NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm european and pro abortion, but it not that I want to discusse. I just have a question: Why are so many anti abortion americans against universal health care for children in the USA? Because if a childrens life is so sacred so it will be protected then it still only is a embryo or a a feutus. Why do you useally don't want the childerens life and health be protected then they leave the womb by having universal health care for them? Maybee I just a stupid european but I think it is a valid point. Because many of you is republican or right winged right? and therefor support politcians who is aganist universial healthcare? So if you joined the liberals and the democrates in this fight you could change atleast some of the republicans politcians wiews. So you atleast have a change to protect the children outside the womb.

The same people who bitch about high taxes are the ones that give 15% of their income to their local church :D

Why are so many anti abortion americans against universal health care for children in the USA?
Oh, easy one. If you think those type of people are against abortion because they give a toss about the life and welfare of the embryo, you're dramatically wrong. They simply want such embryoes to serve as a burden of punishment to the woman who had "unsanctioned" sexual intercourse.

There is only one of them?

Oh, easy one. If you think those type of people are against abortion because they give a toss about the life and welfare of the embryo, you're dramatically wrong. They simply want such embryoes to serve as a burden of punishment to the woman who had "unsanctioned" sexual intercourse.

I just have to second this. Great point, and I agree totally.

Oh, easy one. If you think those type of people are against abortion because they give a toss about the life and welfare of the embryo, you're dramatically wrong. They simply want such embryoes to serve as a burden of punishment to the woman who had "unsanctioned" sexual intercourse.
You're just assuming that people against Universal Healthcare are against people not dying. That's not necessarily true. I've argued over this point with a fellow on another thread. Can't remember his name, but the point is that he feels the system in the US is more effective than the publicly funded system in Canada. Now, he's not just an ignorant republican American: he's a Canadian who lives in the US. I disagree with him, but the point is that with "universal healthcare" the system can be ineffective, just as it can with the US's current system, and maybe, just maybe, the current system does the most good for the most children. I don't think so, but don't dismiss this point of view out of hand.

Once the child is alive, the anti-abortionists don't have to take care of him or her.

I think that people who protest outside of abortion clinics should be required to adopt non-aborted children, and raise them. That'll keep 'em at home, where they belong.

(For all you that take offence to this, note that I never specified the sex of the protesters. If a male is actively protesting abortion, he should have to adopt a child as well, AND have a vasectomy.)

As for the topic-at-hand: Ledany has it right. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The people most militant about stopping abortions because it's murder are the ones that shoot doctors and blow up medical clinics.

Once the child is alive, the anti-abortionists don't have to take care of him or her.

I think that people who protest outside of abortion clinics should be required to adopt non-aborted children, and raise them. That'll keep 'em at home, where they belong.

(For all you that take offence to this, note that I never specified the sex of the protesters. If a male is actively protesting abortion, he should have to adopt a child as well, AND have a vasectomy.)

As for the topic-at-hand: Ledany has it right. I couldn't have said it better myself.

No. The most responsible, respectable, worthy people will not require abortion, vasectomy, or putting a child up for adoption. Many people fail to understand the severity of sexual intercourse and believe that everyone should be able to get at it as fast as they can. I despise these people, as it has definite negative effects on our society. As with Alcohol and Marijuana, sex is a threat to an informed democracy and something to be regulated and controlled in the best way possible, that is to make the consequences of irresponsible use dire to the abusive party.

I do think an integrated care and education system should be established to take care of the children however as they do not deserve to suffer because of irresponsible parents. Some might genuinely care for the unexpected child and care for it but many by nature might view it as little more than an annoyance.

I advocate pain, suffering, and hardship for all intellectually challeneged humans.

I advocate pain, suffering, and hardship for all intellectually challeneged humans.

And their children?

I'm a proud conservative and Republican (though definately more Libertarian). Here are the points that I have against abortion and universal healthcare.

1. The killing of a child at any age (from conception on) is wrong. Along with that, if a woman kills her unborn child, it's legal and called an abortion. However, if a man kills a pregnant woman, he's charged for two murders (just look at the Scott Peterson case if you don't believe me).

2. As I stated before, I am a Libertarian and therefore believe that my tax dollars should NOT go to funding social programs such as universal healthcare. If you want good healthcare, get a job that offers it (they are out there, you just have to work to get them, they're not just handed to you), or join the military (full coverage for you and your family).

3. If women want to have "unsanctioned" sex and they get pregnant, they should have the child and put it up for adoption. There are millions of couples that are waiting in line for children that can't have any of their own.

4. Along with the first and third points, abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control, that's what the pill, depo shot, and condoms are for.

That's the end of my right-wing rant against all this left wing sentiment. Please try to see the reasoning behind my statments and take them into consideration. Thank you.

And their children?

I covered that. Read my post again.


PS: To be truthful, i advocate pain, suffering, and hardship on humans in general. Except me. And the people i like. But thats just a utopian ideal i wont bother to persue.

I covered that. Read my post again.


PS: To be truthful, i advocate pain, suffering, and hardship on humans in general. Except me. And the people i like. But thats just a utopian ideal i wont bother to persue.

I got that part. You think schools and intitutions are a good substitute for love and parenting. Interesting.

I got that part. You think schools and intitutions are a good substitute for love and parenting. Interesting.

No i dont.

I love the idea of good parents and stuff, and schools and institutions

But not all parents are good.

In that case, i advocate military academies and propaganda centers. Schools tend to make bad role models for discipline and life values since parents are so reflexive in hating any measure to make school environments resemble anything vaguely disciplined.

My view of the education system is very broad and i believe Welfare, Criminal Corrections, Worker Retraining, and Defense should fall into it.

I'm european and pro abortion, but it not that I want to discusse. I just have a question: Why are so many anti abortion americans against universal health care for children in the USA? Because if a childrens life is so sacred so it will be protected then it still only is a embryo or a a feutus. Why do you useally don't want the childerens life and health be protected then they leave the womb by having universal health care for them? Maybee I just a stupid european but I think it is a valid point. Because many of you is republican or right winged right? and therefor support politcians who is aganist universial healthcare? So if you joined the liberals and the democrates in this fight you could change atleast some of the republicans politcians wiews. So you atleast have a change to protect the children outside the womb.

God, I love Europeans. Honestly, I do. After all, who in their right minds would want to do something that's different from how our superior brethern across the pond do?

But, what do I know. I'm just one of those ignorant Republicans. Frankly, I don't care one whit about abortion. If folks want to act like idiots and then abort the natural consequence of their reckless behavior, what's it to me? Just one less kid on the welfare system and it really is the woman's right to choose, isn't it?

As for "universal health care" (a kinder term than "socialized medicine"), I'm completely against it. Why? The government's done enough damage to healthcare here in the U.S., so why give them more power over it? What's amazing to me is that the same folks who holler like stuck pigs over socialized medicine don't say a damn thing when it comes to realistic issues concering the very thing that's made healthcare insurance horrible expensive -- medical malpractice suits and the tendency of insurance companies to make horrible investments and stick it to their clients when said investments go bad.

