NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it interesting that the same people who suggest that women who cannot afford to raise children but are pregnant should HAVE to have the child and then they should put it up for adoption. This increases the number entering the already overburdened adoption and foster care system.

At the same time, they try to pass laws disallowing adoption by gay couples. This decreases the number of children leaving the foster care system.

Does it take a math whiz to figure out how ridiculous that is?

I'm interested in learning what solution is being proposed by these people who want to force more children into the adoption system with less options for adoption?

Perhaps they could pass laws forcing themselves to adopt children?

Does it take a math whiz to figure out how ridiculous that is?

Nope. :)

Well, we all know that the only thing worse than no life at all is a life being raised by two loving people of the same gender. :rolleyes:

Well, we all know that the only thing worse than no life at all is a life being raised by two loving people of the same gender. :rolleyes:
Yeah, and that the perfect life is being raised by two people who hate each other. :Rolleyes:

Perhaps they could pass laws forcing themselves to adopt children?

There you go. It should say, you may vote to leave more children in the adoption pool, but every time a gay couple applies that would have adopted a child, we will select randomly from the group that took that right away from them and you will receive your child with all of the appropriate paperwork.

There you go. It should say, you may vote to leave more children in the adoption pool, but every time a gay couple applies that would have adopted a child, we will select randomly from the group that took that right away from them and you will receive your child with all of the appropriate paperwork.

ROTFL! Well that would shake things up a bit, no?

Now, I suspect we won't see any of the people that actually celebrate these bans because they avoid these threads that point out their hypocrisy like the plague.

Supporting article: http://www.comcast.net/news/usatoday/index.jsp?fn=/2006/02/20/241702.html

Apparently, it's 16 states now.

Also, I'd like to point out that the challenges to Roe v. Wade are already on the table.

Florida has banned all gays and lesbians from adopting since 1977, although they can be foster parents. State court challenges and a campaign by entertainer Rosie O'Donnell to overturn the law have failed. A pending bill would allow judges to grant exceptions.

Mississippi bans adoption by gay couples, but gay singles can adopt. Utah prohibits all unmarried couples from adoption.
This makes no sense at all. They can be foster parents but not adopt? And single gays can adopt but not a gay couple? What the hell is going on?

but.. but.. they'll raise them to be gay!

but.. but.. they'll raise them to be gay!

*Waves a bible and a cross*

Exactly brother. People don't understand that gayness rubs off and happens by gay mind control rays!

If there weren't contradiction in laws then it wouldn't be government now would it?

Ahhh, the rationale of the moralistic right. A spectacle in elegant hypocrisy.

Seriously, did anyone really expect anything less from them? Really?

If there weren't contradiction in laws then it wouldn't be government now would it?

Yes, but I'm not asking the government to defend these actions. Contradiction in laws comes usually from different groups having different agendas. In this case, it's the same general group with a contradiction in agenda. If you support the banning of abortion, do you also support preventing the adoption of children through these types of measures?

Now, I suspect we won't see any of the people that actually celebrate these bans because they avoid these threads that point out their hypocrisy like the plague.

Actually the hypocrisy that you think you see here has two completely differing issues. I dont claim to expouse those views, however i know people who do, and I have talked in length with them about them, and I can understand their point of view.

I am sure you are all aware of the massive amounts of social pressures in the United States School System. Everything, from lookds to glasses, to being too smart, etc etc can wind you being made an outcast. Being Adopted makes it 5 times worse, I had a friend who it was publicly known he was adopted (he was korean, his mother white and his father spanish) and he recieved load of unneccisarily harsh treatment because of this. Imagine what might happen in these school systems to find not only are you adopted, but your adopted parents are gay/lesbian, especially with some of the heavy bigotry that many parents have about it. That child would have no chance of social interactions.

There are other reasons, however it would be hard for me to explain them, as I dont fully understand them myself. They involve the idea that gay couples should not be allowed marriage status in the first place (insert arguement of gay marriage issue here. Actually please dont, that will take the issue away from adoption). However i do have to say that letting gay/lesbian couples adopt is only a stopgag measure, and we all know how well those work. What we need is national reform of the adoption system, considering how overstressed, underfunded, and broken the system is.

Also another concern is those people who are using this as an issule to promote gay rights, not to look after the children. Don't deny it, there are quite a lot of people who dont really care about the children, they care about gay rights. It would be dangerous to accede to their pressures, a good thing done for the wrong reasons doesnt make it right. We have to be careful that when/if we allow gay couples to adopt, it has to be solely for the children's benefit, not the rights of gay people.

I'm from a nation that is fundamentally 'conservative', by Western standards... and that HAS, not only a monarchy, but also an established state religion.

It horrifies me that my mothercountry is heading in the OPPOSITE direction to the US, on so many issues... I mean... at least the UK would have good excuses if we were backwards or religiously biased.

USA.... land of the free? My arse.

Actually the hypocrisy that you think you see here has two completely differing issues. I dont claim to expouse those views, however i know people who do, and I have talked in length with them about them, and I can understand their point of view.

I am sure you are all aware of the massive amounts of social pressures in the United States School System. Everything, from lookds to glasses, to being too smart, etc etc can wind you being made an outcast. Being Adopted makes it 5 times worse, I had a friend who it was publicly known he was adopted (he was korean, his mother white and his father spanish) and he recieved load of unneccisarily harsh treatment because of this. Imagine what might happen in these school systems to find not only are you adopted, but your adopted parents are gay/lesbian, especially with some of the heavy bigotry that many parents have about it. That child would have no chance of social interactions.

Ridiculous. The people who are 'protecting' children from this bigotry are spreading it but suggesting that gay couples somehow don't deserve the same rights as straight couples. It's the same argument that used to be made about interracial couples, by the by. How big of a problem is that socially in school these days?

Also, it means that it is preferable for children to have no parents than to be made fun of for the parents they have. Also, ridiculous.

There are other reasons, however it would be hard for me to explain them, as I dont fully understand them myself. They involve the idea that gay couples should not be allowed marriage status in the first place (insert arguement of gay marriage issue here. Actually please dont, that will take the issue away from adoption). However i do have to say that letting gay/lesbian couples adopt is only a stopgag measure, and we all know how well those work. What we need is national reform of the adoption system, considering how overstressed, underfunded, and broken the system is.

And one way to make it less overstressed, underfunded and broken is to further limit the number of loving couples who wish to adopt children? Ridiculous.

Is another way to make it less overstressed, underfunded and broken to increase the number of mothers that have to put children into the adoption pool because abortion is not an option? More ridiculous.

Also another concern is those people who are using this as an issule to promote gay rights, not to look after the children. Don't deny it, there are quite a lot of people who dont really care about the children, they care about gay rights. It would be dangerous to accede to their pressures, a good thing done for the wrong reasons doesnt make it right. We have to be careful that when/if we allow gay couples to adopt, it has to be solely for the children's benefit, not the rights of gay people.
I'm afraid it's the other way around. Gay people aren't adopting children to prove a point and I challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary. However, it is very clear that this issue is just another attempt to chip away at gay rights. The religious right isn't worried about the children. They just think gays are evil so they are unwilling to even consider the fact that children are better with loving parents than without them.

Don't use the term "religious right" when refering to this. Not all religious people are right-wing. And a few of us aren't actually this stupid.

We have to be careful that when/if we allow gay couples to adopt, it has to be solely for the children's benefit, not the rights of gay people.

First: being adopted is still better than NOT being adopted, surely?

Second: The fact that we are talking about adoption, means we are ALREADY promoting the benefit to the child... so the idea that that is somehow 'in competition' with 'gay rights' is deceptive, at best... and pure prevarication.

Third: However, it IS unjust to prevent two loving, would-be parents to adopt a child, just because some people feel 'icky' about who they might choose for company.

Don't use the term "religious right" when refering to this. Not all religious people are right-wing. And a few of us aren't actually this stupid.

No - but the problem largely IS the 'religious right'... those people who espouse extremist right-wing views, and claim a divine mandate for doing so.

That doesn't mean all religious people are rightwing (Jocabia, himself being a perfect example), or that the rightwing is necessarily equivalent to the faithful.

I can't believe I never noticed this blatant contradiction before, I feel so stupid.:(

Don't use the term "religious right" when refering to this. Not all religious people are right-wing. And a few of us aren't actually this stupid.

If you're not among the "religious right" then don't worry about it. If you're not right-wing, I'm not talking about you. I'm not a member of the religious right, but I am most certainly religious.

Don't use the term "religious right" when refering to this. Not all religious people are right-wing. And a few of us aren't actually this stupid.

True dat. I'm both religious and very conservative, and I don't agree with much of anything the "right-wing" does. :D

But I believe we all understand that "religious right" is an established political group, and that people who disagree with that group's stance are not included in any reference to that group.

EDIT: Jocabia beat me to it!

True dat. I'm both religious and very conservative, and I don't agree with much of anything the "right-wing" does. :D

But I believe we all understand that "religious right" is an established political group, and that people who disagree with that group's stance are not included in any reference to that group.

EDIT: Jocabia beat me to it!

And, actually... I beat him to it, too.... :)

Shocker. If this was a thread about either one seperately, they would be all over it, but put the two together and they can't explain the hypocrisy so they simply don't reply.

Ahhh, the rationale of the moralistic right. A spectacle in elegant hypocrisy.

Seriously, did anyone really expect anything less from them? Really?

I dont see how its hypocracy. They dont want abortion but the dont want gay couples adopting. Granted that puts an aditional stran on the adoption system, but the logic to it is sound. They want children to grow up with a male and female influence. That seems fair. You may see it as illogical in terms of practicality, but in terms of their system it does make sense.

I dont see how its hypocracy. They dont want abortion but the dont want gay couples adopting. Granted that puts an aditional stran on the adoption system, but the logic to it is sound. They want children to grow up with a male and female influence. That seems fair. You may see it as illogical in terms of practicality, but in terms of their system it does make sense.

Except, of course, that it is utter crock that they would be deprived of male and female influences if they had gay parents. All it boils down to is "the fags are yucky."

I dont see how its hypocracy. They dont want abortion but the dont want gay couples adopting. Granted that puts an aditional stran on the adoption system, but the logic to it is sound. They want children to grow up with a male and female influence. That seems fair. You may see it as illogical in terms of practicality, but in terms of their system it does make sense.

Agreed. This is why it's illegal for single mothers to raise children.

Except, of course, that it is utter crock that they would be deprived of male and female influences if they had gay parents. All it boils down to is "the fags are yucky."

They would be deprived of them in the sense that they recieve it from a mother/father figure in a hetrosexual family situation

And in your opinion it all boils down to that. But as I have made in a previous thread, that statement just boils down to calling the opponent names in order to try to dehumansie them and make them look stupid.

I dont see how its hypocracy. They dont want abortion but the dont want gay couples adopting. Granted that puts an aditional stran on the adoption system, but the logic to it is sound. They want children to grow up with a male and female influence. That seems fair. You may see it as illogical in terms of practicality, but in terms of their system it does make sense.

Yes, the problem is that these children that are not being adopted are growing up with NO parents and banning abortion will simply increase the number of children with no parents. That's the simplistic argument that annoys me. You are not choosing between your version of the 'ideal' home or a home run by a gay couple. You are choosing between a home run by a gay couple or no home at all.

You believe both of these are good things, so why don't you propose what measures you are supporting to address the issue? Are you trying to get laws passed that increases funding for the foster care and adoption system? Are you trying to increase child welfare? Where do you propose the money comes from?

They want children to grow up with a male and female influence.

Which is why single parents can't adopt.

edit: Damnit!

They would be deprived of them in the sense that they recieve it from a mother/father figure in a hetrosexual family situation

Exactly. "The fags are yucky. The only non-yucky families are the ones we find non-yucky. When we talk about 'male and female' influence, we talk about heterosexuality being the only acceptable sexuality."

And in your opinion it all boils down to that. But as I have made in a previous thread, that statement just boils down to calling the opponent names in order to try to dehumansie them and make them look stupid.

I don't need to make them look stupid. They do so very well on their own.

Which is why single parents can't adopt.

edit: Damnit!

Too slow... :p

Agreed. This is why it's illegal for single mothers to raise children.

That situation normally comes out of divorce. And while it is posible for single parents to adopt in the UK at least, it is much much harder. I would think most people of my mindset would agree that divorce shouldnt be as available as it is. But that kind of freedom is the one that is hard to take back once given.

They would be deprived of them in the sense that they recieve it from a mother/father figure in a hetrosexual family situation

And in your opinion it all boils down to that. But as I have made in a previous thread, that statement just boils down to calling the opponent names in order to try to dehumansie them and make them look stupid.

A heterosexual family isn't the option here, though. There are children that are not getting adopted and gay couples willing to adopt them. You are choosing NO parents for them. And you are choosing to increase the pool from the other side too by outlawing abortions. Yeah, it's all about the children right? :rolleyes:

Too slow... :p

I couldn't post right away! I had to work! No fair! :)

That situation normally comes out of divorce. And while it is posible for single parents to adopt in the UK at least, it is much much harder. I would think most people of my mindset would agree that divorce shouldnt be as available as it is.

Or with out of wedlock children. But that never happens.

But that kind of freedom is the one that is hard to take back once given.

But abortion is the kind of freedom that can be easily taken back?

I find it interesting that the same people who suggest that women who cannot afford to raise children but are pregnant should HAVE to have the child and then they should put it up for adoption. This increases the number entering the already overburdened adoption and foster care system.

At the same time, they try to pass laws disallowing adoption by gay couples. This decreases the number of children leaving the foster care system.

Does it take a math whiz to figure out how ridiculous that is?

I'm interested in learning what solution is being proposed by these people who want to force more children into the adoption system with less options for adoption?
Are there no workhouses? Are there no poor houses? Are there no orphanages?

That situation normally comes out of divorce. And while it is posible for single parents to adopt in the UK at least, it is much much harder. I would think most people of my mindset would agree that divorce shouldnt be as available as it is. But that kind of freedom is the one that is hard to take back once given.

Um, care to back up that made-up assertion - that single mothers are mostly the result of divorce.

And when you outlaw abortion there will be many more single mothers than there are today. In the US, the only significant decrease in birth rates after Roe v Wade was among teenage mothers. Reverse that trend and you end up with a lot more single mothers, a lot more children up for adoption, and a lot more children that are not or cannot be adequately cared for. But, it's all about the children, right?

Meanwhile, you force children to stay in the adoption system and group homes because you feel that if they can't have your version of an ideal family they shouldn't have any family at all. But, it's all about the children, right?

Or with out of wedlock children. But that never happens.


So your suggesting that in order not to be hypocritical I should support the outlawing of sex outside wedlock. That would cause even more civil liberties breaches.


But abortion is the kind of freedom that can be easily taken back?

Abortion is the kind of freedom that is more nessecary to take back.

That situation normally comes out of divorce. And while it is posible for single parents to adopt in the UK at least, it is much much harder. I would think most people of my mindset would agree that divorce shouldnt be as available as it is. But that kind of freedom is the one that is hard to take back once given.

It may be harder but it's still legal. I see no reason why a homosexual couple would make a worse job of raising a child than a single parent, for a start they'd have more spare time to spend with it because a single parent would have to spend most of their time working.

The rest of your argument seems to be: "We can't get the single parents anymore so lets pick on the gays." Is this an accurate summary?

Are there no workhouses? Are there no poor houses? Are there no orphanages?

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic.

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic.

Bah humbug.:(

USA.... land of the free? My arse.

Thats only because we haven't had a good insurrection lately. Freedom in America depends on the citizens being willing to stand up and kill those who infringe upon liberty.

Beyond that, and more salient to the adoption issue, is that America has a rather extreme urban/rural devide. Rural areas tend to be very traditional and very religious (which is your fault, Brits, why did you have to ship your crazies over here?!) urban areas tend to be very progressive. The end result is that in states without a significant urban population (or theocratic enclaves like Utah) you have religious traditionalist politicians who try to legislate the sin out of their state pre-emptively.

Politics in America have become a rather disgusting smashmouth game. Both sides have decided that they know best for everyone else and both sides are not only willing but eager to limit the rights of those who do not fit their view of what America should be.

Christ, I need a drink and a noose...

Um, care to back up that made-up assertion - that single mothers are mostly the result of divorce.

Well its been true in the vast majority of cases that I am aware of. It is however difficult to find statistics. I'll get back to you


And when you outlaw abortion there will be many more single mothers than there are today. In the US, the only significant decrease in birth rates after Roe v Wade was among teenage mothers. Reverse that trend and you end up with a lot more single mothers, a lot more children up for adoption, and a lot more children that are not or cannot be adequately cared for. But, it's all about the children, right?

The solution then is better sex education. Before you go off on one about "absenence only" do not assume I support that. I dont. People do not fit into pigoen holes.


Meanwhile, you force children to stay in the adoption system and group homes because you feel that if they can't have your version of an ideal family they shouldn't have any family at all. But, it's all about the children, right?

You just give more money to the adoption system. Fund and organise it better. I believe in redistribution of wealth to an extent in so far as my socialistic tendencies go so that kind of system is indeed very supportable. I would support the increase in ease of adoption to single parents if it was tabled, for the reasons you state.

I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic.
No, you've forgotten your line. You're supposed to say

'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'

So I can respond

'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.

