Jump to content

The Next President of the USA will be?


TULedHead

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

^^hear,hear suz!!!

...rich white guys have no problem with the idea of banning abortion in our country because if it ever hits too close to home they can afford to travel over the border where it is legal if the need arises...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about time a couple of women joined the debate!

Afterall,.. this is your battle to fight,.. not mine. ;)

I turn it over to you ladies to explain to Del and TypeO why women should retain the

right to choose... why they should continue to have access to safe and legal abortions.

[don't forget to mention that pro-choice women should vote for Barack Obama. B) ]

munchies.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about time a couple of women joined the debate!

Afterall,.. this is your battle to fight,.. not mine. ;)

I turn it over to you ladies to explain to Del and TypeO why women should retain the

right to choose... why they should continue to have access to safe and legal abortions.

[don't forget to mention that pro-choice women should vote for Barack Obama. B) ]

So you're asserting that all those 1.5 million are poor, underage unwed mothers unable to care for themselves?

That's the same way pro-choice advocates always make the case for abortion citing victims of rape and incest.

The fact is that is easily the smallest percentage of all abortions.

The vast majority of abortions are for adults 20 and older.

So why am I paying higher taxes to support their children?

Yes I would pay increased taxes (how much could it possibly be?) for those children born to underage mothers under a certain income level (Under 18 they are their parents' responsibility.)

If the parents balk at supporting them and they're in need, then yes.

But that is a relatively small percentage of those 1.5 million you refer to.

Teenagers and girls under 15 represent less than 22% of yearly abortions.

Of those, I would wager conservatively 50% of those would be supported by family/parents. In reality, I bet it'd be closer to 2 out of 3.

The majority of that 1.5 million are average women that simply don't want to be "burdened" with a baby. Tough shit.

It's called responsibility.

You either apply that responsibility before you have unprotected sex, or carry that responsibility after.

That's my idea of Pro-choice.

Gee Hermit, I feel left out.

You intimated I had no answer for your query, but skipped right over me when you responded.

As for...

The very second that a woman cannot make her own choice is the very second we are not full citizens. The attitude I've encountered from some radical pro-lifers is astonishing to me. It's as though we're stupid, heartless idiots running off to have abortions like it's nothing. Or, we're just sad little lost sheep who need to be counseled by religious zealots.

The whole point is, it's pretty selfish and lazy for a woman to put off her "choice" until after there's a new life growing within her.

She ALWAYS has the choice to avoid a pregnancy.

That a separate life must be sacrificed to give that woman the luxury of more time to make her "choice" is why I call it selfish and lazy.

Here's an "unplanned pregnancy" -

A woman at our church on birth control pills got sick, was prescribed an antibiotic, and was not warned about the interaction with her pills - the antibiotic basically neutralized the birth control pill and she became pregnant. (She kept her baby.)

This is NOT an "unplanned pregnancy" -

A woman forgoes the use of condoms, her pills, whatever and ends up preggers.

That's called irresponsible.

Now here's where I guess I differ from other anti-abortion folks -

I don't have a problem with "morning-after" treatment.

However, I was surprised to learn I was one of the many who were under the impression that morning-after treatment and RU-486 are the same thing.

They aren't, and I don't support RU-486.

Taking increased doses of prescribed "emergency contraception" is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee Hermit, I feel left out.

You intimated I had no answer for your query, but skipped right over me when you responded.

My bad, TypeO. I totally missed that post. D'oh! slapface.gif

I assure you I wasn't avoiding or ignoring your post; I simply missed it somehow.

Fwiw,.. somehow I missed wanna be's post too. DeeDeeDee! :bagoverhead:

Cheers to both of you for your willingness to see your taxes raised. :beer:

[i'm glad you both agree that not all tax increases are bad. ;) ]

So you're asserting that all those 1.5 million are poor, underage unwed mothers unable to care for themselves?

That's the same way pro-choice advocates always make the case for abortion citing victims of rape and incest.

The fact is that is easily the smallest percentage of all abortions.

The vast majority of abortions are for adults 20 and older.

So why am I paying higher taxes to support their children?