Work on tort reform and the aforementioned investment scheme, and healthcare over here will be just fine. Leave the socialized medicine to the more "enlightened" countries (i.e., those nations which don't have an economy worth a shit but feel entitled to judge how the U.S. handles things).

No i dont.

I love the idea of good parents and stuff, and schools and institutions

But not all parents are good.

In that case, i advocate military academies and propaganda centers. Schools tend to make bad role models for discipline and life values since parents are so reflexive in hating any measure to make school environments resemble anything vaguely disciplined.

My view of the education system is very broad and i believe Welfare, Criminal Corrections, Worker Retraining, and Defense should fall into it.

If you run for public office, remind me to vote against you. ;)

Schools, in my opinion do enough damage trying to make kids THINK alike. you want to make them ACT alike too?

And you think this is a better world than giving people the knowledge and tools to DECIDE if they have children? Sex simply isnt important enough to base one's life around and/or destroy it with.

Schools, in my opinion do enough damage trying to make kids THINK alike. you want to make them ACT alike too?

Think alike can be eliminated. I especially want reform to the way they teach mathematics, kids should be encouraged to discover methods on their own and use whats best for them, not how to do something quickly and standardly.

Acting alike is so-so when it comes to me supporting it. Individuality is fine but it has no place in a school environment, period. Children should be heavily supervised and under discipline focused around pride and regiment (not punishment as much, and the punishment should be of a more academic and real nature, not picking up garbage after hours.) For children supervision is essential, so there should be some seperate element of making sure pseudoparental oversight can be implemented if needed. I do think we should expand the school day to 9 or even 12 hours so that kids get more supervised breaks and get used to job hours, as well as get some schedule flexibility and make things easier on working parents who might find themselves going 5 to 9 with their kids coming home to an empty house where they get a long time to cause absolute chaos and engage in unsupervised mischief.

Yes, i really am 17. I just hate my peers and *miss* the discipline and daycare i had in South Africa. It really works wonders at making me not hate my peers.

Think alike can be eliminated. I especially want reform to the way they teach mathematics, kids should be encouraged to discover methods on their own and use whats best for them, not how to do something quickly and standardly.

Acting alike is so-so when it comes to me supporting it. Individuality is fine but it has no place in a school environment, period. Children should be heavily supervised and under discipline focused around pride and regiment (not punishment as much, and the punishment should be of a more academic and real nature, not picking up garbage after hours.) For children supervision is essential, so there should be some seperate element of making sure pseudoparental oversight can be implemented if needed. I do think we should expand the school day to 9 or even 12 hours so that kids get more supervised breaks and get used to job hours, as well as get some schedule flexibility and make things easier on working parents who might find themselves going 5 to 9 with their kids coming home to an empty house where they get a long time to cause absolute chaos and engage in unsupervised mischief.

Yes, i really am 17. I just hate my peers and *miss* the discipline and daycare i had in South Africa. It really works wonders at making me not hate my peers.

Sounds horrid. Chaotic freetime did me no end of good. :)

Sounds horrid. Chaotic freetime did me no end of good. :)

You sound like a person i might like then. But trust me, no modern american schoolchild deserves any freedom. Even the honor students develop stupid vices. Including tabacco.

My only addiction is to the shocked look on people's face. Usually accompanied by laughter. Not necessarily from the same source.

I'm only against abortion if it is used to prevent an "inconvenience." One Human life should not be ended simply because another found it convenient to do so. I also believe that we need more protection for children, and if I was sure that a plan could successfully provide for all the children in our country, I would support it.


Originally Posted by The Class A Cows
Yes, i really am 17. I just hate my peers and *miss* the discipline and daycare i had in South Africa.

Interesting. A pity I've never been to South Africa. I'm also 17 and am disgusted with my peers, but I would like to disagree with you on one thing. I love the idea of an orderly society, but I also think we should preserve the human spirit. Children need more than doctrine and good role models, they need love and mentor figures. Perhaps people could even be trained in mentoring, and do it as a career.

You're just assuming that people against Universal Healthcare are against people not dying. That's not necessarily true.

You know what? I apologise for my dogmaticism; it was somewhat unwarranted. And your points are well-considered ones. However, in - what - eight years of discussing the abortion issue online, I have seen too many people with stock phrases like "keep your legs shut!" or "don't sleep around!"....and the loathing, particularly for female sexual freedom, that drips from these people is nauseating.

No, you're not one of them. But depressingly, they are out there :(

I'm only against abortion if it is used to prevent an "inconvenience." One Human life should not be ended simply because another found it convenient to do so.

But you have the right to end a human life because you don't find it "convenient" to donate blood every eight weeks, or platelets every two...
You have the right to refuse the use of your body to another, for any reason, even if only because you find the donation would be "inconvenient" to make. And anyone who describes pregnancy as a mere "inconvenience" has never been pregnant.

In theory, a universal healthcare system would be nice, however I've discussed this with a fellow Libertarian (or so I think my friend is), and we have come to this conclusion:

1. It would be nice in theory, but in real life wouldnt do so well (the citizens Scandinavian countries w/said healthcare sometimes have to wait *years* before getting some sort of surgery)

2. It would be a bad tax burden on an already-struggling population

3. I believe in limited government, and while the healthcare wouold be good in theory, I'm not willing to turn an [ideally] small government into a large buerocracy (sp?)

I'm a proud conservative and Republican (though definately more Libertarian). Here are the points that I have against abortion and universal healthcare.

1. The killing of a child at any age (from conception on) is wrong. Along with that, if a woman kills her unborn child, it's legal and called an abortion. However, if a man kills a pregnant woman, he's charged for two murders (just look at the Scott Peterson case if you don't believe me)..

IF you kill your born child by refusing them the use of any part of your body, even so little a contribution as a pint of blood, it's legal and called "your choice". However, if I kill both you and your child, I'll be charged for two murders. Laci Peterson could have refused to donate the use of her womb to her child, true - however, that did NOT give anyone else the right to kill her child for her.


2. As I stated before, I am a Libertarian and therefore believe that my tax dollars should NOT go to funding social programs such as universal healthcare. If you want good healthcare, get a job that offers it (they are out there, you just have to work to get them, they're not just handed to you), or join the military (full coverage for you and your family)

Not all jobs offer it. And if you don't want government donating your money to protect childrens' lives, why do you think it's OK for government to require me to donate my body? Is your money more important to you than my body is to me?
Of course, you also spend more in tax dollars on emergency care for the poor than you would spend on universal healthcare that would allow the poor access to far-cheaper preventative treatment and regular care. Or would you, as a Libertarian, rather see the poor thrown out of emergency care, too, if they can't get one of your good jobs that offer health insurance? Is it OK for people to die because they can't pay for care? Even if they're the people who have cleaned your offices and houses, cared for your kids, sold you your groceries, made your clothes? You rely on other people to do necessary tasks for you every day, some of whom are terribly underpaid for the work they do, some of whom do not have health insurance handed to them as you do through employment. The pure individualist who depends on no one doesn't exist, much as Libertarians would like to believe in them. But people like you use that ideology to profit from the labor of others without returning them fair support in exchange. The unmodified free market does not always provide people with a fair return for their labors - in fact, it allows the wealthier classes to make wage-slaves of the poor. (Yes, I believe the free market is more effective than communism, certainly, but I believe that some modifications are necessary to protect against exploitation of some people by others.)
There are people working three jobs to support themselves, who still don't have healthcare. For that matter, there are people in the military who have to live on food stamps because the salary isn't enough to support their families. It's not a matter of laziness.

