Abortion Rights

[HashiriyaS14]

I would like to point out that I have mentioned NOTHING about punishments for having an abortion, passing laws to make it illegal or pushing my religious beliefs on anyone. I was merely been pointing out the hypocrisy of this society that affords more rights to other groups and animals than unborn children. I just honestly think that our society's view on life is pretty messed up.

Hash, just because I am pro life, Christian and a conservative does not mean that I am a Necon, or have some deluded Reformed/Modern Evangelical notion that God will cut a new covenant with the United States of America if we only all followed His Law. I also think that Modern American Christianity, or as it should be called "American Civil Religion" has more in common with Egalitarianism, Gnosticism and Buddhism than it does with Historical Orthodox Christianity.

If Abortion is to be made illegal, it needs to be done through the correct Constitutional process. And the way this country divided on the issue, I dont see this happening on my lifetime.

LOL!

I actually just snapped up that quote to use to make a wider point, not because I was specifically going after you. I give you a great deal more credit than that.

I just used your "sound bite" and launched a point off it, a point that you may or may not have intended to create the window for. That's how debate works

[telcoman]

But seriously Telcoman, this whole notion that the Church and Christians or anyone religious for that matter should not 'Push their morals or ideologies' on anyone is totally ridiculous. You do realize that even before the founding of this country, on up through the founding of this country (most of the Founding Fathers were Christians) to most present politicians, use(d) their religious and moral views to guide this country and establish laws. I believe the amendment is "Freedom OF Religion" not Freedom From Religion. But I fail to see how the Separation of Church and State, when it was originally coined for the "Free Exercise Clause" of the Amendment applies to "Not pushing beliefs" on someone. Also, so the Federal government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, yet it can tell her that she cannot use Illicit Narcotics. Or if she attempts to kill herself, she commits a crime. How do you reconcile this?Bud

Bud

The founding fathers of our constitution were well aware that most of the wars and killing in Europe were over religion.

Its still going on today in the middle east and Iraq. It recently went on between the British and northern Ireland. This is the main reason so many people from all over the world want to come to this country. Then they are able to live side by side with people who were enemies in their former countries.

As to the use of illicit narcotics during pregnancy, this is an area where the government should be involved because so called "crack babies" end up putting a huge social and financial problem on taxpayers.

Suicide under certain circumstances I am in favor of. Jack Kavorkian should never have been put in jail. Those that want to die after consultation with doctors, family, etc should have the right to do so. The Terry Schievo case is a good example of our misguided government officials.

Telcoman
Modified by telcoman at 4:24 AM 6/23/2008

[Cold_Zero]

LOL!

I actually just snapped up that quote to use to make a wider point, not because I was specifically going after you. I give you a great deal more credit than that.

I just used your "sound bite" and launched a point off it, a point that you may or may not have intended to create the window for. That's how debate works

And I as well, thus with I specifically addressed you later in the post. I just wanted to make sure you understood that I, unlike most of my American Christian brothers do not hold to certain governmental views.bud

[szh]

Also, so the Federal government has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body, yet it can tell her that she cannot use Illicit Narcotics. Or if she attempts to kill herself, she commits a crime. How do you reconcile this?

Let me take just this one point from your post and attempt to answer it ... in a way that you may not like though.

When a womain takes illicit narcotics, or attempts to kill herself, she is attempting to harm a living person - independent of all others. Specifically herself. So, these laws are deemed to apply.

When a woman makes a decision to terminate a pregnancy early, she is not harming a living person. Because the fetus is not yet believed to be a living person, independent of all others. So, the laws are not deemed to apply.

If you (I mean any given person here) accept that distinction of "when life as an independent person begins", then those answers fit that distinction. Including the earlier questions you asked, if looked in that light.

Now, whether you consider that distinction right or wrong, is definitely not something I am arguing with you about. Like I said, this is one of those uncomfortable topics. Where people are often on opposite sides - and their stance is often based on religious beliefs. And since those tend to be issues of faith and acceptance, then neither side is going to convince the other.

