|
|
COMMENTS:
The "because..." is supposed to lead respondents to explain their choice
No. While I am not, personally, in favor of abortion, I am also not in favor of browbeating people.
Everyone has to make their own decisions for their own reasons.
Before she makes a decision? What - any decision?
haha yeah. Before you decide whether to wear the skirt or dress look at this pic 'EEEEEEK!!'
Right to lifers should be shown pictures of orphans, and abused children and forced to adopt unwanted children.
Grapost,
Do you think people who are pro-life do not see homeless and abused children? Do you think many pro-life people are anti-adoption? Do you think abortion stops people from abusing children? Has it stopped anyone recently? Do you honestly believe that child abuse stems from parents who wanted an abortion but somehow failed to receive one?
Your argument is ridiculous. It completely avoids the question. Should people considering abortions have _all_ the facts or not? And why do you believe that way? It is a truly simple question and does not require ad hominem attacks and arguments to support your decision.
I just find it odd, that on one hand the right wing want more personal freedom and less interference from government, yet they do not wish to extend the freedom to a woman and her right to choose.
showing a woman pictures of aborted fetuses is the equivalent of PETA goons holding a stakeout (no pun intended) in front of KFC with signs depicting mutilated chickens. and i agree with Grapost.
Those photos are usually the worst case scenario where something went wrong in the pregnancy, a fatal deformity, or a tumor. Almost all abortions are carried out early in the pregnancy when the fetus is like an inch in size.
I'm sure the young woman who came to the difficult decision to abort would find it helpful to view such pictures.
NO they should be show a picture of you as an adult so she will realize abortion is the way to go!
If a fetus is a human being, why doesn't the Census count them?
If a fetus is a human being, why do people say we have 2 children and one on the way, why not say we have 3 children?
How come when it's us its an abortion but when it's a chicken it's an omlette? anti-yankee you stupid beeeeotch! hahahahahaha
haha, i had aborted chicken fetuses for lunch today.
pro-lifers are fools, it's not a human being until it's born. the fetus is an organ.
If the pictures I see of Pro-lifers on picket lines are any indication, they are the biggest advert for Pro-choice.
Only Right To Lifers murder abortion doctors!
They should have to look at the pictures of the dead Doctors.
The inability of some to fashion an intelligent argument supporting their positions here is amazing. Still, I suppose it is indicative of a failing educational system. Rather than buttressing one's selection with facts, it appears the majority of respondents must rely upon ad hominem attacks and arguments, with the occasional strawman tossed in as well.
More amazing is the inability to distinguish a question from a conditioned stimulus and conditioned response. The word abortion is spoken and like Pavlov's dogs, you begin salivating. However, it is not food you look for, but the gnashing of teeth and witless battle.
What a shame.
I will restate the question.
Do you believe a woman (or couple) should be shown pictures of aborted babies before making a decision?
It could also be worded, should a couple be given _all_ the facts before deciding?
If you have no support or facts for your decision, simply say so.
Steel,
You said:
I just find it odd, that on one hand the right wing want more personal freedom and less interference from government, yet they do not wish to extend the freedom to a woman and her right to choose.
This is little more than a distraction through an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you feel as if labeling me " Right wing" somehow supports your argument? Also, please show me where I advocated greater government control over our lives.
h3jm,
You said:
showing a woman pictures of aborted fetuses is the equivalent of PETA goons holding a stakeout (no pun intended) in front of KFC with signs depicting mutilated chickens.
Only if you plan on eating the babies.
Your argument is ludicrous because there is no comparison between the two. I hope you do better on the analogy section of the SAT when you take it.
;-)
Um_yeah,
You said:
Those photos are usually the worst case scenario where something went wrong in the pregnancy, a fatal deformity, or a tumor.
The majority of abortions are not due to medical reasons.
You said:
Almost all abortions are carried out early in the pregnancy when the fetus is like an inch in size.
What does size have to do with whether or not a woman should see it? Does she have the right to be fully educated or not?
You said:
I'm sure the young woman who came to the difficult decision to abort would find it helpful to view such pictures.
So, you are saying, seeing the pictures might make allow her to make a better informed decision? And that is bad because ...?
Exorcist,
You said:
NO they should be show a picture of you as an adult so she will realize abortion is the way to go!
Now there's an intelligent argument. No doubt fomented in the hallowed halls of the NYC public school system.
You said:
If a fetus is a human being, why doesn't the Census count them?