3. If women want to have "unsanctioned" sex and they get pregnant, they should have the child and put it up for adoption. There are millions of couples that are waiting in line for children that can't have any of their own.

As long as those children are healthy and white, there are couples who want them.
And of course, you act as though pregnancy is just a trivial inconvenience that a woman can be forced to endure without a problem. A needlestick in the arm and the loss of a pint of blood, well, that's highly traumatic and God forbid you should be required to go through with it against your will to save any child, even your own, regardless of how many people love that child and want to raise it. But nine months' service as a life-support machine, with morning sickness, dietary restrictions, constant physical discomfort, labor pains and a huge cost in terms of energy, time and physical work? Trivial! And a perfectly appropriate punishment for sex. For women, that is. Men can be as promiscuous as they want to be, no one's going to suggest they have any physical responsibility for their kids (monetary, yes, but a noncustodial mother has that too).

4. Along with the first and third points, abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control, that's what the pill, depo shot, and condoms are for..


None of those are 100% effective. And abortion is not often used as a form of birth control - among other things, it's not easy or painless.

That's the end of my right-wing rant against all this left wing sentiment. Please try to see the reasoning behind my statments and take them into consideration. Thank you.

The reasoning being that it's OK to require sacrifices to save kids' lives, as long as they're sacrifices that only women can make. If someone wants to require something of YOU, it's unreasonable and cruel. If someone wants to require something of ME, it's fair and perfectly fine by you.

I'm anti-abortion, but I am in favour of social welfare programs if the mother and unaborted child need them. I can't believe the hypocrisy of US Republicans. It's like they only are in favour of life before it's born. They support the death penalty!

Oh, easy one. If you think those type of people are against abortion because they give a toss about the life and welfare of the embryo, you're dramatically wrong. They simply want such embryoes to serve as a burden of punishment to the woman who had "unsanctioned" sexual intercourse.
What about those who had marital sexual intercourse? What about the child(ren) conceived at that point? Based on yout logic, you're suggesting that they also suffer the same way their bastard counterparts do.

You're just assuming that people against Universal Healthcare are against people not dying. That's not necessarily true. I've argued over this point with a fellow on another thread. Can't remember his name, but the point is that he feels the system in the US is more effective than the publicly funded system in Canada. Now, he's not just an ignorant republican American: he's a Canadian who lives in the US. I disagree with him, but the point is that with "universal healthcare" the system can be ineffective, just as it can with the US's current system, and maybe, just maybe, the current system does the most good for the most children. I don't think so, but don't dismiss this point of view out of hand.

let's see: in canada, everyone is covered for doctor's visits, essential surgeries et c from the government.
in the states: half of americans aren't even covered for basic health needs.

the canadian government also spends less per capita on health care than the u.s....

Speaking as a member of a Christian church, I can happily say that you're entirely wrong, at least as pertains to us, as to why we oppose abortion.

We oppose abortion because we believe it is murder.

As for "the people outside the clinic should be forced to adopt", many of the people at my church would be happy to adopt. But we can't, because the adoption system in our state is plagued by corruption, favoritism, and racism. Therefore, honest, decent people can't get a child, because other people are slipping money or giving head to the people running the organisation.

So please, tone the rhetoric down. We're not demons, we don't think you're demons. We just want to see an alternative to killing the kid.

But you have the right to end a human life because you don't find it "convenient" to donate blood every eight weeks, or platelets every two...
You have the right to refuse the use of your body to another, for any reason, even if only because you find the donation would be "inconvenient" to make. And anyone who describes pregnancy as a mere "inconvenience" has never been pregnant.

The right to refuse the use of your body to another has existed to women from the dawn of time, its called not getting pregnant in the first place.

Becoming pregnant through your own actions and then seeking to kill another human merely because its inconvenient to you is one of the most abhorant and disgusting acts ive ever heard of.


Bear in mind we are talking about convenience abortions, which make up the vast majority of abortions, not abortions that are carried out as a result of medical problems or rape.

I'm pro-abortion because if the mother doesn't want the baby why let it be born.

What about those who had marital sexual intercourse? What about the child(ren) conceived at that point? Based on yout logic, you're suggesting that they also suffer the same way their bastard counterparts do.

No, not really. Remember, these people couldn't poke reality with a forty-foot pole...it's not a leap for them to assume that anyone who is married is automatically ready and willing to have children. The fact that married women make up a sizeable percentage of those seeking abortions isn't one they really want to face.

1.
Stawman ignorned.


2. As I stated before, I am a Libertarian and therefore believe that my tax dollars should NOT go to funding social programs such as universal healthcare. If you want good healthcare, get a job that offers it (they are out there, you just have to work to get them, they're not just handed to you), or join the military (full coverage for you and your family).

Ahhh such jobs are everywhere? Everybody has the skills for the jobs that offer the good healthcare. Everybody is the correct age to be in the military?

You are very liberterian. The lack of compassion and empthaty shows it.


3. If women want to have "unsanctioned" sex and they get pregnant, they should have the child and put it up for adoption. There are millions of couples that are waiting in line for children that can't have any of their own.

You should have a child and do the same process. It is very simple minded to think it is sooooooo easy to give them up. I know of a couple that was slated for one three times and had the mother change her mind at the last minute.

Newsflash: The people having abortions for birth control purposes is rather small.

Do you even know the primary reason?


4. Along with the first and third points, abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control, that's what the pill, depo shot, and condoms are for.

Can you even give a number as to the "birthcontrol" abortions?

Do you even know the primary reason for one?


That's the end of my right-wing rant against all this left wing sentiment. Please try to see the reasoning behind my statments and take them into consideration. Thank you.

So ends my rant and I have seen the reasoning. Ususally people that don't know or want to know why abortions happen.

It's is not a simple choice. Even when it's an accident.

Anybody that suggests women make this choice easily is an ignorant clodhopper.

I yield the soapbox

Ahhh such jobs are everywhere? Everybody has the skills for the jobs that offer the good healthcare. Everybody is the correct age to be in the military?

Exactly and precisely put. There is, let me state this slowly and clearly so everyone gets it, no way in which every single person in the world can be a top earner. Ever.

