posted 12-02-2001 15:01            

Up until the 1970's abortions could be funded by medicare.

posted 12-02-2001 17:37            

Now... the size of Kansas compared to the size of Tokyo... I don't know exactly the dimensions, I don't care enough about it to look, but well... if not Kansas, then Kansas and Nebraska.

The point is, the world is not at the brink of overpopulation. Species naturally level out to fill the area that they live in - we have not yet begun to do that. Our population (human) is increasing indefinately. It will, eventually, level off... but come on people... this world isn't overcrowded.

If you feel too cramped, then that's your problem. Deal with it.

And all of you fuckers talking about credibility - you've stated no facts at all except for feelings of people not even knowing of you.

Quote from Duke:

Bottom line: It's still the individual's decision, pro-life activists need to stop telling people what to do and mind their own fucking business.

OK. If, and when, Abortion is re-outlawed [it was legalized by a 5-4 supreme court vote], then you will not be whining much, right? Because it won't any longer be the person's decision. They will have to simply choose "not" to put a dick in their pussy, unless they can handle the consequences.

posted 12-02-2001 18:10            

Oh yes, I can't wait until abortion is illegal again, there's nothing like a breach of personal freedom. You might as well give all your personal information to Microsoft (assuming they don't have it already) and let them run your life.

posted 12-02-2001 18:15            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazon:

Could I myself have one? Yes and no. As a pagan, I believe that all life is sacred. What if it was rape? I'd prolly bear it, but give it up for adoption.
But then again, would I? I don't know. Seems to me that a large portion of adopted children are abused anyway...
ARGH! I am TOTALLY confusing myself with this post...

---

I never said Pagan = Pro-Life. I even said that I have met a lot of pagans with different views than Amazon (meaning 100% pro choice). But of course, by the time you posted you realized your error, you're just too smart not to... right?

And well, you don't get it. If abortion was illegal... there would be no breach. The personal freedom simply wouldn't exist anymore; it couldn't be breached if it didn't exist.

I consider life a personal freedom; whose place is it to infringe upon that? Not yours. Not mine. Not anybody's.

posted 12-02-2001 18:37            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KetchupRAT:

And well, you don't get it. If abortion was illegal... there would be no breach. The personal freedom simply wouldn't exist anymore; it couldn't be breached if it didn't exist.

---

If your personal freedom was controlled, then you no longer have 100% personal freedom. It's too easy to assume that it doesn't exist. Why don't you tell everyone that they don't have personal freedom anymore, tell them it just doesn't exist.

And regarding the 'Pagan' line, please look through your post again. When I read Amazon's post, it describes her indecisiveness about the whole situation. Drawing a conclusion from that, she would not be considered to be of the pro-life view.

quote:

---

And to Amazon - I'm really surprised that you are on that side. I've had quite a few of these "discussions" with Pagans, and usually, they're on the other front.

---

So when you say she is on 'that' side, to me it meant more of the pro-choice side.

The majority of this thread has been discussing pro-life and pro-choice views. Now if you were trying to discuss some particular aspect regarding the 'Pagan' line (and not choice vs. life, in general), then you need to specify or reword your paragraphing.

posted 12-02-2001 19:14            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke:

If your personal freedom was controlled, then you no longer have 100% personal freedom. It's too easy to assume that it doesn't exist. Why don't you tell everyone that they don't have personal freedom anymore, tell them it just doesn't exist.

---

You don't have 100% personal freedom, you never will have 100% personal freedom. You have, are entitled to, and I will never try to take away from anybody the freedoms which do not infringe upon the personal freedoms of other. One of these personal freedoms is the right to life; abortion is an infringement upon these rights.

And, if abortion is ever reverted to being an illegal thing, I will say the exact same thing about what I say about murder (since they are the same thing): it's your choice. You know the consequences.

I really can't stop anybody from having an abortion, can I? Even if it's illegal, people won't care... it's just, if it's illegal, people will in fact spare the life that would otherwise be killed. I know that 100% of the lives will be saved... but more will. Then I will have won.

quote:

---

And regarding the 'Pagan' line, please look through your post again. When I read Amazon's post, it describes her indecisiveness about the whole situation. Drawing a conclusion from that, she would not be considered to be of the pro-life view.

