Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Su-tehp on April 25, 2004, 08:13:34 pm
-
Peeps, I just want to let you know that I was here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41023-2004Apr25.html) in our nation's capital for the pro-choice rally known as the March for Women's Lives. Estimates of how many people attended this march range from 800,000 to 1,150,000 people of all ages, races and both genders. But even with the low end number of 800,000 (which seems a little low in my opinion; the entire Washington Mall from the Capitol building to BEYOND the Washington Monument was FILLED with people), this march in our nation's capital was without doubt the LARGEST protest march in America's history.
(You know what that means? If there isn't life on other planets, then this rally qualifies as the largest protest march in the history of the Universe!)
WOOT!
All you peeps here in the USA who don't like ****, DON'T FORGET TO VOTE FOR KERRY IN NOVEMBER!
Man, this was really a great day. For the past three and a half years, I've had my doubts, but today I feel proud to be an American again. :) :nod:
EDIT: Lol, I forgot that our President's name was bleeped out with 4 asterisks by the automatic censor. Oh, well. In six more months we're not gonna need to type it anymore! :D
Oh, of course there were "pro-life" counter-protestors there, but only about 1,500 of them. Man, I love it when me and my friends outnumber the opposition 1000 to 1. Now, THOSE are the kinds of odds I can live with. :D
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
All you peeps here in the USA who don't like ****, DON'T FORGET TO VOTE FOR KERRY IN NOVEMBER!
:lol:
-
I think I'm gona vote Libertarian
-
I think I'm gonna vote ****.
-
Realistically, if you want your vote to count for anything, you have to vote for Kerry or ****. If you vote for any other left-leaning candidate (Nader, for example), it's basically a vote for ****. Likewise, a vote for a right-leaning candidate is basically a vote for Kerry.
Me? I'm not voting, since I'll be about 6 months short.
-
Bobby, i hope you're joking
First priority, getting rid of ****, then you can go do your libertarian thing in the next election
Edit: What does it think we're saying, female pubic hairs?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I think I'm gonna vote Libertarian
You could also vote for Nader, Bobby. That would be just about as useless a gesture. :D
-
What's with this 'Bobby' thing?
Are we all just jumping on the bandwagon or is there some actual reason for it?
-
*is waiting for Bobbau to object...*
-
I think it has about as much rational as "Turrents" and "Hangers"
-
I swear to God, if I had a machine that could slap people over the internet....
-
...you'd be a rich man.
my comment was directed at me not likeing either, I don't realy like Bush, but I'm not going to vote for someone who's only quality is that he isn't Bush. so I don't want to vote for Bush or notBush
I'd vote for Kerry if the rumor about him getting McCain as a running mate pans out, but outside of that doubt it.
-
How many guys were there? Besides yourself?
-
800k is not the biggest protest march, not even close. There were numbers in excess of 1.5 million in certain European cities during the big February 15th anti-war marches last year. Though I find it extremely disheartening that this event got a ****load of people to show up, but something as trivial as war.....nah.
The Anyone But **** crowd are deluding themselves if they think Kerry is in any significant way different than ****. He's a born and bred politcian, very wealth. Hell, they're both Bonesmen, can't get more arisocratic than that.
Democracy is not about picking the lesser of two evils. The American people have it stuck in their heads that there can only be two parties and thats that. Two parties is hardly what you would call a functioning democracy, when they all feed from the same trough. There is this notion that American politics are "more civilized than the barbarian hordes" who have themselves a revolution when things get really out of hand. Well, these nations who take to the streets and overthrow a tyrant instead of flailing about helplessly and whining to each other, they've got the heuvos to make democracy mean something.
When the politicians and the comitees and the endless debates, the lies, the mudslinging, the corporate payola, the broken promises, the passing of blame and general failiure to obey the will of the people - when they all fail, sitting around and voting for Kerry ain't gonna help. When it comes to the point when the Left is the Right and the Right is off the chart, being a pussy about it isn't going to change anything.
But thats just me aqnd I could be wrong.
also, were I an American, I'de vote for ****. Give the world four more years of Dubya, and then we'll see how far the American empire goes.
-
yeah, er, sort of...
I think of the two party system as the biggest problem with modern American politics.
-
The two part thing is basically because of a flaw in the system. Unless a third party as massive grass-roots support, it can't really compete with the RNC or DNC, as they both have massive amounts of funds. Also, the electoral college makes it hard for a third party to be anything other than a spoiler. Look at Ross Perot. He had a fairly significant number of popular votes, but he had basically no electoral votes.
About them both being the same, they basically are. Both parties are basically aristocratic in nature at the national level. But at least he would be prevented from doing as much **** because he'd have to maintain the Democratic party line.
-
How many guys were there? Besides yourself?
Two. And they were a gay couple who thought it was a Lesbian Alliance parade.
The rest was just a bunch of single, middle-aged women going through menopause.
-
The Democratic party line has been slipping for many years now. All they have to do is avoid quoting the Bible during public speeches and not wear big cowboy hats, and they've got the people fooled. If there is something I've found out during ****'s time in office, its that what you say is everything, while what you do is meaningless. When a politicians goes and says something, the people don't care if they do the exact opposite, cause as soon as the words are spoken its like the policy has already been implemented to the letter. Same thing with the Democracts. In people's mind, the Dems stand for certain things. Abortion, social services, no war, healthcare, race and gender equality, that sort of thing. Doesn't matter that they are 180 degress from where they're supposed to be, cause "they're the Dems, they're looking out for the poor. If we don't vote for Kerry, Dubya wins. And no one wants that". Pah. I maintain that it is the media who determined the Demoratic candidate. Out of the bunch, the one that is furthest right won. Anyone who actually stands for the values of that the Dems have traditionaly stood for, they're sidelined.
I may be ranting a bit here.
edit: Bob, I could recemmend a weekly column by Libertarian journalist Justin Raimondo, though I don't think you'de much like where the column is located. Been reading it for a year or so, and I was totally blown away to find out this guys used to run with Buchanan and even had a Libertarian faction within the GOP. I guess not all conservatives are evil, though you'de never hear me say that out loud....
-
Liberalism doesn't work.
It's about as effective as democracy.
-
My personal political beliefs can basically be described as being both liberal and libertarian. Basically, within reason, you can do whatever you want with your money and your life as long as you don't mess with anyone else. Of course, that is another idea that wouldn't work in the real world....
-
Originally posted by Rictor
800k is not the biggest protest march, not even close. There were numbers in excess of 1.5 million in certain European cities during the big February 15th anti-war marches last year.
But was it 1.5 million all across Europe or was it 1.5 million in a single city? because 1,150,000 people (the official count of this number, not the 800K, was just confirmed a little while ago) marching in one city alone is pretty damn impressive. I don't know if it was the largest protest march in the world (I think it is, but i could be wrong) but without doubt it's the biggest protest march in American history.
That's still really impressive.
Originally posted by Rictor
Though I find it extremely disheartening that this event got a ****load of people to show up, but something as trivial as war.....nah.
Lots of people here in America believe that the war in Iraq was connected to the war on terror. Even those who didn't believe that a year ago (like me) do believe ever since the ****storm in Fallujah at the start of April that Iraq is now connected to the larger war on terrorism if it wasn't before. That might be a big reason people here in the US haven't protested the Iraq war as much as Europe.
Not to mention the fact that America has pretty much made it a point to do the exact opposite of everything that France does. And France really tried its best to prevent the war in Iraq. Go figure. :D
Originally posted by Rictor
The Anyone But **** crowd are deluding themselves if they think Kerry is in any significant way different than ****. He's a born and bred politcian, very wealth. Hell, they're both Bonesmen, can't get more arisocratic than that.
Democracy is not about picking the lesser of two evils. The American people have it stuck in their heads that there can only be two parties and thats that. Two parties is hardly what you would call a functioning democracy, when they all feed from the same trough. There is this notion that American politics are "more civilized than the barbarian hordes" who have themselves a revolution when things get really out of hand. Well, these nations who take to the streets and overthrow a tyrant instead of flailing about helplessly and whining to each other, they've got the heuvos to make democracy mean something.
When the politicians and the comitees and the endless debates, the lies, the mudslinging, the corporate payola, the broken promises, the passing of blame and general failiure to obey the will of the people - when they all fail, sitting around and voting for Kerry ain't gonna help. When it comes to the point when the Left is the Right and the Right is off the chart, being a pussy about it isn't going to change anything.
But thats just me aqnd I could be wrong.
Dude, Kerry and **** might both come from similar privileged backgrounds but you're as deluded as Ralph Nader if you think there's no fundamental difference between the two. let's examine the differences, shall we?
****: against the environment
Kerry: in favor of strong environmental protection
****: against a woman's right to choose an abortion
Kerry: in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion
****: in favor of budget deficits to fund tax cuts mainly for the wealthy
Kerry: favors tax cuts for the middle class and poor who need it more than the wealthy
****: favors unilaterally going to war with nations if we suspect they are a threat WITHOUT VERIFIABLE PROOF OF SUCH A THREAT
Kerry: favors diplomacy with our allies and strengthening ties with like-minded nations and going to war ALONGSIDE OUR ALLIES, BUT ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.
****: favors oil drilling in irreplaceable environmental preserves, instead of energy conservation
Kerry: favors energy conservation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources (like the Saudis, bless their religiously extremist hearts :rolleyes: )
I'd go further, but it's late and you should have already gotten the point. (Rictor, I'm hoping that you're smarter than people who wouldn't know the point if they sat on it.)
Originally posted by Rictor
also, were I an American, I'd vote for ****. Give the world four more years of Dubya, and then we'll see how far the American empire goes.
Wait, wait, this last statement doesn't make sense to me. If you were an American but hated the "American empire" (to use your words), you'd vote for four more years of it? How does THAT make sense? Or, if you were an American, you would WANT America to expand its empire? That doesn't seem to jibe with your earlier sentiments...
-
beacase Bush is being to overt about it and people see it.
wow, ether you'r an idealog or you copied that word for word off the DNC's webpage.
try this one,
Bush: corprate whore
Kerry: corprate whore
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Wait, wait, this last statement doesn't make sense to me. If you were an American but hated the "American empire" (to use your words), you'd vote for four more years of it? How does THAT make sense? Or, if you were an American, you would WANT America to expand its empire? That doesn't seem to jibe with your earlier sentiments...
He's saying that if we leave **** in power for 4 more years, we'll be ganged up upon. Rather hard to form an empire when you're the one with sanctions upon you.
-
Well, you're not taking one important thing into consideration. For me, and this is just crazy old me, domestic policy is irrelevant. Well, not irrelevant, but I could care less if 5% of the world's population gets an extra $200 tax cut or not. Kerry or Dubya, Americans have it generally good, and while there are differences between the two parties in matters of domestic policy, neither is going to cause mass starvation or anything of that sort.. Foreign policy is the be-all end-all of an American president for me. Cause their foreign policy (economic as well as military) affects 95% of the world.
My reasoning goes like this: the Democrats are trying to stay away from being Republicans-lite when it comes to domestic policy becuase it is the American people who choose the next government. They can't afford to be bastards towards the people who are going to put them into office, so they maintain some sembelance of "looking out for the working man" as you'de pointed out above. Not only that, but they also play the Black and ehtnic cards, as well as the feminist cards. What happens to some poor asshole in Nigeria doesn't concern them. However, they must not inconvenience the America people, or otherwise they won't win. And as long as the American people have it nice and cozy back home, they don't care what happens to the rest of the world, so they're going to choose the party which best serves their own interests, and not the world's. Hence the disparity between Democratic domestic and foreign policy.
Also, yes, I do want to see an end of what I call the American empire. Thats why I would vote for Dubya. See, when smooth talkin' Billy was in office, he had the world eating out of his hand. He was still as bad as ****, but he had a nice smily and could pretend to be your best friend. So the world was fooled, and failed to notice any of the harm that America's foreign policy was causing. With Dubya, he;s brought the world together. He's universally hated. So, just give the world more of **** to show them whats its really all about. If Kerry were elected, he'd manage to smooth talk his way out of the pit **** dug, with his talk of multilateralism, democracy, freedom and whatnot. He'd extent the proverbial olive branch, and the (First) world would forgive and forget.