Let me use the Channel Island of Jersey as an example. Jersey is a renowned tax haven and, as such, extremely popular with people looking to squirrel their cash away. To stave off a population explosion on their tiny island, the government of Jersey have, for the past decade or so, refused to allow residence to anyone with a personal wealth of less than £5m.

Now, what do you think this has led to? I think we can all see it. Jersey is now suffering from an increasing shortage of manual labourers - cleaners, cooks, gardeners, so on and so forth. As the cost of living on Jersey spirals, the native families leave. And of course, their draconian immigration policy means that it is extremely tough - not to say impossible, sometimes - to find workers.

Summary: there will always be low-paid workers, because no society can continue without them, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a prat...there exists no better word, I'm afraid. The bottom layer of a pyramid is just as essential as the capstone, if not more so. Why must these people suffer shoddy treatment?

I leave the thread with one final thought. Is there anyone out there with enough hubris to state that they will never, ever be poor and in need? I hope not, for life sometimes has a habit of biting the arrogant in the backside.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=360515

Why? Because Americans don't think things through.
Pro-abortionists believe in the preservation of life, but apparently not a good life. Many orphans grow up being bounced from home to home because for those
"millions of couples" looking to adopt there are twice as many orphans. Or they'll stay with an unprepared mother and father who couldn't take care of a child, force the parents to drop out of school and ensure the fact that they cannot provide for their children without help from family, who a lot of the time refuses.
No, this is not pro-life. Thats why no one cares about Health Care and looking after the people we have before the people who are to come. Pro-Life would be Pro-Health Care. It only makes sense. Pro-Life would be Pro-Stem Cell Research to save the LIVES of those dying from presently incurable diseases.
Thankfully though, Chretien travelled to the states and gave ideas to how they can make a stable nationwide healthcare system.
And... sorry, I just wanted to point out.... American Taxes are great. Canadians would kill for them. People bicker about outlandish taxes but they don't realize how good they got it. You want to see bad taxes? Take a trip to the U.K.
HYPOCRISY: the new American political structure.

Okay I'm an American who is anti-abortion and I also support child healthcare. I do donate 10% of my income to my church and I don't complain about taxes. There are lots of families who wish to adopt a child. Why can't the mother just have the child then give it up for adoption. Abortion doesn't just "get rid" of a child, it brings and onslaught of emotional torture. There are mothers who whenever they see a child who is about how old their child would have been they think "I wonder what he or she would have looked like. I wonder if he or she would be doing that..." The only case I see it being right is if the mother is in danger and having the baby would kill her, and only if she made the decision that she would rather live and have the baby killed. Anyways I have spoken my mind.

Pro-Life would be Pro-Stem Cell Research to save the LIVES of those dying from presently incurable diseases.

It has been proven that stem cells from adults are better than from embryos. The stem cells that come from a fetus are actually used to make sure that the infant develops to have two arms, two feet, a heart, etc. and that everything is in the right place. Anyways if they wanted to use those stem cells they are also present in the umbilical cord. Why can't they use the resources that won't kill a human?

I'm pro-abortion because if the mother doesn't want the baby why let it be born.

Most Idiotic Argument Ever!!

Thats like saying 'im pro-child murder, because if a father doesnt want a baby then why shouldnt he be allowed to stamp on its head the moment its born'.

The problem with liberals in general is that they let their emotions rule them without thinking things through. So for them abortion is ok because they can see, literally, the soon-to-be-mothers agitation about being pregnant, wheras a foetus is just an abstract concept to them and therefore not as important. But once a child is born, then to kill it for any reason, even if its severly disabled or in pain, is wrong because they form an emotional attachment to the baby. Yet they fail to make the connection between foetus and baby since its hard to forge an emotional connection with an out-of-sight foetus.

2. As I stated before, I am a Libertarian and therefore believe that my tax dollars should NOT go to funding social programs such as universal healthcare. If you want good healthcare, get a job that offers it (they are out there, you just have to work to get them, they're not just handed to you), or join the military (full coverage for you and your family).
As has been stated by others, this is an unworkable solution. I would also wonder if a national healthcare system run by HMO's would recieve better press for being an outgrowth of the free market, despite the obvious problems therein.

3. If women want to have "unsanctioned" sex and they get pregnant, they should have the child and put it up for adoption. There are millions of couples that are waiting in line for children that can't have any of their own.
The foster care and adoption systems in this nation are a joke. Come back to that argument once they actually work.

4. Along with the first and third points, abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control, that's what the pill, depo shot, and condoms are for.
This falls somewhere between a strawman and a red herring. They really aren't used for birth control.

That's the end of my right-wing rant against all this left wing sentiment. Please try to see the reasoning behind my statments and take them into consideration. Thank you.
I find it interesting that you simultaneously call yourself "right wing" and "libertarian." It's highly reminiscent of the other "libertarians" I've meet online, who are libertarian on economic issues, but highly authoritarian on social ones. That's not libertarianism, it IS the right wing. Not saying you're one of those (considering I only know your stance on one social issue), but it came to mind.


Speaking as a member of a Christian church, I can happily say that you're entirely wrong, at least as pertains to us, as to why we oppose abortion.
I would just like to add that, as a Christian, you have a responsibility also to support ideas such as public healthcare. Jesus was a socialist, plain and simple.


The right to refuse the use of your body to another has existed to women from the dawn of time, its called not getting pregnant in the first place.

Becoming pregnant through your own actions and then seeking to kill another human merely because its inconvenient to you is one of the most abhorant and disgusting acts ive ever heard of.

Bear in mind we are talking about convenience abortions, which make up the vast majority of abortions, not abortions that are carried out as a result of medical problems or rape.
It seems you lumpp all abortions into two categories; medical problems/rape, and convenience. However, you are sadly mistaken on the reasoning for people to get abortions. People get them because they can't take care of the children, or because they know it will not be brought into an environment suitable for a child, oftentimes. These are not "convenience" abortions, it is preventing another unwanted child from living a miserable life. You also have a very poor conception of the way pro-choice people think about abortion; do you know that most of the women who wholeheartedly support the right to the procedure would never have one themselves?


Okay I'm an American who is anti-abortion and I also support child healthcare. I do donate 10% of my income to my church and I don't complain about taxes. There are lots of families who wish to adopt a child. Why can't the mother just have the child then give it up for adoption. Abortion doesn't just "get rid" of a child, it brings and onslaught of emotional torture. There are mothers who whenever they see a child who is about how old their child would have been they think "I wonder what he or she would have looked like. I wonder if he or she would be doing that..."
Wow, a pro-lifer that I can actually respect...who would've thought?
Seriously, though. I would only add that women who give their children up for adoption wonder the same things, and often have no means of contacting their biological child.