So when you say she is on 'that' side, to me it meant more of the pro-choice side.

The majority of this thread has been discussing pro-life and pro-choice views. Now if you were trying to discuss some particular aspect regarding the 'Pagan' line (and not choice vs. life, in general), then you need to specify or reword your paragraphing.

[This message has been edited by Duke (edited 12-02-2001).]

---

No. I meant it to be more of a pro-life side than other Pagans I had talked to (well, more specifically, Wiccans... I usually confuse the two, but Wiccans are Pagans, while Pagans are not necessarily Wiccans).

posted 12-02-2001 19:50            

Forcing a woman to bear a child that she does not want is NOT a nice, shiny happy thing for that child that you can post on your fucking refrigerator as your Good Deed For The Day. All too often, it's a sentence to a living hell of resentment and neglect that will result in another generation even more profoundly unhappy than the last.

posted 12-02-2001 20:19            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
If you aren't [b]personally willing to raise the child which will result from a fetus borne to term, then you don't even faintly have the right to dictate to the woman carrying that fetus what to do with it.

Forcing a woman to bear a child that she does not want is NOT a nice, shiny happy thing for that child that you can post on your fucking refrigerator as your Good Deed For The Day. All too often, it's a sentence to a living hell of resentment and neglect that will result in another generation even more profoundly unhappy than the last.

So, you tell me - you offered to adopt any unwanted babies lately? If not, why not?[/B]

---

Why does the mother have the right to decide whether the child should live or not? If she doesn't want to borne the child, then she first of all shouldn't engaged in the act of reproduction.

You think this is an unhappy generation? You're pathetic. Our life is the best anybody has ever seen in history. You're a whiner, a pathetic loser who can't make more of his life than being a dumbass who writes bullshit on websites and thinks he's popular because the consensus agrees with him.

All too often? No. Not all too often. Never. If a woman doesn't want a baby, she has an abortion. You're thinking hypothetically. What if the woman didn't want the baby, but had to have it? Then.. yes, well, the circumstances may be different. But they're not.

And why haven't I adopted any one? The waiting line is over three years. Three years. We're not looking at a shortage of parents to adopt - it's not like you see orphans running the street looking for food off the curb.

posted 12-02-2001 21:00            

By the way:

--Japan is not self sufficient. They need to import a lot of food. People taking up space also results in a lot of animals losing habitat.

--People were getting pregnant with unwanted children well before there was such a thing as an abortion. The rate of ladies "accidentally" falling down the stairs has dropped as of late. Circumstances were different, number of unwanted babies was not all that different.

--3 year waiting lists are (supposed to be) for the protection of the children, not because of a lack of children.

--You know, I bet we can just ship the pregnant girls to convents to have the child and then force the child into an orphanage.

--What about the fathers of the children?

--The air is thin in space

--Buffy the Vampire Slayer is really an interesting television program, and that proves that the theory of relativity is bull!

--The color green.

--I read Life magazine because of the articles, and I think they mentioned abortion once in relation to some famine in a developing nation. I kinda got the opinion that they were against it, so therefore you're going to hell.

posted 12-02-2001 21:06            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clme:
You know, I bet that we can settle a debate thats been going on for 50 years by a few points made in a goddamn message board. In fact, resorting to calling one another names and focusing on a few freaking points in a complicated argument is really really a good idea. Hell, I bet we could even come up with some unoriginal ideas and unfounded resolutions without any backup or research! In fact, when someone does trounce us, lets just call them names and not defend our original ideas! Even better, lets pick another set of ridiculous ideals to tout!

---

quote:

---

[/b]By the way:

--Japan is not self sufficient. They need to import a lot of food. People taking up space also results in a lot of animals losing habitat.

--People were getting pregnant with unwanted children well before there was such a thing as an abortion. The rate of ladies "accidentally" falling down the stairs has dropped as of late. Circumstances were different, number of unwanted babies was not all that different.

--3 year waiting lists are (supposed to be) for the protection of the children, not because of a lack of children.

--You know, I bet we can just ship the pregnant girls to convents to have the child and then force the child into an orphanage.

--What about the fathers of the children?

--The air is thin in space

--Buffy the Vampire Slayer is really an interesting television program, and that proves that the theory of relativity is bull!

--The color green.

