alive?


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

The primary role of the government is to protect American citizen's, so yes, an unborn baby is an American citizen.  Providing for children given up by their parents is one role the government should take, so, the woman should have the baby and give the baby up for adoption, that would be the least traumatic response to an unwanted pregnancy, including rape and incest.  The child would be alive, and later in life, the mother could try, if she wanted to have contact with that child.  It would be less haunting to know the child is alive somewhere experiencing life, and the mother would not have to question wether or not she actually killed a baby through her abortions or wether is was a group of cells.  

Nine months is about the same as the baseball season or a school year here in the states.  Then the woman is done,  the two can seperate and go their own ways.

Here are some questions for the pro-choice crowd.
1-should rape be a death penalty offense?
2-should the victim of the rape be allowed to execute the rapist?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Well Im not against an abortion if its for a real medical reason and puts the mothers life at risk but it better be a real medical condition.
> 
> You friend would have given birth to a dead baby? Then the baby was dead when she had the abortion correct because if not how did she know? Ive seen guys shot in the face with a shot gun that should be dead and are not. if the baby is dead then there is no birth.
> 
> ...


 

You're a medical doctor as well then to say whether my friend's baby was alive or dead? It wasn't dead but was going to die before it came to term.

As I said, it really isn't anything to do with you what women want and I'd thank you not to start putting words in my mouth as to what suits me and what doesn't. 

Ken put it correctly, you don't want interfence in your life by by jove you'll interfere in others!


So no one has ever been executed in the whole of the United States that wasn't guilty, yeah right pull the other one.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

_*Georgia Board to Pardon Woman 60 Years After Her Execution *- The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has announced that it will issue a formal pardon this month for *Lena Baker* (pictured), the only woman executed in the state during the 20th century. The document, signed by all five of the current board members, will note that the parole board's 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency and allow her execution was "a grievous error, as this case called out for mercy." Baker, an African American, was executed for the murder of Ernest Knight, a white man who hired her . Baker was tried, convicted, and sentenced to die in one day by an all-white, all-male jury. Baker claimed she shot Knight in self-defense after he locked her in his gristmill and threatened her with a metal pipe. The pardon notes that Baker "could have been charged with voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, for the death of E.B. Knight." The average sentence for voluntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. Baker's picture and her last words are currently displayed near the retired electric chair at a museum at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 16, 2005). _


_*South Carolina Pair Exonerated 94 Years After Execution* - The South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services voted 7-0 to pardon *Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin* for the 1913 murder of former Confederate Army veteran John Q . Lewis. The pair were executed in 1915 for the murder after another man, Monk Stephenson, plead guilty and received a life sentence in exchange for implicating the Griffins. "Stevenson later told a fellow inmate that he had implicated the Griffin brothers because he believed they were wealthy enough to pay for legal counsel, and as such would be acquitted," said legal historian Paul Finkelman. Two others, Nelson Brice and John Crosby, were also executed for the crime. The pair were great uncles of nationally syndicated radio show host Tom Joyner. "It's good for the community. It's good for the nation. Anytime that you can repair racism in this country is a step forward," Joyner said. (CNN.com, October 15, 2009_


Takes a long time to get justice doesn't it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

Acoording to this 100 people who have been condemned to death have been released because they weren't guilty, lucky it was found out before they were killed isn't it?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The primary role of the government is to protect American citizen's, so yes, an unborn baby is an American citizen. Providing for children given up by their parents is one role the government should take, so, the woman should have the baby and give the baby up for adoption, that would be the least traumatic response to an unwanted pregnancy, including rape and incest. The child would be alive, and later in life, the mother could try, if she wanted to have contact with that child. It would be less haunting to know the child is alive somewhere experiencing life, and the mother would not have to question wether or not she actually killed a baby through her abortions or wether is was a group of cells.
> 
> Nine months is about the same as the baseball season or a school year here in the states. Then the woman is done, the two can seperate and go their own ways.
> 
> ...


 
So you are willing to pay your taxes to provide for other people's children but not for health care for poor people, oh that's very droll.
If you are against abortion stop being a 'socialist' and leave people to make their own decisions, also stop volunteering other peoples tax money to pay for the upkeep of children.



As for your questions 1 and 2 we are a civilised society, we don't have the death penalty.


As for women who have been raped, like the African women I pointed out, what a good idea making them have the babies, it wouldn't be at all traumatic would it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_Bosnian_War

_A medical study of 68 Croatian and Bosniak victims of rape during the 1992-1995 war found that many suffered psychological problems as a result. None had any psychiatric history prior to the rapes. After the rapes 25 had suicidal thoughts, 58 suffered depression immediately after and 52 were still suffering from depression at the time of the study, one year later. Of the women 44 had been raped more than once and 21 of them had been raped daily throughout their captivity. Twenty nine of them had become pregnant and 17 had an abortion. The study reached the conclusion that the rapes had "deep immediate and long-term consequences on the mental-health" of the women._

read it and weep for these women.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> You're a medical doctor as well then to say whether my friend's baby was alive or dead? It wasn't dead but was going to die before it came to term.
> 
> As I said, it really isn't anything to do with you what women want and I'd thank you not to start putting words in my mouth as to what suits me and what doesn't.
> 
> ...


 
I&#8217;m no doctor I was just saying I don&#8217;t buy the excuse you friend used but if it makes her sleep better at night.

And trust me dear I put nothing in your mouth.

I guess you didn&#8217;t see where I asked show me one since we reinstated it which was in 1976. There were problems before that so the Supreme Court suspended it in 1972 and it was reinstated in 1976. Since then there have been no cases of wrongful death. and the fact that 100 people were released shows the system works. 

How many innocent children have been killed since 1976?


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

1-should rape be a death penalty offense?
2-should the victim of rape be allowed to execute the rapist?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> *Im no doctor I was just saying I dont buy the excuse you friend used but if it makes her sleep better at night.*
> 
> And trust me dear I put nothing in your mouth.
> 
> ...


 
You really couldn't be more offensive if you tried could you?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> As for your questions 1 and 2 we are a  civili*z*ed society, we don't have the death penalty
> 
> .


 Really yet you have no problem with giving babies the death penaly Civilized huh


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> You really couldn't be more offensive if you tried could you?


 
 Cant beat the message so attack the messenger right?


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 2, 2011)

Yay, another abortion thread.  I would have thought that the collective arguing power of the internet would have settled this issue years ago.

All I'll say is that I wish they would define a status for a fetus and then consistently apply it.  If, for example, it is not an act of killing to perform an abortion, then how can a murder charge be drawn against someone who, by negligence or through the commission of a crime, causes a pregnant woman to lose her baby.  Oops, I mean fetus.  Oh hell, see?  I don't know what it is, it's like Schrodinger's Fetus or something.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

My go to guy on the subject of the death penalty is Dennis Prager who wrote the book "Think a second Time."

"That an innocent person may be executed is the one moral argument against capital punishment.  Nonetheless, the remote possiblity of an innocent person's execution does not invalidate the death penalty.  For one thing, judicial and technological safeguards(e.g., DNA testing) could be erected so as to make this all but impossible.  Some safeguards may not now be strong enough.  For example, in instances in which conviction is based on a single witness with no other corroborating evidence such as finger prints, hair samples, etc., a person should not be sentenced to death.  

BUT EVEN WITH THE BEST SAFEGUARDS, AN INNOCENT PERSON MIGHT STILL BE EXECUTED AND THAT IS A HORROR.  STILL, 

  FAR MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL BE MURDERED IF THERE IS NO DEATH PENALTY THAN IF THERE IS.  MURDERERS WHO ARE NOT EXECUTED WILL MURDER OTHER PRISONERS AND PRISON GUARDS, OR THEY WILL ESCAPE OR BE RELEASED ON PAROLE AND MURDER CIVILLIANS OUTSIDE PRISON.  

OUR CHOICE IS CLEAR--EITHER THE REMOTE POSSIBILITY OF AN INNOCENT PERSON BEING EXECUTED IF THERE IS A DEATH PENALTY, OR THE CERTAINTY OF MANY MORE INNOCENTS MURDERED WITHOUT THE DEATH PENALTY.  NOTHING IS RISK FREE-FROM DRIVING AN AUTOMOBILE(IN WHICH SOME FORTY THOUSAND AMERICANS DIE EACH YEAR) TO THE DEATH PENALTY.

Mike huchabeee, as a govenor commuted the sentence of a convicted murderer, the guy then moved to washington state and murdered several police officers who were having coffee.  I would need to look up the exact details but that is just one case of innocent lives lost because the death penalty was not used.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

CoryKS said:


> Yay, another abortion thread. I would have thought that the collective arguing power of the internet would have settled this issue years ago.
> 
> All I'll say is that I wish they would define a status for a fetus and then consistently apply it. If, for example, it is not an act of killing to perform an abortion, then how can a murder charge be drawn against someone who, by negligence or through the commission of a crime, causes a pregnant woman to lose her baby. Oops, I mean fetus. Oh hell, see? I don't know what it is, it's like Schrodinger's Fetus or something.


 

In this country an unborn child doesn't exist in law. If a pregnant women is murdered the charge can only be for the murder of the woman.

Abortion seems a big thing in the States, elsewhere in Europe it is a personal and private matter.


As for my friend who had to have a termination of pregnancy, I will say that it was a planned and very much wanted child, my friend was devastated and hasn't stopped grieving for the baby even now several years on, to say it was a matter of convenience is a gross insult.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> My go to guy on the subject of the death penalty is Dennis Prager who wrote the book "Think a second Time."
> 
> "That an innocent person may be executed is the one moral argument against capital punishment. Nonetheless, the remote possiblity of an innocent person's execution does not invalidate the death penalty. For one thing, judicial and technological safeguards(e.g., DNA testing) could be erected so as to make this all but impossible. Some safeguards may not now be strong enough. For example, in instances in which conviction is based on a single witness with no other corroborating evidence such as finger prints, hair samples, etc., a person should not be sentenced to death.
> 
> ...


 
Have you thought of being a stand up comedian? Your theories hold little water as those countries who've abolished the death penalty have shown.

Oh and please don't 'shout at us', it's rude.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Sp again with a new question to clarify the issue:

1-Should rape carry the death penalty
2-should the victim of rape be allowed to execute the rapist?

Also, Tez, 

If an unborn child has no standing in British law, if a woman's baby is killed at the nine month mark, on her way to the hospital for delivery, by a criminal, but she survives, there was no murder committed?


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Not shouting trying to highlight the important part


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

More from Dennis Prager:The argument that an innocent person may be executed is the argument opponents most often offer, because it is the one moral argument against capital punishment, and because of that it appeals to people who are otherwise for executing murderers. Yet opponents of the death penalty are opposed to executing murderers even when their guilt is indisputable, such as Charles Manson or an Adolf Eichmann. 

THEY USE THE ARGUMENT THAT AN INNOCENT MIGHT BE EXECUTED BECAUSE OF ITS DEBATING VALUE; IN FACT, OPPONENTS OPPOSE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS WRONG TO KILL MURDERERS, PERIOD.

THe Death penalty doesn't accomplish anything: the dead person cannot be brought back to life.

The first part of this argument isn't true, and the second mocks the intent of capital punishment. No one believes that capital punishment bbrings the dead back to life, although even if it did, I wonder how many abolitionists would come to favor the death penalty. But while it cannot revive the dead, capital punishment does revive the spirit of the dead persons loved ones. I have followed news reports of executions for ten years, and in the large majority of instances, the murdered persons loved ones express immense relief after the murderer is executed-"Finally, we can rest." As long as the murderer lives, there can be no closure; and until there is closure, healing cannot begin. Every day that a merderer is allowed to live, not to mention allowed his freedom, compounds the suffering of the victim's loved ones."


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> As for my friend who had to have a termination of pregnancy, I will say that it was a planned and very much wanted child, my friend was devastated and hasn't stopped grieving for the baby even now several years on, to say it was a matter of convenience is a gross insult.


 
 Ive already stated if there is a legit medical reason for the abortion I can except that.

I feel strongly about this topic for very personal reasons and I may let that cloud my judgment and resort to slightly nasty remarks.  I was adopted.  Had my Birth mother decided to take the easy road and abort me I would not be here.  My children would not be here their children ( when they are older and have kids they are too young right now) will not be here.  I finally met my birth mother when I was 22.  We talked and she said she was actually on her way to a clinic got a block away and changed her mind.  Put up the  consequence of her actions of unprotected sex for 9 months and gave me up.   I was adopted by a very great family who I love and they love me.  So for me I feel Im a voice for the babies that are killed at a rate of 40 million a year.
Even right this very second as I type this post I see my kids playing on the floor and I cant imagine aborting them.  They are the love of my life and if I was not able to care for them I would at least like to know some place out there they were alive and being cared for if not by me then by someone.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Sp again with a new question to clarify the issue:
> 
> 1-Should rape carry the death penalty
> 2-should the victim of rape be allowed to execute the rapist?
> ...


 

There is no crime as to the death of the unborn baby but depending on the injuries to the woman it could be GBH, ABH or an assault charge depending on how the assault was committed. Here the baby has to have the umbilical cord cut and be separated from the mother to be considered legally as a person.


I have already answered the questions 1 and 2, we don't have the death penalty so it's not a question for us, we don't belive you can have laws stating people shouldn't kill then acutally punish people who do by killing them. It's like hitting someone while saying you mustn't hit people.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Ive already stated if there is a legit medical reason for the abortion I can except that.
> 
> I feel strongly about this topic for very personal reasons and I may let that cloud my judgment and resort to slightly nasty remarks. I was adopted. Had my Birth mother decided to take the easy road and abort me I would not be here. My children would not be here their children ( when they are older and have kids they are too young right now) will not be here. I finally met my birth mother when I was 22. We talked and she said she was actually on her way to a clinic got a block away and changed her mind. Put up the consequence of her actions of unprotected sex for 9 months and gave me up. I was adopted by a very great family who I love and they love me. So for me I feel Im a voice for the babies that are killed at a rate of 40 million a year.
> Even right this very second as I type this post I see my kids playing on the floor and I cant imagine aborting them. They are the love of my life and if I was not able to care for them I would at least like to know some place out there they were alive and being cared for if not by me then by someone.


 

That's your story but for many many others it's not the same and you shouldn't assume it was, what you said was offensive. 

There are too many stories of desparate women and desparate lives to generalise about women and abortion.

Much better rather than lecture us would be to campaign against abortion in places like China where it's forced on women by the State.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

I am asking you tez, what do you think, should a rapist be executed, and should a rape victim be allowed to execute the rapist?

I have to say, a fully formed human being in the womb is not considered alive until the umbilical cord is cut, and can be murdererd with the only consequences being, whatever those letters mean, I guess, aggravated assault and battery.  Do you think that is right Tez?


----------



## Big Don (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Ah I just love ignorance.


That is good, considering you are about to show your own.





> firstly no one is pro abortion, what people are for is pro choice.


Oh really. What then would you call people like Margret Sanger, if not pro-abortion?
Eugenics, while the term may be dead, the organizations started by the movement's people, such as Planned Parenthood, are alive and well and doing big business.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> That's your story but for many many others it's not the same and you shouldn't assume it was, what you said was offensive.
> 
> There are too many stories of desparate women and desparate lives to generalise about women and abortion.
> 
> Much better rather than lecture us would be to campaign against abortion in places like China where it's forced on women by the State.


 
I dont care if its offensive.  To me to kill a baby is offensive.

How do you get pregnant?  You have sex.
How do yo not get pregnant?  You dont have sex.
If these woman are so "desperate" maybe they should stop having sex until they fix themselves ohh but where is the fun in that.  So instead they do what they want be damned the outcome because they can just suck the baby out and be good as new right.

You can't beat that argument there is no way around it if you dont want a baby do not have sex.  

So youre against abortions in China?  They are desperate right?  Poor? 
Cant have it both ways.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I dont care if its offensive. To me to kill a baby is offensive.
> 
> How do you get pregnant? You have sex.
> How do yo not get pregnant? You dont have sex.
> ...


 

The ability to twist someone's words is a talent very underrated.