It has been proven that stem cells from adults are better than from embryos. The stem cells that come from a fetus are actually used to make sure that the infant develops to have two arms, two feet, a heart, etc. and that everything is in the right place. Anyways if they wanted to use those stem cells they are also present in the umbilical cord. Why can't they use the resources that won't kill a human?
What has been proven is that adult and embryonic stem cells are better for different purposes. If adult stem cells were the best all around, you really think that this would be an issue? The media would never have been involved in it in the first place to make it an issue and attract the abortion debate into it.


The problem with liberals in general is that they let their emotions rule them without thinking things through.
That's an overgeneralization. There are plenty of conservatives that let their emotions rule them, as well. I would certainly call waving placards depicting photographs of dead babies to be an emotionally-based argument. The problem is that people let their emotions rule them without thinking things through. That's a human psychological factor, not something restricted to an abstraction like a political group.

I would just like to add that, as a Christian, you have a responsibility also to support ideas such as public healthcare. Jesus was a socialist, plain and simple.
Jesus preached that people should help the less fortunate through their own goodwill, not that the government should do it. He never once said it was the government's job to support the poor. Sorry, but that statement seems a little weak.

1. The killing of a child at any age (from conception on) is wrong.

Fine. In that case, you have to advocate putting any woman who has a miscarriage in jail for neglect. Anything else would be inconsistent.

Along with that, if a woman kills her unborn child, it's legal and called an abortion. However, if a man kills a pregnant woman, he's charged for two murders (just look at the Scott Peterson case if you don't believe me).

This is a new development in the law - and it is not a good one. In fact, it is a law introduced and pushed by anti-choicers who think it will give them a leg-up in banning abortion.

Of course, if you are a literal follower of the Torah or the Bible, this law makes no sense at all.

2. As I stated before, I am a Libertarian and therefore believe that my tax dollars should NOT go to funding social programs such as universal healthcare.

...but you believe that your tax dollars should go to regulating others' lives. Interesting "libertarian" you are.

If you want good healthcare, get a job that offers it (they are out there, you just have to work to get them, they're not just handed to you),

And some people can work hard all their lives and never get one.

or join the military (full coverage for you and your family).

They don't just accept anybody here either.

3. If women want to have "unsanctioned" sex and they get pregnant, they should have the child and put it up for adoption. There are millions of couples that are waiting in line for children that can't have any of their own.

And you (the supposed libertarian) determine what is and is not "unsanctioned" sex? You (the supposed libertarian) are the one who wants to force that woman to do something with her body that she may not want to do. Yeah, makes sense.

4. Along with the first and third points, abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control, that's what the pill, depo shot, and condoms are for.

All of which fail on occasion.

That's the end of my right-wing rant against all this left wing sentiment. Please try to see the reasoning behind my statments and take them into consideration. Thank you.

I understand your reasoning. Now, read my first point and let's see if you actually back it up.

Jesus preached that people should help the less fortunate through their own goodwill, not that the government should do it. He never once said it was the government's job to support the poor. Sorry, but that statement seems a little weak.

Socialism
\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


Notice the lack of the word "government."

Speaking as a member of a Christian church, I can happily say that you're entirely wrong, at least as pertains to us, as to why we oppose abortion.

We oppose abortion because we believe it is murder.

Don't act like you speak for all Christians, because you do not.

So please, tone the rhetoric down. We're not demons, we don't think you're demons. We just want to see an alternative to killing the kid.

There are alternatives, there are many. And you have every right to campaign that you think people *should* use them. I certainly do. However, you (or I) do not have the right to make religious decisions for anyone else. There is no reason whatsoever to oppose 1st trimester abortions that is not religious - therefore, you can't force that on another person.

Try and convince people not to do it? - absolutely, as you feel that it is wrong.
Force people to conform to your religion by making it illegal? - no, asbolutely not.

It has been proven that stem cells from adults are better than from embryos.

Rohan-Gondor-Hobbiton has no idea what he/she is talking about. This is, by no possible leap of the imagination, even close to true. I work with adult stem cells. They do not have the proliferative or the differential potential that embryonic stem cells have.

Of course, embryonic stem cells don't come from aborted fetuses anyways.

The stem cells that come from a fetus are actually used to make sure that the infant develops to have two arms, two feet, a heart, etc. and that everything is in the right place. Anyways if they wanted to use those stem cells they are also present in the umbilical cord. Why can't they use the resources that won't kill a human?

Fetal and embryonic stem cells are two very different things. Again, different proliferative and differential capabilities.

I'd just like to say that I don't like the idea of abortion, but I don't think it should be illegal. But I think usage of abortion should be very strict, like only allowed in cases of rape or when the mothers life is in danger. I consider myself left-wing, but when I see signs that say "A womans right to choose" I think that it's kind of a selfish point of view.

I'd just like to say that I don't like the idea of abortion, but I don't think it should be illegal. But I think usage of abortion should be very strict, like only allowed in cases of rape or when the mothers life is in danger. I consider myself left-wing, but when I see signs that say "A womans right to choose" I think that it's kind of a selfish point of view.

Define rape. Define "woman's life in danger".

You say rape is black and white? I'm talking about ripped condoms, drunk husbands, faulty birth control pills...and let me ask you this, why is a rape baby any less of a life?

You say "a woman's life is either in danger or not". Every pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life. It's just a scale, a matter of percentages. You gonna set some arbitrary line, like "25%". If you were the husband, and the doctor tells you your wife has a 1 in 5 chance of dying, so therefor cannot get an abortion, how would you feel? What if the doctor said they could *probably* deliver it safely by C-section, with less threat to the mother...now the government is going to force you (or your wife, if you are male) to get a C-section against your will??


Fetuses are not human beings. They merely have the potential to become human beings. So does every last cell in your body, through potential of cloning. The "potential life" argument is moot.

egh, I could go on for hours why abortion is totally and necessarily justified...

Most Idiotic Argument Ever!!

Thats like saying 'im pro-child murder, because if a father doesnt want a baby then why shouldnt he be allowed to stamp on its head the moment its born'.

The problem with liberals in general is that they let their emotions rule them without thinking things through. So for them abortion is ok because they can see, literally, the soon-to-be-mothers agitation about being pregnant, wheras a foetus is just an abstract concept to them and therefore not as important. But once a child is born, then to kill it for any reason, even if its severly disabled or in pain, is wrong because they form an emotional attachment to the baby. Yet they fail to make the connection between foetus and baby since its hard to forge an emotional connection with an out-of-sight foetus.

You see, this is the problem with conservatives: they make arguments from analogy based on a single case, and then they assume that all other cases work in precisely that manner. Sometimes the case doesn't even fit their argument, but this does not stop the conservative. For further reference, see welfare queens, Willie Horton, McDonald's Coffee Lady, etc., etc.

