mysteryman, both of your given sites are pro life advocates.
Nevertheless, there are 1,5 million Abortions per annum
performed in the US, that's correct, and the majority of women who opt for abortion are under 25 years of age, also correct.
The census of 2000 states 141 million females living in the US, about half of them are within the age limits of conception,
that's ca. 70 million women. 1,5 million choose to abort, that's ca. 2.1 % of women who opt for abortion.
timberlandko wrote:
Interestin' that the same folks who have a problem with the death penalty as a sentencin' option reserved to those duly convicted of heinous cime have no problem infilictin' it, arbitrarily and without adjudication of any sort, on the unborn and the incapacitated. Some folks see that attitude as ludicrous and indefensibly hypocritical.
Being pro-choice has a lot to do with respecting a women's right to manage her body.
It is analogous to capital punishment insofar as it is dealing with the real or perceived termination of a life.
A criminal convicted of a heinous crime and paying his due to the society that houses him is hardly a comparable in type to a women who accidentally got knocked up.
That has to be the most assinine assertion I have seen from you.
..and I'm not sure where the hypocracy lies.
Mind explaining that to me--keeping in mind the logic, or the justification
behind an abortion or an execution.
candidone1 wrote:timberlandko wrote:
Interestin' that the same folks who have a problem with the death penalty as a sentencin' option reserved to those duly convicted of heinous cime have no problem infilictin' it, arbitrarily and without adjudication of any sort, on the unborn and the incapacitated. Some folks see that attitude as ludicrous and indefensibly hypocritical.
Being pro-choice has a lot to do with respecting a women's right to manage her body.
It is analogous to capital punishment insofar as it is dealing with the real or perceived termination of a life.
A criminal convicted of a heinous crime and paying his due to the society that houses him is hardly a comparable in type to a women who accidentally got knocked up.
That has to be the most assinine assertion I have seen from you.
..and I'm not sure where the hypocracy lies.
Mind explaining that to me--keeping in mind the logic, or the justification
behind an abortion or an execution.
Accidently??
By not using any form of birth control,its not an accident.
If neither party uses protection,its not an accident.
Its called rolling the dice,and when a woman loses because she CHOSE to gamble,its not an accident.
If she chose to gamble,she also CHOSE to accept the consequences,so dont call it an accident.
It was a purposeful CHOICE,and she lost.
She must live with the consequences of her CHOICE.
candidone1 wrote:Mind explaining that to me--keeping in mind the logic, or the justification behind an abortion or an execution.
Cerainly. Here's the entire list:
1) Abortion is warranted and indicated in the presence of clear, dire medical necessity.
There, I believe thats the lot of the logical, moral, ethical justifications for abortion and capital punishment.
mysteryman wrote:
Accidently??
By not using any form of birth control,its not an accident.
If neither party uses protection,its not an accident.
Its called rolling the dice,and when a woman loses because she CHOSE to gamble,its not an accident.
If she chose to gamble,she[ also CHOSE to accept the consequences,so dont call it an accident.
It was a purposeful CHOICE,and she lost.
She must live with the consequences of her CHOICE.
Is this a lesbain affair...because if that is the case, pregnancy is not a consequence regardless of the choices made prior to the event.
I see a whole lot of "she's" in this statement.
Is the man abdicated from any responsibility...I mean RESPONSIBILITY following heterosexual engagement?
BTW: If you truly support your above statement, the she must live with the consequences, then I suggest you look into the other parties that may be involved.
*hint*
a baby
*hint*
the sperm "donor"
candidone, Don't you love it when people always assume it's the woman's fault?
Like she's the only one that can wear a rubber.
I think it pretty much does come down to a matter of responsibility - and among the irresponsible are those who are not doin' all that can be done to educate both males and females to the responsibilities, consequences, and ethical practices of sex. Dunno as there's any point tryin' to stretch the point to include morals; 5000 years of religion hasn't managed that very well, but education and opportunity just might have beneficial impact on the problem.
Sex is gonna happen - both within and wholly apart from, even contrary to, any "moral" considerations. Given contemporary technologic means, there is no legitimate reason abortion any longer might be considered an acceptable method of birth control. The concept isn't much different than burnin' down the trees to prevent forrest fires.
candidone1 wrote:mysteryman wrote:
Accidently??
By not using any form of birth control,its not an accident.
If neither party uses protection,its not an accident.
Its called rolling the dice,and when a woman loses because she CHOSE to gamble,its not an accident.
If she chose to gamble,she[ also CHOSE to accept the consequences,so dont call it an accident.
It was a purposeful CHOICE,and she lost.
She must live with the consequences of her CHOICE.
Is this a lesbain affair...because if that is the case, pregnancy is not a consequence regardless of the choices made prior to the event.
I see a whole lot of "she's" in this statement.
Is the man abdicated from any responsibility...I mean RESPONSIBILITY following heterosexual engagement?
BTW: If you truly support your above statement, the she must live with the consequences, then I suggest you look into the other parties that may be involved.
