.....My young daughter can buy an abortion pilll without me being notified but I can't buy a large soda?
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.
/.
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.
Because she can buy the pill doesn't mean she'll ever buy one.
Quote from: Abbey on May 02, 2013, 11:44:00 AM
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. ;D 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.
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?
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?
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.
How 'bout this next election cycle we make Owner/Builder votes count double
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.
You're spoiling this discussion with truth and facts. . . Where's the fun in that! :)
Quote from: archimedes on May 04, 2013, 08:21:04 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: flyingvan on May 04, 2013, 09:47:04 AM
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?
Quote from: flyingvan on May 04, 2013, 09:47:04 AM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
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?)
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.
Quoteand 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. ???
Quote from: Carla_M on May 07, 2013, 12:14:58 PM
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.
Quote from: OlJarhead on May 07, 2013, 01:27:41 PM
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.
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.
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.
I might add that we are not talking about a cancer here but rather a baby.
"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
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.
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).
Quote1life
noun \ˈlīf\
plural lives
Definition of LIFE
1
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
From http://www.merriam-webster.com
So while a 3 year old cannot reproduce it is still a life form -- we wouldn't argue that right?
A fetus can't reproduce either but it does have a capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli -- we know this right?
It is not dead, therefore it is alive.
Heck, it's also animate (ever heard of an unborn child kicking?)
So while abortionists like to claim the baby is not alive what they really mean is "not a viable human" yet....just like killing someone who's in a vegetative state right? They aren't viable so pull the plug?
The reason this argument isn't made, IMHO is because then you have to admit it is not the woman's body.....oopsie
That single celled zygote that IS a new human life-- If one of our Martian probes found the same thing on the surface of Mars, tell me who wouldn't be calling it 'Life'?
Fry up a spotted owl egg omelette, go to jail. Suck a member of your own species into a sink, you're a hero?
Now if I can temper this a bit for the sake of the other side----If, as a man, you ever put a woman in the position of possibly getting pregnant with a child you had no intention of supporting, well, you don't have much room to talk
"As for the man and his sperm. He lost control of the situation when he injected the sperm into the woman"
That had me giggling into my cuba libre !
"If, as a man, you ever put a woman in the position of possibly getting pregnant with a child you had no intention of supporting, well, you don't have much room to talk"
The only way a man can fully comply to that is abstinance
However its simply not natural- and has proven to be a very dificult subject even for RC Priests and Budist monks
yep you also read about the 40 year old virgins in the news- but is that through design or situation !
Quote from: UK4X4 on May 07, 2013, 06:54:32 PM
That had me giggling into my cuba libre !
(https://i761.photobucket.com/albums/xx251/carlarmoore/smiley/Doffinghatsmiley_zps679a56b8.gif) (https://s761.photobucket.com/user/carlarmoore/media/smiley/Doffinghatsmiley_zps679a56b8.gif.html)
Uh, no, there's another option past complete abstinence, which may very well be the most erotic and sexually satisfying route to take---impossible to compare though. Plus, it happens far more frequently than the left cares to acknowledge---
A man has the option to
--Learn to control his urges instead of being a slave to them
--Fall in love and marry, making a very public declaration this is the person you intend to support and care for
--Go.
At least, that's been my approach. 23 years now and it just gets better.
Imagine if, unlike what UK4X4 is implying, it wasn't a given that we are powerless against our sexual urges and instead we encourage and promote the idea to save it for someone. I married way out of my league with this attitude. If you are truly open minded, just briefly entertain this idea--- reserve intercourse for the one person you intend to spend the rest of your life with.
First off, sex is a powerful motivator. If girls would only put out for someone with a good enough income to support the results of an encounter, the workforce participation rate wouldn't be abysmal.
Second, there would be no venereal disease. None.
Third, every child would be 'wanted' and the result of two people making a very careful decision.
Freedom isn't just doing what you feel---it's enjoying the benefits, or suffering the consequences, of your actions. Just as your right to swing your fist stops at my face, the right to do whatever you feel stops where it impacts others. STD's, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, sleeping with someone's future spouse---all impacts others.
Just don't mistake the strength required for self control for a lack of drive or libido. Most people have the same urges---not everyone submits to them.
"--Learn to control his urges instead of being a slave to them" oops failed on that one 8-)
"--Fall in love and marry, making a very public declaration this is the person you intend to support and care for"
Second time arround on that one !- This time hopefully it will last !- 10 years and counting
The only person I know that waited ....was my mum.........a past generation
Out of all my old friends my age I don't know anyone who managed it, or even attempted it.
veneral diseases have been arround since before christianity- and I don't see them disappearing anytime soon- chastity or not
Every child wanted-
even in a loving relationship in this day and age - accidents still do happen- and some people for financial or lifestyle reasons still choose to abort rather than have another child.
