Roe v. Wade-It scares me....

[Anonymous]

I think that the problem I have with most Pro-Choicers are the fact that they say..."Wouldnt it be a shame if a 14 year old got pregnant the first time while having sex and was unable to do with her body as she pleases?" Then they bring up the cost of raising a child to a single parent, and how hard that would be and on and on. I agree, that WOULD be hard..and it would be sad. But, the reality of it is that most people who are getting abortions are not the typical teenager who just decided to have sex and got pregnant the first time.
I have 4 friends whom all have gotten abortions. All were in their late 20's, all married, all had at least one child already at home.
It really bothers me when pro-choicers talk about the choice to do what they want without the govt' being involved, when really it all boils down to selfishness.
Every single time Ive had sex, from the begining, Ive thought about "What if i got pregnant". There have been many times that this thought alone stopped me from proceeding into intercourse because of one reason or another. I find that many americans are just selfish people who do not think about tomorrow, and if tomorrow does pose a "dent" in their ME time or their fun, they'll whatever they want in order to continue their life of fun.

And for those who dont think that it's truly a life until it's born, then why do we take vitamins when we're pregnant? why dont we just smoke and binge drink and do whatever the frick we want when we're pregnant? It's our bodies, right? The reason we dont do those things is because we know its a life inside of us, growing and functioning. But they like to spin it to serve them...

[Anonymous]

God forbid we actually have to take accountability for our actions

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the Bush haters, I'll remind you of two things: first, Clinton and Berger let his slip thru the not first, and two, while you may say the war is misguided, you cant argue that we've not had another attack since 9/11.

It was Bush, not Clinton, who was given a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike within the US" and decided to stay on vacation and ignore the warning. Also, our enemies have been able to kill more Americans in Iraq then were killed in 9/11. Why should they come here if we are going to go there? We've saved them transportation costs.

Clinton had 8 years and Bush 8 months - both could have done more.

Precisely, the hope is we fight them where they live and they will not come here. Would you seriously sit and wait and let our enemies come to us? Last time they killed more than 2800 innocent Americans in minutes -- for no other purpose than to terrorize us, to make us afraid. The 4155 American men and women who have died in Iraq since March of 2003 gave their lives valiantly in the hopes of keeping us here at home free from that violence and safe from attack. They were not merely saving them transportation costs. In their pursuit, they fought enemy combatants, liberated the Iraqi people, and eliminated a brutal dictator and his henchmen. Those brave and honorable sacrifices were certainly not meaningless -- those deaths were not in vain and it is a dishonor to their service to suggest they were.

Of course, an attack here on our soil on our people has many other "costs, " only some of which are listed below, from http://nymag.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/numbers.htm.


Tons of debris removed from site: 1,506,124

Days fires continued to burn after the attack: 99

Jobs lost in New York owing to the attacks: 146,100

Days the New York Stock Exchange was closed: 6

Point drop in the Dow Jones industrial average when the NYSE reopened: 684.81

Economic loss to New York in month following the attacks: $105 billion

Estimated cost of cleanup: $600 million

Total FEMA money spent on the emergency: $970 million

Estimated amount of insurance paid worldwide related to 9/11: $40.2 billion

Apartments in lower Manhattan eligible for asbestos cleanup: 30,000

Estimated number of New Yorkers suffering from post-traumatic-stress disorder as a result of 9/11: 422,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And for those who dont think that it's truly a life until it's born, then why do we take vitamins when we're pregnant? why dont we just smoke and binge drink and do whatever the frick we want when we're pregnant? It's our bodies, right? The reason we dont do those things is because we know its a life inside of us, growing and functioning. But they like to spin it to serve them...

We often take actions aimed at future events. The fact that one does things to prepare for the child one knows is coming does not prove it is already a child. I am not saying that you are wrong to think that what has the potential to be human is human, just asking you to understand that others believe that, while it has the potential to be a human being, right now it's part of someone's body.

Here is another way of looking at it:
If someone comes knocking at my door, homeless and starving, you may believe it is my moral responsibility to take him in and feed him. But the state does not see it that way. And if that fellow at my door tries to enforce it, he'll be arrested. If the state does not have the right to tell me what to do with my food and my house for the sake of another human being, how can the state, even if that is a human being in there, tell a woman what she must do with her own body for the sake of that human being?

