Feds may define fetus as a child; prenatal-care plan stirs abortion debate

[JoeBaD]

Well, you liberal boneheads let me make it clear TO YOU.
I am actual pro-choice. Not because I believe in this so-called inalienable right of women to do with their bodies as they please to the detriment of a developing human but, because I'm a realist. Regardless of what happens, unwanted children will be aborted. Law or no law.

But for you fvckheads to label pro-lifers as religi-nazis just shows how shallow you are. The pro-life movement, in my eyes, is a valiant effort to preserve human dignity. Not something to be ridiculed and pissed on. You don't agree, fine. But don't try to convince me that you pro-choicers have the higher moral ground because you DON'T!

And you atheists. I'm not a deeply religious man but many of you wave your atheist flag like the queen of drag at a gay pride parade. Look at me! I'm atheist but I have morals & ethics! I don't need no stinkin' religion! - aren't you just so proud!

Someday, some of you will grow up. You will have to work for a living instead of working off your parent's dole. You will have your own family and feel the indescribable pleasure of your child's delight at seeing you. And, hopefully you will see in that child's eyes the truth that abortion is wrong.

I'm not going to convince anyone here and I do not wish to impose, thru law, my beliefs on you.

But, it makes me sick that make of you (let me say it again) fvcking liberals refuse to acknowledge, even in part , the righteousness of the pro-life view.

 

[gopunk]

corn -

what i'm trying to convey is that it takes dedication on the part of the parents to make sure that their children are instilled with good values and stuff. if somebody feels that they would not be able to do this, they shouldn't be forced to have children. if they are of questionable intelligence, do you really think such people would be capable of raising children properly?

 

[gopunk]

And you atheists. I'm not a deeply religious man but many of you wave your atheist flag like the queen of drag at a gay pride parade. Look at me! I'm atheist but I have morals & ethics! I don't need no stinkin' religion! - aren't you just so proud!

WTF are you smoking? the only reason any atheists do that is because they come under attack by people who assert that you need to be christian to have morals. it's called defense, when's the last time you saw an atheist just say they have morals, unprovoked?

But, it makes me sick that make of you (let me say it again) fvcking liberals refuse to acknowledge, even in part , the righteousness of the pro-life view.

maybe it's because some of those fvcking liberals don't consider the pro-life view to be right. just a thought *shrug*

 

[jbod]

gopunk said: perhaps, but unless you support NOW, you don't really have a say in what they should or shouldn't be doing.

Does this apply to those who do not support Bush?

Aleus,

You have a huge chip on your shoulder for the US don't you?

geez, if you care so much about preservation of life, you'll help BY FAR more to send a letter to your local representative, and complain about the utter lack of support to third world countries by the USA.

but that would actually hit you in the wallet, and nagging about irresponsable people won't. And that is what it's all about, you people nag to ease your conscience, while you try to forget that on the other side of the world people starve to death because you're too cheap.

You are sad....truly sad....

 

[gopunk]

anyways, i'm out... if anything, my view of pro-lifers has worsened because of this thread.

 

[Aelus]

<< You have a huge chip on your shoulder for the US don't you?

You are sad....truly sad.... >>



point out to me where i didn't tell the thruth, comment where you think my reasoning is flawed. But you didn't do that, you say i'm sad.

maybe i am, but it seems you can't even point out ONE single flaw in the reasoning of a sad person, what does that make you?

Aelus

PS. Most of that first comment works for every country, or person, who donates little towards people in the third world, maybe i was wrong for singling out the USA, but big trees catch alot of wind.

 

[gopunk]

gopunk said: perhaps, but unless you support NOW, you don't really have a say in what they should or shouldn't be doing.

Does this apply to those who do not support Bush?

well i dunno, has NOW been placed in the same position as bush? is bush a private organization?

 

[springchikun]

Zwingle-
You should be proud that you grew up in that environment and still turned out alright. I had a similar background except my mother was lazy and sat on her a** waiting for other people to support her and setting a bad example for me and my brother. He is a felon and can't or won't hold a job. I support myself and have never been on welfare but only because the person she was then disgusted me. She, coincidentally had three abortions in her lifetime and I can't help but be thankful that she did, because we wouldn't have even had the powdered milk, or the mac and cheese, unless it was government cheese, and that is one reason why I am pro-choice.

 

[JoeBaD]

<< Who is to say what id right and what is wrong? What I think is right, someone else might think is wrong. I answer to no higher power (except my wife), so religion does not blur my decision. If something impacts my life, like making abortion against the law, and it will in the form of higher taxes and more crowded world, my decision would be the one that makes my life easier. >>



another fine human being! Mother Teresa of AT OT.

 

[JoeBaD]

gopunk-

you are obviously one still living off the parents. Start paying taxes and your opinion might be worth something. Maybe not much, but something.

 

[UnixFreak]

<< Yes, you are 100% right. Intelligent people never get raped. >>



Thats about a crock of sh*t if I ever heard it. anyone can be raped. Man or woman. To say
"intelligent people" never get raped is ignorant. Like saying "intelligent" people never get robbed, get in auto accidents, etc. While there are definitely mitigating circumstances to a lot of rape cases, that statement is crap. You could be a female rocket scientist just getting off of work at NASA, and have some guy hiding behind your car, waiting for you. Sometimes, believe it or not, things happen which you have no control over.

And Women should have a right to choose, in my opinion. I have said it before, over and over, so I wont get into that aspect of this war

Edited for poor spelling.

 

[Zwingle]

<< another fine human being! Mother Teresa of AT OT. >>


hmmmm....sarcasm?? Can't tell if I should thank you or tell you to go to hell.....I will thank you.....I guess?