Yes I would pay increased taxes (how much could it possibly be?) for those children born to underage mothers under a certain income level (Under 18 they are their parents' responsibility.)

If the parents balk at supporting them and they're in need, then yes.

But that is a relatively small percentage of those 1.5 million you refer to.

Teenagers and girls under 15 represent less than 22% of yearly abortions.

Of those, I would wager conservatively 50% of those would be supported by family/parents. In reality, I bet it'd be closer to 2 out of 3.

The majority of that 1.5 million are average women that simply don't want to be "burdened" with a baby. Tough shit.

It's called responsibility.

You either apply that responsibility before you have unprotected sex, or carry that responsibility after.

That's my idea of Pro-choice.

I understand your pov, and I don't disagree that what we will be paying for is other peoples' irresponsibility. I don't like that any more than you do. But the fact of the matter is that there are irresponsible people in the world, and there are many women who get pregnant and who, for whatever reason.. including reasons that you and I may find quite inadequate.. decide they do not want to.. or are not ready to.. be a parent, so they decide to have an abortion. If you are going to say to those women "you no longer have the option of legally having an abortion" chances are that they will 1. have an illegal abortion, 2. give that child up for adoption or immediately turn it over to the child welfare system (ie, foster care), or 3. neglect that child either directly, or indirectly via utterly incompetent parenting. Not many of those women are going to "suck it up" and decide to suddenly become responsible adults and parents (though some small percentage will, I concede).

Factual anecdote: I recently encountered (in a professional setting not a personal setting) a woman who had recently given birth to her 7th child. She had lost her previous 6 children to child welfare services because she's an addict and because she has mental health problems. She prostitutes herself to support her drug habit and to pay for rent and whatnot. Her life is truly sad, pathetic, and tragic. When she got pregnant with the 7th child, she got clean from drugs and was determined to provide for and raise the child as responsibly as she could. When the child was 4 weeks old she took it to an emergency room; she told the social worker she was exhausted, frustrated, and felt totally overwhelmed; she was asking for help. While the baby was being examined the mom went outside "for a smoke"... and she never returned. Baby #7 is now in also in the child welfare system, headed for foster care. I saw the woman about six weeks later when she returned to the ER.. positive for drugs in her system, distraught, and suicidal.

So,.. looking at this issue from the standpoint of what is going to happen to those children in examples 2 and 3, I don't think its right that society punish the children for the irresponsibility of the mother (and the father). I think we must take it upon our collective selves to make sure that adoption and foster care programs are fully funded.. for the sake of the children. It seems to me that when you say "tough shit" to the mother who didn't want to be a mother.. or to the junkie-prostitute 7-time failure as a mom.. you're also saying "tough shit" to the children. I'm simply not willing to join you in taking that position, friend.

I think its in our best interest as a society to make sex education and birth control/planned parenthood (education and options) are available to every teenager and adult in the country, and I think it in or best interest as a society to make sure that counseling, support, and guidance is available to women who find themselves with an unplanned (and/or irresponsible) pregnancy, and I think it's in our best interest as a society to ensure that adoption and foster care programs are fully funded to provide adequate care to children whose mother's give them up at birth.. or thereafter. And,.. I also think its in our best interest as a society to ensure that abortions are kept safe and legal for those who choose to have them, though I think later-term abortion s should be outlawed except in cases where the mother's life in jeopardy.

Insisting that a child be born to an irresponsible mother who has no intention of becoming responsible (an addict, for example) without providing programs and services to care for that child should the mother abandon the child.. and/or should she prove be neglectful.. and/or should she be utterly incompetent as a mother.. and/or should the child be born already addicted to drugs.. then we are not doing justice to that child by merely insisting that it have "a right to life". I think we need to look beyond merely the "right to life" issue and consider "quality of life" issues as well; and if we are not willing to make determinations as to what constitutes a minimum "quality of life" to justify a child being brought into the world, then we ought at least ensure that there are programs in place to care for those children. It seems to me that it's our responsibility.. those of us who would like to see fewer (or no) abortions.. I think that group includes pretty much everyone.. to fund those programs.

