Hey prolifers, who's to be damned for the loss this fetus?

wow. generalize much?

do you think that to be pro-life you have to be pro-war? ask these guys if that's the case http://www.democratsforlife.org/

ask the Catholic Church...the Lutheran Church...the Presbyterian Church..the Methodist Church..the Episcoplian Church...ask those groups if they agree with you.

you need to get out more and meet more people who have ideas different from your own. you'll find that people can't be compartmentalized as easily as you might have thought.

 

Honestly, it is a good article that points out some of the problems cropping up in the military today. I think it is a little sad that this family has had so many issues. Only a little sad, but sad nonetheless.

However, this has nothing to do with the abortion debate.

 

so the puzzle unfolds...

...it's about the fetuses that die in the war!!! Not the miscarriage.

I still don't see the connection to steroids and baseball, though??

 

This thread was getting pretty funny until wnes posted a half-intelligible post.

1) There is no indication at all in the article that the miscarriage was caused by distress on the part of the mother. She happens to mention stress and miscarriage in the same paragraph; that's all. That far into a pregnancy, miscarriages are less common, but not unheard of. **** happens. Her stress might have contributed to the miscarriage, or it might not have. Impossible to tell. Either way, the position she and her husband were in was of their own doing. The miscarriage had nothing to do with the military's decisions.

2) It annoying to read in abortion threads how prolifers don't care about the children after they are born or they don't care about mothers. Or not enough to suit you. Where do people get this information? How do people -- especially people who dislike prolifers and don't spend time socializing with people of that persuasion -- get their pulse and know what their feelings are regarding mothers in need and children in need, or what they do about those problems?

 

I take it that you are pro-miscarriage.

 

What does that have to do with the miscarriage? I'm not following you at all.

 

I don't think that that's not what anyone is saying here. I think everyone here knows and fully relates a miscarriage to the death of a fetus. It's the fact that through no direct physical harm (like being pushed down some stairs or going to an abortion clinic) this fetus died. This fetus did not die in war either.

Now I do agree that if the military would actually quit dragging its collective ass on the issues, this woman would have been less stressed. But I'm not going to say that if she had been less stressed that this fetus would certainly have survived. And I'm not going to say that any one party is responsible for the miscarriage.

What I am going to agree with is this:

 

I think I follow your point but it seems pretty strained. Miscarriages happen all the time and while stress is one factor there are many other factors that could've caused it. In regard to people like Mad Max and Rhester they draw a very big distinction between miscarriage and abortion and it is one of the central pieces of their arguments against abortion. That one is artificial and intentional while the other is natural and accidental. So I think its off base to try to make them feel guilty over an issue where the already make a distinction.

 

That's a generalization but its one that's not totally without basis when you look at the policies championed by many of the most ardent pro-life politicians. These are people who will argue about the need to preserve the lives of fetus's yet will argue just as vociferiously for cutting programs that support things childcare, early education, access to prenatal and pediatric health care and even oppose family leave.

 

If you have problems serving in combat, I don't understand why you would think it is a good idea to join the military. Sounds like somebody trying to con the government. If you are against pre-marital sex, don't be a p*rn-star. If you are against serving in combat, don't be a soldier. This isn't real complicated stuff.

I think it is a little disturbing that he had no problems fighting Christians in Kosovo (in defense of Muslims) but felt the need to become a conscientious objector now that he is asked to serve as a quartermaster (not even a front line soldier, but a supply person) now that the enemy is predominantly Muslim.

All of that being said, this thread seems to have very little relationship to one's stance on abortion, so I have the same problem with the calling out that many others have expressed.

 

oh, you know it!!! i'm Mr. Miscarriage. i'm involved with several organizations that promote miscarriage.

where am i??

what the hell is this thread about, anyway?

 

What if you are married to your co-star?

 

[derail]The only people in the industry that have the power to pick all of their co-stars (or in this case, limit themselves to one partner) are those who produce their own stuff. Even establised stars are not going to get work with only one partner, the best you can hope for is only your spouse as a male partner plus many lez partners. I don't know if there are any male, non-producer stars that only perform with one partner. So, it is fine to produce your own stuff and only perform with your husband, but that makes you more of a p*rn mogul than a p*rn star. [/derail]

I suppose this just illustrates the point that there are limited exception to everything. If you were great at some job that the military needs that would not likely put you in a combat situation (satellite photo analyst, etc.) then you could certainly serve even if you have a problem going into combat, but that is not the situation here. We have a grunt that decided he suddenly is uncomfortable with going into combat, even as a quartermaster.

 

You sure seem to know a lot about the p*rn industry.

 

Well, wnes was talking to 'prolifers' not pro-life politicians. And, pro-life politicians generally would cut such programs due to a mostly seperate philosophy concerned about the role of government in society, not simply because they are heartless bastards. A prolifer (who is not a politician) isn't fettered by concerns about the role of government or their duty to constituency, to a balanced budget, to adminsitrative efficiency, to greasing the wheels of government or any of the other myriad concerns of a politician. In those things, they have their one vote to worry about. Otherwise, though there are things a citizen can do beside the vote: working in church and charitable organizations, donations, advocacy, and the like. Living out their beliefs in their own lives. There's a lot more to a person than how he votes. So, I don't think it's fair to make generalizations about a segment of the population by looking at their corresponding role in another population (the Congress). It just makes for easy grandstanding.

 

which pretty much sums up this thread and about half the D&D...assumptions about other people across the board based on their take on one certain issue.