Nearly 70%
by matt at 7:58 am on January 4th, 2006 in BulletsAlito’s hearings start on Monday. Let your Senator know you’re watching.
-
« Home
-
About This Post
- Written by matt
- January 4th, 2006 at 7:58 am
-
Categories
-
Interact
Alito’s hearings start on Monday. Let your Senator know you’re watching.
JimC wrote:
Perhaps if they changed the language to “Do you support the confirmation of Alito if he were to make ripping/tearing/blending/vacuum sucking/skull puncturing/destrcution of unborn babies illegal?”
That might result in differnt poll numbers
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 11:42 am ¶
matt wrote:
well, thank the powers that be that you aren’t in charge of polling questions.
but you forgot contraception too, that’s killing babies right?
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 12:09 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
You got my point…the abortion issue has been so sanitized from reality that people think it is nothing more than having a cyst removed…
>but you forgot contraception too, that’s killing babies right?
Yes, retroactive contraception aka abortion…
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 12:29 pm ¶
marc wrote:
Gee, if only we could overpopulate the planet faster.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 12:31 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Spoken like a true blue liberal. What’s that you say? Want to have fun but don’t have the maturity or the self control to think about the consequences ? Well…don’t worry about the consequnces, do what you want now, worry about the responsibility later!!! Yes, he in liberal land you can have your sex and freedom to! Yes for years now, unresponsible Americans have enjoyed the “safety” net of abortion….because using contraceptives are just too darn difficult or take some of the fun out of it. Well, not to worry, the Liberals are fighting for your right to be completely free from responsibility for your own actions!
Man I really cannot fathom the brain power behind defending abortion because people are too stupid to be responsible…
Oh and before you go validating the majority of abortions with the argument that of rape and incest cases, realize that only 7% of all abortions are due to worst case scenarios like rape, incest, harm to mother…all others are due to so called “convenience”…
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 12:47 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>You got my point…
honestly, i’ve yet to really “get” any of your points.
>the abortion issue has been so sanitized from reality that people think it is nothing more than having a cyst removed…
no they understand that women should have the right (and not the government) to determine what goes on in their body.
>Yes, retroactive contraception aka abortion…
because sperm = babies, right?
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 12:48 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Yes, he in liberal land you can have your sex and freedom to!
why would we not?
>Man I really cannot fathom the brain power behind defending abortion because people are too stupid to be responsible…
that’s no one’s argument here, please refute it elsewhere
>Oh and before you go validating the majority of abortions with the argument that of rape and incest cases, realize that only 7% of all abortions are due to worst case scenarios like rape, incest, harm to mother…all others are due to so called “convenience”…
but anti-abortion people (you?) want to ban all abortion, even in case of rape or incest, so really, your point is disingenuous at best
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 12:53 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
JimC, there seems to be a problem with your link to that 7% figure. I keep clicking, but ain’t nothing happenin’.
It’s interesting too that someone so quick to throw out random numbers would be so unphased by that big bold “nearly 70%” up there.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 12:59 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Also, how awesome is it that this is both an abortion debate and an indisputable sausage-fest? Don’t worry ladies, we’re handling it.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:01 pm ¶
marc wrote:
>Spoken like a… yadda yadda yadda
I don’t see overpopulation addressed anywhere in that tirade. I guess that part got aborted.
This doesn’t seem to bother you at all.
You want half a billion people in this country? Go ahead, ban abortion, make everyone pay for their irresponsibility. I encourage you to visit Southeast Asia for an example of why you will quickly regret it.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:16 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
My point is that rather than abort babies…prevent pregnancies by not having sex or using contraceptives…..wow…..if..I…talk…slow…enough..will…you…understand….then?
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:33 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:35 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>My point is that rather than abort babies…prevent pregnancies by not having sex or using contraceptives
so you aren’t anti-contraception?
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:37 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Convenience reasons
Other reasons
The contraceptive stats are intereting as well, seems like the oral contraceptives (supporting the fun factor) account for most abortions done after contraceptives failed…
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:38 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>so you aren’t anti-contraception?
No
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:39 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m not Catholic
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:40 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I think some forms of contraception should be used, like IUD’s abortion pills etc…
Otehrs are fine…
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:41 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I think some forms of contraception should NOTbe used
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:42 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>>so you aren’t anti-contraception?
>No
>I’m not Catholic
lots of anti-abortion people are not catholic, but regardless, i’m pleasantly surprised that you feel that way.
now if contraception were more affordable or ideally free to low income woman, it would be better. but still not a substitute for control over one’s body.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:44 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Where I come from, father’s take responsibility for their children. If a man gets a woman pregnant, he is 50% cause and 100% responsible for taking care of her and the child…but that’s just me, I’m weird…
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:46 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>now if contraception were more affordable or ideally free to low income woman, it would be better. but still not a substitute for control over one’s body.