With regard to example 1 (women who will have an illegal abortion if abortions are outlawed),.. I understand that you might say "tough shit" to them if they die or are seriously injured as a result of having an illegal "clothes-hanger"-type abortion. I understand where that "tough shit" sentiment come from, but I do not share in holding that position. I choose to feel compassion for the women who find themselves in such desperate position (and/or who are simply so determined to have an abortion that will do so at any risk) that they'd resort to having an illegal.. and unsafe.. abortion. I prefer that abortions remain safe and available to those who choose to have them. Just because a woman has been irresponsible in getting pregnant that does not lead me to say "tough shit" to her regarding her life and her well-being. I would prefer she would choose not to have an abortion, but that is not my choice to make, it is her choice. Should she choose to have an abortion, I prefer that she have access to a doctor who can safely perform the procedure. And I hope that she can then bear the burden of conscience that she will surely carry for the rest of her life. I have enough openness in my heart to feel compassion (and pity) for irresponsible women.. even 7-time fuck-ups. What a tragedy of humanity! :(

And let's not place the blame entirely on women. Afterall,

men do play a role in irresponsible pregnancies too, right? <_<

There ya go TypeO. I hope you no longer feel left out, bro. ^_^

Cheers. :beer:

:hippy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about time a couple of women joined the debate!

Afterall,.. this is your battle to fight,.. not mine. ;)

I turn it over to you ladies to explain to Del and TypeO why women should retain the

right to choose... why they should continue to have access to safe and legal abortions.

[don't forget to mention that pro-choice women should vote for Barack Obama. B) ]

munchies.gif

It shouldn't need explaining. I said it in the first sentence of the last paragraph, in my previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shouldn't need explaining. I said it in the first sentence of the last paragraph, in my previous post.

"The very second that a woman cannot make her own choice is the very second we are not full citizens."

By that argument none of us are "full citizens".. since (as one quick example) the gov't

places restrictions on what kinds of substances we can choose to put into our bodies.

With all due respect, I appreciate your "I'll make my own choices thank you very much" pov with regard to contraceptives and sex, but I think you're gonna have to go deeper than a "it's my body I can't do what I want with it" argument as a justification for abortion. Afterall, in most cases abortion doesn't deal with just one life: the mother's.. but (at some point) with two: the mother's and the child's. Why should women have the right to.. as a mere matter of convenience.. terminate the life of an unborn child developing in their womb?

I'm pro-choice so your argument is not with me, Suz. I presume that when you say "it's my choice", you're inferring something along the lines of "when life begins has not been firmly established, and therefore the choice to have, or not have, an abortion is a matter of personal morality". I could be wrong though; there's really no way of knowing based on your sentence. Its also possible that you could be making your argument simply on a libertarian basis. I'd like to see you put forth a comprehensive pro-choice rationale.. from a woman's perspective.. that might be meaningful to pro-lifers. Obviously you are free to choose not to take on that task if you don't want to,.. and of course I respect your right to choose that option. ;)^_^

:hippy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

[quote name='zepyep' date='Jul 5 2008, 03:13 PM' post='212896'

KB( we now return you to our regularly schedule program)

Indeed. Just a silly little issue, anyway. We shouldn't care where the candidates stand on it.

Yes,and women have been giving birth to kangaroos for how long?

Neither McCain nor Obama is going to overturn the ruling either way.Who they nominate for the USSC,is a different matter of course.

Take care kid,KB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

"The very second that a woman cannot make her own choice is the very second we are not full citizens."

By that argument none of us are "full citizens".. since (as one quick example) the gov't

places restrictions on what kinds of substances we can choose to put into our bodies.

With all due respect, I appreciate your "I'll make my own choices thank you very much" pov with regard to contraceptives and sex, but I think you're gonna have to go deeper than a "it's my body I can't do what I want with it" argument as a justification for abortion. Afterall, in most cases abortion doesn't deal with just one life: the mother's.. but (at some point) with two: the mother's and the child's. Why should women have the right to.. as a mere matter of convenience.. terminate the life of an unborn child developing in their womb?