[Anonymous]

On Iraq, all I can say is that several comments represent more liberal delusion. The middle east fight is historical (thousands of years) but the lasted chapter can be laid at the feet of the Europeans and especially the Brits who displaced the Palestinians by moving the displaced Jewish people into the occupied territory. This is a fight that neither Bush or Clinton started but neither finished.

The real problem is that you liberals refuse to believe that its not America's fault. Radical Islam cannot co-exist with a free and pluralistic US. They dont tolerate religious and gender freedom, while we champion it. If you dont factor that into your analysis about the wars then you are lying to yourself.

I realize that this thread was about abortion rights, but woven within is a profound amount of self-righteous ignorance about the Middle East. Have you ever spent time in this part of the world? Or read a book (by a serious historian or analyst, not the swift-boaters or Fox News pundits)??? Please educate yourself before you spew such garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the Bush haters, I'll remind you of two things: first, Clinton and Berger let his slip thru the not first, and two, while you may say the war is misguided, you cant argue that we've not had another attack since 9/11.

It was Bush, not Clinton, who was given a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike within the US" and decided to stay on vacation and ignore the warning. Also, our enemies have been able to kill more Americans in Iraq then were killed in 9/11. Why should they come here if we are going to go there? We've saved them transportation costs.

Clinton had 8 years and Bush 8 months - both could have done more.

Clinton warned the Republicans about Al-Qaeda before leaving office, but for whatever reason (arrogant belief that nobody would dare invade and mess with our military prowess), the Republicans chose to ignore the warning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm..So, why arent more Pro-Choicers also Pro-Capital Punishment? Since they're into killing and all.

Beats me.

The irony is that Pro-lifers are pro-capital punishment. Pro-lifers value life by supporting the death penalty? Geez. You got me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that the problem I have with most Pro-Choicers are the fact that they say..."Wouldnt it be a shame if a 14 year old got pregnant the first time while having sex and was unable to do with her body as she pleases?" Then they bring up the cost of raising a child to a single parent, and how hard that would be and on and on. I agree, that WOULD be hard..and it would be sad. But, the reality of it is that most people who are getting abortions are not the typical teenager who just decided to have sex and got pregnant the first time.
I have 4 friends whom all have gotten abortions. All were in their late 20's, all married, all had at least one child already at home.
It really bothers me when pro-choicers talk about the choice to do what they want without the govt' being involved, when really it all boils down to selfishness.
Every single time Ive had sex, from the begining, Ive thought about "What if i got pregnant". There have been many times that this thought alone stopped me from proceeding into intercourse because of one reason or another. I find that many americans are just selfish people who do not think about tomorrow, and if tomorrow does pose a "dent" in their ME time or their fun, they'll whatever they want in order to continue their life of fun.

And for those who dont think that it's truly a life until it's born, then why do we take vitamins when we're pregnant? why dont we just smoke and binge drink and do whatever the frick we want when we're pregnant? It's our bodies, right? The reason we dont do those things is because we know its a life inside of us, growing and functioning. But they like to spin it to serve them...

In fact, each time I've thought about abortion, I've thought long and hard about what kind of life the baby would have. It wasn't about me, it was about my child. What bothers me is that pro-lifers, I think, worry only about birth and not about life. The decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy was a complex mixture of whether I had the financial/emotional resources to raise the child, how much of a participant the father would be, how safe/reliable the father was in the relationship, etc. Pro-lifers turn this considerations on their head, saying they're only about the mother's own selfishness. I don't think it's enough to simply give birth. I have to also think about the life after that birth.

And please don't tell me, well you could always give it up for adoption, because that route is not as simple as presented.....

Bottom line is that every situation is unique, and I still believe only the woman is appropriately situated to weigh all the aspects and make the final decision.

Pro-lifers should focus on making taking care of the life after birth easier -- support for daycare, support for paid maternity leave, anti-discrimination policies, healthcare, adoption support, food stamps, erasing the stigma of out of wedlock births, child support enforcement, fighting domestic violence, etc., etc. That is where pro-choice and pro-lifers have common cause -- in making the circumstances of bringing up children easier and safer. In this way, more women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant would choose to keep the baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm..So, why arent more Pro-Choicers also Pro-Capital Punishment? Since they're into killing and all.