I don't want abortion to be trivialized. In my opinion, it must not be performed as a matter of simplistic practice or birth control, used at every simple moment.

Yet, I am also uncomfortable with making it illegal to the point where all abortions are banned and causes people - women and doctors, etc. - to be jailed for using it in situations where it might be warranted.

Hence, my reason for wanting to keep the current laws as they are.

Z

[Cold_Zero]

Szhosain,I think you are I are on the same page. If we dont talk about these issues and hash them out (Pun Intended for Hash) then we do run the risk of trivializing the issue. I agree with you on the tempered approach and have not been advocating wholesale elimination of abortions. But as I have pointed out before, the majority of reasons for keeping abortion legal make up very a very few percentage of the reasons why abortions are sought. Personally, my wife and I (a long with a lot of other people) think that life begins at conception. For a myriad of religious and scientific reasons.

[szh]

Szhosain,I think you are I are on the same page. If we dont talk about these issues and hash them out (Pun Intended for Hash) then we do run the risk of trivializing the issue. I agree with you on the tempered approach and have not been advocating wholesale elimination of abortions. But as I have pointed out before, the majority of reasons for keeping abortion legal make up very a very few percentage of the reasons why abortions are sought. Personally, my wife and I (a long with a lot of other people) think that life begins at conception. For a myriad of religious and scientific reasons.

And, I can agree with the points you make here, and also respect you and your wife's beliefs. No argument or issue there!

By the way, one thing I forgot to mention about your very first OP post. I would be concerned about making this an item that is decided by each State separately. I don't know if I am right or wrong here, but I suspect it would lead to difficulties that would be troublesome.

For example, there is already devisiveness along the "Red" and "Blue" thing. This would be one more issue causing states to bicker and separate each other. California would probably have one more reason for some other states to hate us here!

Plus, given human nature, abortions would continue to be wanted/needed by some people in states where it was declared illegal. So, "crossing the border" to get it done elsewhere would become prevalent. How would states police that activity? And, so on and on.

Problematic, I think ...

Z

[telcoman]

Szhosain,I think you are I are on the same page. If we dont talk about these issues and hash them out (Pun Intended for Hash) then we do run the risk of trivializing the issue. Personally, my wife and I (a long with a lot of other people) think that life begins at conception. For a myriad of religious and scientific reasons.

If you and your wife believe that life begins at conception that is perfectly an acceptable belief. I certainly respect that.

Not everyone accepts that belief and if you and your wife are opposed to abortion no one is forcing you to have one.

The problem is that the "right to life" movement in this country is attempting to force their religious based beliefs on others, shooting and killing doctors that perform legal abortions, and attempt to block others from entering abortion clinics. They appear to me to be very close to terriorists?

In addition, the right to lifers are also opposed to contraception and sex education in the public schools as an alternative to needing an abortion in the first place. are they thinking?

Telcoman

[Cold_Zero]

Telcoman,Agreed (1st point)Agreed (2nd point)(3rd point) While I can understand what you are saying, I dont think that very many people in the "Pro Life" or "Right to Life" movement really advocates civil disobedience and (yes) terrorism to prevent abortions from taking place. Yes back in the 1970's and the 1980's there were groups that advocated violence against abortion clinics and doctors. One of the most striking examples is Keith Green's wife. Her views were really radical. Last time I heard of anything like this was with Eric Ruldoph and the ensuing manhunt for him after the bombings at the Olympics.

(4th point) I think what upsets a lot of people about sex education in public schools is the fact that a lot of schools (Administration and Teachers) have resigned to the fact that 'Kids are just going to have sex" and they just pass out contraception (without the will of the parents being sought first) and show them how to use it. What happens is that the school becomes the efacto enabler for kids to have sex. They don't even teach all the options nor the risk of having sex. I remember when I was a kid, I had to have a signed note from my parents and they pretty much scared the crap out of us that we could either get an STD or a girl pregnant. I guess maybe that was a byproduct of growing up at the same time that the AIDS epidemic exploded. Conversely, in my wife's school there was NO Sex Ed classes in the public schools. I guess when you grow up in a farm in rural Indiana you kind of get the idea about how procreation works.

