Republicans for Choice

[QueenAdrock]

http://www.electionmall.tv/video/Clients/gop_choice/video.html

I found it interesting. I was googling "Republican Majority" to fact-check something else I saw on this site, and it came up with this.

[yeahwho]

73% of republicans are pro-choice and believe in privacy, they're "out" there! :rolleyes:

we believe in "privacy".
we believe in "independent thinking".
we believe in abortions performed during a private vacation in a country independent of the USA. (y)

[Documad]

Yeah, they just can't get their party's nomination. This has happened to some awesome Republicans in my state as the crackpots took over. It's a big reason why I switched.

[sam i am]

Yeah, they just can't get their party's nomination. This has happened to some awesome Republicans in my state as the crackpots took over. It's a big reason why I switched.

I'd disagree that they can't get their party's nomination. Giuliani is a leading contender for the Presidency in '08 among Republicans. He polls better than McCain against Hillary.

Trust me, us Republicans hunger for a WINNER. We got sick of being out in the cold during those 40 years the Demos ran Congress. I'd vote, and have voted, for pro-choice Republicans because of their electability before. Pragmatism and incrementalism have become the watchword for truly "in" Republicans. That's part of the reason why I am so confident in our ability to prevail in '06 and '08 again.

[QueenAdrock]

McCain is pretty much the only Republican I'd ever vote for. But the Republicans aren't going to let some "nigger-baby lover" try to run for the White House again.

[sam i am]

McCain is pretty much the only Republican I'd ever vote for. But the Republicans aren't going to let some "nigger-baby lover" try to run for the White House again.

Queen, why the hell you using that language? Who are you quoting?

[QueenAdrock]

That's what they said! The Bush campaign against McCain ran a horrible smear campaign. They put pamphlets under many a windshield at the Baptist churches in the south, to sway them away from McCain.

From a quick google:

http://kornbus.blogspot.com/
Does anyone else remember not too long ago when John McCain was cast as a progressive among conservatives in the Republican Party?

Four years ago McCain was a worthy challenger in the primaries against George W. Bush. McCain was a war hero and a no-BS kind of guy. A real straight shooter. He had a great shot at winning the nomination until an “independent” smear ad reared up on the eve of a crucial South Carolina primary. It cast McCain as a nut job who had gone off the deep end after years in a POW camp during the Vietnam War.

Aside from that, Bush’s spin doctor, Karl Rove, initiated a plan that would prey on South Carolina’s racism. It seems that in phone push polls leading up the election, pollsters would ask questions like, "Would it change your opinion of John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate african american child?" In present day South Carolina, one doesn’t really have to prove a claim like that. All you really have to do is insinuate it, as they did there to perfection. Then, you can send GW to a speaking gig over at ultra white-wing Bob Jones University and South Carolina has themselves a decision to make. Do you vote for the Vietnam vet for reform who may have sired a black baby, or the redneck?

Luckily for George Bush and Karl Rove, enough South Carolinians were thinking things like, “What? McCain has a nigger baby? McCain’s a nigger lover? To hell with that looney bird POW, I’m pulling the lever for the hillbilly oil man.” Yes, voters bought into it. McCain lost his bid for the nomination.

[Documad]

I'd disagree that they can't get their party's nomination. Giuliani is a leading contender for the Presidency in '08 among Republicans. He polls better than McCain against Hillary.

Trust me, us Republicans hunger for a WINNER. We got sick of being out in the cold during those 40 years the Demos ran Congress. I'd vote, and have voted, for pro-choice Republicans because of their electability before. Pragmatism and incrementalism have become the watchword for truly "in" Republicans. That's part of the reason why I am so confident in our ability to prevail in '06 and '08 again.
I was talking about my state, which is all I care about for 2006. Pro-choice Republicans were run out ages ago. We used to have some wonderful ones. The ones I worked for can't stomach their party anymore and they've either switched or become apolitical.

I'd absolutely love it if Giuliani got the Republican nomination in 2008. I think he'd be easier to defeat than most people think. But sadly the only way he could get the nomination is to "change his mind" on abortion like Bush Sr. and Minnesota's own Norm Coleman. :rolleyes: But even so, I can't imagine the social conservatives who control the nationwide party to get behind a guy who let his mistress move into his official residence as mayor. I can't stomach that and I don't much care who sleeps with who. But then Norm apparently has an interesting arrangement with his wife too. I guess the social conservative part is just for show?

