Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 226 of 316 (186114)
02-17-2005 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by nator
02-16-2005 8:28 AM


Re: Missed Point
The only thing I got from that is this:
With more than one in five of its children below the poverty line, the United States has the largest number of poor children. (United States also has the largest number of rich children in the world).
How screwd up are we?
The rest of the world suffers, and our own while a bunch of rich people sit on the asses?
I'm not saying we should do something about it, but the rich should, voluntarally.
Those are world wide statistics, and part of the reason why I am in Hope for the Nations.
I thought we were only discussing what happens here in America, since our medical programs are a little better than those poor places, and it's the only place where our vote will make a difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by nator, posted 02-16-2005 8:28 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 02-17-2005 10:23 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 227 of 316 (186116)
02-17-2005 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by nator
02-16-2005 8:37 AM


Re: Missed Point
Ok, this is better.
7.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births during 1982-1996.
I wonder out of those, how many were people that were warned of a risk, and decided to take it anyway?
But it's a pretty low number.
Also out of how many of those are people that didn't want to have children.
I'm sure we get a percentage that is less than 0.01%. Not too bad.
Looks like we've improved greatly:
In 1930, the national maternal mortality ratio was 670 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births
You do understand Schraf, that I am for the woman. The woman should always come first. I am against using abortion as a form of birth control. So it may appear that I am aginst what you are saying, I am actually for it, if it concerns the woman. (Don't tell me again that all pregnancies have risks, please).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by nator, posted 02-16-2005 8:37 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by nator, posted 02-17-2005 10:28 AM riVeRraT has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 228 of 316 (186118)
02-17-2005 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by riVeRraT
02-17-2005 7:19 AM


Re: Missed Point
quote:
No, my story asks the question, just haw many woman get an abortion because, well they feel like having kids, but do not want to go througha pregnancy.
I'm sorry I don't get your question? They WANT children but decide to have an abortion?
I'm reminded again how different the states is from the Britain (not the uk). While there is some debate about when a person should be able to get an abortion, there is not much debate in the form of if.
Generally abortions are not difficult to get here but there can be a slight wait, so some people go private (I paid for a couple to help out some friends).
The law here says:
quote:
In England, Wales and Scotland abortion is legal under 24 weeks of pregnancy if two doctors agree that it is necessary for one of the following reasons:
* having the baby would harm the woman's mental or physical health more than having the abortion. This involves the woman explaining how she feels about the pregnancy to a doctor.
* having the baby would harm the mental or physical health of any children she already has.
An abortion is also legal at any time in pregnancy if two doctors agree that:
* the abortion is necessary to save the woman's life or prevent serious permanent harm to her mental or physical health, or
* there is a high risk that the baby would be seriously handicapped.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:19 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 6:01 PM CK has not replied
 Message 261 by Brian, posted 02-19-2005 9:21 AM CK has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 229 of 316 (186134)
02-17-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by riVeRraT
02-17-2005 7:11 AM