Why didn't the census count Blacks years ago? Not showing on the census is hardly an argument to show the acceptability of abortion. Should homeless people be murdered since they often do not show up on the census? How about illegal aliens?
You said:
If a fetus is a human being, why do people say we have 2 children and one on the way, why not say we have 3 children?
Why do pregnant women rub their bellies and say " there's a baby in there"? Why do pregnant women say " I'm having a baby" instead of " I'm having a fetus"? And why do some women wear those shirts that say "Baby" and have an arrow pointing to their belly?
Your question above would intimate that it is, indeed, a child. Since the third child is on the way.
You said:
How come when it's us its an abortion but when it's a chicken it's an omlette?
I suppose this is further demonstration of an NYC public education. There is no comparison between the two. Any analogy drawn would be fallacious.
Finally, your entire argument is simply ridiculous. Your post avoids the question at hand and finds as its defense personal attacks upon me.
h3,
you said:
pro-lifers are fools, it's not a human being until it's born. the fetus is an organ.
Are you certain? So, if a woman who is 9 months pregnant dies, doctors should simply wait for the organ to expire before sending her to the morgue?
Also, don't most organs contain the DNA and genetic fingerprint of the owner? And if so, wouldn't the separate genetic code of an organ in the woman's womb indicate that it is not simply another organ?
Also, when was the last time you saw a lung come out and walk around? How many kidneys did you attend school with? I mean those organs that were not attached to another body?
By now I hope you see your argument is not an accurate one. Moreover, there are many doctors who will argue that the creature in a woman's body is a distinct and living human.
Steel,
you said:
If the pictures I see of Pro-lifers on picket lines are any indication, they are the biggest advert for Pro-choice.
People exercising their right of free speech is a viable reason for abortion. Ridiculous.
Grapost,
you said:
Only Right To Lifers murder abortion doctors!
What a silly statement. You would seriously have us to believe that the only people who murder abortion doctors are pro-life? Do you honestly believe this?
How many abortionists are in the US? How many have been murdered by Pro-lifers since Roe v Wade (1973)?
What about men like Byron Looper? What of pro-abortion people who kill pro-life people? Should that be counted as a reason to close down abortion clinics? Probably not.
You said:
They should have to look at the pictures of the dead Doctors.
I agree. Any person who is thinking about killing an abortionist should be made to look at photos of dead abortionists. Also, they should see the aftermath, and how it hurts the families. My agreement should not be misconstrued as an acceptance of your argument which is diversionary at best. You have yet to support your position with facts and arguments _for_ your position. Your response has been nothing but strawmen, red herrings, and assaults on issues that are not a part of the question.
Why does a woman considering an abortion not have a right to know _all_ the facts?
A woman with cervical cancer would be shown a photo of a normal cervix along side an abnormal cervix. It is possible she might even see images of her own cervix before the operation.
My response is no, because obviously the couple or woman knows what she/he is doing without having to see it in photos.
However, that didn't stop pro-lifers from posting up a bunch of pictures of dead babies all over my college. (which was sick and wrong.)
Lady,
do they truly know what they are doing? Many women I know are convinced it is simply a blob, when it isn't. Most are often unaware of the ties that bind abortion and breast cancer, also.
i think my analogy is valid. sure, most aborted fetuses aren't gonna end up as anyone's entree, but what difference does THAT make? pictures of dead chickens and pictures of dead babies are comparable. killing is killing, and whether or not you plan on eating the thing you just killed is merely a technicality. and besides, what if somebody IS willing to eat the babies? i'm talking about the starving kids in third world countries. i'm sure most of them would eat almost anything, even soylent green. you might want to read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift.
but you know, go ahead and believe that abortion is immoral. i'm not gonna change your opinion, nor you mine.
I agree with the 2nd and 5th posts. Let's here it for adoption! Yay, happy Christian middle-class families that can afford not to have abortions!
I didn't know we had a breast cancer doctor in the house. Tell me, doc, how long before you release your long-awaited cure?
I don't think seeing pictures of aborted babies will change the decision of a woman who really wants an abortion. I've seen abortion pictures on the Internet, and they're not enough to convince me that abortion is worse than going through childbirth and raising a kid.
If women considering an abortion are shown abortion pictures, then they should also be shown pictures of childbirth, dirty diapers, and financial statements.
h3,
YOU SAID
i think my analogy is valid. sure, most aborted fetuses aren't gonna end up as anyone's entree, but what difference does THAT make?