Its a complicated subject, and everyone has their personal view.
Mean while I have to stay out of here and finish designing my bathroom so the plumber can start !
1-Store your sperm in a sperm bank for latter retrieval.
2-Get a Vasectomy.
Problem solved
The ideal never has, and probably never will, be attained. The reaction to this by some is, then, to discard and ignore the ideal as impossible.
It's impossible for the weak, and an opportunity to others to display strength.
If venereal diseases would persist, 'chastity or not', one of us has a deep misunderstanding of biology.
I believe there is a huge value to society as a whole when we seek to attain, and encourage others to attain, these ideals. Sure, we're all human---you point out priests and monks that fail---I hope, then , you have a deep respect for the majority of them that master their urges and do not fail. A child born out of wedlock has a much better chance at success when the parent or parents come from solid families with a mom and dad or grandparents to help provide practical and emotional needs. That child will do far better than one raised primarily by the government schools.
Quoteeven in a loving relationship in this day and age - accidents still do happen- and some people for financial or lifestyle reasons still choose to abort rather than have another child.
this is one of the circumstances that the morning after pill is the perfect solution. The morning after pill is after all, the thing that started this conversation. Has anyone ever had a condom fail during use? It does happen. I don't know how frequent, but I have seen it with my own eyes. Why should we not be able to use it if our first line of defense fails?
Quote from: OlJarhead on May 07, 2013, 09:53:57 AM
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 .......... 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.....
Just restating my position without the 'anti-abortion' stuff I posted -- it is, after all, a thread about an after sex pill right?
So, I think consenting adults have a right to use birth control and I don't think government should have anything to do with it.
I am, however, opposed to allowing children to make those choices for themselves.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd agree that a 17 year old is a child either -- old enough to fight and die for your country then old enough to be called an adult.
Although most people agree teens shouldn't be having sex. As a matter of public policy, most laws say that by 16, they can decide that for themselves.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/SR/StateLaws/summary.shtml
Since 1977 the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny teenagers access to birth control. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/431_U.S._678
That is why the court stepped in on this case. It is a standard birth control pill. By the FDA originally denying access to teenagers infringed on the constitutional rights outlined in Carey.
One justice even wrote in a concurring opinion in Carey that denying access to birth control infringes upon the constitutional rights of legally married 14-16 year olds. Although not as common in today's modern society, the laws carry over that teens are young adults and have some of the same individual rights as those over 18.
I'm not touching the actual abortion stuff.
That's the point, at what age does a "child" become an "adult" and is allowed to make his or her own decisions free of parental or governmental control? To me I see this more as a debate on who is in control of the decisions regarding how teens are living their lives. Is it the teens themselves, the parents, or the government?
"one of us has a deep misunderstanding of biology"
Come now sir - surely not me
3 main types bacterial-viral and parasitic
Cold sores---genital herpes
can be passed through foreplay - sex not required
So can yeast infections etc
So can HIV-any body fluids
parasites are usually spread during sexual contact, but can also be spread through contact with an infected person's clothing, bed linens, or towels.
certain ST's can be non evident in women and be passed to children during birth
If we all decided tommorow to be monks and priests- would they die off -NAH
if we locked us all up in bio suits and never had human -human contact of any form -
I agree they would eventually go away- about the same time as our species !
meanwhile back to the thread !
Can you now list for me some of the ways humanity benefits from promiscuity?
Quote from: flyingvan on May 09, 2013, 08:25:42 AM
Can you now list for me some of the ways humanity benefits from promiscuity?
I can not.
People do many things that do not benefit humanity and definitely do not benefit the themselves, though. There is a short term feel good received. That runs the gamut from drinking too much sugary soda and eating too much to trying to impose their own religions on others, to repeatedly building cabins using techniques proven to be faulty. After a while the head begins to hurt too much from all the head bashing and we try to find ways to mitigate the problem.
In theory it would be wonderful to be raised in a happy, 1950's TV-Land American family, meet Mr or Mrs Right, get married, have 2 1/3 kids, retire and enjoy the grandkids with your lifetime spouse, live to a ripe old age and then be buried in the family plot side by side. Doesn't happen most of the time. So we try our best in our own ways.
I replaced my idealism with pragmatism.