Beats me.

The irony is that Pro-lifers are pro-capital punishment. Pro-lifers value life by supporting the death penalty? Geez. You got me.

Personally, I think it's more ironic that pro-choicers value the most innocent lives least. I am pro-life and opposed to capital punishment. I think those who fit into your overly broad generalization would say that there's a distinction based on innocence, or some would say you are valuing human life precisely by punishing severely someone who takes another's life. I do not share that view, and I also have issues with it in application as there is evidence that it tends to be applied more to African-Americans than whites in similar circumstances. But mostly I do not think a humane society should sanction the taking of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the Bush haters, I'll remind you of two things: first, Clinton and Berger let his slip thru the not first, and two, while you may say the war is misguided, you cant argue that we've not had another attack since 9/11.

It was Bush, not Clinton, who was given a report titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike within the US" and decided to stay on vacation and ignore the warning. Also, our enemies have been able to kill more Americans in Iraq then were killed in 9/11. Why should they come here if we are going to go there? We've saved them transportation costs.

Clinton had 8 years and Bush 8 months - both could have done more.

Clinton warned the Republicans about Al-Qaeda before leaving office, but for whatever reason (arrogant belief that nobody would dare invade and mess with our military prowess), the Republicans chose to ignore the warning.

He warned them on the way out? Job well done. That's like saying "Hey honey, I'm on my way out -- I haven't fed the kids and there's a fire burning in the kitchen - good luck."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for those who dont think that it's truly a life until it's born, then why do we take vitamins when we're pregnant? why dont we just smoke and binge drink and do whatever the frick we want when we're pregnant? It's our bodies, right? The reason we dont do those things is because we know its a life inside of us, growing and functioning. But they like to spin it to serve them...

We often take actions aimed at future events. The fact that one does things to prepare for the child one knows is coming does not prove it is already a child. I am not saying that you are wrong to think that what has the potential to be human is human, just asking you to understand that others believe that, while it has the potential to be a human being, right now it's part of someone's body.

Here is another way of looking at it:
If someone comes knocking at my door, homeless and starving, you may believe it is my moral responsibility to take him in and feed him. But the state does not see it that way. And if that fellow at my door tries to enforce it, he'll be arrested. If the state does not have the right to tell me what to do with my food and my house for the sake of another human being, how can the state, even if that is a human being in there, tell a woman what she must do with her own body for the sake of that human being?

I understand the distinction in your first paragraph and agree that the distinction you're making sums up a fair amount of the disagreement. As for the second paragraph, however, you're missing some key facts in your hypothetical. You need to add that you created this very fellow at your door through your actions (except, of course, in the case of rape or incest) -- it's a pretty relevant distinction to create a life that without you would not exist and some stranger who happens to your door through no fault of your own. What's more is that the life you created is actually dependent on you and cannot go to the next door in search of a more hospitable host. Finally, while the state would not require you to feed or house the stranger who asks for food and shelter, you can't kill him either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And for those who dont think that it's truly a life until it's born, then why do we take vitamins when we're pregnant? why dont we just smoke and binge drink and do whatever the frick we want when we're pregnant? It's our bodies, right? The reason we dont do those things is because we know its a life inside of us, growing and functioning. But they like to spin it to serve them...

We often take actions aimed at future events. The fact that one does things to prepare for the child one knows is coming does not prove it is already a child. I am not saying that you are wrong to think that what has the potential to be human is human, just asking you to understand that others believe that, while it has the potential to be a human being, right now it's part of someone's body.

Here is another way of looking at it:
If someone comes knocking at my door, homeless and starving, you may believe it is my moral responsibility to take him in and feed him. But the state does not see it that way. And if that fellow at my door tries to enforce it, he'll be arrested. If the state does not have the right to tell me what to do with my food and my house for the sake of another human being, how can the state, even if that is a human being in there, tell a woman what she must do with her own body for the sake of that human being?