Am I against abortions in China? what I'm against is a woman who is arrested and forced to a hospital where she is forcibly tied down and forcibly given an abortion. If you break the 'one child' rule in China this is likely to be what happens. didn't you know that?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...men-were-forced-to-have-abortions-507688.html

Don, I have no idea who this Sanger woman is. As you probably knew when you wrote it.

ABH is actual bodily harm, GBH is grievous bodily harm. The charges could only be laid if the mother was injured which I assume she would be to lose the baby. The assault is on the mother not the unborn child.




What is offensive is when you said a woman my friend had an abortion for convenience when it was a planned and wanted child. There was horrendous damage to the foetus and you have no idea of the grief that family suffered.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> What is offensive is when you said a woman my friend had an abortion for convenience when it was a planned and wanted child. There was horrendous damage to the foetus and you have no idea of the grief that family suffered.


 So it fell under a medical reason which I already said I can agree with right?


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 2, 2011)

Ladies & Gentlemen,

This is a heated subject, but it absolutely can be discussed in a civil manner.  Resorting to name calling and personal attacks, or using descriptions and phrases designed and intended to be inflammatory is not the way to do it.

Let's keep things civil before we have to take more direct moderator action.


----------



## granfire (Jan 2, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Oh really. What then would you call people like Margret Sanger, if not pro-abortion?
> Eugenics, while the term may be dead, the organizations started by the movement's people, such as Planned Parenthood, are alive and well and doing big business.




Then you also know that the hard core pro lifers don't want exceptions for rape victims and hardly any for medical reasons...


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

With no hostility intended, only looking to clarify, I am waiting for Tez to answer three questions, how about your answers?

1-should rape be a death penalty offense?
2-should the rape victim be allowed to execute the rapist?

If a woman on the way to deliver a baby, who is nine months in the womb, a fully formed human being, is attacked, and the baby is killed, but the umbilical cord is not cut and so the baby is not legally alive, and the murderer only gets charged with assault and battery because the woman survived, or your equivalent in Britain,  is that right?

Well Granfire, I put it to you.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> With no hostility intended, only looking to clarify, I am waiting for Tez to answer three questions, how about your answers?
> 
> 1-should rape be a death penalty offense?
> 2-should the rape victim be allowed to execute the rapist?
> ...


 

How many times do you want me to answer those questions. I have done it on two posts so far. 

That's the law here. The charge can be attempted murder by the way, I need to know what injuries the hypothetical mother received before I can tell you what charges would be made, btw GBH and ABH are serious charges.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So it fell under a medical reason which I already said I can agree with right?


 
then why did you say afterwards _"Im no doctor I was just saying I dont buy the excuse you friend used but if it makes her sleep better at night."
_
I stated it was for medical reasons the first time I posted. You weren't there, you aren't here now while she still grieves but you pass judgement.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

I'm not asking about what the law in Britain is but what you think about the three questions. Remember, there is a dead human in the assault but british law doesn't list them as alive because the umbilical cord is not cut.

Just looking for clarity when there cannot be agreement.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm not asking about what the law in Britain is but what you think about the three questions. Remember, there is a dead human in the assault but british law doesn't list them as alive because the umbilical cord is not cut.
> 
> Just looking for clarity when there cannot be agreement.


 
I'm afraid you can't separate British law and me.
I don't believe in the death penalty as I think you must realise from what I said.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

With no hostility, just curiosity, You actually do believe in the death penalty for the second innocent party to rape and incest, the human just concieved. The rapist walks away, the woman walks away but the baby is allowed to be killed. Is that where you stand?

The fully formed baby in the assault, perhaps hours or minutes from having the umbilical cord cut can be killed in the assault and the murderer doesn't get punished for it, even if the child is wanted by the woman? Do you stand by that, since you and the British law cannot be seperated?

Another Question from Dennis Pragers stand point, should Hitler or Stalin have been executed, or Jeffery Dhamer or John Wayne Gacey?


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Here is another question that will clarify some points, Do you believe that medical school students should be required to perform abortions as part of their medical training? Should they be allowed to opt out because of ethical or religous beliefs?  This can apply in Canada, Britain and the U.S.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> With no hostility, just curiosity, You actually do believe in the death penalty for the second innocent party to rape and incest, the human just concieved. The rapist walks away, the woman walks away but the baby is allowed to be killed. Is that where you stand?
> 
> The fully formed baby in the assault, perhaps hours or minutes from having the umbilical cord cut can be killed in the assault and the murderer doesn't get punished for it, even if the child is wanted by the woman? Do you stand by that, since you and the British law cannot be seperated?
> 
> Another Question from Dennis Pragers stand point, should Hitler or Stalin have been executed, or Jeffery Dhamer or John Wayne Gacey?


 
I stand by a woman's right to chose, it's her body, her concience and her decision. The law allows that here. I stand by the law.
The law that says a foetus isn't a human being until the cord is cut is a very old one here, there are many reasons why it should be this way.Wiser heads than mine made this law. This means a medical abortion with the mother's consent cannot be murder, therefore I don't believe it is executing a person.

For a conservative and a person on the right wing you seem to have a propensity to want to interfere or have the government interfere a great deal in others lives, a woman has the right to make the decision. It's the communists that believe they have the right to decide for others and to have control over people. 

You can never say a victim of rape or incest just walks away, that's crass and cruel.


I don't believe anyone should be executed by the state. Who is this Dennis Prager anyway?


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

He is an author, a lecturer, and has a radio show here in the states.  By walk away I mean they are still alive.  The rapist, the stranger as well as the family member who commits incest, are still alive.  The baby is not.  

A nine month old baby is not alive until the umbilical cord is cut?  You don't think that that law should be changed?

Here is my belief on the abortion issue.  Life begins at conception.  Abortion is killing a human baby.  Abortion should be against the law except in the case of the death of the mother if the child is brought to term.  Even in cases of rape and incest, a baby is a baby and should be allowed to live.  The state should step in and once a finding of rape or incest is found, the state should provide care for the woman through pregnancy and take over the care of the child when it is born.  Or, the woman could go through private charities, religous or secular, to achieve the same end.  Protecting human life is the one role of the government that makes sense.

In the case of the life of the mother, it should still be up to the woman to decide if she wants to take the chance of loosing her life to deliver her child.  Some women do value life that highly.  Also, where both the mother and the baby would die if carried to term, you are choosing to save one life rather than let two die.  I think the term is triage.

If someone murders a baby in the womb during the commision of a crime, they should recieve the death penalty as if the had killed the mother.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I&#8217;m no doctor I was just saying I don&#8217;t buy the excuse you friend used but if it makes her sleep better at night



People like you and billcihak are the reason one of my friends never spoke about her abortion she had done and the only ones who know about it are her family and only a couple of friends like me

That and i agree fully with what Tez says, btw you think its so easy to just 'say keep their legs closed?' Is an addict gonna be able to do that with the pain and everything they go through already?  Is it so easy to fight against the pressures of society just like that? I spent 30 years a virgin and was bullied for it you have no idea, i went and rushed into sex just so i wouldnt have to deal with it anymore and that was unprotected, you people just sit there and judge right.......its not as black and white or easy as you people claim. I have experienced it myself!

and also I think it is hilarious that people will bark up a storm about people being forced to have an abortion in China but those same people don't mind forcing women to become parents and give birth. Both these actions are wrong if we are ever to become full democratic societies.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> I think it is hilarious that people will bark up a storm about people being forced to have an abortion in China but those same people don't mind forcing women to become parents and give birth. Both these actions are wrong if we are ever to become full democratic societies.


nobodys forcing anyone to be a parent we have adoptions in this country remember.

no matter how you want to rationalize it having an abortion is killing a life.  Your friend had one and didn't tell anyone?  Why? She ashamed of what she did because she knows it's wrong.

you cry about the poor girl who has sex because of the pressure.  What about the poor baby that's dead.  

if your willing to risk your life and have unprotected sex because people were teasing you then you may need to see some professional help you seem to have self esteem issues.


----------



## granfire (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> nobodys forcing anyone to be a parent we have adoptions in this country remember.
> 
> no matter how you want to rationalize it having an abortion is killing a life.  Your friend had one and didn't tell anyone?  Why? She ashamed of what she did because she knows it's wrong.
> 
> ...



The poor baby? 
See, we are having this pro-life problem of definition here again: What does constitute life?
Too many people believe it's the first cluster of unrefined cells, in the olden days the Kelts believed a baby was not life until it had received it's first nourishment to be welcomed into the circle of the living.

Also, as your post proofs it, yet one more time, just the term 'abortion' has the negative ring to it that the acting mother-to-be is automatically guilty without anybody knowing the circumstance of her decision. 

A friend of mine told me once about 12yo girls she had on the beds on the labor/maternity ward, delivering babies...I am sure that is a perfectly normal course to let babies have babies...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> He is an author, a lecturer, and has a radio show here in the states. By walk away I mean they are still alive. The rapist, the stranger as well as the family member who commits incest, are still alive. The baby is not.
> 
> A nine month old baby is not alive until the umbilical cord is cut? You don't think that that law should be changed?
> 
> ...


 
You don't agree with socialism or communism and believe the state shouldn't control what people do but you believe however the state should make women have the babies and the state will pay for the upkeep, ie the taxpayer. 
Triage is not what you call choosing one life over another, it's a term used in assesing injuries.

You have your belief, that's fine but how would you feel if others imposed their's on you? which is what you are proposing. 

Here in the UK we believe women should choose. We believe the woman is the best person to decide whether there is to be an abortion or not, you cannot walk straight into a room and have an abortion, two doctors have to sign to say you are in your right mind and that there is a reason for it.

 In law the foetus is considered part of the mother until such time as they are separated and the cord cut. We do have laws to protect foetuses if they need it. Does the law need to be changed? No, because it does the job it was meant to.

For someone pro life you seem keen on ending others, you know.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

granfire said:


> The poor baby?
> See, we are having this pro-life problem of definition here again: What does constitute life?
> Too many people believe it's the first cluster of unrefined cells, in the olden days the Kelts believed a baby was not life until it had received it's first nourishment to be welcomed into the circle of the living.
> 
> ...



that's a good point when does life begin? Can a single cell be alive?  Well science has proven that there are single cell life forms.  So how can we say yes a single cell is alive but group of cells that are in the process of forning a body is not alive?  So if we are honest and say well yes the cells are alive then we kill them when they are aborted.  
If they are not alive then at what point do the become alive?  Can we pin point that time? Is it 4 weeks 6 weeks 8 weeks?


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> What about the baby's right to stay alive?



Lots of people in hospitals have 'the right to stay alive' but we dont force people to donate their body parts (kidneys for example) why should a woman be forced to give over her body for nine months if she says no?



ballen0351 said:


> I feel strongly about this topic for very personal reasons and I may let that cloud my judgment and resort to slightly nasty remarks.  I was adopted.  Had my Birth mother decided to take the easy road and abort me I would not be here.  My children would not be here their children ( when they are older and have kids they are too young right now) will not be here.  I finally met my birth mother when I was 22.  We talked and she said she was actually on her way to a clinic got a block away and changed her mind.  Put up the  consequence of her actions of unprotected sex for 9 months and gave me up.   I was adopted by a very great family who I love and they love me.  So for me I feel Im a voice for the babies that are killed at a rate of 40 million a year.
> Even right this very second as I type this post I see my kids playing on the floor and I cant imagine aborting them.  They are the love of my life and if I was not able to care for them I would at least like to know some place out there they were alive and being cared for if not by me then by someone.



I am glad your story had a happy ending. i really am.  but what if the thousands of others who dont? One of my friends got adopted by a good family too. But most people do not get adopted, I've read the statistics.



ballen0351 said:


> nobodys forcing anyone to be a parent we have adoptions in this country remember.



if women are forced to give birth they are a parents they're a 'mother' biologically even if they give it up for adoption. That woman was forced to become a mother.



			
				ballen said:
			
		

> no matter how you want to rationalize it having an abortion is killing a life.  Your friend had one and didn't tell anyone?  Why? She ashamed of what she did because she knows it's wrong.



No, she didnt tell because of the judgemental statements such as this one here. 



			
				ballen said:
			
		

> you cry about the poor girl who has sex because of the pressure.  What about the poor baby that's dead.



the 'poor baby' dies in a couple of minutes, people who are born and live terrible lives suffer for a long time. I'm more upset by a child born into this world by parents who never wanted him, shunted through unstable foster home after unstable foster home, maybe suffering who knows quite what type of abuse along the way, developing behavior problems maybe become an addict because of it and renders him then unadoptable....you get the picture. I'm much more upset about that than I am about blastocysts or zygotes or fetuses/whatever that are killed in a couple of minutes. Their lives and deaths are easy by comparison to what goes on in the real world!



			
				ballen said:
			
		

> if your willing to risk your life and have unprotected sex because people were teasing you then you may need to see some professional help you seem to have self esteem issues.



I do. and i did. and i suffer from depression and take anti depressants. But it shows there are many people out there like me, its just so easy to sit back and say we should 'keep our legs closed' Most of us suffer problems and we arent likely to be thinking about that or fully able to do that, why do you just sit back and make these kinds of judgemental statements?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> that's a good point when does life begin? Can a single cell be alive? Well science has proven that there are single cell life forms. So how can we say yes a single cell is alive but group of cells that are in the process of forning a body is not alive? So if we are honest and say well yes the cells are alive then we kill them when they are aborted.
> If they are not alive then at what point do the become alive? Can we pin point that time? Is it 4 weeks 6 weeks 8 weeks?


 
I think that's something people decide for themselves either with scientific proof or religious or moral belief. However there has to be a point in law which is very prosaic I'm afraid, where life is deemed to be a 'person' or not.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

I am for the death penalty for murderers but saving the life of a baby?  Nine months and the expenses covered by the government if necassary by adoptive parents if not, is not a problem for me.  It is a baby.  I have held babies. I know what a baby is and I have to say, the ability to dehumanize a baby is a little amazing.  One of the best things about a baby is that belly laugh you can get when you find some silly thing that catches their infant sense of humor.  It is amazing.  Another amazing thing is their fingers.  I look at their tiny fingers, at how the joints are completely like an adults but so tiny.  It amazes me when I look at their hands.

Granfire, I think we are a little more scientifically aware than the early Celts.  I hope science and medical technology keeps advancing, which it won't with obama care.  One day the artificial womb may be a reality and these unviable tissue masses will be viable from day one.  What will the pro-abortion side say then?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Lots of people in hospitals have 'the right to stay alive' but we dont force people to donate their body parts (kidneys for example) why should a woman be forced to give over her body for nine months if she says no?
> 
> We shouldn't force people to stay alive either which I believe these people will want as well, the right to die is as important as the right to live.
> 
> ...


 
It seems forgivenees and understanding aren't always something people care about so much as judging and deriding others. It makes some feel superior to look down on others, Blade dear, don't get upset, live well instead that's always the best revenge on those who would bring you down.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Well, you could make a law that asks the child at say 5 or 6 if they would rather have their life over or if they would like to be moved around foster homes.  It would be allowing for choice.  In  the states we need to streamline the adoption process.  It would save a lot of unborn lives.  Also, this isn't the 19th century where woman have to hide unmarried pregnancies.  With easier adoptions abortions would be seen as less necessary to young girls.  I mean, come on, it is so open now a girl went through having an abortion on MTV.  I think the time for adoption over abortion is here.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I am for the death penalty for murderers but saving the life of a baby? Nine months and the expenses covered by the government if necassary by adoptive parents if not, is not a problem for me. It is a baby. I have held babies. I know what a baby is and I have to say, the ability to dehumanize a baby is a little amazing. One of the best things about a baby is that belly laugh you can get when you find some silly thing that catches their infant sense of humor. It is amazing. Another amazing thing is their fingers. I look at their tiny fingers, at how the joints are completely like an adults but so tiny. It amazes me when I look at their hands.
> 
> Granfire, I think we are a little more scientifically aware than the early Celts. I hope science and medical technology keeps advancing, which it won't with obama care. One day the artificial womb may be a reality and these unviable tissue masses will be viable from day one. What will the pro-abortion side say then?