Abortion by whatever means shouldn't be for convenience and should only be done when medically/ethically warranted. Whether it is warranted or not is between the woman (and if she and he are mature thinking, her sperm donor), their doctor and their God if they so believe. Let's face it, the majority of abortions in this country are for convenience (i.e., birth control post fertilization). I just don't agree with that in general as I don't agree with the death penalty in general.
OBTW, I tend to lean libertarian in most cases.
I really don't have a problem if the government wants to approve OTC pills that cause miscarriage. If my daughter ever gets in that situation and chooses that, then she lives with that decision. My wife is a mental health therapist and has counseled numerous childless women who are now tormented by choosing to abort at an early age. Life teaches lessons if we let it and choices have consequences. You can either get better or get bitter.
"Can you now list for me some of the ways humanity benefits from promiscuity?"
I have a whole list- but we're a family friendly site 8)
here's a safe one - it widens the gene pool !
raping and pillaging used to be the national pastime of most sea faring nations, some impregnated in the town - some were brought back to their home town to meet mum.
even many tribes indigenous indians both in the americas and africa would have yearly raids to other villages where "wifes" were taken.
These days its called vacation ;D
marriage did'nt exist untill after the church did - we weren't designed to be monogamous
That came with the church trying to set guideline and rules so that humans could live in peace with each other in a village enviroment.
prior to that was tribal laws and those other belief systems
it did'nt come from our natural instincts or behavoirs.
QuoteThese days its called vacation ;D
rofl funny man!
I'm not sure about marriage coming after the formal church though. I thought men took wives waaaay back as a form of having exclusive access to a particular woman's favors. To keep her out of circulation. The woman had nothing to say about the matter. The church did get its hooks in there at some point though. They did used to be the official keeper of the records of marriage. Started in the 8th century or so I think.
Marriage: would be an interesting topic unto itself.
There was a time if a woman did not bear children the dowery was returned upon her death.
UK,
The women of that time might not view it in the same manner as you, nor would they consider it a "vacation" either. I also doubt the women were brought home to "meet mum" as you put it so flippantly. After watching their men and sons get brutally murdered they were kidnapped, taken from their families and villages to a foreign land with a foreign language where they were kept as servants and sex slaves for the men. As such if they stepped out of line they were simply disposed of with little thought, concern, or compassion. These women were neither companions nor "gene pool" wideners, they were possessions. A few of these women might have found some semblance of a family life with their new "husbands" who kidnapped and raped them, but I believe that would be extremely rare.
Because they were taken from their tribes, clans, and families which left them with NO support network they would have little choice but to serve as the men desired. Of course, the men would naturally ASSUME this meant these women were fine with what they had done to them, which is nothing close to the truth. Your uneducated, rude, and misogynistic comments perpetuate the ridiculousness of male dominance, or dominance in any form for that matter.
"Your uneducated, rude, and misogynistic comments perpetuate the ridiculousness of male dominance, or dominance in any form for that matter"
Obviously the English sence of humor was left way behind when the pilgrims crossed the atlantic :(
I did not mean to offend, be rude or put down women in any way, I was trying to take a light hearted look at a dificult subject, injecting what I thought was some comedy factor.
For your notes I'm definitly more of a philogynist
I have a sense of humor, just not about kidnapping, rape, and sexual slavery.
Philogynist, I like that, and I would like to assure you I am no misandrist.
Quote from: bayview on May 04, 2013, 08:39:43 AM
You're spoiling this discussion with truth and facts. . . Where's the fun in that! :)
No... unfortunately there are not many facts associated with that post.
Claiming that Plan B is not an abortion in a pill is simply not true. That very link to WebMD indicates that it is effective up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. It is possible and not uncommon for an egg to be fertilized within an hour of intercourse. Plan B is an early abortion pill and loses affectivity the further out the window that you go.
Barrier of conception is contraception. Termination of a fertilized, viable egg is abortion.
Saying that it is not a life, 'cause it isn't in the womb, or isn't in the third trimester, or isn't born, or isn't being nurtured for after being born onto a table in an abortuary is ridiculous.
Whether your are snipping baby spines on a table, or flushing out a barely fertilized egg, you are murdering. Trying to justify it based on appearance of the child or some arcane timeline set by a judicial system only changes the amount of cleanup required after the crime.
You can argue semantics all you want on this. If you have a required minimum of chromosomes, and you are viable for development, you are a human. You are a life.
Liberals don't want to hear this. Life to them is hedonistic and about personal pleasure, little to no personal responsibility..... all about choices that result in the least amount of hassle later. Having a baby? No thanks... too imposing. Heck, I'll just kill it off since it is legal to do so in the child's most frail state and not even look back. (I'm amazed at how many of these same people won't eat meat due to moral objections)
Even in the case of rape, abortion is murder. The child in the womb is absolutely and purely innocent. Killing off a child does not fix the crime of rape.