Also,t he size of the mob does not make a war any more or less just. Having allies means nothing, it doesn't give credibility to a war. Its just means that a larger number of people have been fooled than would have otherwise been. F**k multilateralism, its just a nice excuse to cover your ass..
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
because Bush is being to overt about it and people see it.
wow, ether you're an idealog or you copied that word for word off the DNC's webpage.
Yup, you guessed it, Bobby. I'm an idealogue. A Democratic idealogue, true, but an idealogue nonetheless. Welcome to the political landscape of a nation split 50/50 right down the middle.
If it comes to a choice between me and my fellow liberals or the anti-woman, anti-choice conservatives over who should run the USA, well, I choose me and my fellow liberals. In a 50/50 country, political survival means you HAVE to be an idealogue. There's no middle ground anymore. Anyone who thinks there is still a middle ground in American politics is fooling himself. Current conventional wisdom now holds that less than 5% of the American voting public is independent and/or undecided. That means that 95% has already decided one way or the other, so whoever wants to get elected has to get more voters of their party to the polls. And THAT means securing your base, which means being an idealogue for the causes you and your party champion. Hence Bush running to the right and Kerry going to the left.
Politics in a nation where the two separate halves each hold the other in contempt require nothing less. Sad, but true.
Man, I'm just as cynical as Bush himself, aren't I? oh, well...
Originally posted by Bobboau
try this one,
Bush: corporate whore
Kerry: corporate whore
Yes, well, guess what? Money talks, bullsh!t walks. I don't like it, but we might as well deal with the reality. Our political system does have its flaws, but I have yet to see a better one.
-
Wait, so Kerry falls under the "my fellow Liberals" category? Excuse me? I understand a nation split down the middle bit, but not your solution. Sure, the Libertarians walk between the Democrats and the GOP, but they're not going to get elected. I happen to like them becuase they're an isolationist bunch, but still have the low-government side that appeals to conservatives. The Dems can by no rational means be counted as "the Liberal Left". Barring Blair, no nation in the world would be inclined to label Kerry a Liberal.
With everyone concentrating on the next term or two, you loose sight of the long-term situation. And that is that the Democrats are and will continue to slide towards the right, while the right continues to slide off into...god only knows. It doesn't matter who wins this round, what matters is that Americans are now stuck with a 2 party system that is starting to look very uninviting and dare I say, undemocratic. This is becuase most people still live in a two-party world, and only wackos vote for independents. I can understand being passionate about your party of choice, I would be too, so long as they upheld the value which they are supposed to stand for. But in 5-10 years, all thats going to be left of the Democrats is the name. Why not support Nader or your third party candidate of choice? If everyone always votes for the lesser of two evils, thats all you're ever going to get. Sure, this election, a vote for Nader (or someone else) is basically a vote wasted. But a few elections here and there is less important than building the *atmosphere* in which a third party stands a real chance. As long as people think they have only two choices, the Dems and Reps will be able to get away with anything. All they need to do is tell their supporters "we may not be perfect, but its either us or THEM, so vote for us". Its a two party monopoly...
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, er, sort of...
I think of the two party system as the biggest problem with modern American politics.
No such thing as a two party system. It is not imposed on us. We, as voters impse upon our selves. Aside from that, I am voting for the libertarian canidate mainly because I don't like Kerry either.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
(You know what that means? If there isn't life on other planets, then this rally qualifies as the largest protest march in the history of the Universe!)
Er... sorry...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1889102.stm
(all I could find in 2 min...)
:EDIT:
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/index.asp?id=54365
-
Er... why is the abortion argument always phrased in terms of women's lives? Is the right to get an abortion really a life-or-death issue?
Well, it is, but not for the woman. :doubt:
-
No one can miss their life if they are not aware they have it in the first place. A fetus is not conscious, hence it does not know it is alive. It comes down to "I think therefore I am". Until it is born, its just a bunch of tissue and bone. That definition may not sit well with many of you, but it is. Its interesting to note that most people opposed to abortion believe in God. This however, should not affect a woman's right to choose what happens to her baby. In my mind, a fetus or embryo is not sacred, it just an organic "bunch of stuff". What if the pregnancy is unwanted, or a result of rape? A child should not be born as a result of an accident or a leaky condom. It should be a deliberate decision by the parents.
-
its an organic "bunch of stuff" that is invaluable to scientific research in the curing of so many diseases and healing so many individuals!!
-
Bah. They should outlaw all abortion. If you're ****ing stupid enough to get knocked up, being forced to have a kid is a very suitable punishment.
And even after the ****er is born, you can still put it up for adoption.
There is absolutely no need for abortions.
And before you start *****in' about rape pregnancies, I'll remind you of a little thing called the "morning after pill".
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Er... why is the abortion argument always phrased in terms of women's lives? Is the right to get an abortion really a life-or-death issue?
Well, it is, but not for the woman. :doubt:
It sometimes can be. There are a large number of medical conditions where trying to carry a baby to term could easily be fatal for the mother. Many pro-lifers would have her carry the child regardless.
Originally posted by an0n
Bah. They should outlaw all abortion. If you're ****ing stupid enough to get knocked up, being forced to have a kid is a very suitable punishment.
And even after the ****er is born, you can still put it up for adoption.
There is absolutely no need for abortions.
And before you start *****in' about rape pregnancies, I'll remind you of a little thing called the "morning after pill".
With the exception of the condom and the pill all the other forms of contraception are about 80-90% effective. You want to limit peoples choice to them?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
No one can miss their life if they are not aware they have it in the first place. A fetus is not conscious, hence it does not know it is alive. It comes down to "I think therefore I am".
Actually, by your definition of living, fetuses are alive. They're brains are active after a few months. Hence, they're alive by your definition.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
It sometimes can be. There are a large number of medical conditions where trying to carry a baby to term could easily be fatal for the mother. Many pro-lifers would have her carry the child regardless.
So if you feel that way, provide an exception for if the mother if her life is clearly in danger.* Compared to the total number of abortions that take place, though, this is a very small percentage. People shouldn't have carte blanche to have an abortion.
Incidentally, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortions wouldn't become illegal overnight. Regulation would simply shift back to the states. If your state happens to outlaw abortion, have it in another state.
* I'm throwing that out for argument's sake; I'm in favor of abortion being illegal in all circumstances. The mother at this point has lived a significant part of her life already, whereas the infant's life is just beginning. A century ago, people accepted death during childbirth as a tragic but normal occurrence. But there's still Ceasarean sections and all the advances of modern medicine to improve the odds.
-
A friend of mine went to the march. She said she saw a woman holding a sign that read, "I shaved my pussy to protest ****."
:lol:
-
here's an idea I had on a compromise between the two sides. how's this, a constitutional amendment that absolutely gratns a womans right to an abortion during the first three months (or in cases of medical neseity for the remaining 6), but bans them (with medical exeption) in the last 3. the remaining 3 in the middle would be up to states/local governments.
-
So you believe that a baby is any more alive in the third trimester than in the first? On almost every definition of "alive" (from both sides), the stage of the pregnancy is irrelevant. If you believe that babies are God's creatures or whatever, that starts with a single cell. Or if you believe that babies are not alive until they're born, possibly later, the stage is also irrelevant.
Aren't conservatives supporters of limited government? I fail to see how this is an example of limited government interference. Actually, its the exact opposite. I don't see how the government could be interefering any more than it is. Abortion is a private decision, not a public one.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Actually, by your definition of living, fetuses are alive. They're brains are active after a few months. Hence, they're alive by your definition.
I never said "active brains", I said conscious. As in aware that they are alive.
-
All Politics: Say one thing, do another. That's why an idealist like me needs to take over the world and fix the system so that good nice honest moral nonreligious people can rise in society. Like that will ever happen...
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Incidentally, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortions wouldn't become illegal overnight. Regulation would simply shift back to the states. If your state happens to outlaw abortion, have it in another state.
Have an abortion in another state? That situation already exists. 87% of all US counties DON'T have an abortion provider. For the poor women who need an abortion the most, they can't afford to make the trip to another state to get the abortion. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, the situation would be made even worse, as many states would immediately move to make state-run abortion illegal in all cases. That's why abortions need to stay legal in every state.
Sorry, Goob. That dog won't hunt.
Originally posted by Rictor
Aren't conservatives supporters of limited government? I fail to see how this is an example of limited government interference. Actually, its the exact opposite. I don't see how the government could be interefering any more than it is. Abortion is a private decision, not a public one.
Now this is exactly why I say conservatives are hypocrites. They're all for getting the government out of people's lives, unless, of course, the people want to do something that would go against "christian values." Then the conservatives are all for government regulation. :rolleyes:
As for Rictor saying that abortion is a private decision, not a public one, he hit the nail on the head here. I'm not "pro-abortion," I'm pro-choice. If you don't like abortions, DON'T HAVE ONE.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Have an abortion in another state? That situation already exists. 87% of all US counties DON'T have an abortion provider. For the poor women who need an abortion the most, they can't afford to make the trip to another state to get the abortion.
How much does an abortion itself cost? Surely more than the trip itself. And if organizations like Planned Parenthood are willing to defray the cost of abortions, it wouldn't be a big step past that to defray the cost of travel as well.Now this is exactly why I say conservatives are hypocrites. They're all for getting the government out of people's lives, unless, of course, the people want to do something that would go against "christian values."
This has nothing to do with Christianity. The conservative view of government is that it exists merely to safeguard the rights of its citizens. The people should be free to act however they like, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Mothers should not be free to have abortions because that infringes upon the unborn child's right to live.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So you believe that a baby is any more alive in the third trimester than in the first? On almost every definition of "alive" (from both sides), the stage of the pregnancy is irrelevant.
I supose I have a slightly looser definition of 'alive'. I fail to see how a fetus can suddenly become alive the instant it pops out of mom as much as it being alive the instant a sperm enters an egg. it isn't till about the last month or so of pregnancy that it seems to become more alive, more of a self contained entity, than anything else (by this time I don't see why someone would have waited that long to abort).
my defenition is sort of a test if it's far enough allong that if it was cut out it could realisticly survive for a year, then it's far enough along to be considered alive. wich (along with my 'why the **** did you wait that long' mentality) is were I got my idea for the compromise, wich I'd expect neither side to accept becase there both to bussy makeing sure that the other side doesn't 'get it's foot in the door' (any further) to think.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
How much does an abortion itself cost? Surely more than the trip itself. And if organizations like Planned Parenthood are willing to defray the cost of abortions, it wouldn't be a big step past that to defray the cost of travel as well.
Then why not have the federal government defray those costs? Why have a non-profit organization do it?
Originally posted by Goober5000
This has nothing to do with Christianity. The conservative view of government is that it exists merely to safeguard the rights of its citizens. The people should be free to act however they like, so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Mothers should not be free to have abortions because that infringes upon the unborn child's right to live.
Under American law, a human being is only a person if it is born alive. Unborn fetuses, by definition, are not born, so they don't have a right to live.
And abortion is a FUNDAMENTAL right, protected by the US constitution. Therefore, the government has no say to infringe on women's right to an abortion. Your contention that women "shouldn't" have such a right is irrelevant. What are you basing that contention on, anyway? The Bible?
You just outsmarted yourself, Goob.
-
Lots of people here in America believe that the war in Iraq was connected to the war on terror. Even those who didn't believe that a year ago (like me) do believe ever since the ****storm in Fallujah at the start of April that Iraq is now connected to the larger war on terrorism if it wasn't before. That might be a big reason people here in the US haven't protested the Iraq war as much as Europe.
Even though that was one big lie (and lots and lots of smaller ones). I find it unbelievable that this country is practicly willing to crusify someone for lieing about having an affair YET does the exact opposite when someone lies about the reason they sent people off to DIE.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Even though that was one big lie (and lots and lots of smaller ones). I find it unbelievable that this country is practicly willing to crusify someone for lieing about having an affair YET does the exact opposite when someone lies about the reason they sent people off to DIE.
If teenage horror flicks have taught me anything, it's that SEX MAKES YOU DIE. Thus, it's better to kill people outright than let them commit a sin, then die.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
And abortion is a FUNDAMENTAL right, protected by the US constitution. Therefore, the government has no say to infringe on women's right to an abortion. Your contention that women "shouldn't" have such a right is irrelevant. What are you basing that contention on, anyway? The Bible?