Now, being somewhat more serious, liberals do not advocate abortion because the fetus is somehow abstract. They generally advocate it because it a) does more demonstrable harm to all interested parties if an unwanted baby comes into the world (there are not millions of people waiting to adopt. Usually, your odds are only okay for adoption if you are white and less than a year old. Anything of a different race or age faces dwindling prospects, during which time they are usually warehoused in a series of foster homes that are notorious for their failure to weed out abusive parents, much less provide the supportive, nurturing environ needed for a child), and b) don't find it morally acceptable for a government to legislate that as a consequence of events that may or may not have been under her control and may or may not have been wanted, they are thereby forced to care for another human being for the rest of their natural life. That isn't emotion. It's cold, hard fact.

As for Jesus not talking about government, allow me to ask: given that Jesus' test for a person's morality was whether they treated others as they themselves would have liked to be treated, does it not stand to reason that governments, especially those with a mandate to serve the general welfare such as ours, can and should be measured along the same moral compass?

Fine. In that case, you have to advocate putting any woman who has a miscarriage in jail for neglect. Anything else would be inconsistent.
Explain to me how that even remotely makes sense. Abortion is the intential killing of a child whereas a miscarriage is sometime that occurs naturally and is beyond the control of the woman (whereas neglect is intentional). That's like saying a woman should be arrested for murder of her husband even though he died of natural causes.

Explain to me how that even remotely makes sense. Abortion is the intential killing of a child whereas a miscarriage is sometime that occurs naturally and is beyond the control of the woman (whereas neglect is intentional). That's like saying a woman should be arrested for murder of her husband even though he died of natural causes.
It makes perfect sense. Miscarriage occurs due to the fact that the woman's body becomes inhospitable to the fetus/embryo/what have you. This is often easily, directly linked to lifestyle, as what external stimuli effect the woman, effect the fetus as well. Unless something forces her to it, the woman intentionally chooses a lifestyle to lead.
As a side note, I am not advocating calling it neglect, only explaining the idea.

While a womans right to choose anything
is a womans right to choose, abortion does
kill a child. so both sides have a point
on the issue, the child could be put up
for adoption for familys that cant have a child
or would like to adopt.

While a womans right to choose anything
is a womans right to choose, abortion does
kill a child. so both sides have a point
on the issue, the child could be put up
for adoption for familys that cant have a child
or would like to adopt.

You gonna force the woman to carry the baby for 9 months and give birth?

Ironically, in my social groups, its the young Christian women that have abortions. This way they don't have to admit to their Chrisitan parents, friends and parishoners that they were having unprotected sex, if any sex at all. This is doubly hypocritical.

I am not claiming this to be a unoversal truth, just my personal experience. I don't support abortions, but I hate hypocrites more.

I think anti-abortioners would have a lot less trouble understanding pro-choice views if they'd think about the stance in this manner:

I am pro-choice. I don't advocate killing the child. I advocate the woman's right to remove her resources from the fetuses use.

Just like, if I had a child and it needed a blood donation, I could say 'no, my resources are my own'.

Even if, as a direct result of this, the child dies. A woman can say 'no. My body, my choice.'

So the choice is this - either abortion is murder, and so is refusing to donate organs and blood although you are totally aware that the refusal will cause a death, OR neither are murder, and are simply a matter of choice.

Anti-abortioners seem to think they can have a 50-50 split - one case is murder, and the other isn't. Why? Because the woman had sex? She can still kill that child later in life by refusing a blood donation though, and not have it called murder. Is it because the child is inside her? That shouldn't change anything.

If you can kill a living human by refusing them access to your body, so can a woman.

And furthermore, a child should never be a 'punishment' for a woman. That shows much less respect for life than anything I've seen shown from the pro-choice camp.

Explain to me how that even remotely makes sense. Abortion is the intential killing of a child whereas a miscarriage is sometime that occurs naturally and is beyond the control of the woman (whereas neglect is intentional). That's like saying a woman should be arrested for murder of her husband even though he died of natural causes.

Abortion is intentional, which is why (in your logic) it would equate to murder *if the fetus were seen as a human life from conception on*.

However, neglect is not generally intentional. Let's take an example. Suppose a woman leads a very busy lifestyle. Let's suppose that she works very long hours and can't afford day care or babysitters. This would mean that her child is most likely home alone for at least several hours each day. Now, the woman is not trying to harm her child, but knows that harm may come to it by leaving it at home alone. If that child gets into something poisonous or sets the house on fire and dies, we charge that woman with neglect for not doing everything she could to make sure the child was ok.

Now, most miscarriages occur because a woman's lifestyle makes her hormones believe it is a bad time to have a child. That woman may lead a hectic lifestyle (like the one above), may drink a lot on the weekends, may do a lot of heavy lifting -- any of these could lead to an miscarriage. If you believe that the embryo is a full human life from the moment of conception, any sexually active woman who lives a lifestyle that her body might find incompatible with child bearing must be found guilty of neglect. After all, she knew that she might get pregnant and that her lifestyle might cause a miscarriage if she were pregnant - and she did it anyways - thus not doing everything she could to ensure the life of her child.

Of course, if you really believe that, you have made sure that any sexually active woman (whether married or not) must lead a life lying on her back to protect the "child" she might possibly have conceived.

I just tried to ask a open-minded and also naive question to see if I could get any relevant answer and explanation from the people who is against both healthcare for children and abortion (typically republicans) sadly I personally I think I didn’t get so many relative answers. Because I did not ask for universal healthcare for everybody (even if I personally is for it) my basic question was should not every children’s life be protected from easily treated decease by allowing every child healthcare if the state have the ability (like the USA) especially if you think life is so sacred it should be protected from the first cell. I basically just got replies that it is more effective with private health care and that you should get a job if you want healthcare. But should not children who have no power over who where parents is or how there overall situation be suffering because of who there parents is and that economical situation they have. . That is always in many cases involentarly that the parents don’t give the children healthcare and if not taking away the child will in many cases be more costly then giving them healtcare and a lot more painful for the child and the parents.

The smartest argument against my point I got from a Fascist Ideals who is for universal healthcare.
It's an interesting point, but not really *that* interesting if you know what I mean. About 1 million unborns are aborted every year. I don't know the exact number of children who die due to a lack of a federally funded healthcare system for children but it's obviously going to be a lot, lot less.

And yes I agree it is pretty valid argument but still the number of children that suffer from no health care increases if you include those who have pain, health problem later in life and diminished life quality because of lack of healthcare. To a number that should concern the people who want to protect the rights of children. Another point against it that abortion would not drop from one million to zero if abortion was illegal instead a lot of American women would still do abortion inside USA and in Canada and Mexico.

And I would just like to correct one thing Superpower07 said because I from a scandinavian country sweden.

It would be nice in theory, but in real life wouldnt do so well (the citizens Scandinavian countries w/said healthcare sometimes have to wait *years* before getting some sort of surgery)
Yes we have que’s fore surgery but know we have a 3 month maximum waiting period that the state tries to enfore (like for example free trips and comidation if you have to do the operation in another part of sweden). But one reason for the que is that the state have higher priorite for the most accute cases instead of the most economical viable. So if you have a acute situation or is in deep pain you don’t have to wait a long time.