Because chickens are on earth as food. Being lower on the food chain, it is reasonable to expect that they would need to be killed before eaten. In the case of a baby, I would propose that _none_ are going to end up on someone's plate. Therefore, it is a fallacious analogy.
YOU SAID:
pictures of dead chickens and pictures of dead babies are comparable.
They are not comparable. People do not send chickens to college. They do not film a chicken's first recital. They do not kiss a chicken's boo-boos. Chickens do not grow to talk. They do not grow up and get married. They do not love. They do not engage us in philosophical debate. et. al.
YOU SAID
killing is killing, and whether or not you plan on eating the thing you just killed is merely a technicality.
No. It isn't. This is an amoral argument. By your logic, squashing a mosquito is the same as chopping off your neighbor's head. This is silly.
YOU SAID
and besides, what if somebody IS willing to eat the babies?
Now you are simply getting ridiculous. What if someone were willing to eat you? Should we allow them?
YOU SAID
you might want to read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift.
Yes, yes. We all read it in high school. And college english. A multitude of times. However, Mr. Swift was a satirist. If you would equate yourself with him, I would suggest you read more, because your conceit failed to shine through. No offense intended.
h3,
YOU SAID
go ahead and believe that abortion is immoral. i'm not gonna change your opinion, nor you mine.
I don't believe I proposed that it is immoral. The question that you seem incapable of answering is:
should women be given _all_ the facts before making a decision?
By reason of your contempt, you have answered, " no. Women should not have all the facts." But you will not tell us _why_ you believe women should not know the facts.
Doof,
YOU SAID
Let's here it for adoption! Yay, happy Christian middle-class families that can afford not to have abortions!
So, you think people have abortions because they cannot afford pregnancy?
You realize, only the post by Cathexis actually addresses the issue. The other is a bit of ridiculous propaganda which I have already addressed.
Zorra,
Thanks for a well-reasoned argument. It seems many here are incapable of putting aside personal prejudice to address the question.
ya know what happens when people don't have the means, a doctor or the money to have an abortion, they toss the child in a trash can or they perform the abortion themselved with a coat-hanger and mangle the baby. Abortions are going to happen, taking away the right to choose sucks.
If a woman wants to view pictures she can choose to do so.
Requiring it? No.
Who would choose the pictures? Someone who opposes abortion? Would you show a tiny mass of tissue or a fully formed fetus?
Abortion is still legal and safe. This suggestion is quite odd.
anti_yankee: Thanks!
I guess some people might talk to chickens, film their first steps, or kiss their boo-boos, but those people certainly aren't in the majority.
nice_dog,
The pictures should be of beings that age. 4 weeks. 6 weeks. whatever.
It may seem odd, but consider: if a woman had ovarian cysts, they would show her pictures of a healthy ovary and pictures of an unhealthy ovary. Perhaps even her own. The process would be fully described, defined, and explained with graphic examples. If a woman has a right to all the facts for something like that, why should she not have all the facts concerning a potential human being?
An ovarian cyst(or other abnormality) would be a medical condition posing a potential health risk to the patient.
An abortion is legal, elective surgery. Is your concern for the health and well being of the woman? From the tone of your comments it appears that your goal has a highly biased religous and political motive. Just an observation from this dog.
Duckhead and zorra have great arguments. Also, what is this you mean by "should have to see" as is stated in the question? It makes it sound like you're going to Clockwork Orange her! How are you going to force these images onto someone?
Offering the pictures in a pamphlet along with some of the ideas zorra mention, well... why not? Life could be stranger...
^ + 'ed' in there somewhere...
Nice_dog,
YOU SAID
From the tone of your comments it appears that your goal has a highly biased religous and political motive. Just an observation from this dog.
Look again. There is nothing religious or political in my question or responses. In fact, the only time anything came up that could be construed as "religious" is a comment calling an argument "amoral." That argument being that killing a chicken is the same thing as killing a human.
The question is simple and straight forward and yet many people have a difficult time answering it.
YOU SAID
An ovarian cyst(or other abnormality) would be a medical condition posing a potential health risk to the patient.
An abortion is legal, elective surgery.
Very well. Does that mean a woman or couple should not be given all the facts? I dated a girl who had a breast augmentation. They showed her pictures of other people with her body type and the breasts they were implanted with. Was that wrong? Should they not have done that?