Re: Missed Point
So, married people who don't ever want to have children or are not sure if they want to have children should never, ever have sex?
Is that seriously what you are suggesting?
quote:
If they do not want kids that bad they can get a vesectomy like me.
You didn't answer the question. What about married people who aren't sure if they want to have kids? Should they never have sex?
You are suggesting that we provide no medical care to the people who's bungie cord breaks.
quote:
So you totally missed the logic behind that statement, what else is new?
No, you made a statement in which the logical conclusion wasn't what you intended to say.
Try again.
quote:
Also, can you please explain how bungie jumping is a normal biological drive for all people, similar to eating or having sex?
quote:
Did you even think before you wrote that statement?
Of course. I think carefully before writing most things here.
You are comparing bungie jumping with having sex.
quote:
Sex is a normal biological drive for all people? Bungie jumping is never compared to sex.
Riverrat, you compared the risks of bungie jumping with the risks of having sex. You then said that if the bungie cord breaks, it's the jumper's own fault for taking the risk, and this was similar to a person who has sex and gets pregnant even though they take reasonable precautions. I followed your analogy through explained that using your logic, we shouldn't help the jumper if they are injured in this accident.
I simply pointed out that this was an invalid comparison because a person who decides to go bungie jumping is choosing to do something well outside of most people's biological drives. We have no biological imperative, strongly driven by hormones, to bungie jump. We do have this strong drive to have sex, and engaging in sex is considered a normal, neccessary part of being a healthy person.
This is not the case with bungie jumpers. We consider them sort of crazy, rather reckless thrill seekers.
I am sorry that your analogy did not illustrate what you were trying to say. Try again.
Or, they dump the newborn in a dumpster, or just left outside somewhere, possibly on a doorstep.
Is infantacide better, because that is what will happen. That's what we see in countries where abortion and family planning services
are nonexistent or illegal.
quote:
That is such a rare circumstance, don't you think?
You know, riverrat, you might consider doing some research yourself once in a while. I did a google search on "infanticide" and this was second on the list.
As it turns out, it isn't very rare in the US compared to other countries, and it is true that the availability of safe, legal abortions has decreased the number of infantacides.
Now, I hope you do not ignore this fact. Disallowing most abortions will increase the number of infanticides. Are you comfortable with that?
Forbidden
Modern America
"In 1966, the United States had 10,920 murders, and one out of every twenty-two was a child killed by a parent."
Despite our predilection for considering modern civilization "advanced," the crime of infanticide has continued to pervade most contemporary cultures. The major difference between the nature of infanticide in the twentieth century, when compared to the rest of recorded history, however, is due to the impact of one modern medical advancement: the widespread availability of safe, and legal, means of abortion. The ability to easily terminate a pregnancy, and thereby eliminate an unwanted child before it is born, has had a profound effect on the prevalence of infanticide. The human species has killed almost 10% - 15% of all children born. The majority of these murders have been associated with reasons of necessity at least in the minds of the infanticide parent - or with untoward reactions against an unwanted birth. With little ability to abort an unwanted pregnancy safely, troubled parents have had little choice but to wait until full-term delivery before disposing of the conception.
Of approximately 6.4 million pregnancies in the United States in 1988, 3.6 million were unintended and therefore subject to dangerous consequences. 1.6 million of those unwanted pregnancies resulted in abortion. In Britain, more than 160,000 legal abortions, or terminations of pregnancy, were carried out each year during this same period of time. The Family Planning Association in Russia says that there are more than 3 million abortions performed each year, more than double the number of births. In France, there are almost one million abortions each year, equal to the number of births. This means that over five million pregnancies were aborted in the Western world alone each year, and if the births of those children would not have been prevented, it is very likely that many of those infants would have been victims of infanticidal rage.
Morally right or wrong - a case of murder or manifestation of a woman's right to choose - the fact remains that the frequent use of abortion has eased the necessity for killing an infant after its birth.
Statistical Analysis - United States
Statistically, the United States ranks high on the list of countries whose inhabitants kill their children. For infants under the age of one year, the American homicide rate is 11th in the world, while for ages one through four it is 1st and for ages five through fourteen it is fourth. From 1968 to 1975, infanticide of all ages accounted for almost 3.2% of all reported homicides in the United States.
The 1980's followed similar trends. Whereby overall homicide rates were decreasing in the United States, the rate at which parents were killing their children was increasing, In 1983, over six hundred children were reported killed by their parents, and from 1982-1987, approximately 1.1% of all homicides were children under the age of one year of age. When the homicide of a child was committed by a parent, it was the younger age child who was in the greater danger of being killed, while if the killer was a non-parent, then the victim was generally older.
quote:
Can't there be programs in place to find those kids homes, or put them up for adoption?
Do you really think that we can find homes for millions and millions of unwanted babies every year?
Free, effective contraception for anyone who wants it and the elevation of the status of women in all cultures would go much further in preventing these pregnancies in the first place, thus negating the need to take care of all of these unwanted children.
quote:
Show me the numbers Schraf, because you keep talking about them.
They are above. I was also wondering if you read my two recent posts regarding maternal death statistics?
However, the risks to a woman's health from carrying a pregnancy to term, giving birth, and postpartum are far greater than the risks she takes when she gets an early-term abortion.
quote:
The first time, then the risk increases with each abortion.
Source for your information, please. Also, you did not indicate if the increased risk with additional abortions exceeded the risk that a pregnancy brings.
quote:
Plus the afer postpartum abotrtion sydrome should be considered.
PAS is largely a myth propagated by the anti-choice people, rat. In short, the mental state of a woman after an abortion has much more to do with her mental state before the abortion, and that even highly religious women do not fare significantly worse after abortion than non-religious women. There is an overview of the research here:
Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS): All viewpoints
Even if it does exist, it is much less common than post partum depression. So, this works against your argument, because is a woman is concerned about post partum or post abortion depression, she should get the abortion because depression after childbirth is much more likely.
I repeat, you might want to consider actually doing some research before you post claims.
Every woman's body is your business? Everyone's business?
Since when?
quote:
Since we vote on laws governing them.
You don't vote on those laws.
The SCOTUS does. My rights to control my own reproduction are not subject to your opinion.
You and the woman you got pregnant made a CHOICE, didn't you? You made your bed and are having trouble lying in it, but it was YOUR CHOICE, and that was the risk you took.
Other people make that choice and they do not feel the same way afterwords as you do. They do not regret it.
Who are you to project your reactions to YOUR CHOICE on to every other person in the US?
quote:
Are you kidding me or what?
Absolutely not. I am completely serious.
quote:
Are we all not victims of soceity to a degree? Do we not allow how this soceity rauses our children?
Why are you talking about children and how we raise them? I was talking about you wanting to control the rest of the country.
quote:
(Oh thats right you don't care too much for children).
Be very careful, rat.
You are treading on dangerous ground with snide personal comments like that.
It simply shows that you are unable to answer me.
quote:
I explained very clearly how what happened to me relates to everyone.
You did? When? Please repeat it, I must have missed it.
quote:
With that kind of attitude or logic, its an all for himself world, that's hardly the case.
I don't even khow what you are trying to say here.
Yes, but you had a CHOICE. Nobody forced you, did they?
quote:
The forcing was in the ability to have the choice.
That is pure bullcrap, rat, and you know it.
Are you forced to eat pork rinds simply because they are on sale at the supermarket?
Are you forced to enlist in the military because there are commercials on TV and an enlistment officer calls you on the phone?
quote:
I know you won't understand that.
I don't "understand" it, that is correct.
It seems to me to be that you are blaming the fact that you even had a choice at all with your descision to terminate a pregnancy.
Gee, it really is too bad that we live in a fairly free society where you actually have choices and then have to live with the consequences instead of having one's entire life dictated by some outside authority, isn't it?
It was your responsibility to decide what was right for you, and it was the woman's responsibility to decide what was right for her.
It's called taking adult responsibility for your life, rat.
quote:
If it's legal it must be OK right?
If you didn't think that having an abortion was OK for you, then you shouldn't have had one.
Nobody forced you.
I am sorry that you feel like you made the wrong choice at that time, but just because that was the wrong choice FOR YOU doesn't give you the right to decide it is the wrong choice for everybody.
quote:
The choice was in having sex.
Whatever, but the point is that just because you have determined that terminating the pregnancy was the wrong choice for you doesn't give you the right to decide it is the wrong choice for everyone, everywhere.
How many unwanted babies have you adopted or fostered?
quote:
Zero. But, I am the Vice President of Hope for the Nations U.S.
Hope for the Nations
and we build Orphanages around the world, and help children at risk.
I am also a supporter of Care-net
Pregnancy Centers | Life Affirming Choices | Pro Abundant Life
My good friend who is a Christian is very involved with that, and we support him.
My wife and I have tossed around the idea of adopting another child, I have 5 already, but some things need to be in place first.
That is fabulous, and I mean that.
I also hope you are promoting the elevation of the status of women around the world, and also of family planning services and contraception.
quote:
Life is a blessing, whether you believe in God or not. Just because there is no higher power in life, does it mean it doesn't exist? Even if one doesn't (for your sake) where do we draw the line at playing games with life, or the ability to create life?
When does a human life begin?
quote:
Surely you value your own life, so you know how precious life is.
Absolutely. And it is MY life, rat. And you have no right to tell me what to do with it.
quote:
I Love my life, and the life of others. I hold it high in value, and that's what concerns me when our world plays games with it.
But when you want to force most pregnant women to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth, you are most certainly playing games with her life.
The risks are much greater to her health to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth than those from an early term abortion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:11 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 6:05 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 230 of 316 (186145)
02-17-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by riVeRraT
02-17-2005 7:29 AM


