Thanks, but not as good as Jeff's post. By the way, andy, I hate to say it, but I disagree that pro-life is necessarily a religious position. Unless you want to make "religious" encompass morality and philosophy.
that is what I find the most perplexing bout the pro-life people, they want to force women to have babies that can't be cared for, but they also don't want any tax money spent on welfare, education or support for these babies. not to mention the idiotic stance of taking away protective sex education from government web sites, reducing funding for programs that teach safe sex etc etc
I reached puberty in the early '60's... you know, the era of Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best. The culture of the '50's still was very much in play. And you know what? With all that conservative culture running amok throughout the land, with parents sleeping in twin beds on the sit-coms, and on and on... teenagers were having sex like rabbits. Some of you are living in a dream world.
It is the medical removal of an unwanted growth. Your athiests might believe abortion is wrong, but we both know that the anti-abortion crowd is that way because of religion and we also both know that nobody in our society has the right to push their religious beliefs on someone else. How can it possibly be a life separate from the mother if it cannot survive outside the womb? Again, I will support an abortion ban when we have the technology to remove the fetus from the mother and incubate it to term so that it can be adopted. That, however, is the only way that abortions should become illegal.
She's not a mother, she's a female. Walks back to laboratory and checks the gages on the embryo machines to make sure their functioning. *ring ring* Hello? Hi yes, I'd like to order a 6 foot 6 child with, blond hair blue eyes. Well yes, let me put that order in for you. It'll ship in about 6 months. Great. Brave New World here we come. Reproductive "rights" are the first step. What comes next?
please stop grouping pro-lifers with some preconceived notion you have. when you see pro-choice funded womens health clinics that: 1. provide free ultrasounds to pregnant women; 2. provide free job training, including computer skill training; 3. free diapers, clothes, furniture, formula, toys, etc.; 4. assist with grants and scholarships for higher education; 5. etc. let me know. let me know the next time planned parenthood does something like that. i'll be waiting anxiously. i can name you 5 clinics in this town alone, just off the top of my head, that are privately funded pro-life clinics...that provide an alternative.
I saw the same thing about a year ago (when we had our first little discussion about abortion) and still maintain that until it can survive outside the womb, it is not a "life" to me.
you are so right, Sex is driven by our own animal instincts...it is natural to have sex, to want to have sex, it is THE primary life function for all animals, to reproduce.....to try to repress this instinct, to teach absenance, it just going again nature and will never be successful for the masses
you're putting a qualification on life that the law does not. has not. for centuries. and again...if support is your concern, then the child is still just as much dependent on its mother after birth as it is before...particularly in regard to late-term abortions. again with the religious thing...i'm telling you i know atheists who say it's life. MacBeth is one you know as well. ask him if he's trying to push his religion on you because he's pro-life.
\ Sam, you're looking foolish, I never said it was 10,000, I said CNN was wrong about our numbers in January. It very well could be 500,000 or more. That's how many we had and CNN and other sources said tow things, tens of thousands, and 10000, 20000.
that's fine...i won't disagree that it can't survive without the mother's assistance. but you called it a mass of cells. that's quite different from a beating heart...and by that definition we are all nothing more than a mass of cells.
you are right, there are private clinics that attempt to give support, but as a matter of national policy of the Republicans, is NOT to offer this type of alternative support, they may talk the talk about supporting mothers, but they don't walk the walk with actual funding if the federal govt wants to take this right away, then they sure better step up to the plate and offer adaquate support!
Three problems here... 1. There aren't enough. It takes more than private institutions to make that happen. It takes government intervention. 2. There needs to be assistance BEFORE pregnancy. Most of the non-profits refuse to dissimenate information regarding birth control. They prefer absitnence which is simply unrealistic. 3. This isn't institutionalized. It needs to be where everyone hears about it, sees it and knows it. Birth control options need to be as available and well-publicized as any healthcare issue. Unfortunately, in areas where they are needed the most, healthcare programs are scarce.
I would assume that they grieve because they wanted the fetus to come to term (in the case of miscarriage) or over what could have been (in the case of abortion). This does not go against my argument. Argument shaping?!? Puh-leeze. I win (at least in my mind ) on this argument because I make sense.
Dream on. I've known several women over the years, the years before you were born, who got pregnant using the rhythm method. It's a crap shoot.