 
Do you think then that women who have abortions hate babies? do you not think that perhaps they love them enough not to bring one into a life of hell, suffering and despair? You don't in all truth know why each woman who has had an abortion took that decision, until you do you will never have a true picture of what went into making that decision. You can believe all you like that it's careless women forgetting to take their pills or not use a condom (do ask how the IUD/coil works btw) but there's far more to it than that. I won't condemn people I don't know in circumstances I know nothing about who make decisions to have abortions.


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2011)

I'm not against abortion, but I do feel that there should be a good reason for having one, before its done.  For example...if someone was the victim of a rape, sure, in that case, I could see the woman wanting to have one.  Perhaps she doesnt want to carry this memory with her for 9mos.  

OTOH, the 15yo that has sex, gets pregnant, but suddenly the light goes off, and she thinks, "Oh, what am I going to do now?  How am I going to raise this baby??" should not be able to run to the nearest clinic and get an abortion, because she had sex, and didn't understand the consequences.  Of course, this goes back to the education, which the majority of it should fall on the parents.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> In  the states we need to streamline the adoption process.  It would save a lot of unborn lives.  Also, this isn't the 19th century where woman have to hide unmarried pregnancies.  With easier adoptions abortions would be seen as less necessary to young girls.  I mean, come on, it is so open now a girl went through having an abortion on MTV.  I think the time for adoption over abortion is here.



This, I agree with. If birth control were more accessible, if the adoption process was much better than it is, if health care were better, if the minimum wage was higher, all those factors would help to reduce the number of abortions. The problem is that a lot of pro lifers dont wanna talk about sex ed, more accessible BC, and the like. They only wanna talk about abstinenceand forcing women to stay pregnant and give birth by making abortion illegal.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

I am not condemning people, but there are alternatives to abortion that are better than killing the child.   Adoption is one of the biggest answers out there.  You say that we can't know what is going through the woman's decision, but we cannot know where the life of that child will lead either.  They could wind up in a great home with loving parents, especially when people are actively seeking out babies to adopt.  The government doesn't do anything well, but I have to go with the decision to let a baby live and have a chance at life.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

MJS said:


> I'm not against abortion, but I do feel that there should be a good reason for having one, before its done. For example...if someone was the victim of a rape, sure, in that case, I could see the woman wanting to have one. Perhaps she doesnt want to carry this memory with her for 9mos.
> 
> OTOH, the 15yo that has sex, gets pregnant, but suddenly the light goes off, and she thinks, "Oh, what am I going to do now? How am I going to raise this baby??" should not be able to run to the nearest clinic and get an abortion, because she had sex, and didn't understand the consequences. Of course, this goes back to the education, which the majority of it should fall on the parents.


 

If the girl is younger than 15, at 12 or 13 for example, there is a good medical reason to have an abortion, a child's body is rarely equipped to carry a baby at that age, neither the foetus or the girl is unlikely to be unharmed by the pregnancy.

I think a good many 15/16 year olds do actually have their babies which are either adopted or the parents help bring it up, we certainly have many teen mothers here. Abortion didn't seem to be their choice, I think it rarely is to be honest. The sheer amount of young unmarried mothers seems to disprove that abortion is the first choice of these girls. I totally agree though that the parents are responsible but then again there seems to be a lot of them who were very young when their children were born so I guess the girls certainly learn from their parents or mother at least.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Sex ed. isn't going to solve this problem.  We've had sex ed. all over the states and we will always have kids having babies, especially kids with bad or no parents.  It still doesn't justify killing a baby.  Especiallly when many on the pro-abortion side will not execute murderers like jeffery Dhamer or John Wayne Gacy.  They will spend all the money it takes to keep these guys alive, but immediatly want to adopt the abortion route for the innocent baby.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

What if instead of calling it the death penalty or capital punishment we called it societally unwanted mature foetus's.  Or unviable adult tissure cells.  Would that make it easier to execute someone with the bodies of over 30 teenage boys and men in their basement floor?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I am not condemning people, but there are alternatives to abortion that are better than killing the child. Adoption is one of the biggest answers out there. You say that we can't know what is going through the woman's decision, but we cannot know where the life of that child will lead either. They could wind up in a great home with loving parents, especially when people are actively seeking out babies to adopt. The government doesn't do anything well, but I have to go with the decision to let a baby live and have a chance at life.


 

You are talking though of the healthy children who are born without problems, will people be so keen to adopt the very disabled children or the alcohol or drug damaged babies? It sounds ideal all babies being wanted ones and in happy homes but you know it's not going to work out like that. Will a family adopt a child knowing it will die in a year, and die in pain at that? will they adopt the baby with a condition that means they get worse and worse and end up deaf, blind and unable to do anything? Especially with the cost of medical care? 
Would you allow a child to be born knowing it was going to suffer horrendously for it's short life? If a kitten or puppy were born so badly disabled it was going to be suffering piteously before it succumbed to inevitable death you would humanely put it down as indeed the old midwives used to do in the past when a baby that was so badly disabled it would only live a short life in pain, fear and suffering.

We don't live in an ideal world and hard decisions have to be made, they aren't made lightly nor with smiles on faces but with long, hard thought and sadness. it's a horrendous place to find yourself in, lets not make it worse by pretending all would be well if only they had the babies.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

A 12 or 13 year old who's life is in danger because of the pregnancy would fit my belief.  the mother doesn't have to end her life to save the infants.  Just about every other reason though is somewhat weak.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez, you would be amazed at what people will do to adopt children.  I see stories all the time of people who adopt children with horrible disabilities and help them to make lives for themeselves.  It is one of the good things I see out of humanity.  If they cannot be placed in these loving homes, then the state would need to take care of them or help the families that need the help.  I saw a program with a woman who had 3 or 4 daughters, who because of medical mistakes, yes, here in the U. S., the girls lost the abilitly to see or hear.  they were three helen kellers.  I think that first, private charities should step in(Bill and Melinda Gates, Oprah, and Warren Buffet, I hope you do a lot of this stuff) and if not, I would be more than happy for tax dollars to help these families.  I think we could shave the money out of the budget by getting rid of a few tiny wasteful programs.  These girls needed 70,000 dollars a year each for the trained teachers to help them learn how to just live.  Not to mention everything else that would go into their lives.  Let's spend the money for the people who really need it.


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I am not condemning people, but there are alternatives to abortion that are better than killing the child. Adoption is one of the biggest answers out there. You say that we can't know what is going through the woman's decision, but we cannot know where the life of that child will lead either. They could wind up in a great home with loving parents, especially when people are actively seeking out babies to adopt. The government doesn't do anything well, but I have to go with the decision to let a baby live and have a chance at life.


 
Yes, I understand that, however, as I said, in the end, like it or not, its the womans choice, as to what she wants to do, nobody elses.  Perhaps she may not want to carry the child that was conceived via a rape, and again, that is her choice.  Could that baby, should she decide to carry it, make someone, perhaps someone who can't have kids of their own, happy?  Yes, its very possible, but again, its the womans choice.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

One example of many:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=123280&catid=3 

a couple fostered over 60 children.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> A 12 or 13 year old who's life is in danger because of the pregnancy would fit my belief. the mother doesn't have to end her life to save the infants. Just about every other reason though is somewhat weak.


 

so if you know at a few weeks into the pregnancy that the child if born is going to have a short life full of pain and misery you would still make the mother go through with the pregnancy, so she can spend nine months knowing the baby is going to be born with a condition that will make it's short life a living hell.

You'd make a woman who stupidly got pregnant because she didn't insist her rapist wore a condom has to give birth to a child which may well have AIDs for example, she has to feel the rapists child put there by force and pain grow inside her? hasn't she been violated enough with having to endure this? and if the woman kills herself rather than be forced to carry this baby?

That's just two thoughts I had, I can think of hundreds of other reasons a woman would need an abortion, not just for 'convenience'.

From what I've read of sex education in the States it doesn't seem very informative, at least not in the way Europeans approach it. The age it starts seems too old as well. the age they start with sex education in the Netherlands is at about 5, they have the lowest rate of unmarried teenage pregnancies in Europe as well as the highest average age for losing their virginity which is 19. they must be doing something right.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

MJS said:


> Yes, I understand that, however, as I said, in the end, like it or not, its the womans choice, as to what she wants to do, nobody elses. Perhaps she may not want to carry the child that was conceived via a rape, and again, that is her choice. Could that baby, should she decide to carry it, make someone, perhaps someone who can't have kids of their own, happy? Yes, its very possible, but again, its the womans choice.


 Rape victims account fopr 1% of the 40 million abortions that are done a year.

Sad fact is this will never change until people decide that a human life is valuable and we should not be able to walk into a clinic have a baby sucked out of us and walk next door to the gas station and grab a soda and a bag of chips and head home.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez, I will admit it would be a mercy in some ways but the necessity of those time are far less than all the other times an abortion is committed.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Sex ed. isn't going to solve this problem.  We've had sex ed. all over the states and we will always have kids having babies, especially kids with bad or no parents.  It still doesn't justify killing a baby.  Especiallly when many on the pro-abortion side will not execute murderers like jeffery Dhamer or John Wayne Gacy.  They will spend all the money it takes to keep these guys alive, but immediatly want to adopt the abortion route for the innocent baby.



a decrease in teenage pregnancies over the decade was attributed to an increase in birth control use. So yeah sex ed works.


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Sex ed. isn't going to solve this problem. We've had sex ed. all over the states and we will always have kids having babies, especially kids with bad or no parents. It still doesn't justify killing a baby. Especiallly when many on the pro-abortion side will not execute murderers like jeffery Dhamer or John Wayne Gacy. They will spend all the money it takes to keep these guys alive, but immediatly want to adopt the abortion route for the innocent baby.


 
Didn't say that it would solve the problem, but perhaps, and we've had this discussion on here many times before, but perhaps, if the parents got with the program, and weren't living in this fantasy world, in which their kids would not have sex until marriage, perhaps if the schools, a church, someone, anyone, with the qualifications to do so, taught kids about birth control, actually *gasp* handed out condoms, maybe there wouldn't be so many kids having kids!  Keep in mind, many times, when the situation isn't right, the state ends up paying.  Frankly, and I know I have no say in the matter, but I hate the thought of paying for someone else, because they didn't know any better.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> so if you know at a few weeks into the pregnancy that the child if born is going to have a short life full of pain and misery you would still make the mother go through with the pregnancy, so she can spend nine months knowing the baby is going to be born with a condition that will make it's short life a living hell.
> 
> You'd make a woman who stupidly got pregnant because she didn't insist her rapist wore a condom has to give birth to a child which may well have AIDs for example, she has to feel the rapists child put there by force and pain grow inside her? hasn't she been violated enough with having to endure this? and if the woman kills herself rather than be forced to carry this baby?
> 
> ...


 
 Again you rape and medical hardship argument which is alway throw up like its the #1 reason to keep abortion is wrong.  93% of abortions are done just because the mother dont feel like being a mother.


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> If the girl is younger than 15, at 12 or 13 for example, there is a good medical reason to have an abortion, a child's body is rarely equipped to carry a baby at that age, neither the foetus or the girl is unlikely to be unharmed by the pregnancy.


 
Point taken.  Of course, hopefully this'll be a 1 time thing, until the girl is old enough and mature enough to actually have and keep the child.  Again, this is where education may help.  Probably wont solve the problem, but its better than nothing.



> I think a good many 15/16 year olds do actually have their babies which are either adopted or the parents help bring it up, we certainly have many teen mothers here. Abortion didn't seem to be their choice, I think it rarely is to be honest. The sheer amount of young unmarried mothers seems to disprove that abortion is the first choice of these girls. I totally agree though that the parents are responsible but then again there seems to be a lot of them who were very young when their children were born so I guess the girls certainly learn from their parents or mother at least.


 
And thats fine.  By all means, if the girl and her family are capable of raising the child and giving it the best possible care, by all means, keep it.   As I said in my OP, there should be a good reason for having the abortion.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez, doctors are wrong too.  The old host of fox and friends, a fox morning show, was told that it was possible her baby would be diabled and she might die if she went through with the pregnancy.  she went throug with the pregnancy anyway, the baby was fine and she was fine.  She has like eight kids alltogether.


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Rape victims account fopr 1% of the 40 million abortions that are done a year.
> 
> Sad fact is this will never change until people decide that a human life is valuable and we should not be able to walk into a clinic have a baby sucked out of us and walk next door to the gas station and grab a soda and a bag of chips and head home.


 
You are reading my posts right? Because you will notice that I said:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1350625&postcount=68

"I'm not against abortion, but I do feel that there should be a good reason for having one, before its done. For example...if someone was the victim of a rape, sure, in that case, I could see the woman wanting to have one. Perhaps she doesnt want to carry this memory with her for 9mos. 

OTOH, the 15yo that has sex, gets pregnant, but suddenly the light goes off, and she thinks, "Oh, what am I going to do now? How am I going to raise this baby??" should not be able to run to the nearest clinic and get an abortion, because she had sex, and didn't understand the consequences. Of course, this goes back to the education, which the majority of it should fall on the parents."

Heres what I found, regarding your stats:
http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm#Why Abortions Are Performed



> The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control


 
Gee, isn't this what I was talking about in my OP???



> Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
> 1% because of fetal abnormalities;
> 3% due to the mother's health problems.




While you and billcihak seem to be very passionate about this topic, please understand that your views are 1 of many out there on this topic.  That being said, like it or not, others are entitled to their opinions.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Tez, you would be amazed at what people will do to adopt children. I see stories all the time of people who adopt children with horrible disabilities and help them to make lives for themeselves. It is one of the good things I see out of humanity. If they cannot be placed in these loving homes, then the state would need to take care of them or help the families that need the help. I saw a program with a woman who had 3 or 4 daughters, who because of medical mistakes, yes, here in the U. S., the girls lost the abilitly to see or hear. they were three helen kellers. I think that first, private charities should step in(Bill and Melinda Gates, Oprah, and Warren Buffet, I hope you do a lot of this stuff) and if not, I would be more than happy for tax dollars to help these families. I think we could shave the money out of the budget by getting rid of a few tiny wasteful programs. These girls needed 70,000 dollars a year each for the trained teachers to help them learn how to just live. Not to mention everything else that would go into their lives. Let's spend the money for the people who really need it.


 

I suspect your thoughts would not go down well with many of your fellow countrymen though I applaud your willingness to put your money where your mouth is, it's good to know someone has socialist leanings in wanting to do the best for others. As we have a NHS the cost of those children is carried by us anyway.
There are a great many conditions however that mean there isn't hope for children to live even a reasonable life.
What about this couple who turned off their babies life support?
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article6911242.ece

_Warning,  you will cry if you read this_.


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

How about a lighter question, something not about sad cases of unwanted children.  Who here believes that murderers should get the death penalty, wether or not it is legal in Canada, britain or the U.S.  I know I do.  Anyone else?


----------



## billc (Jan 2, 2011)

Tez, I can't get past your link.  I'll keep trying.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Tez, I can't get past your link. I'll keep trying.


 

Some things seem to not allow other countries to see them, I've had that problem before. I can't really copy it up as it's a long article but I will if you can't get it.

Anyway sorry I'm bowing out, it's bedtime here! Been nice 'arguing' with you, honestly, no I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it! I will catch up with you again  Take care.


----------



## MJS (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> How about a lighter question, something not about sad cases of unwanted children. Who here believes that murderers should get the death penalty, wether or not it is legal in Canada, britain or the U.S. I know I do. Anyone else?


 
Im all for it, again, providing that it meets certain criteria, ie: someone who steals a car...no, the dp isn't for them.  Someone who does a home invasion, burns the house down, kills 3 of the 4 occupants, such as what happened here in Cheshire, CT, yes, those dirtbags should fry!!!

Sad reality though...the dp is frowned upon here in CT, and there're many who're sitting...and sitting and sitting and sitting and sitting.  The only difference between life in prison and the dp, is that you're segregated from gen. pop, when you're on death row.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I am asking you tez, what do you think, should a rapist be executed, and should a rape victim be allowed to execute the rapist?
> 
> I have to say, a fully formed human being in the womb is not considered alive until the umbilical cord is cut, and can be murdererd with the only consequences being, whatever those letters mean, I guess, aggravated assault and battery.  Do you think that is right Tez?


