Originally Posted by Jesse '77

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.

What the fuck are you talking about, "religious beliefs"? Perhaps you're confusing me with that Republican fellow from Ohio. Though I cannot imagine why.

At any rate, although I can understand certain circumstances in which abortion would be necessary...rape, danger to the mother's life, severe fetal deformity being a few...I do not and cannot understand a grown woman who sleeps around, has five or six abortions all-in-a-few-years-work, and feels like none of it is a big deal. That does sound pretty sociopathic to me, and my quip about small animals was only half in jest. I really do wonder about these people...and I don't really give a shit who disagrees with me.

But none of this has to do with religion...just my own personal sense of right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

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.

The same institution which just days before would have legally exterminated the child, is now obligated to care for it, even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the whole affair. Why can't this private institution do the same thing as the mother did, and just walk away from the unwanted baby? Why are they obligated but the mother is not? Why does the mother pay no penalty for her actions while others are left footing the bill for her actions?

Should they not have the right to not "want" the baby as well?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

What the fuck are you talking about, "religious beliefs"? Perhaps you're confusing me with that Republican fellow from Ohio. Though I cannot imagine why.

At any rate, although I can understand certain circumstances in which abortion would be necessary...rape, danger to the mother's life, severe fetal deformity being a few...I do not and cannot understand a grown woman who sleeps around, has five or six abortions all-in-a-few-years-work, and feels like none of it is a big deal. That does sound pretty sociopathic to me, and my quip about small animals was only half in jest. I really do wonder about these people...and I don't really give a shit who disagrees with me.

But none of this has to do with religion...just my own personal sense of right and wrong.

Sorry for jumping to conclusions...but I don't get it, if you don't believe something special like the creation of a "soul" happens at conception, why is the killing of an unfertilized egg no big deal, but as soon as it's fertilized killing it suddenly becomes tantamount to torturing animals, even if it has no more of a brain or consciousness than the unfertilized egg did?

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:

That is totally fucked up. Haven't they ever heard of getting one's tubes tied? That our birth control plan after we have our second (or third) child.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

That is totally fucked up. Haven't they ever heard of getting one's tubes tied? That our birth control plan after we have our second (or third) child.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to get a sports model (vasectomy)?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

The same institution which just days before would have legally exterminated the child, is now obligated to care for it, even though they had nothing whatsoever to do with the whole affair. Why can't this private institution do the same thing as the mother did, and just walk away from the unwanted baby? Why are they obligated but the mother is not? Why does the mother pay no penalty for her actions while others are left footing the bill for her actions?

Should they not have the right to not "want" the baby as well?

To which institution are you referring? The baby is wanted!

I will try to spell it out for you. As long as the baby is within the womb, one requires the cooperation of the mother to preserve its life. If the mother doesn't want a baby and doesn't feel that abortion is morally wrong, why should she cooperate? Once the baby is born no such cooperation is required. If the mother doesn't want the baby, fine, there are prospective adoptive parents who very much want the baby. In this country, all babies born healthy are wanted.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

That is totally fucked up. Haven't they ever heard of getting one's tubes tied? That our birth control plan after we have our second (or third) child.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to get a sports model (vasectomy)?

I have a problem with the whole 'scissors near my balls' thing. She seems more willing to cooperate.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by David Kaiser

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.

If the mother doesn't want the baby, fine, there are prospective adoptive parents who very much want the baby. In this country, all babies born healthy are wanted.

If "there are prospective adoptive parents who very much want the baby," then abortion should be restricted accordingly, in accordance with Kaiser's criteria for who should be born. Since there are long waiting lists of baby-wanting, adoptive parents, then too many "wanted" babies are needlessly suffering premature death (most states, however, do require the fetus to be drugged before killing him/her), who otherwise would clearly fit the Kaiser's criteria for the right to life.

Why are we permitting so many "wanted" children to die like this?

And you have introduced another criteria, that Kaiser did not, into the ("wanted" = right to life) mix: the baby must be healthy in order to be "genuinely wanted" and so as to merit a right to life. So, for these unhealthy children which method of extermination do you prefer, lethal injection?

p.s. I'll pass on the "institution" question, for the time being, as it's not relevant to the issue at this point.

When I think about why we chose not to have our baby so many years ago it was probably because of fear and social stigma.
We were afraid we wouldn't be able to take care of it, we would have to live in substandard housing in bad areas, we wouldn't be good parents, we couldn't provide health care, access to adequate schooling, get the assistance we needed. Plus society looks down on young people who have children as idiots or trash and we didn't want ou child or us to be stigmatized.
So out of deep fear over what could be we chose the other, legal, route.
I regret it, but at the same time I breath a sigh of relief that it didn't happen.