[mtcookson]

mtcookson

Well the democrats are attempting to get us out of a useless war that has killed over 4k Americans mostly in your age group.

Which they haven't and if they succeed... we'll just be back over there in the future and it will likely be even worse.

Quote »The democrats are also trying to obtain some sort of universal health care passed so everyone in the United States will have healthcare.[/quote]That will end up being a nightmare and will probably cost us more than the war.

Quote »They are also attempting to roll back the Bush tax cuts that seemed to benefit the wealthiest 1% who did not need it nor ask for the tax cuts.[/quote]That seem to? Which tax cuts? All of the tax cuts I see seem to help the lower to middle class the most, looking at the numbers. So I take it you'd vote for higher taxes since you don't seem to like tax cuts? No tax should be raised period.

Quote »We mostly abandoned Afganistan while stretched very thin in Iraq. Osama is still alive. How do you explain that he is still running around after Bush stated after nine eleven that we will bring to justice the people that destroyed the World Trade Center?[/quote]Probably because he/the military was held back in some way. How do you explain it?

Quote »No disrespect to you but why should you have the right to kill anyone?[/quote]Why should a killer have the right to live after killing? I don't feel like paying for him to live safely in a cell getting fed daily for the rest of his life. I'd rather pay for a 50 cent bullet and rid their useless of this planet. I would also accept having a bit of fun with it and paying for the larger, more powerful 2 dollar bullet.

Quote »Many poor US citizens have spent many years in prison on rape charges that after DNA testing became available years later were released. Many eye witness testimony was later found to be false.[/quote]Yeah, that's definitely sad but those are in the past. With current technology, like DNA testing, errors will continually become less and less.

Quote »We have a constitution and a criminal justice system in this country that many have given their lives for.[/quote]That is no longer working very well because liberals seem to think that our punishments are too "cruel and unusual". What's cruel is the way people are killed, raped, whatever and what's unusual is there are people that actually believe they shouldn't be punished very harshly for it.

Define murderer?

mur·der·er–nouna person who commits murder.

mur·der–noun1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

2. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

3. (an act of) killing a person on purpose and illegally

v. tr.

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.



Quote »And castrating rapist, that should be the sole right of the raped.[/quote]That's fine by me... just let me know and I have some rubber gloves and a rusty, dull knife handy. If someone finds that "cruel and unusual" I do also have the choices of a shotgun, hammer, mallet, sledge hammer, air chisel, reciprocating saw, cut off wheel, scissors, pliers, and if I absolutely have to I can even make a mini guillotine. If that doesn't work then we can cough up the extra money and get them surgically removed... but since rape usually intended to cause pain no pain killer or anesthesia should be allowed.

Quote »Beating thieves - perfectly permissable if you catch them stealing.[/quote]Almost... there have been cases where the thief took the victim to court because they got hurt while breaking in and such. I'm sure there's more and even some assault cases but that's one of the more worthless cases I could think of. You know the legal system is bad when the criminal can actually go after the victim in a court of law.

[C-Kwik]

Unfortunately, when the girls came in for a medical grant for an abortion, one of the questions we had to ask was whether they wanted a referral to a organization like planned parenthood for birth control. They almost without doubt declined, stating that their parents would catch them with birth control devices, and that it was better to have an abortion so they wouldn't find out about.

The bottom line is that a parent of a 15 year old needs to be much more aware of where their kid is, who she is with and when she will come home. I'm assuming that most of these parents just couldn't be bothered.

Stepping back in here a bit late here, but its rather interesting to thoink about what you are saying here. Many girls may be more afraid of getting caught having sex or with BC than getting pregnant. It really should be the other way around. And THAT is why parents shouold actively communicate and allow their children to be comfortable asking them about anything. In many households, too many things are taboo that shouldn't be. Especially when they are adult topics. Considering, parents are ultimately preparing their children for adulthood, no topic should ever be taboo...