No. Yes, they do it in some countries, but if that seems attractive to you, move.:ultracool


----------



## aedrasteia (Jan 2, 2011)

Ballen



ballen0351 said:


> Fact is a simple one but is not the "Fun" choice.  Fact is you dont want a baby dont have sex but thats no fun.  You want to be able to go out on a Friday night sleep with whoever you want and not be burden with a baby.  Take some responsibility keep your legs closed and we wont have to have this argument but its just easier to kill the baby later.



does this apply to men?  If not, why not?

If it does, how would you enforce it?

if abortion becomes illegal in the US, what should be the legal penalty applied 
to women who have abortions?  should there be any legal penalties for the males?

I have no interest in an argument with you but i am curious about your 
answers to these questions.

with respect, A


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2011)

aedrasteia said:


> Ballen
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ive said before I hold men accountable in this it takes both to get pregnant.  Anywhere I say keep legs closed feel free to change with keeping his zipper up.  

If abortions were illegal Im not sure what the penalty should be for the woman. Since my entire argument on the matter is because I believe the baby is alive and a human then I would think she should be charged with some type of child abuse charge.  In my state we have a charge for child abuse that leads to death or serious bodily harm.   That would fit I think. However I think punishing the woman wont do any good you have to go after the person that performs the abortions.  

 As for the male if you could prove the male helped play a part in the abortion like paying for it or taking her to the clinic you could get an accessory charge or conspiracy charge which would have the same penalty.  

The real way to solve the issue I feel is education, not just about sex but about options like adoption.  
Ive stated before I was adopted and I have met my birth mother.  She has told me many times that she wishes she would have kept me.  She said she felt hopeless at the time but things got better and she sees now she could have made it.

Abortion kind of reminds me of suicide.  When we deal with a suicidal person its their darkest day.  They cant see that tomorrow will be better.  They cant look past the now.  We are taught to try to make them see that there will be a tomorrow and things can get better.  Having a baby and an abortion is similar in my mind.  The mother is in her darkest day she cant see past the gloom and doom she feels of being burdened with a baby.  She cant see that 2 yrs or 3 yrs from now things could be great and she will have her little baby boy with her and a loving family.  However Abortion like suicide is forever once its done it can never be taken back.  Having a baby is tough for everyone no matter if youre ready or not but it gets better.


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Ive said before I hold men accountable in this it takes both to get pregnant.  Anywhere I say keep legs closed feel free to change with keeping his zipper up.
> 
> If abortions were illegal Im not sure what the penalty should be for the woman. Since my entire argument on the matter is because I believe the baby is alive and a human then I would think she should be charged with some type of child abuse charge.  In my state we have a charge for child abuse that leads to death or serious bodily harm.   That would fit I think. However I think punishing the woman wont do any good you have to go after the person that performs the abortions.
> 
> ...




The what ifs.
But the fact is that many of these women who keep their child are not making it, they are condemned to everlasting poverty and their children are condemned to repeat the cycle.
Don't kid yourself: raising a child is not for the faint of heart.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Ive said before I hold men accountable in this it takes both to get pregnant. Anywhere I say keep legs closed feel free to change with keeping his zipper up.
> 
> If abortions were illegal Im not sure what the penalty should be for the woman. Since my entire argument on the matter is because I believe the baby is alive and a human then I would think she should be charged with some type of child abuse charge. In my state we have a charge for child abuse that leads to death or serious bodily harm. That would fit I think. However I think punishing the woman wont do any good you have to go after the person that performs the abortions.
> 
> ...


 

You have thought things out in a very simplified matter, as if it's how things should be in a perfect world and sadly it's not. It would be a good world if no one ever needed an abortion or never committed suicide but in reality things are much bleaker and more horrifying.

Would you make a woman such as those in Bosnia or Africa who had been raped many times to go through with having the baby of her rapists, even those women who were after they were raped by many soldiers had their arms, hands and feet macheted off? You see it's not as simple as in your cosy world where a girl may get pregnant 'accidentally' and want an abortion as a convenience. There are women out in the world for whom carrying that baby would be a monstrous punishment, there are women who face carrying a very seriously ill and disabled child for whom their short lives would be a misery of pain.

You would be making decisions for people that you have no right to make. How would you feel if as a man you were told you would be castrated or made to have a vasectomy because of the beliefs of others or that the state said you had to have these operations done?  It's not different from what you are talking about, your beliefs would have you force women to go through something many could not endure. This is a decision that is best left to each woman.

Yes education from an early age and proper sex education at that would help as would proper adoption procedures. However imposing the will of others on people is never going to be good, this time it would be your views on abortion but you are opening the gates to others views on other subjects being imposed on you.

You also seem to think that all suicides are merely fed up and will come out the other side smiling if they are 'rescued' however this isn't the case. For many ending their life is the only way out of the dark life they are in, for other terminally ill or disabled people choosing when the end of their life comes is something they wish to plan for. Again while any suicide is sad sometimes we have to pause and think that the person has to make the choice for themselves however unpalatable it is for us. somethings are simply none of our business and abortion is one of those subjects. Live as you wish but grant the grace of letting others do the same.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> You have thought things out in a very simplified matter, as if it's how things should be in a perfect world and sadly it's not. It would be a good world if no one ever needed an abortion or never committed suicide but in reality things are much bleaker and more horrifying.
> 
> Would you make a woman such as those in Bosnia or Africa who had been raped many times to go through with having the baby of her rapists, even those women who were after they were raped by many soldiers had their arms, hands and feet macheted off? You see it's not as simple as in your cosy world where a girl may get pregnant 'accidentally' and want an abortion as a convenience. There are women out in the world for whom carrying that baby would be a monstrous punishment, there are women who face carrying a very seriously ill and disabled child for whom their short lives would be a misery of pain.
> 
> ...


 
How many suicidal people do you deal with?  How many have you talked out of it and get to meet them a year later and have them hug you and thank you for saving them and they have never been happier? Im not talking about terminally ill again you like to throw the extreme case to make your argument like rape victims.  Terminally ill suicides make up a small% of the total # of suicides each year.  I also quite frankly dont care if someone kills themselves its your body do what you want to it.  My problem with Abortions is its someone elses body that is being killed.  Its a separate and individual life and deserves to be born.  It does not get the choice its killed because the mother says ok kill it.

Here is a question for you.  A woman gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion.  The babies father finds out before it happens and asks her not to says ill raise my baby you will never have to see it I wont ask for any help from you just have the baby and give it to me.  Is it still the womans choice?  That baby is just as much the fathers?

Another question for you.  You proud that your country wont give a baby a right until its cord is cut.  So if a woman is 8 months pregnant do you think she should be allowed to have an abortion after all the cords not cut its still her body.

You keep bring up Africa and Bosnia I dont care about them they can do what they want I only care about my country and fixing it.  I dont want to control any other countries but mine.  Id be happy if we left every other country alone to include not sending them billions of my hard earned money.  But unfortunately my Govt does not agree with me.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> You would be making decisions for people that you have no right to make. How would you feel if as a man you were told you would be castrated or made to have a vasectomy because of the beliefs of others or that the state said you had to have these operations done? It's not different from what you are talking about, your beliefs would have you force women to go through something many could not endure. This is a decision that is best left to each woman.
> 
> .


 
Nobody is forcing a woman to have an operation.  The woman made a choice to get pregnant.  She knows if I have sex I might get pregnant.  Its of her own free will.  At that point she has now created another human.  At that point that other human has just as much right to be alive.  If she did not want to get pregnant then dont have sex.

By the way before the what about Rape blah blah blah.  Ive already said If you want to allow rape victims to have an abortion then go for it.  I dont agree but atleast the pregnancy was not done of free will.


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Nobody is forcing a woman to have an operation.  _The woman made a choice to get pregnant._  She knows if I have sex I might get pregnant.  Its of her own free will.  At that point she has now created another human.  At that point that other human has just as much right to be alive.  If she did not want to get pregnant then dont have sex.
> 
> By the way before the what about Rape blah blah blah.  Ive already said If you want to allow rape victims to have an abortion then go for it.  I dont agree but atleast the pregnancy was not done of free will.




You are assuming.
You are assuming that people actually know that sex carries the chance of pregnancy.

Sadly too many people still don't know that, even adult ones. Heck, even people who have been married sometime don't grasp the concept. They are either never taught or are really this dense...

However, no matter how much a man tries to think himself into the situation, there is no way one will ever know how it feels to be pregnant. Much like I won't ever be fully able to appreciate a kick to the groin from a man's perspective.
So your proposal is forcing 9 month plus a lifetime on a woman.
Giving you child up for adoption is also not without stigma in our society, regardless of how many couples are waiting for an infant to adopt.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> You are assuming.
> You are assuming that people actually know that sex carries the chance of pregnancy.
> 
> Sadly too many people still don't know that, even adult ones. Heck, even people who have been married sometime don't grasp the concept. They are either never taught or are really this dense...
> ...


 
So now your argument for abortion is because people dont know sex causes babies so they should be allowed to have them?  If they are smart enough to find an abortion doctor they are smart enough to know how they got pregnant.

So do you believe a baby has right?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> How many suicidal people do you deal with? How many have you talked out of it and get to meet them a year later and have them hug you and thank you for saving them and they have never been happier?
> 
> Actually the Armed Forces Psychiatric hospital used to be part of my beat, I regulary used to talk to suicidal people.
> 
> ...


 
Well, you see I do care about other people, I care very much about women who are raped in wartime, I care about the orphans left behind. I do my best and what I can to help. I believe in being humane and charitable, it's how I was brought up, others before self.

I envy you your simplistic view of life, if only it were feasable.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen just because a woman has sex does not mean that she chose to get pregnant. She wanted sex, not pregnancy.


----------



## Stac3y (Jan 3, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> ballen just because a woman has sex does not mean that she chose to get pregnant. She wanted sex, not pregnancy.


 
And birth control is not always effective. 

And every woman who chooses to give birth risks death or permanent injury--especially if that woman is in her teens or over 35. 

You don't just get fat for 9 months and then out pops a baby. Carrying a pregnancy to term has physical effects that don't *ever* go away. 

I might prefer that women avoid abortion, but I would never propose to tell a woman that she must take the *risk* of carrying a pregnancy to term.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 3, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> ballen just because a woman has sex does not mean that she chose to get pregnant. She wanted sex, not pregnancy.


 
One is the natural result of the other. And "wanting" sex is part and parcel the evolutionary imperitive to procreate is it not? And birth is the natural result of the latter. Arguing that being made to carry to term is the equivalent to a forced surgery is plain loony.


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So do you believe a baby has right?



Define 'baby'!

In turn, do you think a woman has rights?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> One is the natural result of the other. And "wanting" sex is part and parcel the evolutionary imperitive to procreate is it not? And birth is the natural result of the latter. Arguing that being made to carry to term is the equivalent to a forced surgery is plain loony.


 
Men though have the same urges from the same imperative but thoughout the ages have been able to walk away from any responsibility of having a child. Women are entitled to have the same choice of whether to have a child or not. I have a feeling though that many anti abortion people are also anti contraception and probably anti sex education in schools. I'd go so far as to say they are probably misogynists and fear women.

Why else all this 'women must keep their legs closed' statements? Men I assume will continue to shag around.


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Men though have the same urges from the same imperative but thoughout the ages have been able to walk away from any responsibility of having a child. Women are entitled to have the same choice of whether to have a child or not. I have a feeling though that many anti abortion people are also anti contraception and probably anti sex education in schools. I'd go so far as to say they are probably misogynists and fear women.
> 
> Why else all this 'women must keep their legs closed' statements? Men I assume will continue to shag around.



To say Amen to that would be pretty bad....

In any case that's the sentiment I get from the 'Pro-Life'ers around here....


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Men though have the same urges from the same imperative but thoughout the ages have been able to walk away from any responsibility of having a child. Women are entitled to have the same choice of whether to have a child or not. I have a feeling though that many anti abortion people are also anti contraception and probably anti sex education in schools. I'd go so far as to say they are probably misogynists and fear women.
> 
> Why else all this 'women must keep their legs closed' statements? Men I assume will continue to shag around.



you have the right to walk away just not the right to kill.  Adoption is walking away.  
I also have no prob with birth control just have a prob with using abortions as birth control. But birth control is not 100% so if you rely on it you must know your at risk and if you don't want to be preg keep your legs closed or as a male keep your zipper up.
I'm anti sex ed to a point in schools because I believe as a parent I should be the one teaching my kids about sex.  However I know most parents won't so I see the need for it to be taught.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> Define 'baby'!
> 
> In turn, do you think a woman has rights?



my def. Of a baby is as soon as you know your preg the baby is already a few weeks old.  So it's alive and has rights to live.

I believe a woman has rights just not the right to kill


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> my def. Of a baby is as soon as you know your preg the baby is already a few weeks old.  So it's alive and has rights to live.
> 
> I believe a woman has rights just not the right to kill




But the fetus has no chance of survival up until I think the 7th month. And then only with huge medical effort.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> But the fetus has no chance of survival up until I think the 7th month. And then only with huge medical effort.



so you would support abortions up to 7 months?


----------



## billc (Jan 3, 2011)

A baby just born has not chance to live without the efforts of the humans around it.  It cannot find food, get water or provide for its basic needs till about 5 years maybe, if then  and only if the adults around it show it how to do those things, since we are not reptiles.  If you take a baby and set it in the woods it will also die.  A human isn't viable on its own until it can get food, water and shelter.  So, if that is the case, abortion till the age of 7?  So even if a baby is a bunch of cells, it is really no different than a baby just born.


----------



## billc (Jan 3, 2011)

Thanks Ballen 0351 you reminded me of something when you wrote "walk away."
Here in the U.S., several states, Illinois for one, has a law which says, any woman can walk up to any fire station or hospital emergency room and set a baby down and simply walk away.  they cannot be stopped, questioned or harrased, and that is it, they are done.  they can just walk away.  It is that simple an act.

Also, since so many people are into sex education in schools, I'll raise you with Anti-abortion education in schools, where girls and boys are taught that when the birth control fails, they can 9-drop-walk.  I use that term based on fire prevention training stop-drop-and roll.  9 months, drop the baby off at an emergency room or fire station, and walk away.  How about that for sex education?

This is not yelling, just highlighting, REMEMBER, THAT 16 YEAR OLD GIRL IS NOT JUST KILLING AN UNVIABLE TISSUE MASS, SHE COULD VERY WELL BE KILLING YOUR FIRST GRAND CHILD.  End of highlighting.  puts it into a different light doesn't it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 3, 2011)

billcihak said:


> A baby just born has not chance to live without the efforts of the humans around it.  It cannot find food, get water or provide for its basic needs till about 5 years maybe, if then  and only if the adults around it show it how to do those things, since we are not reptiles.  If you take a baby and set it in the woods it will also die.  A human isn't viable on its own until it can get food, water and shelter.  So, if that is the case, abortion till the age of 7?  So even if a baby is a bunch of cells, it is really no different than a baby just born.


"The Democrats kill you before you are born, the Republicans kill you after you are born" :ultracool


----------



## billc (Jan 3, 2011)

the parents out there will tell you that raising a child outside the womb takes a great deal of effort as well.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Arguing that being made to carry to term is the equivalent to a forced surgery is plain loony.



Not true. Both are violations of rights, one force you to terminate a pregnancy, and the other force you to continue with a pregnancy. One's as bad as the other.


----------



## billc (Jan 3, 2011)

Actually blade 96, one ends the life of a baby, the other allows a baby to live and experience life, with all its promise and sometimes dissapointment.  I would have to say that that is a big difference.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 3, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Actually blade 96, one ends the life of a baby, the other allows a baby to live and experience life, with all its promise and sometimes dissapointment.  I would have to say that that is a big difference.



it allows a baby to be born but it strips a woman of a choice whether she wanna reproduce or not at this stage of her live. Or not to reproduce at all if she don't want.

btw who says every creature conceived HAS to be born? That NEVER happens in nature. Not even among humans or animals.