 

[Corn]

<< what i'm trying to convey is that it takes dedication on the part of the parents to make sure that their children are instilled with good values and stuff. >>



I completely agree with that statement. That was the crux of my entire "unenlightened" argument. A civilized society insures the safety and well being of it's children. What does it say about society when it deems a couple hundred thousand children a year are better off dead than alive?



<< if somebody feels that they would not be able to do this, they shouldn't be forced to have children. >>


No one is forced to raise children they are incapable of caring for. Just last year the State of Michigan enacted a law that would allow women who cannot raise children to drop them off at hospitols or law enforcement locations, "no questions asked". Anyone can freely give up their children for adoption.



<< if they are of questionable intelligence, do you really think such people would be capable of raising children properly? >>



My personal belief is that while a certain amount of intelligence is necessary to raise children (simply for the children's safety), it's loyalty, dedication, and morality, that are the most important ingedients in successful parenting.

 

[jbod]

Aleus, here is where I think your logic is flawed and sad:

You said: you'll help BY FAR more to send a letter to your local representative, and complain about the utter lack of support to third world countries by the USA.

but that would actually hit you in the wallet, and nagging about irresponsable people won't. And that is what it's all about, you people nag to ease your conscience, while you try to forget that on the other side of the world people starve to death because you're too cheap.


Since when is it the responsibility of the US to support the world? I'm not a selfish person, but what makes me angry is that the euroleets think it is up to America to pay for, feed, clothe, and protect poor people around the world. Yet at the same time they are demanding that we don't interfere with foreign country's affairs. That is what is sad about your comment, not sad as in crying, but sad as in pathetic.

 

[Aelus]

<< Since when is it the responsibility of the US to support the world? I'm not a selfish person, but what makes me angry is that the euroleets think it is up to America to pay for, feed, clothe, and protect poor people around the world. Yet at the same time they are demanding that we don't interfere with foreign country's affairs. That is what is sad about your comment, not sad is in crying, but sad as in pathetic. >>



pro-lifers think it's their responsability to keep make sure women x keeps paying for her kids if she can't abort them. What business do you have telling me to keep my nose in my business if you can't keep yours in yours?

I'm by far not saying america should be paying to help the rest of the world, I AM saying that before americans complain about people who choose not to pay for their own future children, that those complainers should take the responsability to pay for people who WANT children but can't have them. Basically, if you don't want to be bothered helping, don't complain.

Aelus

 

[BoberFett]

<< I don't usually buy it when someone yells 'slippery slope,' but in this case, I think it's true. >>

Of course, because usually that slope faces leftist ideals. This time it's facing the right.

 

[jbod]

whatever...

 

[springchikun]

Now, I know for a fact that unixfreak is right. I also know for a fact he is brilliant. I think this world would be a better place if it would just run his way for a friggin week!

 

[Aelus]

i love you too.

*hugs*

Aelus

 

[BoberFett]

<< When the fetus can't survive outside the womb of the mother it's not a seperate entity, in fact it could be considered before that point as more of a parasitic lifeform because it's survival is dependent on the host. The term parasite has connotations though so don't consider that when you reply. >>

How long would it survive if it were delivered at the hospital and ignored? How long would a one year old survive if left by itself for a few weeks? Why can't we kill kids up until their several years old? Kind of a trial period to see if you like being a parent or not.

 

[Aelus]

[/i] >>

How long would it survive if it were delivered at the hospital and ignored? How long would a one year old survive if left by itself for a few weeks? Why can't we kill kids up until their several years old? Kind of a trial period to see if you like being a parent or not.[/i] >>



imho killing a baby becomes murder when that baby can start thinking conciously, because it's difficult to realize when a baby becomes an individual, it's easier to put the barrier at birth.

that's just a thought from an intoxicated mind.

Aelus

 

[BoberFett]

BDawg

Quit clouding the argument with the tired "Rape" situation. The number of abortions performed because of rape are insignificant.

 

[BoberFett]

<< imho killing a baby becomes murder when that baby can start thinking conciously, because it's difficult to realize when a baby becomes an individual, it's easier to put the barrier at birth. >>

So you're saying that nobody knows when a human being becomes sentient? And isn't it possible that if we don't know, then it could be during the fetal period?

 

[Polgara]

When the fetus can't survive outside the womb of the mother it's not a seperate entity, in fact it could be considered before that point as more of a parasitic lifeform because it's survival is dependent on the host. The term parasite has connotations though so don't consider that when you reply.

Rahvin,
What a relief! LISTEN UP FOLKS! Rahvin's position is where a dialog can begin. He has admitted that a baby in the womb could be a person if she can survive on her own. This will not make the biblical strict-constructionist happy, because their source of Truth says that at conception a person is a person. It will not make the NOW aligned pro-abortion folks happy, because they think that a baby with only the upper half of it's head inside the mother (nearly fully developed) is a parasite. BUT a dialog can begin at this point.

Pol

 

[Aelus]

<< So you're saying that nobody knows when a human being becomes sentient? And isn't it possible that if we don't know, then it could be during the fetal period? >>



I'd like to know one human, just one, who can give his thoughts of what happened during the fetal period.

i haven't seen any newborns that show they can think either, so i'm pretty certain unborn kids can't think.

Anyway, i find the discussion on nonlegality of abortion of extreme bad taste as long as mothers who WANT children have to see their children, who are very concious, starve to death. Until that problem isn't solved, i don't see what the hell we're doing when we're going to make it illegal to kill unborn kids.

Aelus