Re: Missed Point
Maternal deaths:
The figure for Western Europe is one woman in 3,200. In the United States, it is one in 3,300. In Canada, it is one in 7,300.
Compare that with the death rate from abortion...
This is from the CDC:
Most Maternal Deaths from Abortion Could be Avoided If Procedure Performed Earlier
Washington, DC -- Deaths related to legal abortion are very rare in the US, but women whose abortions are performed at or before 8 weeks of pregnancy are significantly less likely to die of abortion-related causes than are women with abortions performed after that time, according to a study in the April issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology.
Study authors from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) note that the annual death rate from legal abortion is extremely low. For the year 1996, for example, the number of deaths related to legal abortion in the US had dropped to seven out of nearly 1.2 million abortion procedures performed that year. Nevertheless, the authors estimate that for the years 1988 to 1997 up to 87% of the deaths in women whose pregnancies were terminated after 8 weeks of gestation might have been avoided if the women had obtained earlier abortions. The authors note that improving women's access to early abortion services -- such as early medical (non-surgical) abortions -- may further reduce the mortality rate.
The death rate from legally induced abortion was 0.6 per 100,000 abortions in 1997, compared to 4.1 per 100,000 in 1972 -- a decline of 85%. Researchers found that the greatest rate of decline in mortality rates occurred at the earliest weeks of pregnancy.
quote:
I thought we were only discussing what happens here in America, since our medical programs are a little better than those poor places, and it's the only place where our vote will make a difference.
Actually, our vote greatly affects what happens with women and children in other countries.
Bush has consistently blocked any funding for family planning services around the globe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:29 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 6:07 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 231 of 316 (186148)
02-17-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by riVeRraT
02-17-2005 7:41 AM


