Abortion

That sounds "un-natural" and should be illegal. I've also heard that some people (if you can call them "people" engage is oral stimulation of their private parts, this is also "un-natural" and should be banned as well. Next thing to happen is some "people" might get to the point of enjoying their sexuality. Society is doomed if we let this continue. Everyone is going to hell. You have been warned.

Anon,

I had to crack up at that immaculate conception thing! Not sure if she was being responsible and trying not to get pregnant or trying not to get caught, but I have to admit, I had no clue you cold ever get pregnant that way!

If people go to hell for actually enjoing and liking sex then save me a seat, ok? :wink:

Yes, I imagine she did. I can just hear her say, "but I'm a virgin!", which I guess technically would be correct. I also can imagine the looks on her parents' faces when they found out the whole truth!

Do you suppose that Ricky and Lucy............
Nevermind.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

hmmm... foxy, here's what you first said:

Foxfyre wrote:

Most pro-lifers I think put the responsibility for that squarely on the heads of the parents who have no business risking pregnancy unless they can provide a child with what s/he needs.

followed by;

Foxfyre wrote:

DTOM writes

Quote:

ah-hah! so there it is. what you've just said is basically; "people have no business engaging in sex unless it's for the purpose of having a child".

No, but that's the sort of straw man I would expect most Lefties to build out of what I did say. Most uncharacteristic of you though, my friend.

and then echoed your original comment;

Foxfyre wrote:

What I've said is not even basically but absolutely it is my opinion that people have no business engaging in sex unless they are prepared to accept the responsibility for any consequences of that choice. There is a huge difference beween that and what you just said.

Quote:

you don't see how that can be taken ? in your statement, the lone consequence is to bear a child. however, in reality, the choice to make the tuff decision to terminate the pregnancy is also a consequence.

it still comes across as, "don't have sex unless you are 100% willing to have a child".

Sure I can see how that can be taken as you took it, but it would be taken that way only by those who want to change the premise of the statement instead of what it actually is. But for this issue, then yes, unless you are 100% willing to accept the consequence of conceiving a child, don't have sex. That does not mean that you cannot implement family planning or take measures to postpone children. But I have two wonderful kids both conceived while using birth control and both entirely unplanned and unwanted at the time they were conceived. It happens. So we dealt with it and each is one of my greastest joys.

So my counsel to all is to prepare yourself for the responsibilities of adulthood, including an unexpected little bundle of joy, before getting naked with some guy or gal. That does not translate into not using birth control to hopefully delay the blessed event.

Quote:

and in the life of a person of faith, or whatever, that's a fine outlook; "go forth and multiply".

that is your right.

but it gets dodgy when a person of a particular faith insists that everyone believe as s/he does and be bound by those guidelines.

your faith, your rules. be my guest.

And here you build another strawman for in no place in my argument did I express religious faith or a 'go forth and multiply' mentality as any basis for my views on this subject, nor did I in any way even suggest that anyone be bound by the guidelines of my (or anybody else's) faith.

you have in fact expressed your faith on several occasions in the past. so no, no herring and straw salad here. additionally, if you are a supporter of the pro-life agenda, you are indeed forcing your view of things onto those who do not share it.

since the pro-life movement constantly complains about the "secularist", as opposed to "sectarian", pro-choice proponents, it is only logical to consider that the vast majority of those leading and following the pro-life agenda are of a religious stripe.

a quick scan of the pro-life movement's leaders and backers will confirm that this is not a frivolous comment. perhaps not all anti-abortion people are very religious, but the secularists are certainly of a quite small percentage.

Or are you one of those who thinks that only the religious have moral values? Or that only people of faith express them? Or that people of faith can't express them because if they do they cram their religious faith down everybody else's throat?

nope. i don't think that being religious is the only source of morality by a long stretch. it's actually the various established religions that proclaim themselves as the fount of all morality. and even they can't agree on what 'tis and what t'ain't. regard the current uproar in the episcopal church.

if a "person of faith" insists that people follow the rules of their religion whether they share that faith or no, then yes, it is cramming it down the throats of others.

does "teaching intelligent design in a science class" ring a bell ? wanna teach it in a comparitive religions or philosophy class, be my guest. but intelligent design is not science.

how about mandatory prayer in school ? i have no problem with "a moment of silent meditation", btw. worked just fine when i was in school. so what's changed ?

