SO let me get this straight...

[flyingvan]

.....My young daughter can buy an abortion pilll without me being notified but I can't buy a large soda?

[bayview]

I'll be the first to straighten you out . . .     

Your daughter probably doesn't have to pay for the abortion pill.   A gov agency or planned parenthood would give it to her for free.   Soon, they will be handed out in schools like condoms.

/.

[UK4X4]

Freedom is not always a free as you may think !


Sodas- buy two mediums

Pills--- I think I'd rather my daughter was able to get a legal qualified safe pill

- rather than trying to self medicate with something bought over the internet or through a back street clinic.

Throughout history people have been getting pregnant by accident- methods have improved in the prevention and post accident situations.


Its her body and her choice- wether you feel its wrong or not.

I dread the day my daughter is in that situation and she does not ask for help from hopefully me or others.


Whats that MTV program 16 and pregnant - almost 98% of them are train wrecks even when the parents try and help- with the best intensions and religeous convictions.

[Abbey]

Because she can buy the pill doesn't mean she'll ever buy one.

[Carla_M]

Because she can buy the pill doesn't mean she'll ever buy one.

Exactly.  Buy or be given by a clinic, having the availability in case she does something stupid is good, IMO.  We all hope our children won't do something stupid like get pregnant let alone have sex before they are ready. We also hope we've instilled enough trust that they will have the courage to come to us for help before it is too late. That applies to anything, not just this pill. Not all kids have parents who are like that though. I vote for the availability of the pill.

I can not remember the last time I had a soda of any size. It was probably mixed with rum though.   I do resent the fact that somebody else makes the attempt to prevent me from a simple purchase though, so I have mixed feelings. The easy way out is like UK4X4 suggests.     I am pretty sure though that all that sugar is bad for us and the atrificial sweetners even worse in the long run. But how to get people to take better care of themselves is a whole other topic.

Anyway you cut it though a teenage pregnancy is a recipe for a sure fire short circuit to the life of the young woman. It just so totally changes everything for the worse IMO. That alone should help reinforce the idea that education and abstinence is great, but we need a fall back.

For the record, I have 2 daughters, now grown up. We had our trials growing up.     But we made it through even though there were things they did I have only recently discovered.

[flyingvan]

    Traditional family poses the single greatest threat to big government, and vice versa.   We let the government raise our kids for us in the government schools, where the only thing they really learn is the government will feed and clothe them whether they try to succeed or not....The erosion of the family  can be seen at many levels.  Neither of my daughters are likely to put themselves in that situation but if they do, a loving family is in a far better postion to help them through than some clinic.
     No sodas here, either---candy in a can in my opinion.  Our government nanny state has no right whatsoever telling people they can't buy a soda, or have to buy health insurance.  Geez--why do the same people that hate Monsanto for being a big business encourage growth in the biggest business of all, the Federal government?

[Woodsrule]

So, it seems the general consensus in society today is that it's o.k. to legislate my soda intake because I can't be trusted to stop drinking the sugar, but apparently it's o.k. with folks that young girls can get an abortion without parental consent. This is just another step in the march toward progressivism folks. When a society substitutes parental control with government control, you get what we see in China. Forced abortions, limits on family size and other atrocities directed toward the family unit. And I don't agree that a teenager becoming pregnant is always "stupid." I take offense to that as many 16, 17, 18, and 19 year old women make perfectly fine parents, but with the advent of the "abortion pill" many of them won't find out.  And, if "it's her body and her choice" then we must rethink the statutory rape laws still on the books in all the states. If a girl 14 year old "consents" to sex with a 17 or 18 year old man, then who are we to judge? It's her body and her choice, remember?

[Abbey]

The government not only fears the traditional family, but the self-sufficient homesteaders as well. Most people aren't "letting" the government do anything, the government is taking over and pushing itself upon us at every turn and regardless of how strongly we object to further governmental intrusions into our private lives we lose. I think this is mostly because so many voters are woefully ignorant and vote "the party line" without researching and carefully considering the candidates.

The truth is for many of us the government needs us more than we need it.

