|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 22 of 331:
| 
Feb 24 20:27 UTC 2006 |
re #21
I agree. Any guy who gets a fat chick pregnant should have to marry her if
they overturn Roe v. Wade. Then, we can turn our clocks back to the 1950's
and watch Ricky beat Lucy's ass for burning his toast.
*rolls eyes*
Banning abortion is the dumbest idea ever.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 23 of 331:
|
Feb 24 20:32 UTC 2006 |
Heh, well maybe not marry- but definitely be in as deep financially as
she is. And provide medical care for the kid, AND be there like she has
to be, and so on. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
keesan
|
|
response 24 of 331:
|
Feb 24 20:32 UTC 2006 |
How about passing a national health care bill that at least takes care of the
health of all the unwanted babies that would be born if abortion were made
illegal (also the health of anyone getting an illegal abortion that they
survive). Why are the conservatives so often in favor of making more unwanted
babies but not taking care of them once they are born? Would conservatives
oppose free prenatal and postnatal health care for all mothers?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 25 of 331:
|
Feb 24 20:35 UTC 2006 |
Conservatives aren't in favor of *making* unwanted babies, just not in favor of
*killing* them. I'm against abortion for the same reason as I'm against
infanticide, because in my mind it's the same thing.
|
tod
|
|
response 26 of 331:
|
Feb 24 20:35 UTC 2006 |
They want as many desperate and poor citizens in America as possible so they
can line their pockets with the sweat off these people by using them for our
military, farm labor, sweatshops, factories, and whatever else suits.
Those that aren't rich but call themselves conservative are stuck in a fantasy
of the "American Dream" where they somebody own their own company and repeat
this inhumane slavery.
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 331:
|
Feb 24 20:39 UTC 2006 |
re #25
Not killing them? Criminal homicide, mortality rates, and military enlistment
are all an indicator of the overall health of a community. It is
influenced by many factors, including the health of mothers and infants, the
quality of the health care system, mother's income and education, and numerous
aspects of the neighborhoods in which families live.
|
jep
|
|
response 28 of 331:
|
Feb 24 21:12 UTC 2006 |
re resp:21: I completely agree with you on that. It should be part of
the anti-abortion agenda.
|
tod
|
|
response 29 of 331:
|
Feb 24 21:21 UTC 2006 |
Yea, you're going to get a rapist or high school kids to foot the bills?
Nice pipedream. I guess if you like the insanity of overpopulated Catholic
countries then you can always move to Brazil or something.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 30 of 331:
|
Feb 24 21:24 UTC 2006 |
re #28- yes, but it isn't. And I haven't heard any of them touting the
responsiblity men have. It's all 'WE must save the innocent children!!!'
To hell with the woman and the guy? Who cares, could be anyone- we know
she was a slut to get pregnant, so it's HER responsibility and hers alone.
|
tod
|
|
response 31 of 331:
|
Feb 24 21:27 UTC 2006 |
"Should be" but isn't. The agenda is to punish women and make them 2nd
citizens. It seems to be working, too.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 32 of 331:
|
Feb 24 21:29 UTC 2006 |
Maybe if we let gay couples adopt them it would take up the slack.
|
tod
|
|
response 33 of 331:
|
Feb 24 21:35 UTC 2006 |
re #32
I see a compromise in there somewhere...
|
jep
|
|
response 34 of 331:
|
Feb 24 21:58 UTC 2006 |
re resp:30: If that was part of the anti-abortion agenda, would you
support it? It would seem to remove some of the stigma of anti-
abortion equating to anti-woman.
Am I anti-women because I am against abortion? I'm one of the few here
who are openly and vociferously anti-abortion. I sure don't think of
myself that way. I don't refer to unmarried pregnant women as "sluts",
or have any intention of punishing women for being pregnant.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 35 of 331:
|
Feb 24 22:03 UTC 2006 |
Re #34, last par., last two sentences: Same here; in fact, one of the people I
most respect in my church back home is a single mother (who's getting married
soon) with a disabled child. (I wouldn't refer to an unmarried woman that way
anyway because I wouldn't use that word in any case.)
|
drew
|
|
response 36 of 331:
|
Feb 24 22:04 UTC 2006 |
Re #21: Men already *are* liable for all
that.
|
richard
|
|
response 37 of 331:
|
Feb 24 22:27 UTC 2006 |
jep said:
"My order of preference on the social issue of abortion is:
1. Constitutional Amendment illegalizing abortion
2. National law illegalizing abortion
3. Overthrow of Roe v Wade, returning the issue to the states to decide
4. Restrictions on techniques, drugs, doctors, hospitals, etc. "
1. A Constitutional Amendment will never happen, you'd never get 3/4's of
the legislatures to ratify it. It is impossible.
2. National law illegalizing abortion will never happen, every person in
the House of Reps has to get elected every two years, and they won't vote
for a law that guarantees they lose the votes of most of the women in
their district. These people will choose getting re-elected over
principle every time, they are politicians.