It is not a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are defined basically in the bill of rights. I don't see ANYTHING that pertains to abortion. Yes the fags on the supreme court say a fetus in not "a person." But the definition of a person is extremely limited and is faulty. I mean when does someone become a person? Just when someone cuts the coard or when are removed from the womb? So immediatly when you are birthed you receive constitutional protection and protection under law. This sort of fine border is screwed up. I mean does the child start thinking immediatly when it is birthed? Does it feel when only when it is birthed? Does it feel emotion only when it is birthed? No of course not.
Aditionally, it always amazes me how people refuse to refer to the baby as a baby and only as a fetus. reminds me of the japanese doctors that experimented on POWs in WWII. They refered to the soldiers and manchurians as peices of wood. YOU DO THE SAME TO AN UNBORN CHILD. :hopping:
(http://store5.yimg.com/I/americanlifeleague_1785_43394.gif)
(http://store5.yimg.com/I/americanlifeleague_1785_101267.gif)
STOP KILLING MY GENERATION YOU BASTARDS
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
So if you feel that way, provide an exception for if the mother if her life is clearly in danger.* Compared to the total number of abortions that take place, though, this is a very small percentage. People shouldn't have carte blanche to have an abortion.
* I'm throwing that out for argument's sake; I'm in favor of abortion being illegal in all circumstances. The mother at this point has lived a significant part of her life already, whereas the infant's life is just beginning. A century ago, people accepted death during childbirth as a tragic but normal occurrence. But there's still Ceasarean sections and all the advances of modern medicine to improve the odds.
That's arguement only holds true if you believe that the unborn child is alive. I don't and therefore the entire arguement is moot. You also miss the point that it's quite probably in these cases that any attempt to cary the child to term would result in the death of both the mother and the baby.
The funny thing is that although I am 100% pro-choice I do agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of contraception.
However there are many circumstances where pregnacy wasn't caused by some stupid couple not caring about the use of contraception. It is quite possible to become pregnant due to failed contraception. While that is still the case I view abortion as a necessary evil. No one should be forced to have a child that no only did they not want but that they also took every step possible to prevent the conception of.
Originally posted by Rictor
So you believe that a baby is any more alive in the third trimester than in the first? On almost every definition of "alive" (from both sides), the stage of the pregnancy is irrelevant. If you believe that babies are God's creatures or whatever, that starts with a single cell. Or if you believe that babies are not alive until they're born, possibly later, the stage is also irrelevant.
Except that I can think of a couple of definations off the top of my head that negate your arguement.
1) A baby is alive once it reaches the stage where it could survive without the mother.
2) A baby is alive once the central nervous system and brain reach a certain point in their development.
-
1. What does some sky-wizard have to do with anything?
2. Many people who oppose abortion shoot pheasants, crows or something - and I would quite bluntly say they are more conscious than a lump of cells. A human being is a human being because it can think rationally. I doubt a 2-month old fetus is capable of any higher brain activity.
3. See part 1.
-
I am a 23 year old fetus
-
I never was, I was necromanced just a while ago.
-
I am just surprised that Tiara hasn't come in here yet and said that I am evil or something like that. Or how incredibly wrong we all are.
-
would you mind if i said how you are evil and wrong you are?
Question: would you rather have a horrbile sick diseased person who will be a cripple for their entire life, or would you have the cure for that disease so that nobody else has to suffer that life?
-
All people in Philadelphia who are old enough VOTE FOR SPECTER!!! why? because the democratic candidate will never win and TOOMEY IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE OLD WHITE DUDE THAT EVER LIVED!!!!
I'll never become an old white dude, I'll become an old hippie if i have to!!
-
Originally posted by Turambar
All people in Philadelphia who are old enough VOTE FOR SPECTER!!! why? because the democratic candidate will never win and TOOMEY IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE OLD WHITE DUDE THAT EVER LIVED!!!!
I'll never become an old white dude, I'll become an old hippie if i have to!!
Chill out, dude. Nothing is stupider than a young conservative or an old revolutionary. :D
Your point about stem cell research is sound, and I cannot even understand why USA has limited their research. It's just dumb. Guess we smaller countries pass the large countries on aspects of scientific research. :D
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Er... why is the abortion argument always phrased in terms of women's lives? Is the right to get an abortion really a life-or-death issue?
Well, it is, but not for the woman. :doubt:
INCORRECT - For several reasons
A) Sometimes an abortion must be performed because the pregnancy is threatening the woman's life
B) "illegal" ie 'back-street' abortions cost women their lives very often - safe abortions given in clinics do not
The womans right to bodily integrity supercedes any rights you want to try and grant the featus - until it's born it is part of her body
-
Originally posted by Kazan
INCORRECT - For several reasons
A) Sometimes an abortion must be performed because the pregnancy is threatening the woman's life
B) "illegal" ie 'back-street' abortions cost women their lives very often - safe abortions given in clinics do not
The womans right to bodily integrity supercedes any rights you want to try and grant the featus - until it's born it is part of her body
Sometimes abortion is the only answer. such as a woman HEALTH or life is at stake. My mother had a tubal pregnancy and had no choice. Saying at birth it is no longer of her body it a hard argument to make. The reality is that any part a body will carry that person's DNA. A baby has its own DNA and therefore not part of her body. it is nurished and fed by her body. Through the "cord." Abortion usually occurs for a matter of convenience. My real beef is with these and not matters of women's health(physical). In addition, the point needs to be made that men are also to blame for the situation for not taking responcibility for knocking this girl up. they want some pimped up car instead of being a real f*cking man.
ubermetroid------>real man
ass wipe abandoning his knocked up g/f------>pussy
-
A featus does not have a 'right to life' - until such time that it is born it is part of the mother's body.
PERIOD, END OF STORY
You don't like it? DONT HAVE AN ABORTION
You disagree? Tough ****, your religion doesn't get to be written into our government
You don't like that? Move to a theocrazy, the United States isn't one no matter how much you try and violate our Constitution
-----------------------------
Religion, fundamentalist religion especially, is the excuse and tool of tyrants and fools. You, the victims, look for simple answers to complex questions and accept them as true simply because they're emotionally appealing, they ease your fears. Grow up, get some backbone and act like an intelligent life form - the truth is more important that mythology and emotion has no business weighing in on matters of factuality.
You have no evidence, no logic to support your religion, you subscribe to Biblical Literalism - literally interpreting a book that has gone through numberous translations, intentional rewrites. A book that is of dubious factuality at best, and what little factual historical accounts are present have gone through the legedinization process and have been exaggerated.
Subscription to supernaturality is a symptom of a weak mind and a weak will. You're simply trying to make yourself feel important because your know the reality is that you're not, you're an individual in a species of 6 billion +, you try and make yourself important by the easiest way - by telling yourself you are until you believe it against your better judgement. Partially because you refuse to use your better judgement in that realm. You don't have the guts and the will to make yourself important in reality by doing something good and important, by contributing to the furtherance of our species.
You then in your arrogance of self-important believe you have the "True word of God" and that everyone should conform to your views since yours are "Inspired by God". I am sorry, you are not special, your views are illogical and inconsistent, they are based off a BOOK written by HUMANS 1700 years ago (YES! 1700 - the first 'real' bible was assembled then and many parts were discarded it was intentionally made into a misogynistic religion, and jesus was promoted from being a really cool guy into the being the son of god - all at a council of bishops!)
I could go on for hours about your presumption and arrogance, your irrationality and your assault upon the better judgement of our entire species. I could go on about how your kind WILL be the end of us due to your assault on real education and real science, your refusal to acknowledge the truth and it's long term effects and how it would propagate through our society.
I see the american government decaying and failing because of your efforts to restrict freedoms and thought, to limit knowledge and thereby wisdom. I see the collapse of the United States under the weight of an uneducated, unsocialized, irrational mass of people - Fortunately the very things that will cause the death of the United States will prevent the people that caused it from rising to lasting power afterwords - sure in the firefighting and warlording that will take place after the fall some fundamentalist leader and his extremist may gain temporary control over a certain region. However the others, those who continued to study all that can be learned, to make alliances in the intellectual and international community, those who have study the arts of war and the mind, will win.
Your kind WILL bring the death of the United States if you continue, however fortunately you will NOT rise from the ashes to rule again. It will be the last blast of fundamentalism in the western world and it will remove fundamentalism from power in the western world for the rest of time!
I see the clouds of war approaching on the distant horizon and I do not know if I should welcome them for the final outcome, or abhor them for the death and discord between now and then!
-
Originally posted by redmenace
ass wipe abandoning his knocked up g/f------>pussy
I agree, however restricting someones choice about reproductive freedom is not an option
-
Why not?
-
Originally posted by Turambar
would you mind if i said how you are evil and wrong you are?
sure every one is entitled to their opinions. I was just being sarcastic.
Originally posted by Turambar
Question: would you rather have a horrbile sick diseased person who will be a cripple for their entire life, or would you have the cure for that disease so that nobody else has to suffer that life?
I have no problems with abortion in the case of the mothers life is at stake.
Originally posted by Turambar
All people in Philadelphia who are old enough VOTE FOR SPECTER!!! why? because the democratic candidate will never win and TOOMEY IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE OLD WHITE DUDE THAT EVER LIVED!!!!
I'll never become an old white dude, I'll become an old hippie if i have to!!
Arlen spector is an idiot. I met him before. He came up with the magic bullet theory....we got a bright one here. Moron, every one knows there was another shoots that killed kennedy,
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I have no problems with abortion in the case of the mothers life is at stake.
Well by the same token you must also be okay with the murder of people with lethal contagious diseases, then?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
I agree, however restricting someones choice about reproductive freedom is not an option
Not if if you don't agree with the view that the constitution is a living breathing breathing document. I happen to disagree with that. I consider that the signers of the declaration of independance would, besides having more balls than I will ever have, never intended for abortion to take place. This i am fairly certain. I don't think they intended for it to be interpreted the way it is now.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Well by the same token you must also be okay with the murder of people with lethal contagious diseases, then?
the answer no, but how so? Explain your point.
I am also under the understanding is that the health situations are very rare.
But I will make the point that countries do quartine highly contagious people in the event for the safty of the population. They in fact restrict their ability and rights to move as they please.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
The reality is that any part a body will carry that person's DNA.
Er... no.
All of the body cells carry DNA, but not all parts of the body have DNA.
-
My point was by your reasoning: If the life of an individual endangers the life of another then that person should be killed.
So by that logic you'd have to kill all murderers, rapists, drug dealers, violently-inclined people, the mentally unstable, everyone with AIDS or HIV, everyone with any hereditary diseases, the stupid, the clumsy and everyone who wants to cut NHS funding.
-
an0n you are making false analogies
redmanace: your OPINION of the constitution is exactly that an opinion - if you don't like the fact that it protects peoples rights, including the right to reproducive freedom, including abortion - then move to a country that outlaws it and doesn't have a constitution that ensures those freedoms - simple solution
i see no one has touched my philosophical rant
-
Once again[/u] I'm glad I live in Holland :blah:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i see no one has touched my philosophical rant
To some extent I agree, if fundamentalists continue to get more radical and continue to infringe on knowledge and freedoms it will create a lower caste of uneducated simpletons. Pretty much a slave race for the corporations. But I doubt that it'd ever be the case where they'd cause a collapse of the system, not in my lifetime.
Personally I'm more worried about what happens when the fossil fuels run out right now.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
an0n you are making false analogies
redmanace: your OPINION of the constitution is exactly that an opinion - if you don't like the fact that it protects peoples rights, including the right to reproducive freedom, including abortion - then move to a country that outlaws it and doesn't have a constitution that ensures those freedoms - simple solution
i see no one has touched my philosophical rant
Yours is an opinion also. Your Philisophical Rant is an opinion. You, I think, believe in a living breathing document. That is an opinion. you have an opinion that the constitution protects reproductive rights. That is an opinion. The case Roe vs. wade is an opinion. most of your "logical" points are just opinion. Now if you don't like the fact that others have an opinion that happens to differ from yours, maybe you ought to form your own country where everyone thinks exactly like you. You could call it Kazanland. Has a nice ring to it, don't you think. However a country full of Kazan's is a frightning thought in deed. You would never be able to compromise with them no matter what.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
i see no one has touched my philosophical rant
I like the end of it.