I believe that rape should be prosecuted and punished much more sternly than we do. I believe that false accusations of rape should also be prosecuted and punished more sternly than we do.
Of course an abortion does not 'fix' the crime of rape. But why should a woman who has been raped not be able to use the morning after pill? Or have an abortion performed after she knows she is pregnant and more than likely from the rapist? Seems more than a little unfair to the woman.
Looking at the other end of life, someone mentioned pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state. In many places if a medical expert or panel of experts can testify that there is no brain activity then life support may be removed. The idea being that it takes brain activity to truly make a human being, to make a human life worthwhile. With a dead brain there is no person or personality as far as I am concerned. Many others agree.
I use the logic of brain activity on the beginning end of life as well. Brain activity is first seen at somewhere around 27 – 28 weeks. No brain activity = no person, IMO. A life form yes, but then so is an amoeba.
Just curious.What is your stance on the death penalty? Is the death penalty ever appropriate punishment for premeditated murder?
QuoteAt 8th Week
Just before or during the 8th week fetus develops its first sensitivity to touch, which is considered the first activity of the fetus' brain.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/fetal-brain-activity.html
Hmmm.....I've always heard that brain activity is much earlier then most think...
QuoteNerve cells from developing brains as young as 20 weeks old fire in a pattern that persists into adulthood, researchers reported Tuesday in the Journal of Neuroscience.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/baby-brain-activity-sleep/
Perhaps you meant 'adult brain activity'?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090413185734.htm
This one points out that we don't actually know when brain wave activity starts but we are fairly certain it starts before we think it does....
So, 8 weeks? Possibly and as such you're statement means you would not support abortions after 8 weeks?
Quotet is now well established that the human fetus is capable of some degree of behavioral complexity. In fact, as early as the 9th week of gestation the fetus is able to spontaneously move the extremities, head, and trunk (de Vries, Visser, & Prechtl, 1985)
http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
So lots of references to when brain activity begins and it appears more and more likely that it starts at least around 8 weeks.
What about heart beat? Doesn't a heart beat mean life?
QuoteWeek 6: The neural tube closes
Growth is rapid this week. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing and your baby's heart is pumping blood
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112
Just tossing these out there because I think they are relevant.
So 6 weeks and we have heart beat (circulation) and 8 weeks we have brain activity....
Heart beat does not count. Brain wave patterns that an EEG show as regular patterns count. At death the heart can continue beating long past brain wave activity. That does make life, IMO.
Did you come across this link?
http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/
Quote from: Carla_M on May 13, 2013, 04:43:53 PM
Of course an abortion does not 'fix' the crime of rape. But why should a woman who has been raped not be able to use the morning after pill? Or have an abortion performed after she knows she is pregnant and more than likely from the rapist? Seems more than a little unfair to the woman.
Looking at the other end of life, someone mentioned pulling the plug on someone in a vegetative state. In many places if a medical expert or panel of experts can testify that there is no brain activity then life support may be removed. The idea being that it takes brain activity to truly make a human being, to make a human life worthwhile. With a dead brain there is no person or personality as far as I am concerned. Many others agree.
I use the logic of brain activity on the beginning end of life as well. Brain activity is first seen at somewhere around 27 – 28 weeks. No brain activity = no person, IMO. A life form yes, but then so is an amoeba.
Just curious.What is your stance on the death penalty? Is the death penalty ever appropriate punishment for premeditated murder?
First of all, I think that a developing brain that has viability to function is a whole lot different than a brain at the end of life which has no ability to further function. I'm also not one to let "experts" define my morals. Lots and lots of "experts" have made lots and lots of tremendously immoral decisions. Level of expertise is never a measure of whether or not someone will do the right thing. Gosnell is an expert.
Secondly, brain activity is NOT a measure of brain health / death alone. http://www.neurotransmitter.net/braindeath.html
Even WITH an Isoelectric electroencephalogram (no EEG) along WITH no cerebral blood flow, a brain can recover. Rare, but possible : http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/man_makes_miraculous_recovery_from_brain_death_after_accident/
So using brain function as a metric for start of life is just another hollow metric that people want to use to murder and get away with it.
Even in the case of rape, murdering someone else (who is additionally a complete innocent), in order to reduce the consequences of the crime is unconscionable. For a mother to request the murder of her own child boggles my mind.
Fairness? WTH? I believe in fairness for the baby!