Re: Missed Point
quote:
You do understand Schraf, that I am for the woman. The woman should always come first.
No you are not.
You have consistently disregarded any consideration of a woman's health and the risks surrounding pregnancy if the fetus is "normal".
You have consistently put the fetus far ahead of the woman in importance.
quote:
I am against using abortion as a form of birth control.
Me, too, if simply for the cost.
What are you doing to promote contraception use to make abortion rarer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:41 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 6:10 PM nator has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 232 of 316 (186158)
02-17-2005 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by riVeRraT
02-17-2005 7:21 AM


Re: Missed Point
can your opinion on it overrule mine?
No it cannot, and I am sorry if your offended.
Glad to see you finally agreeing that it is a personal choice that no one else can make for another person.
If this is how you genuinely feel, then why are you arguing differently with others?
Yes, I know, that isn't how you genuinely feel, so why be so patronizing towards me? And patronizing is exactly how what you said to me seemed.
{pseudoquote}Aww I'm sorry if I offended you, of course my opinion on the matter cannot overrule yours...{/pseudoquote}
What you have been arguing throughout this entire thread is just the opposite. You have come right out and stated that your opinion is right and mine is wrong. You have come right out and stated that everyone should have to follow your opinion.
Answer this simple question, no debate, please just pick ONE of these option as the closest to your true opinion. You can discuss variations on your choice after you make one. I will be happy to discuss my pregnancies and abortion with you AFTER I get an answer.
1. Abortion is a personal choice and during early pregnancy no one has the right to make that decision except for the pregnant woman.
2. Abortion is wrong and government should create laws making it illegal for anyone to have one, except for dire medical emergencies.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
select * from USERS where CLUE > 0
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:21 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Silent H, posted 02-17-2005 12:54 PM Asgara has not replied
 Message 244 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 6:14 PM Asgara has replied

kongstad
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 233 of 316 (186166)
02-17-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by riVeRraT
02-17-2005 7:11 AM