----------



## granfire (Jan 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Thanks Ballen 0351 you reminded me of something when you wrote "walk away."
> Here in the U.S., several states, Illinois for one, has a law which says, any woman can walk up to any fire station or hospital emergency room and set a baby down and simply walk away.  they cannot be stopped, questioned or harrased, and that is it, they are done.  they can just walk away.  It is that simple an act.
> 
> Also, since so many people are into sex education in schools, I'll raise you with Anti-abortion education in schools, where girls and boys are taught that when the birth control fails, they can 9-drop-walk.  I use that term based on fire prevention training stop-drop-and roll.  9 months, drop the baby off at an emergency room or fire station, and walk away.  How about that for sex education?
> ...




A guy can walk away. A few seconds of bliss and walk away.
That is not the case for a woman. No matter how it pans out it will never go away. Carry it or not, keep it or not. It does not ever go away. 

And that is something a guy will never _ever_ understand. can't, by the nature of things. 

So Ballen ask if abortion in the 2nd trimester is ok. 
You know what. With the million and one things that happen in life...
You continue a pregnancy to 7 month is a long time. To abort it at that time would be dramatic. Am I against it? I can't. Honest to goodness.
Because:
There are reasons not to keep on.
There are reasons to keep on.
But that is a decision that nobody but the woman can definitive answer. 
Not you, not I, not even the guy who planted the seed.
because having a child - or not having it - is so deeply personal.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

If my daughter decided to have an abortion for any reason she knows I would support here whatever. She and my son have my unconditional love and support, the grandchild argument doesn't come into it at all. Her body, her circumstances, her decision.
As it is she's decided not to have children. Her decision and I'm happy for her, I didn't have her so I could have grandchildren.


----------



## MJS (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> you have the right to walk away just not the right to kill. Adoption is walking away.
> I also have no prob with birth control just have a prob with using abortions as birth control. But birth control is not 100% so if you rely on it you must know your at risk and if you don't want to be preg keep your legs closed or as a male keep your zipper up.
> I'm anti sex ed to a point in schools because I believe as a parent I should be the one teaching my kids about sex. However I know most parents won't so I see the need for it to be taught.


 
Just a few things.

1) Its interesting, because there're many people out there, using bc, and *gasp* are not pregnant. Of course, a very large portion of that success is using it correctly.

2) We've had the sex ed debate on here. Use the search feature...it'll be an interesting read. My thoughts on that...as I said in the sex ed thread, I dont care who teaches it, but someone needs to. Of course, part of that being successful, is the parents, snapping into the current century and understanding that no matter how much they wanna think that little Suzie or Joey wont have sex...newsflash...they probably will, if they aren't already. But for those parents that refuse to teach it, well, I wonder what those parents will do when their kid gets pregnant or gets someone else pregnant.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> A guy can walk away. A few seconds of bliss and walk away.
> That is not the case for a woman. No matter how it pans out it will never go away. Carry it or not, keep it or not. It does not ever go away.
> 
> And that is something a guy will never _ever_ understand. can't, by the nature of things.
> ...




so you feel the baby has no rights ever?  Why stop at abortions then I I lose my job I won't be able to support my kids should I be able to I'll a few off to make my life easier?  A 7 month old can be born and live so what's the diff


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

MJS said:


> Just a few things.
> 
> 1) Its interesting, because there're many people out there, using bc, and *gasp* are not pregnant. Of course, a very large portion of that success is using it correctly.
> 
> 2) We've had the sex ed debate on here. Use the search feature...it'll be an interesting read. My thoughts on that...as I said in the sex ed thread, I dont care who teaches it, but someone needs to. Of course, part of that being successful, is the parents, snapping into the current century and understanding that no matter how much they wanna think that little Suzie or Joey wont have sex...newsflash...they probably will, if they aren't already. But for those parents that refuse to teach it, well, I wonder what those parents will do when their kid gets pregnant or gets someone else pregnant.



I'm not sure what your trying to say here.  I said the same thing you just did.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> so you feel the baby has no rights ever? *Why stop at abortions then I I lose my job I won't be able to support my kids should I be able to I'll a* *few off* to make my life easier? A 7 month old can be born and live so what's the diff


 
Well remember what I said about not understanding what you mean? this is one of those times.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

yeah sorry about that I wasn't ready to post that my dog jump up to tell me hi and hit the enter key.  I've been playing with him and forgot


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> yeah sorry about that I wasn't ready to post that my dog jump up to tell me hi and hit the enter key. I've been playing with him and forgot


 
With me it's the cat lol.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> With me it's the cat lol.


 I wish he was a cat. I have a 130 pound Mastiff that thinks hes a tiny lap dog.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> so you feel the baby has no rights ever? Why stop at abortions then I I lose my job I won't be able to support my kids should I be able to I'll a few off to make my life easier? A 7 month old can be born and live so what's the diff


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


>


 Hes a funny guy. I have never used the church in my argument I dont think its a valid argument to say dont do it because God will get you.  I also agree we need birth control but its not 100% effective.  There is only 1 way to not get pregnant thats 100% effective


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Hes a funny guy. I have never used the church in my argument I dont think its a valid argument to say dont do it because God will get you. I also agree we need birth control but its not 100% effective. There is only 1 way to not get pregnant thats 100% effective


 
Well, that will sort all the rapists, incestuous and abusive males won't it.

If you have the slightest doubt that you might have a severely disabled baby don't have sex. In fact just don't have sex..ever. At least not with a person of the opposite sex, be gay that's the way forward.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Well, that will sort all the rapists, incestuous and abusive males won't it.
> 
> If you have the slightest doubt that you might have a severely disabled baby don't have sex. In fact just don't have sex..ever. At least not with a person of the opposite sex, be gay that's the way forward.


 
So you cant love a disabled baby?  Nobody should have children who are disabled?  I guess since my 2 year old has autism I should just go put a bullet in his head right?

Nobody said dont have sex.  I said if you dont want a baby dont have sex.  If your life sucks so bad that a baby will just destroy your life and the only choice you have is to kill the baby then you should not be having sex.  

Do you believe that every woman that has gotten an abortion has had some great reason for doing it or do you believe some use abortions as a form of birth control?


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So you cant love a disabled baby?  Nobody should have children who are disabled?  I guess since my 2 year old has autism I should just go put a bullet in his head right?
> 
> Nobody said dont have sex.  I said if you dont want a baby dont have sex.  If your life sucks so bad that a baby will just destroy your life and the only choice you have is to kill the baby then you should not be having sex.
> 
> Do you believe that every woman that has gotten an abortion has had some great reason for doing it or do you believe some use abortions as a form of birth control?



Do you believe that people should have the right to sexual freedom? By saying this 'dont have sex' you just take it away. And it is gender related because the women would be more restricted than a man for obvious reasons.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Do you believe that people should have the right to sexual freedom? By saying this 'dont have sex' you just take it away. And it is gender related because the women would be more restricted than a man for obvious reasons.


 
Im not saying you cant have sex.  Have all the sex you want. Just be prepared for the outcome.  If your responsible enough to be having sex you should be responsible enough for the outcome be it a baby, AIDS, or any other results.  If your not ready for that then you should not be doing it.

Every right you have comes with its own responsibility.  If you dont want that responsibility then dont use that right.  I have the right in this country to have a gun but if I dont feel responsible enough to have one I dont get one.  You have the right to sex but sex can cause a baby so if youre not responsible enough for one then dont have it.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Im not saying you cant have sex.  Have all the sex you want. Just be prepared for the outcome.  If your responsible enough to be having sex you should be responsible enough for the outcome be it a baby, AIDS, or any other results.  If your not ready for that then you should not be doing it.
> 
> Every right you have comes with its own responsibility.  If you dont want that responsibility then dont use that right.  I have the right in this country to have a gun but if I dont feel responsible enough to have one I dont get one.  You have the right to sex but sex can cause a baby so if youre not responsible enough for one then dont have it.



That doesnt really make any sense. I had sex, i was responsible enough for sex, after my experince with the unprotected time, I did use protection (even though i was under pressure several times from the evil ex that he was hoping to leave off condom and it wouldnt bother him at all in the least if i did get pregnant, he was a bastard he showed he didnt care very much about me then) but I can't go through a pregnancy or give birth for a ton of different reasons, all of them good ones, mind you, not 'convienience ones' 

People can be responsible enough for sex but not able to do the pregnancy thing. Sex and pregnancy are related or course, but you can be able to have sex but not to go through with any pregnancy.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 4, 2011)

Incorrect decisions are made all the time, look at the current state of the world. 
Correct decisions are made all the time, looks at the current state of the world.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So you cant love a disabled baby? Nobody should have children who are disabled? I guess since my 2 year old has autism I should just go put a bullet in his head right?
> 
> Nobody said dont have sex. I said if you dont want a baby dont have sex. If your life sucks so bad that a baby will just destroy your life and the only choice you have is to kill the baby then you should not be having sex.
> 
> Do you believe that every woman that has gotten an abortion has had some great reason for doing it or do you believe some use abortions as a form of birth control?


 
Now you are being ridiculous and actually quite nasty, oh and not a little hysterical.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> That doesnt really make any sense. I had sex, i was responsible enough for sex, after my experince with the unprotected time, I did use protection (even though i was under pressure several times from the evil ex that he was hoping to leave off condom and it wouldnt bother him at all in the least if i did get pregnant, he was a bastard he showed he didnt care very much about me then) but I can't go through a pregnancy or give birth for a ton of different reasons, all of them good ones, mind you, not 'convienience ones'
> 
> People can be responsible enough for sex but not able to do the pregnancy thing. Sex and pregnancy are related or course, but you can be able to have sex but not to go through with any pregnancy.


 
If your not responsible enough for the out come your not responsible enough for the act.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Now you are being ridiculous and actually quite nasty, oh and not a little hysterical.


 How?  You said if you find out your baby is going to have a disability then it should be aborted.  I disagree and so would the Hundreds of thousands of other parents of special needs children.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> If your not responsible enough for the out come your not responsible enough for the act.


 
I think you may have missed the point here and I think you may well owe Blade an apology for insulting her.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I think you may have missed the point here and I think you may well owe Blade an apology for insulting her.


 
I didnt insult anyone.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I didnt insult anyone.


 
Please reread her post carefully.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

I didnt miss the point I just disagree with it.
Just because your able to do something does not mean you should.
Thats like saying well im 21 I can drink well not all 21 yrs olds are responsible enough to drink.  Or driving not all 16 yr olds should be driving.  Just like not all 20 yrs olds should be having sex.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Please reread her post carefully.


 I reread it still dont see where I was insulting her.

If she was insulted it was not my intent.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> How? You said if you find out your baby is going to have a disability then it should be aborted. I disagree and so would the Hundreds of thousands of other parents of special needs children.


 

And not everybody is willing and/or able to care for a disabled child. You would prefer that such a child be brought to term and then languish in foster homes, or in an institution?

Your black and white, holier than thou attitude is rather childish and insulting.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

Ballen I think the problem is that you have no empathy at all and can't put yourself in anyone else positition to understand how they feel. It's all black and white to you, no shades of grey at all. You can't read Blade's post and see any pain, you don't understand what she is saying.
I suspect it's a men thing hence your views being so fixed.


----------



## MJS (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not sure what your trying to say here. I said the same thing you just did.


 
Sorry, let me be a bit more clear...

1) For the most part, you and I are on the same page.  Difference being, I'm not as anti abortion as you are.  

2) I made the comment about birth control, because you said it wasn't 100% and I said that there're people out there who are using it and they're not pregnant.  I simply stated that its all how its used.  

3) I feel that sex ed is important, you said you're anti sex ed to a point.  We agree that a parent should take on that task, I was simply stating the fact that there're parents out there that dont teach it, therefore, someone should.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> And not everybody is willing and/or able to care for a disabled child. You would prefer that such a child be brought to term and then languish in foster homes, or in an institution?
> 
> Your black and white, holier than thou attitude is rather childish and insulting.


 
I find your attitude that its ok to kill an innocent baby is revolting. I guess where even except I dont have the blood of dead babies on my hands


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Ballen I think the problem is that you have no empathy at all and can't put yourself in anyone else positition to understand how they feel. It's all black and white to you, no shades of grey at all. You can't read Blade's post and see any pain, you don't understand what she is saying.
> I suspect it's a men thing hence your views being so fixed.


 
I have more empathy than you. Im the one NOT trying to kill babies remember


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

MJS said:


> Sorry, let me be a bit more clear...
> 
> 1) For the most part, you and I are on the same page. Difference being, I'm not as anti abortion as you are.
> 
> ...


 
 Im not anti-sex ed Im glad its taught.  In a perfect world it should be left up to parents but I know they wont do it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I have more empathy than you. Im the one NOT trying to kill babies remember


 

Oh boy now there's an accusation and a half.

and there ladies and gentlemen we have the crux of the matter, when one doesn't understand how people feel, when one is floundering in the morass of self righteousness and can't find the way out, the best thing to do is attack the person you disagree with, you make emotive statements accusing people of trying to murder innocent babies, you state that they want disabled children dead and children put down like unwanted pets. Demonise that which you don't understand, stand high on your ivory tower ignoring the pain and suffering of others because all that matters in the end is that you can look yourself in the mirror and say 'I am right'. 

Well, matey boy, that's a load of bollocks.


----------



## MJS (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Im not anti-sex ed Im glad its taught. In a perfect world it should be left up to parents but I know they wont do it.


 
I was just going on what you said here.  But, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.  No biggie.  Anyways, as I said, I think for the most part, we're on the same page.  

It may've been you, but in another post, I saw someone say that something along the lines of adoption vs abortion, being taught in the schools as well, so that kids will know there're other options.  Yeah, I can agree with that.  I think the education as a whole, should encompass alot more than what it does.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 4, 2011)

wow crazy thread.
I think its obvious that this conversaiton is so personal for so many different reasons that it seems almost impossible for anyone to agree.

It reminds me of the old saying a conservative is a liberal who has been robbed, and a liberal is a conservative who has been thrown in jail.

only this is exploded into the most extreme degree.

I am not against abortion, but It does appear to me that way to many people have become nonchalant about it.
I would so much rather provide easy long term contraception for high risk people..
its one thing I would not mind my taxes going for.. they have those all kidns of solutions from 1 year to permanent solutions and everything in between. I think it would be in everyones best interest to provide these options for free in areas that statistically show a high rate of unwanted pregnancies, and high rates of single mother, and teen mother births.

I am curious how well sex education works to be honest. I think that knowledge is great, but I have never seen any figures that shows that sex education has prevented teen sex, or unwanted pregnances, as opposed to increasing a kids curiosity.
I know my kids will have the talk from my wife and I long before its an option in school.
I think that parental involvement is way more important then sex education by itself. I think the two combined are probably way more successful, but once again I have never seen any studies done on it.

I personally do not believe in the value of human life simply because its alive. Rather I believe in the value of human life for what it does. I have no problem with the death penalty, and believe it is vastly underused in our society. I do however think that Abortions are vastly overused, and while there are definitely many scenarios that I would not have a problem with someone getting an abortion, I think that there are way to many options to prevent it from becoming a problem in the first place.
Like was mentioned earlier I would be willing to bet that most people understand that having sex, even with temporary birth control can lead to pregnancy, and are just to ignorant to make a wise choice, or to selfish to make a wise choice in regards to their long term options in life, hell regardless of the risk of pregnancy consider the sexually transmitted diseases and illnesses that can be passed. Its the ignorance of youth, and it really is not a good argument for explaining abortions ad nauseum. In most aspects of our society ignorance is no defense, yet here it seems to be used often as a common defense..
/shrug

its a touchy subject because its life or death, and so many people have a directsay simply because someone made a life or death situation.. I can fault anyones thoughts one way or the other.


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

It was my idea to teach adoption in schools as well as what I termed 9-drop-walk, where it is only 9 months to have the baby, drop the baby at any local fire station or hospital emergency room then walk away.  Going the adoption route or dropping the baby off at the E.R. is less traumatic than an abortion.  It also has the added benefit of making the womans first wanted baby a happy occasion as opposed to remebering the first baby that was aborted.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> It was my idea to teach adoption in schools as well as what I termed 9-drop-walk, where it is only 9 months to have the baby, drop the baby at any local fire station or hospital emergency room then walk away. Going the adoption route or dropping the baby off at the E.R. is less traumatic than an abortion. It also has the added benefit of making the womans first wanted baby a happy occasion as opposed to remebering the first baby that was aborted.