Smells of the frightening truth that awaits us in the near future.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
an0n you are making false analogies
Explain.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Then why not have the federal government defray those costs? Why have a non-profit organization do it?
Overturning of Roe v. Wade ==> returns jurisdiction to the states, therefore the federal government can't get involved. That has nothing to do with whether or not Planned Parenthood gets involved.Under American law, a human being is only a person if it is born alive.
Show me where it says they have to be born to be a person.And abortion is a FUNDAMENTAL right, protected by the US constitution.
It is not a fundamental right at all. On the contrary:Amendment XIV, Section 1
...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
-
redmenance: there is a different between AUTHORITY and LAYMEN
The judges who made the decision Roe v Wade are AUTHORITY on Constitutional Law, and their decision agrees with the documents from the UN Human Rights council
Your OPINION does not - and yes a country full of logical, irrationality-rejecting secularists must absolutely scare the **** out of you - GOOD I want it to - you are the enemy of freedom, education and rationality. Be afraid
-
Originally posted by 01010
To some extent I agree, if fundamentalists continue to get more radical and continue to infringe on knowledge and freedoms it will create a lower caste of uneducated simpletons.
it already is
Originally posted by 01010
Pretty much a slave race for the corporations.
Sometimes **** likes and wants to promote :D
Originally posted by 01010
But I doubt that it'd ever be the case where they'd cause a collapse of the system, not in my lifetime.
I see it happening sooner than you'd imagine - but there is the possibility for the government to survive the storm - but there would be many radical changes.
Originally posted by 01010
Personally I'm more worried about what happens when the fossil fuels run out right now.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology will probably be ready to take over by the time it happens fortunately
-
Originally posted by Kazan
redmenance: there is a different between AUTHORITY and LAYMEN
The judges who made the decision Roe v Wade are AUTHORITY on Constitutional Law, and their decision agrees with the documents from the UN Human Rights council
Your OPINION does not - and yes a country full of logical, irrationality-rejecting secularists must absolutely scare the **** out of you - GOOD I want it to - you are the enemy of freedom, education and rationality. Be afraid
:yes:
-
I have never really been able to uderstand the whole abortion problem, as Kazan says, until the child is birthed, whilst it is still wholly and irreplaceably dependant upon it's it's Mothers body supplying it with nutrients etc, I don't see a problem with it.
As the Foetus grows older, things get a little more complex, partly because it starts to 'look' like a baby, which will activate our protective parent gene, and also because it is a more risky and complex procedure.
So yes, I think, considering 99.99% of people on here are male and will never have to carry a child to term, that this is an issue entirely in the hands of the mother.
-
A child who has been born is completely dependent upon its mother too. If you left a six-week old infant out to fend for itself, it would die. The "viability" argument is not valid.
-
Not as a question of nurturing, if the mother is 'removed' from the foetus (or vice versa) for even a short space of time whilst it is developing, the foetus would die. A born child can be left alone for many hours, while it sleeps, for example, and still be fine.
Also, a newborn child is dependant upon a nursing female, not neccesarily it's mother, it can now be moved if neccesary to an entirely different environment.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
redmenance: there is a different between AUTHORITY and LAYMEN
The judges who made the decision Roe v Wade are AUTHORITY on Constitutional Law, and their decision agrees with the documents from the UN Human Rights council
Your OPINION does not - and yes a country full of logical, irrationality-rejecting secularists must absolutely scare the **** out of you - GOOD I want it to - you are the enemy of freedom, education and rationality. Be afraid
You give your self far to much credit.
Secondly, I hardly call the UN an authority on human rights. Especially when the Human rights council is comprised of such members as Lybia and and I believe syria? (forgive the spellings) Some countries with the worst Human Rights Records.
The rulings of the supreme court is still an opinion. By their opinion in **** vs gore they saw that irrepible harm was being brought to ****. It is an opinion and a judgement. I recognize they might be experts at the constitution, but when you boil down to it, there rulings are nothing more that an opinion.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Not as a question of nurturing, if the mother is 'removed' from the foetus (or vice versa) for even a short space of time whilst it is developing, the foetus would die. A born child can be left alone for many hours, while it sleeps, for example, and still be fine.
Also, a newborn child is dependant upon a nursing female, not neccesarily it's mother, it can now be moved if neccesary to an entirely different environment.
By your definition, there should be no abortion after about 7-8 months, as that's when it's possible for them to survive outside of the womb without life support.
-
Grey Wolf 2009: He would likely agree with that as well - I personally find that the best option -- but I define the date of viability to be when the baby can survive outside the mothers body without advanced (expensive) medical care
now what do you do with the unwanted child? Abortion can be much more humane than allowing an unwanted child to be born
-
man, i wanted to go to it, but i had to baby sit my frigin sis... :doubt:
-
Take her along, with a sign that says "For the love of God, this is what happens when you don't abort" :D:D
-
LOL! omg would i of loved to do that.
-
Originally posted by Krackers87
man, i wanted to go to it, but i had to baby sit my frigin sis... :doubt:
I feel for you, Krackers. There were lots of people at the march who mentioned to me that they had friends who wanted to go, but had to stay home or at work for one reason or another.
It's kind of heartening when you think about it. There were 1.15 million people at the March and there were more people that wanted to show up but couldn't, for one reason or another. If they (and you) had been able to make it, there would have been even more people at the March. :nod:
Even so, 1.15 million people marching at the Mall is by no means anything to sneeze at. :cool:
Originally posted by redmenace
The rulings of the supreme court is still an opinion. By their opinion in Bush vs Gore they saw that irrepible harm was being brought to Bush. It is an opinion and a judgment. I recognize they might be experts at the constitution, but when you boil down to it, there rulings are nothing more that an opinion.
Except that these opinions carry the weight of the US Constitution behind them, so they have the force of law. And what happens when you disobey the law? You get arrested. Duh. Opinion or not, you (and everyone else in the USA) are still required to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Don't like it? Then move to another country.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Take her along, with a sign that says "For the love of God, this is what happens when you don't abort" :D:D
I saw signs similar to that, but they had a picture of Attorney General Ashcroft instead. :lol:
Come to think of it, there were lots of great slogans and signs at the March.
One example: I saw a sign that said "I travelled 3,000 miles to say five letters: F.U. G.W.B."
Another sign said "Abort Bush before his second term."
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Except that these opinions carry the weight of the US Constitution behind them, so they have the force of law. And what happens when you disobey the law? You get arrested. Duh. Opinion or not, you (and everyone else in the USA) are still required to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Don't like it? Then move to another country.
but of course you should object and take part in civil disibedience if you think a law is immoral.
And like I said the Judicial branch has opinions, the only thing special about their opinions is the fact that they have duelly appointed power given to them by the constitution.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
but of course you should object and take part in civil disobedience if you think a law is immoral.
Morality has nothing to do with the law. The law is in place to keep society functioning. Many moral systems (from religion or spiritual beliefs or whatever) dovetail with the law in many places, the prohibition against murder for one. But the law forbids murder because a society could not function if people wantonly killed each other with impunity, while religion/morality forbids it because it is wrong to rob another person of his life. Same result but for different reasons.
Seeing as how America has people of many different religions due to its Constitutional clause of religious freedom, it's the height of imbecility and stupidity to say that Christian morality is the system that should rule America. There are Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Wiccans and many other religions practiced here in America. To make one system of morality above the rest would shortchange everyone who is not of that morality. That's unconstitutional, so it is forbidden. America has MANY moralities, not just the Christian one.
(Hell, there are as many Christian moralities as there are Christians. Not every Christian agrees with every tenet of their church. My mother was the best Catholic I ever knew, and she was pro-choice, just like all of her other friends, Catholic, Jewish or otherwise.)
The law is NOT governed by the Bible, but by the Constitution. Morality is irrelevant; it's the Constitution that governs in matters of the law. I went to law school, I know this.
Originally posted by redmenace
And like I said the Judicial branch has opinions, the only thing special about their opinions is the fact that they have duelly appointed power given to them by the constitution.
Which, like I said, have the force of law. Whatever the Supreme Court says is what the country has to abide by. Unless, of course, you feel the need to resort to civil disobedience, but you'll get arrested for flouting the law if you do so. And rightly so. We can't choose which laws we can abide by. Civil disobedience is a valuable tool for political change, but don't complain about getting arrested if you use it.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Grey Wolf 2009: He would likely agree with that as well - I personally find that the best option -- but I define the date of viability to be when the baby can survive outside the mothers body without advanced (expensive) medical care
Can't remember exactly what that point was. I know that at 8 months a child is fully developed and ready to be born (quite a few are born at about 8-8.5 months). I believe the point of viability without adv. medical care is sometime between the beginning of the third trimester and 8 months. If I were making policy, I'd probably say that abortions during the third trimester should only be undertaken in situations where it is impossible to save both the mother and the child.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
If I were making policy, I'd probably say that abortions during the third trimester should only be undertaken in situations where it is impossible to save both the mother and the child.
And many people would agree with you. I don't favor a ban on thrid trimester abortions, but if one were going to pass (and the Supreme Court has already ruled that the state "has an interest to protect a fetus once it reaches viability"), I would add the caveat that in cases of incest and rape, a thrid trimester abortion should be permissible as well as for the health of the mother.
In fact, Bush signed in November a federal "partial birth" abortion ban, but it was so vaguely worded that it could be construed to ban abortions as early as three months and had NO exception for the health of the mother or for cases of rape or incest.
The ban was sued in federal court before Bush even signed it. It looks likely that the ban may violate earlier Supreme Court cases that said that a ban on abortions could not pass constitutional muster if they made no exception for the health of the mother. That means Bush's "partial birth" abortion ban is almost certainly going to be ruled unconstitutional. The Republicans were warned about this while the bill was being debated in Congress, but the right-wing refused to make an exception for the health of the mother while they still could. They shouldn't be the least bit surprised if and when the ban gets ruled unconstitutional.
-
Why would a victim or rape or incest wait until the third trimester for their abortion?
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Why would a victim or rape or incest wait until the third trimester for their abortion?
There are several reasons. There are so few abortion providers in the country that in many cases, women (especially poor women) have to save money for weeks or months to get enough money to pay for the trip across state lines to the nearest clinic. 87% of all counties in the US have NO abortion provider.
(In fact, I just found out at the March that medical students get more training on dispensing Viagra than for how to perform abortions or prescribing contraception. I'm NOT kidding.)
Then there's the expense of getting an abortion itself. Abortions aren't covered by Medicare, so lots of women who get raped wind up having to pay for the abortion out of their own pocket. If they have to travel a long ways to the nearest clinic, it takes even longer to save up for this added expense, especially if they're poor.
Teenagers who get raped while living in states that require parental notification to get an abortion are sometimes too frightened or too ashamed to tell their parents they got raped until their pregnancy becomes obvious, usually around six months or so. Ditto for wives who get raped and live in states that require spousal notification for an abortion (although I can't remember if the spousal notification laws were overturned. I think so).
There are other reasons as well, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Can't remember exactly what that point was. I know that at 8 months a child is fully developed and ready to be born (quite a few are born at about 8-8.5 months). I believe the point of viability without adv. medical care is sometime between the beginning of the third trimester and 8 months. If I were making policy, I'd probably say that abortions during the third trimester should only be undertaken in situations where it is impossible to save both the mother and the child.
I generally agree - i put the mohters health over the featuses
-
Originally posted by Kazan
now what do you do with the unwanted child? Abortion can be much more humane than allowing an unwanted child to be born
I'm adopted, as is my sister.
-
How old were you when you were adopted, Bob? Or were you and your sis adopted from birth?
-
from birth, so about a day or two I guess,
I honestly never think about it, unless it's brought up.
my parents were top of the line at the time, but my dad ****ed some stuf put about 7-8 years ago, but that stuff happens to people all the time.
that's a nice story there, don't **** around on mom and talk online when your computer science son can hack your E-mail. the ****ing idiot, he had to know I could do that sort of thing, I mean it was ****ing AOL, it's so easy to get into someones email in AOL that calling it hacking is just downright inacurate.