Re: Missed Point
> If they do not want kids that bad they can
> get a vesectomy like me.
I do not now the numbers in the US, but in Denmark there is - on average - on pregnancy a week where the woman is sterilised.
It seems that some times the binding is not succesful - so a woman who has undergone a sterilisation procedure gets pregnant.
So by your standards they should just not have sex?
By the way - luckily - in Denmark there is no doubt about womens right to abortions. More than 90% of the population supports this right. About as many are concerned about abortion though - and think it should be used as little as possible - and indeed since it was legalized in 1973 the rate has been steadily decreasing - thanks to a big effort in sex education, and the easy availability of contraceptivess. For the last couple of years emergency contraceptives have been OTC - which also helps.
/Soren
This message has been edited by kongstad, 02-17-2005 11:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by riVeRraT, posted 02-17-2005 7:11 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 234 of 316 (186203)
02-17-2005 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Asgara
02-17-2005 10:51 AM


Re: Missed Point
2. Abortion is wrong and government should create laws making it illegal for anyone to have one, except for dire medical emergencies.
You should add rape to that list, he has stated he thinks that is okay as well. I suppose incest would be as well, but I am not sure.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Asgara, posted 02-17-2005 10:51 AM Asgara has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 235 of 316 (186322)
02-17-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Silent H
02-16-2005 12:43 PM


No, you said it is also okay when the life of the mother is at risk or the gestational being is going to be dead anyway
Yes I know. You can point out the mearly obvious to me, the incredibly obvious I got a grip on.
In any case, while sex is intentional, reproduction is not.
This ladies and gentlemen is the whole issue summed up in a few elquent words. That's just awesome. I really can't believe people can think like this. If everyone would realize that when you play with fire you might get burned, we would all be ok. It's so simple, a child could figure it out, why the rest of the world has such a problem with it, including myself, is the bigger question.
What is the difference between a woman getting pregnant when she didn't want to just because in one case a person forced the sex upon her, and in another bad luck forced the reproductive cycle upon her?
You mean you really don't know the answer to this one?
I'll give you one more chance.
The first sentence is about the most meaningless thing I've read in some time. If the trauma never surfaces in a person's lifetime, that would be "no trauma". The second sentence is a bunch of garbage. Who the hell ever said it was casual and harmless? It is a medical procedure (which usually brings some emotional issues) and the woman will likely face post-partum depression, just as she would if she had the child.
Yes I agree with you, and I do not believe that it sinks in and never surfaces. We are the sum of our experiences in life.
Ironically, pregnancy is not as harmless and casual as the anti-choice crowd insist.
Another good reason to not play games with life, and only seriously consider having sex, unless you are willing to take the risk.
You are not LIABLE when you have taken adequate precautions.
Yes you are. Show me one birth control package or drug that claims 100% effectiveness.
Let's stop right here, and I want to ask Holmes a question, please no one else from the peanut gallery answer:
Do you think abortion is a form of birth control?
I said if pregnancy was a snap most women probably wouldn't have abortions. Do you really think this isn't true?
You and schraf, have to own up to this statement. Do you think that woman are having abortions because while they don't mind kids, they are afraid of being pregnant?
Go back to sleep if you think that cheap trick is going to work on me. I actually have a thought out position on this subject. No, the attacker is not guilty of murder.
Do you have kids?
How do you feel about the outcome of this story?
Error
He used it to find characteristics that are important in defining what a person is. It did not hinge on facts of whether the criteria were forever lost or not.
Yes, I know that clearly, and I disagree with both of you. The fact remains that it absolutly hinges on the criteria being forever lost or not. It's a ghost of an arguement.
You do not need any law, or act, or even half a brain to know that if you rip a gestational being from a womb, it will die, unless it has developed enough. That fact that it can, or cannot survive on its own, means nothing to it's personess. Since when do we ignore time, or control it, because that's what your attempting to do.
This is a contradiction. By the way, how come I am a product of the same society and I never had a pregnancy, nor an STD despite much unmarried sexual encounters? Maybe its because I knew that if you truly wanted to avoid any pregnancies you had to have nonvaginal sex or layer protective options?
Awesome, your better than me. I hope and pray that you never have to experience what I did. Listen, I had sex with only 3 women in my life, and I was engaged to 2 of them, and the third one I married. I am not a careless person, and I did not feel I deserved what happened to me. But now that I believe in God, and he blesses me with knowledge and wisdom from the Holy Spirit, I now understand why it happened to me.
Just like you probably drive a car around. Despite knowing the rules of the road and keeping your car maintained, if one day the brakes just give out, you would not be responsible for what happened next... right?
Depends, if the manufacture told me the brakes were 100% reliable, then I wouldn't. But we all now that nothing mechanical is 100% perfect, so it's a risk we take.
If I crash and die from it, I cannot get an abortion and make it all better.
If you wanted sympathy you could have just said that you had made a mistake and learned the lesson that one should not take the choice of abortion lightly, and should consider your deeper feelings about the nature of life because it could haunt you... there is no taking back the choice.
That's what I'm saying.
Separate from that, I am having a stance on abortion, and it is not based solely on what happened to me.
On the othert hand pro-"Life" people generally want to cut sex education so people don't know how to have sex and not get pregnant, or signifcantly reduce the chance of pregnancy, are for cutting out contraceptive funding and distribution, and when a woman gets pregnant and decides to have a kid, are generally unconcerned about the child after it is ununborn.
Are you for real? That's such a blanket statement, I'm not so sure about that one, and that is not what I have witnessed in my life.
It's is definatly not the goal of the 2 organizations I am involved with.
Just a thought, one of my sons did not know what sex was. We thought we should teach him, so that he learns it from us. So when he was 9 we gave him a book, and explain the birds and the bees to him. He is 22 now, and he just admitted to me the other day, that he used to masturbate to that book, and before that he didn't masturbate.
There is more to that story, and it's not good. It goes along with how screwd up society is. So take what you want from that story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Silent H, posted 02-16-2005 12:43 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Silent H, posted 02-17-2005 6:47 PM riVeRraT has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 316 (186323)
02-17-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by riVeRraT
01-30-2005 7:36 AM


