Bush & co trying to get around Roe v Wade (illegal, regular)

[manny1031]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

I'm not the one defining standards here. And I appreciate your moral stance on this issue. But I'm trying to see how you apply your moral stance to the real world. For instance, you state that you are able to empathize why a raped woman would want to abort that child. Does this mean that if abortion laws were strengthened and the option became much less available, that you would want an exception in the case of rape? You also seem to see a dichotomy between women who have searched their souls, and women who have not. But how much soul-searching is required? Is there a time-frame, or any way, actually, that a woman can convince you that she had indeed agonised over this decision and decided to abort?

Below is quote of yours from an earlier post (ie, it's the standard I ascribe to you). All I've been saying is that not every woman's decision to abort consisted of agonizing internal deliberation prior to having the abortion. Some women probably didn't give it much thought and just wanted to get rid of the fetus for whatever reason. Others probably really did go through an agonizing decision process. ... I'm not saying I would want an exception in the case of rape since I believe the taking of human life is wrong. What I am saying is that I could clearly understand people's rationale for wanting the rape exception due to the horrible manner in which the mother got pregnant.

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

The desire not to carry a child is neither a whim or impulse. It is often an agonising decision.

[DC at the Ridge]

Well, none of my posts said anything about setting a standard. Thank you for your clarification that you would not support a woman getting an abortion for any reason. While I don't agree with you, I appreciate that you are consistent.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by manny1031

All I've been saying is that not every woman's decision to abort consisted of agonizing internal deliberation prior to having the abortion. Some women probably didn't give it much thought and just wanted to get rid of the fetus for whatever reason.

This is getting a little close to the fundie Prom Dress Girl caricature. Just in general, what would your guess be as to the approximate percentage of women who, upon learning that they were facing an unwanted pregnancy, would fail to give their situations considerable and serious thought?

[karfar]

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

Just that thats NOT how a free society operates is all. Thats more like a Nazi Germany thing. Theres so much wrong with that attitude in a free country I cant believe you are serious.

But anyway, if a thing is constantly the focus of broader & more stringent legislation mostly brought on by frustration due to the fact that earlier liberal gun control has not had the desired effect it becomes obvious that public saftey is not a goal. Pacifying a clueless constituency is.

Theres alot I dont like about todays fake conservatives & Republicans. But as long as the bleeding heart liberal democlueless folks keep making gun control such a big issue I might not vote Republican but I damn sure am NEVER going to vote Democrat.

If Bush signs it he signs it. No biggie. Some day when a worthy Democrat crawls from under a rock somewhere that can get elected you all can switch it back. Sadly I believe this go round will se McCain in the whitehouse.

Do you have a problem w/ the Patriot Act? Wiretapping? The gov. checking out your phone calls, emails, library books, etc.?

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by karfar

Do you have a problem w/ the Patriot Act? Wiretapping? The gov. checking out your phone calls, emails, library books, etc.?

The government is wlecome to listen in, read my e-mails, and take out a library card anytime they wish. Seeing as how most Fed employees are Democrats, maybe they'd learn a few things by following me around for awhile.

Germane to that, how do YOU feel about Google making everyone's YouTube records available?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/te...04youtube.html

[TheDragonslayer]

As the sixth child of seven that my mom had (not including miss carrying 4), I do realize that if my mom had access to abortions without her husband, the church or the government encroaching upon her body, myself and several of my siblings may not exist today. My mom had to give up a daughter several years before she had me. She regretted giving up a child that she bore, it hurt her emotionally all her life, giving up my sister Eileen for adoption was not her choice, it was my stepfathers and she did it reluctantly because he was the husband and he had more rights than she did. She mainly avoided abortion and birth control too, because the church said it was a sin. To me the sin was raising six children on welfare because she did not use birth control and had married a shiftless man. But the church had taught her that both divorce and any kind of birth control were sins, including refusing to have sex with her husband. In the 40's and 50's a woman did not own her body, a bank account or her life. When the police would come out for domestic violence reports, most of the time my mom was blamed for the violence performed against her. When my second step father nearly beat the life out of her in one of his drunken rages, the police simply told him to chill out and my mom to try and be a better wife. When the same step father ran off and cleaned out their joint bank account, she had no recourse and was told that as the husband it was his right. I am 100% for women to choose what ever they need to do for their bodies and lives. Why should we put more unwanted children into the foster care programs and adoption agencies. They are already overwhelmed and if every child that was conceived were carried to term and delivered, just imagined how many more billion of hungry people would be in the USA and the rest of the world. All of our resources would be in worse straits than they are at present and the only animals left on the planet with us would be our domestic animals for food stock. 6 billion, 666 million and more people on the earth is already too much.

[zz4guy]

Even a baby of a raped mother is still a person that deserves a shot at a life, just like the rest of us. The child knows no difference. I believe abortion should be illegal 100% of the time. Who are we to judge the value of a life???

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by zz4guy

Even a baby of a raped mother is still a person that deserves a shot at a life, just like the rest of us. The child knows no difference. I believe abortion should be illegal 100% of the time. Who are we to judge the value of a life???

I was just going to let this be, but I have to respond. Who is judging the value of a life? Evidently you, because you've decided that the baby's life is of more value than the mother's, 100% of the time. You don't seem to care that carrying a baby is a potential health risk. The fact that 80% of women suffer from some pregnancy-related complications is unimportant. That fact that more than half a million women worldwide die in childbirth or from those complications of pregnancy every year is unimportant. Worldwide 1 in 17 pregnant women will die in childbirth or from a complication of her pregnancy. Healthcare in the United States is superior to developing countries; here only one in 2800 will die. But even if she doesn't die, pregnancy physically changes women. Some of those changes are minor, some more than minor. Women suffer spinal injuries, tailbone breakes, their uteruses are torn or they have scars from cesaerean births. High blood pressure, gestational diabetes, severe hemorhaging that can result in stroke, brain damage, coma or death. Every pregnancy entails some risk, only a woman and her doctor know how much risk each individual pregnancy incurs. But you can sit in the judgment seat and tell her that her life is less important than the unborn child's.

[EDnurse]

Originally Posted by pstratt

The Huffington Post and the NYT are not great sources of unbiased journalism. Try again.

Could it be that the only source of information that you consider worthy is Fox News?

[HubbleRules]

It is scary the amount of executive power this administration tries to wield - thru executive orders, or thru coercing federal agencies.

People have and always will want to have sex - that's human nature - and as a result, there will be unexpected/unwanted pregnancies.

They should have access to contraceptives to prevent these situations from happening - preaching abstinence and responsibility haven't worked over the thousands of years of history, and won't work now either.

I think it's immoral to withhold readily available contraceptives and thereby needlessly promote unwanted pregnancies.

I don't support those who decide to have abortions with absolutely no thought or concern for the fetus. But that is and should be their right also.

HubbleRules