how about this...
 

If you're against abortion, don't have one. I think it is very bad manners for anyone to bring up and make into public issue what is a very serious and private choice for a lady to make. This is America, and you have your right to whatever opionion you may wish to take on any subject. But you do not have the right to tell someone else how to live their own life. That is a private matter, morallity aside, and is protected by the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. To try and change the Constitution is, above all else, thoroughly unpatriotic.

How do you know I haven't? :D I agree that talk is cheap, and while I am not in the position to adopt right now I would like to one day and in the mean time and volunteer in several different situations to "put my money where my mouth is" so to speak. To me, however, that is really neither here nor there.

[QUOTE] [/B]
I am sick of Republicans saying one thing: we want less govertment control-yet they do the opposite and try to control our lives by telling us that we have to have a child if we become pregnant or we can't end our own lives. If I want an abortion whether early term or late term that is my business not anyone elses so keep out of my business. If you are against abortion-great all power to you, have as many children as you want (as long as you have the finances and well being to take care of them) but don't tell me I have to have a child if I do get pregnant and want to terminate the pregnancy. I won't interfere with your life so don't interfere with mine. [QUOTE] [/B]

First of all, I am so FAR from a Republican that it is not even funny! LOL This is probably the only thing I agree with most Republicians on. I think our fundamental issue is that I don't see terminating an innocent life as "your business". Our country tries to protect those that cannot protect themselves. We protect children once they get here from abusive parents who may or may not want them. We even go so far as to go to other countries and "protect" their citizens from their "evil" leaders. (not that I agree with this), why not protect the most innocent of the all? That's my only point. If you want to kill yourself, I say all power to you. While I personally think it's wrong and wouldn't do it myself, that is something that you have to reconcil when you (if you) meet your maker. But I am just as sickened by an abortion as I am a murder of an adult. To me it is no difference. I am sure you see a pregnancy as a blob of tissue or a part of the woman's body, but I see it as a baby, and so we may just have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

I was sickened this week when I saw on the news that Jeb Bush made them replace the feeding tube in the brain injured woman-I know this is another topic but I am tired of the government making decisions for families. If I want to die that is my business not the governments. If my mother is terminally ill or feels she has no quality of life and wants to die that is my family's business. IMO life is about quality NOT quantity. BTW I wonder who pays for this woman's care also-talk about a financial burden-and yes finances do come into play for some people. If the government wants to keep people alive that want to die then it should come out of their pockets and I don't mean the taxpaying citizens-I mean their actual bank account. I also find it sick that this poor woman has to starve to death in order to die a "peaceful" death-why can't we euthanize her-this is a peaceful death. I know some people don't agree-that is fine but again if it happens to my family that is my and my family's business not the governments and not yours.

I actually kinda agree with you. I think we keep people artifically alive a little too long in too many situations, but then we have the case of the man who was in a coma for years (I think over 10 - 15) who recently "woke up" and he was fine. That's why it is so important to not only make your wishes known to others, but to write them down so there is no confusion when the time comes. I think the actual issue with this situation, though is whether or not the woman actually wanted this. Her parents say no, her husband (who is engaged to another woman and has a child with her) says she wouldn't want to live that way.

Re: how about this...
 

O.k.

If you are against murder, don't commit one...

If you are against drugs don't do them....

If you are against having sex with children don't do it....

But PLEASE, PLEASE don't restrict my rights to do so! You have no right to tell me how to live my life. These are private matters that I do in the privacy of my own home.

Re: how about this...
 

This is the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Do you see a "right to privacy" in there? This right to privacy comes from (I believe) Roe v. Wade. Many folks including legal scholars believe that decision didn't interpret existing law -- in created new law.

Roe v. Wade would not make it instantly illegal for people to have abortions. It would simply give states the right to impose bans on abortions.

Now, personally on this issue I usually don't know where I stand, pro-lfe, pro-choice. I see the practical arguments for abortion. On the other hand, I do acknowledge that depending on your definition of when life begins you're destroying a life or a potential life (murdering).