Jesus preached that people should help the less fortunate through their own goodwill, not that the government should do it. He never once said it was the government's job to support the poor. Sorry, but that statement seems a little weak.
OK, so the Bible preaches that homosexuality and abortion are evil. Does the Bible say that both should be banned by government?

The problem with liberals in general is that they let their emotions rule them without thinking things through. So for them abortion is ok because they can see, literally, the soon-to-be-mothers agitation about being pregnant, wheras a foetus is just an abstract concept to them and therefore not as important. But once a child is born, then to kill it for any reason, even if its severly disabled or in pain, is wrong because they form an emotional attachment to the baby. Yet they fail to make the connection between foetus and baby since its hard to forge an emotional connection with an out-of-sight foetus.

The problem with many conservatives is they think they judge the situation without knowing the story. *coughs ignorance*

Now looking at this gigantic overgeneralization is the very fact that emotions run many anti-abortionists.

You show ignorance by suggesting women don't form attachments witch the fetus. Have you ever been around a pregnant woman?

Finally, you are really ignorant if you think the woman does not think of the event.

For example, I know of one woman who had an abortion because the child had a disease that would of ended its life soon after birth. She still wonders if she did the right thing.

Another women who had two because they were diagnosed with Downs Syndrome. Her family has really severe cases of it. She sometimes wonders if she did the right thing.

Women think about it all the time.

While a womans right to choose anything
is a womans right to choose, abortion does
kill a child. so both sides have a point
on the issue, the child could be put up
for adoption for familys that cant have a child
or would like to adopt.

Wowwww

I didn't know the orphanages were empty?

That is why the taxes went down, we don't have to pay for fostercare anymore!

:rolleyes:

The adoption argument will always be parroted.....

And I would just like to correct one thing Superpower07 said because I from a scandinavian country sweden.

It would be nice in theory, but in real life wouldnt do so well (the citizens Scandinavian countries w/said healthcare sometimes have to wait *years* before getting some sort of surgery)
Yes we have que’s fore surgery but know we have a 3 month maximum waiting period that the state tries to enfore (like for example free trips and comidation if you have to do the operation in another part of sweden). But one reason for the que is that the state have higher priorite for the most accute cases instead of the most economical viable. So if you have a acute situation or is in deep pain you don’t have to wait a long time.

Thank you for speaking up. I knew that answer as well as I got the same answer from a curiosity question to our guys in Kista.

There is more weight when a native answers the question. ;)

Abortion is intentional, which is why (in your logic) it would equate to murder *if the fetus were seen as a human life from conception on*.

However, neglect is not generally intentional. Let's take an example. Suppose a woman leads a very busy lifestyle. Let's suppose that she works very long hours and can't afford day care or babysitters. This would mean that her child is most likely home alone for at least several hours each day. Now, the woman is not trying to harm her child, but knows that harm may come to it by leaving it at home alone. If that child gets into something poisonous or sets the house on fire and dies, we charge that woman with neglect for not doing everything she could to make sure the child was ok.

Now, most miscarriages occur because a woman's lifestyle makes her hormones believe it is a bad time to have a child. That woman may lead a hectic lifestyle (like the one above), may drink a lot on the weekends, may do a lot of heavy lifting -- any of these could lead to an miscarriage. If you believe that the embryo is a full human life from the moment of conception, any sexually active woman who lives a lifestyle that her body might find incompatible with child bearing must be found guilty of neglect. After all, she knew that she might get pregnant and that her lifestyle might cause a miscarriage if she were pregnant - and she did it anyways - thus not doing everything she could to ensure the life of her child.

Of course, if you really believe that, you have made sure that any sexually active woman (whether married or not) must lead a life lying on her back to protect the "child" she might possibly have conceived.

No answer from Kiitan?

I apologize for the late reply, I've been in the midst of moving (school starting up and all that). Anyway, the argument you are giving relates to the choices women make, and not all miscarrages are the direct result of this. Now, a woman could, I don't know, ask a family member for help, like her mother. This would help to alleviate problems such as long hours, or not being able to afford childcare. To an extent, yes, if a woman makes a conscious choice (against her doctors orders) to live a very active lifestyle and puts the child at risk, that is a problem and if she has a miscarriage could be put in the same ranks as abortion. However, You make it sound like the woman has no choice with things like drinking on weekends. I'm sorry, that's a personal choice that needs to be changed when you're pregnant. You're making a lot of assumptions that women can't change certain aspects of their lifestyle. Like it's not their fault that they drink a lot or something.

I apologize for the late reply, I've been in the midst of moving (school starting up and all that). Anyway, the argument you are giving relates to the choices women make, and not all miscarrages are the direct result of this. Now, a woman could, I don't know, ask a family member for help, like her mother. This would help to alleviate problems such as long hours, or not being able to afford childcare. To an extent, yes, if a woman makes a conscious choice (against her doctors orders) to live a very active lifestyle and puts the child at risk, that is a problem and if she has a miscarriage could be put in the same ranks as abortion. However, You make it sound like the woman has no choice with things like drinking on weekends. I'm sorry, that's a personal choice that needs to be changed when you're pregnant. You're making a lot of assumptions that women can't change certain aspects of their lifestyle. Like it's not their fault that they drink a lot or something.

You are assuming the woman knows she is pregnant. I'm not talking about what the woman does after she knows she is pregnant and has decided to keep it. I am talking about what a woman does before she knows she is pregnant. If a zygote is legally a full human being, with full human rights from the moment of conception - the woman is liable for anything she does to harm that life, whether she knows it is there or not.

Lots of people lead stressful lifestyles and work long hours. Lots of people go out on the weekends and drink. And yes, miscarriages are a result of a woman's body deciding it is not a good time to be pregnant - because of something in her environment or something she does.

why not assume if you are going to take an "action", you are therefore responsible for all said consequences of said "action". this is a trait of succesful, free societies, and the world is quickly losing this trait.

if you have sex, you could become or get someone
pregnant. if you get pregnant, you could have a child. if you have a child, you are responsible for raising that child. i spoke slowly so the leftists can get it. :headbang:

basically, i find it offensive that anyone expects me to pay one red cent to raise someone else's child. while i am against outlawing abortion, i find the act of abortion reprehensible, as well.

so i see it like this...an american conservative says no abortion, if you didn;t want to risk having a kid, don't have sex, don;t end a life so you can sidestep the consequences of you actions.....not quite bright, and not recognizing the realities of life....why not use birth control/morning after pill etc. if you want to avoid it? while even then sometimes pregnancies happen, the rate of abortion in the US shows the initial responsibility is not being taken. and if you have a child and raise it, TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN CHILD, DON'TDEMAND SOMEONE ELSE HELP YOU OTHER THAN THE FATHER OR YOUR FAMILY! conservatives see the world through very tight, nieve blinders....leftists cannot even recognize reality. there is always a cost to any benefit in the real world, and individuals should at least carry their own weight in a society, not encourage people who can;t take care of themselves or their own progeny to replicate.

instead of burdening society with individuals' consequences of their own freely chosen action, the better choice is to expect the beneficiaries of these rights to exercise them with caution...rather than burdening society with them. frankly, if you need for society to provide for you, society isn;t getting much of a return from said individual breeding. i am not offended by dumb, illiterate, unskilled, uneducated morons not breeding.....the world could use a generation or two of that.....course, that would eliminate a huge section of the American left, for instance, and decimate the Islamic world, lol.

so instead of assuming the financial dependence of said individual, sterilize the stupidest 15% of any society, as judged by economic and scholastic output...and keep abortion legal, but raise the cost for each abortion had until the idiot realizes condoms or birth control is a great and cheaper alternative....

or of course, so the lower classes feel good for a generation or two before the society implodes, give them a free ride, society will assume the burden for your actions....the argument isn;t pro-life should equate universal health care, it is freedom and rights = responsibility for actions.

