Nothing is wrong with that at all if that is your choice. If you are young and taught that abstinence is the only to prevent pregnancy then you begin having sex you will soon fall into what bama so eloquently described as "the consequences of irresponsible sex".
You know those birth control methods aren't fool proof or anything, and they usually cause more problems than their worth.
someone already addressed this, but I had to elaborate. Anti-capitalist propoganda? Are you serious? It's part of history, as real as can be. But as I type this I remember in another thread you mentioned something about how we should not pay too much attention to history or something to that effect. The saying about those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it has some merit to it. Thank goodness we learned from the Robber Baron period, and have made steps to correct many of those ills. I just can't get over saying it was anti-capitalist propoganda. That's like saying D-Day was all pro militaristic hype, and an effort to build support for the inconsequential toubles in Europe.
I'm not about to get into another abortion debate, except to say that I see both sides and think they're both right and both wrong. I am pro-choice, as the least bad answer to an impossible question, for reasons that I've listed in a few other such threads. But I also totally understand and respect Max's position as wholly righteous and defensible. But I gotta speak to this abstinence thing. Pro-lifers who oppose sex education and access to contraceptives would do well to make the difficult choice as to which position is more important to them. People are going to have sex out of wedlock. They just are, whether anyone likes it or not, no matter how much religion our society can muster. If opposition to sex education and birth control is the more important position, count on plenty of unwanted pregnancies followed by plenty of abortions (regardless of the law). If limiting abortions (as well as unwanted, un-cared for children) is more important, go ahead and preach abstinence but stop opposing sex education and contraceptives as alternatives for those who simply will not choose abstinence. No matter that some people might prefer everyone employed abstinence as birth control -- increased education and access to contraceptives WOULD limit the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. And that is a natural fact. If abortion equals murder in some people's eyes, I'd think they'd be willing to compromise on the sex stuff to minimize the number of abortions. While I'm here... twhy: no booty and no hand? You're a stronger man than I am. By miles. My hat's off to you.
First off thanks for the props, I could do a whole Platonic Dialogue about why I no hand (not know hand); As far as contraceptives go...I'm Catholic so I oppose them....I also oppose sin, but I know it happens, I don't think there is anyway to outlaw contraceptives, I just think if we are struggling towards a more perfect union, one in which people had a better understanding of the sexual act, then we would have a lot more respect for the life creating force it entails...but its not a perfect world and I realize that, I just like to pontificate and if anybody likes the words I speak then maybe it will cahnge their life for the better a little... But I mean, they aren't fool proof, Condoms Bust and the pill doesn't always work...so that was the only point I was trying to make...
Just because your religion says its wrong for you to do something, doesn't make it wrong. I thank god every day that there is separation of church and state. May the Schwartz be with you.
That's cool, twhy. I don't have any beef with your position regarding contraceptives or abstinence. I wouldn't even have a beef with you preaching your beliefs on every street corner of every high school. My problem is with people who oppose sex education and condom distribution on the one hand and oppose abortion on the other. Unfortunately, the world being what it is, one strongly held belief undercuts the other in this case. And I'll say again, it's my guess (and it is just a guess) that the people who hold these two convictions would consider abortion a greater crime than sex education, free condoms or even premarital sex. If abortion really does equal murder to these people, I would think they'd soften their positions on the other stuff in order to limit abortion.
See I would feel bad handing out condoms at schools and stuff... To me thats still abortion... But I don't think there is anything that can be done legally to stop that... I just wish people were a little more educated on teh beauty of the sexual act in its full extent....but... I am a dreamer...
That's relativism which subplants argument for truth, your not getting at the essence of the matter... It's fine to say that...and I'm not saying that I'm right on the issue or anything, but someone is right....even if it means having different perspectives on what that rightness is...its called exestential phenomenology
I think you have implied more than once that your religious principals and views might benefit some of us here on the BBS-- is that fair to say? Nothing wrong with that as long as you are open about how you share your opinions and let people have their own views without looking down on them (i'm not saying you do- just in general).
You spoke before of people missing out on "whats good and evil." This isnt the essence of the matter. The essence is where does the gov't draw the line between the woman's right to choose and the life of the baby. The judiciary is going to strike this ban down because it says nothing about the woman's life being in danger. If my wife or girlfriend was having a child and I had to choose between saving her or the baby, I'd chose the woman in a heartbeat. You might choose differently, but atleast you have a CHOICE.
