Originally Posted by Blue Stater

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I agree. The agenda, of course, is to keep everyone fucking with minimal consequences so we don't have to go back to the '50s .

I wouldn't put it that way at all, except to acknowledge that people have sex, and have an innate desire to procreate. They just do.
However, an 18 year old that gets pregnant falls under intense scrutiny in our society. I am 25 years old and people look at me weird when I tell them that I have a child.
I think that arguing over a woman's reproductive rights isn't exactly my forte.
I don't pretend to know what it's like to live in a world where everyone wants to tell them what to do with their vaginas, especially radical religious clerics and their "followers."
This is really up to the women to decide. Not the men. I wouldn't like having a cabal of radical females telling em what to do with my genitalia. I will spare them the humiliation.

Oh, i would put it exactly that way, Justin. What the radical left is still trying to do is remove all spiritual aspects of sex, make it strictly mechanical/recreational rather than part of the bond that holds couples, and thus families, together. But whatever. They can do whatever the fuck they want!

And I believe men certainly do need to be part of the abortion debate, since it obviously affects us too. What would you do if, circa 2012, your wife were raped and impregnated...and then some "faith-based" judge told her she couldn't abort because the fetus' life is always most important "in the eyes of God"? Conversely, what if your wife were pregnant with a baby boy, and you always wanted to have a son, and she said "sorry honey this isn't the right time in my career to have a baby" and simply aborted it? These points of view need to be discussed

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Conversely, what if your wife were pregnant with a baby boy, and you always wanted to have a son, and she said "sorry honey this isn't the right time in my career to have a baby" and simply aborted it? These points of view need to be discussed

Just a little nit, honey. Most married women who would have an abortion because the timing isn't right would have one very early in the pregnancy, far earlier than when the couple would know it is a boy, which is typically at a 16-week sonogram. Abortions after that point are either frightened teenagers or people who have health issues (either the mother's health or something awfully wrong with the baby).

However, in your example, if the married couple are on such different pages about having children, there are fundamental problems with that marriage! A little talking before the point of pregnancy is called for here. :wink:

I am not going to jump headlong into this one, but rather would like to look at the issue from a different point of view.

When I reached puberty, abortion was illegal and birth control was not readily available--certainly for teens. One new religious right offensive I expect to see in the next 5 years is to get condoms off the shelves and back behind the pharmacists' counter again. That was the situation way back then, and it took a lot of guts, believe me, to ask for them--even if you lived in a state where they were legal! (In some states, until about 1966, they were not--including good old true blue Massachusetts.)

Unwanted pregnancy was a disaster, particularly in the middle class. That was the trauma legalized abortion was supposed to solve. In many cases it did. But meanwhile, birth control had become readily available.

The reasons why abortion seemed so important in the 1960s no longer really apply. The terrible shame of a birth out of wedlock is a thing of the past. And--and here is my real point--THERE IS NO LONGER ANY REAL EXCUSE FOR AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY. I am much more angry about "abstinence education" and the attack on teaching birth control than I am about right-to-life agitation. I am also appalled that people are constantly risking unwanted pregnancy. I am 57 years old, have been married and divorced, have two kids, and have had sex in quite a few different circumstances, but I have NEVER risked an unwanted pregnancy with anyone. It really isn't that hard to avoid, sports fans. That is the real mystery--why in the 21st century can't we teach people to behave responsibly about sex?

And why can't we make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted? That was my strongest feeling as a youth, and that's why I am pro-choice--kids should be wanted. But it's a terrible, terrible indictment of our society that abortion has to be an issue at all.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And why can't we make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted? That was my strongest feeling as a youth, and that's why I am pro-choice--kids should be wanted.

I take it then you would exterminate this child immediately? Would lethal injection be your preferred means of extermination, Mr. Kaiser?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Oh, i would put it exactly that way, Justin. What the radical left is still trying to do is remove all spiritual aspects of sex, make it strictly mechanical/recreational rather than part of the bond that holds couples, and thus families, together. But whatever. They can do whatever the fuck they want!

