"...except in the case of rape or incest."

Actually, there's not. There's always more kids up for adoption than couples willing to adopt them. Even if you factor in gay adoption. What on Earth does that matter? I'm married too, and if my wife got pregnant we'd have an abortion. Wouldn't even have to think that hard about it; easiest choice in the world. We simply can't support a child right now - she's a graduate student and I plan to head back to finish my degree. We can barely feed ourselves much less care for a child.Marriage didn't suddenly place us in a situation where we could raise a child. It doesn't do that for anybody. And shame on you for reducing the argument to nothing more than punishing sluts with the consequences of spreading their legs.

I'm not unsympathetic to that point of view, but where is that point where it has those rights?And, indeed, yes, she has certain responsibilities. Food, clothing, shelter if she has them to give. But you can't, for instance, legally compel a parent to give up a kidney for their own child. They have every right to sit there and watch their child die rather than risk their own life on the operating table. It's hard to imagine who could make such a choice but there's no legal reason they couldn't. We're talking about newborns? Yes, I agree. Care of a newborn can be transferred to another person so fatal abandonment is hardly necessary. Care of a fetus cannot. The fact that the fetus cannot survive outside of the uterus of its mother is unfortunate for the fetus but it's irrelevant to the fact that no person can compel you to make space for them inside your body, or collect parts of your body for their own health or nourishment.Sovereignty of the body is absolute. I don't see it that way. And I don't see what being a stranger has to do with it. For that matter - a fetus is a stranger to you; its connection to you is merely genetic. You've never spoken to it, never made any arrangements or deals with it. It's as unknown to you as any other person you've never met.

why? theres a lot parents who don't have the time or want to teach thier kids aobut sex, i agree that people should tell thier kids but what if they don't want to or are afraid to? are you going to leave the kids to find out on thier own and ruin thier lives? heres the problem it doesn't magically make things all better to be married, nor will people just suddenly have children just because they are married its a choice and thats how it should be

quote:

---

If someone breaks the law they should be punished.

---

Is that all laws in all situations, or do you recognize situations where violation of the law is either a legitimate matter of personal freedom or a matter of moral necessity?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Only if you assume that if something's difficult, it must be unnecessary.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

Got it. If people have sex, you want to punish them. Yes, I hear orphanages are just begging for more children, because they can't meet the public's demand for adoption. You're absolutely right. The government has no absolutely business deciding for you.That's pretty much what being pro-choice is all about.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I haven't failed to notice that the conservatives claim to be against sex outside because of the consequences (STDs and pregnancy). Yet when anyone tries to offer ways to mitigate these consequences and make sex safer, then these same people suddenly scream that this would encourage people to have sex.In other words, people shouldn't have sex because there are dangerous consequences. But we need to maintain the dangerous consequences because people shouldn't have sex.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

The difference between a partial-birth abortion and murder is 6 inches.

---

quote:

---

Ooo you got me there!

​

lol

---

Really intelligent, well-argued rebuttal there, tal.I take it you have none?

Rape is rape. In today's terms.

god help us all.

the difference is that he entered into a legal contract for this condition. most women who get abortions have taken other measures to prevent pregnancy which failed.

you know. as opposed to the good old days when anything that happened in a man's family was only his business. it's time we go back to the days when a man's wife and children were his property to do with as he pleased. i mean. a man who can take his frustrations out on his family's genitals is less likely to go out and kill some unsuspecting man at a bar or something. the family is just women and children... totally expendable. but that man. well. he could have been a real leader.

I think we should get all the Pro-choicer's and the Pro-lifers and take them to the Valley of Meggido in Israel (aka "Armageddon) arm them with nail bats, and let them have at it in a free-for-all. Whoever wins will decide the issue for America LOL.Seriously, I am pro-life, but I wont debate that here. I'll probably get creamed from all sides (I pick the battles I can win)This is a sensitive issue for me. Not only do I like to pick on little babies (I'll teel them things like "The Moon is made of Green Cheese" "Dont trust anybody: especially your parents!" it's fun, and they are too young to remember it He He)I also have a special place in my heart for Pregnant women.One way to settle the issue is to give the child in question to a couple wanting one when it is born and (here is the catch) make them pay up front in cash for the little tike!! Instead of losing money in an abortion, make money by giving the kid to a couple that will pay high dollar for it. You can make money this way. What could be more American than that?! Plus you wont have to live with the mental scarring of having an abortion. If this idea comes into major practice, abortions would plummet, the protests wouldn't be as large or as agressive as in the past, and you'll have more time to play Scrabble (LOL)Just an Idea.

---

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

Same problem as above - there are more children up for adoption than couples waiting to adopt. Possibly because pro-life people like you feel absolutely free to toss off adoption as an alternative to abortion without having the balls to cowboy up and actually adopt any unwanted newborns yourself. (Apparently the choice of not to have a child is fine for you but a moral outrage for the woman.)This message has been edited by crashfrog, 03-14-2006 11:26 PM

I do not have a clue what you are talking about, or why.