I dont see how its hypocracy. They dont want abortion but the dont want gay couples adopting. Granted that puts an aditional stran on the adoption system, but the logic to it is sound. They want children to grow up with a male and female influence. That seems fair. You may see it as illogical in terms of practicality, but in terms of their system it does make sense.

Oh... where to START?

Start with the hypocrisy of Christians trying to change the law of the land, in the first place, perhaps? SO much for remaining a 'separate people'... so much for 'render unto Caesar'.

Start with the hypocrisy of a group trying to enforce their morality on others?

Or - shall we jump staright to the hypocrisy that we are here confronted with evidence that the religious right would rather see children raised by NO parents (which is HARDLY the mother/father partnership deemed 'so important'), than by same-sex parents.

Or how about the hypocrisy of the fact that the 'nuclear family' is such a NEW invention? We comfortably ignore the fact that 2 parents, 2.4 children and a dog is NOT the traditional family structure, and never really has been.

Ridiculous. The people who are 'protecting' children from this bigotry are spreading it but suggesting that gay couples somehow don't deserve the same rights as straight couples. It's the same argument that used to be made about interracial couples, by the by. How big of a problem is that socially in school these days?

Also, it means that it is preferable for children to have no parents than to be made fun of for the parents they have. Also, ridiculous.

The word you're looking for is obfuscous, or perhaps disingenuous, although bullshit would work just as well.

That situation normally comes out of divorce. And while it is posible for single parents to adopt in the UK at least, it is much much harder. I would think most people of my mindset would agree that divorce shouldnt be as available as it is. But that kind of freedom is the one that is hard to take back once given.

Wait... are you really here wishing that you could return us to the pre-suffrage era, of women as possessions?

You believe both of these are good things, so why don't you propose what measures you are supporting to address the issue? Are you trying to get laws passed that increases funding for the foster care and adoption system? Are you trying to increase child welfare? Where do you propose the money comes from?


Income taxes on churches?

Are there no workhouses? Are there no poor houses? Are there no orphanages?

Am I the ONLY person who hears the Michael Caine version from the Muppet Christmas Carol?

Well its been true in the vast majority of cases that I am aware of. It is however difficult to find statistics. I'll get back to you

Your not going to find them. I promise you that.

The solution then is better sex education. Before you go off on one about "absenence only" do not assume I support that. I dont. People do not fit into pigoen holes.

Um, and that doesn't change the fact that even in places where the sex education is very good, there is a problem. That doesn't change the fact that there are a significant portion of the population that are married or in long-term relationships where birth control fails. That doesn't change the fact that the system will have an increasing burden because of your practices.

You just give more money to the adoption system. Fund and organise it better. I believe in redistribution of wealth to an extent in so far as my socialistic tendencies go so that kind of system is indeed very supportable. I would support the increase in ease of adoption to single parents if it was tabled, for the reasons you state.
So single parents provide the 'ideal' situation how? You just suggested that gay parents should not be permitted to adopt because there is not a man and a woman present in the home (which is an assumption) and then you suggest a solution that puts them in a different home where this is not a man and a woman in the home and in fact no stable relationship at all? You don't see how that is hypocrisy? You don't care about the children. You care about punishing the sinners.

Oh... where to START?

Start with the hypocrisy of Christians trying to change the law of the land, in the first place, perhaps? SO much for remaining a 'separate people'... so much for 'render unto Caesar'.

Start with the hypocrisy of a group trying to enforce their morality on others?

Is it any diffrent from any other politcal group or ideology forcing their belifs on someone by enacting them in law? No.


Or - shall we jump staright to the hypocrisy that we are here confronted with evidence that the religious right would rather see children raised by NO parents (which is HARDLY the mother/father partnership deemed 'so important'), than by same-sex parents

Well then we simply fund the system better and open it up to single parents more. I think single parent families can be very sucessful, many of the ancient Greek heros were (acording to myth) raised by single parents. My problem with two parents of the same sex is that it limits the childs influnce from the sex that is not present and increases the influnce from that which is present two fold.


Or how about the hypocrisy of the fact that the 'nuclear family' is such a NEW invention? We comfortably ignore the fact that 2 parents, 2.4 children and a dog is NOT the traditional family structure, and never really has been

Actually it has. The nuclear family as we now know it came into existance at the time of European industrialisation around about the 18th century. Prior to that, the rural and cottage industry settings had seen extended kin living all together very close, sometimes as far back as four generations. When the industrial revolution began, families moved into cities close to the factories and the houses were much smaller and more packed together. The older generation were often not fit enough to work on indusrial machinery of that era so they remained in the rural areas. I got an A at A-level sociology and families and households was a principle module so I know what I am talking about here.

Wait... are you really here wishing that you could return us to the pre-suffrage era, of women as possessions?

No. I'm saying that I think people get married to easily and divorced to easy. Tightening up the laws is one option, but it is a cultural thing. People as far as I see are less and less intersted in working at their marriages. They see marriage more as the wedding. A wonderful romantic thing to do. And it is, but it is so much more than that. I dont think either party in a marriage should be able to restrain the other into staying together, but I think both parties need to be more willing to work than they generally seem to be now.

Thats only because we haven't had a good insurrection lately. Freedom in America depends on the citizens being willing to stand up and kill those who infringe upon liberty.

Beyond that, and more salient to the adoption issue, is that America has a rather extreme urban/rural devide. Rural areas tend to be very traditional and very religious (which is your fault, Brits, why did you have to ship your crazies over here?!) urban areas tend to be very progressive. The end result is that in states without a significant urban population (or theocratic enclaves like Utah) you have religious traditionalist politicians who try to legislate the sin out of their state pre-emptively.

Politics in America have become a rather disgusting smashmouth game. Both sides have decided that they know best for everyone else and both sides are not only willing but eager to limit the rights of those who do not fit their view of what America should be.

Christ, I need a drink and a noose...

We actually had a similar sort of divide back home... although, you can probably fit ALL of the UK inside one Georgia... but the extremes are about the same.

The big advantage of the UK, I like to think, is that a fifth of our population are ALL in one city... and that has something of a calming effect, overall, maybe.

We have our religious right in our rural backwaters, too (indeed, I lived in just such a place... Boston, where all the whackos came over HERE from)... and yet, our politics is slowly heading in a more 'progressive' direction. Well, that has been the trend... and I hope it continues.

The real disappointment isn't how bad the USA is..... it is how far ABOVE that, it could be. :(

That situation normally comes out of divorce. And while it is posible for single parents to adopt in the UK at least, it is much much harder. I would think most people of my mindset would agree that divorce shouldnt be as available as it is. But that kind of freedom is the one that is hard to take back once given.

Ok, stop right there.

First, you do not "take freedoms back." People who attempt to take away freedom are called tyrants and the only place for a tyrant is hanging from a crow's nest at the border as a warning to others.

Second, I don't see why the state has any interest in marriage. Marriage is a contract between individuals and (in some cases) their church. Clearly the government has no place in the religious expression of the individuals, and I would argue that the government has no place in their contracts, either. This is the problem with the right wing, you seem to believe that the government has a place in the personal lives of the people. It doesn't. There is no compelling reason for the government to have anything to do with whom I enter into a legal contract or in where I put my genitals in consensual situations.

Third, why in the hell shouldn't divorce be available? We let people dissolve corporations every day, whats the difference? Perhaps you mean that religious divorce shouldn't be available, which is fine, as long as you do not try to impose your religious beliefs upon others. The church doesn't want to provide a divorce, fine, leave the church. If it is the government in your way, then its time to start seriously thinking about who gets to play catch the bullet.

Reactionary neo-cons don't have a speck of logic for a single thing they say.

They justify their anti-gay prejudice based on two or three bible quotes, meanwhile they can't even live by the basic tenets of Jesus' teachings or the ten commandments. Nothing but a bunch of two-faced hate-motivated hypocrites.

They even go as far as to quote bogus scientific studies out of context. Like, this one study that's been proven completely false about gay people being more likely to be pedophiles. There's not a speck of truth to it, yet it's the one thing homophobes point to in justify their reactionary hatred of gay adoption.

There are gay couples who want to adopt who are far more fit parents than straight couples who are allowed to have kids, and these homophobes seem to think that children are better off in a shelter or on their own than with gay role models.

The neo-cons should be ashamed of themselves, distorting the intent of the bible to fit their own voluntary prejudices.

No. I'm saying that I think people get married to easily and divorced to easy. Tightening up the laws is one option, but it is a cultural thing. People as far as I see are less and less intersted in working at their marriages. They see marriage more as the wedding. A wonderful romantic thing to do. And it is, but it is so much more than that. I dont think either party in a marriage should be able to restrain the other into staying together, but I think both parties need to be more willing to work than they generally seem to be now.

And, I think that marriage is an outmoded concept, and that it has NO place being dictated by external forces at all.

I'm married... and the reason I'm married is because it is the right thing for me. But, you step up and tell me why I HAVE TO BE married, or you try to impose YOUR morality on my right to divorce, and you'll find me much less understanding.

<snip!>
You don't see how that is hypocrisy? You don't care about the children. You care about punishing the sinners.

Words cannot describe how much I love you, Jocabia.

Words cannot describe how much I love you, Jocabia.

Hey! Hands off! I saw him first!

Your not going to find them. I promise you that.

Google is somewhat unrelaible for statistcs. But it seems few people have bothered linking these rather obviously linked concepts


Um, and that doesn't change the fact that even in places where the sex education is very good, there is a problem. That doesn't change the fact that there are a significant portion of the population that are married or in long-term relationships where birth control fails. That doesn't change the fact that the system will have an increasing burden because of your practices.

Increasing burden yes, but ultimately if you better fund and better organise the system, it can work. I'm not saying the system will be perfect, but I think for a childs development at least it works better this way. Also considering that at present, at least in the UK there is often two years or so waiting list for an adoption, one of two situations is happening. Either there are not many childern entered into the abortion system so you have to wait or there are many many parents wanting to adopt. Either way it suggests the abortion system is not under any real strain and isnt likely to leave children in it for signifcent periods of time.


So single parents provide the 'ideal' situation how? You just suggested that gay parents should not be permitted to adopt because there is not a man and a woman present in the home (which is an assumption) and then you suggest a solution that puts them in a different home where this is not a man and a woman in the home and in fact no stable relationship at all? You don't see how that is hypocrisy? You don't care about the children. You care about punishing the sinners.

The diffrence between single parents and homosexual parents is single parents give you one influence from one sex and none from the other. That is unforunete but in some cases unavoidable. However for homosexual couples, it is a case of double the influence from a single gender. Thats a very diffrent case, which in my mind I can see harming a childs devolpment. I am not infromed enough on that particalar area to consider myself an expert but what I have seen in terms of the outline of it we have studied in Sociology A-level suggests that many children who have been in these situations in other countries have had issues relating to the opposite sex to the one that their parents are.

Is it any diffrent from any other politcal group or ideology forcing their belifs on someone by enacting them in law? No.

Um, most people advocate not forcing their beliefs on others. That's called freedom.

Well then we simply fund the system better and open it up to single parents more. I think single parent families can be very sucessful, many of the ancient Greek heros were (acording to myth) raised by single parents. My problem with two parents of the same sex is that it limits the childs influnce from the sex that is not present and increases the influnce from that which is present two fold.

Seriously? You're actually going to try that nonsense. Do you object to families that all live close to each other, where they raise their children like a community? Wouldn't want to have an increased influence from one of the sexes? You're just saying anything that 'supports' your argument without just admitting you think homosexuals are sinful so you don't want children around them. Doesn't your religion encourage honesty? Mine does.

Actually it has. The nuclear family as we now know it came into existance at the time of European industrialisation around about the 18th century. Prior to that, the rural and cottage industry settings had seen extended kin living all together very close, sometimes as far back as four generations. When the industrial revolution began, families moved into cities close to the factories and the houses were much smaller and more packed together. The older generation were often not fit enough to work on indusrial machinery of that era so they remained in the rural areas. I got an A at A-level sociology and families and households was a principle module so I know what I am talking about here.

And the extended families are a bad thing, how? In the US, you know that it is traditional for extended families to interact for generations and always has been. It was only when cross-country travel became popular and it became more common to move far away from where you grew up (an oddity until fairly recently) that a nuclear family became the method by which children are raised. There are still many cultures that are very successful and children are raised by a combined effort of many relatives.

Income taxes on churches?

Best idea ever.

Hey! Hands off! I saw him first!

Why can't we go non-traditional and share him?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why don't we just stop people from having sex. The entire problem would go away in, oh, say, 75 years.

Is it any diffrent from any other politcal group or ideology forcing their belifs on someone by enacting them in law? No.


"Well Timmy did it!"

Ever tried to use that excuse when your parents caught you doing something wrong? Did it work then?


Well then we simply fund the system better and open it up to single parents more. I think single parent families can be very sucessful, many of the ancient Greek heros were (acording to myth) raised by single parents. My problem with two parents of the same sex is that it limits the childs influnce from the sex that is not present and increases the influnce from that which is present two fold.

I try not to make policy decisions based on myths.

Actually, there is little evidence that growing up with two parents of the same gender has any adverse effects on children. It is actually a suprisingly common arrangement in America (though the two guardians of the same gender tend to be mother and maternal grandmother). See, children get lots of exposure to adults through school, sports, neighbors, extended family, etc. Even beyond that, the non-biological differences between genders are fairly small, their influence upon children even smaller as most children develop social skills interaction with peers, not parents.

Hows about you stop waving a good grade in a sociology course and take a child development or social psychology course before you start trying to play "measure the degree" next time? Thanks.


No. I'm saying that I think people get married to easily and divorced to easy. Tightening up the laws is one option, but it is a cultural thing. People as far as I see are less and less intersted in working at their marriages. They see marriage more as the wedding. A wonderful romantic thing to do. And it is, but it is so much more than that. I dont think either party in a marriage should be able to restrain the other into staying together, but I think both parties need to be more willing to work than they generally seem to be now.

Umm, why?

No, seriously, why? What purpose does an unhappy marriage serve? More to the point, why should the government be able to "tighten the laws" regarding who can and cannot get a divorce and under what circumstances? Under what authority should the government wield that power?

Tightening divorce laws just move society backwards towards old victorian paternalism. No thanks, I'd prefer my wife be a partner instead of property. That is where you're going, you can justify it in a thousand different ways, but using government power to enforce restraints on when and under what circumstances individuals can enter into and sever relationships will only serve to make those who want to leave have a more difficult time. The third greatest socio-legal development of the 20th century (behind universal sufferage and civil rights) is no-fault divorce.

Um, most people advocate not forcing their beliefs on others. That's called freedom.

You could argue just as easily that liberals force their beliefs on others. That socialists do, that conservatives do. Any political ideology by legislating according to the beliefs linked to that ideology are forcing their beliefs on others.


Seriously? You're actually going to try that nonsense. Do you object to families that all live close to each other, where they raise their children like a community? Wouldn't want to have an increased influence from one of the sexes? You're just saying anything that 'supports' your argument without just admitting you think homosexuals are sinful so you don't want children around them. Doesn't your religion encourage honesty? Mine does.

They wouldnt have more than one father or mother.


And the extended families are a bad thing, how? In the US, you know that it is traditional for extended families to interact for generations and always has been. It was only when cross-country travel became popular and it became more common to move far away from where you grew up (an oddity until fairly recently) that a nuclear family became the method by which children are raised. There are still many cultures that are very successful and children are raised by a combined effort of many relatives.

I didnt say extended families were bad. I just said thats how the system worked prior to industrialsation.

I try not to make policy decisions based on myths.


The Greeks and their heroes also had a history of indulging in same-sex relationships. So.. if some of the heroes were raised by single parents... and some of the heroes were gay... OMG! BAN SINGLE PARENTS!

How do you like my moralist reasoning? Do I have a bright future as a religious right-winger? :D

Is it any diffrent from any other politcal group or ideology forcing their belifs on someone by enacting them in law? No.


What is the relevence?

If you look at the politics I espouse, I'm talking about individual liberty. How is THAT forcing beliefs on ANOTHER?

Also - of course, being an Atheist, Jesus' SPECIFIC imprecations NOT TO involve yourselves in the worlds of men, or attempt to confuse religion and politics, are IRRELEVENT to me.

However, those who pretend Christianity, are offering less than lipservice, with their constant meddling in the law of the land.


Well then we simply fund the system better and open it up to single parents more. I think single parent families can be very sucessful, many of the ancient Greek heros were (acording to myth) raised by single parents. My problem with two parents of the same sex is that it limits the childs influnce from the sex that is not present and increases the influnce from that which is present two fold.


First: Pumping more money into the system does not make for more families.

Second: Allowing single parents to adopt, does not make for more of the TYPE of families you CLAIM are so important.

Third: I do not disagree that single parent families CAN be good. But then, I have REAL world experience of very good 'gay' parents, too... so I don't see why there SHOULD be a difference in policy.

Yes - the single parent will have access to extended family to balance out the single gender of influence... but, that is ALSO true of 'gay' parents.

Fourth point... curious that you raised the issue of Greek heroes raised in single parent families... you understand that Socrates and Hercules were both, not ONLY 'single' parent children... but were both ALSO 'born of virgins'?