What about the body of the baby? Who speaks for that child? I fail to see how the most vulnerable and helpless of the human race is given abosolutely no regard…
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:48 pm ¶
marc wrote:
Your Hero disagrees with that second half.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:48 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
When is the limit on abortion in your opinion? 3 months? 6? 9? Do you realize that Roe V Wade does not put a limit on when an abortion takes palce in the pregnancy, hence the late term abortion debate?
Every day, science is finding that younger babies are more viable, so what used to be acceptable abortion age, is now viable survival age. So when is a baby considered a baby? YOu wouldn’t kill a one day old, so why would allow an abortion of babies that can be delivered safely?
Misconception used to be that fetuses could feel pain but research has shown more and more advanced awareness in younger fetuses, so who makes this descision when a baby is a baby????
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:53 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>Your Hero disagrees with that second half.
And I’ve said I’ve disagreed with Bush plenty…
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:54 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains there’s a land that’s fair and bright
Where the handouts grow on bushes and you sleep out every night
Where the boxcars are all empty and the sun shines every day
On the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees
Where the lemonade springs where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:54 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
couldn’t feel pain…
man I wish you gave edit ability…or I need to slow down…
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:55 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Thank you for proving my point about maturity….
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:56 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Keep repeating that one sentence in your head over and over and you might eventually start agreeing with the rest of us on a lot of stuff.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:56 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
How’s that a response? Here’s the point that went over your head: You’ve got an idealistic and idyllic worldview when we’re talking about an issue that primarily effects the underpriviledged.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 1:59 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>And I’ve said I’ve disagreed with Bush plenty…
yes, but again, depends on the definition of plenty.
>What about the body of the baby? Who speaks for that child? I fail to see how the most vulnerable and helpless of the human race is given abosolutely no regard…
The mother speaks. lots of actual children are given abosolutely no regard, and your solution as stated before amounts to tough love because librul programs make things worse. i’m certain christ didn’t teach supply side economics as a cure for poverty.
>When is the limit on abortion in your opinion? 3 months? 6? 9?
I see those as arbitrary limits. what goes on in a woman’s body is her business. certainly i’d prefer adoption, but my preferences are not important when it is going on in someone else’s body.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 2:00 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
You nailed it, Matt.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 2:09 pm ¶
screwtape wrote:
Ya know Jim, if you did not act like such a condescending douche bag, make stupid stereotype assumptions about ‘liberals’ and throw out insults like it was going out of style, we might actually have a conversation and find some common ground around here.
examples:
“Spoken like a true blue liberal… Want to have fun but don’t have the maturity or the self control to think about the consequences ?”
yeah, because all us liberals just want to smoke dope, screw indiscriminantly, kill babies and get welfare checks.
“Man I really cannot fathom the brain power behind defending abortion because people are too stupid to be responsible…”
excellent way to begin a conversation. NOT.
“if..I…talk…slow…enough..will…you…understand….then?”
maybe if you were more to the point and articulate…
“I’m not Catholic ”
No, but clearly you are a bigot.
“Where I come from, …[blah blah blah]…but that’s just me, I’m weird… ”
I am pretty sure there are shitbag conservatives who will knock up a girl and take off. that is not exclusive to liberals
“Thank you for proving my point about maturity…. ”
try looking in the mirror first, charlie.
“When is the limit on abortion in your opinion? 3 months? 6? 9? … so who makes this descision when a baby is a baby????”
This is the heart of the question isn’t it? Ask these questions instead of your normal bloviation and we are getting somewhere.
You have made some points here that I and others can agree with. But you are just such a jerk about it you are very difficult to talk to.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 2:26 pm ¶
jamie wrote:
i can’t believe i missed all of this. . .here to break up the sausage fest. . .there’s not much to say that hasn’t been said already and over and over again, except to say it from a woman’s perpective: GET YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY. i don’t believe abortion is always the answer, but i certainly would’t presume to make that choice for anyone. nothing new there, you boys seemed to handle this one ok. and JimC, go to hell.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 2:41 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
I don’t think we need abortion, either, Jim. I just do it in the butt, instead.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 3:50 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
So Jamie,
How far along does the fetus need to be before you think it is murder?
Let’s start with 1 day old? Definitely murder right? ok…I hope you say yes
ok, 2 days prior to due date? Hmmm tricky, still in the body of the mother, but yet the only difference between that baby and the one just born is its mothers womb, both can survive just fine…
ok, now 7 moths along, still very viable, but still very much in the womb…?
ok 5 months, getting difficult now…
ok 3 months?
including a specialist in pain control, Dr. Vincent J. Collins, a diplomat of the American Board of Anesthesiologists. He estimated the age at which a unborn child feels pain: “As early as eight to 10 weeks’ gestation, and definitely by thirteen and a half weeks, the human fetus experiences organic pain.”