I think it should be the mission of all anti-abortion activists to stop being so single minded (as most pro-choicers are) and to work hard to promote a culture of life.
Fight for abstinence, but also fight for greater sexual education, and for access to and knowledge of birth control.
Make adoption a more attractive option for those who are faced with the momentous decision.
Make health care and quality living standards available to all, so those that are faced with the decision don't have to kill their child because they can't get a fair shake in the wealthiest country on Earth.
If you want to build a culture of life you can't just legislate it - you have to build it from the ground up.
If you think that passing laws is going to stop people from having abortions, it's not. And even with your great pro-life leader, abortions have gone up for 5 years in a row.
What does that tell you about the state of our country especially in light of our president's socially reckless budget and domestic policies?
If you want to stop abortions, you better get a better plan.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I do not and cannot understand a grown woman who sleeps around, has five or six abortions all-in-a-few-years-work, and feels like none of it is a big deal. That does sound pretty sociopathic to me, and my quip about small animals was only half in jest. I really do wonder about these people...and I don't really give a shit who disagrees with me.

I would wonder why the hell that individual hadn't learned how to use birth control. One screw-up I can understand -- but I would think any reasonable person would want to find a way to prevent the hassle of more pregnancies, and more trips to the doctor.

But then reason seems to be in short supply in some quarters. :-(

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

But then reason seems to be in short supply in some quarters. :-(

Ain't that the truth. :shock:

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

No, Orange and San Diego Counties are pretty red...though I understand there are pockets of blue there too.

San Diego is Red because of the heavily military presence, as well as defense contractors (my ex-father-in-law put in 45 years with General Dynamics, retiring as soon as they were bought out by Martin Marietta.

Orange County is much bluer these daysbecause of the heavy influx of Latinos. Indeed, the bell-weather election was 1996, I believe, when Orange County threw out Congressman Bob Dornan (a ultra-conservative Republican) and replaced him with liberal Hispanic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.

This happened after you left So Cal for the greener pastures of Seattle.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

If "there are prospective adoptive parents who very much want the baby," then abortion should be restricted accordingly, in accordance with Kaiser's criteria for who should be born.

They want the baby. A fetus does them no good because it won't survive the transfer from the pregnant woman.

A woman has an abortion because she doesn't want to be pregnant. If the woman is prevented from having an abortion she will give birth to a baby that she will in all likelihood keep--not give up for adoption.

It naive in the extreme to equate unwanted pregnancies with unwanted babies, which is what you are doing. This leads me to believe that your side (or at least you individually) don't care about the fetus as a person at all and only consider them as an abstract symbol.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

When I think about why we chose not to have our baby so many years ago it was probably because of fear and social stigma. We were afraid we wouldn't be able to take care of it, we would have to live in substandard housing in bad areas, we wouldn't be good parents, we couldn't provide health care, access to adequate schooling, get the assistance we needed. Plus society looks down on young people who have children as idiots or trash and we didn't want ou child or us to be stigmatized. So out of deep fear over what could be we chose the other, legal, route. I regret it, but at the same time I breath a sigh of relief that it didn't happen.

You draw a comparison between having an abortion and becoming dirt-poor "white trash" parents (which is what my daughter is doing so I know exactly what you are referring to). I don't mean to criticise but why wasn't adoption an option for you?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

When I think about why we chose not to have our baby so many years ago it was probably because of fear and social stigma. We were afraid we wouldn't be able to take care of it, we would have to live in substandard housing in bad areas, we wouldn't be good parents, we couldn't provide health care, access to adequate schooling, get the assistance we needed. Plus society looks down on young people who have children as idiots or trash and we didn't want ou child or us to be stigmatized. So out of deep fear over what could be we chose the other, legal, route. I regret it, but at the same time I breath a sigh of relief that it didn't happen.

You draw a comparison between having an abortion and becoming dirt-poor "white trash" parents (which is what my daughter is doing so I know exactly what you are referring to). I don't mean to criticise but why wasn't adoption an option for you?