On another thread someone told me it is okay to leave out facts or skew information to further a political agenda. Is that what is going on with this topic?
Duckhead,
Sorry, missed your post somehow.
YOU SAID
ya know what happens when people don't have the means, a doctor or the money to have an abortion, they toss the child in a trash can or they perform the abortion themselved with a coat-hanger and mangle the baby.
This is a very good example of propaganda, little more. Let us look at facts:
Roughly 21% of abortions are done because the person feels they cannot afford it. That leaves 79% that fall outside of your suggested reason.
Surely, we can both agree that there are many people out there who want babies and who would pay all the medical expenses. Even if no one were willing to do so, there are still 79% or roughly 700,000 to 800,000 abortions not due to economic pressure.
As for the "coat hanger" argument, that is simply based upon your imagination, and not upon any empirical evidence.
YOU SAID
Abortions are going to happen, taking away the right to choose sucks.
I believe I spoke of this earlier. This is a red herring. The question never once suggests taking away the right to choose. Nor do any of my posts. It has been, and remains, a question on whether someone considering abortion should receive _all_ of the facts.
I could reword the question as such if you prefer:
If women were allowed to choose, but were only given pro-life arguments, and pro-choice groups were not allowed to say anything other than " abortion: gets rid of babies" would that be acceptable?
At the risk of sounding socratic, I will answer: probably not.
Mags,
Look at you.
;-)
Yes, Zorra had a reasonable argument, but it - in part- says yes, they should have all the facts.
Haha
I think I alluded to offering all of the facts. It was the "have to see" part that I was questioning.
Anti_Y:
I'll bark my answer from earlier: "No".
Is that not simple and straight forward enough?
Just because you don't voice your religous or political arguments here doesn't mean you aint got em.
I just can't see you being that concerned about a woman considering abortion.
You remind me of the guy who puts out antifreeze to get rid of us dogs. Appears sweet, but the real goal is more sinister. Bad man, AY.
nice_dog,
YOU SAID
Is that not simple and straight forward enough?
That part was clear. The expository is missing, however. In other words, the answer to the question "why should women not have all the facts?" fails to be addressed. Instead, many of the voters who have voted in the negative, have engaged in ad hominem attacks instead of logic and rhetorical skill.
YOU SAID
Just because you don't voice your religous or political arguments here doesn't mean you aint got em.
This is a ridiculous statement. Just because you have a dad doesn't mean you're his.
Because you lack any substantive argument, you feel the need to set up straw men. Very well. Set them up. It does not help your position any. You still appear to be void of any answer to the "why not?" question.
YOU SAID:
I just can't see you being that concerned about a woman considering abortion.
Do you know me? Have we met? Have we sat together and discussed these topics? If so, I am unaware of it. If not, then this is simply another red herring trying to draw attention away from the fact that you have not answered the question why women should not have all the information when forming a decision about abortion.
YOU SAID:
You remind me of the guy who puts out antifreeze to get rid of us dogs. Appears sweet, but the real goal is more sinister. Bad man, AY.
And this would be another good example of an ad hominem attack.
Obviously anyone who disagrees with you must be a puppy killer. Is that all you have to defend your position? Personal attacks?
No -- the decision belongs solely with the couple, and they shouldn't be swayed one way or another by pictures.
Council,
YOU SAID
No -- the decision belongs solely with the couple, and they shouldn't be swayed one way or another by pictures.
You said should not be swayed either way- does this mean you are opposed to all advertising both for and against abortion?
Also, do you think that they should make decisions upon only partial or false information?
AY
Wow! Struck a nerve! You kind of lost it there.
You are pretty silly!
Another guy sticking his nose in a decision a woman needs to make.
Do you think they NEED your insightful help?
Maybe they're just not equipped to make this decision without male guidance.
Not much meat in your arguments(and I should know meat!).
You are terribly simplistic: show a picture. Fact. Wow!
I think I'll go mark my territory to keep humanoids like you away.
Nice_dog
YOU SAID
Wow! Struck a nerve! You kind of lost it there.
Not really. Your argument relies on personal attacks (ad hominem) and red herrings. I simply pointed out that you have continued to fail in addressing the question at hand. You have taken the position women and couples do not have a right to be fully educated when considering abortion, however, you have not defended that position.
YOU SAID:
You are pretty silly!
Ad hominem
YOU SAID:
Another guy sticking his nose in a decision a woman needs to make.