So do you only allow abortions less than 8 weeks?
We don’t let people slowly pull dogs apart but yet we allow doctors to do this to babies? How can you defend it even under the guise of “its woman’s choice”. So that woman in Texas who drowned her kids in a tub, it was her choice then as well, what’s the difference???? Inside or outside the womb, a child is still a child. When my wife was pregnant with our first child, I didn’t act as if I wasn’t a father until she gave birth, no I was a father the moment I knew she was pregnant. I knew that child in her body was my child not some nondescript mass of cells…
Also, this idea that because the woman carries the baby, the father gets no say is ridiculous. Sure enough if that father is not around and the baby is born, he is legally required to support the baby after its born but has no say before then???
Responsibility for the unborn children is 50/50. Anyone who argues otherwise should expect NO HELP during the pregnancy from the father or suffer being a hypocrite.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 10:19 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Nick, sorry to inform you, but your boyfriend never had the risk of becoming pregnant anyway…
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 10:20 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>“I’m not Catholic ”
>No, but clearly you are a bigot.
How does this make be a bigot? I took from his statement that he thought that I was against all contraceptives which is mostly associated with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Sorry, not gonna get me on that one…
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 10:22 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>I am pretty sure there are shitbag conservatives who will knock up a girl and take off. that is not exclusive to liberals
No doubt you are correct, but rednecks generally have a shotgun wedding not a visit to the “doctor’s” office for a removal of unwanted tissue…
>This is the heart of the question isn’t it? Ask these questions instead of your normal bloviation and we are getting somewhere.
You have made some points here that I and others can agree with. But you are just such a jerk about it you are very difficult to talk to.
>
Can’t I show a little passion when it comes to roter routing babies in the womb?
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 10:25 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Jamie,
>i don’t believe abortion is always the answer, but i certainly would’t presume to make that choice for anyone.
So what if the father wants the child? What if the baby is 9 months in the womb and the mother suddenly wants an abortion? Still think its her choice???
If it is not murder when a doctor aborts a woman’s child at her request, is it murder if a say a person stabs a woman in the abdomen killing her baby?
What an evolved society we live in when our children become such a burden that we turn to slaughtering them in the otherwise protection of its mother’s womb…
Did you read the stats? 1.3 Million babies aborted each year in the US. What if one of those babies was to grow to cure cancer? Perhaps if Roe V Wade nvere happened and some otherwise aborted baby grew up to be a genius doctor, perhaps my mother would have been cured of cancer before she died…perhaps many things, but 1.3 million babies per year are killed. Doesn’t that make a you a little upset? at all?
This argument about “it is the woman’s body” is ridiculous. The woman from a scientific view is the host, a protective environment for a separate being to develop. After this baby is born, the mother otherwise returns to normal, so how is it a question of her body? Its not like she is being forced to grow a third leg which permanetly affects her physical life. No pregnancy is by most cases a temporary condition fully recoverable, so how can anyone say that it is a woman’s choice and not see the humanity in the child….
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 10:38 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>So what if the father wants the child?
he can carry it in his womb then.
>What if the baby is 9 months in the womb and the mother suddenly wants an abortion? Still think its her choice???
yeah, but that’s been taken away, hasn’t it?
>If it is not murder when a doctor aborts a woman’s child at her request, is it murder if a say a person stabs a woman in the abdomen killing her baby?
again, for the record, this question either exposes you as stupid or disingenuous. no third option.
>What an evolved society we live in when our children become such a burden that we turn to slaughtering them in the otherwise protection of its mother’s womb…
“we” aren’t slaughtering anyone. individual choice.
>Did you read the stats? 1.3 Million babies aborted each year in the US.
what if it was 13? i’m quite certain that is too much for you also, so what is your point? as you often do, you completely ignored my main point: would jesus be a supply sider? would he be for gutting protections for kids? cutting head start? cutting welfare? environmental deregulation that is poisoning minorities in the inner city? or do you just pick and choose?
>What if one of those babies was to grow to cure cancer? Perhaps if Roe V Wade nvere happened and some otherwise aborted baby grew up to be a genius doctor, perhaps my mother would have been cured of cancer before she died…
no offense, and having just lost a parent, i don’t want to rub this in, but that argument is straight garbage. what if one were a mass murderer? what if one was saddam or bin laden? such hypotheticals are nonsense and only serve to cloud the issue. I recognize the view in opposition to mine and don’t begrudge it to people who think like that, but trying to defend your position with something like this is pathetic.
>Doesn’t that make a you a little upset? at all?
i said it did. i said i’d rather it didn’t happen. i’m glad you believe in birth control (to a strange extent) but the fact is that there has been a concerted effort to reduce access to birth control and more importantly sex education. we’ve written about this over and over. cutting birth control and sex ed and then reducing access to abortions is simply war on poor women. it gets no plainer.