On feeling bad about handing out condoms: Okay. Don't hand them out. On condoms equalling abortion: Wow. I just mean, wow. What about vasectomies? Also abortions? My head's still spinning on this one. On not thinking condom distribution can be legally blocked: It can be blocked in schools, which is where distribution would have the most impact. And I say again (at least to those who don't equate condom use with abortions... wow) that for those who think abortion is baby-killing, I'd think they'd be willing to compromise just a little on sex ed in an effort to limit it.
oh yeah totally, no one gone stop me from trying to persuade on what truth is...but I'm not going to be able to force anyone to believe it...thats what rhetoric and arguments are for...its all a drama...and then you pick the right way as you see it..you could be right you could be wrong.... but you pick a way...life is long and I'm not here to judge...I've got to worry about correcting the things in my life first before I can try to help anyone else.. I hope I haven't made anybody feel bad or feel like a sinner now you guys got me worried If I did, I'm truly truly sorry, especially Andy, I didn't mean to call you evil Franchise2001 what I spoke of about on Good and Evil was only directed towards andymoon and I apologized for saying that too him I got a little emotional...I was trying to chide him for turning everything into a legal matter with this case, when beyond that there is an objective to view the case...i.e. fighting for Brown vs. the Board of Education because you believe seperate but equal to be stupid, or fighting against abortion because you view it as an intrinsicly wrong... As far as teh left's stance on the subject... I recognised the care they definitely have for the mother and the want for things to be ok, and I don't think their position evil- just wrong, I think Thrugood Marshall would say the same thing to people who opposed him in his crusade... and we've all been wrong on some things.... Batman-- Maybe I phrased it wrong when I said that it was abortion, of course its not abortion, but for the Catholic, any impediment to the natural life process (that doesn't have to deal with your health i.e. my mom had a tumor in her uterus and had to get a vasectomy) is wrong...so now its not the same as killing an unborn child, but it is still not a good thing to do in the Catholic mindset...If that is hypocrisy then sue me... I think it carries the argument out to its natural end for the pro-lif compatriot... I stand resolute on these issues...attack me if you will, but I've done the research and thats what I believe... As far as objective truth goes...well thats a topic for another day...I have to go walk the dog, and no that doesn't mean I'm going to go hand. I really do have to walk a dog.
twhy77, this has been an interesting exchange. I still maintain we are from different planets, but I have hope now that we can be beneficent aliens to one another (e.g. ET versus King Ghidra)
Sweet, I'm down for having some of your earth girls come hang out with me. sidenote, I went to a strict (teaching, not like we had to wear uniforms to class or anything) Catholic college and any time me and my buddies would see a hot girl instead of saying would you do her (like we did at my public high school [not like thats a bad thing]) we'd say, would you marry her and do her? The answer was usually a resounding yes.
The ban would be fine if they would just allow a provision to protect a women's health-- why won't they do that? In granting the stay, Casey cited arguments by the plaintiffs that the act is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect women's health. U.S. Seeks Speedy Review of Abortion Ban By Gail Appleson NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice (news - web sites), which has been temporarily blocked from enforcing a new law banning so-called partial-birth abortions, filed a motion on Monday seeking a speedy review of the statute. The department asked that a Manhattan federal judge hold a single proceeding within 120 days to consider both the merits of the law and whether the injunction should be lifted. The filing was made in response to last week's ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey, who issued a temporary stay of the law signed by President George Bush on Wednesday. The stay, which will be in effect until at least Nov. 21, was won by the National Abortion Federation, the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. Under the bill, a doctor could face up to two years in prison as well as civil lawsuits for performing a "partial-birth" abortion, defined as intentionally killing a fetus that has been partially delivered. The Justice Department said Congress had concluded that this type of late-term abortion is an inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary. It said an evidentiary hearing is needed to determine whether the findings of Congress are reasonable. "The best way to fulfill these important obligations is to work quickly to compile the strong record of the truth behind partial-birth abortion and to seek court review on the full record at the earliest possible time," it said. A spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the National Abortion Federation, could not be reached for comment. The stay temporarily stops U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from enforcing the ban against the plaintiffs, their employees and agents. This would include National Abortion Federation member doctors who perform half of all abortions in the United States as well as other federation health care workers in 47 states. In granting the stay, Casey cited arguments by the plaintiffs that the act is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception to protect women's health. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Nebraska statute banning partial-birth abortions based, in part, on the fact that statute did not contain such an exception.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, many anti-abortion activists think the term "health" is too permissive. They want exceptions only when the woman's life is in jeopardy. The problem I see is that if the law specifies "life" rather than "health" then a doctor could be arrested for performing an abortion to prevent the mother from a stroke, coma, or other ailment that technically isn't life threatening but could adversely impact the woman for her whole life.