*hint*
a baby
*hint*
the sperm "donor"
I know exactly what I said.
I was responding to your words,and I quote..."a women who accidentally got knocked up."
You are the one that specified gender,you are the one that ONLY mentioned the woman,and that is what I was responding to,nothing more.
If you wanna talk about the man,thats fine.
BUT,when you specify one gender,then dont get upset when people respond to what you said.
mysteryman wrote:
I know exactly what I said.
I was responding to your words,and I quote..."a women who accidentally got knocked up."
It was the crudest language I could muster to put it on the same level as a death row inmate--in response to t-ko.
...
not, as you are inferring, as a transference or denial of blame/responsibility
mysteryman wrote:You are the one that specified gender,you are the one that ONLY mentioned the woman,and that is what I was responding to,nothing more.
If you wanna talk about the man,thats fine.
BUT,when you specify one gender,then dont get upset when people respond to what you said.
Screeeeeech.
Ok.
I
do want to talk about the man--and you were more than able to drop even an
occasional he in your response...
Given what I said in my first sentence,
candidone wrote:Being pro-choice has a lot to do with respecting a women's right to manage her body.
could have inferred from my position that I wasn't about to let the guy off the hook at any cost.
Your bad, not mine.
candidone,
If,as you claim,that..."Being pro-choice has a lot to do with respecting a women's right to manage her body."
Then why are you protesting what I said?
I do know that it takes both male and female for a woman to get pregnant,and I also know that the man should use protection to avoid becoming a father.
Having said that,if a woman CHOOSES to have unprotected sex,then she CHOOSES to accept the consequences.
Remember,it is not just the man that needs to use protection.
I am respecting her right to manage her body by letting her have unprotected sex.
If she CHOOSES to have unprotected sex,then why should the man be held solely responsible for the outcome?
Why are you so willing to let a woman off the hook like that?
And,since it is her body,then she is totally responsible for the choices she makes,right?
You cannot say its her body then absolve her of accepting the consequences of her actions.
If she CHOOSES to have unprotected sex,then she CHOOSES to accept the consequences.
Now,while the man is also responsible for his decisions,once she has unprotected sex,she CHOOSES to accept the risk of getting pregnant.
Remember,its called "respecting a women's right to manage her body."
So,if she makes a poor CHOICE,then as a man I have to respect her choice,right.
So,if she decides to become a whore,then I MUST allow her that right.
Also,if she decides to abuse drugs,I also must allow her that right,ddon't I?
If she CHOOSES to have unprotected sex,and gets pregnant,then the man is NOT responsible for paying for an abortion,because it isn't his body.
By the same token,the govt also is not responsible,because its her body and the govt cant tell her what to do with her body.
So,if she CHOOSES to get pregnant,and she CHOOSES to have an abortion,then she also CHOOSES to pay for it herself.
Also,if she CHOOSES to have casual,unprotected sex and she gets pregnant,and has a baby,its not the mans responsibility.
Remember,she CHOSE to have sex,she CHOSE to take the chance,so she CHOOSES to accept ALL of the financial risks,no matter what she does.
So,if you want to say that "Being pro-choice has a lot to do with respecting a women's right to manage her body",I totally agree.
That means she is financially responsible for whatever decision she makes,and the consequences.
For a woman to CHOOSE to have unprotected sex is fine,but she then cannot demand anything from the man.
She CHOSE to have sex,so if she CHOOSES to have a baby,its her problem,both financially and emotionally.
Its called "respecting a women's right to manage her body"
...and they say: Ignorance is bliss.
mysteryman, I do hope you will tell every women you're
about to engage with, what your views are. Chances are
she's running like hell. Given your opinion, you don't
deserve to have sex with a woman.
CalamityJane wrote:...and they say: Ignorance is bliss.
mysteryman, I do hope you will tell every women you're
about to engage with, what your views are. Chances are
she's running like hell. Given your opinion, you don't
deserve to have sex with a woman.
And you arent entitled to have children if you think otherwise.
BTW,the woman I live with and have sex with agrees with my beliefs.
But let me get this straight,its not a womans fault if she has unprotected sex and gets pregnant.
Is that what you are saying?
I am totally agreeing that a woman has complete and total control over her body,so whats the problem.
I thought that is what women wanted,total control over their bodies.
Now,you are saying I'm wrong.
Make up your minds about what you want.
I s'pose pregnancy resultin' from non-consensual sex oughtta be included as a legitimate indication for abortion ... and "non-consensual" can be expanded into a pretty broad category, which would include false representation by the male, among other considerations. I believe in the instance of pregnancy resultin' from non-consensual sex, the female, subject to age and mental development, should be allowed to make the choice, and, wherever possible and practical, the male should be held liable for the associated costs of the choice ... as a matter of responsibility. I think it unconscionable to inflict an avoidable penalty on an innocent victim.
However, by definition, consensual sex is a team sport - the score goes to the team, not to any one of the players.