Actually it has. The nuclear family as we now know it came into existance at the time of European industrialisation around about the 18th century. Prior to that, the rural and cottage industry settings had seen extended kin living all together very close, sometimes as far back as four generations. When the industrial revolution began, families moved into cities close to the factories and the houses were much smaller and more packed together. The older generation were often not fit enough to work on indusrial machinery of that era so they remained in the rural areas. I got an A at A-level sociology and families and households was a principle module so I know what I am talking about here.

You've made the same claims before, my friend.

You miss several important points here... firstly, that the wealthiest families have never seperated from the concept of 'extended family' in any great degree, and secondly, that industrialisation is STILL pretty 'modern'. We are hardly talking about a long history here... and we are assuredly not talking about a history of something that took place all at once.

What we have been talkng about is a 'trend'. Nuclear families have been becoming more popular since industrialisation... but there is no point at which the extended famiy has been replaced.

The other point, of course, is that all we have REALLY done, is CHANGED our definition of the 'extended family'. The Middle Class parents of a hundred years ago, had their own house in which they lived with their children. But they HIRED 'family' members, effectively. And, it is increasingly prevalent that friends now assume 'roles' traditionally assumed to be 'family' roles.

The 'nuclear family' has never REALLY existed... except on television, perhaps.

Why can't we go non-traditional and share him?

:)

But, you live in Australia, don't you.... what are we going to do, airmail him? :D

Google is somewhat unrelaible for statistcs. But it seems few people have bothered linking these rather obviously linked concepts

You're kidding right. Try the US census beureau. They haven't been linked because the majority of single mothers aren't divorcees.

Increasing burden yes, but ultimately if you better fund and better organise the system, it can work. I'm not saying the system will be perfect, but I think for a childs development at least it works better this way. Also considering that at present, at least in the UK there is often two years or so waiting list for an adoption, one of two situations is happening. Either there are not many childern entered into the abortion system so you have to wait or there are many many parents wanting to adopt. Either way it suggests the abortion system is not under any real strain and isnt likely to leave children in it for signifcent periods of time.

It can work =/= it's a benefit to children. Are you kidding?

You are wrong. There may be a waiting list but that is because many adoptive parents are very restrictive in terms of what child they want. The waiting list is generally for infants. At present there are 61000 children waiting to be adopted in England.

http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/stats/england.shtml

The diffrence between single parents and homosexual parents is single parents give you one influence from one sex and none from the other. That is unforunete but in some cases unavoidable. However for homosexual couples, it is a case of double the influence from a single gender. Thats a very diffrent case, which in my mind I can see harming a childs devolpment. I am not infromed enough on that particalar area to consider myself an expert but what I have seen in terms of the outline of it we have studied in Sociology A-level suggests that many children who have been in these situations in other countries have had issues relating to the opposite sex to the one that their parents are.

Amusing. So more parents equals bad why? You're going to have to build a bridge across that chasm in logic, friend. Would you oppose a home where I lived with my brother and wife? Would double the influence harm my son then? Based on what are you making the judgement that there will be no influences from the other gender in a homosexual home? Don't gay men have mothers, sisters, female friends, neices, sister-in-laws, etc?

You could argue just as easily that liberals force their beliefs on others. That socialists do, that conservatives do. Any political ideology by legislating according to the beliefs linked to that ideology are forcing their beliefs on others.


Which beliefs have liberals ever FORCED on you? Just curious...

Which beliefs have liberals ever FORCED on you? Just curious...

I'd say we force evolution on them.

The diffrence between single parents and homosexual parents is single parents give you one influence from one sex and none from the other. That is unforunete but in some cases unavoidable. However for homosexual couples, it is a case of double the influence from a single gender. Thats a very diffrent case, which in my mind I can see harming a childs devolpment. I am not infromed enough on that particalar area to consider myself an expert but what I have seen in terms of the outline of it we have studied in Sociology A-level suggests that many children who have been in these situations in other countries have had issues relating to the opposite sex to the one that their parents are.

No, bluntly, you're not anything approaching an expert. If you cast you eyes over articles published in the last 5 years in respectable sociology journals that most actual experts agree that having homosexual parents does warp, twist or otherwise contort a child's social abilities. This half-baked idea that having two male or two female parents gives you an 'overdose' of contact with one gender is nonsense, nothing more than bigotry dressed up in sociological and psychological terms.

Need I point out that world war 2 created a huge number of single parent families and yet the children grew up to be perfectly normal afterwards?

"Well Timmy did it!"

Ever tried to use that excuse when your parents caught you doing something wrong? Did it work then?

That isnt what I was saying

Every single political group of any type will, when it comes to power, legislate on the basis of their ideology. You can call that "forcing their belief on people" but it is true of every type of group. Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists etc.


I try not to make policy decisions based on myths.

I'm not in government. I'm not stating a policy decision. Just my opinon. If I was in government, I'd commsision some research into the matter to find out more.


Actually, there is little evidence that growing up with two parents of the same gender has any adverse effects on children. It is actually a suprisingly common arrangement in America (though the two guardians of the same gender tend to be mother and maternal grandmother). See, children get lots of exposure to adults through school, sports, neighbors, extended family, etc. Even beyond that, the non-biological differences between genders are fairly small, their influence upon children even smaller as most children develop social skills interaction with peers, not parents.

True perhaps, but unlike mother and maternal grandmother, the relationship is clearly disticnt. It isnt "two mothers" so to speek


Hows about you stop waving a good grade in a sociology course and take a child development or social psychology course before you start trying to play "measure the degree" next time? Thanks.

Read in context. I stated the infomation regarding my sociology degree in relation to my knowledge of the history of the development of the family unit. Not everything there. Please do not insult me without reading my post correctly.


Umm, why?

No, seriously, why? What purpose does an unhappy marriage serve?

There is a signifcient diffrence between a terminally unhappy marriage and one where there have been a few fights and the couple just decide to break it off.


More to the point, why should the government be able to "tighten the laws" regarding who can and cannot get a divorce and under what circumstances? Under what authority should the government wield that power?

The same authority it used to liberalise the laws in the mid 80's (at least the UK government did)


Tightening divorce laws just move society backwards towards old victorian paternalism. No thanks, I'd prefer my wife be a partner instead of property.

You instantly assume that by tightening divorce laws, I want to revert back to the days of Victorian England. No, I dont. But I do want to see the current wild trend of divorces somehowe lowered. People are no longer taking marriage seriously in the way they did used to. And when I say used to, I dont mean Victroian times.


That is where you're going, you can justify it in a thousand different ways, but using government power to enforce restraints on when and under what circumstances individuals can enter into and sever relationships will only serve to make those who want to leave have a more difficult time.

Well in some cases it may mean they have to work harder at their marriage, and when they do, they may discover new found joy. I know plenty of people who have talked to me about situations in their marriages but they have sorted it out and found new joy in it.


The third greatest socio-legal development of the 20th century (behind universal sufferage and civil rights) is no-fault divorce.

I think no-fault divorce is good to an extent. But I think it should be made a more difficult proposition than divorce on obvious grounds such as unfaithfulness, abuse etc. No-fault divorce makes people no longer think of divorce as what it is. A contract between two people. A promise, if you will. And what good is a promise if you can just break it with very few reprocussions.

You could argue just as easily that liberals force their beliefs on others. That socialists do, that conservatives do. Any political ideology by legislating according to the beliefs linked to that ideology are forcing their beliefs on others.

Yea, but most often, we enforce our beliefs by allowing people to choose whether or not they do something, so we aren't actually forcing anyone to do anything. If you prevent people from doing things, that is forcing your beliefs on someone else because they must make the decision you set out for them.



They wouldnt have more than one father or mother.
Your argument seems to be based on the fact that a family should be considered as a quantity of male versus female influences, as opposed to a group of people who love eachother... And the defining of marriage as "a group of people who love eachother" prevents divorces, whereas "a union between a man and a woman" merely promotes a marriage in the physical sense only, so it's in your interests as well to see it defined as a group of people who love eachother.

Another thing is that in America, you are free to do whatever you want, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences. You can choose not to pay your taxes, and you will go to jail. You can murder millions, and you will be given life in prison or more likely the death penalty. Disallowing gay marriage/adoption is the only case in which I can see something purely being prevented, meaning that it simply cannot happen and you have no choice. America is a free country and this is what has helped to define it as such.

:)

But, you live in Australia, don't you.... what are we going to do, airmail him? :D

Hmm, good point, good point. I say we all move to Sweden together.

Which beliefs have liberals ever FORCED on you? Just curious...

As I said. Legislating anything is forcing a belief on someone. Many liberals dont seem to understand. Their position is not unique. They are just one of a number of political belief systems. It is not inheriantly better than any other. Certianly not if you believe in a subjective moraltiy at any rate. If you believe in a subjective morality it seems (according to those I have talked to about it on here at least) you believe that if a diffrent set of events had happened historically, and a diffrent set of ideals came to be dominant than the ones that are now, that those ideas are just as "good" or "right" as the ones we have now. Thus Liberalism has no intricnsc value above conservatism.

You could argue just as easily that liberals force their beliefs on others. That socialists do, that conservatives do. Any political ideology by legislating according to the beliefs linked to that ideology are forcing their beliefs on others.

Okay. Pick a belief that is being forced on others that is not housed in the US Consititution.

They wouldnt have more than one father or mother.

And this is bad, why? Why would two influences from the same sex be a benefit? Do you support limiting the influences in heterosexual homes?

I'll try a different tact since you're clearly avoiding admitting that you think homosexuals are sinful and thus children shouldn't be exposed to them. In the absense of any evidence of harm would you oppose homosexual couples raising children?

I didnt say extended families were bad. I just said thats how the system worked prior to industrialsation.
In other words, you're just saying anything to avoid admitted that throughout most of history the 'ideal' family proposed by the right did NOT exist.

As I said. Legislating anything is forcing a belief on someone. Many liberals dont seem to understand.

So allowing you to choose your own beliefs is 'forcing' them on other people. Is freedom of religion 'forcing' my beliefs on your or allowing you to decide for yourself?

Their position is not unique. They are just one of a number of political belief systems. It is not inheriantly better than any other. Certianly not if you believe in a subjective moraltiy at any rate. If you believe in a subjective morality it seems (according to those I have talked to about it on here at least) you believe that if a diffrent set of events had happened historically, and a diffrent set of ideals came to be dominant than the ones that are now, that those ideas are just as "good" or "right" as the ones we have now. Thus Liberalism has no intricnsc value above conservatism.

So long as you don't value human rights. You forgot to add that important caveat.

I'd say we force evolution on them.

As in, you think we should force them to evolve.... ? ;)

Seriously, though... if you ignore science, evolution isn't making any policy decisions...

*snip divorce silliness*

See, here's what you don't get. The current state of the laws let's you decide how you raise your children, how you treat your marriage, who you marry, how long your marry, how you interact, etc.? That's not forcing beliefs on you. That's letting you decide how your life is run. On what authority do you propose that you should get to decide who gets to end their partnership and who doesn't? You said it's a contract and should be treated as such. Do you want a say in whether I end a partnership for business? Do you want a say in whether I get to end a lease on a vehicle or is that between me and the company that gave me the lease?

As I said. Legislating anything is forcing a belief on someone. Many liberals dont seem to understand. ... Thus Liberalism has no intricnsc value above conservatism.

That's not the question I asked.

I said "Which beliefs have liberals ever FORCED on you"...?

And, just for the record, "Legislating anything is forcing a belief on someone" doesn't necessarily ring true, now, does it.

If, for example, I 'legislate' freedom of ALL adults to vote, I am not impinging on the rights of one group, or another, am I? I'm forcing nobody to do anything.... all I'm doing is giving them 'choices'.

So - I ask again, which 'liberal' belief has been FORCED on you?

By the way, here are those statistics you "couldn't find". It took me one search and about three minutes.

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

35% of male parents and 42% of female parents were never married. Unless every other parent is divorce it's pretty unlikely that divorced single parents outnumber never married single parents.

But lets check -

Total single mothers who are divorced: 3.392 million
Total single mothers never married: 4.181 million

Oh, ooops.

By the way, it also points out the 56% of single parents have no other adults present in the household. That means the children are completely absent of another parental influence. Yep, that's certainly a benefit. I can see why you need to stop those 'icky' gays from adopting all the children.

That isnt what I was saying

Every single political group of any type will, when it comes to power, legislate on the basis of their ideology. You can call that "forcing their belief on people" but it is true of every type of group. Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists etc.

Not really, the best political groups attempt to establish certain minimums with an understanding that those who wish to live by more stringent moral codes are able to. My problem with you way of thinking, which is far too common in politics today, is that you are a nanny. You believe that you know better and that laws should be passed to make sure that people do what you feel they ought to do. You take religious beliefs and prejudices and then try to find reasons that they should be applied to everyone.

Heres my solution. If you don't like the idea of gay adoption then you should either decide not to be gay, not to adopt, or both. In addition, you can choose not to associate yourself with those who have made different choices. You can hand them pamphlets telling them how they'll end up in hell, you can refuse to let your children play with their children. All of that is well within your rights. When you decide to tell someone else that they can't adopt because you don't approve of where the parents put what on eachother, then you've crossed a very important line. You have crossed from being a jerk to infringing on individual liberty or human rights. That is the line. It is bold and bright. On one side there are citizen, on the other side there are subjects.


True perhaps, but unlike mother and maternal grandmother, the relationship is clearly disticnt. It isnt "two mothers" so to speek

Well, I've known quite a few kids who have called their grandmother mom,. but thats besides the point. Even if your assertion is 100% correct, so? Show me empirical evidence of harm, constitutional mandate for government legislation, and a study showing that the legislation proposed is the least restrictive course of action. Then we can talk.


Read in context. I stated the infomation regarding my sociology degree in relation to my knowledge of the history of the development of the family unit. Not everything there. Please do not insult me without reading my post correctly.

Fair point. You could have been more clear, but whatever. The point I was making is that a knowledge of history is kind of useless in this discussion. I don't really care about tradition. Opposition to gay marriage is not about history, it is about one of two things: either a hatred of homosexuals or a fear that growing up in a homosexual home might be harmful to children.

From your posts I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you fall into that second group. If you are worried about the effect of being raised in a homosexual home you need to bring evidence to the table and an understanding of child development. Shooting from the hip does not advance the argument.


There is a signifcient diffrence between a terminally unhappy marriage and one where there have been a few fights and the couple just decide to break it off.

So? Is it your marriage, is it your life? No, it isn't. If you want to work out your marriage, have fun. Why do you have the desire to enforce what works for you upon others?


You instantly assume that by tightening divorce laws, I want to revert back to the days of Victorian England. No, I dont. But I do want to see the current wild trend of divorces somehowe lowered. People are no longer taking marriage seriously in the way they did used to. And when I say used to, I dont mean Victroian times.

That might not be what you mean but it is what you are saying. You're looking back to a time that never existed. The effect of tightening marriage laws will be to force those who would otherwise want to dissolve the partnership to endure it. That is a reversion to the previous system. I'm not interested in cultural atavism.

If people don't want to take marriage seriously thats fine. It doesn't bother me. It doesn't effect me. It is their lives and I sure as hell don' presume to know whats best for them. I mean really, what is the danger of people not taking marriage seriously?


Well in some cases it may mean they have to work harder at their marriage, and when they do, they may discover new found joy. I know plenty of people who have talked to me about situations in their marriages but they have sorted it out and found new joy in it.

As have I, my issue is with your desire to force that work on others. If someone wants to work it out I think thats great, but I am sickened by the idea of making them do so. The government isn't our parents, we are not our brother's keepers.


I think no-fault divorce is good to an extent. But I think it should be made a more difficult proposition than divorce on obvious grounds such as unfaithfulness, abuse etc. No-fault divorce makes people no longer think of divorce as what it is. A contract between two people. A promise, if you will. And what good is a promise if you can just break it with very few reprocussions.

And there you go. That last sentance is the core of your argument. People should be punished for doing what you would not do.

As I said. Legislating anything is forcing a belief on someone. Many liberals dont seem to understand. Their position is not unique. They are just one of a number of political belief systems. It is not inheriantly better than any other. Certianly not if you believe in a subjective moraltiy at any rate. If you believe in a subjective morality it seems (according to those I have talked to about it on here at least) you believe that if a diffrent set of events had happened historically, and a diffrent set of ideals came to be dominant than the ones that are now, that those ideas are just as "good" or "right" as the ones we have now. Thus Liberalism has no intricnsc value above conservatism.


Do you perhaps mean progressives or socialists rather than liberals? The word liberal should, to a sociologist, evoke classical liberalism not progressive politics.

No - but the problem largely IS the 'religious right'... those people who espouse extremist right-wing views, and claim a divine mandate for doing so.

That doesn't mean all religious people are rightwing (Jocabia, himself being a perfect example), or that the rightwing is necessarily equivalent to the faithful.


Question: what IS the religious right? where do you define the center? That is exactly the problem. "Religious Right" is a label that extremists on the left have given a group of people attempting to demonize them in the eyes of the American Society. Admittedly, there ARE religous lunatics, Pat Robertson among them, but also Al Sharpton. But you most certainly cannot catagorize those two as being right obviously. No the "Religious Right" is anybody who does not expouse progressive views and is religous, that is the only definition that can stand. Examples? Anybody who is Christian and anti abortion is immediately labled "Religious right". I know, ive seen that happen, even though on every other issue that one can think of, they are very progressive, sometimes more than liberals. Another example: People from New York are automatically liberals and Democrats. Not really. Had Manhattan Island not voted at all in the last election, New York State would actually have gone for Bush. It is New York CITY (and more specifically, Manhattan Island) that is Liberal and Democrat.