>This argument about “it is the woman’s body” is ridiculous. The woman from a scientific view is the host
this must make you popular with the ladies
>No pregnancy is by most cases a temporary condition fully recoverable, so how can anyone say that it is a woman’s choice and not see the humanity in the child….
i find this argument to be as hollow as the rest, but what about abortion in the case of danger to the mother? more and more, that is coming under attack too. again, not where i’d draw the line, just pointing out the holes and inconsistency in your argument.
i understand the anti-abortion sentiment, but you don’t make a good case defending it.
Posted 04 Jan 2006 at 11:12 pm ¶
Richard wrote:
Wow, a lot of anger here. Maybe if we didn’t live in such a disfunctional, dual message world the problem wouldn’t be so big. Humans will never stop having sex for fun, because it is fun. Women always have sought ways to terminate a pregnancy, herbs, tinctures, self mutilation, inflicted mutilation - the old rusty coat hanger, and now through the relative safety of medical proceedure. This is their right. Would all of the anti-abortionist perfer we return to the way of the back ally abortion? Do any of you even remember the debate from the 60’s and 70’s, before Roe v Wade?
I’ve been through it, don’t think I’d do it again but, it isn’t the church’s or government’s place to make that decision for me.
Maybe we should just drop our old puritanical ways and step into the world as adults. Talking openly with our kids about sex, the ramification of not being careful or using contraception and the impact an unwanted pregnancy will have on their lives would be a good place to start.
No, the conservatives (church and state) would rather restict access to contraceptives and education, pretend we are only going to have sex to procreate and that all of the images we are subjected to daily will not have any influence on our behavior. I don’t have any fancy statistics to throw out but I don’t think the europeans have the same problem with, or number of abortions we do here. I suspect it’s because they recognize sex for what it is - a natural biological function which happens also to be enjoyable. Natural and enjoyable are the key words here guys.
So let’s all wake up, don’t put the candy in front of the children then tell them can’t have it, punish them if they get it and make them all pay in the end.
You can’t create morality by law, never has and never will work. You can affect behavior by example and a consistent non-hypocritical message. When all of the moralizer can stand up and say they are pure, able to cast the first stone; I’ll know I’ve die and gone to heaven. In the mean time shut up and quit stuffing your opinions down my throat - and , BYW - turn of your pornograph.
Quit sending a mixed message, grow up. As long as we sell sex everyday and then try to pretend no one will have sex, and unwanted pregnancies, this debate will never end.
Face it abortion will never go away, just as tobacco, alcohol and drugs will never go away. Education is the key, knowlege is power, truth is knowlege and we lack both in this country; particularly when it come to sex and abortion.
thanks - my 2cents
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 3:13 am ¶
jamie wrote:
> This argument about “it is the woman’s body” is ridiculous. The woman from a
> scientific view is the host, a protective environment for a separate being to develop.
> After this baby is born, the mother otherwise returns to normal, so how is it a question
> of her body? Its not like she is being forced to grow a third leg which permanetly
> affects her physical life. No pregnancy is by most cases a temporary condition fully
> recoverable, so how can anyone say that it is a woman’s choice and not see the
> humanity in the child….
Hey JimC, do you KNOW any women? Ever met a pregnant one? You expose yourself as a horrible misogynist with this comment, though it’s not surprising, it is disgusting.
and as for this:
>> i don’t believe abortion is always the answer, but i certainly wouldn’t presume to
>> make that choice for anyone.
> So what if the father wants the child? What if the baby is 9 months in the womb and
> the mother suddenly wants an abortion? Still think its her choice???
Did you miss the part where I am a woman with a womb therefore incapable of getting anyone else pregnant.? I said *I* wouldn’t presume to make a choice for someone else and you start talking about fathers. More of your strange leaps in “logic.”
Let me tell you, if I were in this situation, I would talk to the father/inseminator, however, to legislate such things can leave women open to beatings and murder, so, again, JimC, go to hell.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 5:30 am ¶
Richard wrote:
Jamie, I’m with you!
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 6:18 am ¶
matt wrote:
Richard Says:
>Quit sending a mixed message, grow up. As long as we sell sex everyday and then try to pretend no one will have sex, and unwanted pregnancies, this debate will never end.
That’s an important point, and one that isn’t heard nearly enough.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 6:24 am ¶
jamie wrote:
Richard, I’m with you, too, especially about education being the key. Right on.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 6:43 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Ahh, yes, because the father is worthless and has no rights…really sets up a family structure in this country when people think this way, no wonder we have so many broken families…
No I believe that one got shot down as unconstitutional.