I'm pro-choice so your argument is not with me, Suz. I would like to see you put forth a pro-choice rationale.. from a woman's perspective.. that might make meaningful sense to pro-lifers though. Obviously you are free to choose not to take on that task if you don't want to,.. and of course I respect your right to choose. ;)^_^:hippy:

Hermit! You are starting to make sense.That worries me,lad! Kidding,... :D

Yet,that's a damn good arguement.I have a few tales to tell,but why bother,...no one will care and someone will get pissy about the whole thing.

Best to you all,KB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The very second that a woman cannot make her own choice is the very second we are not full citizens."

By that argument none of us are "full citizens".. since (as one quick example) the gov't

places restrictions on what kinds of substances we can choose to put into our bodies.

With all due respect, I appreciate your "I'll make my own choices thank you very much" pov with regard to contraceptives and sex, but I think you're gonna have to go deeper than a "it's my body I can't do what I want with it" argument as a justification for abortion. Afterall, in most cases abortion doesn't deal with just one life: the mother's.. but (at some point) with two: the mother's and the child's. Why should women have the right to.. as a mere matter of convenience.. terminate the life of an unborn child developing in their womb?

I'm pro-choice so your argument is not with me, Suz. I would like to see you put forth a pro-choice rationale.. from a woman's perspective.. that might make meaningful sense to pro-lifers though. Obviously you are free to choose not to take on that task if you don't want to,.. and of course I respect your right to choose. ;)^_^

:hippy:

I thought it went without saying that the choice I was referring to was the one to carry a baby to term and give birth to it. Anyway, I'm appalled anybody thinks it's a convenient choice, but I have no energy to explain why it isn't. You can take that as a cop out if you want. I simply won't go there with anyone anymore. As far as the taking a life stance goes, I've never said or felt that it wasn't a life. It comes down to a grey area, as many things do. For me there is no argument that can overrule a woman's own judgement. Take that as the lesser of two evils, if you will.....but I don't want to live, nor would I want my daughter to live where that choice belongs to anyone but the woman carrying the child. Anti abortion laws belong in theocracies or dictatorships, as far as I'm concerned. The cases that everyone gets so worked up over- late term abortions, etc. are the rare examples that don't apply to the average woman seeking an abortion. The unpleasant fact is that no matter what the circumstances (inclusing late term, which I abhor), there just isn't anyone else who can make that decision for the woman. There just isn't.

I have been pregnant and have a daughter, so I know how all encompassing the experience is. It is so much bigger than me. A thoughtful pro-life person might wonder why that couldn't be a good motivation to carry an unwanted child to term. A religious person might see it as a sign from god. I have heard all the arguments for decades, and thought about it at length. To this day nothing trumps a woman's right to choose. I've seen the protesters flaunting their giant posters of baby gore for children to walk by and see, and I've seen a picture from the 50's, of a dead woman with a coat hanger coming out of her.

As someone said to my best friend many years ago, "You don't know til you've been there." A few years later, my best friend was there, where she thought she'd never be.

I wish we'd care half as much about the born children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's about time a couple of women joined the debate!

Afterall,.. this is your battle to fight,.. not mine. ;)

I turn it over to you ladies to explain to Del and TypeO why women should retain the

right to choose... why they should continue to have access to safe and legal abortions.

[don't forget to mention that pro-choice women should vote for Barack Obama. B) ]

munchies.gif

what it comes down to is empathy... put yourself in someone elses shoes...sure it's easy to be against abortion from the coziness of your roof-covered homes pecking away at your high-speed computers and crawling into your snug warm beds...have a baby...easy

...picture yourself living in the street, heck maybe you are even lucky enough to sleep each night in a car...wondering if you are going to get food that day...are you going to get attacked?... hassled by the cops?...are you going to be warm enough?...now picture yourself pregnant in that situation.

...i for one would not feel comfortable telling someone in that situation what to do...because i don't know what i would do if i was in that situation...