Getting back to what i said above.... LIKE i said above, im merely relaying some arguements ive heard. I dont neccisarily believe in them, nor am i really capable of defending them. However, you seem to want to attack these ideas. Jocabia's very first word was an attack on it "Ridiculous". Infact, he uses Ridiculous four times. I was merely stating that these children WOULD be subjected to unsually high amounts of emotional trauma because of being adopted by gay parents. He did not even respond to that fact, he talked about something else when he "countered" the arguement. Having no parents may not be better than having gay parents, but they should consider this and other issues before adopting, if they truly want to love that child. Would you subject someone you love to a medical proceedure that could leave them crippled without significant forethought?

As for increasing the number of adoptive couples, yes letting gay couples adopt WOULD allieviate SOME of the stress, but again, that is just a stop gag. I would rather devote effort to FIXING the system not patching it. Unfortunately, politics in this country is all about patching a system because actaully wanting to fix a system would cost money and possibly fail, which means politicians would not be reelected.

one other thing Jocabia or anybody else who wants to answer: so just because we have more children to adopt then adoptees, you propose to kill the child? You want to choose to end the child's life instead of giving it the chance and opportunity to grow up and be a member of society? That sounds pretty hypocritical right there. Aborting a baby to keep them off the adoption pool is saying we have a bad situation, so lets make it worse. That is exactly what Hitler said about the Jewish people.

one other thing Jocabia or anybody else who wants to answer: so just because we have more children to adopt then adoptees, you propose to kill the child? You want to choose to end the child's life instead of giving it the chance and opportunity to grow up and be a member of society? That sounds pretty hypocritical right there. Aborting a baby to keep them off the adoption pool is saying we have a bad situation, so lets make it worse. That is exactly what Hitler said about the Jewish people.

*cough*Godwin's law*cough*

a good thing done for the wrong reasons doesnt make it right
I'm not talking about the issue, but this philosophy is crap. A good thing done is a good thing done, and thus right.

America invaded Europe in 1944 for her own economic interests. Not out of compassion for the oppressed people. But now Europe is much more democratic (not to mention being populated by non-'Aryans') than if the US had never intervened. Was America wrong in 1944?

Getting back to what i said above.... LIKE i said above, im merely relaying some arguements ive heard. I dont neccisarily believe in them, nor am i really capable of defending them. However, you seem to want to attack these ideas. Jocabia's very first word was an attack on it "Ridiculous". Infact, he uses Ridiculous four times. I was merely stating that these children WOULD be subjected to unsually high amounts of emotional trauma because of being adopted by gay parents. He did not even respond to that fact, he talked about something else when he "countered" the arguement. Having no parents may not be better than having gay parents, but they should consider this and other issues before adopting, if they truly want to love that child. Would you subject someone you love to a medical proceedure that could leave them crippled without significant forethought?

It is ridiculous. You can't actually be arguing that they'd be less traumatized by having no parents, are you?

As for increasing the number of adoptive couples, yes letting gay couples adopt WOULD allieviate SOME of the stress, but again, that is just a stop gag. I would rather devote effort to FIXING the system not patching it. Unfortunately, politics in this country is all about patching a system because actaully wanting to fix a system would cost money and possibly fail, which means politicians would not be reelected.

So fix the system. Meanwhile, there are millions of children around the world that need a loving home. Just because you are working on fixing the pipe doesn't mean that it's okay to let the water spill all over the floor. Somebody needs to get a bucket until the pipe is fixed and even then we have to make sure the water is going somewhere. It's ridiculous to act as if allowing adoption by gay couples somehow subjugates efforts to improve the system. Here's that word again - ridiculous. How do gay couples taking care of the children who are currently in the system a factor on whether the system gets fixed? In fact, wouldn't it give the system MORE money with which to right itself.

one other thing Jocabia or anybody else who wants to answer: so just because we have more children to adopt then adoptees, you propose to kill the child?

Nope. We believe there is no child and there is no killing. We are talking about people who believe that a child should be birthed and put up for adoption.

No one is arguing that an overburdened system is a reason to increase abortion. We are simply pointing out that people nonchalantly suggest that adoption is an alternative without a thought for the fact that there are already too many children in the system and those children are suffering. See, we are proposing that we not force children into the system by denying the rights of the mother to prevent a birth. We are proposing getting children out of the adoption system by allowing them to have loving parents.

See in our views, adoption is a horrible option and preventing a birth is a much better alternative. That's why we are consistent-

Better sex education (to prevent pregnancies)
Better birth control including the morning-after pill (to prevent pregnancies)
Legal abortions (to allow women to deal with pregnancies before a child enters the picture)
Better care for pregnant women regardless of financial position
More rights for single parents and more efforts to make sure children are cared for in these situations (once a child does enter the picture)
Better child support procedures for single parents
Better child care services made available to employees
Better schools for all children not just the rich ones
A better foster care system to deal with unwanted children
More open adoption procedures for single partents who are positioned to raise a child and for gay couples who are positioned to raise a child to remove the burden on the system.

All of these things are consistent because they address the problems that currently exist and help to alleviate problems in the future.

Now, let's look at the view of the religious right -
No abortion even though the most significant decrease in births was among teenaged mothers
No access to certain pregnancy prevention methods including the morning after pill
More restricted access to sex education
Less funding for all public programs including foster care, child care, child support programs, welfare, etc.
Less funding for care for single mothers, children of single mothers, and pregnant women
No requirements on businesses to provide or support child care services
Less even funding for schools so the rich continue to get good schooling while the poor have almost no access to good schooling
Children are not allowed to be adopted by loving parents unless they fit a mold created by the religious right. These children are required to remain in the already overburdened system.

EDIT: All of this adds up to an increase in unwanted children both by their parents and the government, a decrease in care for these children, and the prevention of giving these unwanted children to people who actually would like to raise and care for them. Pretty much it's the opposite of caring about kids, so can we stop pretending like this is an attempt to protect children and call it what it is. An attempt to make the 'laws' of Christianity (a very specific sect of Christianity) the laws of the land.

Yes, it's hyperbolous and not all of the religious right believes all of those things, but those are pretty traditional Republican positions and if you believe any one of them, you don't care about children, you care about the rich and about controlling women.

You want to choose to end the child's life instead of giving it the chance and opportunity to grow up and be a member of society? That sounds pretty hypocritical right there. Aborting a baby to keep them off the adoption pool is saying we have a bad situation, so lets make it worse. That is exactly what Hitler said about the Jewish people.

Um, could you please quote anyone who suggested such a thing or else abandon the strawman. How sad... I was wondering how long the thread would make it before the comparison to Hitler comes out. Not even ten pages.

*cough*Godwin's law*cough*

Damn, beat me to it.

Don't use the term "religious right" when refering to this. Not all religious people are right-wing. And a few of us aren't actually this stupid.
I don't think the term "religious right" implies that all religious people are right-wing (a ludicrous suggestion) or that all right-wing people are religious. It just describes a faction which share both of these characteristics (i.e. being religious and being right-wing).

Wait... are you really here wishing that you could return us to the pre-suffrage era, of women as possessions?
That is a straw-man... a great exaggeration of his opinion.

Is it any diffrent from any other politcal group or ideology forcing their belifs on someone by enacting them in law? No.

Difference between religion and ideology is that ideology can be argued about more objectively than religion, which usually requires faith.

Reactionary neo-cons don't have a speck of logic for a single thing they say.

They justify their anti-gay prejudice based on two or three bible quotes, meanwhile they can't even live by the basic tenets of Jesus' teachings or the ten commandments. Nothing but a bunch of two-faced hate-motivated hypocrites.

Hey, relax! ;)

Question: what IS the religious right? where do you define the center? That is exactly the problem. "Religious Right" is a label that extremists on the left have given a group of people attempting to demonize them in the eyes of the American Society.


It's nothing to do with "extremists on the left". I'm 'non-Partisan'... but I still use the term 'religious right', to describe politics that are 'right-wing', and justified by religion.


one other thing Jocabia or anybody else who wants to answer: so just because we have more children to adopt then adoptees, you propose to kill the child?

I don't recall anyone suggesting that...

That is a straw-man... a great exaggeration of his opinion.


I don't know about that... complaining that we have 'allowed too many rights' with our attitudes towards divorce, means that, at some points, some rights were 'not allowed'. To me - this sounds like someone lamenting women's suffrage.

Actually, yes he did say that. when he said that the "Religious Right" wants to disallow gay couples to adopt which reduces the number of couples that can adopt and disallow abortions which increases the number of children that need adoption, he implied that he would like to have abortion be a viable solution to the adoption problems in America. And with that implication, he is saying that he would rather kill the child instead of let it have the chance to grow up in the world. I get the feeling that we will not see eye to eye on this, as I personally view Abortion as murder. and since this thread is about adoption not abortion, i feel we do not need to go into that subject any further.

Actually, yes he did say that. when he said that the "Religious Right" wants to disallow gay couples to adopt which reduces the number of couples that can adopt and disallow abortions which increases the number of children that need adoption, he implied that he would like to have abortion be a viable solution to the adoption problems in America. And with that implication, he is saying that he would rather kill the child instead of let it have the chance to grow up in the world. I get the feeling that we will not see eye to eye on this, as I personally view Abortion as murder. and since this thread is about adoption not abortion, i feel we do not need to go into that subject any further.

You are creating a strawman... Jocabia did not express a preference... he just said it was hypocritical for the 'religious right' to put pressure on to ban abortion, thus causing a big increase in 'unwanted' offspring... which will swell the ranks of those NEEDING adoption.... and, at the same time, for that same group, to be applying pressure to prevent people from adoption.

Jocabia's view on abortion is not expressed, there... just his opinion about the hypocrisy.

Was America wrong in 1944?

No, but then again, 1944 only happened because we made a mistake going in in 1917.

True perhaps, but unlike mother and maternal grandmother, the relationship is clearly disticnt. It isnt "two mothers" so to speek

And what would be bad about having two mothers? I have two aunts - more than two actually - 4 total, plus an old family friend we all refer to as "Aunt". I have lots of uncles - 6, including in-laws. I've got enough cousins that I'm not going to do the count right now. I have a step-niece and a friend's child that calls me "Aunt."

Am I traumatized by having more than one person in my life fit into the role of "aunt" or "uncle" or "niece" or "cousin"?

Actually, yes he did say that. when he said that the "Religious Right" wants to disallow gay couples to adopt which reduces the number of couples that can adopt and disallow abortions which increases the number of children that need adoption, he implied that he would like to have abortion be a viable solution to the adoption problems in America. And with that implication, he is saying that he would rather kill the child instead of let it have the chance to grow up in the world. I get the feeling that we will not see eye to eye on this, as I personally view Abortion as murder. and since this thread is about adoption not abortion, i feel we do not need to go into that subject any further.

Ok, lots of people are talking about strawmen. You seem to have misunderstood some people's arguments. Yeah, happens all the time.

Good thing the board has a dick like me to come save the day, eh?

I'll come out and say it. Abortion has reduced the total number of children who need to be adopted and that is a good thing. There, no more strawman, I've taken that stance and I'm willing to defend it.

I'm pro-choice. I think that individuals have the right to decide who gets to use the resources of their body and under what circumstances that use is allowed to continue. One of the unintended benefits of abortion being legal and widespread is a drop in the number of children who would be otherwise in the system. Is that cold? Yes, it is, but it also happens to be reality.

There will never be enough adoptive families to take all the children who need to be adopted. Voluntary abortion helps on the one side, gay adoptions help on the other. It increases the overall number of positive outcomes.

You are creating a strawman... Jocabia did not express a preference... he just said it was hypocritical for the 'religious right' to put pressure on to ban abortion, thus causing a big increase in 'unwanted' offspring... which will swell the ranks of those NEEDING adoption.... and, at the same time, for that same group, to be applying pressure to prevent people from adoption.

Jocabia's view on abortion is not expressed, there... just his opinion about the hypocrisy.

I went back and reread. I was quoting one of Jocabia's earlier posts, but apparently one i didnt see posted had a clarification. i withdraw my comment directed at him, however The Sutured Psyche seems to have just affirmed my arguement.

I went back and reread. I was quoting one of Jocabia's earlier posts, but apparently one i didnt see posted had a clarification. i withdraw my comment directed at him, however The Sutured Psyche seems to have just affirmed my arguement.

Indeed, but you have to give somewhere to allow the adoption system to function and to eliminate the hypocricy in the argument.
Either:
A) You concede that a gay family has full adoption rights and that a gay family is just as good as a "regular" family.
OR
B) You concede that women have the right to abortion, especially if they are not able/ready/do not want to care for the child.

Now it all comes down to who you wish to restrict more: homosexuals, or women. And (as is likely because you agree with neither of the above statements,) if you do not agree with either of these, the hypocrisy of your argument remains...

However if you were to agree with both, I believe that we would see many less children in orphanages and many more in loving families (yes, homosexual families can be loving, just like heterosexual ones).

Actually, yes he did say that. when he said that the "Religious Right" wants to disallow gay couples to adopt which reduces the number of couples that can adopt and disallow abortions which increases the number of children that need adoption, he implied that he would like to have abortion be a viable solution to the adoption problems in America. And with that implication, he is saying that he would rather kill the child instead of let it have the chance to grow up in the world. I get the feeling that we will not see eye to eye on this, as I personally view Abortion as murder. and since this thread is about adoption not abortion, i feel we do not need to go into that subject any further.

I asked how the religious right planned to address this combined effect since they wish to cause it to happen. I was actually very clearly saying that we need to allow gay adoption because children deserve parents and that if the religious right gets their way the problem will become even worse.

I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-responsibility. These women are choosing not to have children they cannot raise. You would force them to have those children then you better be RESPONSIBLE and provide for those children. I have yet to see any among the religious right fighting as hard to protect the children who are already alive as they do for the unborn. I have yet to see any of those people fighting to make sure children don't spend their lives without parents, just the opposite actually.

What is it lately with trolls putting odwn their opinions and then declaring that they're going to stick their fingers in their ears and go "la, la, la".

When I read the Bible it tells me to be honest. Just admit that this is not about the children. This is about punishing women for being sexually active and punishing the gays for being evil. I notice you never answered my question. No shock there. It seems the religious right never answer that question. I've never seen such a defined and clear effortt to choose any deceptive method to avoid admitting the argument is completely about punishing the sinners.

I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Abortion is murder, right? If I came up to you and said I would not get an abortion (I'm a guy but pretend) if you adopt a child if it is born, would you raise it? How about if you and your family had to live your lives in abject poverty in the inner city and then abortion would be illegal? Would you be willing to make that sacrifice? I notice people are very willing to take away rights that don't effect them. I suspect if this was right that actually effected you, you wouldn't be so willing to vote them away.

I am all for Responsibility too. But i think responsibility starts before the woman becomes pregnant. I think it starts with when they decide to have sex. And not just women either. The father of the child is equally responsible for the child. this is why the childsupport and alimony laws exist in this world (inadiquate as they are). My opinion is that if a woman OR man wants to have sex, they should be ready for the fact that sex IS a biological function, not a playstation. its designed to procreate and expand the race, not to get a few minutes of fun.

unfortunately, it falls upon the woman to take the safeguards and bear the burden, because a man's role in this whole setup is jsut leave his seed. After that hes free to fly if he wants to (as wrong as it is). I think that if a woman is hell bent on sex, she should have her contraceptives up to date. but even then, even with the pill or a condom, there is always a small chance, and that every time she gets into bed, she (AND THE MAN) should be aware that it CAN produce a child.

I have no problem with a woman using contraceptives (save the morning after pill, which is abortion), but if she has decided that she is going to be an adult and have sex, she (and the man) should take responsibility for the consequences. A woman has the right to freely have sex. I dont think a woman has the right to murder because she used that right.

getting back on topic, I dont really have an opinion on gay couples adopting. both sides of the arguement provide some rather interesting and sound arguements. But i think instead of fighting over this issue, both sides should be fighitng to correct the adoptive system.

I am all for Responsibility too. But i think responsibility starts before the woman becomes pregnant. I think it starts with when they decide to have sex. And not just women either. The father of the child is equally responsible for the child. this is why the childsupport and alimony laws exist in this world (inadiquate as they are). My opinion is that if a woman OR man wants to have sex, they should be ready for the fact that sex IS a biological function, not a playstation. its designed to procreate and expand the race, not to get a few minutes of fun.

unfortunately, it falls upon the woman to take the safeguards and bear the burden, because a man's role in this whole setup is jsut leave his seed. After that hes free to fly if he wants to (as wrong as it is). I think that if a woman is hell bent on sex, she should have her contraceptives up to date. but even then, even with the pill or a condom, there is always a small chance, and that every time she gets into bed, she (AND THE MAN) should be aware that it CAN produce a child.

I have no problem with a woman using contraceptives (save the morning after pill, which is abortion), but if she has decided that she is going to be an adult and have sex, she (and the man) should take responsibility for the consequences. A woman has the right to freely have sex. I dont think a woman has the right to murder because she used that right.

getting back on topic, I dont really have an opinion on gay couples adopting. both sides of the arguement provide some rather interesting and sound arguements. But i think instead of fighting over this issue, both sides should be fighitng to correct the adoptive system.