3. Could happen, but if States banned abortion, they'd have to pay
staggering extra costs in court proceedings and other such in enforcing
such a ban. Which would mean huge tax increases. Even a conservative
might not vote to outlaw abortion if its going to mean huge tax increases.
4. Would be hard to enforce in the courts, as legislators can't deem
themselves more qualified than doctors to decide what techniques should be
restricted.
/
|
edina
|
|
response 38 of 331:
|
Feb 24 23:08 UTC 2006 |
I always love how it's an "either or" situation. Like, either we will have
legal abortion or not. The end.
I sometimes think it would be far helpful to *reduce* the number of abortions,
then hopefully work at eradicating them.
|
tod
|
|
response 39 of 331:
|
Feb 24 23:16 UTC 2006 |
Maybe folks are prolifers cuz they are afraid or just dont know the cause of
pregnancy.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 40 of 331:
|
Feb 24 23:41 UTC 2006 |
why do you hate baby jesus, tod?
|
scholar
|
|
response 41 of 331:
|
Feb 24 23:58 UTC 2006 |
i too equate abortion and infanticide, except i think both are fine.
just don't show pictures of them to me, though, 'cause they're icky. :(
|
slynne
|
|
response 42 of 331:
|
Feb 25 00:15 UTC 2006 |
I used to be anti-abortion but pro-choice but I have changed my thoughts
on the matter. I think my opinions were clouded by my own confusion
about having kids. I thought I might want them and wasnt in a position
to have them so I guess it just felt wrong to me for someone to abort
some potential child. Now I find that my feelings have changed and I am
neutral about abortions. I dont think of them as a killing a child
because I dont see a fetus as being a child. So, I dont think having an
abortion is morally wrong. I do, however, feel strongly that women
should have the right to have any medical procedures performed on their
bodies that they would like. I have always felt that way though, even
when I thought that elective abortions when the health of the woman
wasnt an issue were wrong.
As for the "pro-life" crowd...well, I dont know what to say. I think
that some of them are reasonable people who really believe that a fetus
is a person and should have rights as such. I have found that those
people usually also support strong welfare programs for poor women and
support easy access to birth control as well as any number of other
programs designed to make life better for women and children AFTER they
are born. A good number of those people are also against the death
penalty because they honestly believe that killing a human being is
wrong. I disagree with those people but I find that I can have some
respect for their position.
But there are a whole bunch of other pro-lifers who really seem to be
interested in using anti-abortion laws to punish women for having sex.
Those people typically have no interest in what happens to children
after they are born. Ironically, if those children grow up to be
criminals, they support killing them as adults with capital punishment.
Those are also the people who are very opposed to any kind of birth
control and who say things like "I oppose abortion except in cases of
rape or incest" I find that view morally repugnant and I have to admit
that I think of such people as evil.
|
mary
|
|
response 43 of 331:
|
Feb 25 12:40 UTC 2006 |
I think, in general, such people have deeply shameful feelings
about sex. It's a difficult area for them. And they transfer
(project) their feelings onto others.
|
keesan
|
|
response 44 of 331:
|
Feb 25 13:45 UTC 2006 |
I don't think fetuses should have more rights than baby or adult humans, which
anti-abortionists want them to have. I am reading an interesting book about
family dynamics from a genetic and biological viewpoint. Fetuses are
parasites that have bypassed the mother's immune system. For their own good,
but the harm of the mother, they will cause gestational diabetes (to get more
sugar from the mother) or preeclampsia (high blood pressure gets them a larger
share of the blood). If they overdo it, both fetus and mother die. Fetuses
produce a hormone that prevents the immune system from rejecting them. Down
syndrome fetuses produce twice as much as normal and therefore prevent the
rejection that would normally occur in cases of chromosomal abnormalities.
About half of fertilized eggs don't implant in younger women, and a much
higher proportion (90%?) in older women, because the mother detects that they
are genetically defective, but she often misses defects, particularly the sort
that don't show up before birth (such as lack of a brain, or ability to
breathe, swallow, etc.).
|
nharmon
|
|
response 45 of 331:
|
Feb 25 14:35 UTC 2006 |
I have no idea what the point of #44 was, but the notion that anti-
abortionists want fetuses to have more rights than babies or adult
human beings is just plain wrong. They want fetuses to have the same
rights as people, because they believe fetuses are people. Now, you can
argue that a fetus is not a person, and if you include from facts then
people might believe you, but misrepresenting the opposing side
benefits nobody. You certainly wouldn't stand for someone saying gay
people want more rights than straight people.
And as for fetuses being parasites, I think thats a pretty extremist
viewpoint. For something to be parasitic, it can not benefit the host.
Seeing that a good hunk of our biology is geared towards reproduction,
maintaining the species seems pretty important to our bodies.
|
crimson
|
|
response 46 of 331:
|
Feb 25 14:57 UTC 2006 |
Is the first sentence of #43 intended to read "such people have feelings about
sex that ought to cause them deep shame"? If not, how is it supposed to read?
|