However, with this late term abortion stuff... We have the medical technology to take premature babies of the age that this law applies to and allow them to survive and be normal babies. At that point, if a child can survive outside the womb (even assisted by medical technology), I fail to see how you could not call this murder.

cosign on AggieAXO's post




well....just a real life moment for me - my wittle guy was conceived with a spermicidal condom (thats why they call them bouncing babies - because they are made with rubbers!) This baby I'm carrying now was conceived with a Nuva-Ring, the latest in "birth control". You know that one percent on the packaging - thats me :) Unplanned pregnancies aren't as rare as you think.


I won't get into to great detail since the procedure makes my stomach turn. Basically, Dilation and Extraction involves the women being put into labor per say (given meds to make her uterus contract) The baby is then partially delivered, with the head out only. A hole is punctured into the skull and then baby is then delivered stillborn. Like I said, horrible.

Thanks MereMere21. I may try to read a little bit more about the procedure, but right now, I agree with you about the stomach turning. This sounds almost as bad as the pro abortion activist I read about who believes that we should have up to 30 days AFTER the child is born before we give up the "right" to abort. The guy was affiliated with a major university. Some people are sick.

Cosigning on AggieAXO's post. I've always wondered the same thing about Republicans. :mad:

It's been my understanding that "late-term abortion" and "partial birth" abortion were one and the same, and "partial birth" abortion was a term coined by the anti-choice movement to mislead the public into believing that these sort of abortions occurred during the actual full-term birth. (At least, that's what the Senator who wrote me back regarding this issue said.)

Without veering too far, it's easy to search "involuntary sterilization" on Google and look at our nation's horrible history of sterilizing illiterate, poor women of all ethnic backgrounds. One that I can remember involved a 14 year old girl and her sister who was 16. The doctors had their mother sign off on a "pelvic exam" (she couldn't read) which turned out to be a hysterectomy. The doctors' reasoning behind this: they were poor and on government assistance, and were "high-risk" to become pregnant and unable to take care of their children. "Birth control" as far as Margaret Sanger and those women were concerned, was primarily for middle-class white women. Poor white women and black women just needed to be sterilized.

Re: Re: Re: Weigh In: Senate Passes Ban on Late Term Abortion
 

i agree. if you havent decided by then, then you should just have to deal with the circumstances and make the best of the situation. i am prochoice as well but very against late term abortion with an exception of the mother's health. i feel that the mother's health should be a big consideration and should be part of this bill.

This brings up a whole 'nother issue entirely. Abortions are so prevalent in part because the government is failing women on birth control and sexual education.

I would bet anything that if all schools in America were required to give comprehensive sexual education, the abortion rate would go down. By a lot. Not everyone is educated enough to know about the types of birth control that are available as preventative measures -- that's why abortion is sometimes used as birth control. They don't find out until it's too late that no, pulling out is not effective as birth control, that condoms only work about 85% of the time even when they're used correctly, which they often aren't. Most sex ed programs don't even mention the morning after pill. Incomplete sex ed programs lead to ignorance. Ignorance only leads to more women getting accidentally pregnant and/or not knowing or denying that they're pregnant until it's too late -- which lead to both more total abortions and more late-term abortions.

Ditto for price. Not everyone can afford birth control. It's great that you could afford the pill, spermicide and a condom for every time you have sex. Not everyone can. The government needs to make birth control more widely available and cheaper, including having birth control pills, the shot and other methods of birth control covered by health insurance. It still makes me incredibly angry that there are so many places out there that cover Viagra but not birth control pills under health insurance policies.

Honestly, I think anybody who's anti-abortion and does not support these two policies first and foremost before banning abortion is extremely short-sighted.