And I believe men certainly do need to be part of the abortion debate, since it obviously affects us too. What would you do if, circa 2012, your wife were raped and impregnated...and then some "faith-based" judge told her she couldn't abort because the fetus' life is always most important "in the eyes of God"? Conversely, what if your wife were pregnant with a baby boy, and you always wanted to have a son, and she said "sorry honey this isn't the right time in my career to have a baby" and simply aborted it? These points of view need to be discussed

1. The radical left of which you speak can blow it out their ass.
2. Men can (and should) be part of the debate. However until a strong majority of women support banning abortion I won't even consider it.
3. As for your 2012 scenario we would have to go to Canada for the abortion
4. My wife would need a ride home from the clinic if she were to abort our "boy." But I think some people think abortion is a piece of cake. It's not an easy thing to do. You have to see if your health insurance provides it, and then set a date, and go to the clinic. The woman will be in an intense emotional state afterwards and it will most likely destroy your relationship. It will no doubt cause you great depression, sadness, and you will live with the guilt that you killed your own child for the rest of your life.
That being said, there are some people for whom it is the more attactive option. Not everybody's life is as easy as our are. They have real problems. And they may decide not to have those children.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And--and here is my real point--THERE IS NO LONGER ANY REAL EXCUSE FOR AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY. I am much more angry about "abstinence education" and the attack on teaching birth control than I am about right-to-life agitation.

Here's a report on the poor results of an "abstinence education" program in Texas.

Naturally, Bush wants to give more money to these kinds of programs.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And why can't we make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted? That was my strongest feeling as a youth, and that's why I am pro-choice--kids should be wanted.

I take it then you would exterminate this child immediately? Would lethal injection be your preferred means of extermination, Mr. Kaiser?

Stop being stupid Marc. This child should be given up for adoption. A fetus in utero cannot be given up for adoption so the comparison isn't apt. What almost nobody in the pro-life camp deals with is what happens to a fetus created by a couple who should not become parents after it is born. In our society there is a real stigma about giving up a child for adoption, particularly when the couple is married.

If pro-life folks would put more effort on adoption and on breaking this stigma, they would likely accomplish their presumed objective of reducing abortions. But they don't. Why?

Originally Posted by Medical News report

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Here's a report on the poor results of an "abstinence education" program in Texas.

Naturally, Bush wants to give more money to these kinds of programs.

Several million youths have participated in the more than 100 federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs since 1999, when such programs began.

Fair and balanced sez: Clinton was president in 1999. Furthermore, it was a University of Arkansas researcher who developed the program, which is being run in several states. To single out Texas, and thus Bush, is just playing petty partisan politics, lady.

Personally I don't like using government money to buy condoms for the kiddies. Naturally you're all for that kind of federal deficit spending.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I am not going to jump headlong into this one, but rather would like to look at the issue from a different point of view.

When I reached puberty, abortion was illegal and birth control was not readily available--certainly for teens. One new religious right offensive I expect to see in the next 5 years is to get condoms off the shelves and back behind the pharmacists' counter again. That was the situation way back then, and it took a lot of guts, believe me, to ask for them--even if you lived in a state where they were legal! (In some states, until about 1966, they were not--including good old true blue Massachusetts.)
David K '47

This may have been true in the backwaters of the United States. Here in northeastern Minnesota condoms were easily available to teenaged males in the bars, cafes and gas stations in the middle 1960's by vending machine.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Stop being stupid Marc.

Waste of typed keys.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

4. My wife would need a ride home from the clinic if she were to abort our "boy." But I think some people think abortion is a piece of cake. It's not an easy thing to do. You have to see if your health insurance provides it, and then set a date, and go to the clinic. The woman will be in an intense emotional state afterwards and it will most likely destroy your relationship. It will no doubt cause you great depression, sadness, and you will live with the guilt that you killed your own child for the rest of your life.

That's what i would expect, myself. But I've actually met women who'd had five or six abortions and seemed just as happy-go-lucky as ever. Apparently it IS a piece of cake for some, and likely for many....certainly after the first one or two. I wonder if they started out by torturing small animals... :shock:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I am not going to jump headlong into this one, but rather would like to look at the issue from a different point of view.

When I reached puberty, abortion was illegal and birth control was not readily available--certainly for teens. One new religious right offensive I expect to see in the next 5 years is to get condoms off the shelves and back behind the pharmacists' counter again. That was the situation way back then, and it took a lot of guts, believe me, to ask for them--even if you lived in a state where they were legal! (In some states, until about 1966, they were not--including good old true blue Massachusetts.)
David K '47

This may have been true in the backwaters of the United States. Here in northeastern Minnesota condoms were easily available to teenaged males in the bars, cafes and gas stations in the middle 1960's by vending machine.

And in "liberal" Southern California, condoms were kept behind the pharmacist's counter as recently as Nineteen-Eighty-Seven!

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And why can't we make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted? That was my strongest feeling as a youth, and that's why I am pro-choice--kids should be wanted.

I take it then you would exterminate this child immediately? Would lethal injection be your preferred means of extermination, Mr. Kaiser?