..call me a wimp, but ive had two kids and i cant imagine being pregnant without something as basic as a toilet... i couldnt imagine sleeping on the ground or in the back seat of a car nine months pregnant...

do i have all the answers?...no....tell somebody else what to do?...no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what it comes down to is empathy... put yourself in someone elses shoes...sure it's easy to be against abortion from the coziness of your roof-covered homes pecking away at your high-speed computers and crawling into your snug warm beds...have a baby...easy

...picture yourself living in the street, heck maybe you are even lucky enough to sleep each night in a car...wondering if you are going to get food that day...are you going to get attacked?... hassled by the cops?...are you going to be warm enough?...now picture yourself pregnant in that situation.

...i for one would not feel comfortable telling someone in that situation what to do...because i don't know what i would do if i was in that situation...

..call me a wimp, but ive had two kids and i cant imagine being pregnant without something as basic as a toilet... i couldnt imagine sleeping on the ground or in the back seat of a car nine months pregnant...

do i have all the answers?...no....tell somebody else what to do?...no

Cripes, I remember when my daughter was colicky. It didn't last long, but I practically lost my marbles!!! :wacko: A mom I knew years ago said, "people who don't understand how child abuse can happen are people who don't have children." I was pregnant at the time, and thought it was a crazy thing to say. Then I had my baby. Our society romanticsizes it to the point of insanity. It was scary as hell, and I was married! Not alone. You DON"T know what to do! You have to figure it out, and when you're exhausted and that baby screams for hours no matter what you do, you could go postal. I remember so clearly one night I had to just put her in the crib and walk out of the room. I cried my eyes out and remembered what that lady said. Before I left the room there was a moment when I could have thrown my precious child against the wall. I thought about what the hell I would do if I was on my own. What would I do if I was 15?! Oh my god.

Anyway, I know it's a bit off topic, but I think it relates to the oversimplifying of something that is so, so complex and so personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

>I thought it went without saying that the choice I was referring to was the one to carry a baby to term and give birth to it. Anyway, I'm appalled anybody thinks it's a convenient choice, but I have no energy to explain why it isn't. You can take that as a cop out if you want. I simply won't go there with anyone anymore. As far as the taking a life stance goes, I've never said or felt that it wasn't a life. <

Suz,calm down,let's a drink and a vent.OK? I for one do not want to take anyhing away from you.Nor can I,...

My sh** hole comment of 'kangaroos' was only to point out that it is a rough,brutal choice.

---------------------------------------------------------

>It comes down to a grey area, as many things do. For me there is no argument that can overrule a woman's own judgement. Take that as the lesser of two evils, if you will.....but I don't want to live, nor would I want my daughter to live where that choice belongs to anyone but the woman carrying the child.<

Does it?You choose to have sex with someone,yet, maybe you do not choose to get pregnant.Let me ask you this: if the father wants the child,and there is a good argument that he doesn't want this,but if he does.And the women aborts,he has no say in the matter?A women doesn't just dream of getting pregnant,something has to happen.

>Anti abortion laws belong in theocracies or dictatorships, as far as I'm concerned. The cases that everyone gets so worked up over- late term abortions, etc. are the rare examples that don't apply to the average woman seeking an abortion. The unpleasant fact is that no matter what the circumstances (inclusing late term, which I abhor), there just isn't anyone else who can make that decision for the woman. There just isn't. <

Riddle me this: why would a women want to get an abortion?You know the average women?And like I asked before,when do women wake up pregnant?Yep,some do,because stuff happens.And human beings are flawed.

>I have been pregnant and have a daughter, so I know how all encompassing the experience is. It is so much bigger than me. A thoughtful pro-life person might wonder why that couldn't be a good motivation to carry an unwanted child to term. A religious person might see it as a sign from god. I have heard all the arguments for decades, and thought about it at length. To this day nothing trumps a woman's right to choose. I've seen the protesters flaunting their giant posters of baby gore for children to walk by and see, and I've seen a picture from the 50's, of a dead woman with a coat hanger coming out of her.<

Free will at work.And it is the law.Yet it varies from state to state and from country to country.

Aside from that,Suz,your a good egg and your raising another great human being.So don't take this rant as slight on you.

>As someone said to my best friend many years ago, "You don't know til you've been there." A few years later, my best friend was there, where she thought she'd never be.

