3 to be 4

and this is a rational and fair minded debating point? I "want to make certain that women who have sex and get pregant as a result are forced to bear those pregancies. Its irrelevant to them what happens to the children that result from such unwanted pregancies, irrelevant if such kids are abused or neglected as unwanted children tend to be"
really?? Me and BF said ALL that?

first of all, we didnt say ANY of that. secondly, read your own reasoning. You are claiming to be all for these "poor" children. And your solution isnt too far removed from the philosophy of a vet treating a horse with a broken leg. Well, they are just going to get abused because they are unwanted, so lets be compassionate and kill them.

I talked about reasonable limitations. You are saying I want every single abortion to be illegal right now because, basically, i dont care about women and these kids are all doomed because the parents have no choice but to abuse them.

Responsibility anyone?

Patters said he doesnt believe a seven month old fetus is life. Ever looked at an ultrasound? Ever seen a kid in a maternity ward that was born at 6 months?
Its not the Bible. Its common sense.
I guess its only life if its wanted. If not, it doesnt exist.

Very dark thinking.

Patters

3 to be 4, you can either trust religion, which I regard as fairytale (when it comes to scientific matters), or you can trust science, which I regard as based on logic. It would be unprincipled for me to rely on my own judgment with something as important as a women's well being. If doctors and scientists say that abortion is okay during the first two trimesters, I accept that. I know it's controversial science as to when a fetus becomes a true human, but science doesn't offer the easy answers that religion offers. But, I do understand the complexity of this debate. You believe the fetus is an unborn child; if I believed that, I too would oppose abortion.

SoonerPatriot

I beg to differ. There have been several instances in the news recently about pharmacists refusing to distrbute birth control and the morning after pills. I didn't say anything about condoms which are available in most gas station restrooms, among many many other locales. I'm not sure where you live, but here in the bible belt, this mentality is quite common, actually.

It is also a well established fact Catholics are opposed to contraception whether it be condoms or pills or simply "pulling out".

on edit: On the who we are sticky it says you grew up in Mass. Let me just say that the social climate in this part of the country is VASTLY different than Mass. We have mega churches on every corner and Abortion is Murder bumper stickers on every other car. We even have state issued "pro life" license plates. It's a completely different world here.

__________________
Celebrating the wonders of the ignore list.

3 to be 4

I live just outside of Kansas City, which is probably the most balanced place of the places i have lived in this country. In fact, Missouri has voted for the person that was elected President i believe every time in the last 100 or so years...or something like that.
And yes, we do have mega churches. little churches. synagogues. Malls. Pro Sports teams. Urban areas. Suburbs. And you dont have to hide your Christianity from the left and you can be a long haired hippie dude and not be harassed from the right.

The South was a little too uptight about falling in line with everybody else but in its own way, Massachusetts was the same way, only to the left.

to me, the midwest tends to be a good mix of common sense. And a great place to raise a family.

theres a difference between being against something and making it illegal for people to do something. While you might have pharmacists refusing to distribute these things, birth control and morning after pills are still available.

likewise, in a country where there is basically, abortion on demand, to wish for reasonable limits is hardly what the left likes to hysterically label "sending women into the back alleys" or "bombing abortion clinics"

It is exactly like conservative Charlton Heston types fighting any gun control laws as "they want to take all your guns away"

But i understand there are many motives and many beliefs behind being Pro-choice. For one thing, young men can have as much sex as they want without worrying about the responsibility. young woman can have as much sex as they want without worrying about the responsibility. People who have supported Pro-Choice all these years ( I was one for a long time) can keep themselves in denial about what abortion is and make it about "tissue" so that they dont have to face what it is they've supported.

Let me ask a question of those who do not support any limits.

Have you ever had the guts to look at pictures of the practice you support?

If not, why? If you feel so strong in your stance, why not take a good long look at a 3-D ultrasound of a 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 month "fetus", maybe one of a friend of yours, or a family member, go "oooh" and "aaah" about how cute he/she is and talk about "the miracle of it all"
and then right afterwards look at some pictures of a "fetus" the same stage of development being aborted.

no, you wont do that. Because it would be uncomfortable for you. Much better to stay in denial about it, make it a tissue, call those who call for simple limits "Religious extremists"
then sit back and call yourself a "childrens advocate", a supporter of "womens rights" (except all the future woman about to be aborted), and a supporter of the needy (except all the potential Down Syndrome children whose life is not as valuable as a perfect child apparently)

You'd fight for the right for pictures of the wounded in Iraq to be shown ( which i, btw, agree with) so that people know what war is.

But if someone showd you a picture of the truth of abortion, you'd recoil, call the person a sicko, make some anti-religious comment, and fight even harder for Planned Parenthood.

My mind was changed on this long before I became a Christian. It changed when I became a father, and it made me feel ashamed that it took that, that other children werent as important, that only when I saw it through what it meant for me and the source of my love, did it register with me that we all are valuable, that all life is valuable.

there is no master race that starts and ends with my inner circle, with people of my color, with people of my health, with people of my financial means.
do poor unborn, Downs syndrome unborn, or female unborn ( a big consideration in other countries) count less?

we know unwanted unborn do?

will your attention be grabbed when one day "science" allows us to determine the sexual orientation of the unborn? And then people can decide at 20 weeks to make "a choice" about that?

this has only been in our culture legally for 34 years. It is not too late to still talk about "slippery slopes"

think about it.