-
Bobboau: you were one of the lucky ones - note the operative word 'can'
-
realy?
I supose that's posable, but prety much everyone I've ever met who was adopted had a similar story, maybe it's St.Louis.
-
Well, adoption is one thing. Basically, anyone who adopts really, really wants a kid. So they're not going to be bastards. But if you have a kid as a result of faulty contraceptives or something, and do not abort though you want to, that child is going to grow up as "an accident". Oh sure, the parents will love him and all, but not as much as if he was an intentional child.
Well, thats the theory anyway.
I think of it like this. A fetus is not "alive" becuase all living this have an interaction process with the world around the, They interact. Animals, tree, people, they all do it. A fetus, however, has no give/take, it just has take. It sits there as takes from the mother, and has no sort of "action" occuring. As opposed to when its born, and it starts breathing, eating, learning and all that.
Not the strongest arguement, I admit, but its someting to think about.
-
there are many paracites in the world, they are considered alive
god damn it how the hell did I end up on this side of the abortion issue!
interestingly, I beleve there is some biblical definition that says life begins at first breath. don't know were and won't back this up, just something I remember hearing.
-
And would you hesitate to kill them if it meant that a person could live a better live becuase of it? As I said though, I'm not really happy with my definition...
-
all I was saying was that they were consitered alive
-
Why is the murder of innocent children a good thing? Perhaps I've missed this.
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Why is the murder of innocent children a good thing? Perhaps I've missed this.
foetus != child
-
The whole viability thing is a moot point if one considers accidental pregnancy a unique consequence of a particular brand of self-indulgence (in most cases; rape of course is the exception). In most cases people can correct things that go wrong with their lives, but in pregnancy it's not just one's life that's at stake. The simple answer to avoid accidental pregnancy is to avoid sex.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I'm adopted, as is my sister.
THAT IS SO AWESOME. 4 out of 5 of my brothers and sisters are adopted.
Originally posted by Tiara
foetus != child
the japenese-WWII example again.
pieces of wood=POWs and manchurians
WWII-Concentration camps
jews=sub Human
if you convince your self that "fetus" is not human or subhuman, or not a person then you can easily see a growing baby as a malicous tumor and not as a real human being.
-
A fetus "could" be considered a "person", when (I don't now exactly if it has right away or if it takes a bit longer, sorry) it has all organs fully developed (similar state to a newborn child) and it has self-awareness.
A fetus (the one you are talking about) is human. You cannot possibly say it is not, as it would go against all the logic of considering a child being the same species as an adult. Now a person... that may be open to discussion.
-
I believe that part of the core issue is psychological also.
-
redmenace: do you feel bad when eating an egg? It could have turned out to be a tiny little cute baby chicken, but instead you ate it. Most people don't have a problem with that cause the baby chicken has not yet started to form and is just a yellow gloop when it is eaten,
-
Originally posted by redmenace
if you convince your self that "fetus" is not human or subhuman, or not a person then you can easily see a growing baby as a malicous tumor and not as a real human being.
:wtf:
A foetus is a part of the body. Like any other part of the body, on it's own it is NOT sentient. Untill it is born it is not a living, breathing, sentient being. It is a part of your body and any woman should have the right to decide over her own body.
As for the adopted ones here, consider yourself lucky. A large part ends up in a foster home which is not a funny thing. I know, I've lived there for four years. So, don't give me that crap about 'unwanted kids almost always get a good home'.
-
And lets not forget that not every unwanted kid is given up by their parents. There are plenty of people stupid enough to get pregnant but not smart enough to realise that giving up their children for adoption would be the only way to give them any kind of chance in life.
Let's face it the number of idiots who keep their children is quite high. Turn on any daytime talk show like Sally or Trisha and you'll see exactly what I mean. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
:wtf:
A foetus is a part of the body. Like any other part of the body, on it's own it is NOT sentient. Untill it is born it is not a living, breathing, sentient being. It is a part of your body and any woman should have the right to decide over her own body.
Congradulations tiara, there is no difference between you and slave owners, you and nazis, between you and the japenese doctors, between you and anyone else that wishes to give something a special name inorder to avoid the sheer consequences of murder or their immoral(general inalienable human rights) actions in general. I must wonder what must go through the mind of a baby when saline salt( I believe this is a method) is put into the womb and the baby's skin starts to feel like it is burning.
-
redmenace: nothing at all. The baby if you want to call it that, doesn't think. All these other cases you mentioned, the oppressed were all of equal mental ability. So its not the same at all. Just accept that the baby is not sentient and has no "thoughts", any more than a tree does. Otherwise, I would be against abortion.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Congradulations tiara, there is no difference between you and slave owners, you and nazis, between you and the japenese doctors, between you and anyone else that wishes to give something a special name inorder to avoid the sheer consequences of murder or their immoral(general inalienable human rights) actions in general.
Ok, you just went over the line. First of all, you little prick, it's not murder because it's NOT ALIVE.
I must wonder what must go through the mind of a baby when saline salt( I believe this is a method) is put into the womb and the baby's skin starts to feel like it is burning.
NOTHING. Abso-f*cking-lutely nothing. BECAUSE ITS NOT ALIVE!
Do you remember what you felt in the womb? No because you weren't sentient.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Congradulations tiara, there is no difference between you and slave owners, you and nazis, between you and the japenese doctors, between you and anyone else that wishes to give something a special name inorder to avoid the sheer consequences of murder or their immoral(general inalienable human rights) actions in general. I must wonder what must go through the mind of a baby when saline salt( I believe this is a method) is put into the womb and the baby's skin starts to feel like it is burning.
Careful there. Feel free to attack her opinion, but not her.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Ok, you just went over the line.
What line. I just drew what I feel is a accurate comparison. If you don't like, thats tuff. but honestly there is no difference.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Careful there. Feel free to attack her opinion, but not her.
I am. Her opinion and view is in line with the nazis' view and opinion of how they justified their mission and goal as far as the jews were concerned.
*sorry for the bad grammer*
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I am, her opinion and view is in line with the opinion and view of the nazis view and opinion and how they justified their mission and goal as far as the jews were concerned.
Screw you, ok?
This is NOTHING like that. Comparing me to a Nazi just goes too far.
Besides, I can say the same for you. You think all women are evil and mean **** to you.
Now, I'm entitled to my opinion and you're entitled to disagree. Just don't be such a prick about it.
-
People excused slavery by calling their slaves "property" (c.f. Dred Scott v. Sanford). People excuse abortion by calling their unborn children, in effect, "property".
History repeats itself yet again. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Screw you, ok?
This is NOTHING like that. Comparing me to a Nazi just goes too far.
Besides, I can say the same for you. You think all women are evil and mean **** to you.
Now, I'm entitled to my opinion and you're entitled to disagree. Just don't be such a prick about it.
Only apology I will make is that of not realizing that Europeans are far more sensative to the subject of the Nazis. And especially being compared to one. I apologize. But my point still stands.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Screw you, ok?
This is NOTHING like that. Comparing me to a Nazi just goes too far.
Besides, I can say the same for you. You think all women are evil and mean **** to you.
Now, I'm entitled to my opinion and you're entitled to disagree. Just don't be such a prick about it.
Agreed. Redmenace has crossed the line. Comparing pro-choicers with Nazi Germany is WAY out of bounds. The debate over abortion is a difference of opinion, not a war of good against evil. Saying that pro-choicers are evil on the same level as the Nazis (or on the same level as Al Queda, like Bush adviser Karen Hughes said here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47647-2004Apr27.html)) is the height of stupidity and ignorance.
The sad thing is, redmenace is smart enough to know better.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
People excused slavery by calling their slaves "property" (c.f. Dred Scott v. Sanford). People excuse abortion by calling their unborn children, in effect, "property".
History repeats itself yet again. :rolleyes:
Only this time it isn't sentient and its INSIDE the womans BODY. Quite a big difference.
Don't make comparisons based on such utter bullcrap.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Screw you, ok?
This is NOTHING like that. Comparing me to a Nazi just goes too far.
Besides, I can say the same for you. You think all women are evil and mean **** to you.
Now, I'm entitled to my opinion and you're entitled to disagree. Just don't be such a prick about it.
Only apology I will make is that of not realizing that Europeans are far more sensative to the subject of the Nazis. And especially being compared to one. I apologize. But my point still stands.
I am going to stop posting in this thread, because if I don't I will get my self banned.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
I am going to stop posting in this thread, because if I don't I will get my self banned.
Thank god for small favors...
Oh, and if anyone wants to hear Jon Stewart's take on Karen Hughes remarks, you can find them here (http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_04_25_americablog_archive.html#108303773790448198) in two wavefile clips. It's REALLY funny! :lol:
-
Goober and Redmenace - check your mouths now!
You are using false analogies that evoke powerful emotions to support your point that you cannot otherwise support. You are calling people nazis and murders because they don't agree with you about your OPINION which is in direct conflict to the PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT of DOCTORS and BIOETHICISTS.
You have NO authority in the field in which you're arguing and you know it - all you have is a pathetic piece of historicial fiction which you decide to take litterally. PATHETIC
I refer to my EARLIER RANT - Go Read it. NOW
Styxx, Shrike, someone lock this thread because the mindless zealots are just going to throw gasoline onto the fire
-
Originally posted by Rictor
redmenace: do you feel bad when eating an egg? It could have turned out to be a tiny little cute baby chicken, but instead you ate it. Most people don't have a problem with that cause the baby chicken has not yet started to form and is just a yellow gloop when it is eaten,
well you know I wouldn't feel bad about eating the tiny little cute baby chicken either. :)
and now that I think about it, the eggs we get in stores unfertalised?
-
Originally posted by an0n
I swear to God, if I had a machine that could slap people over the internet....
... I'd never need to leave the house.
Personally, I think all babies should be mass-produced to government specifications in a factory in Novgorod.
-
Suddenly I feel the need to put up Bill Hick's comments on the abortion debate :D
-
Bobboau: mass-produced eggs are unfertilized
-
I think its been done a few times kara. And I have no idea who this Bill Hicks guy is, or why everyone keeps quoting him.
And as I said, this is nothing like slavery or the Nazis. The baby in not sentient, it is not aware that it is alive. Thats not an excuse, thats a fact. Sure, on some level, all life is sacred. But trees get chopped down all the time for our benefit, and no one says a thing. Really, the only people who have a legitimate arguement for being anti-abortion are Christians.
If theres one thing more violent than political debates, its abortion debates. That, or rival footie clubs, but those couldn't realy be said to be debates.
Abortion is legal throught most of Europe right?
-
Not where I am...
-
Actually life is not sacred - life is life
hey christian righties (anti-abortionists) you should be proud of yourselfs - keep on spreading misogynistic patriarcy
You really should be proud of yourself
"Althought the Clinton administration had supported these [see later] U.N. policy statements, the United States, under George W. **** has refused to ratify the CRC [Convention on the Rights of the Child], CEDAW [Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Descrimination Against Women], and the onvention on the Rights of Women (CRW). Today, 191 states [countries] have ratified the CRC - it is lacking only Somalia and the U.S" - The Fundamentals of Extremism, the Christian Right in America, page 99
(Note: the CRC is about ALREADY BORN individuals - people who are by technical definition children - a featus is not a child)
-
"...it is not aware that it is alive..."
how do you realy know?
not that it matters, this is simply one of those cases of some people being worth more than others.
my polocy on the subject is, if your going to get one get it as soon as posable, and if she's waited untill the last month or two she should just wait another one and give it up to adoption, who knows, maybe it'll be one of the 'lucky ones'. now there's no real way to legislate this but I feel it's a bit more consistant than just giveing some arbitrary factor (moment of conception or moment of birth) that realy doesn't have any effect on the situation the determineing factor.
do you honestly beleve there is some profound physiological change that happens at the moment of birth that suddenly takes a lifeless lump of flesh and makesin it into a liveing person, it's not a black and white issue, there is no 'point' at with a fetus becomes 'alive' there's a ~9 month proces. saying a baby is less alive the minute before birth is just as stupid and self deluteing as saying it's fully human the minute it becomes an unimplanted zygote.