Although Monsanto has done some pretty nasty things I think the federal government is more akin to the Mafia.

[flyingvan]

How 'bout this next election cycle we make Owner/Builder votes count double

[archimedes]

Well,  if you're really interested in "getting it straight" then you should know that the "abortion pill",  RU 486,   is not available to younger women over the counter.   Plan B is,  but that's not an abortion pill.  It's birth control that is effective after sexual intercourse.  Not an abortion pill
http://women.webmd.com/guide/plan-b

And a judge overruled the soda ban
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So the entire premise of this thread is based on false and inaccurate information. 

But it does play into a certain paranoid political ideology,  which some people just can't get enough of.

[bayview]

You're spoiling this discussion with truth and facts. . .    Where's the fun in that!   

Well,  if you're really interested in "getting it straight" then you should know that the "abortion pill",  RU 486,   is not available to younger women over the counter.   Plan B is,  but that's not an abortion pill.  It's birth control that is effective after sexual intercourse.  Not an abortion pill
http://women.webmd.com/guide/plan-b

And a judge overruled the soda ban
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates-bloombergs-soda-ban.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So the entire premise of this thread is based on false and inaccurate information. 

But it does play into a certain paranoid political ideology,  which some people just can't get enough of.

[flyingvan]

More an illustration of where our society and its relationship with government is progressing.  If needed, there are plenty of examples of how government intrudes on family.  Fact remains government DID ban large sodas,  and--- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/plan-b-over-the-counter-morning-after-pill-age-15_n_3188432.html unless I'm reading this wrong, 15 year old girls can buy a morning after pill.

   Here's my opinion---the end of our nation's prosperity is rooted in rewarding sloth and punishing success, and the destruction of the family.  Being able to accept infanticide to avoid responsibility for the results of poor decisions is a symptom of this.  A young couple that gets itself in trouble needs strong family support, not some government fix.
   We need to be free to make our own choices, and reap the benefits of the good choices but suffer the consequences of the bad.  It isn't the government's job to redistribute the gains of the good decisions, nor to soften the blow of the bad.

[NM_Shooter]

   Here's my opinion---the end of our nation's prosperity is rooted in rewarding sloth and punishing success, and the destruction of the family.  Being able to accept infanticide to avoid responsibility for the results of poor decisions is a symptom of this.  A young couple that gets itself in trouble needs strong family support, not some government fix.
   We need to be free to make our own choices, and reap the benefits of the good choices but suffer the consequences of the bad.  It isn't the government's job to redistribute the gains of the good decisions, nor to soften the blow of the bad.

I concur.  We seem to be conditioning our young people to be irresponsible.  Their actions have no significance because they can act as hedonistically as they want, toss moral obligations to the wind, and simply take a little pill to make it all better in the morning.

This pill is the sweetheart fix of the liberal mindset.  It has been promoted as a safe way to tidy up those loose ends of an evening of indiscretion.  Read this article on the dangers of this abortion in a pill....1% of users are reported to need a blood transfusion.  Holy crap..... and many of us are worried about vaccinations but not worried if there is a 1/100 chance that our daughters might bleed to death due to a pill that they can get without parent consent and medical supervision?

http://www.dianedew.com/ru486.htm

I'm not surprised at all.  Compared to snipping open the spines of young children born in an abortuary, this thing is like candy, right? 

[Squirl]

More an illustration of where our society and its relationship with government is progressing.  If needed, there are plenty of examples of how government intrudes on family.  Fact remains government DID ban large sodas,  and--- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/plan-b-over-the-counter-morning-after-pill-age-15_n_3188432.html unless I'm reading this wrong, 15 year old girls can buy a morning after pill.

You could also take 5 minutes of your day and actually the read the webmd article the morning after pill is not the abortion pill.  It is the same exact birth control that is the pill, but at a higher dose.  You could also read the article you posted.

If a woman already is pregnant, the morning-after pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg

Sexual assault is a reality even for teenage girls.  If they can prevent pregnancy on top of such a horrific ordeal, I'm O.K. with that.