Real World

Very well said.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

PF1996

It was a statement about the type of people who oppose abortion, not a point to contribute to a debate about abortion. As I've already implied, abortion is not a topic that needs to be debated as there is no rational basis for opposition.

I never said that you did say that - what I SAID was that you're the type of individuals who oppose abortion due to irrational sexism. I never claimed to be for "all the poor children". I simply pointed out the fact that anti-abortionists primary goal is to force women to bear unwanted pregnancies and such individuals show no concern for the type of life that the children of such pregnancies will have. My solution to what - I didn't offer a solution to a problem or identify a problem that needed a solution.

There is no need for any more limitations to abortion than what already exists. The vast majority of abortions take place within the first 4 months of pregnancy. There are VERY VERY few abortions that take place after the 6th month of pregnancy and those that do are performed due to extenuating circumstances.. (i.e health reasons, rape). Abuse and neglect do not result from a lack of choice, it results from a lack of character. Having an abortion IS being responsible....making a decision to NOT have a child that you're not prepared to properly raise is quite responsible. It may not be the kind of responsibility that YOU would like to force women to take but it's not your place to decide for others which actions meet YOUR definition of responsibility.

Actually the only people who determine whether something is "life" on the basis of whether it's "wanted" are antiabortionists. You know, those who claim to want to "protect life", and are opposed to abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape/incest. Apparently their definition of "life" doesn't include fertilised eggs that result from forcible sex

3 to be 4

Exactly, because obviously you dont consider any kind of unborn child as life. That statement just revealed where you are coming from, as you are showing disdain for the debate at all. They are all just tissue to you. You dont need to determine what make an unborn life or not because as you say, only Pro-Lifers bother to "determine". Frankly, I think you are wrong. I dont put a blanket over it and state ALL people who are Pro-Choice are as cold as you.
They dont, for the most part, show such disdain for even mention of the possibility that we are talking about life here.

And you never did respond to my question. Would you ever consider taking a look at an abortion? Take a real, good, long, hard look at this procedure that, in your words, "is not a topic that needs to be debated"?

I doubt it. You are above it all.

PF1996

A yawn-inducing speech with not one bit of rational thought - just attempts to cover the lack of logic or fact with appeals to emotion.

A fertilised egg is JUST tissue. You may want to make it out to be more than it is but it doesn't change the fact of what it is.

It's a sign of your irrationality that you apparently believe that anything with which a person is uncomfortable (or which is unpleasant) must be banned or "limited". Should we also ban or limit plastic surgery which is quite gruesome to observe? I have seen pictures of aborted fetuses and I've read about the procedures for both early term and late term abortions. I still believe that it should be an individual's choice to carry a pregnancy to term, not the government's.


That your "mind changed when you became a father" is another indication of your irrationality. People like you fail to understand that YOUR emotion is not a valid reason to force your views onto other people.

3 to be 4

Is this Mr. Spock? You seem like you could use a little more emotion and a little less of your devotion to your cold intellectualism.

Abortion, millions of unborn babies being killed, is not something that is adequately described with the words "uncomfortable" or "unpleasant".
I am "uncomfortable" when I have to sit in an airplane for 4 hours. "unpleasant" is having a bad day at work. Someone who believes that the child being seen in an ultrasound, or those wonderful 3-D pictures we have these days, is life, isnt "uncomfortable" at the idea of that baby being killed. So until the baby is out of the womb, it is just "Tissue"?

amazing.

PF1996

It's rather funny that you're just as irrational as I predicted you would be, even though I barely skimmed the posts in this thread before adding my first post. Proves my point that only irrational sexists are opposed to abortion.



Hmmm...so you're admitting that you DO NOT KNOW what percentage of abortions take place prior to 4 months and how many abortions are late-term? Yet, you have an opinion on abortion and want to have "limitations". LMAO. You're a real joke. Some advice...how about actually learning the facts about a topic rather than blindly accepting (and then spewing) the opinions of a coalition of clowns. When did I link abuse of children to an abortion debate? By the way, there's a difference between being a jerk and being abusive.


Please explain how it ISN'T responsible to make a decision to have an abortion if one is unable to properly care for the potential child. Actually, you can judge as much as you want and have as many opinions as you'd like. You just do not have a right to force others to live THEIR lives by YOUR "principles".


Ah...more illustrations of the irrational thought process of the anti-abortionist. Abortion isn't "punishment", it's a decision to not allow a fertilised egg to develop into a child. Nor is "recklessness" relevant in determining who should have access to an abortion because it is NOT YOUR right to determine proper sexual behaviour (and punishment) for others. Women who have abortions rather than condemn children to abusive or neglectful parenting or a lifetime of foster care show character...those who are too selfish to give consideration to their limited ability to properly care for a child show a lack of character. A lack of character that can have deadly future consequences.



When did I make a statement about "unborn child" and "life" in regards to my opinion on the matter? I'm afraid I don't quite get how pointing out the hypocrisy of anti-abortionists claiming to be against abortion on the basis of "protection of life" while supporting abortion of the "life" that results from rape and incest indicates anything about MY opinion about "life". Then again, I guess I can understand why you would want to try to move quickly away from that inconsistency.

I'm showing disdain for YOU, as an anti-abortionist and for the idea that abortion is a topic that needs to be debated.

LOL - I already have. What's your new argument?