Because it seems extremely screwed up. You carry the baby for nine months and then you just hand it over to some sterile bureaucracy to "care" for. Are you really going to trust them? I don't.
We had some special circumstances as well that I'd rather not get into here, but would have had an effect on the development of our child.
Plus, remember, if you decide to have an abortion, you have to make up your mind very quickly. Emotions are running high, you are under a lot of pressure and rational decisions aren't necessarily made.
Personally I felt it was wrong, but ending its life after one month didn't seem at the time to be that terrible. It was only afterwards that I went through severe depression.
I am not sure how I feel about the emotional component of the whole debate. It's like everyone views death as the ultimate bad, life as the ultimate good. Things are just not so clear cut and simple, and effectively debated on their merits. The national abortion discourse is opaque.
From my experience I felt that the child had a soul, but about three days after the abortion I felt that presence dissipate.
Where did it go? Back to the big soul waiting room? I don't know.
Since we cannot fundamentally fathom the creation or destruction of life or God or any of it it seems impossible to come to a conclusion.
Most first world countries permit abortions as part of their population policies. They feel that this destruction of early human life facilitates the operation of their society. Since we no longer live in a primal society where abortion was not necessary, but rather live in a society where few adults can sustain themselves without at least 22 plus years of education this population policy makes sense.
The decision to revoke this policy can only be made in tandem to provide the necessary serviices to accomodate the unwanted or unmanageable children.

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

The decision to revoke this policy (abortion) can only be made in tandem to provide the necessary services to accomodate the unwanted or unmanageable children.

Adoption provides a mechanism to do exactly this.

The problem with it, as you point out, was that it hard to go through with it. Had you not gone through with the abortion, in all probability you would have kept this child afterward and you life would be radically different from what it is now.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Blue Stater

The decision to revoke this policy (abortion) can only be made in tandem to provide the necessary services to accomodate the unwanted or unmanageable children.

Adoption provides a mechanism to do exactly this.

The problem with it, as you point out, was that it hard to go through with it. Had you not gone through with the abortion, in all probability you would have kept this child afterward and you life would be radically different from what it is now.

Not exactly. Remember I now am the proud papa of a one year old girl.
But you should note we made our decision to have this child in a foreign country where abortion rights aren't a political issue but most people tend to choose life and it's very common for people in thier early twenties to have children.
They are not more religious or especially wealthy, but I feel that children are less a commodity and more a natural thing in their society.
One thing I noticed while living abroad in Scandinavia is that they have very liberal population policies, but young women often choose to have the children anyway. I think this is because they have a very assured standard of living, quality health and day care services, and because the "George Bush ideal family" isn't shoved down everyone's throats, so having a child is simply having a child - not maintaining a traditional nuclear family for the sake of appearances.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

If "there are prospective adoptive parents who very much want the baby," then abortion should be restricted accordingly, in accordance with Kaiser's criteria for who should be born. Since there are long waiting lists of baby-wanting, adoptive parents, then too many "wanted" babies are needlessly suffering premature death (most states, however, do require the fetus to be drugged before killing him/her), who otherwise would clearly fit the Kaiser's criteria for the right to life.

Why are we permitting so many "wanted" children to die like this?

And you have introduced another criteria, that Kaiser did not, into the ("wanted" = right to life) mix: the baby must be healthy in order to be "genuinely wanted" and so as to merit a right to life.

They want the baby. A fetus does them no good because it won't survive the transfer from the pregnant woman.

A woman has an abortion because she doesn't want to be pregnant. If the woman is prevented from having an abortion she will give birth to a baby that she will in all likelihood keep--not give up for adoption.

It naive in the extreme to equate unwanted pregnancies with unwanted babies, which is what you are doing. This leads me to believe that your side (or at least you individually) don't care about the fetus as a person at all and only consider them as an abstract symbol.

I respectfully disagree, wholeheartedly, sir.

Originally Posted by Jennifer G.

San Diego is Red because of the heavily military presence, as well as defense contractors (my ex-father-in-law put in 45 years with General Dynamics, retiring as soon as they were bought out by Martin Marietta.

It would be, then, safe to say, you are the ex-daughtein-law of a fascist pig, ma'am. Sieg heil, to your, no doubt, wonderful emancipation from such dark bondage. I hope your daughter can manage to avoid such slavery to the "heavily military presence," you became so ensnared in (your strong federal government and union ties notwithstanding). 8)

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

I do not and cannot understand a grown woman who sleeps around, has five or six abortions all-in-a-few-years-work, and feels like none of it is a big deal. That does sound pretty sociopathic to me, and my quip about small animals was only half in jest. I really do wonder about these people...and I don't really give a shit who disagrees with me.

I would wonder why the hell that individual hadn't learned how to use birth control. One screw-up I can understand -- but I would think any reasonable person would want to find a way to prevent the hassle of more pregnancies, and more trips to the doctor.

But then reason seems to be in short supply in some quarters. :-(

For the two particular women I was referring to, the short answer is...

THEY SIMPLY DIDN'T CARE!!!

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

What the fuck are you talking about, "religious beliefs"? Perhaps you're confusing me with that Republican fellow from Ohio. Though I cannot imagine why.