I wish we'd care half as much about the born children<

Then there is the rub,... ain't it?We have children and we don't care for them.They might do some good in this world,then again they just might be good folks.but we will never know until they are in this world.

KB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would really suck to be a father who wants the baby. No doubt about that and I'm glad you shared that viewpoint (though I don't believe it's really much more common than partial birth abortions. Correct me if you think I'm wrong about that. I think it's one of the scenarios that's brought up more than it actually happens). Why would a woman want to have an abortion? Nobody wants to. It's not easy, it's not simple, it's not convenient. But sometimes, based on the circumstances, it really is the only choice and that choice is hers. For me, it's like that old saying about not judging til you walk a mile in someone's mocassins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bad, TypeO. I totally missed that post. D'oh! slapface.gif

xxx SNIP xxx

There ya go TypeO. I hope you no longer feel left out, bro. ^_^

Cheers. :beer:

:hippy:

"The very second that a woman cannot make her own choice is the very second we are not full citizens."

By that argument none of us are "full citizens".. since (as one quick example) the gov't

places restrictions on what kinds of substances we can choose to put into our bodies.

OK buddy, I don't know what kind of game you're playing, being consistent in your opinions and whatnot!

Seriously, Hermit - much respect.

We're polar opposites politically, but I respect your consistency and passion.

This site is blocked from my job, so I often think about my responses and the posts I read here during the day until I get home to actually log on for updates.

That's actually a good thing - I'd be way too distracted at work if I could log on here :lolo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The abortion debate is one that really shouldn't be had, because at the root of one side of the argument is religious morality. You can't debate anything when God creeps its head into the picture.

I've worked for Planned Parenthood and several other health services, so unless you have, don't suppose you know why women have abortions, or what their thought process about it is. Until you've walked in their shoes and known what's in their minds, you can't understand how difficult a choice like that is to make. No one who is planning on having one looks forward to it, but for each woman that makes that choice, they've decided it's right for them. I don't judge or condemn women who've done it, and I don't look down on women who don't. It's not my place nor is it anyone else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Suz, marolyn, and Liz for sharing your thoughts on this matter. I totally appreciate hearing from you in this debate, and there's not much that any of you said that I disagree with. It's your voices that make a difference in this debate. I can speak from the perspective of a man who is socially conscious and compassionate, but I cannot speak from the perspective of someone who will ever have to face that most difficult of decisions. I thank you all for sharing your thoughts and experiences.

:hippy:

Thanks to you too, TypeO, for sharing your pov... disagree though we do. ;)

I appreciate the kind words in your last post. Back at ya, bud. :beer:

I wish we'd care half as much about the born children.

I couldn't agree more, Suz! In fact.. that bears repeating!

I wish we'd care half as much about the born children.

I wish we'd care half as much about the born children.

I wish we'd care half as much about the born children.

I wish we'd care half as much about the born children.

I wish we'd care half as much about the born children!

------------------

For women all across America this may be the

single most slaient issue of the upcoming election:

If elected the next POTUS..

John McCain will seek to have Roe v Wade overturned

by nominating ultra-conservative Supreme Court justices.

John McCain will seek to limit access to birth control.

John McCain will seek to limit comprehensive sex education.

Barack Obama will seek to secure Roe v Wade

by nominating moderate-to-progressive SC justices.

Barack Obama will seek to secure access to birth control.

Barack Obama will fund comprehensive sex education programs.

prochoice.jpg

*source: NARAL*

The choice (pun intended ^_^) is clear.

:hippy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is a strawman argument.. because, as you well know, I never suggested you said you weren't in favor of any program aimed at providing care for abandoned children or those in desperate need. What I did suggest.. a suggestion that has been borne out (pun intended).. was that you (like most hardline pro-lifers) aren't willing to have your taxes raised to help fund planned pregnancy/sex education/birth control programs, adoption programs, and foster care programs.

And my answer was that raising taxes, or looking to another Federal bureaucracy to solve social problems, is generally a step in the wrong direction. Just as the welfare policies of the "great society" did more to encourage women to have more children to get more welfare; while at the same time creating a disinsentive for fathers to remain in the home. Policies which turned out to be especially devastating to poor minorities over the last 40 years.