Do you think they NEED your insightful help?
Red herring and straw man.
YOU SAID:
Not much meat in your arguments(and I should know meat!).
I have not argued the pro- position. I have simply addressed the arguments such as yours that skirt the issue and pretend to answer it with unrelated answers, personal attacks, and pleas to emotion. These are all very good propaganda tactics, but fall short of being considered exemplary debate skills.
Where reasonable answers have come, I have given compliment and karma, and offered no resistance.
YOU SAID
You are terribly simplistic: show a picture. Fact. Wow!
Ad hominem.
If it is just a picture and fact, then why should you oppose it?
YOU SAID
I think I'll go mark my territory to keep humanoids like you away.
Here's hoping you hike your leg better than you answer the simple question: why do you believe women are not entitled to _all_ the facts when considering abortion?
AY:
Correction, Scooter:
Your question is:
Do you think a woman should be shown pictures of aborted babies before she makes a decision?
The answer: No.
A woman can get all the FACTS from her doctor.
A picture of an "aborted baby" is not a fact. Just a picture, there Sparky.
But following your logic I'll submit a new question:
Should people be shown pictures of tortured and murdered slaves before they display the Confederate Flag?
As YOU said:
If a person wants to make an educated decision, wouldn't it stand to reason that they be given all the facts?
I look forward to your insightful words of wisdom on that one.
I look forward to your comments on that
Nice_dog,
I think you credit yourself a little too often and too much.
YOU SAID:
Correction, Scooter:
Your question is:
Do you think a woman should be shown pictures of aborted babies before she makes a decision?
Look above. The detail of the question asks:
If a person wants to make an educated decision, wouldn't it stand to reason that she be given _all_ the facts?
So the question is about an educated decision based upon all the facts. That said, is it your position that what exists within the woman is non-factual?
YOU SAID:
The answer: No.
A woman can get all the FACTS from her doctor.
Does this include photos of what is being removed? Or should she be denied access to this information so the doctor can profit from her surgery?
YOU SAID:
A picture of an "aborted baby" is not a fact. Just a picture, there Sparky.
And a picture of Abu Graib is just a picture. Not a fact. Not a crime.
Again, so what is in her womb is not a fact? And she should not see what happens to the non-fact? Why not?
YOU SAID:
Should people be shown pictures of tortured and murdered slaves before they display the Confederate Flag?
What person has not seen pictures of slaves? Who has escaped the vast propaganda from elementary up through doctorate school on the evils of the Confederate States? (Though the hypocritical yankee brought the slaves under the Stars and Stripes and kept them there for months after the close of the War of Northern Aggression).
Who has been neglected by the myths and lies of the altruistic and morally superior yankee? Certainly not I. I doubt a single bearer of the Battle Flag has been spared the propaganda. Show them. Show also the pictures of the Blacks (free and bond) who willingly fought for the Confederacy.
What would your response be to H K Edgerton and many of the other Blacks who are now members of groups such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans? Will your vituperation fall on them also?
YOU SAID:
If a person wants to make an educated decision, wouldn't it stand to reason that they be given all the facts?
It would. As such, I would suggest that those who posit the Confederacy was formed solely for the promotion and perpetuation of the institution of slavery have a limited education and understanding of the geopolitics and economics of the States prior to War, as well as the causes of secession.
Your attempt to castigate the South for the ills of slavery neglects several important pieces:
1. Slavery existed in the North and South during the War.
2. Slaves were never brought to this country under the Battle Flag
3. The Battle Flag did not fly above the capitol during the War. It was a naval jack and a standard whereby men found their troops.
4. NYC was once the capitol of slavery in this country.
5. The NYC Draft Riots of 1863, where some estimate more than 1,000 Blacks were murdered for being Black, were perpetrated when some thought the War was becoming one to free slaves.
YOU SAID:
I look forward to your insightful words of wisdom on that one.
I look forward to your comments on that
As I said, I think you credit yourself too often and too much.
Your analogy fails on another level as well. It is dubious that anyone who raises the Battle Flag or any flag of the CSA today is a proponent of slavery. Though some groups have co-opted our symbols ( something we must find a way to end ), they still do not promote the revival of slavery or the extermination of Blacks.
To correct your anology and make it more closely analogous, we should ask:
Should racists who plan to murder people be forced to look at pictures of dead people and the wake of pain caused on the family of the victim? (This still falls short, as one instance is legal and the other, not).