I'm going to quote Judith Thomson to respond to your if you use controception you have to live with the consequences statement

If the room is stuffy and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house-for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle." It would be still more absurd to say this is I had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine its not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in.-A Defense of Abortion

I'm going to quote Judith Thomson to respond to your if you use controception you have to live with the consequences statement

If the room is stuffy and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house-for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle." It would be still more absurd to say this is I had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine its not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in.-A Defense of Abortion

Of course the difference is that the burglar coming in does not mean death. With abortion the unborn child would be given a death sentence. Hardly able to compare these two scenarios. People just hate the thought of taking responsibility when the easy way is so much well... easy. If given the choice to take the right way or the easy way...

Of course the difference is that the burglar coming in does not mean death. With abortion the unborn child would be given a death sentence. Hardly able to compare these two scenarios. People just hate the thought of taking responsibility when the easy way is so much well... easy. If given the choice to take the right way or the easy way...

Ah, yes, the dirty whore argument. At least that's an honest argument. The thing is that no one dies when there is no one to die. Yeah, the burgler is more like a branch of a tree falling on your house.

I'm going to quote Judith Thomson to respond to your if you use controception you have to live with the consequences statement

If the room is stuffy and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah now he can stay, she's given him the right to the use of her house-for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle." It would be still more absurd to say this is I had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine its not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in.-A Defense of Abortion

so what your saying is that a woman inst responsible for going down on her back and stripping off her clothes? she isnt responsible for saying no? or getting a condom or birth control?

In cases of rape its totally different though. But thats not even part of this discussion, im talking about voluntary sexual intercourse

Ah, yes, the dirty whore argument. At least that's an honest argument. The thing is that no one dies when there is no one to die. Yeah, the burgler is more like a branch of a tree falling on your house.

thats not the dirty whore arguement. I know many women who use their right to have sex freely and use it responsibly. they are not whores, at least not by *MY* definition (by some's definition they would be).

so what your saying is that a woman inst responsible for going down on her back and stripping off her clothes? she isnt responsible for saying no? or getting a condom or birth control?

In cases of rape its totally different though. But thats not even part of this discussion, im talking about voluntary sexual intercourse

More dirty whore arguments. Always a classic. I say we sew their vaginas shut. That'll teach the dirty whores, yeah?

You slipped and let your true and archaic colors show. One might point she voluntarily had sex, but she is not voluntarily pregnant. And the majority of abortions are had by people who used birth control.

Of course the difference is that the burglar coming in does not mean death. With abortion the unborn child would be given a death sentence. Hardly able to compare these two scenarios. People just hate the thought of taking responsibility when the easy way is so much well... easy. If given the choice to take the right way or the easy way...
That was not an arguement for abortion. That was an arguement against someone saying if a woman has sex she must accept the consequences of that action and have the child.


so what your saying is that a woman inst responsible for going down on her back and stripping off her clothes? she isnt responsible for saying no? or getting a condom or birth control?
No what I'm saying is if a woman has sex and knows about the possible consequences of it, that does not mean she has to consent to the actual consequnces. As in the quote if I open my window with full knowledge that a burglar could come into my home through it that does not mean that if a burglar does in fact come through it I have to accept that it happened and do nothing about it.

so what your saying is that a woman inst responsible for going down on her back and stripping off her clothes? she isnt responsible for saying no? or getting a condom or birth control?

In cases of rape its totally different though. But thats not even part of this discussion, im talking about voluntary sexual intercourse

Why is rape different? What makes the child conceived during rape less important?

Ah, yes, the dirty whore argument. At least that's an honest argument. The thing is that no one dies when there is no one to die. Yeah, the burgler is more like a branch of a tree falling on your house.

Did I mention promiscuous people? They are certainly included but it really doesn't matter. If you do the deed and get pregnant then you take responsibility. Or people should in any case.

No what I'm saying is if a woman has sex and knows about the possible consequences of it, that does not mean she has to consent to the actual consequnces. As in the quote if I open my window with full knowledge that a burglar could come into my home through it that does not mean that if a burglar does in fact come through it I have to accept that it happened and do nothing about it.[/QUOTE]


a woman AND a man should know that if they have sex, there is always the possibility of pregnancy happening. This isnt like leaving open the window, though if your in a slum neighborhood, it woudl be wise to invest in bars over the window. this is like inviting someone into your house. You have to be responsible and make sure the person doenst steal anything. Inviting someone into your house, then leaving him there while you go away for 3-4 hours is just silly. Same way, having sex without any sort of protections but not wanting a child is just silly.

Why is rape different? What makes the child conceived during rape less important?

Rape is different because the woman did not consentually have sex. It is a whole nother ball game here.

Of course the difference is that the burglar coming in does not mean death.


You do not know that.


With abortion the unborn child would be given a death sentence.

Some abortions involve "children" that already have a death sentence(ie Cystic Fibrosis).

Hardly able to compare these two scenarios.

Nice dodge of the point.


People just hate the thought of taking responsibility when the easy way is so much well... easy. If given the choice to take the right way or the easy way...

Ahhh the simpleminded answer to everything.

You don't know why the person chose that route. You assume. Most people don't make that choice easily.

a woman AND a man should know that if they have sex, there is always the possibility of pregnancy happening. This isnt like leaving open the window, though if your in a slum neighborhood, it woudl be wise to invest in bars over the window. this is like inviting someone into your house. You have to be responsible and make sure the person doenst steal anything. Inviting someone into your house, then leaving him there while you go away for 3-4 hours is just silly. Same way, having sex without any sort of protections but not wanting a child is just silly.

If I leave a window open there is the possibility of a burglar going through it and stealing stuff from my house. I know when I do that there is the possibility of it happening. That doesn't mean I have to accept that possibility in the same way that I can acknowledge that in having sex there is the possibility of the woman getting pregnant but I do not have to accept that possibility. Consent to the possibility of something happening does not mean consent to the actual event if it occurs.

That was not an arguement for abortion. That was an arguement against someone saying if a woman has sex she must accept the consequences of that action and have the child.

I got the arguement though by my post I don't agree with it. What do you mean it wasn't an arguement for abortion? Your second sentence adds up to the same thing.

-A Defense of Abortion

Remember?

Rape is different because the woman did not consentually have sex. It is a whole nother ball game here.

But how does that lessen the value of the life of the conceived child to the point where it is then acceptable to terminate it? Why are unborn children conceived in rape okay to abort, but other ones not?

thats not the dirty whore arguement. I know many women who use their right to have sex freely and use it responsibly. they are not whores, at least not by *MY* definition (by some's definition they would be).

Uh-huh.

You fail to see that people who consider abortion are often using birth control (think about who wants to be pregnant less than someone on birth control). They invested in bars and opened their window and the bars failed. Meanwhile it doesn't matter if there are a bunch of toughs outside my house and I have no screen and I can leave my door completely open, I still don't DESERVE to be robbed. Particularly I have a right to decide whether or not anyone or anything enters my property and uses it for nine months, particularly when that property affects my health and has a potential possibility to kill me.

I got the arguement though by my post I don't agree with it. What do you mean it wasn't an arguement for abortion? Your second sentence adds up to the same thing.



Remember?

Thats the title of the article. The quote itself is in reference to people saying that if one has sex they have to accept the responsibility of raising the child because they knew it was possible for them to get pregnant.

Rape is different because the woman did not consentually have sex. It is a whole nother ball game here.

See. It's the dirty whore argument. If you believe it's murder how is murder okay because SOME OTHER PERSON committed a crime. If you don't believe it's murder then how is it your friggin' business? It's obvious. In one case, there is a dirty whore and in the other there isn't. It's not about protecting the children. You are punishing women for being sexually active.

I got the arguement though by my post I don't agree with it. What do you mean it wasn't an arguement for abortion? Your second sentence adds up to the same thing.



Remember?

You really don't get it. The fact that you even mention the argument of "they chose to have sex" is that you view outlawing abortion as a punishment for promiscuous women. Stop pretending. You're pissed because women can be sexually active and know they won't get pregnant. You hate that don't you? Stop pretending like it's about the children. You have no right to punish women for sex.

But how does that lessen the value of the life of the conceived child to the point where it is then acceptable to terminate it? Why are unborn children conceived in rape okay to abort, but other ones not?

They're not. Only when the mother is in direct danger is this ever a choice.

They're not. Only when the mother is in direct danger is this ever a choice.

How do you judge which life is more valuable even in that instance?

You really don't get it. The fact that you even mention the argument of "they chose to have sex" is that you view outlawing abortion as a punishment for promiscuous women. Stop pretending. You're pissed because women can be sexually active and know they won't get pregnant. You hate that don't you? Stop pretending like it's about the children. You have no right to punish women for sex.

They did "choose to have sex" didn't they? With any act there are consequences and women should learn to live with them. Killing the unborn to get them out of their new responsibility is just wrong. Though I personally disaprove of promiscuity if they want to do it then fine, and if they don't get pregnant then there is no issue.

They're not. Only when the mother is in direct danger is this ever a choice.

First of all, learn to read.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10484545&postcount=118

See how that is a response to someone who said that women should be permitted to have sex in terms of rape.

Second, of course, you can no longer make the responsibility argument. Because you outlaw abortion whether the woman is responsible for the pregnancy or they aren't so this isn't about the woman being responsible. Clearly, you are willing to enslave a raped woman and force her to undergo pregnancy. It has not a darn thing to do with responsibility.

They did "choose to have sex." With any act there are consequences and women should learn to live with them. Killing the unborn to get them out of their new responsibility is just wrong. Though I personally disaprove of promiscuity if they want to do it then fine, and if they don't get pregnant then there is no issue.

Yep, and that's it. You disapprove so you want to punish the women. But it doesn't matter. You can't make the responsibility argument. It's not about responsibility because you deny raped women abortions as well. You just care about punishing women for having sex whether it's their choice or not. She was asking for it, right?

How do you judge which life is more valuable even in that instance?

You can't. I'm sure there are other situations out there where such a choice has to be made. Perhaps the father has to make a choice, his wife or child? How do you choose? That I can't answer but in this circumstance there is no option but to make a choice.

You can't. I'm sure there are other situations out there where such a choice has to be made. Perhaps the father has to make a choice, his wife or child? How do you choose? That I can't answer but in this circumstance there is no option but to make a choice.

Or nothing could be done, and we could let the natural course of events unfold, right?

You can't. I'm sure there are other situations out there where such a choice has to be made. Perhaps the father has to make a choice, his wife or child? How do you choose? That I can't answer but in this circumstance there is no option but to make a choice.
WHAT? The father gets to choose? Are you kidding me?

I'm going to hope you're talking about when she's unconscious.

Yep, and that's it. You disapprove so you want to punish the women. But it doesn't matter. You can't make the responsibility argument. It's not about responsibility because you deny raped women abortions as well. You just care about punishing women for having sex whether it's their choice or not. She was asking for it, right?

I don't think you are reading. The child should not have to pay for the woman's error. If you want to see that as punishment then go right ahead. My concern is that the child lives. You are taking what I am saying here and running with it where I had no intention of going.

You can't. I'm sure there are other situations out there where such a choice has to be made. Perhaps the father has to make a choice, his wife or child? How do you choose? That I can't answer but in this circumstance there is no option but to make a choice.
The father gets to make the choice?!
Excuse me? A woman should deal with possibly having her husband sacrifice her so he can continue his line?

Or nothing could be done, and we could let the natural course of events unfold, right?

If you want I suppose, but action sounds better than inaction to me.

If you want I suppose, but action sounds better than inaction to me.

But with action you are going to have to judge one life to be more valuable than another. How can you, or anyone, presume the moral authority to make that decision?

I don't think you are reading. The child should not have to pay for the woman's error. If you want to see that as punishment then go right ahead. My concern is that the child lives. You are taking what I am saying here and running with it where I had no intention of going.
It's not a child until it leaves the womb alive.

I don't think you are reading. The child should not have to pay for the woman's error. If you want to see that as punishment then go right ahead. My concern is that the child lives. You are taking what I am saying here and running with it where I had no intention of going.

How is rape the woman's error? Was she asking for it?

The father gets to make the choice?!
Excuse me? A woman should deal with possibly having her husband sacrifice her so he can continue his line?

It's a hypothetical. If the mother is unconsciousand the like? Otherwise we come back to she chooses if she wants to risk continuing the pregnancy or not.

Besides how do you know the woman would rather live while her child dies?

How is rape the woman's error? Was she asking for it?

When the hell did I ever say anything about rape? Then it is unfortunate but the child should not have to suffer for it.

But with action you are going to have to judge one life to be more valuable than another. How can you, or anyone, presume the moral authority to make that decision?

Come on now you would rather the doctors do nothing because choosing is morally questionable? Doing nothing is what will usually cause death of both mother and child.

When the hell did I ever say anything about rape? Then it is unfortunate but the child should not have to suffer for it.

Ah, goldfishing. I love when people do this. Do you forget what you post?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10484600&postcount=123

Okay, now follow along. Now, why should the woman have to suffer for being raped?

I've never understood the reasoning behind not allowing gay couples to adopt. They are no different than straight couples except they happen to be the same gender. Just because they're gay doesn't make them somehow incapable of being good parents.

I grew up with two mothers, and the only adverse effect it had on me was that I got teased in middle school for it. And everyone gets teased in middle school, so I don't see what difference it makes.

Ah, goldfishing. I love when people do this. Do you forget what you post?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10484600&postcount=123

Okay, now follow along. Now, why should the woman have to suffer for being raped?

I said only direct threat to the mother's life could the possibility of abortion be considered. It isn't her fault but once again, the child shouldn't have to pay for it.

I said only direct threat to the mother's life could the possibility of abortion be considered. It isn't her fault but once again, the child shouldn't have to pay for it.
Fine, and I said that if you feel that way then responsibility CANNOT be a factor because you will make her carry out the pregnancy whether or not she is responsible. Your argument does not center on responsibility so stop pretending like it does.

It's a hypothetical. If the mother is unconsciousand the like? Otherwise we come back to she chooses if she wants to risk continuing the pregnancy or not.

Besides how do you know the woman would rather live while her child dies?
It's not a child. If it is a child, then they aren't attached anymore and abortion isn't an issue.

Come on now you would rather the doctors do nothing because choosing is morally questionable? Doing nothing is what will usually cause death of both mother and child.

What suddenly makes it okay in this instance?

What suddenly makes it okay in this instance?
Perhaps he realizes that the actual life has greater value than the potential for life but just won't admit it...

Besides how do you know the woman would rather live while her child dies?
Isn't that kind of the point? We let a woman decide what she wants to do? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's what choice was all about.

Fine, and I said that if you feel that way then responsibility CANNOT be a factor because you will make her carry out the pregnancy whether or not she is responsible. Your argument does not center on responsibility so stop pretending like it does.

Responsibility is only a part of it. It is mostly for the child. I'm not going to repeat myself on this anymore.

It's not a child. If it is a child, then they aren't attached anymore and abortion isn't an issue.

Would unborn child be better? I doubt we're going to get anywhere on this issue but perhaps you could answer my question?

What suddenly makes it okay in this instance?

Because it would be wrong to do nothing if there were options one way or another? If you would rather have both die instead of choosing then that is your decision.

Because it would be wrong to do nothing if there were options one way or another? If you would rather have both die instead of choosing then that is your decision.

My situation did not say at all that both would die. If one or another are going to die, who dies? Which life do you save?

Would unborn child be better? I doubt we're going to get anywhere on this issue but perhaps you could answer my question?
No, unborn child is not better. Fetus is better. Embryo is better. Want to know why? Because they're the correct terms.
And a woman should always get to choose whether she wants her womb to remain occupied by a potential offspring.

Responsibility is only a part of it. It is mostly for the child. I'm not going to repeat myself on this anymore.

Let me explain logic to you. If you outlaw abortion whether the woman is responsible or not then you CAN NOT use it as an argument. Responsibility is obviously not the reasoning or you would allow exceptions for rape. So stop making the argument. Argue about the child. Mentioning responsibility is just you not wanting to miss a chance to mention that the whores deserve it.

So now we can focus on your real reasoning. You think it is a child. My answer to that is, prove it.

My situation did not say at all that both would die. If one or another are going to die, who dies? Which life do you save?

Is there an acceptable answer to this? You have to make a decision so the mother will have to choose. You can try to analyse the murky moral waters on this but it is the way it is. How do you choose? That is up to each person who I'm sure will all say something different.

Is there an acceptable answer to this? You have to make a decision so the mother will have to choose. You can try to analyse the murky moral waters on this but it is the way it is. How do you choose? That is up to each person who I'm sure will all say something different.

I would save the mother, but that's irrelevant. I don't consider the fetus a human being, and I of course value the life of the actual person more than the non-person. But you have placed such importance on the value of the unborn that I'd like to know what you would do. Stop dodging the question and tell me who you would save. It's your choice; no one else's. Don't continue to skirt responsibility.

Responsibility is only a part of it. It is mostly for the child. I'm not going to repeat myself on this anymore.
Also, you think that giving a kid up at birth is more responsable than aborting an embryo? How is passing the responsability off on someone else somehow better than following through an unpleasant medical procedure?

You think it is a child. My answer to that is, prove it.