--I read Life magazine because of the articles, and I think they mentioned abortion once in relation to some famine in a developing nation. I kinda got the opinion that they were against it, so therefore you're going to hell.

I thought I'd contribute my own little gambit to the ongoing flame war. Now that I've doused myself in gasoline, please continue with your debate on wether windows is better than linux, or whatever was going on.[/B]

---

You're a fucking retard man. I'm not even gonna type here anymore... I expected more out of you, dood...

posted 12-02-2001 21:13            

Also, there is no conflict that can be resolved by applying one of two extreme and mutually exclusive competing viewpoints.
[/]

[applies to this thread in particular]

It amazes me that with abortion, we have this incredibly complex and emotionally charged issue, and yet the people arguing it (on both sides) always seem to talk as if the only reason there is a conflict at all is because the other side is too fucking boneheaded to see the obvious truth.

Personally, I'm glad to have someone (KR) here to represent what is probably, to most regulars here, the "other side" of the dispute, and I for one am not terribly interested in flaming him til he leaves, so we'll all agree again and we can start narrowing down the discussion until we find somewhere we don't agree (say, federal funding) so we can start over again.

That said,
Jimbo: Nobody's talking about "telling a woman with a fetus what to do with it." We're discussing abortion, and whether, or to what extent, it should be legal. Abortion is a big issue in society, whether you think it should be or not, and you might as well say that no-one who isn't a practicing biologist should open their mouths about environmental issues, or that my opinion about gay rights means nothing because I'm not gay. Further, it's not an argument based in logic, because if KR had replied, "actually I adopted a baby last week and I'm adopting another Thursday," it wouldn't have changed your opinions about abortion a bit- you were just charging that he wasn't entitled to an opinion.

KRat- You know perfectly well that a lot of children grow up- in America and around the world, in pretty dire straits, and that what is commonly termed "Family Planning" could do a lot to lessen that suffering, whether it took the form of abstinence, contraception, abortion or adoption. To flat out deny this is to have your own head up your ass. What bothers me about your arguments is that many (three year waiting lists, sucking brains out of heads, botched abortions harming mothers) sound like stuff out of Pat Robertson booklets. I'm not saying they're false, but they sound fishy because they have no source. Provide links! Three years where? Has the media reported any mothers harmed during abortions? Because I've never heard of one. Go ahead and challenge conventional wisdom, but don't wait for us to take your word.
[/]

In closing: Even good friends with similar beliefs can argue forever when the topic is as start as "gruesome partial-birth abortions" vs. "illegal back-alley coat-hanger abortions". If you people (not just jimbo and KR) are here to enlighten, persuade, and perhaps learn something yourselves, (I'm assuming you're not just here to snipe and accuse) perhaps you could talk about examples more in the middle of the spectrum, or discuss solutions involving some sort of compromise (i.e., the sort that could conceivably happen in the Real World), rather then just pointing out the problems in the most extreme form of your opponent's ideology?

posted 12-02-2001 22:07            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
Jimbo: Nobody's talking about "telling a woman with a fetus what to do with it."

---

I'm not entirely sure what makes you say this. Are we, or are we not, discussing whether or not women should be allowed to choose whether or not to carry a fetus to term?

quote:

---

Abortion is a big issue in society, whether you think it should be or not, and you might as well say that no-one who isn't a practicing biologist should open their mouths about environmental issues, or that my opinion about gay rights means nothing because I'm not gay.

---

That's both a low blow and a straw man. I do not suggest that KR isn't "qualified" to discuss the issue because he is not a woman, I suggest that he has no right to tell a woman whether or not to carry a fetus to term, because he is unwilling to accept the 18+ year responsibility that fetus represents IF borne to term.

quote:

---

if KR had replied, "actually I adopted a baby last week and I'm adopting another Thursday," it wouldn't have changed your opinions about abortion a bit

---

You're correct. See above. Adopting one baby would not, in my opinion, qualify him any further to take part in women's decisions concerning further fetuses. How many can he adopt? EVERY SINGLE FETUS carried to term results in a child, and at least an 18 year responsibility. Ever heard of the "authority, accountability, responsibility" triangle? If you aren't willing to take the responsibility and the accountability, you don't get to exercise the authority.

quote:

---

you were just charging that he wasn't entitled to an opinion.