Oh really, I think it is a very valid question. It goes to show you the hypocrisy of pro-choice view of the fetus. By defining this kind of act as murder would force the rights of the fetus being viewed as more than a “thing”. So perhaps you think it is stupid but this really has happened before many times and the first thing pro-choice radicals do is fight against any legal definition of that fetus being a separate person. So, maybe you need to take this a little more seriously rather than simply dismissing it.
An individual choice to slaughter then? And by our inaction we as a nation allow it to happen makes us guilty. If I as an individual chose to slaughter my neighbor, I am a criminal right? If a mother kills her infant child, she is a murderer right? Why is it any different if the baby is in the womb or outside?
Now who is trying to muddle the topic…
I think it is valid to think of the humanity lost, the potential lost. What if your mother had decided to abort you, you never existed, what things would have never come to pass. I think it is incredibly selfish to judge that all unborn children are not given a chance to make their marks on the world good or bad.
So instead of fixing the root cause you treat the “symptom”, in this case taking the life of an innocent unborn child. Doesn’t that seem extremely barbaric and uncivilized?
Actually, there are millions of American women who feel this way. The Pro-Life movement is not just evangelical men….
I have not said anything about these cases and I believe that in these RARE circumstances of which I have provided data about, these can and should still be allowed. There is nothing that would stop any anti-abortion legesilation that allowed an abortion option in a clear defined case that would result in harm to the mother. But like I have provided data on, 93% or more abortions are purely done in what amounts to “convenience”. I think we can safely eliminate those cases and have exception to the minority hardship cases. I believe President Bush has even taken this stance as well…
Well, that’s nice to know…thanks for your input.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 6:48 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>Richard Says: …….
Richard I agree the key is education. I don’t think anyone is trying to remove education from the picture at all. In fact that is the way to eliminate abortion. However, we do legislate morality all over the place. Can you kill your neighbor? No. Can you steal his stuff? No. Can you lie under oath? No…..
Defending abortion because it will happen anyway is giving into the degradation of society; capitulating our defeat.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 6:53 am ¶
matt wrote:
i’m not even going to continue this. you sidestepped my main questions twice now, and i’m going to go ahead and assume that you see the hypocrisy in following an anti-abortion path yet inhumanely treating actual children, but can’t pry yourself away from the party line.
answer the questions.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 6:54 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
After all the black-and-white cut-and-dry issues that we can’t get Jim to face facts and logic on, why on earth would anyone try to debate something so udoubtedly gray as abortion with him?
Trying to get Jim to understand the complexities and nuances of the pro-choice ideology is like trying to teach a puppy to do a crossword puzzle. I don’t even have faith we can get him to stop peeing on the carpet.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 6:57 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Yes, my wife, we have had two children, how many children do you have? Not to mention every woman I know is anti-abortion, I my aunts, my coworkers, the women in my Church. In fact where I live, the majority of people are anti-abortion, of course I live in a very conservative county in Ohio.
So the man who would get you pregnant, you would consider him to have no right to have his child born? Why does the man not have any right to his child in your eyes?
What??? Making abortion illegal will make women open to beatings? Murder? How so? Where are you getting this data from? Anyway, how is this different than now? If a man is going to beat or kill a woman, it will happen because the man is a criminal!!! Abortion or no abortion…
Sorry, can’t do that now…and I think you know why….
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:19 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Preach it!
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:21 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Preach it!
but you know for a fact that sex in advertising isn’t going anydamnwhere.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:23 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I agree. I f abortion is made illegal then serious programs to deal with the care of these kids will now have to be funded. Healthcare, daycare, training for parents, etc…
Happy?
Now please answer the questions I asked you.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:23 am ¶
JimC wrote:
That’s witty. Now put on your thinking cap young fellar and try to come up with something more than an insult. I have provided more data and real hard questions on this topic than anything else I’ve posted about.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:26 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Why not? Can’t we as a society deem what is decent?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:27 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Why not? Can’t we as a society deem what is decent?
sure we can. but you know as well as i that money makes the world go round, and people get rich by selling sexual fantasies and images.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:29 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Most of me just wants to post more lyrics to Big Rock Candy Mountain, but my pity for your outweighs my disdain…
Boy faces felony in baseball bat abortion
And Jamie forget to mention suicide rates for women since Roe. You’re not worth typing two href tags in a comment, Jim, let alone the 90 seconds it’d take me to find it, so I’ll just tell you to go to the CDC website and find the stats for yourself.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:30 am ¶
marc wrote:
Love the idealism, but it’s far too optimistic. You’re giving a species that constantly wars with itself over ideologistic terms and panders to its own inequalities far too much credit.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:33 am ¶
matt wrote:
>I agree. I f abortion is made illegal then serious programs to deal with the care of these kids will now have to be funded. Healthcare, daycare, training for parents, etc…
did you know :
abortion is already de facto illegal for many women, especially the poorest. yet the caustic assault on the minimal benefits these people get marches on. so i say: you first.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:35 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
You missed my point. Surprise!