Can you prove that it isn't? I don't think so. You have to go on the simple fact that this is an unborn child who will grow up and have a life out in the world. Killing the child before it can experience the world is just cruel. Any pregnant woman would not say "Oh, look at the fetus!" No, they'd say "baby!" Science is just people's opinions they can't prove either way. You can only go on personal beliefs which I don't see a consensus on coming anytime soon.

I would save the mother, but that's irrelevant. I don't consider the fetus a human being, and I of course value the life of the actual person more than the non-person. But you have placed such importance on the value of the unborn that I'd like to know what you would do. Stop dodging the question and tell me who you would save. It's your choice; no one else's. Don't continue to skirt responsibility.

For myself, I can not possibibly come to a decision right now. I'd like to believe that I would choose to save the baby but who knows what I'd do should the situation occur?

Also, you think that giving a kid up at birth is more responsable than aborting an embryo? How is passing the responsability off on someone else somehow better than following through an unpleasant medical procedure?

Perhaps because the child is alive? You can go on about the child's possible future in adoption systems but the simple fact is that alive is better than dead.

Science is just people's opinions they can't prove either way.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps because the child is alive? You can go on about the child's possible future in adoption systems but the simple fact is that alive is better than dead.

Tell that to someone who's been molested by a parent. Tell that to a homeless man who lives off of getting food from dumpsters. Your opperating off of an opinion which not everyone believes and is in no way A SIMPLE FACT as you think it is.

For myself, I can not possibibly come to a decision right now. I'd like to believe that I would choose to save the baby but who knows what I'd do should the situation occur?

That's what the mother gets for having sex, I suppose.

Science is just people's opinions they can't prove either way.

Patently false, and amazingly ignorant.

:rolleyes:

Yeah I put that quite poorly. :(

Proving the unborn child is human is impossible. It is only people's own opinions.

Perhaps because the child is alive? You can go on about the child's possible future in adoption systems but the simple fact is that alive is better than dead.
It's not a child when it's in the womb. And an aborted embryo isn't dead, it was never a life... it's a non-organism and remains as such.

I am totally :confused: as to why people are having such an issue with Gay adoptions. Frankly the Gay comunity is one of the most loving and caring comunities I have ever known. I am a gay male in San Francisco, and I want to have children someday.....Obviously I am not going to just go fuck some girl and leave her and the baby. I want to adopt. There are SO many children out there that need a home. Yhy not let that child go to a loving couple? I think children that grow up in mother-mother, or father-father families are more openminded, caring and just down to earth. If you think I am wrong let me know.

Yeah I put that quite poorly. :(

Proving the unborn child is "human" is impossible. It is only people's own opinions.
And as such if we can not prove wheter something is or is not we must side with the mother's choice because we know she is a person and has all the rights that are afforded to a person.

I think the pro-life people should start providing better options if they want all these "unborn children" to live. Seriously, don't force your ways on others unless you personally are willing to help us in those ways.

It's not a child when it's in the womb.

I thought you were talking about why the mother should put the child up for adoption instead of getting an abortion? Perhaps I misunderstood.

Can you prove that it isn't? I don't think so. You have to go on the simple fact that this is an unborn child who will grow up and have a life out in the world. Killing the child before it can experience the world is just cruel. Any pregnant woman would not say "Oh, look at the fetus!" No, they'd say "baby!" Science is just people's opinions they can't prove either way. You can only go on personal beliefs which I don't see a consensus on coming anytime soon.

Ha. Actually, I certainly can show that it's not a child. At the point when the majority of abortions occur, it does not scientifically qualify as an organism, and thus cannot be a child. Science is something we rely on for tons of laws especially medical decisions which is what an abortion is. If you are going to deny someone rights the burden of proof is on you.

You want the law to abridge the rights of a person for something you admit you have NO ABILITY to show is a person. The law should clearly favor the one we know is a person. A potential life argument is plain silly. An egg is a potential life. Is it murder to use a condom? A potential life and all. You have to show an objective reason why you choose the line you choose and you admit you can't. Happy to hear it. You admit you've got no legal basis for your wish to abridge the rights of the woman.

I thought you were talking about why the mother should put the child up for adoption instead of getting an abortion? Perhaps I misunderstood.
In the case of an abortion, the child in question never exists.

Perhaps because the child is alive? You can go on about the child's possible future in adoption systems but the simple fact is that alive is better than dead.

So back to the point of the thread. Then you must of course support gay adoption since you aren't trying to increase the number of children in the adoption system, aren't you?

An egg is a potential life. Is it murder to use a condom?

Let's not go overboard now. Sperm meets egg and cells divide and life begins. Congrats! You now have a son or daughter!

Let's not go overboard now. Sperm meets egg and cells divide and life begins. Congrats! You now have a son or daughter!
lol

Wow, so all that 9 months of gestation does nothing, I mean, you have a son or daughter right off the bat, huh?

An embryo is not a life, it does not meet the requirements for life. A fetus does not meet the requirements for life until the 20th week or so when it begins to perform stimulus response as an organism. Most abortions occur before week 12.

Let's not go overboard now. Sperm meets egg and cells divide and life begins. Congrats! You now have a son or daughter!

Um, no, you don't. You MIGHT have a son or daughter. There is only about a 1/3 chance of a birth resulting without any interference.

Your line is arbitrary. If potential is an argument then birth control could be outlawed. Masturbation. Whatever.

You really should learn a little more about this before you attempt to make these arguments.

So back to the point of the thread. Then you must of course support gay adoption since you aren't trying to increase the number of children in the adoption system, aren't you?

Yeah gay adoption I guess that was the point of the thread? ;)

I could care less really. The couple meets whatever guidelines there are to bring a child into their home sure. I'd have more reservations for the single parent then a gay couple.

lol

Wow, so all that 9 months of gestation does nothing....

Gestation? What is this, Alien? :D

An embryo is not a life, it does not meet the requirements for life. A fetus does not meet the requirements for life until the 20th week or so when it begins to perform stimulus response as an organism. Most abortions occur before week 12.

Requirements? Again it is just arbitrary judgements I'm sure made by abortion advocates. Besides is there even an agreement on requirements of life? When there is brain activity? A hearbeat? There is disagreement even on this.

Gestation? What is this, Alien? :D
No.

Requirements? Again it is just arbitrary judgements I'm sure made by abortion advocates. Besides is there even an agreement on requirements of life? When there is brain activity? A hearbeat? There is disagreement even on this.
No, it's not an arbitrary judgment made by abortion advocates, it's something biologists use to determine whether something is alive or not. Virii aren't alive because they fail to meet all the requirements for life. Similarly, embryos fail to meet the requirements for life so they are not lives.

And no, heartbeat isn't a requirement, as some organisms do not have hearts. Nor are brainwaves, as some organisms don't have brains.

And no, heartbeat isn't a requirement, as some organisms do not have hearts. Nor are brainwaves, as some organisms don't have brains.

I thought we at least were talking about mammals. I never would have thought we'd go to other forms of life. :rolleyes:

Besides I don't agree with that idea and even if I did it still would not make it right to kill the unborn child. On that hypothetical it would be a future person and it still would be wrong to rob the "fetus" from the opportunity to enjoy life. So in your view it is not a person until the child breaths? That if even in labor if you kill the child beforehand, sorry so close but still not a person?

I thought we at least were talking about mammals. I never would have thought we'd go to other forms of life. :rolleyes:

Besides I don't agree with that idea and even if I did it still would not make it right to kill the unborn child. On that hypothetical it would be a future person and it still would be wrong to rob the "fetus" from the opportunity to enjoy life. So in your view it is not a person until the child breaths? That if even in labor if you kill the child beforehand, sorry so close but still not a person?
:rolleyes: We're talking about requirements for life, correct? Life comes in all forms, humans don't have an exclusive deal where we're the only things that get to live on this planet, you know.

Again, it's not an unborn child, it's an embryo/fetus. And it can potentially become a person, yes, but an egg can potentially become a person too, an acorn could potentially become a tree, that doesn't make it one.
And it's not a life until it fullfills all the requirements for life, the final one for the fetus being stimulus response, which as I said already, doesn't occur until the 20th week.
Furthermore, if you're trying to talk about dilation and extraction procedures, those are done if the health or life of a woman is in danger, not for shits and giggles and also, labour is induced, not natural in those cases.

Gestation? What is this, Alien? :D

Dude, seriously, read a book. Gestation is the term for what goes on during that period.

[QUOTE=Utracia]Requirements? Again it is just arbitrary judgements I'm sure made by abortion advocates. Besides is there even an agreement on requirements of life? When there is brain activity? A hearbeat? There is disagreement even on this.
Arbitrary? The rules they made to decide what qualifies as an organism for ALL organisms are arbitrary. Could you propose a definition for an organism that is less arbitrary? Go ahead. Try.

Let's not go overboard now. Sperm meets egg and cells divide and life begins. Congrats! You now have a son or daughter!
You seem pretty sure of that line for someone who called all science a "matter of opinion".

EDIT: *points up* Or what he said, though I personally think mine was wittier.

Again, it's not an unborn child, it's an embryo/fetus. And it can potentially become a person, yes, but an egg can potentially become a person too, an acorn could potentially become a tree, that doesn't make it one.

And I will continue to call it the unborn child. I've already stated that sperm and egg have to meet and then you have your life. Otherwise an egg is just an egg.

I thought we at least were talking about mammals. I never would have thought we'd go to other forms of life. :rolleyes:

Besides I don't agree with that idea and even if I did it still would not make it right to kill the unborn child. On that hypothetical it would be a future person and it still would be wrong to rob the "fetus" from the opportunity to enjoy life. So in your view it is not a person until the child breaths? That if even in labor if you kill the child beforehand, sorry so close but still not a person?

We're not talking about mammals because before you can be a living mammal you have to meet the requirements for a living organism. An embryo meet neither.

Again, if it's future person that defines whether you can terminate then we're back to making birth control illegal. You keep flipping around, but your rules are more arbitrary than anything we're proposing and unlike ours yours are made up simply for the purposes of the abortion debate. That pretty much meets the definition ofr arbitrary.

And I will continue to call it the unborn child. I've already stated that sperm and egg have to meet and then you have your life. Otherwise an egg is just an egg.

Um... care to defend that point for being the time it becomes a 'life'? Speak of arbitrary.

Incidentally, how many funerals have you been to, heard of, suggested, etc. for a naturally aborted 'unborn child'?

And I will continue to call it the unborn child. I've already stated that sperm and egg have to meet and then you have your life. Otherwise an egg is just an egg.
And you continue to use the wrong terminology. And you completely ignored the scientific explanation of why a blastoclast isn't life.

And really, the egg is a potential life too, it just needs a sperm and an incubator... not much different in terms of potential from the fertilized egg really.

And I will continue to call it the unborn child. I've already stated that sperm and egg have to meet and then you have your life. Otherwise an egg is just an egg.
do you suppose that if you found that you (or your girlfriend if you are male) had fertilized an egg that failed to implant that you would want a funeral for your dead "baby"?

Dude, seriously, read a book. Gestation is the term for what goes on during that period.

Yeah. I just don't like the term, I find it annoying.

Again, if it's future person that defines whether you can terminate then we're back to making birth control illegal. You keep flipping around, but your rules are more arbitrary than anything we're proposing and unlike ours yours are made up simply for the purposes of the abortion debate.

My rules are arbitrary? I don't like abortion I have no problem admitting that. Birth control is just fine if it doesn't harm the unborn child. People don't like restrictions so if you want to see pro-life views as arbitrary fine.

do you suppose that if you found that you (or your girlfriend if you are male) had fertilized an egg that failed to implant that you would want a funeral for your dead "baby"?

Oh, come on, you can guess his sex, his age and his nationality simply by reading his posts.

And I will continue to call it the unborn child. I've already stated that sperm and egg have to meet and then you have your life. Otherwise an egg is just an egg.

Hmmm you do need to read a book.

Just because you have meiosis hardly classifies it as a child. You potentially have a child. It is not guaranteed.

Should we start having death certificates for all miscarriages? Should we hold the mother and or father for manslaughter for chomosonal deficincy? Being carriors of Cystic Fibrosis?

The major organs have to be in place before you can start considering it a child. For example, you can have instances of where no brain develops.....

Yeah. I just don't like the term, I find it annoying.



My rules are arbitrary? I don't like abortion I have no problem admitting that. Birth control is just fine if it doesn't harm the unborn child. People don't like restrictions so if you want to see pro-life views as arbitrary fine.

You rules are arbitrary. They only apply in a very specific scenario. Your definition of life only applies here. That's the very meaning of arbitrary. Our rules are assigned to ALL organisms and were defined for scientific reasons to address other organisms. We simply don't change the definition of life for our purposes here. Our rules are consistent. You'll find that's kind of the opposite of arbitrary.

Also, birth control does harm the unborn child. It prevents a child from being born just as surely as an abortion does. Without birth control there is no guarantee of a birth. Without an abortion there is no guarantee of a birth. IN both cases birth is the less likely outcome. Both fit under the purpose of preventing a birth. So how is your arbitrary line chosen and what assurance would we have that it wouldn't just shift again if we were to concede this ground? We wouldn't have any assurance because your rules are ... ARBITRARY.

Hmmm you do need to read a book.

Just because you have meiosis hardly classifies it as a child. You potentially have a child. It is not guaranteed.

Should we start having death certificates for all miscarriages? Should we hold the mother and or father for manslaughter for chomosonal deficincy? Being carriors of Cystic Fibrosis?

The major organs have to be in place before you can start considering it a child. For example, you can have instances of where no brain develops.....

I understand the basic biology. I'm jumping to far to make my point. I simply dislike the idea that before a certain period of time it is perfectly fine to abort. It will be a person even if you believe that it must be born first. Stopping that from happening is simply wrong.

By the way, where the hell are all the pro-life people? They all go to bed?

Oh, come on, you can guess his sex, his age and his nationality simply by reading his posts.
i did assume he was a boy. but its only an assumption

besides i do like to bring in a more feminine perspective now and then like when i referred to government interference in our reproductive lives as the state sticking its fingers in our vaginas to check for babies.

I understand the basic biology. I'm jumping to far to make my point. I simply dislike the idea that before a certain period of time it is perfectly fine to abort. It will be a person even if you believe that it must be born first. Stopping that from happening is simply wrong.

By the way, where the hell are all the pro-life people? They all go to bed?
oh theyll be back tomorrow. these threads never die, they just get postponed


it IS perfectly fine to have an early abortion. the vast majority of abortions occur before 8 weeks now. thats because of the amazing new early pregnancy tests that allow you to find out before you even miss a period (how accurate are those?). throwing up obstacles to abortion only really serve to make them later or worse, to force a woman to do stupid and dangerous things like pitching herself down the stairs to cause a miscarriage. no one wants that eh?

it IS perfectly fine to have an early abortion. the vast majority of abortions occur before 8 weeks now. thats because of the amazing new early pregnancy tests that allow you to find out before you even miss a period (how accurate are those?). throwing up obstacles to abortion only really serve to make them later or worse, to force a woman to do stupid and dangerous things like pitching herself down the stairs to cause a miscarriage. no one wants that eh?

I can't agree with this. Besides would anyone support abortions only in the first 8 weeks? I doubt that, they will want it to continue much later then that. Do you support any restrictions whatsoever?

I'm a guy by the way, just in case there was actually any confusion.

I can't agree with this. Besides would anyone support abortions only in the first 8 weeks? I doubt that, they will want it to continue much later then that. Do you support any restrictions whatsoever?

I'm a guy by the way, just in case there was actually any confusion.

Obviously. Most later abortions are only options when there is danger to the mother or the child is dead or dying. And while the majority of abortions occur before eight weeks a fetus does not qualify as an organism until about 12 at which point elective abortions are no longer an option in most states.

I can't agree with this. Besides would anyone support abortions only in the first 8 weeks? I doubt that, they will want it to continue much later then that. Do you support any restrictions whatsoever?

I'm a guy by the way, just in case there was actually any confusion.
what dont you agree with? that later abortions are bad? that its bad for women to resort to selfhelp when it comes to unwanted pregnancies?

its not that i would restrict abortions to 8 weeks or less, its that reality is restricting them to 8 weeks or less. the advances in pregnancy testing means that a woman knows sooner than ever that she is pregnant and can make a quick decision as to whether or not she wants to continue it. thats a really good thing.

2nd and 3rd trimester abortions arent done from whim but from medical necessity. you find out that the baby you WANT has some defect. to make those remedies illegal is wrong. but there needs to be state regulation especially of 3rd trimester abortions that might kill a viable fetus. most states have reasonable laws that require a doctor to certify that late abortions have some medical necessity ("late" varies from 20 weeks to viable to 3rd trimester)

2nd and 3rd trimester abortions arent done from whim but from medical necessity. you find out that the baby you WANT has some defect. to make those remedies illegal is wrong. but there needs to be state regulation especially of 3rd trimester abortions that might kill a viable fetus. most states have reasonable laws that require a doctor to certify that late abortions have some medical necessity ("late" varies from 20 weeks to viable to 3rd trimester)

To chim in with a story. My parent-in-laws had another child with Cystic Fibrosis. It was such a nasty form of it that the autopsy showed organs that looked like she had lived with the disease for years. She lived two weeks. All of it undermachinery and drugged.

My mother-in-law once remarked she felt the girl didn't even know who she was.

Where is the value in that? All these years later and they still haven't gotten over it.