[AZhitman]

I certainly do not want my tax dollars supporting a semi vegtable with hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of dollars in medical care.

And I don't want my tax dollars supporting your diaper costs when you get old.

That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard in this forum... I pray your kids never have to make such a horrible choice.

Aborting the defective? I seem to recall someone in history doing that...

[telcoman]

Define murderer?

And castrating rapist, that should be the sole right of the raped.

Beating thieves - perfectly permissable if you catch them stealing. We had a slew of vehicle break ins in our neighborhood years ago. The cop suggested we keep an eye out and if we found someone, call the cops, then we could beat the living crap out of him, and of course, report that he kept trying to escape.

rn79870

I ran across this. I don't know if its true?

DEPORT HER TO AMERICA.



The Rambo Granny of Melbourne, Australia

Gun-toting granny Ava Estelle, 81, was so ticked-off when two thugs raped her 18-year-old granddaughter that she tracked the unsuspecting ex-cons down - - and shot off their testicles. The old lady spent a week hunting those men down -- and when she found them, she took revenge on them in her own special way, said Melbourne police investigator Evan Delp. Then she took a taxi to the nearest police station, laid the gun on the sergeant's desk and told him as calm as could be:

'Those bastards will never rape anybody again, by God.'

Cops say convicted rapist and robber Davis Furth, 33, lost both his pen15 and his testicles when outraged Ava opened fire with a 9-mm pistol in the hotel room where he and former prison cell mate Stanley Thomas, 29, were holed up.

The wrinkled avenger also blew Thomas' testicles to kingdom come, but doctors managed to save his mangled pen15, police said. The one guy, Thomas, didn't lose his manhood, but the doctor I talked to said he won't be using it the way he used to, Detective Delp told reporters. Both men are still in pretty bad shape, but I think they're just happy to be alive after what they've been through.

The Rambo Granny swung into action August 21 after her granddaughter Debbie was carjacked and raped in broad daylight by two knife-wielding creeps in a section of town bordering on skid row. "When I saw the look on my Debbie's face that night in the hospital, I decided I was going to go out and get those bastards myself 'cause I figured the Law would go easy on them," recalled the retired library worker. "And I wasn't scared of them, either-- because I've got me a gun and I've been shooting' all my life. And I wasn't dumb enough to turn it in when the law changed about owning one"

So, using a police artist's sketch of the suspects and Debbie's description of the sickos', tough-as-nails Ava spent seven days prowling the wino-infested neighborhood where the crime took place till she spotted the ill fated rapists entering their flophouse hotel.

I knew it was them the minute I saw 'em, but I shot a picture of 'em anyway and took it back to Debbie and she said sure as hell, it was them, the oldster recalled. So I went back to that hotel and found their room and knocked on the door and the minute the big one, , opened the door, I shot 'em right square between the legs, right where it would really hurt 'em most, you know.

Then I went in and shot the other one as he backed up pleading to me to spare him. Then I went down to the police station and turned myself in.

Now, baffled lawmen are trying to figure out exactly how to deal with the vigilante granny. What she did was wrong, and she broke the law, but it is difficult to throw an 81-year-old woman in prison, Det. Delp said, especially when 3 million people in the city want to nominate her for Mayor.

DEPORT HER TO AMERICA --- WE NEED HER !!

Telcoman

[96Qowner]

The point of this thread was to illustrate the absurdity of banning smoking in workplaces, while abortions are allowed. Totally absurd.

I will never agree to suborn the mother in favor of a fetus which cannot survive outside her body. She has rights that supercede the fetus, in my opinion. But I have absolutely no objection to the voters of individual States banning the procedure, just as they feel perfectly justified in banning smoking in cigar stores.

I happen to think abortions can be banned after the fetus becomes viable outside the mother's body - which is at roughly 4 months with present technology. Once the child can survive on its own, I would agree it has rights which must be respected.