You raising the specter of Nazi Germany is the reddest herring yet, Delbert. :lol: And as far as I can tell, you're the only one "insinuating" that killing babies is a matter of fiscal policy, muh-man. I never once said abortion is a matter of fiscal policy, I merely raised an obvious point that more unwanted babies will mean more need for social services to care for those babies, and I inquired of your willingness to pony up to help fund such programs. Seems pretty straight-forward to me, bud. ;)

So what's wrong with trying to educate people about WANTING TO PROTECT an innocent human life? Maybe if more people believed how wonderful their baby really is and deserving of love and nurture, by themselves or through adoption; then maybe people might be more responsible for their own baby. Maybe they will be more responsible all together. But sending the message that a baby is only a financial burden, and that "unwanted" is equal to unworthy... then no wonder we have the mess we have.

So then,.. the answer to my question is "No, Hermit, I am not willing to have my taxes raised to help fund adoption and foster care programs; my wife and I prefer to donate to our church which provides faith-based assistance, counseling and adoption options for women with unplanned pregnancies".

Fair enough, Del.. but uhh.. what took you so long to answer? :P

[And why the specious Nazi Germany reference before you finally answered? :D ]

Btw.. what about the many, many women who need unplanned pregnancy counseling who aren't "woman of faith".. women who may be more likely to be considering having an abortion and who aren't very likely to go looking to a faith-based program for advise, guidance, and counseling about unplanned pregnancy issues? And what about women who want contraceptive and birth control education? They won't get that education through a faith-based program, instead they'll be told to practice 'abstinence only' or to utilize 'the rhythm method'. That's not very effective "counseling and guidance", bud; neither of those approaches have proven to be effective in preventing unplanned pregnancies.

Well first of all, I never said my charitable support was only through my church. Although, the church we are members of is also involved in private adoptions and support to mothers who have elected to keep their babies-- even if on a smaller scale. But the many "faith based charities" like The Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and any number of missions in cities across the country is what I was talking about. Besides, it may not always be a requirement that they must be "women of faith" before entering one of these programs anyway. I'm not saying that it is not also a goal that these missions lead these women to faith, but why fault them for that? Especially if they are there to help.

Anyway.. you've answered the question, [your answer: No, you would not support seeing your taxes raised to help fund sex education, birth control education, adoption, and foster care programs] and as you probably know, your answer comes as no surprise to me. Nonetheless, I do appreciate you finally answering.

Give a person a fish, you feed him for a day.

Teach a person to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life.

This saying can be appllied to any number of situations that you feel must be solved by the goverment through taxes. I believe that by making goverment the answer all to people's problems, you only make the situation worse in the long run. But that being said, I already said that I was not against all goverment sponsered programs that step in to rescue children/mothers in dire need.

Btw Del,.. have you come up with a self-delusion yet that enables to reconcile (in your own mind anyway) your "right to life -- every child has the right to live" position with your advocacy for the wholesale bombing (you know.. killing) of innocent women and children in the middle east? How is that you can have such a cold, callous, indifferent attitude about the killing of children for your own sense of security when you claim to feel so strongly.. supposedly based on your religious morality.. that "every child has the right to life"?

We are not targeting civilians in the middle east, but we all realize that in war innocent people sometimes are killed. Although, that does not mean that the war is unjust or unnecessary. You liberals always end up painting yourselves into a corner, but mostly because your moral compasses are so out of whack.

In June and July of 1944 the month long Allied invasion of France (not just D-Day alone, but the push inland from the sea) resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50,000 French civilians.

Are you going to argue that the invasion of Normany was not a just invasion?

I wonder how many more civilians in France, Poland, Russia and even Germany would have occurred if the D-Day invasion had failed and been delayed another year, month or even day?

Like I said, you liberals are not wired correctly.