-
It's legal here... But I live in Holland, that should be enough on it's own :D Anyone trying to rob us from our freedom of choice will be attacked with sticks made out of petrified weed :D
-
"how do you really know" simple biological fact - the neuron pathways for that ability haven't yet formed
the 'lucky ones' are outweighed atleast 2 for every 1 by the unlucky ones - which drain the economy and generally just end up filling the prison system (i'm not stereotyping, there are plenty of studies to back up this statement - i just don't have them at my finger tips because i normally don't have to argue that)
furthermore saying "Pregnancy is the result of prosmiscuity and is a deserving punishment!" is simply myoptic thinking
until the date of viability (which is slightly variable - probably has a mean variance of about 7 days, but you'd have to ask a doctor as this is just a wild estimate) is a more important date than actual birthing for whether or not it's a featus or a baby - because that's the time at which it becomes able to survive outside it's mothers body without extraordinary medical care
Abortions almost never happen after the Date of Viability - unless the baby naturally aborts after that (umbilical wrapped around neck - that's partial birth abortion - that baby _MUST_ come out otherwise the mother will die - but since it's called "partial brith abortion" **** wants to outlaw it)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
You are using false analogies
How is an analogy true or false? An analogy a means of comparison.evoke powerful emotions
Is that a bad thing? If the abortion debate is as important as both sides say it is, then of course it's going to generate strong emotion. On both sides.your OPINION which is in direct conflict to the PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT of DOCTORS and BIOETHICISTS.
I'm sure there are many doctors and bioethicists who would disagree with that.You have NO authority in the field in which you're arguing
Define authority. Furthermore, what authority are you arguing from?I refer to my EARLIER RANT - Go Read it. NOW.
I did read it. It was amusing. :)
-
Bob: sounds reasonable
And all life IS sacred. Not sacred with any religious conotation, I mean important and worth preserving.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The baby in not sentient, it is not aware that it is alive. Thats not an excuse, thats a fact.
There's absolutely no way to determine that. You can't prove it, and neither can you disprove it.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I think its been done a few times kara. And I have no idea who this Bill Hicks guy is, or why everyone keeps quoting him.
Bill Hicks was quite simply one of the funniest, most vitriolic comedians who ever lived. The difference between him and most other comedians was that although he had lots of funny dick jokes the main thrust of his act was rants about how the government was basically screwing with the American people and the rest of the world. The thing was that while he was very funny his comedy was also very thought provoking and often quite insightful.
Basically this is someone I think you should definately check out as I'm sure you'd agree with him on a lot of topics.
I did look for site but the main ones seem to have taken their samples down so instead here's (http://swooh.com/peon/karajorma//Downloads/BulliesOfTheWorld.mp3) one about America's attitude which you'll probably agree with :)
-
"furthermore saying "Pregnancy is the result of prosmiscuity and is a deserving punishment!" is simply myoptic thinking"
did I imply this or were you responding to someone else?
thing I've wondered about the "partial brith abortion", as I understand it, it's almost always a wanted child that has developed some leathal condition (like the umbilical around the neck thing) why don't they try cecarians? or do they usualy, that's probly it, the PBA is a quite rare procedure.
and "the neuron pathways for that ability haven't yet formed" his position is that life begins at the moment of birth, is it not true that the neuron pathways are in no way diferent five minutes before birth as compaired to five minutes after, and likely no signifignt diference (enough to warent makeing a diference) dureing the previus month or two?
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
There's absolutely no way to determine that. You can't prove it, and neither can you disprove it.
Depends on the age of the foetus/embryo. Many pro-lifers were against stem cell research because they claimed that embryos were also alive.
You want to argue that a ball of 16 cells is sentient too?
If not then we get down to the real crux of the matter. When does a foetus/embryo become sentient? It's fairly obvious that it must occur some time after the development of the central nervous system. Until there is no way an embryo can be sentient.
By about 8 months the baby is almost completely developed. Many can be born that early with few ill effects. At that point I do feel it is wrong to have an abortion. However I don't know anywhere that allows an 8 month abortion. The cut off point in the UK is 24 weeks (i.e 2 whole months earlier).
-
the real problem with most of the die hard anti-abortionists is that they're also against the teaching of anti-conception methods and such.
[Basically they want to keep the people stupid about their sexuality (like in the middle ages when sex was seen as a necessary evil).]
of course when you take away sex-education or reduce it to abstination only you're making yourself into the cause of many unwanted pregnancies and the possible abortion that comes from it.
the solution is of course simple:
if you're against abortion then don't have one, but leave those that are in fabour the freedom to choose.
But of course the religious crazies won't allow that as in the end the issue isn't abortion, or stem-cell research, or anti-conception... No, the real issue is getting the government to do their bidding, and their bidding only, at the expense of everyone else's freedom. They want to live in the 'perfect' christian state just like it was long ago when everything was 'better'.
Sound familiar? I hope it does, we've been fighting peeps like that since 11/9.
-
****, we've been fighting peeps like that since 1775
-
Originally posted by Kazan
furthermore saying "Pregnancy is the result of prosmiscuity and is a deserving punishment!" is simply myoptic thinking
'punishment' isn't the way I'd word it, but it's nevertheless anything BUT myopic - 'promiscuity without consequence' IS
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
****, we've been fighting peeps like that since 1775
Well, you haven't been really successful then, because quite a many different parts of the world have already got rid of those peeps few decades ago? ;)
-
only a few European and Asian nations have realy had much succes, most of the rest of the world still has to watch out for the wakos
-
Not really, it's just that the US's overbearing global influence makes you notice it more.
-
goober is in the habit of stractically ignoring facts - even when they're stated in the thread
if you don't understand how an analogy can be false then you shouldn't be trying to make them, you shouldn't even be trying to argue
a "false analogy" is the logical fallacy in which you try to draw an analogy between two non-analogious things (abortion and nazism for example)
-
What is "sentience"? Does it equal self-awareness?
[q]sen·tience (sĕn'shəns, -shē-əns)
n.
1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.[/q]
Ok, so "sentient":
[q]sen·tient (sĕn'shənt, -shē-ənt)
adj.
1. Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage” (T.E. Lawrence).
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
[/q]
Seems to me that by that definition, embryos/babies aren't "sentient" (self-aware) until around age, what, 3 months old? When do they normally start discovering their own hands and feet?
Or you could go the other way, and look at what stage the embryo begins "experiencing sensation or feeling." Definitely while still in the womb. How far along, though, I have no idea.
Personally speaking, I'm a pro-lifer, who firmly believes that bombing abortion clinics is unquestionably wrong. Personal beliefs is one thing, explaining your stance is fine as well. But forcing those beliefs on others - especially in a violent manner - is wrong.
EDIT: Oh, and I wonder what the stance of most PETA and SPCA people is on abortion.
-
I just wish I could get the government to give the the right to abort children up to 80 years old.
-
...
Catholic control of hospitals is not the only issue affecting women's reproductive health. Controversy over the procedure known as "partial-birth abortion" has drawn many unsuspecting proponents of choice into the Christian Right's bandwagon regarding the procedure. The medical term most closely resembling the description of the "partial-birth abortion" is properly termed "intact dilation and extraction." This method is sometimes used because prior to thirty-six weeks, the cervix is resistant to dialation. This resistance causes much physical pain during the two to four days it takes to dialte at this stage. Inductions done before this time also pose risk of uterine rupture. Therefore, continuous nursing supervision is required if drug induced labor is carried out rather than performing intact dilation and extraction.
In the campaign against late-term abortions, pro-life activists have created the illusion women are deciding at the eleventh-hour that they suddenly do not want to have a baby and, with no concern for their pre-born, decide to abort. By creating this misperception and graphically depiction the prodecure to appeal to the emotions of the public, even many pro-choice advocates argue the procedure must stop.
The reasons for the use of late-term abortion are not for women who have a last minute change of heart. The proceedure is used for the sake of the woman's health and, in some cases, when there is "severe fetal abnormality", says obstetrician Dr. Aleen Rosenfield, who is also the dean of New York's Columbia School of Public Health. Many complications can arise late in pregnancy threatening a woman's life. Tragically, it is also sometimes discoverd a fetus would be unable to survive birth.* In these instances, continuing the pregnancy could pose other serious health risks to the mother or result in the inability to conceive again.
Furthermore, the reality is only 1.4 percent of all abortions are perfromed twenty-one weeks into pregnancy or beyond. ...
Page 109 - The fundamentals of Extremism (The Christian Right in America)
Notes:
* Where the hell is your all-life-is-scared demanding god there! Huh?
You know there is actually no biblical basis for opposing abortion, infact it contradicts a fair number of passages that talk about aborting already born children!
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
EDIT: Oh, and I wonder what the stance of most PETA and SPCA people is on abortion.
"Burn the babies, we want to save the central-american rainforest flesh-eating poisonous cockroach."
;)
-
lol Styxx
-
Originally posted by Kazan
...
Notes:
* Where the hell is your all-life-is-scared demanding god there! Huh?
Freudian Slip Kaz? ;) :lol:
One of those occasions where the outcome is more accurate than the intent ;)
-
if you're against abortion then don't have one, but leave those that are in fabour the freedom to choose.
Ivan, my friend, those are wise words :) I'm entitled to my own choices as is anyone else.
And Kazan, if people try to argue that their 'god' is like 'All life is sacred' just point out that the bible describes about numerous acts of god that involve killing of innocent people. Like killing all first born sons...
-
flipside: irony and sarcasm are lost on you
-
Huh? I'm not the only one lost then :rolleyes: Kazan, I was landing on your side of the argument. I was saying that the juxtaposed letters in 'sacred' to read 'scared' was spookily accurate, considering you were talking about Gods demands upon people, which, from hearing your point of view is a statement you would agree with just as strongly.
-
oh.. i didn't notice the typo... rotfl
-
hehehe No problem, ;)
Shoulda done something to highlight it really :)
-
If you get down to it, any fanatic is a moron. And I'm referring to all fanatics. Pro-life and pro-choice, religious and atheist, anyone who is fanatic is incapable of rational thought on the subject.
For example, I personally do not like the concept of abortion. Just doesn't seem quite right to me, except in certain circumstances (rape, incest, impossibility to save both mother and child). But the crazy pro-lifers are just that: crazy. Life may begin at conception, but having it be destroyed at that point is about the same as having a random cell in your stomach die.
Aborting a pregnancy a few months in because the couple (or mother) do not want to have a child does not seem right at all. If a child is just not wanted, put it up for adoption.
-
Grey Wolf 2009: the 'put it up for adoption' arguement is not compelling and ignores the health risks of pregnancies, costs, the fact that MOST unwannted children NEVER get adopted and bouncing around through the foster care system
I HIGHLY recommend you read the following excerpts
Marjorie Bell Chambers "argued that in the conflict between saving the fetus or the life of the woman, the phrase, 'cannot be infringed' meant 'that men and fetuses have a right to life at all timse, but women lose that right when they become pregnant'"
------------------------------
... the World Health Organization reports "585,00 women die each year during childbirth and pregnancy." And "for every maternal death," it is reported "as many as thirty women sustain often times crippling and lifelong health problems related to pregnancy""
------------------------------
The antiabortion movement poses another health risk to women as well. Acorrding to Flora Davis, in Moving the Mountain: The Women's Movement in America since 1960, abortion was legal in the country until around 1900. By that time, male physicians desiring to increase business by taking on child birthing, had gained the support of chruches and theclergy in condemning the practice. Previously, women saw midwives and others for their reproductive health. Churches had origionally not opposed abortion, until the business-cause of the male physicians took hold. Regardless of the illegalization of abortion, by the 1960s, more than a million abortions were performed anually in the United States...
------------------------------
Since the legalization of abortion, a survey administered by Reproductive Health Services in St. Louis has been given to patients at their three-week medical check-up after abortion. It found every woman would have sought an illegal and unsafe way to end her pregnancy if legalized abortion were not available or else they would have considered suicide.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of this whole right-to-life effort is that fundamentalists and the religious right refuse to take part in the prevention of pregnancy. This could easily be done by advocation for appropriate sex education and contraceptive use or for improving the economic conditions for low-incoming women to support a baby. Yet, they have gone to great lengths to prevent appropraite and adequate sex and family planning educate. And they have worked to make birth control difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. This has been especially so with the most effective contraceptives, and not only for youth, but for many adults, especially the poor.