[AZhitman]

A few thoughts on this:

I dated a girl who worked in an abortion clinic. Take a tour of one, after-hours, like I did, and I guarantee those of you who are dead-set on pro-choice will change your tune. It's horrifying.

Also, everyone spouts off about the woman's right to choose. What about the father? People give lip-service to his input, but the sad fact is, an unborn child can be aborted AGAINST his wishes, even if he offers to accept full responsibility for raising the child.

It's funny, I listen to the libbies yap on and on and on about the solution being, "education, free birth control, and teaching"... Yet they're the folks railing against the teaching of monogamy and morality in schools and defending a media culture that promotes irresponsible sexual activity.

How many times have I typed this: You can't have it both ways.

I know this: As a teen, I was scared to death to get someone pregnant, because my father told me I'd be "on my own" if I did. As a result, I refrained from "laying pipe", even when it meant getting dumped (more than once) because I wouldn't "put out".

Quite the turnabout, huh?

[sensibleS13driver]

How many times have I typed this: You can't have it both ways.

Social utility and deregulation? Isn't that the "both ways" you're always looking for?

I agree 100% about the role of sex-ed, though your two scenarios don't seem entirely incompatible. And read Planned Parenthood v. Casey which strikes down mandatory spousal notification - not that you'll agree with it though.

[AZhitman]

Social utility and deregulation are not mutually exclusive, either.

Just astounds me to see nincompoops supporting abortion rights, who have never HAD a child, wouldn't lift a finger to HELP a child, are incapable of RAISING a child, and sure as hell wouldn't ADOPT a child.

In other words, they're not interested in solutions - just being oppositional and anti-establishment, because it's "cool". Big surprise.

But they'll scream like hell if you shoot a dog that bites a kid. Yep. Seen it.

...and they have the nerve to call Conservatives "backward-thinkers".

[HashiriyaS14]

Stepping back in here a bit late here, but its rather interesting to thoink about what you are saying here. Many girls may be more afraid of getting caught having sex or with BC than getting pregnant. It really should be the other way around. And THAT is why parents shouold actively communicate and allow their children to be comfortable asking them about anything. In many households, too many things are taboo that shouldn't be. Especially when they are adult topics. Considering, parents are ultimately preparing their children for adulthood, no topic should ever be taboo...

See, this is the problem.

In many cases, relying on parents just won't work. Too many are indifferent, and thus stuff like BC/contraceptives need to be made available.

Ultimately, you DO have to cater somewhat to the lowest common denominator, in this case that is families with uninvolved parents.

This means that if "Family A" brings their kids up responsible and in a taboo-free environment, not needing information like this from the system, their kid is still going to have to be exposed to it because "Family B" can't get their shxt together, period. This is how society works.

The same is true for advocating abstinence. It works in some cases, doesn't work in others. Because it doesn't work in a good amount of cases, that means it doesn't work and isn't a viable option.

Teach the damn kids sex-ed so that they won't make stupid choices, and then hopefully they'll be the responsible parents of the future. It's a problem that needs to be solved over a couple generations, and if that means that certain people's kids are going to be exposed to education that they don't approve of, then those people can send their kids to private schools or homeschool them.

[telcoman]

See, this is the problem.

In many cases, relying on parents just won't work. Too many are indifferent, and thus stuff like BC/contraceptives need to be made available.

Ultimately, you DO have to cater somewhat to the lowest common denominator, in this case that is families with uninvolved parents.

This means that if "Family A" brings their kids up responsible and in a taboo-free environment, not needing information like this from the system, their kid is still going to have to be exposed to it because "Family B" can't get their shxt together, period. This is how society works.

The same is true for advocating abstinence. It works in some cases, doesn't work in others. Because it doesn't work in a good amount of cases, that means it doesn't work and isn't a viable option.

Teach the damn kids sex-ed so that they won't make stupid choices, and then hopefully they'll be the responsible parents of the future. It's a problem that needs to be solved over a couple generations, and if that means that certain people's kids are going to be exposed to education that they don't approve of, then those people can send their kids to private schools or homeschool them.