In this case, we are addressing modern times and sensibilities, not trying to place 21st Century morality on 17-19th Century action and thought. We are also addressing the purposeful destruction of a life ( or potential life ).
In this case, I wholly agree. It would be nice if we could not only show pictures to someone who is seriously considering murder, but if we could show them the consequences of their actions. Including how it will hurt the victim's family, their own loved ones, and how they will be gang raped repeatedly in prison.
BTW, ad hominem snips, such as calling me Sparky and Scooter are unnecessary. I have remained respectful throughout this discourse and would appreciate the same consideration.
Now, you still have not answered the question:
why do you, Nice_Dog, believe that women considering an abortion and going someplace like "Planned Parenthood" for advice or counseling, should have some of the facts hidden or withheld from them?
I highly disrespect it when republicans have to pry into women's lives and be concerned with NOTHING that has to do with them,and won't effect them in any way.They're not even in the republican's fuckin' own wombs. Sure, that may be wrong in some cases, but it's not really anyone's business.
I find that it's really a religous issue that has unfortunately made it's way into government (thanks to chucklehead G"Dubya"B). If you ban it alltogether , when women really need it, when it's likely her and her baby will die if she doesn't abort. That certainally isn't pro-life.
I find it very deplorable if you must constitutionally ban completely. Plus, when you talk about how your shit don't stink because you're so "pro-life" when you support the death penalty, even when there is no evidence to prove the defendant was guilty.Many people were found innocent after being sentenced to death, and that's really quite a shame. Not to mention many of our boys being sent over to Iraq and killed, by a war without an attempt to find real peace before fighting, even though the "reasons" are running out.
Oh, yes, and one more thing, I don't think Kerry should be banned from communion, just because he allows choice. He was not actually, himself aborting the fetuses. Plus, there are plenty other politicians that are pro-choice, whom aren't being banned from communion. Examples of these politicians are: Ah-nold, Rudy Guiliani, George Pataki and Rick Lazio. But, my friend, there is a big "coincedental" difference between Kerry and the men listed-the only democrat was Kerry. The rest pro choice leaders were Republican. This goes to show you that the republicans,once again, are using ties to play politics to any extreme.
Gizzmo:
YOU SAID:
I highly disrespect it when republicans have to pry into women's lives and be concerned with NOTHING that has to do with them,and won't effect them in any way.
What if the Republican is the father? Does having or _not_ having a child have _nothing_ to do with him? If this is so, does this mean a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion even if she does not want one?
YOU SAID:
They're not even in the republican's fuckin' own wombs.
1. Do you honestly believe only Republicans are pro-Life?
2. _Someone_ besides the mother had to take part in the pregancy.
3. Do you believe if a woman wants to keep the child the man should be legally free from all child-support and responsibility if he chooses not to be?
YOU SAID:
Sure, that may be wrong in some cases, but it's not really anyone's business.
Yes, and it is no one's business if someone robs and murders you. Or rapes you. That is between you and the person who has you at their mercy.
YOU SAID:
I find that it's really a religous issue that has unfortunately made it's way into government
And your learnedness comes from...? There are many atheists who are pro-life. Surely, they would contest this statement.
YOU SAID:
(thanks to chucklehead G"Dubya"B).
And was it his fault in 1973 and prior to the legalization also? Which role did GW play in Roe v Wade?
YOU SAID:
If you ban it alltogether , when women really need it, when it's likely her and her baby will die if she doesn't abort. That certainally isn't pro-life.
Almost all pro-life people agree with you. That is why they claim it should only be in a case as you just described, rather than a matter of convenience. Of the roughly 1 million abortions performed each year, less than 2.5% are due to life-threatening causes or rape/incest. That leaves 975,000 as a mere form of birth control.
YOU SAID:
I find it very deplorable if you must constitutionally ban completely.
You would support partial Constitutional bans? Would you support a ban on all abortions performed because someone was wreckless? Would you support a ban that allowed only for rape, incest, or life-endangerment?
YOU SAID:
Plus, when you talk about how your shit don't stink because you're so "pro-life" when you support the death penalty, even when there is no evidence to prove the defendant was guilty.
1. I have not talked about my fecal matter.
2. I don't believe I have addressed the death penalty.
3. If you do not see a difference between the death penalty applied to an adult who is (presumably) a cold-blooded murderer and an unborn child who has not had the opportunity to do wrong, I feel sorry for you.