In truth liberals love this deliberate ignorance .  Sexual assault is a real fear for many women.  Some statistics have as many as one in three experiencing it within their lifetime.  A whole political agenda is willing to turn a blind eye to this. People with a political agenda that refuse to take 5 minutes out of their day to even understand the basics of birth control , that Levonorgestrel is not RU-486, or ways that women can have control over their bodies feeds right in to keeping conservatives in the political wilderness for the foreseeable future.

"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." - Todd Akin

Tone deaf.

By all means, keep posting RU-486 articles when talking about plan b.  Can't tell the difference?  80% of the rest of the public can.

[OlJarhead]

So let me get this straight:

You can legislate my choice of food and beverage but not my child's choice to have sex or not?

What amazes me is that the progressives think it's ok to legislate security at the expense of liberty as long as it fits the model of their beliefs.

For me it's simple:  nunya

It's nunya business what I eat, drink, smoke, inject or erect as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

So, having said that I think ALL drugs should be over the counter (why on earth do I need a prescription of anything for that matter?)

As for the abortion pill, or after sex pill etc my opinion, for what little it is worth, is that we don't know enough about the side affects of the pill (Margret Sanger would love for it to sterilize young girls if she were alive to see it) and while I don't support abortion (how can I and still believe in 'Life, Liberty, Property'?) I don't know that the pill is actually an 'abortion pill' but rather a 'don't get pregnant pill' which, if it were just after sex birth control then perhaps it isn't any worse then the normal pill (which causes mass amounts of synthetic estrogen to go into the water supply and cause fish to stop procreating but who's paying attention to that anyway?)

[Abbey]

If we allow them they would happily legislate every aspect of our lives.

And I'm sure there would be "users fees" associated with everything to boot.

[Carla_M]

and while I don't support abortion (how can I and still believe in 'Life, Liberty, Property'?)

Is there not some dichotomy there?    A belief in Liberty for the living and breathing individual countered by the prohibition for that individual to make the very personal choice to terminate an early term pregnancy?  If that view on abortion is religious I accept that viewpoint for that person. However, if the prohibition is one of a man made law I am strongly against that. That is tramping on my personal Liberty of which you appear to be a strong advocate.

[OlJarhead]

Is there not some dichotomy there?    A belief in Liberty for the living and breathing individual countered by the prohibition for that individual to make the very personal choice to terminate an early term pregnancy?  If that view on abortion is religious I accept that viewpoint for that person. However, if the prohibition is one of a man made law I am strongly against that. That is tramping on my personal Liberty of which you appear to be a strong advocate.

Life of the unborn child.

Let's not forget that.

So how then can I, a Libertarian who believes strongly in this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. " (from the Declaration) not also then be opposed to abortion which takes a life?

I know that pro-abortionists don't believe the baby is alive until born (OK some believe it's not technically alive even then if it's part of an abortion but survived -- re: Gosnel trial) however some believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming too and while some have decent arguments to support their beliefs neither is a proven indisputable fact (like say, that the sun is hot -- now that's a fact we can agree on I suspect).

So the supporters of abortion take it on FAITH that the fetus/embyo/unborn child is not alive.....

And then they go after the faith of those who believe in god....strange that.

[Carla_M]

So how then can I, a Libertarian who believes strongly in this: "We hold ---------- happiness. " (from the Declaration) not also then be opposed to abortion which takes a life?

The Libertarians I know have attended pro choice rallies and held posters saying things like "We're Pro Choice for Everything." 

Some are personally opposed to abortion, but reject governmental meddling in a decision that should be private between a woman and her physician.

I guess there are different degrees of Libertarianism just as there are varying beliefs among democrats and republicans. I'm all over the map myself.      A little from here, some from there.  Strictly or blindly following any dogma, religious or political, IMO, removes the ability to think rationally about many subjects. There's always room for change and compromise; something that has been missing from our political arena for decades now. IMO.

[OlJarhead]

Agreed -- and I'm not your typical 'Libertarian' I'd warrant.

By definition, as far as I'm concerned, a Libertarian (not the political party but rather the belief system) believes in Liberty.