---

There's a big difference between an "having an opinion" and "enacting laws", Fen. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that abortion is grossly overused and is one hell of a difficult moral topic, myself. Doesn't mean that I think I have the right to tell other people how to make that decision, though.

Shifting to the aforementioned Ketchuprat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ketchuprat:
You think this is an unhappy generation? You're pathetic. Our life is the best anybody has ever seen in history. You're a whiner, a pathetic loser who can't make more of his life than being a dumbass who writes bullshit on websites and thinks he's popular because the consensus agrees with him.

---

Do the words "ad hominem" mean anything to you, bub? How about "self restraint?"

posted 12-02-2001 22:34            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:

KRat- You know perfectly well that a lot of children grow up- in America and around the world, in pretty dire straits, and that what is commonly termed "Family Planning" could do a lot to lessen that suffering, whether it took the form of abstinence, contraception, abortion or adoption. To flat out deny this is to have your own head up your ass. What bothers me about your arguments is that many (three year waiting lists, sucking brains out of heads, botched abortions harming mothers) sound like stuff out of Pat Robertson booklets. I'm not saying they're false, but they sound fishy because they have no source. Provide links! Three years where? Has the media reported any mothers harmed during abortions? Because I've never heard of one. Go ahead and challenge conventional wisdom, but don't wait for us to take your word.

---

THANK YOU

GOD BLESS YOU

You have put me in such a better mood... not for disagreeing on issues, not for agreeing on issues, but just for actually talking about the things I have said. Thanks man. Holy shit I'm in such a better mood now... wow...

Anyway... yes, I know that some people don't have it as nice as others.

Abstinence I obviously have no problem in. Adoption I have no problem with. Contraception - ok. As probably all of you know, I'm a Roman Catholic who holds his church teaching higher than that of political teaching (i.e. I'm for a bit more social services than most republicans, I'm against capital punishment [being for capital punishment would not be very pro-life, now would it? and a life is a life], and a few other issues). For this reason, and this reason alone, I am not an advocate of contraception... but other than that sense, how could I not be happy about that? That would be an issue involving two people - not bringing a third, innocent party into it. Abortion is where I split off from the issue (obviously).

I don't know who Pat Robinson is, I went to a Jesuit high school and I was exposed to more of the pro-choice propoganda and pro-life propoganda than all of you. I've seen the fucking movies man. I don't know how anybody can be flashed pictures of that shit when you were 10 and not be affected, and whoever said that I really feel sorry for. Anyway, yes, I feel that if I substantiated my point with a few sources it would make it a bit more believable.

Partial Birth Abortion link: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
(I don't know what NRLC or PBA or anything is, I just went to Yahoo and looked for the first one NOT containing religious stuff in the title)

Actually, a law banning this procedure was passed 2 or 3 times in the house and the senate [I say 2 or 3 because I remember 3, but can only find evidence for 2... sorry]. President Clinton vetoed it all three times though.

#1: 1995 Federal Bill Banning Partial Birth Abortions, Introduced on June 14, 1995. Resolution HR1833 IH. House bill passed 288-139, and the Senate passed it 54-44. Clinton vetoed it. It gained enough voted in the House to override the veto, but fel short in the senate (57 instead of 67 votes).

Includes:

Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both

As used in this section, the term 'partial-birth abortion' means an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.

#2: Same thing as before. Named The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, it is HR 1122. Passed in the house by the margin 295-136. The AMA put their support behind this one after the phrase "...any accused physician [has] the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced" was tacked on to one version. However, the version the Senate revised and passed did not contain this statement.

This time, the House overrided the veto... the senate fell short. 64-36. 3 votes short of a 2/3 majority.

posted 12-02-2001 22:38            

quote:

---

Originally posted by KetchupRAT:
You're a fucking retard man. I'm not even gonna type here anymore... I expected more out of you, dood...

You're a self serving asshole who shouldn't have any part in this world.

---

Irony.

I said nothing about the George Harrison thing. I made it a point not to.

As you can see I'm more or less making fun of this entire thread. I'm only posting here to make people think or make them mad. I'm sorry if you expected me to post something here that would truly make a difference. Its not possible. Anything I say would either be countered by a personal attack (as above) or a cut and paste from a pamphlet somewhere.