And even trying to justify abortion due to rape.... the amount of abortions that occur in the case or termination of rape induced pregnancy is statistically very, very small. Something like 1% or less. Odd that such a small statistic would be used to support widespread murder in the name of "choice".
And for the record, in spite of my emotional reaction to those who partake in violent or savage actions, I am against the death penalty. Once someone is capable of being restrained, I will not endorse their forced death. I am in support of someone in a malicious and life-threatened situation protecting themselves using whatever means necessary. Including lethal means of self protection as a last resort. I am not against making a violent criminal uncomfortable for the next 50 years of their life.
I'm equally curious... have you ever had an abortion?
Quote from: Carla_M on May 13, 2013, 06:03:55 PM
Heart beat does not count. Brain wave patterns that an EEG show as regular patterns count. At death the heart can continue beating long past brain wave activity. That does make life, IMO.
Did you come across this link?
http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/
Your opinion -- and perhaps a convenient one.
Dred Scott was an opinion too and it was wrong.
The problem is simple to me: what is the easiest solution? For those wishing to allow abortion it is easiest to assume life begins AFTER that period in which they are comfortable with abortion. For those not of that same frame of mind life begins at or shortly after conception and abortion is taking life.
I find usually the easy way is the wrong one.
Quote from: OlJarhead on May 13, 2013, 07:38:11 PM
I find usually the easy way is the wrong one.
That's the truth.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 13, 2013, 07:14:29 PM
To satisfy your curiosity, No. However, the question and answer have absolutely no relevance to the matter at hand. I can be an advocate for the homeless without ever having been homeless. I can be an advocate for organ donation without ever having received or given an organ. I can be an advocate for disabled American veterans without being disabled or a veteran. And the list goes on.
As for this matter I am an advocate for pro-choice. The decision to made by the woman with input from her physician and anyone else she decides to consult, as well as her conscience and her god, if she is a follower of one.
Have you had a vasectomy?
I also know a dead horse when I see one. Thanks for the insights and conversation.
Quote from: Carla_M on May 13, 2013, 09:12:13 PM
To satisfy your curiosity, No. However, the question and answer have absolutely no relevance to the matter at hand. I can be an advocate for the homeless without ever having been homeless. I can be an advocate for organ donation without ever having received or given an organ. I can be an advocate for disabled American veterans without being disabled or a veteran. And the list goes on.
As for this matter I am an advocate for pro-choice. The decision to made by the woman with input from her physician and anyone else she decides to consult, as well as her conscience and her god, if she is a follower of one.
Have you had a vasectomy?
I also know a dead horse when I see one. Thanks for the insights and conversation.
But apparently you can't be an advocate for innocent life. A lot of folks won't. Because... hey, that would obligate them to a responsibility that might infringe on their ability to get into their jeans in a month or two. Bummer, dude.
I've found that those who are most staunch defenders of abortion are those who have participated, and get emotional relief from the endorsement of social acceptance of having the law on their side. A friend of mine, having been told that she was diabetic and should never have children due to the health risk,
chose to have unprotected sex as a young woman. She became pregnant, panicked, and killed her baby. To her, it was not murder.... it was the simple removal of a medical threat. And to this day she is still militantly pro-abortion. She has to believe that this was socially acceptable. Who wants to bear the burden of being guilty of a heinous act? No need to as long as the supreme court backs up the "right" of a woman to choose to scramble the body of her unborn child.
The whole choice thing is nonsense when you are speaking of violent acts towards another person. Countries have legalized or refused to prosecute those involved in genocide. I suppose you believe that something like that was between the executioners and their God too? Once again, allowing a legal system to define when life begins, or how important it is, is merely a convenience for those who practice ending it. Gotta meet the deadline. Hmmmm... interesting word, deadline.
As for me, I will step up and in where I am able to speak / act for those who can not protect themselves.
Nope! No vasectomy for me. I am fully respectful of life when it comes to responsibilities associated with my reproductive practices.
Consider for a moment how precious our lives are.
Think really hard for a bit about infinity of time. It is easy to think of time going forward forever. But also consider the fact that infinity has already happened.... behind us. It makes my head hurt to think of infinity behind us. Where the heck did all these rocks and energy come from????? Really try to wrap your head around something that has ALWAYS been in one shape or another. No beginning. Yikes.
So we have infinity behind us, and infinity ahead of us, and through the miracle of life and birth and reproduction, we exist here for a sliver of 85 years or so. To casually toss out human life under the guise of "choice", given the infinitesimal odds of it even happening in the universe to begin with breaks my heart.