Third, we need to erase the stigma of being unmarried and pregnant if you want even the slightest chance of "don't abort, give it up for adoption" to be successful. Did you know that one study showed that Catholics are 29% more likely to have an abortion than their Protestant counterparts, despite the fact that the Catholic church's stance on abortion is more vehement than others? This is, depending on who you ask, because of the church's stance on birth control or because of the extreme stigma of unmarried sex -- probably a combination of both. We need to get rid of the shame associated with it before we can even think of encouraging women to carry their babies to full term.

Of course we can never erase abortion entirely. Even if condoms were cheap and widely available, they break. Even if the pill was covered by health insurance, there are those who don't have health insurance, and the pill isn't foolproof either. And there will always be those who are too irresponsible to use it. But the abortion rate could easily be cut in half just by lowering prices and upping the education level. If you're really anti-abortion, why not work for those causes first before pushing for an overturning of Roe v. Wade, which hurts not only those who are needlessly having abortions but also those who legitimately do need them in cases of health problems, rape, etc.?

I really hate to step into this:(

Are there any such things as Reb. or Dem.?

No, just names to call these asswholes who are looking for a Good Job!:rolleyes:

Yes there are many, many ways to prevent pregnacies. If it is not done in the early part of a life giving, then it should be not taken.

Late Term Abortortions? WHY? There is No Reason, what so ever, period.

Dont want a Child, then dont F**K Around and have one!:mad:

To many ways to not get pregrent, try Aspirin, put it in between your knees! Keeps Knees Closed!:D Hold Asprin!

Tom, are you a physician? Do you know the medical reasons why women late into their pregnancies have to, or choose to, abort? Then, please don't say anything you know nothing about. I just finished reading an interview with one of the few doctors who still does this procedure, and he says that there are always reasons for it, and I think I'd take his word over yours.

Waiting any more than three months (excluding health reasons) SHOULD be outlawed. I am in NO WAY against abortions and think it is up to the women BUT to wait that long saddens me. Abortions are NOT a form of birth control. Waiting that long or even longer is taken a semi-developed fetus and destorying it completly as if it wasnt there!! Bottom Line: ADOPTION!! Plan on placing the child up for adoption if the decsion to abort takes longer than expected.

I know I will get flammed for this but I really don't care :). Tom when you can get pregnant yourself then you can step into this. Until then I think men should stay out (which I think is part of the problem to many damn men making decisions they know nothing about). If you feel so strongly about this have you adopted any children Tom? Why not?
And just to educate you-aspirin is not a way to prevent pregnancy.

Isn't the Republican conservative government against most sex education programs? That is the feeling I get from the press. Please educate me if I am wrong. The republicans want their cake and eat it too. They don't want propholactics passed out in school or pregnancy prevention taught in school which would hopefully prevent some of these unwanted pregnancies but if a girl gets pregnant they don't want abortion as an option. Make up your minds people.

aggieAXO, yes, the majority of the conservative faction of the Republican party is very against anything other than abstinence-only sex education. (AT this time I would like our right wing posters to note that I did not say the entire Republican party.) Anyway, they believe that it should be taught to wait until marraige, nothing more, nothing less. Often times these programs are either linked to faith-based programming or (even worse, imo) teaching that condoms/the Pill/etc all have horrible failure rates and side effects.

FYI, my fiance is a card-carrying Democrat, and has a major role in each year's March for Life. Let's leave politics out of an already inflammatory debate.

I completely agree with comprehensive sexual education. I went to a pilot school district, and we had co-ed sex ed from 5th through 11th grade. It was done on an age-appropriate method, and to this day, I have been able to teach my mother basic sexual/reproductive biology.

These classes included insertion of a diaphragm and using a condom, and were always taught by two teachers, one of each sex. The proof of its value is that I graduated with over 700 people, and there were exactly 2 pregnancies in my class.

No condoms or other birth control were handed out at my school, however, information on birth control clinics (where it would be obtained for free) was posted in several places in the school. In other words, we were taught that responsibility goes hand in hand with sex - if we were going to be sexually active, then we needed to do the responsible thing and go to a clinic first.

If classes such as those I had were more readily taught, I highly doubt that there would be so much debate.