Huh?
In response to Crashfrogs statement...
One in three women will be a victim of sexual assault in her lifetime. I'd say that's plenty.
Riverrat replied...
If we put as much effort into our society teaching ourselves morals, as we do fighting over the abortion issue, that number could be reversed.
Lets see reverse the numbers....
3 in 1 women suffering sexual assault....
Each woman suffering 3 assaults on average per lifetime....
Now I'm sure Riverrat wasn't actually advocating moral education in order to increase the incidence of sexual assaults but it gave me a whiskey tango foxtrot moment....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by riVeRraT, posted 01-30-2005 7:36 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 5:48 PM joz has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 237 of 316 (186325)
02-17-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by RAZD
02-16-2005 8:35 PM


Re: Missed Point, AGAIN!
I use the legal death act to describe the minimum level of existence that can be considered to be a human life.
Same thing in my book, who cares how you label it.
You cannot use the legal death act for any portion of your essay in my eyes, because it does not portray the truth in life, or does it account for time. Time is real in case you haven't noticed.
This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 02-17-2005 17:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2005 8:35 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2005 8:34 PM riVeRraT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 238 of 316 (186327)
02-17-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by joz
02-17-2005 5:47 PM


Re: Huh?
Heh, time for "Dogbert's Tips for Conversation Geometry."
I used to be totally inept in conversation, but I turned that situation around 360 degrees!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by joz, posted 02-17-2005 5:47 PM joz has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 239 of 316 (186331)
02-17-2005 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by RAZD
02-16-2005 8:46 PM


Re: A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life sup
Apparently you do not understand why the legal death act was put into effect.
It is so that people who are dead, can die.
The fetus does not own the womb, but it is part of it, at that point when it attaches itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2005 8:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2005 8:28 PM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 240 of 316 (186332)
02-17-2005 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by CK
02-17-2005 8:03 AM


Re: Missed Point
I'm sorry I don't get your question? They WANT children but decide to have an abortion?
Exactly, and it's not my question, it's schraf's statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by CK, posted 02-17-2005 8:03 AM CK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024