I Say We Duke It Out!

Exactly how is advocating something interferring? By your reasoning, you are interferring in the rights of those who do not agree with the abortion.

or the right of one that has no say yet

We interfere with a woman's decision to beat her child, commit suicide, punch her pregnant sister in the stomach and kill HER baby, drive drunk...

Why is the right to smash your baby up into soup so sacred?

I am beginning to think that atheists are as hard headed as they think Christians are. :wink: Edgar, if my main focus was on taking the choice away from the woman, I would agree with you. But, my main focus is on the life of the child and a human life is always going to win out with me over the convenience of someone.

And, in advocating pro-choice, you are taking away a child's chance at life for the convenience of a woman.

Lash,

Excellent point.

I second, third and fourth that!

These "excellent points" are misguided. The fetus is not a viable person. I notice that many against abortion rights almost always paint the woman as simply having an abortion for convenience or something equal to depict a low character. It is a lot more complicated for many of these people, but they get lumped with the lowest denominator.

Then the "lot more complicated" should be considered separately as to why they are ending the life of a child. The intent is not to depict a low character. The intent is to save the life of a child.

edgar,

I said I was speaking only of the ones for convenience. According to statistics, that is where the highest number of abortions lies.

Do you think a woman that miscarries at five or six months along did not consider that fetus a child? Is it really any less of a child to that woman at 3 months, four months, etc.

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

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.
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.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

I have no problem with abortion EXCEPT its employment as ex-post-facto birthcontrol in the circumstance of ill-advised sex. That I consider an abdication of personal responsibility, and an affront to human dignity. A mentally competent statutorily adult human knowingly and willingly entering into a consensual sexual liason with another such adult without taking such steps as are prudent and necessary in order to preclude the inconvenience of an undesired pregnancy deserves no special consideration.

Choice? Yeah, I'm all for it. A woman who knows she should say "No" should choose to say "No". Choices have consequences. "Unintended Pregnancy", "Inconvenient Pregnancy", are not "Life/Health-threatening (for either mother or fetus) Pregnancy" or "Wrongful Pregnancy", they are not even "Accidental Pregnancy", they are "Careless Pregnancy". The consequence of stupidly, neglectfully, carelessly becoming involved with the onset of a pregnancyshould be that the ones - male and female - so irresponsible as to have gotten themselves into the situation live with the pregnancy through its natural conclusion. Adoption is always an option; we should really streamline, modernize, and equalize that process. In cases of absolute, demonstrated, near-to-mid-term irresolvable financial necessity, the careless ones should not be expected to shoulder the burden of rearing the child, should the pregnancy go to term, of course; the child deserves better, and society should see to that. In any other case, OK, but in the case of imprudent sex between capable, competent, mutually consenting adults, you buy your ticket, knowing where the bus is going, and you take your ride.

There is a huge difference between "Rights" and "Liberties", and between responsibility and permissiveness. One who reasonably is to be expected to be able to undertake and discharge a responsibilty should be expected to do so; with rights come responsibilities. If the parties knew what they were doing, and what they should do, and simply did not care enough to do it, there should be no "fallback option".

Nobody gets a convenient "Choice" remedy for having willfully failed to pay taxes, or for having failed to have operated one's motor vehicle in a responsible manner. Why should imprudent sex get any special consideration?

Oh - and just to make clear a fine point; should a pregnancy result despite diligent, prudent best-effort, then OK for "Choice", whatever that choice might be. And should pregnancy be the result of deception on the part of the male partner, the choice should fall to the female partner, with the male partner bearing all related costs proceeding from the female's choice - responsibility is a 2-way street.

timber, my position on abortion is pretty much the same as yours. i've heard of cases where pregnancy results despite contraception because a woman contracts an infection and takes an antibiotic. that's one example of an unplanned pregnancy that shouldn't be equated with a pregnancy that results from carelessness.