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:37 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Again, I refuse to let the failure of society justify something as abhorrent as abortion.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:43 am ¶
JimC wrote:
And we just have to accept that? Why? Why can’t we change that, don’t we have the capcaity to do so? Or are we hopeless as a society?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:44 am ¶
JimC wrote:
So we decend into chaos and do nothing about it?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:45 am ¶
matt wrote:
Now please answer the questions I asked you.
it’s different because it’s inside. it’s not really that complicated, and i have answered it before. what goes on inside someone’s body is no business of yours or the state’s
well, the potential swings both ways. have you read Freakonomics?
But past that, it’s incredibly selfish to presume to substitute your own judgement for that of a woman
i advocate for both more access to birth control so that there will be fewer abortions. unfortunately, those with power are playing a sick game by limiting both because it wins them votes and raises money. barbaric and uncivilized to me means the policies that protect the fetus and expose the child.
I’m sure they are rare. so you’re saying that mother’s life > fetus
that’s my point too!
hahah. that “data” was a joke. we’ve already been over that.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:46 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Actually, let’s do it together at the same time in the same bill. Make it federally illegal to perform an abortion with exceptions for hardship cases and introduce budget to start/fund these programs.
Wow….see we should be in Congress…
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:48 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>hahah. that “data” was a joke. we’ve already been over that.
No, not the OhioLife site but the one I psoted earlier in this thread.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
Add up the percentages…
Convenience reasons
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
Other reasons
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:52 am ¶
matt wrote:
from the same site:
88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:57 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Yes, but did you know that 94% of fetuses aborted in the first 6 to 12 weeks have the potential to grow up and cure cancer?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:20 am ¶
JimC wrote:
And recent advancments have shown previously unknown development in the fetus at about 8-10 weeks, such as reacting to pain. However, given these unknowns, isn’t safer to error on the side that does not destroy the life of the child? Provided that we as a country recognize the burden and implement social care and support for that child if needed.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:23 am ¶
JimC wrote:
If you don’t want to talk about this in a grown up fashion then go back to playing with your xbox…
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:25 am ¶
matt wrote:
>isn’t safer to error on the side that does not destroy the life of the child?
yes. and if men carried fetuses, i’d probably not choose to have an abortion. but i wouldn’t accept state control over my body, and therefor can not support state control over someone else’s body.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:27 am ¶
jamie wrote:
JAMIE: Did you miss the part where I am a woman with a womb therefore incapable of getting anyone else pregnant.? I said *I* wouldn’t presume to make a choice for someone else and you start talking about fathers. More of your strange leaps in “logic.”
JIMC: So the man who would get you pregnant, you would consider him to have no right to have his child born? Why does the man not have any right to his child in your eyes?
****************
ANOTHER STAGGERING LEAP OF (IL)LOGIC- how do you get what you said above from what I said above, especially given the very next thing I said:
JAMIE: Let me tell you, if I were in this situation, I would talk to the father/inseminator, however, to legislate such things can leave women open to beatings and murder
Again, JimC, go to hell.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:27 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Oh, if only Billy Gates and company could come up with anything nearly as fun as you, Jim. If only.
When you start thinking like a grown-up, I’ll start acting like one. Until then, silliness is all you get, even though you barely deserve it. Debating this seriously with you would be a waste, and would make me the idiot. Why bother?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:37 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Speaking of abortions, did you guys hear Patrick Swayze’s going to cut a rap record? If you ask me, the millions of aborted fetuses who’ve been spared from ever hearing that are the lucky ones.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:41 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>jamie Says
I understand what you are saying. WHat I am trying to get at is that you obviously feel that the father has no rights whatsoever. It is relevant. You presume that pregnancy is a one sided event. I contend that even though the woman physically carries the child, both are equally responsible for thta childs life and therefore have equal say of that child’s destiny.
Again, how are we talking about the “body” of the woman when it is the body of the unborn child that gets destroyed? What part of the woman’s body is permanently affected by pregnancy? Most pregnancies are a temporary condition. so what part of the woman’s body are we talking about? Is that fetus a separate being for jsut an extension of the mother?
Plus, Jamie, you haven’t answered any of my question about when a baby is legitamtely protected or do you strictly beleive that until the baby is separated from its mother, it is perfectly fine to abort it, even at 9 months?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:44 am ¶
JimC wrote:
So why respond to anything I type?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:45 am ¶
JimC wrote:
What part of your body would be affected? Would you permanently be pregnant? no. Would you permanently be disabled? no. Is your body, if the pregnancy is healthy, anymore or less important than the body of the baby?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:48 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Jamie, somehow, you telling me to go to hell, is amusing to me. Keep saying it if you want but it is not hurting me but it makes you look reactionary…
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:49 am ¶
marc wrote:
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:49 am ¶
marc wrote:
Oops. Forgot to end blockquote after “and do nothing about it?”..