Limiting this discussion to American standards is myopic at best. What do we do with all the rape of young girls and women in Africa? They have no choice, because they are forced into non-consentual sex, and many end up with HIV/AIDS.
timberlandko wrote:I s'pose pregnancy resultin' from non-consensual sex oughtta be included as a legitimate indication for abortion ... and "non-consensual" can be expanded into a pretty broad category, which would include false representation by the male, among other considerations. I believe in the instance of pregnancy resultin' from non-consensual sex, the female, subject to age and mental development, should be allowed to make the choice, and, wherever possible and practical, the male should be held liable for the associated costs of the choice ... as a matter of responsibility. I think it unconscionable to inflict an avoidable penalty on an innocent victim.
However, by definition, consensual sex is a team sport - the score goes to the team, not to any one of the players.
I do agree about NON CONSENSUAL sex,but in CONSENSUAL sex,the woman is responsible.
After all,it is her body,and she has complete and total control over it,that means she accept ALL the consequences of her decisions.
CI,
"Limiting this discussion to American standards is myopic at best. What do we do with all the rape of young girls and women in Africa? They have no choice, because they are forced into non-consentual sex, and many end up with HIV/AIDS."
Until the local authorites can put a stop to it,there is nothing we can do.
Besides,are you suggesting we impose our morality and customs on other countries now?
I thought the left was opposed to that.
I just brought it up as one of the extremes where women have no equal rights. I bet there are many women in this country who are forced into nonconsentual sex with their husbands or boyfriends. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Just stoppin in with a quick response. Bush is a moron, he's always been a moron and always will be a moron.
The scary part is thinking about how much power this moron has. He's a murderer!
Speaking of unprotected, consensual sex... don't forget that federal money will only go to abstinence-only sexual education programs. And don't forget the studies that show these programs provide skewed statistics to those that they are "educating."
What about abortions for folks whose birth control fails?
And so what if someone uses abortion as a birth control method? Lots of people do things that we don't like. What gives you the right to legislate their behavior? How exactly does a 16 year-old girl getting an abortion in Hawaii affect your life?
Justices Expand Discrimination Protections Under Title IX Law
By DAVID STOUT
Published: March 29, 2005
WASHINGTON, March 29 - A sharply divided Supreme Court expanded the reach of the landmark Title IX anti-discrimination law today, ruling that it protects people from retaliation when they complain about sex bias against others.
"Reporting incidents of discrimination is integral to Title IX enforcement and would be discouraged if retaliation against those who report went unpunished," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for a 5-4 majority.
The ruling, in the case brought by the coach of a girls' basketball team at a high school in Birmingham, Ala., had been eagerly awaited by many civil rights groups that had sided with the coach, Roderick Jackson, as well as many school boards, which had expressed fears that a finding in favor of Mr. Jackson would bring a wave of new lawsuits.
Since its enactment in 1972, Title IX has been widely credited with expanding opportunities for women and girls in sports and other activities by banning sex discrimination in schools and colleges that receive federal money.
But a crucial question that had been unanswered, until today, was whether by extension Title IX protected people who complained about sex discrimination against others, then suffered retaliation for their complaints. Since 1975, the federal government has interpreted Title IX as providing protection against retaliation - even though the statute itself does not mention retaliation, unlike some other civil rights laws.
Justice O'Connor concluded that if the law were found not to protect retaliation, its very purpose would be undermined because "individuals who witness discrimination would be loathe to report it, and all manner of Title IX violations might go unremedied as a result."
Joining her in the majority were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent that was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. Asserting that "retaliatory conduct is not discrimination on the basis of sex," the dissenters said the majority was going against the court's own precedents.
"We require Congress to speak unambiguously in imposing conditions on funding recipients through its spending power," Justice Thomas wrote.
Mr. Jackson began complaining in 2000 that the high school gave the boys' team better conditions for playing and practiced. Eventually, he lost his coaching position, and the extra pay it carried, even though he retained his tenured position as a gym teacher. He sued under Title IX, accusing the school board of wrongly retaliating against him.
His suit was dismissed by a federal district court in Birmingham and the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, with both courts concluding that the statute did not encompass the right to bring such a lawsuit.
It was clear from the spirited back-and-forth on Nov. 30 at the Supreme Court argument of the case, Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, No. 02-1672, that the decision would be a close one.
"It is people like Coach Jackson who make Title IX work," a lawyer for the plaintiff, Walter Dellinger, told the justices.
Alabama's solicitor general, Kevin C. Newsom, countered that Mr. Jackson could take his complaint to the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights if he wanted, and that "Title IX's remedial apparatus is ticking along just fine."
Justice Ginsburg asked just how often the Office of Civil Rights had investigated complaints in Birmingham.
Twice in 20 years, a lawyer for the Birmingham school board replied.
"Two in 20 years?" Justice Ginsburg replied, perhaps tellingly.
Today's ruling is not an automatic victory for Mr. Jackson. His suit is now remanded to the lower courts, where to prevail he will have to prove that the school board in fact did retaliate against him because he had complained of sex discrimination.