 

You have a funny idea of women. Women who have given up their children for adoption have spent years of pain and misery wondering what their child is doing, they don't just give birth and be able to forget all about the baby you know. Separating a mother from her new born can be agonising.

I agree adoption is a very good solution but it's not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. I've seen children who've been adopted by brilliant families but still wonder why they were abandoned by their birth mother, some mothers who gave their babies up regretted it all their lives.

Push the adoption option by all means but don't make out it's as simple as giving birth then just handing it over, it isn't.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Oh boy now there's an accusation and a half.
> 
> and there ladies and gentlemen we have the crux of the matter, when one doesn't understand how people feel, when one is floundering in the morass of self righteousness and can't find the way out, the best thing to do is attack the person you disagree with, you make emotive statements accusing people of trying to murder innocent babies, you state that they want disabled children dead and children put down like unwanted pets. Demonise that which you don't understand, stand high on your ivory tower ignoring the pain and suffering of others because all that matters in the end is that you can look yourself in the mirror and say 'I am right'.
> 
> Well, matey boy, that's a load of bollocks.


 How much pain and suffering is the baby going thru as its sucked out and chopped up?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I would so much rather provide easy long term contraception for high risk people..
> its one thing I would not mind my taxes going for.. they have those all kidns of solutions from 1 year to permanent solutions and everything in between. I think it would be in everyones best interest to provide these options for free in areas that statistically show a high rate of unwanted pregnancies, and high rates of single mother, and teen mother births.


 I agree with that.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> You have a funny idea of women. Women who have given up their children for adoption have spent years of pain and misery wondering what their child is doing, they don't just give birth and be able to forget all about the baby you know. Separating a mother from her new born can be agonising.
> 
> I agree adoption is a very good solution but it's not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. I've seen children who've been adopted by brilliant families but still wonder why they were abandoned by their birth mother, some mothers who gave their babies up regretted it all their lives.
> 
> Push the adoption option by all means but don't make out it's as simple as giving birth then just handing it over, it isn't.


 
So why is it so hard for a woman to give an unwanted baby away for adoption but they have no problems walking into a clinic and having an abortion?

We have a clinic about 6 blocks from my office.  The parking lot is packed 6 days a week.  All day long I see woman in and out.  Now Im sure they do other things there besides abortions like provide birth control but Ive been on the abortion side waiting room to remove anti-abortion protesters about 3 times and Ive seen as many as 25 woman at a time in there.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> How much pain and suffering is the baby going thru as its sucked out and chopped up?


 
As I said...post up emotive statements designed to make people who want women to have the choice look like bad people. 

In this country the NHS makes sure the woman understands what will happen, it's explained to her step by step, the decision however is hers, it's her conscience, her body, her health. It's not your decision what a woman should do, I respect that you feel strongly about this but you should stop trying to paint those of us who feel it's up to the woman as inhuman. 

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/How-is-it-performed.aspx

The choices I make for myself I wouldn't force on anyone else and as I haven't told you what my choice would be you don't know. I would want every child to be a wanted child in a happy home but I accept that this isn't going to happen, I respect the fact that people must make their own choices. I agree that adoption should be made easier, it's very hard here to adopt and I agree with making sure there's information available on the alternatives to abortion because I believe in a woman being able to chose. Whatever they chose however is for them alone to decide. Medical staff who believe abortion is wrong excuse themselves from such operations, they are given respect for this as they respect their colleagues who do perform abortions. It's a matter of private belief.

Sex education in the Netherlands is started at a very early age in schools, they have the lowest rate of unplanned teenage pregnancies and the highest average age at which teenagers lose their virginity..19 so follow their lead and stop being such a prudish country.
http://www.teachers.tv/videos/holland-sex-education


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So why is it so hard for a woman to give an unwanted baby away for adoption but they have no problems walking into a clinic and having an abortion?
> 
> Think about that one.
> 
> ...


 

I really cannot believe you are that naive about child birth, pregnancies etc, or even about women in general. Talk about men are from Mars!


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> If your not responsible enough for the out come your not responsible enough for the act.



Not true in the least when it comes to sex and pregnancy. I'm responsible enough for sex but not for a pregnancy.



ballen0351 said:


> I didnt miss the point I just disagree with it.
> Just because your able to do something does not mean you should.
> Thats like saying well im 21 I can drink well not all 21 yrs olds are responsible enough to drink.  Or driving not all 16 yr olds should be driving.  Just like not all 20 yrs olds should be having sex.



Never said all 20 year olds should have sex. or every single person in the world for that matter.



ballen0351 said:


> I guess where even except I dont have the blood of dead babies on my hands



Neither does he. as far as i know he doesnt give abortions.



Tez3 said:


> You have a funny idea of women. Women who have given up their children for adoption have spent years of pain and misery wondering what their child is doing, they don't just give birth and be able to forget all about the baby you know. Separating a mother from her new born can be agonising.
> 
> I agree adoption is a very good solution but it's not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. I've seen children who've been adopted by brilliant families but still wonder why they were abandoned by their birth mother, some mothers who gave their babies up regretted it all their lives.
> 
> Push the adoption option by all means but don't make out it's as simple as giving birth then just handing it over, it isn't.



I know tez, I read stories of people who were adopted by good families but lived their whole lives in pain knowing their parents didnt want them. My own friend lives well with her adopted family but she has pain too because her biological father doesnt want her or love her (her biological mother is dead)  I also read about bad foster homes and abuse that goes on there. I read about instability and i read about parents looking for their children they gave up and never heard about them again and live in pain. I heard of children who cant find their biological parents. And most children dont get adopted.  There are no guarantees and I just wrote here some of the reasons why I couldnt give up a baby for adoption.

There are worse things in this world than the few mins a fetus is being 'chopped up' as ballen called it.  How abouta lifetime of pain vs being chopped up for just a few mins....Hmmmm, not hard to know what I'd pick.

I don't think just wanting all babies to be born means a person cares about life. Quality of life is even more important, I think, than just being born and able to breathe.

Tez I am not sure btw if Bill and Ball (the twins) are really this narrowminded judgemental and insulting (like assuming my friend never told about her abortion because she knows its wrong, nottrue btw) or if they are just so passionate about their beliefs when it comes to this they sometimes dont think before they write and thats the way it comes out. (see I'm trying not to judge.)


----------



## MJS (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So why is it so hard for a woman to give an unwanted baby away for adoption but they have no problems walking into a clinic and having an abortion?


 
Out of curiosity, how do you know that its not just as difficult for the female to have an abortion?  Obviously, I'm not a female, but I highly doubt that going thru that procedure is a picnic.



> We have a clinic about 6 blocks from my office. The parking lot is packed 6 days a week. All day long I see woman in and out. Now Im sure they do other things there besides abortions like provide birth control but Ive been on the abortion side waiting room to remove anti-abortion protesters about 3 times and Ive seen as many as 25 woman at a time in there.


 
Out of curiosity, why are you removing the protesters?  Reading your posts, I get the impression that you're against abortion, so if thats the case, I figured you wouldn't mind them there, spreading the words that you're spreading here.  

And those 25 women are probably part of the 95% that i listed in my stats earlier.  But I suppose theres nothing that can be done about that, unless some law was passed, stating that females couldn't have an abortion as a means of bc, because they didn't use any other form.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 4, 2011)

I cant remember where I saw it, but I was recently listening to or reading about how research into memory has led to some advancements that will enable for people to have memories erased. I know that this is not on topic so to speak, but one of the uses for it had to do with pregnancies, abortions, and adoptions. Regardless of the ethical arguments of this, if it were to come into effect do you think it would change up what people do in regards to abortions or adoptions? 
The research is extremely interesting and was discussed as being an option to treat PTSD, Traumatic episodes, Prisoners, etc... I think its a mess in regards to the arguments, but it does bring a new and interesting aspect to the conversation.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 4, 2011)

MJS said:


> Out of curiosity, why are you removing the protesters? Reading your posts, I get the impression that you're against abortion, so if thats the case, I figured you wouldn't mind them there, spreading the words that you're spreading here.


 
I get the impression from some of his posts that he is either in law enforcement, or some type of security business.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 4, 2011)

Are we really debating that abortion could possibly be better than adoption???

I don't know where this is going, but alive is 99.9999% always going to be better than DEAD where I come from. At least for the creature we are deciding to kill or not.



> There are worse things in this world than the few mins a fetus is being 'chopped up' as ballen called it. How abouta lifetime of pain vs being chopped up for just a few mins....Hmmmm, not hard to know what I'd pick



WTF?!?!?


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

I know it is difficult to get an abortion, that is why they should have adoption clinics instead of abortion clinics. Remember, you can just put a child in front of a fire station here, no questions, no harrassement and that child is on its way, alive. If a woman is healthy and the baby is healthy, there is no real need for an abortion. 9 months here is the length of a school year. 

Everyone on the side opposite of mine keeps telling me and my team that we can't know what it is like to be pregnant or make the choice for an abortion. Yet, they seem to know that a baby would rather be aborted than given a chance at an adoptive home, or even foster care. How do you know what that baby wants? Perhaps we should err on the side of giving that baby a chance to make up its own mind? Hmmmm?

On the liberal pacifism post I started we have wandered into a small discussion of who is happier and who is more violent.  Hmmm?  Does our current conversation bear any relevance to that?  Which side tends to support the life of a baby, which side tends toward aborting(killing) the baby, even if it is healthy and viable.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 4, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I find your attitude that its ok to kill an innocent baby is revolting. I guess where even except I dont have the blood of dead babies on my hands


 

You have absolutely no clue of my life experiences and my POV.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Are we really debating that abortion could possibly be better than adoption???
> 
> I don't know where this is going, but alive is 99.9999% always going to be better than DEAD where I come from. At least for the creature we are deciding to kill or not.
> 
> ...


 
WTF exactly... I am not sure who said that obviously someone I have on ignore for a very good reason, but that is one of the most disgusting, insane, insensitive, ignorant comments I have ever read.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Are we really debating that abortion could possibly be better than adoption???
> 
> I don't know where this is going, but alive is 99.9999% always going to be better than DEAD where I come from. At least for the creature we are deciding to kill or not.



You know this how? What makes you think being alive is pretty much 100 percent better than being dead? You talk about where you come from, maybe you live in a paradise, I guess.


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

This is what I am pointing to Tez, your side, the baby will possibly grow up in a horrible place, so abortion might not be a bad idea after all, our side, though possible they may have a tragic life, there is at least a chance for a better life. Optimism vs. pessimism. Who is Who?


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

Blade 96, you sound like a pessimist to me.  That is too bad.  Life can really suck, but there can always be change for the better.  Hang on, and life may change for you.  I have seen it happen.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 4, 2011)

I have seen more death and suffering than I care to recall. Life is something worth fighting for till death either wins or looses.

This minimization of the value of a life is disturbing. If someone wants to think that THEIR life is worse than being dead than I pity them. But if someone thinks for a minute that they can make that decision for someone else....than I repeat....WTF!?!?


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 4, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> WTF exactly... I am not sure who said that obviously someone I have on ignore for a very good reason, but that is one of the most disgusting, insane, insensitive, ignorant comments I have ever read.



Someone doesn't like me. Oh well. I still believe that death in cases is better than life. If we didnt believe that why would we put down our pets when they lose the good quality of life?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 4, 2011)

Animals are not human. And putting down the suffering animal is MILES away from a "Well some adopted kids are worse off than the aborted" argument....


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

Dogs and cats are not people, to begin with.  Also, they don't have understanding the way humans do.  We also try to keep them alive as long as possible even when they are ill.  Usually when they stop eating, it is time to let them go.


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

You summed it up better than I did Archangel.  Thanks.


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

Multiple lightyears at a minimum, away from that.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Blade 96, you sound like a pessimist to me.  That is too bad.  Life can really suck, but there can always be change for the better.  Hang on, and life may change for you.  I have seen it happen.



I hope so.  Thanks, Bill.  But my beliefs aren't from being a pessimist though. 



Archangel M said:


> Animals are not human. And putting down the suffering animal is MILES away from a "Well some adopted kids are worse off than the aborted" argument....



well people suffer too. and why must people be kept alive at all costs just because they are human, and the animals get to escape through death? I even believe in euthanasia in cases, to me it is better than if the animals spend all their lives in little cages.

Quality of life is just as important. Every man dies, but not every man really lives. as the movie quote goes. Its true. 

Here's a question. If we have to make sure every baby is born, then we force themother to give up control of her body and whether she'll reproduce or not. If she has an abortion, she tramps on the babies rights, as bill and ball say.

So what do we do, in a non perfect world, to make sure every right is respected? and to make sure as many people as possible has a good quality of life, just just alive cause someone said they had to be born?


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

Technically it is not her body that we are concerned with but the body of the baby inside of the mother, two distinct entities.  The baby is not one of her limbs and it is not an organ.  At a certain point it can be removed with no lasting harm, in most cases.


----------



## billc (Jan 4, 2011)

The least harm is to allow the baby to be born.  The most harm is killing the baby.  that is a pretty good place to start.  I have to go, nighty night.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Technically it is not her body that we are concerned with but the body of the baby inside of the mother, two distinct entities.  The baby is not one of her limbs and it is not an organ.  At a certain point it can be removed with no lasting harm, in most cases.



  But it is inside her body, so its not really separate as we define the term. Should people have the right to use other people bodies, without their consent?

I still dont believe being alive is always better than death. If that makes me a horrible person, well I guess I'm a horrible person.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The least harm is to allow the baby to be born.  The most harm is killing the baby.  that is a pretty good place to start.  I have to go, nighty night.



Not true. Everything I ever read suggest that an abortion at a reputable hospital with very good doctors is safer than childbirth. What made you think childbirth causes the least harm?

I would however like to know what did I do to luckykboxer to make him put me on his ignore list. I never ignore anyone. Far as I feel, everyone has an opinion worth reading, even if i dont agree with it, and no one here ever did anything to me, so I don't have anyone on an ignore list.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 4, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Not true. Everything I ever read suggest that an abortion at a reputable hospital with very good doctors is safer than childbirth. What made you think childbirth causes the least harm?
> 
> I would however like to know what did I do to luckykboxer to make him put me on his ignore list. I never ignore anyone. Far as I feel, everyone has an opinion worth reading, even if i dont agree with it, and no one here ever did anything to me, so I don't have anyone on an ignore list.


 
your not on my ignore list.
I saw no name on the quote that was listed and figured it was because someone was on my ignore list, I have a couple people there.
somehow I missed that comment in your previous post.. I still think its a horrible comment and feeling that you think someone is better off dead then alive, if you feel that way about yourself I could care less, but to think that about another person is just sick.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 4, 2011)

My mother has been in a home since my father died, nearly 8 years ago. She's down to about 70lbs. Sleeps 20+ hours a day. When she's awake, mentally, she's mostly not there. That is not life. 

As part of the daily morning service, we say a prayer for the sick. My mother's name was a fixture on the list. A few years ago, I asked the Rabbi to remove her name. When he asked if she was better, all I could say was that she was not, but to keep praying for her to get better may simply help prolong something cruel.

So no, life is not always better.


----------



## granfire (Jan 4, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> My mother has been in a home since my father died, nearly 8 years ago. She's down to about 70lbs. Sleeps 20+ hours a day. When she's awake, mentally, she's mostly not there. That is not life.
> 
> As part of the daily morning service, we say a prayer for the sick. My mother's name was a fixture on the list. A few years ago, I asked the Rabbi to remove her name. When he asked if she was better, all I could say was that she was not, but to keep praying for her to get better may simply help prolong something cruel.
> 
> So no, life is not always better.