I think a lot of this has to do when you consider a pregnancy to be an actual human.
Does it start at fertilization?
In the last trimester?
Or when the baby is birthed and the umbilical cord is cut off?

And really, the egg is a potential life too, it just needs a sperm and an incubator... not much different in terms of potential from the fertilized egg really.

Quite diffrent. Unlike a fertialised egg, a sperm cell and an egg cell on their own in their natural enviroment will remain just that. A sperm and an egg. Unlike a fertialised egg that is growing.

Of course the difference is that the burglar coming in does not mean death. With abortion the unborn child would be given a death sentence. Hardly able to compare these two scenarios. People just hate the thought of taking responsibility when the easy way is so much well... easy. If given the choice to take the right way or the easy way...

You are alllowing your own prejudices to cloud the issue for you. Don't feel bad, it's a natural response when the subject matter is so... well, subjective.

You claim that there are two options... the 'right' way and the 'easy' way.

How many abortions have you had?

As a man, I have had very few... but I have close friends who HAVE had abortions, and, for most of them... it has been very ahrd to decide WHAT was the 'right' thing to do, and, if they decided to opt for abortion, it has often been VERY far from 'easy'.

Also - sorry, my friend, but your argument relies SO heavily on inflammatory rhetoric... your whole response here, is basically an 'appeal to emotion'. If you want to preach, I believe street corners are a legal venue. If you want to DEBATE, you might want to stick to logic and reason. Or not. Up to you.

so what your saying is that a woman inst responsible for going down on her back and stripping off her clothes? she isnt responsible for saying no? or getting a condom or birth control?

In cases of rape its totally different though. But thats not even part of this discussion, im talking about voluntary sexual intercourse

Saying 'yes' to sex does NOT equate to saying 'yes' to pregnancy.

You are alllowing your own prejudices to cloud the issue for you. Don't feel bad, it's a natural response when the subject matter is so... well, subjective.

You claim that there are two options... the 'right' way and the 'easy' way.

How many abortions have you had?

As a man, I have had very few... but I have close friends who HAVE had abortions, and, for most of them... it has been very ahrd to decide WHAT was the 'right' thing to do, and, if they decided to opt for abortion, it has often been VERY far from 'easy'.

Also - sorry, my friend, but your argument relies SO heavily on inflammatory rhetoric... your whole response here, is basically an 'appeal to emotion'. If you want to preach, I believe street corners are a legal venue. If you want to DEBATE, you might want to stick to logic and reason. Or not. Up to you

To be fair, thats exactly what you have done here You've basicly said

"If a woman decides to have an abortion *sniff* its a very, *sniff* *tear rolls down cheek* hard *blows nose* choice"

Rape is different because the woman did not consentually have sex. It is a whole nother ball game here.

Do you not realise, you are therefore arguing that some 'unborn babies' are LESS deserving of 'life' than others... based on the actions of a third party they had no control over?

And, since you CAN see a difference between the demand for abortion after rape, and after consensual sex... your argument then becomes a matter of 'well, she asked for it' in the case of the consensual sex.

Which means, you are not 'saving babies', you are punishing morality that you do not agree with.

Saying 'yes' to sex does NOT equate to saying 'yes' to pregnancy.

Why not. This is exactly my arguement against abortion except in the cases of rape and medical risk. Women have consentual sex with the knowledge that one outcome of that sex is pregnacy. They can lower the risk of that outcome with contriception but they cannot eliminate it completely. Therefore they must accept a possibility of it. Like throwing a dice. You must accept that there is an outcome of beteween 1 and 6. You can somehow throw the dice to favor one number or another but you cant crush the dice if its an outcome you dont like

To be fair, thats exactly what you have done here You've basicly said

"If a woman decides to have an abortion *sniff* its a very, *sniff* *tear rolls down cheek* hard *blows nose* choice"

Not at all. I made no expression of what I believed... I merely relayed what they have felt.

Also - since I was responding to a post that was entirely an 'appeal to emotion', part of my response was to explain how that 'appeal to emotion' was subjective, not objective.

If I show that the 'emotion' appealed to, is not the ONLY emotion option, we are left with REASON as the only logical arena for the discussion.

Why not. This is exactly my arguement against abortion except in the cases of rape and medical risk. Women have consentual sex with the knowledge that one outcome of that sex is pregnacy. They can lower the risk of that outcome with contriception but they cannot eliminate it completely. Therefore they must accept a possibility of it. Like throwing a dice. You must accept that there is an outcome of beteween 1 and 6. You can somehow throw the dice to favor one number or another but you cant crush the dice if its an outcome you dont like

Okay... let me take it back to first principles.

If you are religious, you believe God (or gods) imbued the human flesh with carnal urges. If you accept evolution, you accept that one of the mechanisms that has helped to perpetuate our species, is an active sex drive.

Whichever way you look at it, we WANT to have sex. It is a stronger 'hunger' than that for food or sleep, for example... that gives an idea of the potency of that urge.

So. Why do we have sex? For MOST of us, MOST of the time, we are not thinking about popping out the next generation. We are acting on an extremely potent urge, and/or we are wishing to express feelings for another.

Can we test this theory? Yes - easily.

If sex is about 'popping out sprogs', there is no 'need' for that urge to exist WITHIN one gender, or within persons who cannot conceive.

The simple fact that we USE contraception, makes a liar of that idea.

Also, of course, were that idea true, it would be impossible for a sexual partner to orgasm through any form of intercourse that was not penis-vagina sex.

So. What is consensual sex? It can only be the submission to the urge, or a desire to express emotion (love, gratitude... sympathy). Thus, the REPURCUSSIONS of the act, are NOT involved in the ACCEPTANCE of the act.

A man can love his wife, and want to have intercourse with her. That doesn't mean he wants more children... it is just what his emotion and his flesh are telling him to do.

I've said it before... if one claims that ACCEPTING sex, is the same as ACCEPTING pregnancy, one is ALSO arguing that ACCEPTING a ride to work, equates to ACCEPTING a horrendous car-wreck... or that ACCEPTING lobster-bisque, is ACCEPTING choking horribly to death.

They're not. Only when the mother is in direct danger is this ever a choice.

So... a woman should be forced to have an unwanted child, even if it means her two year old child that she already has, starves to death?

I've never understood the reasoning behind not allowing gay couples to adopt. They are no different than straight couples except they happen to be the same gender. Just because they're gay doesn't make them somehow incapable of being good parents.

I grew up with two mothers, and the only adverse effect it had on me was that I got teased in middle school for it. And everyone gets teased in middle school, so I don't see what difference it makes.

I agree. Some of the people I have known that have been the MOST 'well-adjusted' have come out of families of 'unconventional' construction.

Oh, and your name rocks. :)

Why not. This is exactly my arguement against abortion except in the cases of rape and medical risk. Women have consentual sex with the knowledge that one outcome of that sex is pregnacy. They can lower the risk of that outcome with contriception but they cannot eliminate it completely. Therefore they must accept a possibility of it. Like throwing a dice. You must accept that there is an outcome of beteween 1 and 6. You can somehow throw the dice to favor one number or another but you cant crush the dice if its an outcome you dont like

I assume that in the event of a car crash, you don't expect insurance to cover for you?

Or that you drive a car with one less safety feature like airbags?

In most cases, first trimester abortions are the final safety net. Removing that would be like removing airbags from cars. You don't always use it, but when it is needful, you're thankful it's there.

Killing the child before it can experience the world is just cruel.

I'd argue, killing a child AFTER it has experienced the world would be more cruel.

A surgical procedure, carried out before the entity can feel pain, versus a death from starvation (for example) as an unwanted child?

Don't try to use the 'humane' argument, my friend... it really doesn't help your case.

but the simple fact is that alive is better than dead.

Matter of opinion, and one I would have to argue was, not only subjective, but also... immoral.

Which is better, a prolonged suffering before death, or a quick painless 'way out'?

For me... if I had the choice of spending the next few years in agony, or taking an overdose of morphine, you better believe I'm going to be SERIOUSLY considering the 'medication'.

I do not accept your argument that QUANTITY of life, trumps QUALITY of life.

I find it interesting that the same people who suggest that women who cannot afford to raise children but are pregnant should HAVE to have the child and then they should put it up for adoption. This increases the number entering the already overburdened adoption and foster care system.

At the same time, they try to pass laws disallowing adoption by gay couples. This decreases the number of children leaving the foster care system.

Does it take a math whiz to figure out how ridiculous that is?

I'm interested in learning what solution is being proposed by these people who want to force more children into the adoption system with less options for adoption?
Why do people persist in thinking that the forced-childbirth movement (aka "pro-life" movement) has the slightest thing to do with babies? It's about control and domination. Fetuses and embryos are only important insofar as they help to control women. Once they're born, fuck 'em.

Why do people persist in thinking that the forced-childbirth movement (aka "pro-life" movement) has the slightest thing to do with babies? It's about control and domination. Fetuses and embryos are only important insofar as they help to control women. Once they're born, fuck 'em.

Exactly.

And... how can we prove this?

1) Mostly, the people who oppose abortion, are the same people who oppose sex-education. Logical reasoning then: those people want more 'unwanted' pregnancy.

2) The money that is spent contesting abortion, COULD be being used to feed 'children' already born. The fact that it is NOT being spent that way, means that the FOETUS is more important than the potential child.

but.. but.. they'll raise them to be gay!
Are you serious?!?
:rolleyes:
There has been NO example of this. No proof what so ever. The men might be a bit feminine but they still will like women. and same with the girls, a bit masculine but still preffering men.

Are you serious?!?
:rolleyes:
There has been NO example of this. No proof what so ever. The men might be a bit feminine but they still will like women. and same with the girls, a bit masculine but still preffering men.

He clearly was being sarcastic....

Are you serious?!?
:rolleyes:
There has been NO example of this. No proof what so ever. The men might be a bit feminine but they still will like women. and same with the girls, a bit masculine but still preffering men.
Are you serious? Gender and sexuality, are different things, as is sexual preference. They are only marginally related, really. You get seriously maculine homosexual males and horribly effeminate heterosexual males; and so on. Three different issues.

Matter of opinion, and one I would have to argue was, not only subjective, but also... immoral.

Which is better, a prolonged suffering before death, or a quick painless 'way out'?

For me... if I had the choice of spending the next few years in agony, or taking an overdose of morphine, you better believe I'm going to be SERIOUSLY considering the 'medication'.

I do not accept your argument that QUANTITY of life, trumps QUALITY of life.

My posts were all on that experiencing potential hardships going through adoption is better than being aborted. Being born with a nasty fatal disease is an entirely different circumstance one that the mother will have to choose to abort so there is no suffering. I did not think of this possibility but in this case it is no different than pulling the plug on an adult in an end-stage disease. Euthanasia is something I have no problem with.

But this and other scenarios are not the norm. Mostly it is just women dodging responsibility. When you have sex you acknowledge the possibility of pregnancy. You use protection to prevent that but if it occurs anyway? Well, you knew the risk.

But this and other scenarios are not the norm. Mostly it is just women dodging responsibility. When you have sex you acknowledge the possibility of pregnancy. You use protection to prevent that but if it occurs anyway? Well, you knew the risk.

I disagree. Many (most?) abortions, from what I recall, are women who are already mothers, and believe it would be 'bad' or 'irresponsible' to bring another child into the world.

One could argue that the woman is practising a form of euthenasia, where the 'disease' is the hardship of being unwanted, and too much for the 'mother' to support...

I am all for Responsibility too. But i think responsibility starts before the woman becomes pregnant. I think it starts with when they decide to have sex. And not just women either. The father of the child is equally responsible for the child. this is why the childsupport and alimony laws exist in this world (inadiquate as they are). My opinion is that if a woman OR man wants to have sex, they should be ready for the fact that sex IS a biological function, not a playstation. its designed to procreate and expand the race, not to get a few minutes of fun.

The amount of ignorance in that post is shocking. Still, I'll start at the top and work my way down. Your responsibility argument doesn't really work. You argue that the woman should have thought about getting pregnnt before she had sex and thats the end of that. The major problem is that the argument would seem to allow abortion in instances when the woman did no consent to sex (rape or incest) which is inconsistant with the second half of your argument: abortion is murder. If you want your argument to have any internal consistancy you have to choose one of the following stances:

a) You must either take the position that all abortion is wrong regardless of how the pregnancy happened because abortion is murder, which means that you need to come out and say that a potential life is more important the the physical and emotional well being of an incest victim.

or

b) Abortion should be banned to punish women who do not take enough steps to ensure their own chastity.


Both of those stances are archaic and, essentialy, rooted in religious faith. There is no valid constitutional argument you can put forward to support them, there is only an assertion of faith. It is important to understand this because it is the core of the OP. Banning abortion -like banning sodomy, gay marriage, sex toys, or gay adoption- is an attempt to impose the moral beliefs of a minority upon society even though those moral beliefs are incompatiable with the rules of that society. It should tell you that there is something inherantly wrong with your opinion when the only way you have of enforcing it is to change the constitution in such a way as to limit the freedom of individuals. Personal freedom has only been limited once in the constitution, and the amendment which did so was repealed.

In cases of rape its totally different though. But thats not even part of this discussion, im talking about voluntary sexual intercourse


You just lack the ability to think more than one step ahead, don't you?

If I leave a window open there is the possibility of a burglar going through it and stealing stuff from my house. I know when I do that there is the possibility of it happening. That doesn't mean I have to accept that possibility in the same way that I can acknowledge that in having sex there is the possibility of the woman getting pregnant but I do not have to accept that possibility. Consent to the possibility of something happening does not mean consent to the actual event if it occurs.


There are quite a few jurisdictions where you would be within your legal rights to shoot and kill that burglar. Even if you left the window open, even if all they were doing was stealing, if you say stop and they don't, you suddenly have legal justification. The law doesn't consider all murder wrong, and I can't imagine a more invasive burglary than someone stealing my own bodily resources and taking up residence in my abdomen.

But how does that lessen the value of the life of the conceived child to the point where it is then acceptable to terminate it? Why are unborn children conceived in rape okay to abort, but other ones not?


'Cause everyone knows that God is totally ok with punishing the son for the sins of the father. Its in the bible.

You just lack the ability to think more than one step ahead, don't you?

You rock :)

What happened to the sig? You think we wouldn't notice?

I said only direct threat to the mother's life could the possibility of abortion be considered. It isn't her fault but once again, the child shouldn't have to pay for it.

Ok, heres a question. Without resorting to personal opinion or the bible, tell me when an fetus becomes a child. Be sure to include science and caselaw in your definition.

Can you prove that it isn't? I don't think so. You have to go on the simple fact that this is an unborn child who will grow up and have a life out in the world. Killing the child before it can experience the world is just cruel. Any pregnant woman would not say "Oh, look at the fetus!" No, they'd say "baby!" Science is just people's opinions they can't prove either way. You can only go on personal beliefs which I don't see a consensus on coming anytime soon.

If a fetus is a person why is it that only recently have states begun to treat the intentional causing of a miscarriage in a women who has not consent murder? Why is it that it is a relatively new development that some jurisdictions charge someone who killed a pregnant woman with two counts of murder? Why is it that english common law and US precedent have not traditionally recognized a fetus as a person? Why is it that citizenship comes from birth, not conception?

Heres a good one, why is it that Roe v. Wade was a case about medical privacy not about murder? Why is it that every single legal challenge to abortion seems to be peripheral? Why is it that no one is seriously attempting to assert that a fetus is a person under the law? Theres a concensus, has been for years, choosing to be blind doesn't change that.

Okay... let me take it back to first principles.

If you are religious, you believe God (or gods) imbued the human flesh with carnal urges. If you accept evolution, you accept that one of the mechanisms that has helped to perpetuate our species, is an active sex drive.

Whichever way you look at it, we WANT to have sex. It is a stronger 'hunger' than that for food or sleep, for example... that gives an idea of the potency of that urge.

So. Why do we have sex? For MOST of us, MOST of the time, we are not thinking about popping out the next generation. We are acting on an extremely potent urge, and/or we are wishing to express feelings for another.

Can we test this theory? Yes - easily.

If sex is about 'popping out sprogs', there is no 'need' for that urge to exist WITHIN one gender, or within persons who cannot conceive.

The simple fact that we USE contraception, makes a liar of that idea.

Also, of course, were that idea true, it would be impossible for a sexual partner to orgasm through any form of intercourse that was not penis-vagina sex.

So. What is consensual sex? It can only be the submission to the urge, or a desire to express emotion (love, gratitude... sympathy). Thus, the REPURCUSSIONS of the act, are NOT involved in the ACCEPTANCE of the act.

A man can love his wife, and want to have intercourse with her. That doesn't mean he wants more children... it is just what his emotion and his flesh are telling him to do.

Whether or not they "want" to have a child when they have sex is irrelevent. It must be accepted as a possible outcome. Sex is an urge, yes. And it is not always about having children, yes. But people have to accept that a possible out come of sex is a child.


I've said it before... if one claims that ACCEPTING sex, is the same as ACCEPTING pregnancy, one is ALSO arguing that ACCEPTING a ride to work, equates to ACCEPTING a horrendous car-wreck... or that ACCEPTING lobster-bisque, is ACCEPTING choking horribly to death.