America has a neurosis caused by the seperation of State & Federal laws.

Their government officials contradicted themselves down to lower levels of State, County, and Townships - especially in the case of abortion.
While one place has allowed open rights for abortion, another will force restrictions against it... yet both can be only a few miles apart.

The problem falls upon the leadership of their country. Too many want a leader who will cater to these socially changing whims, instead of electing an official that leads by doing what must be done.

*blather snip*


Somebody forgot to take their meds today!

American laws will allow a woman to abort a fetus because that law considers the "zygote" as if it were not a living being, yet if someone were to do harm upon a pregnant woman ending the life of this same "zygote" - that person would be charged with manslaughter.

America has a neurosis caused by the seperation of State & Federal laws.

Their government officials contradicted themselves down to lower levels of State, County, and Townships - especially in the case of abortion.
While one place has allowed open rights for abortion, another will force restrictions against it... yet both can be only a few miles apart.

The problem falls upon the leadership of their country. Too many want a leader who will cater to these socially changing whims, instead of electing an official that leads by doing what must be done.

Yea! Hitler and Stalin knew what had to be done.

Our system may have issues but I would rather have the officals fighting and contradicting themselves then all falling in line and shouting Sieg Heil!

A free people have the ability to contradict themselves.


"Too many want a leader who will cater to these socially changing whims"

Ahh so we should all fall in line and let George W. Bush do whatever he wants?

Look a tad more at our ways and history before you make statements....

American laws will allow a woman to abort a fetus because that law considers the "zygote" as if it were not a living being, yet if someone were to do harm upon a pregnant woman ending the life of this same "zygote" - that person would be charged with manslaughter.

Problem: When they charge manslaught for a pregnant woman, they tend to weigh where she was in the pregnancy.

Also other factors come into play. If they found on her person an appointment for planned parenthood, then you can't really charge the murderer for the second murder.

Each state is different in the rules so you global analogy is wrong.....

Yea! Hitler and Stalin knew what had to be done.

Our system may have issues but I would rather have the officals fighting and contradicting themselves then all falling in line and shouting Sieg Heil!

A free people have the ability to contradict themselves.


"Too many want a leader who will cater to these socially changing whims"

Ahh so we should all fall in line and let George W. Bush do whatever he wants?

Look a tad more at our ways and history before you make statements....

If you choose to elect someone that merely accounts for whatever is suggested of them, then you have elected a puppet.

If you choose to elect someone that merely accounts for whatever is suggested of them, then you have elected a puppet.

I guess you missed the "By the people for the people" thing.

A leader is supposed to find the balance. There are things he may not like but he does it because it is the will of the people. For example, Teddy Roosevelt was VERY opposed to having "In God We Trust" added to money. He felt it was an insult to God. Yet the people wanted it.

We would not have elections if we had leaders that would do what they felt needed to be done.

BAH! Politics. Its the governments job to support the people, and woman should be able to do whatever they want with their goddamn bodies. There? Sound rational? We have the government to support "Natural Law", its in our declaration of independance. Restricting a womans right to not have a baby limits the liberty of her own body and in effect is a violation of the social contract. Also I don't give a damn about what jesus said, its a governments duty to help all people achieve life, liberty and persuit of happyness. REGARDLESS of their financial situation. NOW SHUT UP ABOUT ABORTION.

I advocate pain, suffering, and hardship for all intellectually challeneged humans.

Like for people who can't spell challenged?

3. If women want to have "unsanctioned" sex and they get pregnant, they should have the child and put it up for adoption. There are millions of couples that are waiting in line for children that can't have any of their own.

That's the end of my right-wing rant against all this left wing sentiment. Please try to see the reasoning behind my statments and take them into consideration. Thank you.

The thing I love most about this argument is that men can have as much "unsanctioned" sex as they want and will never have to deal with the unwanted pregnancies. STDs as the great equilizer? Not really...he just gets to spread it around more partners and make them suffer too. I think the FATHERS of these "unwanted" children should be hunted down and FORCED to pay child support to the mother, or to whoever adopts that child. To make it equal, if the mother doesn't keep the kid, and is actually working, she should have to pay too. Or how about....

we keep abortions legal and start actually EDCUATING people (beyond abstinence).

I never meant to imply that men could have as much unsanctioned sex as they wanted. Really, everyone should wait until they're married (or are in a deeply commited relationship) before they decide to have sex. I disagree (but I do see your point) in your belief that the parents should pay child support in the event of an adoption. Though here's a thought I would like to pose. Why is it always about the "woman's right to choose"? What about the woman wanting an abortion, but the man wants to raise the child (if I were in that situation, I would)? Does the man automatically lose out on his parenting rights? I don't think he should. What do y'all think about that?

I never meant to imply that men could have as much unsanctioned sex as they wanted. Really, everyone should wait until they're married (or are in a deeply commited relationship) before they decide to have sex.

I agree. At the very least, they should discuss what to do in the event of a pregnancy before they have sex.

I disagree (but I do see your point) in your belief that the parents should pay child support in the event of an adoption. Though here's a thought I would like to pose. Why is it always about the "woman's right to choose"? What about the woman wanting an abortion, but the man wants to raise the child (if I were in that situation, I would)? Does the man automatically lose out on his parenting rights? I don't think he should. What do y'all think about that?

It is the "woman's right to choose" because it is the woman that has to go through pregnancy and childbirth. Obviously, if the man wants the child, she should consider that fact and he should have every opportunity to try and convince her of his point of view. But the fact remains that equal rights requires equal responsibility. There is absolutely no way to give men equal responsibility in pregnancy and childbirth. Therefore, they can never have the final say in the decision.

I'm european and pro abortion, .
I know a lot of pro-CHOICE Americans.
I dont want to know anyone who is pro-abortion, that is just sick.
Do you see pregnant women on the street and just run up and start trying to talk them into having an abortion?
Do you protest outside maternity wards?
How deranged are you?
I understand a woman having rights to her body and support her choice, but supporting taking that choice away and just being pro-abortion...you are one sick freak.