As for "You're a self serving asshole that shouldn't have any part in this world"... examine that phrase closely. Do you yet wonder why I refuse to take anything in this thread more seriously? I've seen that phrase repeated in different wordings by half the people who posted in this thread.

Its hard to argue against me when I'm attacking both sides, and I'm sorry for making it way to complicated for you.

Jimbo: Calm down.

Fen: I mostly agree with you.

Kat: Thanks for the input.

Iateababy: Interesting name.

Duke: I want facts, not personal attacks. dont you know I'm the only one allowed to judge peoples credibility?

weis: I'm still thinking about what you said.

Jumper: You're very good at getting people riled up.

Ketchuprat: While I have to agree with the Pat Robertson thing fen mentioned, I was not attacking you personally. I was attacking the entire fucking thread. You see, a precedent was set back in an unrelated supreme court case that stated a man couldn't be tried twice for the same crime, and thus that means that abortion is wrong!

Amazon: Thank you for your input.

Now, please resume the name calling. I'm enjoying myself.

posted 12-02-2001 22:43            

It's brainwashing, you'd better believe it. Religious institutions have great potential to be an evil, evil force in this world--and most of the ones that survive to become large are self-promoting, intolerant organizations.

posted 12-02-2001 22:57            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimbo:
If you aren't .. willing to raise the child which will result from a fetus borne to term, then you don't .. have the right to dictate to the woman carrying that fetus what to do with it.

---

As I said, no-one is accusing KRat of personally telling any women what to personally do with their fetuses. (feti?) He's been attacking abortion on moral grounds, but in your reply, the "you" could not reasonably refer to anyone except the federal government. If we're arguing Bush's missile defense, it doesn't mean anything to say, "Unless you plan to personally catch those missiles.." It doesn't say anything about Krat or his views that he's not willing to personally raise thousands of children to support his beliefs, so pardon me if sounded like you were simply discounting his views. Oh, and stop saying "straw man" every time someone disagrees with you.

As for the proposition that the *federal government* might take care of each and every baby that would otherwise have been aborted, well now you're sounding like you have a workable solution!

quote:

---

Meanwhile, as I typed my earlier long-ass reply, the guy I was defending wrote:
You're a fucking retard man. I'm not even gonna type here anymore... You're a self serving asshole who shouldn't have any part in this world.

---

Jeebus, I give up.

posted 12-02-2001 23:03         

while there may be actual room, i don't know that there's a need for more unwanted babies. i don't think that that's reason enough to say abortion is good -- although if everyone will forgive me for going off on a tangent here, i don't think anyone thinks abortion is a wonderful thing; i really hate the spin that anti-abortion movements give the whole fucking situation by calling their 'counterparts' "pro-abortion". i don't know anyone who's actually in a joyous delirium because of the legal right to abortion; most people who are 'glad' about it are of two minds, i've found: either a) they're pretty fucking relived they don't have to carry a fetus to term (for whatever reason; i had a friend who had an abortion because at the time she got pregnant she was freebasing pretty reguarly and the baby -- if it came to term -- was going to be absolutely fux0red.) or people are b) really pissed off that someone else would think of dictating what is wrong or right; for those anti-abortion readers, think of how you'd emotionally react if someone were to tell you that your religion of choice should be illegal, or something along those lines. emotionally, it's ... irksome.

a message from jack chick.
be responsible or
calvin & hobbes comment on malthusian projections of population growth.

and remember what bill hicks said about it (paraphrase): if you care so much about "the children" you should go out and adopt one, one that's very unwanted and in a bad situation that could use the concern you're pouring all over someone else's business. ("...people as me, why don't you do that? 'Cause I fuckin' hate kids and couldn't give a fuck. Don't give a rat's ass about abortion.")

posted 12-02-2001 23:08            

Thanks for the info on partial birth abortions.. I thought the law against that passed. But what I'm really curious about is the claim that abortions are dangerous to the mother. Is there evidence here?

posted 12-02-2001 23:16            

2. Yup, abortions really are somewhat dangerous to the mother. The licensed, clinical variety is FAR less dangerous than the back-alley or do-it-yourself variety, though - and for that matter, they're less dangerous than childbirth itself. ::shrugs::