I understand the distinction in your first paragraph and agree that the distinction you're making sums up a fair amount of the disagreement. As for the second paragraph, however, you're missing some key facts in your hypothetical. You need to add that you created this very fellow at your door through your actions (except, of course, in the case of rape or incest) -- it's a pretty relevant distinction to create a life that without you would not exist and some stranger who happens to your door through no fault of your own. What's more is that the life you created is actually dependent on you and cannot go to the next door in search of a more hospitable host. Finally, while the state would not require you to feed or house the stranger who asks for food and shelter, you can't kill him either.

I grant that it was a very imperfect analogy. I was just trying to illustrate the point that the woman has a right to control her own body just as (in fact, even more than) one has a right to control one's property. I don't like abortion, but I'm pro-choice. I think the way to avoid abortion is through education, contraception, etc. But when the situation arises, I think the woman has the right to make the decision, not me or the state.

This is Rich speaking, as an old white guy, the sort of person who has traditionally made the laws that determine what you women can do. And disgusted enough about that to call myself a feminist. As a man, I should perhaps stay out of this one, but as a father, having children has impacted my life also.

[Anonymous]

I'm back! I'm the "for the Bush-Haters" post and I want a few follow-ups. (10:22)

God, arent the baby killers so self righteous? The analogy above and the oft-stated crap about it being a women's body is just a facade to justify (legally, but I also assume morally) the killing of human life. First, the analogy about the visitor is illogical. Of course the State does and should not tell you to open your door to strangers, feed or give them clothes. Moreover, bc of trespass laws the State is more likely to remove the person from your property. The distinction you miss is whether you have the right to kill that trespasser? Of course you do not. Further, your analysis is completely one-sided. You pro-aborts always say its your body and its part of you. I agree that its your body and you have a right to self-determination, if it only involved your life. The fact is once you use your freedom and engage in a sexual act which results in pregnancy, then you loose your absolute rights. At conception, there are two lives at stake and both points of view MUST be considered and the rights of both MUST be considered. Moreover, because of adoption and the right to forego parental rights, a balancing between the two sets of rights MUST default to life not murder. I can understand your attempt to legally and morally justify you behavior, but the analysis is wrong. Why not simply say that you believe your right to engage in risk-free, responsibility free and morally free sexual acts is more important than the life of your baby. At least that's an honest and logical, if not totally repugnant answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm back! I'm the "for the Bush-Haters" post and I want a few follow-ups. (10:22)

God, arent the baby killers so self righteous? The analogy above and the oft-stated crap about it being a women's body is just a facade to justify (legally, but I also assume morally) the killing of human life. First, the analogy about the visitor is illogical. Of course the State does and should not tell you to open your door to strangers, feed or give them clothes. Moreover, bc of trespass laws the State is more likely to remove the person from your property. The distinction you miss is whether you have the right to kill that trespasser? Of course you do not. Further, your analysis is completely one-sided. You pro-aborts always say its your body and its part of you. I agree that its your body and you have a right to self-determination, if it only involved your life. The fact is once you use your freedom and engage in a sexual act which results in pregnancy, then you loose your absolute rights. At conception, there are two lives at stake and both points of view MUST be considered and the rights of both MUST be considered. Moreover, because of adoption and the right to forego parental rights, a balancing between the two sets of rights MUST default to life not murder. I can understand your attempt to legally and morally justify you behavior, but the analysis is wrong. Why not simply say that you believe your right to engage in risk-free, responsibility free and morally free sexual acts is more important than the life of your baby. At least that's an honest and logical, if not totally repugnant answer.

I wrote that. I'm a man and never had to face the situation. My body is mine. I believe a woman should have the same control of hers. It's a very hard issue, and I have seen it faced by a wife twice. How can you toss around accusations like "baby killer" and "self-righteous" about people trying to discuss a complicated issue? Does your faith in your own righteousness give you the right to judge and insult others?

BTW, ripping apart the "logic" of an analogy is silly. I did not mean to claim that such an analogy captured the whole situation, just that it illustrated one facet, namely that there are competing rights.

[Anonymous]

For Rich. Im curious...how would you feel if you were a young married couple, and your wife for one reason or another, wanted to abort your baby, but you didnt want her to? It's easy to say "It's a womans choice because it's her body" but the fact is, two people created this life. Why arent two people the deciding factor? There are plenty of women who get pregnant and dont want the baby and abort it, and the man has no rights at all.