Well said HashiriyaS14

The problem is that those that want to impose their beliefs on others want to change our constitution, and even resort to violence to get their way.They are not satisfied teaching their own kids abstenance, private or home schooling, no discussion of contraptives, family planning etc.They want to prevent the public schools from teaching other people's children and imposing their misguided moral values on others.Reducing teen pregnancy thru the use of education, contraception, and family planning will certainly result in less abortions but the neo cons just don't get it that there are millions of people in this country that do not share their beliefs?

They may begin to believe this when the results of the November election are in and the American people have spoken?

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

This is a great example of a string of comments that could be spewed by a hard-core conservative or a hand-wringing liberal... Let's read:

The problem is that those that want to impose their beliefs on others want to change our constitution

Pot, meet kettle. I could say the same about those with no moral compass.

...imposing their misguided moral values on others.

Misguided moral values? Nice. Better than none at all, I'd say.

Who's advocating more sex on TV? More violence in video games? More crappy role models being elevated to superstardom? Who's pushing for that? Maybe THEY'RE the ones with the misguided moral values, but you didn't consider that.

...there are millions of people in this country that do not share their beliefs

And there are millions of people in this country that do.

It's time to stop catering to the minority.

What's the excuse gonna be when the decade's biggest Liberal gets defeated in his bid for the presidency?

[AZhitman]

p.s. I think telcoman is a bit off in his definition of "neo-con"...

I'm no neo-con, but I have strong moral values and beliefs. I'm not religious, but I do have a strong faith. I'm not a raving right-winger, but I do believe there is a universal right and wrong.

That's not a neo-con, brother.

[C-Kwik]

A few thoughts on this:

I dated a girl who worked in an abortion clinic. Take a tour of one, after-hours, like I did, and I guarantee those of you who are dead-set on pro-choice will change your tune. It's horrifying.

Not everyone has your weak stomach.

Also, everyone spouts off about the woman's right to choose. What about the father? People give lip-service to his input, but the sad fact is, an unborn child can be aborted AGAINST his wishes, even if he offers to accept full responsibility for raising the child.

I'd argue that when the father has the ability to carry the child to term, then he can choose too.

It's funny, I listen to the libbies yap on and on and on about the solution being, "education, free birth control, and teaching"... Yet they're the folks railing against the teaching of monogamy and morality in schools and defending a media culture that promotes irresponsible sexual activity.

No solution is THAT simple. I think education in this topic is crucial. Mainly from parents, but I think schools are a great place for it as well, especially from people who are trained to answer questions about sex and actually have knowledge on the topic. Even many parents are fairly uninformed as well.

I think the free birth control issue tends to be a band-aid solution. But it may be necessary as many parents may not be talking to their kids about sex, and being involved in their decisions. Some parents will decide to put their kids on BC, and others may not. This is a matter of CHOICE. But ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

I know this: As a teen, I was scared to death to get someone pregnant, because my father told me I'd be "on my own" if I did. As a result, I refrained from "laying pipe", even when it meant getting dumped (more than once) because I wouldn't "put out".

Actually, one of the keys here is that your dad actually discussed it with you. It worked in your case, even if some of might have been luck, but nonetheless, he spoke to you which may have inhibited you somewhat or perhaps made you at least consider using come sort of contraceptive. On the other hand, many parents will have had this talk and come out with no effect on the end result. One solution will not work on every person. Some kids might be just about impossible. But if a parent does not talk about it with their kids, there is no way to know what the best solution is.

Who's advocating more sex on TV? More violence in video games? More crappy role models being elevated to superstardom? Who's pushing for that? Maybe THEY'RE the ones with the misguided moral values, but you didn't consider that.

The only ones I think are advocating it are the ones getting the ratings or trying to sell their games. Allowing people the choice to have access to such content is not advocating. By that definition, we might say the NRA is advocating everyone shooting each other in the streets.

It's time to stop catering to the minority.

How is it catering? What aspect of your life is changed by the freedom to choose to have an abortion? Its not like you are being forced to have one...