Stop being stupid Marc. This child should be given up for adoption. A fetus in utero cannot be given up for adoption.

Why not?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

And in "liberal" Southern California, condoms were kept behind the pharmacist's counter as recently as Nineteen-Eighty-Seven!

I've never considered Southern California (especially places like Orange County) to be especially liberal. In fact, the SoCal-ites I knew in college (mostly from Los Angeles County) were as conservative as they come.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

4. My wife would need a ride home from the clinic if she were to abort our "boy." But I think some people think abortion is a piece of cake. It's not an easy thing to do. You have to see if your health insurance provides it, and then set a date, and go to the clinic. The woman will be in an intense emotional state afterwards and it will most likely destroy your relationship. It will no doubt cause you great depression, sadness, and you will live with the guilt that you killed your own child for the rest of your life.

That's what i would expect, myself. But I've actually met women who'd had five or six abortions and seemed just as happy-go-lucky as ever. Apparently it IS a piece of cake for some, and likely for many....certainly after the first one or two. I wonder if they started out by torturing small animals... :shock:

If you are shocked by the idea of killing a fetus because of your religious beliefs, that's fine, but don't project this onto others and imagine that anyone who isn't bothered by it must be some kind of sociopath. The fact is, if you don't believe the fetus has some sort of supernatural soul implanted by God at conception or whatever, then there is not much basis for considering it morally wrong to kill a first-trimester fetus, since it doesn't even have a functioning brain yet and therefore would have no more consciousness than a plant. Most people feel bad about causing pain to "small animals" because they think the animals have some kind of consciousness, most people don't feel bad about killing mindless nonhuman organisms like plants.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And why can't we make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted? That was my strongest feeling as a youth, and that's why I am pro-choice--kids should be wanted.

I take it then you would exterminate this child immediately? Would lethal injection be your preferred means of extermination, Mr. Kaiser?

Stop being stupid Marc. This child should be given up for adoption. A fetus in utero cannot be given up for adoption.

Why not?

Because removing an early-term fetus (when most abortions occur) from the uterus to give it to the adoptive parents would give the same outcome as an abortion.

What you don't deal with is what happens to a fetus created by a couple who should not/doesn't want to become parents after it is born. In our society there is a real stigma about giving up a child for adoption, particularly when the couple is married.

If you would put more effort on adoption and on breaking this stigma, you would likely accomplish your presumed objective of reducing abortions. But you don't. Why? Perhaps you aren't really concerned about the fetus as a person at all.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

And why can't we make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted? That was my strongest feeling as a youth, and that's why I am pro-choice--kids should be wanted.

I take it then you would exterminate this child immediately? Would lethal injection be your preferred means of extermination, Mr. Kaiser?

Stop being stupid Marc. This child should be given up for adoption. A fetus in utero cannot be given up for adoption.

Why not?

Because removing an early-term fetus (when most abortions occur) from the uterus to give it to the adoptive parents would give the same outcome as an abortion.

Then wait till the child is born, then let the adoptive parents take possession.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Then wait till the child is born, then let the adoptive parents take possession.

If you wait until the child is born the mother will decide to keep the child. This was my point. Your side hasn't addressed it, which is why I don't think your concern is really about the fetus as a person, but more as a symbol.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Then wait till the child is born, then let the adoptive parents take possession.

If you wait until the child is born the mother will decide to keep the child. This was my point. Your side hasn't addressed it, which is why I don't think your concern is really about the fetus as a person, but more as a symbol.

Read the story I posted more closely: "She has indicated that she does not want the child." Since the child was not "wanted," as the determined Kaiser criteria, then the baby should be extermined:

• And why can't we make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted? That was my strongest feeling as a youth, and that's why I am pro-choice--kids should be wanted.

That was my point. Now, would you prefer leathal injection? Or, in the interest of the greater good, should we perform some useful science experiments on the unwanted babies and then kill them?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Then wait till the child is born, then let the adoptive parents take possession.

If you wait until the child is born the mother will decide to keep the child. This was my point. Your side hasn't addressed it, which is why I don't think your concern is really about the fetus as a person, but more as a symbol.

Read the story I posted more closely: "She has indicated that she does not want the child." Since the child was not "wanted," as the determined Kaiser criteria, then the baby should be extermined:

• And why can't we make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted? That was my strongest feeling as a youth, and that's why I am pro-choice--kids should be wanted.

That was my point. Now, would you prefer leathal injection? Or, in the interest of the greater good, should we perform some useful science experiments on the unwanted babies and then kill them?