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should a pregnant woman get full-say on what happens to the child (to all the pro-choice people here) or should the man get some say as well (seeing as how it will probably be his money to support the two of them, not to mention he helped make the child)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

hi wanna be! :wave:

Should a pregnant woman get full-say on what happens to the child (to all the pro-choice people here) or should the man get some say as well (seeing as how it will probably be his money to support the two of them, not to mention he helped make the child)?

Men do not have those rights.Yes,I know I am are going get a massive broadside for that remark.But it's true,it's their body and their choice,your swimmers have no say in the matter.But of course your wallet does,if the child goes to term,...

Then again,it may be a backlash of how men have treated women in the past,....and today,...

Would anyone like to hear about my friend,Lori? Didn't think so,....

Anyhow,far be it for me,to tell anywho what to do.We have the freedom to choose,even if the USSC says we do or not,.....

KB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

~snip~

We are not targeting civilians in the middle east, but we all realize that in war innocent people sometimes are killed. Although, that does not mean that the war is unjust or unnecessary. You liberals always end up painting yourselves into a corner, but mostly because your moral compasses are so out of whack.

In June and July of 1944 the month long Allied invasion of France (not just D-Day alone, but the push inland from the sea) resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50,000 French civilians.

Are you going to argue that the invasion of Normany was not a just invasion?

I wonder how many more civilians in France, Poland, Russia and even Germany would have occurred if the D-Day invasion had failed and been delayed another year, month or even day?

Like I said, you liberals are not wired correctly.

:blink:

fact: the reason(s) we entered ww2 against the germans: oil? (no, sorry....wrong WAR) oh, yes-to free occupied france and eastern europe, stop the bombing on england and assist them in protecting their way of life, free u.s.s.r. from invasion so that they could help correct an error they made in allowing the nazi's to exist with thier blessing (and pact). and yes, 6 million people too late, but to stop the annihilation of a race of people. japan? the bombing and sinking of our fleet.

please list the reason's we are in iraq and stand them next to these. (if you dare)

right next to these, please.

moral compass? trying to justify iraq by comparing it to ww2? not me....

by the way-cukoo's nest is one of my favorite books. a comment on american society. i met ken kesey-if he were alive to see what you wrote, i have no doubt he would insist you remove any reference to his book within the same 50 feet of your post. a remarkable man.

what was that about a corner?

i would put in one of those smiley thingies, but i can't find 'em....my compass must be broke.

edit to add: i forgot to say that i've often enjoyed your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should a pregnant woman get full-say on what happens to the child (to all the pro-choice people here) or should the man get some say as well (seeing as how it will probably be his money to support the two of them, not to mention he helped make the child)?

The father absolutely has a say. But it's HER uterus and HER pregnancy to terminate, not his. So ultimately, the decision lies with her. If she's pro-choice and he's not, he can't force her to have the baby against her will.

And you don't know that it would be his money supporting the mother during the pregnancy. When my mom was pregnant with me, she was supporting the family because unemployment in 1982 was ridiculously high and my father was one of the casualties of that. There's a lot of women who support their family either because the man doesn't work or she makes more than he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

The father absolutely has a say. But it's HER uterus and HER pregnancy to terminate, not his. So ultimately, the decision lies with her. If she's pro-choice and he's not, he can't force her to have the baby against her will.

What are you talking about?Her will ,was to have intercourse to begin with.The father has no right to tell a women what to do with her pregnacy,none.Other than,yes,have sex,the condom ripped or the damn pill failed,but there is now a morning after pill,...

Yep,it's her uterus,but it was his swimmers,but he has no rights.Sure she let HER uterus come in contact with his swimmers,that was her choice?Right?Or was it theirs?HER pregnacy,how did that happen?With a turkey baster?

__________________________________________________________________

And you don't know that it would be his money supporting the mother during the pregnancy. When my mom was pregnant with me, she was supporting the family because unemployment in 1982 was ridiculously high and my father was one of the casualties of that. There's a lot of women who support their family either because the man doesn't work or she makes more than he does.

Excuse me,have any of you ever heard of the 'Deadbeat Dad' laws?You don't have to be married to the women,but if you father the child and they prove it,guess what happens?

KB(I'm happy I'm not a fetus,no more,well,....maybe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...