Abortion

[Annie]

You answered your own question. Its because its inside her uterus.



We're not talking about whether its justified or not, we're talking about whether or not its the governments business to own the uterus's of women. There are plenty of things which are morally wrong that are still legal. Abortion is one of them.



Why not? That toddler is a human being, like you or me. The toddler has unique DNA, has feelings, has a beating heart, heck, I say give him a car.



A law which would make abortion illegal except in rape or incest is about as impractical as you can get. You either have to take the woman's word that she was raped - which is as good as having legal abortion - or you have to require that a rapist is found guilty in a court of law, which if it ever happens would happen far longer than 9 months after conception.



Its not a question of whether or not its a human. That's ridiculous. The question is one of where its government's business to go, and it isn't government's business to go inside someone's uterus.



You people are aware that human children actually require being raised, right?








What's the deal with your exception for rapes, anyway? Do you find less value in human life which is the result of a rape? Are children of rapes lesser human beings than you or I, deserving lesser rights? Or does that distinction only apply inside the uterus? Seems a bit of a double standard to me to say that exceptions to rights in the uterus apply for the views you hold but not for mine.

If you believe abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape, you have already acknowledged that a human life's rights are different if they are inside someone's womb. If you believe the mother's life should be chosen over the fetus's, if it comes down to a choice between the two, you have already decided the mother's life to be more valuable. Thus you are making the same sorts of distinctions - between life in a uterus, and life outside a uterus - as pro-choicers are.

Unlike you ST, some of us do desire to protect the innocent. Yeah, children that are the result of rape, need protection, though nearly all Americans would go along with D&C through the first trimester in †he case of rape.

 

[manu1959]

why do you waste your breath on the close minded and intollerant?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Unlike you ST, some of us do desire to protect the innocent. Yeah, children that are the result of rape, need protection, though nearly all Americans would go along with D&C through the first trimester in †he case of rape.

I have yet to hear of a practical implementation plan for such a law. You are aware that rape convictions take much longer than 3 months to get? Hell, a lot of indictments for rape don't even happen within 3 months.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

why do you waste your breath on the close minded and intollerant?

Because I get bored sometimes.

 

[Annie]

why do you waste your breath on the close minded and intollerant?

I dunno, look what he follows with. I could close, am close to doing so. I'll wait for a bit. ST is all about 'him' or 'it.' I'm NOT convinced that it isn't a femaie.

 

[manu1959]

I dunno, look what he follows with. I could close, am close to doing so. I'll wait for a bit. ST is all about 'him' or 'it.' I'm NOT convinced that it isn't a femaie.

waste of good carbon.....

 

[Mariner]

covers the cost of nursing for the 15-30 hours a pregnant mother might spend in labor, the rent for the hospital room and delivery room itself, and the ob/gyn's fee--as well as all the other equipment, from fetal heart rate monitors to sterile needles to sew mom back together afterwards--and the cleanup of the whole mess... and weighing and housing the baby in the nursery... etc., etc.

Does it still sound like way too much?

I'm still hoping someone here will explain how, without a much larger and more reliable social safety net, situations such as those I posited above, could be handled?

Mariner.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

covers the cost of nursing for the 15-30 hours a pregnant mother might spend in labor, the rent for the hospital room and delivery room itself, and the ob/gyn's fee--as well as all the other equipment, from fetal heart rate monitors to sterile needles to sew mom back together afterwards--and the cleanup of the whole mess... and weighing and housing the baby in the nursery... etc., etc.

Does it still sound like way too much?

I'm still hoping someone here will explain how, without a much larger and more reliable social safety net, situations such as those I posited above, could be handled?

Mariner.

Seems to me a far better solution would be to ensure that as soon as kids hit repdroctive age we give them a good sex education, which covers all the facts (teaching abstinence as the only 100% way, but teaching the various methods of birth control, their success rate, as well as dispelling commonly held myths about sex that teenagers have, discussing consequences of not using birth control or not remaining abstinent, etc.) - we could make abortion a rare thing.

 

[Mariner]

and my wife--who worked as the school nurse in an inner city high school for 7 years, and knew everything every kid did in that place--agrees too, despite being Roman Catholic. She ended up with a bowl of condoms on her desk, and started a "Born Again Virgin" club for girls she'd persuaded to become abstinent--but only after giving them a hefty dose of sex education, not by depriving them of the info. But Republicans oppose birth control and sex education initiatives. They ignore the mounting evidence that in abstinence-only schools, rates of STD's and pregnancy rise. On another thread here, several jumped to the conclusion that an Ohio school with a high pregancy rate must be "urban," i.e. code word for black. In fact, it was a majority white school that had changed to an abstinence only policy, and now had 65 pregnant students.

Mariner.

 

[Hobbit]

and my wife--who worked as the school nurse in an inner city high school for 7 years, and knew everything every kid did in that place--agrees too, despite being Roman Catholic. She ended up with a bowl of condoms on her desk, and started a "Born Again Virgin" club for girls she'd persuaded to become abstinent--but only after giving them a hefty dose of sex education, not by depriving them of the info. But Republicans oppose birth control and sex education initiatives. They ignore the mounting evidence that in abstinence-only schools, rates of STD's and pregnancy rise. On another thread here, several jumped to the conclusion that an Ohio school with a high pregancy rate must be "urban," i.e. code word for black. In fact, it was a majority white school that had changed to an abstinence only policy, and now had 65 pregnant students.

Mariner.

However, these statistics are always dredged up whenever people suggest abstinence based sex ed. If you teach sex ed while indicating that abstinence is really the only acceptable method, it works quite well. The problem is that liberals, like the ones that run schools in New England, do not want the idea of abstinence even being taught. When I was in high school, our teacher had to write abstinence into the curriculum herself because no sex ed material even listed abstinence at a possibility. Looking at that, you'd think girls could get pregnant just by walking around.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

covers the cost of nursing for the 15-30 hours a pregnant mother might spend in labor, the rent for the hospital room and delivery room itself, and the ob/gyn's fee--as well as all the other equipment, from fetal heart rate monitors to sterile needles to sew mom back together afterwards--and the cleanup of the whole mess... and weighing and housing the baby in the nursery... etc., etc.

Does it still sound like way too much?

I'm still hoping someone here will explain how, without a much larger and more reliable social safety net, situations such as those I posited above, could be handled?

Mariner.

Sounds like just the doctor fee to me. But anyway, your aim is to control all medical care through government, get all the power and money, and then institute abortion and euthanasia to get rid of high cost cases.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I dunno, look what he follows with. I could close, am close to doing so. I'll wait for a bit. ST is all about 'him' or 'it.' I'm NOT convinced that it isn't a femaie.

oh the power

 

[SpidermanTuba]

However, these statistics are always dredged up whenever people suggest abstinence based sex ed. If you teach sex ed while indicating that abstinence is really the only acceptable method, it works quite well.

Acceptable, how? As long as both individuals are within the proper age range, its not illegal. (In La., if both are under 17, both are over 17, or the age difference is less than 2 years, its legal) It isn't the school's business to teach morality. That's for the parents to do. What is the schools business is to do is to explain to them that abstinence is the ONLY 100% effective method, but at the same time, to explain to them the other methods and their scientifically determined failure rates,.

The problem is that liberals, like the ones that run schools in New England, do not want the idea of abstinence even being taught.

Not this liberal. Or any other liberal that I am aware of. We want to facts taught.

When I was in high school, our teacher had to write abstinence into the curriculum herself because no sex ed material even listed abstinence at a possibility. Looking at that, you'd think girls could get pregnant just by walking around.

So they didn't even bother to explain to you how babies were made in your sex ed class?