While fundamentalists insist on abstinence-only or celibacy as an answer to pegnancy prevention, it has proven an unrealistic method of birth control for a majority of the population. As a result, girls and women become pregnant. Abortion then becomes the only suitable solution for the many who are unable, at the time, to take on the responsibility of having a baby and who are emotionally unable to go give up a baby for adoption. In turn, the funamentalists who prevented these women frmo obtaining and, therefore using contraceptives, accuse these women of using abortion as their method of choice for birth control. The, in contrast, when unamrried women choose not to have an abortion, they're accused of having many children to take advantage of the welfare system. In reality, having more children was the last thing they wanted. Either way, pregnant women are punished.
------------------------------
Furthermore, 14 million American children go to bed hungry every night. And in the United States, the infant mortality rate ranks twentieth among industrialized nations. In 1984, according to The New York Times, the United States had more than 50,000 children available for adoption. Many have multi[ple handicaps, requiring lifetime medical care. So how will our nation care for the more unwanted children should Roe v Wade be overturned? It is clear that concern for the unborn is not the issue at hand. The anti-abortion campaign is, largely, just one more way for patriarchs to keep women under their control.
------------------------------
The dangers fundamentalism poses to women are many. Women raised in Christian fundamentalist homes suffer emotinoally, sexually, and physically as adults. This is because of the beliefs with which they have been indoctrinated and, ultimately, from their acceptance of male domination in the marriage. ... Finally, they are hindred by a wide range of acts meant to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in their "proper" role."
PG 108-114 The Fundamentals of Extremism
-
Kazan knows his stuff. :yes:
Yeah, I can't believe the hippocrisy of the pro-life people when they want to outlaw abortion, but then deny contraceptives to women who have sex but don't want to get pregnant.
Thank God for the 1.15 million people who showed up at the March on Sunday. Maybe we'll be able to turn this around.
-
Su-tehp: i was quoting from "The Fundamentals of Extremism" because they are citing sources and what not and are more knowledgeable than me on some aspects of it so they can lay the arguement out better
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Kazan knows his stuff. :yes:
Yeah, I can't believe the hippocrisy of the pro-life people when they want to outlaw abortion, but then deny contraceptives to women who have sex but don't want to get pregnant.
You are a fool if you believe the pro-life movement is about saving lives.
Not you as in "you", you as in anyone.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The reasons for the use of late-term abortion are not for women who have a last minute change of heart. The proceedure is used for the sake of the woman's health and, in some cases, when there is "severe fetal abnormality", says obstetrician Dr. Aleen Rosenfield, who is also the dean of New York's Columbia School of Public Health.
Bit of a question: Wouldn't things like this show up on the ultrasound and the like, well before the the end of the third trimester?
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Bit of a question: Wouldn't things like this show up on the ultrasound and the like, well before the the end of the third trimester?
Does every single medical problem you'll have in the next year show up in your yearly check-up?
You're ignoring conditions that develop after the first scans, conditions that were invisible at the time and things that were basically missed because they could have been a smudge on the monitor.
-
I realize that, just seemed that life-threatening defects would show up earlier.
-
Grey Wolf 2009: What kara said AND then you have the 'partial-birth abortion' thing, where the featus is large enough that it must be extracted by the time these things are detectable - but induction before thirty-six weeks being potentially life threatening - and at best threaten the health of the mother
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
I realize that, just seemed that life-threatening defects would show up earlier.
Some do but have you ever looked at an ultrasound pic? I'm amazed the doctors can even see the child, let alone detect problems with it :D
As for the whole teaching of contraception thing here's the way I'd solve the problem. Every child would get full teaching on the use of contraceptives. Plain and simple. However this would cause problems with those religious zealots so here's my compromise.
Every child would get full teaching on the use of contraceptives unless the parents sign a waiver stating that they refuse to allow their children to be taught how to use contraceptives. At that point the teaching of the child in that matter becomes the responsibility of the parents and if said child does become pregnant the parents who neglected their duty in preventing the child getting pregnant have to pay child support same as the father has to from then on until the child reaches 18.
I see no reason why the state that you prevented from teaching your child about the birds and the bees should have to pay for your stupidity and poor teaching when you tried to do it yourself.
-
At least in my school, they teach you about all that stuff in Health class in either 11th or 12th grade. Of course, some people have already had 3 children or so, but they're just not too bright.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
You are a fool if you believe the pro-life movement is about saving lives.
Not you as in "you", you as in anyone.
Yeah, I remember one of the chants we shouted at the "pro-life" counter-protestors went like this:
"Pro-life, that's a lie! You don't care if women die!"
So, yeah, "pro-life" is kind of an ironic misnomer, especially when the more extremist of the pro-lifers go out and shoot doctors...
-
Several Pro-Life organizations are on the international terrorists organizations list (But i bet **** leaves them off the domestic list)
-
hmm, wich ones? (for future reference)
-
all the ones that advocate violence, i don't remember names off the top of my head and i don't feel like digging through books at 11 pm at night
-
am I the only one left standing upon the field of battle
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
So, yeah, "pro-life" is kind of an ironic misnomer
In every abortion, a child dies. Not every mother or every child will die if an abortion is not performed.
It's not a win-win situation... you have to balance the costs.especially when the more extremist of the pro-lifers go out and shoot doctors...
Most pro-lifers (including me) don't approve of that. 'Tis the height of hypocrisy.
-
I always feel that, particuarly in the case of pregnant single girls, it is a lose-lose situation though.
If they don't get an abortion and have the child, they are 'spongers', 'Welfare leeches' and any other number of names.
If they DO have an abortion that are a 'slut', a 'murderer' etc,
What's the poor girl supposed to do? :(
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Yeah, I remember one of the chants we shouted at the "pro-life" counter-protestors went like this:
"Pro-life, that's a lie! You don't care if women die!"
So, yeah, "pro-life" is kind of an ironic misnomer, especially when the more extremist of the pro-lifers go out and shoot doctors...
There's this guy who ran a website called "The Nuremberg Files", posting pictures of employees (and their families) of various Planned Parenthood clincs, occasionally crossing out a name when one of them got killed. Neal Horsely, yeah, that's his name.
His argument was "If you saw someone on the street in the process of being murdered would you intervene, or would you write to your congressman to say how offended you were at what you saw?"
That flared up in my head like a light bulb. What they were "really" saying made sense immediately.
See, it isn't about saving babies or women (the sect of Christianity these people practice is roughly the equivalent of the Taliban's variant of Islam with respect to women). It's a group of people with major anger issues who need a focus for them, something that makes them feel 'justified' in their actions. Scary stuff.
Don't you find it interesting that most of the people running the various pro-life organizations are MEN? Wtf does a man know about being pregnant?*
*(appropriate disclaimers for those who are husbands or partners of women who have gone through this process. I think you get my point.)
-
I still maintain that I believe that abortions should only be done in cases where it is medically required, or for reasons as mentioned above (rape, incest, etc.)
Of course, I sometimes feel that what our country needs are draconian birth control measures (extra taxes and the like on people who have over X number of children, where X would probably be 2-4 or so), and these two concepts don't really mesh.
-
Grey Wolf 2009: you can maintain that believe - therefore you can follow it yourself and encourage your friends to do so - but you cannot mandate that
you really need to read the citations from the book i made.. did you read them?
-
Yeah. Some seemed a bit biased, and some are not quite as revelant as they seem (for example, the number of women who die during childbirth would include countries where they lack the tech to prevent basic infections and the like), but they're fairly straight-forward.
And about the personal beliefs/mandate concept, I agree with you there. Doesn't seem to be any reason why anyone should be able to dictate the lives of others.
-
They 'seem a bit biased' because they're from a book describing the practices of the fundamentalist movement -- but it's not biased at all
they cite their sources throughout the entire book - im to page 120 something and they already have over 300 unique sources
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
In every abortion, a child dies. Not every mother or every child will die if an abortion is not performed.
It's not a win-win situation... you have to balance the costs.Most pro-lifers (including me) don't approve of that. 'Tis the height of hypocrisy.
:yes:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
They 'seem a bit biased' because they're from a book describing the practices of the fundamentalist movement -- but it's not biased at all
they cite their sources throughout the entire book - im to page 120 something and they already have over 300 unique sources
Part of the problem is that the quotes are out of context, hence they lack the references and sources that would help them make sense.
-
Grey Wolf 2009: i grabbed the more important sections so you could get the idea
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
In every abortion, a child dies. Not every mother or every child will die if an abortion is not performed.
It's not a win-win situation... you have to balance the costs.Most pro-lifers (including me) don't approve of that. 'Tis the height of hypocrisy.
A featus is not a child - until the 'date of viability' it is part of the mothers body, since it cannot exist outside that body
Banning abortion is a lose-lose-lose situation (Human Rights Loss, Increase Poverty, Violation of the Constitution)
''Balance the costs" - you're trying to see the world in terms of black and white, come on join the real world - it is NOT black and white, that is the height of ignorance
-
Originally posted by Kazan
''Balance the costs" - you're trying to see the world in terms of black and white, come on join the real world - it is NOT black and white, that is the height of ignorance
Well, more likely you're the height of ignorance, but we won't discuss that. :doubt:
Originally posted by Kazan
A featus is not a child - until the 'date of viability' it is part of the mothers body, since it cannot exist outside that body
Who cares about existing outside the womb? This is one of the most ridiculous and laughable comments made by no-choice advocates. What matters is the future life... hold on now, watch this.
Murder is illegal. Why? Why is it wrong to take the life of someone? Because you hurt them? No, because by taking the life of someone, you're doing just that: taking their life; denying that person the right to live. By killing the fetus you are denying a future human being his life--if all was left to natural process that child would have a very high chance of survival. By intervening and destroying that developing human you are denying him something that is his fundamental right: his life.
Originally posted by Kazan
Banning abortion is a lose-lose-lose situation (Human Rights Loss, Increase Poverty, Violation of the Constitution)
How is ensuring the rights of the unable to speak a losing situation? The children can't speak, therefore it is acceptable to destroy them? Abortion is absolute cruelty as any definition would have it.
~Beowulf
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Don't you find it interesting that most of the people running the various pro-life organizations are MEN? Wtf does a man know about being pregnant?*
*(appropriate disclaimers for those who are husbands or partners of women who have gone through this process. I think you get my point.)
:yes2:
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Don't you find it interesting that most of the people running the various pro-life organizations are MEN? Wtf does a man know about being pregnant?*
*(appropriate disclaimers for those who are husbands or partners of women who have gone through this process. I think you get my point.)
No, I don't. What does a man know about being pregnant?
Uhh, last I checked it was necessary for a guy and a girl to... you know, get it on.
Second, this is a problem of humanity, not pregnancy. A baby is human, no matter how you look at it. The murder of man does not have gender issues.
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Uhh, last I checked it was necessary for a guy and a girl to... you know, get it on.
Hence, the flaw in my argument. I"ve never quite been able to wrap around it completely, but I'm working on it :).
I take a position of: if my vote is required to ensure women can still make that choice for themselves, within reason, then they may have it. I disagree with third trimester pregnancy terminations for reasons other than immediate threat to the fetus or the mother. However, I'm not sure I should be making that call.
The problem with making gynecological abortion "murder" is that you have to take ANY instance of anyone taking another life and placing it under the same blanket. Unrealistic.
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Murder is illegal. Why? Why is it wrong to take the life of someone? Because you hurt them? No, because by taking the life of someone, you're doing just that: taking their life; denying that person the right to live. By killing the fetus you are denying a future human being his life--if all was left to natural process that child would have a very high chance of survival. By intervening and destroying that developing human you are denying him something that is his fundamental right: his life.
Uh-huh, and by the same idiotic reasoning having a period is murder. Which makes women mass murderers for not trying to get pregnant. If you're going to be a fundamentalist twat you might as well go the whole hog.
Originally posted by Beowulf
By intervening and destroying that developing human you are denying him something that is his fundamental right: his life.