Nothing more cruel than having to watch the withering shell of a formerly strong individual linger for years.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> your not on my ignore list.
> I saw no name on the quote that was listed and figured it was because someone was on my ignore list, I have a couple people there.
> somehow I missed that comment in your previous post.. I still think its a horrible comment and feeling that you think someone is better off dead then alive, if you feel that way about yourself I could care less, but to think that about another person is just sick.



Thats ok. I read your comment and where it said it was probably someone on your ignore list and I assumed it was me since i had made the comment.

As for the comment, its ok. We're all of different beliefs and backgrounds and nationalities, its almost inevidable we will offend each other with beliefs and comments from time to time. I believe I am not worth more than my cat. I dont believe humans are more important/valuable than animals. Others might find that offensive and it might be a Wtf comment to them.  I think whats important is how we can handle it.  



CanuckMA said:


> My mother has been in a home since my father died, nearly 8 years ago. She's down to about 70lbs. Sleeps 20+ hours a day. When she's awake, mentally, she's mostly not there. That is not life.
> 
> As part of the daily morning service, we say a prayer for the sick. My mother's name was a fixture on the list. A few years ago, I asked the Rabbi to remove her name. When he asked if she was better, all I could say was that she was not, but to keep praying for her to get better may simply help prolong something cruel.
> 
> So no, life is not always better.



same with my bro's gf's mother. She had alzheimers and her mind had been totally erased.  She just lay in a bed and didnt know anyone not even her own family.  Naw. Not living. Just existing. She finally died. I think it was a blessing.

I have my belief like that, but I do understand why people would find it offensive. I also understand why some don't like the idea of abortions. They are not pretty. In a better world we should have no need for any of it.Unfortunately, we don't have that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Blade, it's me that's on his list, he sent me a PM called me names saying I was a piece of work and said he was putting me on ignore. Of course if I'm quoted he still has to read it. The posts that annoyed him so much were where I was supportrf an autistic lad on here.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

I knew that the "what about my sick grandmother" stories would arise and it doen't change what I said. My grandmother died a slow death of cancer too. And if I had a magic wand that could have cured her and granted her more life I would have waved it. Why? Because life is better than death.

I had a friend die of cancer too young in 2010. He went fighting all the way. If at some point he thought that his suffering was too much to bear and wanted to end it I would have respected that because it was HIS DECISION. I didn't decide that HIS LIFE wasn't better than death and sneak into his room and "chop him up and vaccum him out".

Anyway. The argument about aborting a "non-viable" or severely sick fetus is a very small segment of this issue. By and large the "suffering" is about the inconvience of being pregnant.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I knew that the "what about my sick grandmother" stories would arise and it doen't change what I said. My grandmother died a slow death of cancer too. And if I had a magic wand that could have cured her and granted her more life I would have waved it. Why? Because life is better than death.
> 
> I had a friend die of cancer too young in 2010. He went fighting all the way. If at some point he thought that his suffering was too much to bear and wanted to end it I would have respected that because it was HIS DECISION. I didn't decide that HIS LIFE wasn't better than death and sneak into his room and "chop him up and vaccum him out".
> 
> Anyway. The argument about aborting a "non-viable" or severely sick fetus is a very small segment of this issue. By and large the "suffering" is about the inconvience of being pregnant.


 
The thing is though is that it's a decision only the woman who is pregnant can take. No one can know what it's like for that person to be pregnant. If as you say abortions are being done for convenience then far more education is needed to stop women getting pregnant in the first place, that's the best possible solution. All I can say is education, education, education, closely followed by availablility of contraception. You need a national campaign of sex education, it affects everyone if you have young unmarried women getting pregnant so never mind the parents, teach it in schools and teach it early. Make it a legitimate school subject without religious teachings, make it a science subject, show kids how to use contraception and teach boys it's their responsibility too. 
Make it easier for girls to either keep their babies or have them adopted if they are unwanted, make sure the girls have support, it's no good banning abortions and then leaving the girls to hang out to dry. 

Give women the choice and support them either way, it's their bodies after all. It's a private choice not a public one, each will choose what their conscience tells them to. We are all owed that.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

I don't buy the "her body" argument. A baby is an individual living being. When did I change from being the equivalent of my mothers spleen? Life is not a matter of being attached to an umbilical cord or not.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

MJS said:


> Out of curiosity, how do you know that its not just as difficult for the female to have an abortion? Obviously, I'm not a female, but I highly doubt that going thru that procedure is a picnic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I dont think its hard for them at all Ive been in the clincs Ive seen them laughing at the protesters, chatting on cell phones.  I know of woman that have had 2 or 3 or more abortions.  If its that hard on them they dont show it.  Im not saying its not hard for some people but for the ones that use it as a form of birth control it seems quite easy.
 I remove protesters because its my job.  As a law enforcement officer I swore an oath do protect the laws of my state and not to use my personal beliefs to dictate which laws I uphold.  Like it or not I dont get to make that call.  The law is the law.  Ive taken many actions in my job that go against my personal beliefs.  The hardest thing Ive ever done in this job besides taking a mans life was protecting the Westboro Baptist Church as they protested a funeral of 2 little boys that drown in a frozen pond a week earlier.  Same 2 little boys I jumped in that frozen pond to try and save. The boys father was serving in Iraq at the time of the boys death which is why the Westboro Nutballs showed up.  They had some of the most evil signs Ive ever seen but its their 1st amendment right to free speech and I had no choice but to stand guard to protect them.  I had to physically remove one of the dead boys uncles when he tried to attack a protester.  They came a second time to protest the death of an Army Capt.  That died in Iraq but only like 3 protesters showed up so they didnt stay long and it was rather uneventful.

For my friends outside the US who might not know who the Westboro Baptist Church is they are a group of people that travel all over the US attending funerals of troops killed in the wars.  They hold signs that say things like "thank God for dead solders", "God hates America" and they had special signs for the kids funereal one said "your kids died because youre terrorists"  "You and your kids will burn in hell."  They claim that because we allow Gays to have rights and we allow abortion in this country that God in punishing us by killing our troops.  I think they just do it to see what the police will do and they hope we will stop them from protesting so can sue us.  I think its all about money to them but they claim otherwise.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I don't buy the "her body" argument. A baby is an individual living being. When did I change from being the equivalent of my mothers spleen? *Life is* *not a matter of being attached to an umbilical cord or not.[/*quote]
> 
> 
> Under the law here that's precisely what it is, there has been general acceptance here of that definition. Some legal definition is needed because it is a matter of opinion as to when an embryo becomes a baby, you may believe it is a baby from the minute of conception when it's literally only cells, others believe it's when the mother is six months or more into pregnancy, others still not until the baby is born. Some cultures believe it's not a baby until several weeks after its been born.
> As I said it's each to their conscience and beliefs.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

Blade96 said:


> Someone doesn't like me. Oh well. I still believe that death in cases is better than life. If we didnt believe that why would we put down our pets when they lose the good quality of life?


 
 I have seen some of the Worst living conditions in the world when I was in the Marines I was sent to Haiti for 3 months.  Not the Haiti thats just had billions of dollars sent to them but 15 years ago Haiti.  You would be hard pressed to find a more poor country.  I saw mothers with 5 and 6 kids living in small roadside shacks and have not eaten in days and you know what I saw.  Even in all that despair and gloom and doom I saw kids playing, smiling, singing songs.  Im sure their life is worse than any life in a great country like Canada or the US or the UK. So this argument about having a bad life when living in some of the top 10 countries in the world just does not hold water.  I can go into some of the poorest neighborhood in Washington Dc an you know what most houses have TV, heat, kitchens, and food.  If I go into a Govt housing project now they are In the process of giving everyone the Internet, free Cell phones, Air conditioning, most have cars, Dishwashers, so the argument that life is so bad just dont work.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> My mother has been in a home since my father died, nearly 8 years ago. She's down to about 70lbs. Sleeps 20+ hours a day. When she's awake, mentally, she's mostly not there. That is not life.
> 
> As part of the daily morning service, we say a prayer for the sick. My mother's name was a fixture on the list. A few years ago, I asked the Rabbi to remove her name. When he asked if she was better, all I could say was that she was not, but to keep praying for her to get better may simply help prolong something cruel.
> 
> So no, life is not always better.


 
But she had a chance to live her life.  She had kids, a husband, people that loved her.  Why not give that same chance to others?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

granfire said:


> Nothing more cruel than having to watch the withering shell of a formerly strong individual linger for years.


 So now you want to kill old people and babies? Hunting season on anyone under 9 months and over 70 right?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So now you want to kill old people and babies? Hunting season on anyone under 9 months and over 70 right?


 
There are times where euthanasia is the better option. My mother is not living, she's merely existing. My sisters and I signed the stop treatment order for my father. It was not an easy decision, but at some point we have to realize that just because we can keep somebody alive does not mean we should.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

It's a fallacy that prosperity means you have a good life and one that Americans have been peddling for years to the rest of us. Having it all doesn't make for happiness. There are still many very unhappy people who have all the trappings of a prosperous life. Again it's very simplistic to say you have money, food and a television therefore you must be happy. There are still awful things going on in peoples lives even if they have large bank balances.

Mental and physical illnesses can wreak havoc in families, bullying, addictions, lack of self esteem, controlling personalities, domestic abuse, child abuse, incest, paedophilia, lack of confidence, autistic conditions, disabilities, divorces and step parents etc etc can all be reasons why someone's life may be miserable despite having the trappings of wealth or even just moderate comfort.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It's a fallacy that prosperity means you have a good life and one that Americans have been peddling for years to the rest of us. Having it all doesn't make for happiness. There are still many very unhappy people who have all the trappings of a prosperous life. Again it's very simplistic to say you have money, food and a television therefore you must be happy. There are still awful things going on in peoples lives even if they have large bank balances.
> 
> Mental and physical illnesses can wreak havoc in families, bullying, addictions, lack of self esteem, controlling personalities, domestic abuse, child abuse, incest, paedophilia, lack of confidence, autistic conditions, disabilities, divorces and step parents etc etc can all be reasons why someone's life may be miserable despite having the trappings of wealth or even just moderate comfort.


And being poor does not make you have a bad life either.

Mental and physical illnesses can wreak havoc in families, bullying, addictions, lack of self esteem, controlling personalities, domestic abuse, child abuse, incest, paedophilia, lack of confidence, autistic conditions, disabilities, divorces and step parents etc etc All these things to an extent are temporary and can change over a lifetime. To say I need to kill a abay because my boyfriend beats me and Im poor is not to say 6 months from now youll meet a good man that wont beat you and will support you to get an education and make something of yourself. You never know what tomorrow brings why not give the baby the benefit of the doubt?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

CanuckMA said:


> There are times where euthanasia is the better option. My mother is not living, she's merely existing. My sisters and I signed the stop treatment order for my father. It was not an easy decision, but at some point we have to realize that just because we can keep somebody alive does not mean we should.


 But should it be your decision?  Just because your tired of going to vist dear old mommy in the home.  Im not against someone killing themselves its their life go for it.  Im not against stop treatment orders but to go to the step of euthanasia without the consent of the person being killed is wrong.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> And being poor does not make you have a bad life either.
> 
> Mental and physical illnesses can wreak havoc in families, bullying, addictions, lack of self esteem, controlling personalities, domestic abuse, child abuse, incest, paedophilia, lack of confidence, autistic conditions, disabilities, divorces and step parents etc etc All these things to an extent are temporary and can change over a lifetime. To say I need to kill a abay because my boyfriend beats me and Im poor is not to say 6 minths from now youll meet a good man that wont beat you and will support you to get an education and make something of yourself. You never know what tomorrow brings why not give the baby the benefit of the doubt?


 

I have never advocated having abortions because you are poor, you picked that subject. I'm amazed however that you think so many of these situations are merely temporary and don't affect people in the long run. You have an extreme case of false optomism.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

And I think that many of you are full of needless pessimism and far to quick to accept death as an option.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I have never advocated having abortions because you are poor, you picked that subject. I'm amazed however that you think so many of these situations are merely temporary and don't affect people in the long run. You have an extreme case of false optomism.


 I didnt say they wont affect you mentally but its not worth dying over. There is nothing worth dying over in this world to me except my kids Id gladly lay my life down to save my kids but other than that life is too good.  Even on my worst days I think if my birth mom made it all the way to that clinic that day Id not even be here.  For All the bad Ive seen and done in my life Ive seen just as much good.  For all the dead children Ive pulled out of car, Rape victims Ive interviewed, Bodys Ive stepped over, fights Ive been in, the times Ive been shot at, watched my friend get gunned down 25 yards from me in a training accident, loose several friends in a Helicopter accident.  Ive also had my sons hug me and say "I love you daddy", looked at my wife on our wedding day, Watched my kids be born,  Hung pictures on my desk my daughters colored for me,  Had a person I talked out of blowing his brains out find me a year later to thank me, Found a missing child and reunited her with her family, Had a woman hooked on Heroin for 15 years send me a card stating she been clean for 6 months thanks to me.  So yes maybe I do see the good in alot because I have seen so much bad I choose not to dwell on it. I would not consider it false optomism.


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So now you want to kill old people and babies? Hunting season on anyone under 9 months and over 70 right?



I don't hunt. So why do you jump down my throat?

Maybe you are too young to have seen a much loved person to become a living shell, not even a shadow of themselves. I have seen it twice. And I find it would have been much more merciful and dignified if either woman could have been spared such 'existence'

As to your 'killing babies' kick:

I do understand where you come from. 
But you still fail to see that you will never have the inside knowledge about what it means to be pregnant. 

You approach the problem with tunnel vision. In a perfect world you might be right. But we are not living in Utopia, people are not perfect. 
There are close to 7 billion people on this planet. About half of them female. that makes it to around 3.5 billion different situations on if or why not to have a child or not to.

One of the more popular views in this world, dominated by men, is that the bun is to be carried in the oven, no matter what. But then again, in many parts of the world woman is still regarded as chattel, a lesser being. Burns the male ego to not have a say so about the bun. You think it's sexist, I am sure, but smarter people than myself have analyzed and come to the conclusion that much of the worlds violent problems root in deep hatred for women...when I get a chance I will dig up the source for you.

bill's '9-drop-walk' theory is ridiculous. Truly spoken from the perspective of the absolute ignorant. 

Also, in the perspective of the 'adoption clinic' The problem of those children are not that mother does not want them. Maybe spend some time with the social workers that deal with those who fall through the cracks. Born to women who made all the wrong choices, leaving these little lives with more problems than most people can handle. 

And then there is the little fact that there are next to no adoptive homes for those unwanted babies that have outgrown the cute phase. 

So, unless there is a serious argument and not silly histrionics....


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Your position is yours alone, you cannot make judgemant calls on others lives. A victim of a bully or a paedophile may well believe life isn't worth living as numerous suicides have shown. You can't understand no more than I can what life is like for some people, for many it is a living hell and suicide is the only way out. 
You may have done many things but you are not the only one, many here can say as much if not more than you. It doesn't change how life is for some and why they feel they cannot live any longer or why they feel they cannot bear a child. However you view life and however lucky you are, you have no right to speak for anyone other than yourself.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

granfire said:


> I don't hunt. So why do you jump down my throat?
> 
> Maybe you are too young to have seen a much loved person to become a living shell, not even a shadow of themselves. I have seen it twice. And I find it would have been much more merciful and dignified if either woman could have been spared such 'existence'
> 
> ...


 Didnt jump down your throat just saying what you said in a different way.

And I have seen it.  I watched a former Marine Corps Sgt Major go from a strong stone faced man to a frail shell that needed nurses to change his diaper.  Even with all that its not my place to say he should be put down like a stray cat.  If he decided it was time for him to go I would support him its his life not mine.  

I feel the same about the unborn baby.  Its his life he should make the choice not the mother.  To say times are tough for woman so they should be able to get abortions is just a stupid argument.  #1 if they are that tough maybe they should not be having sex and working on taking care of their problems.  The times are not so tough that they are not able to enjoy life and have sex.
#2 If you actually believe that argument that times are to tough for kids then why stop at the unborn are times not hard for a mother of a 3 year old why can she have the option to kill a baby?  
Its a false argument to say she has a reason and you dont know what it is.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Your position is yours alone, you cannot make judgemant calls on others lives. A victim of a bully or a paedophile may well believe life isn't worth living as numerous suicides have shown. You can't understand no more than I can what life is like for some people, for many it is a living hell and suicide is the only way out.
> You may have done many things but you are not the only one, many here can say as much if not more than you. It doesn't change how life is for some and why they feel they cannot live any longer or why they feel they cannot bear a child. However you view life and however lucky you are, you have no right to speak for anyone other than yourself.