4. Did you just actually say the death penalty is wrong because there is no evidence people did what they were accused of doing? You do not believe there was evidence against Gacey, Bundy, etc?
YOU SAID:
Many people were found innocent after being sentenced to death, and that's really quite a shame.
1. That some would be found innocent on appeal is not a travesty, but a triumph. It means the system is working.
2. The travesty is for those who were definitively proven innocent after being executed. How many has that been in the past 50 years compared to executions?
YOU SAID:
Not to mention many of our boys being sent over to Iraq
You have digressed. Do you think people who join the military are so ignorant and stupid they do not know they must carry guns and might be called up for a war?
YOU SAID:
and killed,
What is a war without death? As one general put it, though. The object is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his.
YOU SAID
by a war without an attempt to find real peace before fighting,
I agree. We gave him 12 years. We should have given him 12 more. It was a mistake. Do you believe we should not put Saddam back in power? Afterall, we probably should right all the wrongs we have done to him and the Iraqi people.
YOU SAID:
Oh, yes, and one more thing, I don't think Kerry should be banned from communion, just because he allows choice.
Are you a Catholic? Do you think the government should step in and force the church to give him Communion?
YOU SAID:
He was not actually, himself aborting the fetuses.
So, you believe GW is completely innocent of Abu Graib and all the bloodshed in Iraq? After all, he is not over there doing the actual shooting. Nor was he torturing people. This is an incredibly simplistic response, though. A truer one would entail a discussion into the Catechism and dogma. Two things I am not compelled to discuss at the moment.
YOU SAID:
Plus, there are plenty other politicians that are pro-choice, whom aren't being banned from communion. Examples of these politicians are: Ah-nold, Rudy Guiliani, George Pataki and Rick Lazio. But, my friend, there is a big "coincedental" difference between Kerry and the men listed-the only democrat was Kerry.
You missed another fundamental difference. Only Kerry was running for the presidency.
YOU SAID:
The rest pro choice leaders were Republican. This goes to show you that the republicans,once again, are using ties to play politics to any extreme.
Yes, everyone knows the Repubs and the Catholic church are in bed together. That's how JFK became President. Oh wait, he wsn't a Republican, was he? Could it be that there hasn't been a Catholic presidential candidate since Roe v Wade (1973)?
Now... your post really does not address the question of whether or not a woman (couple) considering abortion as an option should be given all of the facts, including pictures of what is in there and what will happen to it. Shall I count you as one who believes women hould not be given access to all the facts?
Gizzmo: EXCELLENT!!
Love your take on the issue.
You really got AY thrashing about in the moral cage he has built for himself.
Keep it up!
NICE_DOG said, "You really got AY thrashing about in the moral cage he has built for himself.
"Keep it up! "
Yes. To continue avoiding the question while tossing out ad hominem attacks and tirades of intolerance demonstrate the mark of a truly erudite person.
Yeah they should see what the baby there about to murder looks like.
no, because that is a descision between a woman and her doctor..PERIOD.
Poodles,
YOU SAID,
no, because that is a descision between a woman and her doctor..PERIOD.
What about pictures of what is growing inside her takes it outside the realm of a woman and her doctor? And why do you feel women should not be entitled to all the facts?
Because This is AMERICA..not some third-world Muslim nation where women have no choices!!HELLO!!!
Because it is HER CHOICE to either have the baby or not!! This is the 21st century,ps what if the case was rape or incest??
Poodles,
did you just say a woman should not have all the facts because this is America not a muslim nation?
As for your PS... out of over 1 million abortions a year, less than 2.5% are due to rape and incest. So, 25,000 out of a million.
No Anti-Abortion Christians should shown pictures of starving kids whose mothers where forced to give birth to.
"No Anti-Abortion Christians should shown pictures of starving kids whose mothers where forced to give birth to."
Who forced the mother and father to have sex in the first place?
No , I said because women in AMERICA hve THE RIGHT to CHOOSE because we are not in some 3rd world nation (don't twist my words around!!) Also ,I agree with Grapost for once on this one!!
Voted : Yes, because...
i think abortion is really stupid because im someone that cant have kids and i dont talk to people that abort there kids thay can always put them up for adoption under no surconstances should there be abortion it is not the childs fault i think it should be murder by: brittany hazelbaker
Voted : Yes, because...
people need to see what p[eople are doing when you abort a baby
|
|
user created polls & quizzes 