Originally posted by Beowulf
God. I'd love to kill every last one of those ****ers on that bridge.
Whats the story here, you're kicking up about murder one minute and saying you'd love to try it the next? And you expect people to take your arguement seriously?
-
Originally posted by Gank
Uh-huh, and by the same idiotic reasoning having a period is murder. Which makes women mass murderers for not trying to get pregnant. If you're going to be a fundamentalist twat you might as well go the whole hog.
Nah. A fertilized egg will develop, an unfertilized egg wont.
Originally posted by Gank
Whats the story here, you're kicking up about murder one minute and saying you'd love to try it the next? And you expect people to take your arguement seriously?
Ahh. I knew someone would grab that. Well, you see, innocent children have done nothing wrong. Bastard ****ers who kill, mutilate, and defile innocent civilians are a whole world and a half different.
-
Wait.... You're referring to the people who were basically mercenaries as innocent civilians?
-
But see the thing is, they aren't actually children yet.
**** it, I'm complete opposite end of the spectrum to pro lifers, I'm pro child death, kill em all, pains in the asses the whole lot of em, any child up to the age of 18 should be eligible for abortion in my book.
Some of the little ****s need it in my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Nah. A fertilized egg will develop, an unfertilized egg wont.
Yes but by not fertilizing the egg shes denieing its chance to live. Its the same logic you just used to .
Originally posted by Beowulf
Ahh. I knew someone would grab that. Well, you see, innocent children have done nothing wrong. Bastard ****ers who kill, mutilate, and defile innocent civilians are a whole world and a half different.
Innocent civilians? What planet are you on? The guys were 1000 dollar a day mercenaries armed to the teeth paid by a government which illegally invaded Iraq. Anyways you didnt say you wanted to kill the people who killed the mercs, you said you wanted to kill everyone on the bridge. If you were as concerned for peoples rights as you proclaim to be you'd be crying for them to be arrested, tried and then sentenced if they were guilty, but you're crying murder, guilty of anything or no. Who the **** are you to tell people what rights they have.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Yes but by not fertilizing the egg shes denieing its chance to live. Its the same logic you just used to .
No, because it's not fertilized... :wtf:
Originally posted by Gank
Innocent civilians? What planet are you on? The guys were 1000 dollar a day mercenaries armed to the teeth paid by a government which illegally invaded Iraq. Anyways you didnt say you wanted to kill the people who killed the mercs, you said you wanted to kill everyone on the bridge. If you were as concerned for peoples rights as you proclaim to be you'd be crying for them to be arrested, tried and then sentenced if they were guilty, but you're crying murder, guilty of anything or no. Who the **** are you to tell people what rights they have.
Haha. I'm choking on the words you put in my mouth. I said nothing about rights. I'm saying, "if you attack my countrymen, I hope you die". It's that simple. Saying I hope all the islamofascist die (read: terrorists who bomb innocent women and children) is the same thing.
Mercenaries? When did contractors become mercenaries?
Wait a minute, wait a minute... ILLEGALLY invaded Iraq? Says who? You? Ohh wait... all nations are soveriegn... forgot about that one. :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
When they started recieveing thier cheque from Blackwater, a outfit providing mercs do the government. Read it on their website, no one is hiding the fact.
There are also allegations that they were CIA, but I won't get into that at the moment. "Innocent civilians" are not armed, nor are they escorting military equipment and supplies.
They were mercs, or are you naive enough to be fooled by a simple name-change. A rose by any other name...
edit: Right, I forgot. If someone were to invade America, that would be completely legal, right? Sorry, but there is a such a thing as international law. You know, Geneva Convention, Nuremberg...that stuff. Invading a foreign nation is illegal, how can it not be?
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
No, because it's not fertilized... :wtf:
But its a potential human, if it was fertilisied then it would become a human being. By not fertilising it you're dening its right to exist, same crappy arguement you use.
Originally posted by Beowulf
Haha. I'm choking on the words you put in my mouth. I said nothing about rights.
Liar.
you are denying him something that is his fundamental right: his life.
Riight, never mentioned rights :rolleyes:
Denying you've said something is pretty stupid when its written right above your denial.
Originally posted by Beowulf
I'm saying, "if you attack my countrymen, I hope you die". It's that simple. Saying I hope all the islamofascist die (read: terrorists who bomb innocent women and children) is the same thing.
Oh so they were women and children now? Are you really stupid enough to expect anyone to believe that? Or are you just twisting the facts around so you can justify murder?
Originally posted by Beowulf
Mercenaries? When did contractors become mercenaries?
When they are hired by the military. Look up the word in a dictionary.
Originally posted by Beowulf
Wait a minute, wait a minute... ILLEGALLY invaded Iraq? Says who? You? Ohh wait... all nations are soveriegn... forgot about that one.
Eh, the UN says it was illegal, you know that organisation your country helped set up after ww2 to stop wars from breaking out? Invading other countries is illegal under its charter, which the US signed.
-
I am sure you all are aware of the anguish it causes most women to even terminate a month or so old foetus, you should realise that it is never an easy decision to make.
Abortion is a last resort, not a contraceptive, women choose to have abortions because of many reasons, quite a lot of them are actually social or finiacial. If pro-lifers want to stop abortions happening, they should turn their energy to the problems and not the symptoms.
-
Exactly - the IMAGE the fundemantalist movement has drawn as it being their "method of contraception" is a false image - it's the last resort
The ABORTION RATE IS HIGHER AMONG FUNDAMENTALIST RAISED WOMEN - Why? Because they're not taught proper sex educaiton so they don't know about contraceptives
So since they've been denied information about contraceptives they get pregnant [don't pull that chastity bull****], now that they're pregnant they can either A) Abort the child and be called a murderer by you fundies or B) Keep the child and be called lazy, said they're milking the welfare system
You people are freaking ignorant
[size=32]Pro-life, that's a lie! You don't care if women die![/size]
-
Kazan, would you mind calming down?
-
No, I'm completely and utterly sick and tired of encountering brainwashed minions of Neoconservative wannabie dictators, and then having those brainwashed minions be so resistant to thinking for themselves that i want to bludgeon their heads in and remove them from the gene pool
You fundamantalists all subscribe to GROUPTHINK -- It's disgusting to see people deny medical FACT to support their insistance that they have the right to control women's bodies
Look at the quote from Page 108 of the Fundamentals of Extremism - in short one of your kind sade 'men and fetuses always have the right to life, women give that up when they become pregnant'
The prolife movement is just another extension of the neoconservatives trying to keep women as property - BAREFOOT AND PREGANANT, uneducated so they cannot get away from their abusers.
Ignorance, and the arrogance that makes you think you have the right to dictate to others how they're going to make medical decisions via judgements you made in ignorance should be considered a crime against humanity
-
Seriously, I'm giving your heart like, three years at the most you keep stressing yourself out like this.
-
Rotfl, see you in 90 years
I don't have hypertension, and me being 'angry' doesn't mean i'm stressed - it means i want to put my boot up your ass
-
I was just referring to the fact that mass insulting of forumites tends to lead to bannings.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I am sure you all are aware of the anguish it causes most women to even terminate a month or so old foetus, you should realise that it is never an easy decision to make.
Abortion is a last resort, not a contraceptive, women choose to have abortions because of many reasons, quite a lot of them are actually social or finiacial. If pro-lifers want to stop abortions happening, they should turn their energy to the problems and not the symptoms.
:yes: :yes: :yes:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Rotfl, see you in 90 years
I don't have hypertension, and me being 'angry' doesn't mean i'm stressed - it means i want to put my boot up your ass
Why my ass in particular? I'm just as pro death as you are, I just don't care to sugarcoat my words.
-
01010: 'pro-choice' is completely different than pro-death
Do I see abortion as a viable option? Yes, if the need arises - but we prevent hat need from arising through condoms and BC -- my GFs been off BC for two months -- she needed to clean her system out of other stuff - she's been playing with what type because it gives her libido problems
no problem with her getting pregnant because we know what a condom is .. now she is on BC - hopefully this low dose stuff won't have the negative side effects the normal-strength stuff did.
I prevent the NEED for an abortion by being smart - but condoms can fail, and EC can fail so then you'd need an abortion. If you're not ready financially/emotionally to bring a child into this world then you ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT - infact It's an act of abuse.
Even worse - i consider allowing a clearly disabled (downs, etc) fetus to be born an unforgiveable act of abuse - of the child and of society
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Rotfl, see you in 90 years
Pfft, the rate I'm going I'll be dead by 45 and I'd have loved every single ****ing minute of it.
-
01010: you'll be dead sooner than that i bet [but not by my hand]
and i'll still be rock climbing at 90 and by then enjoying having put an end to the fundamentalist movement
-
**** it, not like I care, it's the people who care about me that I'm bothered about. I must be the only person I know that really isn't fazed by death in the slightest. It happens, oh well.
Having said this now, I bet I live to like a ****ing 100 years old and get to the point where I'm begging people to euthanise me. God damn laws.
-
Death doesn't bother me, but i still want to live life to the fullest - that means LENGTH and HEALTH
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
Morality has nothing to do with the law. The law is in place to keep society functioning. Many moral systems (from religion or spiritual beliefs or whatever) dovetail with the law in many places, the prohibition against murder for one. But the law forbids murder because a society could not function if people wantonly killed each other with impunity, while religion/morality forbids it because it is wrong to rob another person of his life. Same result but for different reasons.
Seeing as how America has people of many different religions due to its Constitutional clause of religious freedom, it's the height of imbecility and stupidity to say that Christian morality is the system that should rule America. There are Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Wiccans and many other religions practiced here in America. To make one system of morality above the rest would shortchange everyone who is not of that morality. That's unconstitutional, so it is forbidden. America has MANY moralities, not just the Christian one.
(Hell, there are as many Christian moralities as there are Christians. Not every Christian agrees with every tenet of their church. My mother was the best Catholic I ever knew, and she was pro-choice, just like all of her other friends, Catholic, Jewish or otherwise.)
The law is NOT governed by the Bible, but by the Constitution. Morality is irrelevant; it's the Constitution that governs in matters of the law. I went to law school, I know this.
Originally posted by Beowulf
Murder is illegal. Why? Why is it wrong to take the life of someone? Because you hurt them? No, because by taking the life of someone, you're doing just that: taking their life; denying that person the right to live. By killing the fetus you are denying a future human being his life--if all was left to natural process that child would have a very high chance of survival. By intervening and destroying that developing human you are denying him something that is his fundamental right: his life.
Beowulf, re-read my above post. Murder is NOT illegal because many religions say it is immoral. Murder is illegal because a society could not function if its members couldn't go to work and live their lives if they were afraid they'd get killed by robbers and rapists if they just stepped outside their own front door. Murder is illegal to keep society functioning. Morality and the law, while they may dovetail in certain places, are NOT the same thing at all. There are several things mentioned in the Bible that are forbidden as being immoral, but are not prohibited by the law. It's not illegal to be homosexual, for instance.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Death doesn't bother me, but i still want to live life to the fullest - that means LENGTH and HEALTH
You forgot quality. I consider health to be a part of quality, so is comes down to lenght and quality.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
[size=32]Pro-life, that's a lie! You don't care if women die![/size]
:doubt:
[size=32]Pro-choice, that's a lie! You don't care if humans don't choose to die![/size]
-
Doesn't have the correct ring - AND it contains debatable definitions
a "baby" is already born, and can survive outside it's mothers body
-
Fixed.
Just so you know, a human is a human. Just like a plant is a plant.
-
I think his point was makeing it brightly colored and oversized doesn't make it righter
-
Beowulf: it still doesn't have it the peotic ring
You act as if human life is somehow special - other than us having evolved big brains - we're not
Until the 'date of viability' the fetus is part of the mothers body - and NO MATTER WHAT - as long as it's in her it's a health decision for her - an unborn doesn't have a right to life - infact you don't have a right to life, you have a right not to be killed - but that's not a right to live
if you are fatally ill and it would cost a million dollars to cure you - it's not the public's responsibility to pay - if you had a 'right to life' then it conceivably could be
please stick to the REAL rights - equality, freedom, privacy
-
None of which are fully defined in the Constitution. And the right to privacy only exists in state and federal laws.