Im not arguing against suicide. Suicide is your choice what choice did the baby have in an abortion?

If you feel your life is too bad to bear a child then dont have sex and you wont have too


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

If this argument is going to deliniate into a "Life Cult" vs "Death Cult"....I am happy with the side I have chosen.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Im not arguing against suicide. Suicide is your choice what choice did the baby have in an abortion?
> 
> If you feel your life is too bad to bear a child then dont have sex and you wont have too


 
It's so simple for you isnt it? There aren't any issues that aren't clear to you, nothing is grey all is black and white ie 'do as I say and everything will be fine'. You aren't open to understanding any woman's point of view. 

With you it's all sick and ill people must be made to live despite their own choices, no one was advocating bumping people off, just saying that sometimes a life can be no life. All women must be made to carry their babies. All unwanted children must be adopted and all women must abstain from sex whether they are given the choice to or not if they don't want a baby. 
As Granfire said there are approx 3.5 billion women in the world do you speak for every single one of them? do they have to obey you too?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It's so simple for you isnt it? There aren't any issues that aren't clear to you, nothing is grey all is black and white ie 'do as I say and everything will be fine'. You aren't open to understanding any woman's point of view.
> 
> With you it's all sick and ill people must be made to live despite their own choices, no one was advocating bumping people off, just saying that sometimes a life can be no life. All women must be made to carry their babies. All unwanted children must be adopted and all women must abstain from sex whether they are given the choice to or not if they don't want a baby.
> As Granfire said there are approx 3.5 billion women in the world do you speak for every single one of them? do they have to obey you too?



life or death is black and white 
I don't speak for any of the trillions of woman I speak for the dead children


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

Comparing terminally ill people who may want to die to aborting babies is a false comparison. It's like comparing suicide to murder.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> But should it be your decision? Just because your tired of going to vist dear old mommy in the home. Im not against someone killing themselves its their life go for it. Im not against stop treatment orders but to go to the step of euthanasia without the consent of the person being killed is wrong.


 

You have no idea what my views on euthanasia. Have a look at previous posts on other threads to get a clue on my background. You may have an idea on my views of people deciding who lives and who dies. 

But there reaches a point where enough is enough. And that point can come when it is not within that person's grasp to end their own life. My mother has seen and experienced unspeakable horrors. Who are you to decide what is best for her?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 5, 2011)

How many times do we have to say it. NOBODY IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT SUICIDE or a person being able to decide THEIR fate.

As a matter of fact we have stated (multiple times) that a person deciding for themselves their fate is not a problem.

But as I said before. If you could make it so would you not make it so that your mother was "cured"? Of course you would because life is better than death. Linking this discussion to abortion where the unborn has the potential for a full, healthy and happy life is starting to become foolish.


----------



## granfire (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Didnt jump down your throat just saying what you said in a different way.
> 
> And I have seen it.  I watched a former Marine Corps Sgt Major go from a strong stone faced man to a frail shell that needed nurses to change his diaper.  Even with all that its not my place to say he should be put down like a stray cat.  If he decided it was time for him to go I would support him its his life not mine.
> 
> ...



Aight, you don't _want_ to see.
And, as many times before, when arguments crumble 'stronger' ones, no matter how asinine, are brought forth.

Where oh where did anybody say 'kill 3yo'. That is such a stupid argument, it baffles the mind.

You don't see the big picture. If you see it at all. 
It takes two to tango. But only one is left holding the bag. 
And for heaven's sake, who, but you compared a broken human being to a stray cat?! 
You know what, a stray cat gets a more dignified end than the old. Having to need a nurse is one thing, but when mind _and_ body are gone, the only reason to not end that life is the selfish reason that we are so morally superior, we don't kill people.

Your theory excuses the sperm donor from all responsibility. And how could he own up. He can't carry the child and give birth. 

"should not have sex' I seldom heard more ignorant remarks.

No, wait, I take that back. I am surrounded by bible thumpers, that is about all you hear. 
Birth control consists of the 'just say no' at best they allow you a penny to pinch between your knees.
As there are many people, there are many reasons to have sex. And even from a scientific perspective, reproduction is only one of many. 


Go look up statistics, they are abundant: Single mothers have a hard time to make ends meet. and that is regardles of reason why they are single. 

Yes, maybe they can pull themselves out of the muck by their own boot straps having a baby out of wedlock or being young and uneducated, but the odds are heavily against them. 

I do give - indeed - life that has been around for a few years precedence over a lump of cells that will die when it leaves the womb. 
However, I do not consider myself to be in the position to judge. 

However, this thread started out as a case to put the execution of prisoners on TV...kind of ironic when you think about it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> life or death is black and white
> I don't speak for any of the trillions of woman I speak for the dead children


 
But you would have their choices stopped because of your beliefs not theirs.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying your beliefs are yours and neither of us has the right to push our beliefs on anyone. Women should have the right to chose. I wouldn't talk a woman into having an abortion nor would I pressure her to, I would support the choice she made, if asked for advice I would see she had all information on all options and listen while she went over them all, I wouldn't advocate anything. It's not my body I can't decide anything for her. 

Not everyone believes as you do, that it's a baby in the early stages, if it has no organs, no brain formed yet etc they won't see it as a baby. 

You won't change people's minds with melodramatic statements, what will change women's minds is proper concrete help, support financial and mental if they are to keep their babies, this isn't coming from you because all you give out is 'if you don't want a baby don't have sex'. that will help no one.

Rubbing people's noses in it because they have made a mistake isn't the way to help, give them a solid reason to keep their babies, that would help. Don't say oh things could get better, tell them yes I will adopt, I will help financially, I will support you in this difficult time etc. Don't sneer at them and say they should have kept their legs crossed.
Understand those that cannot go through with a pregnancy because of medical reasons, or because they've been raped or the victim of incest, don't lump them into the 'convenience' bag. Support the victims of war who have been raped and feel they can't carry the baby of their rapist, imagine instead what it would be like to have the baby of monsters growing inside you. 

It's hard perhaps to think of the babies who could have been born but our duty is to the living not the maybe could have been people. there is so much suffering now that we would be better helping than thinking about what could have been and for all we know perhaps will be in another life.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Going back to the OP what was the motive for showing a girl having a abortion? Was it a serious documentary? I doubt it was something that was being shown in a whimsical way.


----------



## aedrasteia (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez

thanks for your many posts.
Go here to see the full episode: it was thought-provoking and serious.
No easy decision is the title.

www.mtv.com/videos/no-easy-decision-special/1654990/playlist.jhtn

Its also helpful to be familiar with 2 other MTV shows: *16 and Pregnant* and *Teen Mom*.
These shows are well known to teen girls I've done SD classes with and we've talked about the issues because I make 'self-defense' as wide a topic as i can: part of 'protecting yourself and your dreams for a positive future'. Along with good health, understanding the pressures to drink/smoke/be Perfect/be hot/be thin/be sexual.
Refusing to buy into the pressures (esp. thin) is as big an accomplishment as learning 
a palm-heel strike. And much much much much harder.

you can see episodes of those additional MTV shows on their website too.

Here's one of several summaries (from Irin Carton of Jezebel):

"_MTV  is said not to have sought advertisers for the commercial-free  30-minute special, which aired at 11:30pm last night. You can watch the  full episode here, but here's the gist. The first half focused on Markai, who was featured in 16 And Pregnant  while pregnant with her daughter Zakaria. As Dr. Drew pointed out  later, 1 out of 4 teen moms have a repeat pregnancy, and *more than 60  percent of women who have abortions already have at least one child*. (my emphasis)
_
_*Markai misses an appointment for her Depo Provera shot and, unaware  that it is no longer effective, doesn't use a backup method* with her  partner James. She's then shown discussing the options with James, her  friend Chambray, and eventually her mother, all of whom are supportive  of whatever she decides. James and her mother both remind her that,  having been through rough times before the birth of her daughter, Markai  has now graduated from high school and is saving for college, and  everyone is worried about the family's ability to provide for a second  child. "I just want to make the best 'What if,'" she says. The  conversations feel a little staged, but there's no staging the real and  conflicted emotions Markai is feeling._
_She eventually speaks to a supportive counselor and then is dropped  off by James at a clinic. (It's said that he isn't allowed inside for  the procedure, which is not always the case, and nothing inside the  clinic is shown on camera.) When he takes her to dinner afterwards,  Markai lashes out at him for calling her fetus a "thing," and says  there's no way he can understand her pain. She reminds him that their  daughter was once a collection of cells._
Read more:  http://jezebel.com/5720450/mtvs-abortion-special-didnt-disappoint#ixzz1ABKHmZrk

hope this helps, thanks again, A
​


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2011)

Adrasteia, thank you so much for that. Understanding situations is part of finding a solutions to problems.
Thank you too for teaching your teens that self defence is more than just martial arts techniques, they are lucky to have you.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Blade, it's me that's on his list, he sent me a PM called me names saying I was a piece of work and said he was putting me on ignore. Of course if I'm quoted he still has to read it. The posts that annoyed him so much were where I was supportrf an autistic lad on here.



why would you supporting an autistic lad on here annoy him?



Archangel M said:


> I knew that the "what about my sick grandmother" stories would arise and it doen't change what I said. My grandmother died a slow death of cancer too. And if I had a magic wand that could have cured her and granted her more life I would have waved it. Why? Because life is better than death.



No its not. Keeping a shell of a human being alive just because he is human and 'we euthanize animals, not people'  even though the human has absolutely NO quality of life, they're just existing, not really living, same with the abuse and bullying victims, they see no escape, and with the internet bullying now, 'just dont use the internet' as my mother, who is a teacher and should no better, thats her stupid simplistic solution to cyberbullying, fact is being alive and breathing IS more terrible than death in lots of cases. Anyway keeping someone alive no matter what cause he is human and not an animal regardless of anything is selfish and immoral and uncaring. Thats how I see it.



ballen0351 said:


> So now you want to kill old people and babies? Hunting season on anyone under 9 months and over 70 right?



You like to jump to conclusions like a flea on a hot stove? and generalize too?



Archangel M said:


> And I think that many of you are full of needless pessimism and far to quick to accept death as an option.



Then you are jumping to conclusions too about people.



Tez3 said:


> Your position is yours alone, you cannot make judgemant calls on others lives. A victim of a bully or a paedophile may well believe life isn't worth living as numerous suicides have shown. You can't understand no more than I can what life is like for some people, for many it is a living hell and suicide is the only way out.
> You may have done many things but you are not the only one, many here can say as much if not more than you. It doesn't change how life is for some and why they feel they cannot live any longer or why they feel they cannot bear a child. However you view life and however lucky you are, you have no right to speak for anyone other than yourself.



I agree! 



Archangel M said:


> If this argument is going to deliniate into a "Life Cult" vs "Death Cult"....I am happy with the side I have chosen.



Good if you are happy with your self and your own beliefs. I'm happy with mine too. 



ballen0351 said:


> life or death is black and white
> I don't speak for any of the trillions of woman I speak for the dead children



and there you have it folks. straight from the horse's mouth



Archangel M said:


> How many times do we have to say it. NOBODY IS SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT SUICIDE or a person being able to decide THEIR fate.
> 
> As a matter of fact we have stated (multiple times) that a person deciding for themselves their fate is not a problem.
> 
> But as I said before. If you could make it so would you not make it so that your mother was "cured"? Of course you would because life is better than death. Linking this discussion to abortion where the unborn has the potential for a full, healthy and happy life is starting to become foolish.



sure we would. I'd also make it s no one has to be bullied,  no one has to be mentally ill, no one should suffer anything bad. and no animals would suffer either. But since we can't we have to accept death as an option and a way out. and I do believe life is not always worth living. Some life you're not really alive. You merely exist. Ever heard of living dead?


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 5, 2011)

anyway this is my favorite thread in a long time here, a good strong heavy debate with lots of arguments back and forth, both pro choice and pro life. glad that bill and ball and to a lesser extent archangel and luckykboxer and a couple of others present the totally opposite view and makes it a fun debate thread. I think its also the first time I had the chance to get into an abortion thread since i joined this forum. pass the popcorn please


----------



## billc (Jan 5, 2011)

If you like this head over to "liberal Pacifism" or "Why Ann Coutler is great."   Or, Check out Liberal Movies.  We are having an interesting talk about happiness over there.


----------



## MJS (Jan 5, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> I dont think its hard for them at all Ive been in the clincs Ive seen them laughing at the protesters, chatting on cell phones. I know of woman that have had 2 or 3 or more abortions. If its that hard on them they dont show it. Im not saying its not hard for some people but for the ones that use it as a form of birth control it seems quite easy.


 
And if we go back to my very first post in this thread, that is exactly what I was talking about.  I stated that I feel that if someone is going to have one, then there should be a solid reason for it, such as a rape, vs. using it as a means of birthcontrol.  I mean, one has to ask themselves...why is someone having that many abortions?





> I remove protesters because its my job. As a law enforcement officer I swore an oath do protect the laws of my state and not to use my personal beliefs to dictate which laws I uphold. Like it or not I dont get to make that call. The law is the law. Ive taken many actions in my job that go against my personal beliefs. The hardest thing Ive ever done in this job besides taking a mans life was protecting the Westboro Baptist Church as they protested a funeral of 2 little boys that drown in a frozen pond a week earlier. Same 2 little boys I jumped in that frozen pond to try and save. The boys father was serving in Iraq at the time of the boys death which is why the Westboro Nutballs showed up. They had some of the most evil signs Ive ever seen but its their 1st amendment right to free speech and I had no choice but to stand guard to protect them. I had to physically remove one of the dead boys uncles when he tried to attack a protester. They came a second time to protest the death of an Army Capt. That died in Iraq but only like 3 protesters showed up so they didnt stay long and it was rather uneventful.


 
Oh ok, well thanks for clearing up that question.  I didn't know what you did for work.  




> For my friends outside the US who might not know who the Westboro Baptist Church is they are a group of people that travel all over the US attending funerals of troops killed in the wars. They hold signs that say things like "thank God for dead solders", "God hates America" and they had special signs for the kids funereal one said "your kids died because youre terrorists" "You and your kids will burn in hell." They claim that because we allow Gays to have rights and we allow abortion in this country that God in punishing us by killing our troops. I think they just do it to see what the police will do and they hope we will stop them from protesting so can sue us. I think its all about money to them but they claim otherwise.


 
Well, I'm not going to comment on those clowns, other than to say that IMHO, anyone affiliated with that group should seriously have their head checked.  They're all ****ed up IMO.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> If you like this head over to "liberal Pacifism" or "Why Ann Coutler is great."   Or, Check out Liberal Movies.  We are having an interesting talk about happiness over there.



Ok.


----------



## MJS (Jan 11, 2011)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41008558/ns/health-womens_health/

NEW YORK  The long-term decline in the U.S. abortion rate stalled as the recession took hold, according to the latest comprehensive survey of America's abortion providers. 
The Guttmacher Institute, which periodically surveys U.S. abortion providers, reported Tuesday that there were 1.21 million abortions in 2008 and a rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
Both figures were up slightly from the previous 2005 survey, ending a steady decline since 1990, when U.S. abortions peaked at 1.6 million and the abortion rate was 27.4.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 11, 2011)

MJS said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41008558/ns/health-womens_health/
> 
> NEW YORK  The long-term decline in the U.S. abortion rate stalled as the recession took hold, according to the latest comprehensive survey of America's abortion providers.
> The Guttmacher Institute, which periodically surveys U.S. abortion providers, reported Tuesday that there were 1.21 million abortions in 2008 and a rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
> Both figures were up slightly from the previous 2005 survey, ending a steady decline since 1990, when U.S. abortions peaked at 1.6 million and the abortion rate was 27.4.


 Thats alot of Death


----------