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:50 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
I guess I’m a masochist, which would make you my sadist top*. How’s your pastor feel about that?
*nullus?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 8:53 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Yes, I also beleive we’re already heading down that path and yes the values being championed by the religious crowd are a means to help correct that course however thoe values are not limited to the religious crowd but to a moral society. Morality can be achieved outside of a religious context as long as we agree in the majority to what is moral.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 9:04 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>How’s your pastor feel about that?
>*nullus?
Not following you…
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 9:05 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
A rare moment of honesty from JimC.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 9:08 am ¶
matt wrote:
nullus = no homo
inside joke gone awry
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 9:10 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
inside joke gone awry
Awry? I thought it was an inside joke that went quite splendidly.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 9:12 am ¶
Adam from PDX wrote:
Wow. [insert witty, liberal remark here].
In all honesty, I back both sides. I see Jim as being extraordinarily myopic in his views. I don’t think Jesus actually cared about abortions… children, sure; abortions, not so much. Not that it matters in this “debate.” As for my side’s views… Eh, they’re not so great either. But in the end, I HAVE to agree that what happens in a woman’s body is her business. If she is irresponsible enough to end up with an unwanted pregnancy, then she should have the means to deal with it properly and in a healthy environment. She should also be given counseling and the support she needs for recovery. The basis of all this is that the American education system and the American political system are so wound up in religious nonsense that credible, sensible programs that are both realistic, ethical, and morally sound hardly ever see the light of day.
I’m sure there HAS to be common ground between folks from Mississippi and California, ya know?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 9:39 am ¶
marc wrote:
“Correcting the course”, I’m sorry to say, means steering it to your side, doesn’t it?
See, we already do agree in the majority as to what is moral. Do we keep people from having guns in their homes or allow them the right to defend themselves? Do we allow women to abort their pregnancies or force them to have every child they conceive? So far, in the majority, we agree that in both cases, the latter is moral.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 9:43 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Is “nearly 70%” a majority? I forget.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 10:02 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
>Nick, sorry to inform you, but your boyfriend never had the risk of becoming pregnant anyway…
But we keep tryin’. We welcome you to join our research. You’re rententive nature makes you the perfect candidate for our next round of trials.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 10:04 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>“Correcting the course”, I’m sorry to say, means steering it to your side, doesn’t it?
No I mean, actually doing something about we see as immoral.
> Do we keep people from having guns in their homes or allow them the right to defend themselves?
Allow people to have guns, but have them pass extensive background checks. Criminals give up their right to bear arms.
>Do we allow women to abort their pregnancies or force them to have every child they conceive?
No we protect the unborn child (except for hardship cases, e.g. rape, incest, harm to mother) and force women and the father’s to own up to their actions and take responsibility for their child or give it up for adoption. Perhaps it would take a while, but eventually people would get the hint that their actions have consequences.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 10:08 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, keep trying, maybe that evolution thing may work out for you…
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 10:10 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Force them how?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 10:21 am ¶
jamie wrote:
JIMC: What I am trying to get at is that you obviously feel that the father has no rights whatsoever.
Given that I DO NOT feel this, I don’t know what gave you that impression. If *I* were to get pregnant when *I* hadn’t intended to get pregnant *I* would speak to the person who got *me* pregnant and talk about *our* options. The fact that I don’t want that conversation legislated doesn’t mean that I don’t care about the man’s opinion.
JIMC: Plus, Jamie, you haven’t answered any of my question about when a baby is legitamtely protected or do you strictly beleive that until the baby is separated from its mother, it is perfectly fine to abort it, even at 9 months?
Again, my personal belief is not what is at issue here. I’ve never had an abortion, and I don’t intend on having one, however that doesn’t mean that the government should legislate that chocie. As for 1st term, 2nd or 3rd, I would prefer unrestricted choices so that each situation could be evaluated on it’s own merits.
What we’re really dealing with here, though I think it is buried, is that (I’m guessing) due to your religious belief you view all life as an expression of GOD. Those of us that don’t share that conviction look at these issues from a very different perspective. I was in the position to follow my father’s wishes and turn off his ventilator last month. I’m guessing that’s something you don’t approve of and would not have been able to do. Luckily, for the moment, in right to die issues, we are all still allowed to make the choices that are best for ourselves and our families. That’s all I want for myself and others.