You accept the posibilty of a car crash all the time when you drive. You obviously dont want it to happen when it does. However your comparison is flawed. Unlike pregnacy, if you get in a horrendous car accident, getting you out does not require someone to die. The resolution of the situation does not require a death. However that is the case in pregancay. And that is the flaw. When you get in a car you must accept the posibilty of a car crash. If you didnt, you wouldnt get in the car. But fortunetly, the resolution or solving of that situation does not require anyone to die. However that is the case in abortion. To put it in a diagram form

Pregnacy = posibilty of child -> if posibility is realised -> solution -> abortion =1 certian death

Driving = posibility of crash -> if posibility is realised -> solution -> emergency services resuqing you from the car = possible danger for Emergency services but uncertian*

So yes, when driving you implicitly accept the posibility of a crash, its not like you can do anything else. But when driving, the resolution of the problem of a crash does not involve anyones certian death. Obviously there is a posibilty of a death from the act of driving itself, but unlike abortion it is not certian. Abortion is a certian death for the child.

*(besides they chose to be in that danger, the child didnt)

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/022406gopAdopt.htm

An Ohio Democrat is proposing legislation that would prevent Republicans from adopting children, a move aimed at embarrassing the GOP over moves to block gay adoptions.

State Sen. Robert Hagan (D-Youngstown) admits his bill is purely "tongue-in-cheek" but says that the message is anything but a joke...

Earlier this month a bill to ban gays, bisexuals, and transgenderds from adopting was proposed by 10 far-right Republicans. It was introduced in the House this month by state Rep. Ron Hood (R-Ashville)...

In Hagan's email to fellow lawmaker's he skewers Hood's assertions, offering his own "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

Quite diffrent. Unlike a fertialised egg, a sperm cell and an egg cell on their own in their natural enviroment will remain just that. A sperm and an egg. Unlike a fertialised egg that is growing.

Only if you define a natural environment in a specific way. The natural function of the sperm and the egg is for them to meet. Preventing them from doing so could be and has been defined us murder under the same logic you are currently using. That's why your argument is arbitrary, because past evidence shows this IS actually a slippery slope and that given the legal backing there are many that would outlaw birth control in general. Prove me wrong. Show me any objective reason why we should consider it a life from conception. Keep in mind your potential argument is ridiculous because the potential to birth a human after conception is slim, so much so that we can only speculate how many fertilized eggs never implant. Keep in mind that in the "natural state" sex would result in children much more often.

To be fair, thats exactly what you have done here You've basicly said

"If a woman decides to have an abortion *sniff* its a very, *sniff* *tear rolls down cheek* hard *blows nose* choice"

Um, no, he didn't. He responded by debating the point that a poster claimed it was 'easy'. He didn't try to make people sympathize with the patient, simply to understand it's not a decision taken lightly. Why don't you make an attempt to look at this stuff rationally? It would really help your argument.

Why not. This is exactly my arguement against abortion except in the cases of rape and medical risk. Women have consentual sex with the knowledge that one outcome of that sex is pregnacy. They can lower the risk of that outcome with contriception but they cannot eliminate it completely. Therefore they must accept a possibility of it. Like throwing a dice. You must accept that there is an outcome of beteween 1 and 6. You can somehow throw the dice to favor one number or another but you cant crush the dice if its an outcome you dont like

Okay, so you believe a child is murdered when an abortion occurs, yes? How do you justify 'murdering' a 'child' because someone else committed rape?

Besides I don't agree with that idea and even if I did it still would not make it right to kill the unborn child. On that hypothetical it would be a future person and it still would be wrong to rob the "fetus" from the opportunity to enjoy life. So in your view it is not a person until the child breaths? That if even in labor if you kill the child beforehand, sorry so close but still not a person?

That is a Christian view incompatible with American tradition and jurisprudence. We rob actual people of their futures all the time. We have the death penalty, we allow you to kill others in self-defense or in defense of third parties, we draft citizens into wars knowing full well that they will either kill or be killed, we hire citizens to become soldiers in order to kill others in the interest of our nation. The US doesn't turn the other cheek, we don't bend over backwards to preserve life. Welcome to the real world, life isn't sacred in this society, imagining that it has been is looking back fondly on a past that never existed.

Only if you define a natural environment in a specific way. The natural function of the sperm and the egg is for them to meet. Preventing them from doing so could be and has been defined us murder under the same logic you are currently using. That's why your argument is arbitrary, because past evidence shows this IS actually a slippery slope and that given the legal backing there are many that would outlaw birth control in general. Prove me wrong. Show me any objective reason why we should consider it a life from conception. Keep in mind your potential argument is ridiculous because the potential to birth a human after conception is slim, so much so that we can only speculate how many fertilized eggs never implant. Keep in mind that in the "natural state" sex would result in children much more often.

The sperm and the egg if left to themselves do nothing other than remain sperm and egg cells. When they fuse, the result is neither a sperm or an egg cell. Preventing something from coming to exist is diffrent from destroying something that already exists. Thus the logic which you are saying - that murder would be keeping egg and sperm apart would be murder is flawed since if egg and sperm are kept apart, that is all they are. Sperm and egg. Before you now say "Aha! So preventing something from existing is diffrent from destroying it. Thus we can prevent the child from existing by destroying the embryo" that logic is flawed also. For the simple reason that while there may be significent changes and developments, it is still the same entity. In much the same way that though a plant may grow from a seed, the seed is just an eariler stage of development in the plant. The embryo, unlike the egg and the sperm is not just a cell waiting to be reacted upon by another cell. It is a growing and changing mass of cells.

My posts were all on that experiencing potential hardships going through adoption is better than being aborted. Being born with a nasty fatal disease is an entirely different circumstance one that the mother will have to choose to abort so there is no suffering. I did not think of this possibility but in this case it is no different than pulling the plug on an adult in an end-stage disease. Euthanasia is something I have no problem with.

But this and other scenarios are not the norm. Mostly it is just women dodging responsibility. When you have sex you acknowledge the possibility of pregnancy. You use protection to prevent that but if it occurs anyway? Well, you knew the risk.

You can't use the responsibility argument because it is not a factor in your decision to outlaw abortion. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp. You do not allow an except for rape so it has nothing to do with responsibility. Quit acting like that's your reasoning.

Your only possible argument is to address whether or not a child exists as the time of abortion. Anything else is plainly spurious and subjugating the true reasoning.

Okay, so you believe a child is murdered when an abortion occurs, yes? How do you justify 'murdering' a 'child' because someone else committed rape?

That is the only case where the mothers rights have been violated and she did not choose to have the child attached to her. Then the child becomes a parasite because unlike when the woman willingly had sex, she did not choose it to be there. It is unfair to force a woman to have a child that she herself did not accept the posibility of having.

My rules are arbitrary? I don't like abortion I have no problem admitting that. Birth control is just fine if it doesn't harm the unborn child. People don't like restrictions so if you want to see pro-life views as arbitrary fine.

So, basically, you're saying that the only acceptable forms of birth control are barrier methods, spermacide, sterility? If you do a little bit of homework you'll see that both the pill and IUDs interfere with implantation. Granted, they interefere at such an early stage that no one ever even notices that they're pregnant.

Still, does birth control which interferes with implantation count as an abortion?

The sperm and the egg if left to themselves do nothing other than remain sperm and egg cells.

Patently false. If I have sex (and since without sex we're not really discussing anything), if the sperm and the egg are left to themselves they have a small potential to become a person. By using a condom, I am ending that potential. If conception occurs, there is a slightly larger potential to become a person. By using the morning after pill, I am ending that potential. If implantation occurs, there is a slightly larger potential to become a person. By getting an abortion, I am ending that potential.

You are showing no qualitative difference in these practices other than your own arbitrary line that fits your cause du jour.

That is a Christian view incompatible with American tradition and jurisprudence. We rob actual people of their futures all the time. We have the death penalty, we allow you to kill others in self-defense or in defense of third parties

In those situations the people you are robbing the future off has done something wrong. What has an embryo done wrong


we draft citizens into wars knowing full well that they will either kill or be killed, we hire citizens to become soldiers in order to kill others in the interest of our nation.

I personally oppose the idea of conscription, but if you have it I would hope that the wars you are going to fight are self defence. IE if you didnt kill them, they would kill you. So again there is a party that is in the wrong that is why the killing is nessetated. In abortion the one who is dying has done nothing wrong.

That is the only case where the mothers rights have been violated and she did not choose to have the child attached to her. Then the child becomes a parasite because unlike when the woman willingly had sex, she did not choose it to be there. It is unfair to force a woman to have a child that she herself did not accept the posibility of having.

I see. So it is okay to 'murder' the 'child' so long as the woman wasn't sexually active? Good. It's clear what your intentions are. You don't think it's 'murder' or you couldn't allow such an exception that 'murders' an innocent. You simply want to punish women for having sex. At least, you're being clear about. Many people here won't admit it.

Patently false. If I have sex (and since without sex we're not really discussing anything), if the sperm and the egg are left to themselves they have a small potential to become a person. By using a condom, I am ending that potential. If conception occurs, there is a slightly larger potential to become a person. By using the morning after pill, I am ending that potential. If implantation occurs, there is a slightly larger potential to become a person. By getting an abortion, I am ending that potential.

You are showing no qualitative difference in these practices other than your own arbitrary line that fits your cause du jour.

No. When you have sex, up till the point that they fuse, they are still sperm and egg cells. They are not developing or changing in the same way as an embryo does. There is a massive diffrence between not creating a life and killing one. Can't you see that.

I see. So it is okay to 'murder' the 'child' so long as the woman wasn't sexually active? Good. It's clear what your intentions are. You don't think it's 'murder' or you couldn't allow such an exception that 'murders' an innocent. You simply want to punish women for having sex. At least, you're being clear about. Many people here won't admit it.

I dont think its "ok". I just think its the only option. It isnt really fair to force a woman to have a child that was forced on herself. Yes it is very very bad to abort a child but when it comes down to it, its not the woman's fault in that case that she has to do it.

It doesnt matter. You'd oppose me either way any way. If I said "abortion shouldnt be allowed in any case" you would say "how can you do that to rape victims" and in this case, your just insulting me. I dont like the fact that women may have to abort embryo's as a result of rape, but in my eyes its a sadly nessecary evil. What I hate more is the fact that someone does go out to rape somone else. That is worse. In that situation it is the rapist who condems the child to death if it is aborted, not the woman.

Whether or not they "want" to have a child when they have sex is irrelevent. It must be accepted as a possible outcome. Sex is an urge, yes. And it is not always about having children, yes. But people have to accept that a possible out come of sex is a child.



You accept the posibilty of a car crash all the time when you drive. You obviously dont want it to happen when it does. However your comparison is flawed. Unlike pregnacy, if you get in a horrendous car accident, getting you out does not require someone to die. The resolution of the situation does not require a death. However that is the case in pregancay. And that is the flaw. When you get in a car you must accept the posibilty of a car crash. If you didnt, you wouldnt get in the car. But fortunetly, the resolution or solving of that situation does not require anyone to die. However that is the case in abortion. To put it in a diagram form

Pregnacy = posibilty of child -> if posibility is realised -> solution -> abortion =1 certian death

Driving = posibility of crash -> if posibility is realised -> solution -> emergency services resuqing you from the car = possible danger for Emergency services but uncertian*

So yes, when driving you implicitly accept the posibility of a crash, its not like you can do anything else. But when driving, the resolution of the problem of a crash does not involve anyones certian death. Obviously there is a posibilty of a death from the act of driving itself, but unlike abortion it is not certian. Abortion is a certian death for the child.

*(besides they chose to be in that danger, the child didnt)

There you go. So show objectively that anyone died. You can't. In fact, you clearly don't actually believe it since you're willing to 'murder' a fetus if the father is a criminal.

No. When you have sex, up till the point that they fuse, they are still sperm and egg cells. They are not developing or changing in the same way as an embryo does. There is a massive diffrence between not creating a life and killing one. Can't you see that.

I can see that you drew an arbitrary line in the sand. It's arbitrary because I can use the exact logic to argue for anywhere else I decide to draw the line.

I dont think its "ok". I just think its the only option. It isnt really fair to force a woman to have a child that was forced on herself. Yes it is very very bad to abort a child but when it comes down to it, its not the woman's fault in that case that she has to do it.

It doesnt matter. You'd oppose me either way any way. If I said "abortion shouldnt be allowed in any case" you would say "how can you do that to rape victims" and in this case, your just insulting me. I dont like the fact that women may have to abort embryo's as a result of rape, but in my eyes its a sadly nessecary evil. What I hate more is the fact that someone does go out to rape somone else. That is worse. In that situation it is the rapist who condems the child to death if it is aborted, not the woman.

Sounds like you're saying that the life of the potential child is worth less than the mother's. Good. We agree. And regardless of what your opinion of the woman is and that you feel she shouldn't be sexually active, I don't agree to pregnancy when I have sex anymore than I agree to a crash when I get in a car. In both case, all possible measures should be taken to protect me from harm.

I love the rather amusing inconsistency of arguing that KILLING a BABY is okay if the baby is a result of rape. Arbitrary lines are so fun to debate about.

Again, it's not an unborn child, it's an embryo/fetus. And it can potentially become a person, yes, but an egg can potentially become a person too, an acorn could potentially become a tree, that doesn't make it one.
And it's not a life until it fullfills all the requirements for life, the final one for the fetus being stimulus response, which as I said already, doesn't occur until the 20th week.

Actually, there is a rudimentary nervous system allowing some stimulus response at 10-12 weeks, so it would qualify as an organism at that point. The 20th week is when higher order brain function is first seen - something many claim is necessary for personhood.

Actually, there is a rudimentary nervous system allowing some stimulus response at 10-12 weeks, so it would qualify as an organism at that point. The 20th week is when higher order brain function is first seen - something many claim is necessary for personhood.

My stance is the higher order brain function is necessary, just as it is necessary to be considered alive at any other point in your life, but then I'm not an advocate of simply making up an arbitrary line to punish women for having sex.

I have no problem with a woman using contraceptives (save the morning after pill, which is abortion),

Wrong. The morning after pill is simply a higher dose of a normal birth control pill. It works via the same mechanisms and can cause the same effects. Normal birth control will sometimes allow ovulation, and can result in a fertilized egg failing to implant. The morning after pill is simply a cautionary measure that does the same thing - with slightly more certainty.

Sounds like you're saying that the life of the potential child is worth less than the mother's. Good. We agree. And regardless of what your opinion of the woman is and that you feel she shouldn't be sexually active, I don't agree to pregnancy when I have sex anymore than I agree to a crash when I get in a car. In both case, all possible measures should be taken to protect me from harm

All posible messures short of someones death. You can be saved from a car crash without someone dying.


I love the rather amusing inconsistency of arguing that KILLING a BABY is okay if the baby is a result of rape. Arbitrary lines are so fun to debate about.

I dont think its "ok" I think its a nessecary evil. Like war. Its not good, but it is a nessecary option to have. No one would deny that Britain needs an armed force. Basicly the case where the woman does not consent to the child being within her is when it becomes a parasite. If she chooses to have sex, she does consent to a possiblity. That posibility is lowered by birth control, but not eliminated. Hence she must accept a small posibility

Why not. This is exactly my arguement against abortion except in the cases of rape and medical risk. Women have consentual sex with the knowledge that one outcome of that sex is pregnacy. They can lower the risk of that outcome with contriception but they cannot eliminate it completely. Therefore they must accept a possibility of it. Like throwing a dice. You must accept that there is an outcome of beteween 1 and 6. You can somehow throw the dice to favor one number or another but you cant crush the dice if its an outcome you dont like

They do accept the possibility of getting pregnant, much like I accept the possibility that I may be in a horrible accident every time I get on the freeway in my car. However, just as I would expect to have my bones reset and my wounds sewn up if I were in such an accident, a woman who does not wish to be pregnant expects to be able to correct the results of the accident - by ceasing to be pregnant.

All posible messures short of someones death. You can be saved from a car crash without someone dying.

Again, so you said it's acceptable to kill someone if it's not your fault that they need to die to save your life. Are you backpedalling now?

"Sorry, buddy, I'm allowed to kill you so long as it's not my fault your death is necessary to preserve my health."

I dont think its "ok" I think its a nessecary evil. Like war. Its not good, but it is a nessecary option to have. No one would deny that Britain needs an armed force. Basicly the case where the woman does not consent to the child being within her is when it becomes a parasite. If she chooses to have sex, she does consent to a possiblity. That posibility is lowered by birth control, but not eliminated. Hence she must accept a small posibility
You do realize that what qualifies as a parasite has nothing to do with consent or a level of responsibility. If it's a parasite, it's a parasite. You admit it's a parasite. You wish to deny the woman the basic freedom of removing it because she knew there was a wildly remote chance it might end up there if she had sex.

But fortunetly, the resolution or solving of that situation does not require anyone to die. However that is the case in abortion.

This is an unsupported opinion. Scientifically, no human person dies in most abortions.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/02/022406gopAdopt.htm

That is freaking awesome!

This is an unsupported opinion. Scientifically, no human person dies in most abortions.
And even if we were to assume that a fetus is a human person, there would still be absolutely no legal justification for prohibiting abortion. So I don't see why anybody wastes time on that line of argument.

And even if we were to assume that a fetus is a human person, there would still be absolutely no legal justification for prohibiting abortion. So I don't see why anybody wastes time on that line of argument.

Particularly while simultaneously arguing that it's acceptable to kill that human person so long as someone else commits a crime.