Uh, wanting to "make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted" as an idealistic goal is not equivalent to advocating the killing of any babies that are born but not wanted by there mother, any more than wanting to eliminate homelessness as an idealistic goal is equivalent to wanting to kill any people who can't afford homes. If he had just said he advocated birth control to prevent the birth of unwanted babies, would you have made the same comparison?

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

• And why can't we make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted? That was my strongest feeling as a youth, and that's why I am pro-choice--kids should be wanted.

Uh, wanting to "make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted" as an idealistic goal is not equivalent to advocating the killing of any babies that are born but not wanted by there mother, any more than wanting to eliminate homelessness as an idealistic goal is equivalent to wanting to kill any people who can't afford homes.

While I understand that during Republican administrations, sanctioned killing of "any people who can't afford homes" (ie., the homeless) is a valid fear that liberals have, I don't think your analogy is valid. To make an effective analogous argument, one needs to a have a valid comparison to make. And since we haven't yet begun killing the homeless, as we have unwanted babies, the comparison falls flat.

Try using, say, the death penalty instead. Ok?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

• And why can't we make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted? That was my strongest feeling as a youth, and that's why I am pro-choice--kids should be wanted.

Uh, wanting to "make sure that the babies who are born are genuinely wanted" as an idealistic goal is not equivalent to advocating the killing of any babies that are born but not wanted by there mother, any more than wanting to eliminate homelessness as an idealistic goal is equivalent to wanting to kill any people who can't afford homes.

While I understand that during Republican administrations, sanctioned killing of "any people who can't afford homes" (ie., the homeless) is a valid fear that liberals have, I don't think your analogy is valid. To make an effective analogous argument, one needs to a have a valid comparison to make. And since we haven't yet begun killing the homeless, as we have unwanted babies, the comparison falls flat.

Try using, say, the death penalty instead. Ok?

Nope, because the death penalty actually involves the killing of actual living people, and of course most pro-choice people don't see the fetus as a full "person". For someone who views a fetus as morally equivalent to a baby from the moment of conception, yes, abortion for the purpose of preventing unwanted children would be morally equivalent to killing newborn babies for the purpose of preventing unwanted children. But you know perfectly well that pro-choicers like KaiserD2 do not subscribe to that moral view, so "preventing unwanted children" would not be equivalent to "destroying already-existing unwanted children" from his point of view. Here's another analogy: suppose doctors know a woman has a gene which could lead to a genetic disorder in her child, so they take some eggs from her and destroy the ones with a copy of the gene and use in vitro fertilization on the remaining ones. This is a way of preventing the birth of a baby with this disorder, but it's not the same as killing an existing baby who was born with the disorder, it's just eliminating the future potential for such a baby to be born. Likewise, I'm pretty sure KaiserD2's argument was about eliminating the future potential for an unwanted baby to be born, and aborting a fetus would prevent this potential from being realized just like destroying an unfertilized egg in my example (although most pro-choice advocates would say that killing a fetus is a more serious matter than destroying an unfertilized egg--personally though, when it comes to first-trimester fetuses that have no synapses and thus no brain function whatsoever, I see them as morally equivalent).

Originally Posted by JTaber 1972

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

And in "liberal" Southern California, condoms were kept behind the pharmacist's counter as recently as Nineteen-Eighty-Seven!

I've never considered Southern California (especially places like Orange County) to be especially liberal. In fact, the SoCal-ites I knew in college (mostly from Los Angeles County) were as conservative as they come.

No, Orange and San Diego Counties are pretty red...though I understand there are pockets of blue there too. L.A. City/Hollywood/West L.A. most certainly are VERY blue...the San Gabriel and San Fernando Valleys are pretty purple. The remote northermost part of L.A. County, from Santa Clarita up to Palmdale used to be fire-engine red back when i was in college...don't know what it's like now.

At any rate, the college I went to, Calfornia State University at Los Angeles, had such a prounced left lilt, that they actually encouraged Communist and "US-Imperialists-Get-Your-Bloody-Hands-Off-Iran!"-type radicals to roam freely on campus back in the early '80s :shock:.

(Although nowadays, "US-Imperialists-Get-Your-Bloody-Hands-Off-AMERICA!!!" would be a welcome sight, to be sure).

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Read the story I posted more closely: "She has indicated that she does not want the child." Since the child was not "wanted," as the determined Kaiser criteria, then the baby should be extermined.

And its still a stupid point. If the mother doesn't want that child, she can walk away and the child is unharmed. Once the baby is born there is no conflict between the woman's liberty and the baby's life.