So, taken too literally one could assume that means the freedom to kill.  That of course would be immoral in my opinion and I know no Libertarians who agree with that if one is talking about a walking, talking, living, person.  The problem arises when the emotions are engaged and an unborn child is the 'person' in question.

Is the unborn alive?  Or not?  This is the real kicker because if they are not 'alive' then abortion is a choice between a woman, her spouse/boyfriend (after all, without his sperm she would not be pregnant would she?  and if the egg she carries is 'her body' then the sperm he provides is 'his body'), and doctor.

However, I don't subscribe to that theory (faith) but rather that the child is alive at conception or shortly thereafter.  I'm willing to accept that perhaps brain wave activity and/or a heartbeat be a litmus test but I do believe the issue is simply that:  is the baby alive or not?

If it is then no libertarian who actually believes in Liberty could be for abortion.

[OlJarhead]

For reference I think the Government has no business telling me who I can or cannot marry, nor what I can or cannot eat, what religion I may or may not adhere too, whether or not I can do drugs, what type of milk I can drink (or anything else for that matter) etc etc.

The Constitution is the law of the land and we'd be much better off looking to it rather then telling people the above.

On the other hand I do think the government can pass laws against killing a person (we call that murder or manslaughter right?) and I don't know a Libertarian who disagrees with that (except the silly Anarchists) as such, the government would be Constitutionally bound to PROTECT LIFE....hence a Libertarians support for laws against abortion.

[OlJarhead]

I might add that we are not talking about a cancer here but rather a baby.

[UK4X4]

"This is the real kicker because if they are not 'alive' then abortion is a choice between a woman, her spouse/boyfriend (after all, without his sperm she would not be pregnant would she?  and if the egg she carries is 'her body' then the sperm he provides is 'his body'), and doctor."

I my personal experience......the sperm donor has no say in the matter !

Seemingly the woman is in charge of that department and it does not matter after the fact of donation

[Carla_M]

The question of at what moment does life begin is a difficult one. IMO, those who say that life begins at the moment sperm meets egg and those who say that life begins when the viable baby leaves the womb are both taking an easy way out. To me it is obvious as well that the morning after the sperm and the egg met there is no viable life. If the body pushed the cells out of the body at that point they would not survive. I can also agree that if a baby comes a few weeks early it is obvious that is a living, breathing human. In between the morning after and birth day though, there is a great deal of time when the baby could not survive on it's own. Up to that point it is not yet capable of being a living, breathing human. So if it is expelled from the womb spontaneously or removed in an early term abortion, that is not taking a life.

Anyone can disagree with that point of view. That is the wonderful thing about the USA. We can all have an opinion on a matter as this, we can all express our opinion out loud and not fear that somebody is going to come knocking at our door to arrest us for some supposed crime. With that I believe there is no point in further discussion on the matter.

My opinion has evolved from a Hell No to whether or not abortion should be legal to the above; it is the woman's choice. Why? Many of my life's experiences have shown me that there are a great many things we encounter that are not a simple black or white. There is a lot of shades of grey and there is the need for a lot of human compassion with many of life's events.



As for the man and his sperm. He lost control of the situation when he injected the sperm into the woman.

[OlJarhead]

We can certainly argue about when life begins and while opinions may vary from person to person I'm sure scientists could help make the distinction.  Having said that 'life' is usually what they call a one celled organism......

Is not a fetus more then one cell?  Does it not need sustenance?  Will it not die without the basics we all need in life?  Water, air, food?  A fish does not breath the way we do but it is alive?

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalrighttolifenews.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F03%2Fwhat-happened-when-my-pro-abortion-friend-saw-this-picture&h=-AQHQMrj2AQE2qyEGaFznw2frwIZ31GsEeA_8oPaIKeOIAA&enc=AZNB8i5zwacBEc7fE03pvL4pxGJHF1cUYpVLmkfj-__oFQew5eKN39uL7H_GKwQPTmFiWYAf5K7kNSpyz6u7H4XT&s=1

As for removing the baby from the womb, how many realize that this (the above link) is happening?

It's not as if it's just suddenly expelled folks (at least not once it's actually formed into a child).