At any rate, although I can understand certain circumstances in which abortion would be necessary...rape, danger to the mother's life, severe fetal deformity being a few...I do not and cannot understand a grown woman who sleeps around, has five or six abortions all-in-a-few-years-work, and feels like none of it is a big deal. That does sound pretty sociopathic to me, and my quip about small animals was only half in jest. I really do wonder about these people...and I don't really give a shit who disagrees with me.

But none of this has to do with religion...just my own personal sense of right and wrong.

Sorry for jumping to conclusions...but I don't get it, if you don't believe something special like the creation of a "soul" happens at conception, why is the killing of an unfertilized egg no big deal, but as soon as it's fertilized killing it suddenly becomes tantamount to torturing animals, even if it has no more of a brain or consciousness than the unfertilized egg did?

Truth is, I have no idea when a soul enters a human body...and it isn't possible TO know. I do know that it's wrong to abuse one's self and others by sleeping around with a multitude of people and then using abortion as mere birth control. It's not that I'm not religious at all, it's just that I don't feel that religion is a prequisite for basic common sense.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Jennifer G.

San Diego is Red because of the heavily military presence, as well as defense contractors (my ex-father-in-law put in 45 years with General Dynamics, retiring as soon as they were bought out by Martin Marietta.

It would be, then, safe to say, you are the ex-daughtein-law of a fascist pig, ma'am. Sieg heil, to your, no doubt, wonderful emancipation from such dark bondage. I hope your daughter can manage to avoid such slavery to the "heavily military presence," you became so ensnared in (your strong federal government and union ties notwithstanding). 8)

Um...will someone please explain to the gentleman from Ohia that her name is NOT Jennifer?

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Jesse '77

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

What the fuck are you talking about, "religious beliefs"? Perhaps you're confusing me with that Republican fellow from Ohio. Though I cannot imagine why.

At any rate, although I can understand certain circumstances in which abortion would be necessary...rape, danger to the mother's life, severe fetal deformity being a few...I do not and cannot understand a grown woman who sleeps around, has five or six abortions all-in-a-few-years-work, and feels like none of it is a big deal. That does sound pretty sociopathic to me, and my quip about small animals was only half in jest. I really do wonder about these people...and I don't really give a shit who disagrees with me.

But none of this has to do with religion...just my own personal sense of right and wrong.

Sorry for jumping to conclusions...but I don't get it, if you don't believe something special like the creation of a "soul" happens at conception, why is the killing of an unfertilized egg no big deal, but as soon as it's fertilized killing it suddenly becomes tantamount to torturing animals, even if it has no more of a brain or consciousness than the unfertilized egg did?

Truth is, I have no idea when a soul enters a human body...and it isn't possible TO know. I do know that it's wrong to abuse one's self and others by sleeping around with a multitude of people and then using abortion as mere birth control. It's not that I'm not religious at all, it's just that I don't feel that religion is a prequisite for basic common sense.

I felt that our baby had a soul...and that it hung around for a couple days after it was gone and then disappeared bit by bit..like faded away. Like when you watch a helium balloon get released into the sky and it gets smaller and smaller until you cannot see it.
.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Jennifer G.

San Diego is Red because of the heavily military presence, as well as defense contractors (my ex-father-in-law put in 45 years with General Dynamics, retiring as soon as they were bought out by Martin Marietta.

It would be, then, safe to say, you are the ex-daughtein-law of a fascist pig, ma'am. Sieg heil, to your, no doubt, wonderful emancipation from such dark bondage. I hope your daughter can manage to avoid such slavery to the "heavily military presence," you became so ensnared in (your strong federal government and union ties notwithstanding). 8)

Um...will someone please explain to the gentleman from Ohia that her name is NOT Jennifer?

Hon, you use the term "gentleman" very liberally.

To DA -- You, sir, are no gentleman! :twisted: :evil: :x

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Jennifer G.

San Diego is Red because of the heavily military presence, as well as defense contractors (my ex-father-in-law put in 45 years with General Dynamics, retiring as soon as they were bought out by Martin Marietta.

It would be, then, safe to say, you are the ex-daughtein-law of a fascist pig, ma'am. Sieg heil, to your, no doubt, wonderful emancipation from such dark bondage. I hope your daughter can manage to avoid such slavery to the "heavily military presence," you became so ensnared in (your strong federal government and union ties notwithstanding). 8)

Um...will someone please explain to the gentleman from Ohia that her name is NOT Jennifer?

Doesn't matter. Very few people care about what he says anyway, and those that do either deserve him, or don't know enough about him yet.