Absolutely, yitwail - I agree a hundred percent that abortion is fine in any circumstance other than reasonably preventable, careless, irresponsible sexual behavior. Abortion should be a remedy, a cure, a preventative, a resource freely available to those in need, not a convenience for the lazy, impulsive, thoughtless, careless, inconsiderate, and self-indulgent.

This is the same pathetic nonsense you've been trying to peddle all along. It's not a matter of "getting things the way i want"--it's a matter of not being imposed upon by you. You continue to attempt to reduce it to such an absurdity because you continue not to want to answer at what point separation of church and state should end.



There is only an issue because you want to fly in the face of the no establishment clause and impose religion on others. It is completely unreasonable to expect others to compromise on such a fundamental issue. No part of your free exercise if diminished simply becaus you can't puke your superstitions up at the public expense.



You need to take that up with the Supremes. If you can get Roe versus Wade overturned, then by all means, you can drive the poor women right back into the alleys for coat-hanger abortions and possible death, and all the rich women can fly off to Canada--just as it was before 1973. That has absolutely no bearing on free exercise or no establishment. It is simply a matter of your idiotic superstition compelling you into an unwise and unsympathetic position which makes a mockery of any claim you might lay to moral authority and charity--you certainly have every right consistent with citizenship to do something that stupid.



Nobody's religious fairy tales can be taught in public schools at the public expense. In the other thread, you continually ignore that there is an issue of particularism--that a bobble class implies a special character for that set of fairy tales over any other. For that reason, it violates the establishment clause. For that reason, the Supremes banned religious instruction and prayer in public schools.



Obviously nothing is clear to you. You continue to attempt to reduce the argument to absurdities and you continue to erect strawmen. You still will not say at what point the separation of chruch and state ought to end in your opinion. You still will not say how it is that freedom from religion infringes your free exercise of religion.

That being the case one can only assume that your goal is to impose religion on others--absent any explanation, there is no other conclusion which can be reached. If you contend that freedom from religion infringes your free expression, one can only conclude that your notion of expressing your religion includes ramming it down the throats of those who don't agree. That is why i and so many others here don't intend to compromise with you. We don't want your idiotic fairy tales rammed down our collective throat.

MOAN continually complains about "compromise"--which appears to mean, in her lexicon, that she gets to impose on others whether they like it or not. A simple compromise is for those who want bobble-study to hold their classes in the church basement or the church community center. A simple compromise is to hold such course in a privately-owned public venue.

But that's not what the hard-driving leaders of the move to take over American society want. They want the symbolism of bobble-study in a school because they definitely do want to establish christianity as the religion of the nation. And they don't give a damn if the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Animists, Agnostics and Atheists are offended. They make their claim based on the preponderance of putative christians in the nation. This ignores that there are many who consider themselves christians who do not support prayer and religious instruction in schools. If enacted, such measures would be majoritarian tyrrany. Our government as constituted protects us from both minoritarian and majoritarian tyrrany. Those who oppose the teaching of christianity in schools don't want to replace it with anything. They are not trying to impose on others. The rightwingnuts of christianity are trying to impose--and that is majoritarian tyrrany (if one accepts the dubious proposition that all christians devoutly desire bobble study in schools). MOAN is the one who is unwilling to compromise on this issue.

MommaAngel - You keep mentioning compromise, but the issues on which you want a compromise have often been decided decisively years ago. Compromise is unnecessary on these issues.

When you say "compromise," I hear "gimme, gimme, gimme."

Timber & Yitwail,

I understand your disgust at the abdication of personal responsibility. However, personal responsibility is not the core issue in abortion rights.

Only because those responsible for seeing to that bit of moral and ethical necessity abdicated their responsibilities in the matter.

You people can rail all you want against a woman's right to choose or reject abortion, I am grateful RoeVWade exists to stop you.

Edgar, I have no objection to abortion in any instance not the result of avoidable, willful carelessness.