JIMC: Jamie, somehow, you telling me to go to hell, is amusing to me. Keep saying it if you want but it is not hurting me but it makes you look reactionary…
It’s amusing to me, too, so I’ll stick with it, JimC, go to hell.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 10:52 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>Matthew Tobey Says:
January 5th, 2006 at 10:21 am
force women and the father’s to own up to their actions and take responsibility for their child or give it up for adoption. Perhaps it would take a while, but eventually people would get the hint that their actions have consequences.
Force them how?
>
By making abortion illegal (except for hardship case, I have to keep saying this otherwise someone will pounce all over me and us that as an excuse to justify 93% of all abortions)
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 11:56 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Why do you think making abortion a crime will “force women and the father’s to own up to their actions and take responsibility for their child or give it up for adoption”? Do you think “women and the father’s [owned] up to their actions and [took] responsibility for their child or [gave] it up for adoption” before Roe?
Maybe we can end alcoholism by making booze illegal. What do you think?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 12:01 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Address my last comment first, but when you’re done there, how about this one:
What about pregnant children? They’re not legally responsible for themselves, their parents are. Who do we “force” to be responsible for the baby if termination isn’t an option?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 12:07 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Jamie…
>Again, my personal belief is not what is at issue here. I’ve never had an abortion, and I don’t intend on having one, however that doesn’t mean that the government should legislate that chocie. As for 1st term, 2nd or 3rd, I would prefer unrestricted choices so that each situation could be evaluated on it’s own merits.
What we’re really dealing with here, though I think it is buried, is that (I’m guessing) due to your religious belief you view all life as an expression of GOD. Those of us that don’t share that conviction look at these issues from a very different perspective. I was in the position to follow my father’s wishes and turn off his ventilator last month. I’m guessing that’s something you don’t approve of and would not have been able to do. Luckily, for the moment, in right to die issues, we are all still allowed to make the choices that are best for ourselves and our families. That’s all I want for myself and others.
>
Actually, I don’t find anything wrong with a right to die choice if that is the wish of the person. However, at the other end of life, the beginning, that child doesn’t have a choice. I am against taking advantage of someone who has no voice to express their choice to live or die. My objection to abortion existed long before I was a Christian. I object to abortion on the sheer lack of humanity of the practice. I view that child as a person in the womb, whole and separate from the mother but dependent upon the mother for protection. I see abortion as a willfull neglect and willful disregard for a child by its own mother, no different than if a mother were to take her 5 year old and do harm to them.
Again, when my wife was pregnant, both times, I viewed the child in her body as my child already before they were born. Had she had a miscarriage, I would have mourned the loss of my child. So what we are talking about here is a living being deserving of protection under the law from attack and harm, even from their own mother.
>It’s amusing to me, too, so I’ll stick with it, JimC, go to hell.
:-) I kind of like it. Maybe it can be your signature on everything you post, even if it is not to me.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 12:13 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Yes, if the unborn are given legal protection same as anyone else, then killing the unborn is murder and therefore punishable by law for the crime of murder. The problem is that Roe V Wade has polluted our minds into thinking abortion is a “ok” thing, that fetus is some abstract object to be cut and removed like a tumor. Only when you view that unborn child for what is truly is, putting a face on it, does it become apparent to what abortion is and to equat the killing of an unborn child to alcoholism just goes to prove my point further. You view the unborn as something impersonal or not unlike a cancer to be erradicated.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 12:17 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
How is this any different from children who are pregnant and go thru with the delivery which happens now? The parents of the pregnant child holds the same responsbility over their children.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 12:19 pm ¶
Adam from PDX wrote:
So, what I just CAN’T grasp is this: JimC pipes up and all ya’ll keep trying to play the game.
Hey JimC, you keep resorting to the same circular logic that you “prove” with the same “statistics” regardless of the actual question being asked.
Please discontinue this practice.
FIN
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 12:31 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Adam from PDX is smartest guy here.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 12:34 pm ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
And that’s why we miss him so….EAST SIDE!
>Adam from PDX is smartest guy here.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 12:39 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Aye Aye El Capitan!
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 12:43 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>Adam from PDX is smartest guy here.
Really….
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 12:44 pm ¶
screwtape wrote:
>Adam from PDX is smartest guy here.
Really….
who did you think it was? you?
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 1:27 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>who did you think it was? you?
I didn’t say that…I don’t know any of you nor your talents, nor you me…
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 4:01 pm ¶
tom wrote:
jesus fucking christ. all this whining about a couple of chromosomes being able to feel pain and how we should stop that, but nothing about stopping the pain that many millions of people are inflicted with by waking up every morning realising that george bush is still fucking president. this is 5 fucking years of this shit!!!!!!!
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 6:48 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
And the award for Best Bill Maher impersonagtion goes to….
Sorry to bother you with these pesky moral issues, we’ll go back to talking about Bush I’m sure, so wait a couple seconds.
Posted 05 Jan 2006 at 7:50 pm ¶