[AZhitman]

How is it catering? What aspect of your life is changed by the freedom to choose to have an abortion? Its not like you are being forced to have one...

If you only knew...

You'd feel differently about fathers' rights if you were a Dad.

And I say that as a friend, not to slam you Chano... You'll be a kickass Dad someday (I hope).

[mtcookson]

The big problem I see here is allowing abortion is simply another way to make people less accountable for their actions. If they don't want a kid, don't have sex. If you want to have sex and don't want a kid, use contraceptives but be wary of that .1% chance that you might just have one. If you do have sex with or without contraception and don't want a kid you must be prepared to get pregnant. Its like they're trying to play Russian roulette and calling foul if someone actually gets shot... what the hell do you expect?

If it were me, I probably would allow abortions for rape victims and in cases where giving birth could kill/injur/whatever to the mother. Probably also for some extreme cases of disability. Just remember with disability though that there have been some very influential people in our time that have been born with a disability.

Like I said in the beginning though, it all just boils down to making people less responsible for their actions and its starting to get ridiculous.

[C-Kwik]

If you only knew...

Perhaps I do...

You'd feel differently about fathers' rights if you were a Dad.

While I admit, I certainly don't have the ability to truly know what you mean by that, I do understand that its an issue some men have. On the other hand, I know some men who have urged their significant other to abort. It is a 2-sided coin.

And I say that as a friend, not to slam you Chano... You'll be a kickass Dad someday (I hope).

Goddammit! Why are you trying to jinx me!

[C-Kwik]

Accountability? Children shouldn't be used to punish the parents. There is nothing healthy that can come from having a child grow up in a house full of resentment.

Responsibility? Sure. In an ideal world, we would all be responsible for our children. Of course, in an ideal world, people wouldn't conceive unless they wanted to. The reality is there are countless numbers of parents who don't take responsibility for their children. But that brings me back to square one in my argument...

[mtcookson]

If they are forced to become more responsible about it though, people would likely start to think twice about having sex when they aren't wanting a kid. If that happened I could see a lot benefits coming out of it. But... I know that would never happen.

[C-Kwik]

Responsibility is not something you can force on anyone. They must choose that path. There are plenty of men and women who have children and aren't responsible for their children. The plain fact is, there are irresponsible people out there. In an ideological world, this wouldn't be the case and there would be no unintended pregnancies or irresponsible parents. But our world is quite far from ideal. Hell, examples like this tell me we are far from it:

http://www.time.com/time/world....html

Keep in mind that the abortion rate has declined some 10% since 1984. If I had to guess, I'd say its because of better birth control effectiveness and education. But that is purely my own speculation.

Some statistics:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs....html

And just to lighten the mood:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/babies.png

[HashiriyaS14]

^^Generally, I agree with C-Kwik here.

You can say "it will make people be more responsible", but the sad fact is that MANY MANY people still won't be responsible at all.

All that matters is "how do we reduce unwanted pregnancies". Pick whatever box works the best, and it seems that BC/education is that box.

[96Qowner]

So, if McCain is elected and appoints another couple "conservative" Supreme Court justices, and the Court actually rehears Roe v Wade and actually overturns it (VERY unlikely) ...

What exactly would be the harm? Some States would ban abortions, just like they have banned smoking in cigar stores, other States would allow it.

Choice - a GOOD thing. I have no sympathy with those that whine about how they can't be bothered to drive to another State to have their child aborted. If you want something badly enough, you can sure get your behind to a State where it's legal.

So, why be afraid that McCain will appoint more conservative judges? Big deal. Is there some OTHER reason to be afraid of conservative Supreme Court justices?

[C-Kwik]

So, why be afraid that McCain will appoint more conservative judges? Big deal. Is there some OTHER reason to be afraid of conservative Supreme Court justices?

Because abortion isn't the only issue that is heard in the Supreme Court. Personally, I prefer a balanced panel. Perhaps one that is somewhat equally represented by both "sides" so that all aspects of any issue are considered.