"being gay is a sin. no marriage for gays, says the bible". sound familiar ?

that's just a few instances where i feel, yes, some people of faith seek to force their beliefs on the public at large. and in some cases, doing it with public taxes via the "faith based initiatives". which, btw, are a new phenomenon put in place by george w. bush; the president who you denied is a religious zealot. considering that churches pay no taxes, i'd say that there's already a fair amount of cash available to them to perform good works.

Quote:

the difference between the pro-life and the pro-choice view of things is this;

pro-choice indicates just that. "you have the choice and you are the one to make it".

if you don't believe in abortion, do__ not__ have__ one.

the pro-life view is; " i do not believe in abortion. therefore, you should not and i will insist that you do not and moreover will physically restrain you from doing so. you will live by my rules of religion."

please explain to me why, realistically, i or anyone else should be forced to live out my life under the yolk of someone else's religion. not just on this issue, but on any of the plethora of wedgey little numbers currently in play.

that certainly is not democracy or freedom of religion. that looks more like theocracy.

I am certain this is your view of the pro life view. I think you would have a hard time pulling any of that out of anything I've said.

wwwhhhhaaatttttttt ???? go back and re-read quotes of your comments. on top of everything else, you tell us that you became pregnant while on a birth control program. you chose to have the children. and i commend you for that. yet you don't seem to see any real situation in which another person would make the inverse choice acceptable.

by proxy, you are indeed saying "don't do the crime if ya can't do the time".

You really are fixated on the religion thing aren't you. Do you think that is why most pro-abortion-rights people are so prejudicial and so uncomplimentary toward prolifers? It's the religion they hate? If so, how do you explain the agnostics and non-religious who oppose abortion? Or the many religious who support abortion rights?

i'm not going to bother responding to your accusation that i am "fixated on religion".we've had that discussion on a couple of occassions already and you know my feeling on the subject.

you're focus on that aspect of my view is the real red herring or straw dude here.

Do you know any pro lifers who think abortion for any reason or at any time should be outlawed? I suppose there may be some out there, but I've never met one.

i'm not a big fan of third trimester abortion. nor do i like partial birth.

i have never made a secret of my belief that "with choice comes responsibility". a woman should be informed and able to make a decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy long before the third trimester.

does that answer your question ?

And in your entire argument here, you carefully skirted the point of mine. The issue for pro lifers is that once a baby is on the way, there are two lives to consider, not one. And as yet, I have yet to meet any pro-abortion person--I know, I know, you all prefer to be called pro-abortion-rights or pro choice instead of pro-abortion--who is willing to even discuss that component. They either want to reduce all pre-born people into 'clumps of cells' or refuse to admit a forming human being is a person, or they just skirt and avoid that discussion as you just did.

"clumps of cells" ? that is the one thing that is known about it. truth is, even post partum, we are all just clumps of cells. just a bigger clump. that is science.

the pro-lifers would probably be more accurate if their argument centered around "when does a soul enter the clump of cells".

Quote:

now, just for the info value, i'm linking to the latest polls on abortion. they are somewhat revealing as to how many different ways the issue gets viewed.

but the quick version is that only about 26% or so are in favor of total ban on all abortion. not a majority by any stretch is it ?

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

As for a ban on all abortions, I'll refer you to my earlier comment on that.

And for your edification, I'll leave you with this site:
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/

Since we have a voting process, a process in which laws are enacted, etc., and if everyone were to abide by that process, i.e. vote your conscience, why is it so hard for some people to just let it be that? When anyone votes for anything can't it be said in some way someone is trying to impose their will onto others?

......Our founders established a republican form of government that limits the power of the government to deny or disparage individual liberty or to unreasonably intrude into the private lives of individuals.

also foxy, as reported today, southdakota plans to sign into law a ban on all abortion, save the health of the mother. which was not part of the original bill.