[DroppinScience]

I doubt Giuliani stands even a chance for the nomination. His previous job was MAYOR (sure, of an extremely important city, but have you ever heard of someone jumping from mayor to President? It's always governor to president or Senator to President or VP to President).

And John McCain is a non-factor. He'll be too old by '08.

[SobaViolence]

progressive, moderate republicans are the only way the country will survive.

[sam i am]

That's what they said! The Bush campaign against McCain ran a horrible smear campaign. They put pamphlets under many a windshield at the Baptist churches in the south, to sway them away from McCain.

From a quick google:

http://kornbus.blogspot.com/
Does anyone else remember not too long ago when John McCain was cast as a progressive among conservatives in the Republican Party?

Four years ago McCain was a worthy challenger in the primaries against George W. Bush. McCain was a war hero and a no-BS kind of guy. A real straight shooter. He had a great shot at winning the nomination until an “independent” smear ad reared up on the eve of a crucial South Carolina primary. It cast McCain as a nut job who had gone off the deep end after years in a POW camp during the Vietnam War.

Aside from that, Bush’s spin doctor, Karl Rove, initiated a plan that would prey on South Carolina’s racism. It seems that in phone push polls leading up the election, pollsters would ask questions like, "Would it change your opinion of John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate african american child?" In present day South Carolina, one doesn’t really have to prove a claim like that. All you really have to do is insinuate it, as they did there to perfection. Then, you can send GW to a speaking gig over at ultra white-wing Bob Jones University and South Carolina has themselves a decision to make. Do you vote for the Vietnam vet for reform who may have sired a black baby, or the redneck?

Luckily for George Bush and Karl Rove, enough South Carolinians were thinking things like, “What? McCain has a nigger baby? McCain’s a nigger lover? To hell with that looney bird POW, I’m pulling the lever for the hillbilly oil man.” Yes, voters bought into it. McCain lost his bid for the nomination.

This would all be really funny if South Carolinians hadn't known all along about Strom Thurmond's black family and voted him in for 50 years.

Sorry, Queen, doesn't wash with me. Doesn't pass the "smell" test. McCain is a hero to many in the party, especially to me, for adopting. He's a great war hero. I heartily disagree with his views in many key areas. I think he's a bit nuts. But, that doesn't disqualify him from being a proud member of the Republican Party nor worthy of running for Prez.

[QueenAdrock]

Then why even bring it up? If it's a "non-issue," why did they feel like it's necessary to even mention it? Ever wonder why Kerry and Edwards mentioned Cheney's GAY DAUGHTER? It's because they know what plays with what audiences, and what threatens or offends majority of the Republicans.

They asked them if it would make a difference if McCain had an "illegitamate black child," not if he "had a black relative." It's all about the phrasing, and they didn't do that to Mr. Thurmond. Just like they did with those "wacky" ads for Kerry, saying he'd raise gas taxes by 50 cents, because he voted for it TEN years earlier. They're very smart with what they do, they do everything for a reason, and they don't just mention things unless they expect a response in their favor.

[sam i am]

Then why even bring it up? If it's a "non-issue," why did they feel like it's necessary to even mention it? Ever wonder why Kerry and Edwards mentioned Cheney's GAY DAUGHTER? It's because they know what plays with what audiences, and what threatens or offends majority of the Republicans.

They asked them if it would make a difference if McCain had an "illegitamate black child," not if he "had a black relative." It's all about the phrasing, and they didn't do that to Mr. Thurmond. Just like they did with those "wacky" ads for Kerry, saying he'd raise gas taxes by 50 cents, because he voted for it TEN years earlier. They're very smart with what they do, they do everything for a reason, and they don't just mention things unless they expect a response in their favor.

I wasn't the one who brought it up. Spin doctors in general are anathema to me. As a free-thinking Conservative, who affiliates with the Republicans, I find negative campaign ads distasteful and non-compelling. Very rarely do they actually have kernels of truth.

I'd much rather hear what someone stands FOR, rather than hear them yell what they'd fight AGAINST. It's always more attractive to those who are cerebrally-inclined to be attracted to something rather than to be promoted to or taken granted for.

[QueenAdrock]

I wasn't the one who brought it up.

I didn't mean you, thilly-pants! And that's good that you don't listen to negative ads, because I agree they are distasteful, regardless of what side. Majority of America listens to them though, which is really sad. (n)

[sam i am]

I didn't mean you, thilly-pants! And that's good that you don't listen to negative ads, because I agree they are distasteful, regardless of what side. Majority of America listens to them though, which is really sad. (n)

I can't remember the last time I was called thilly-pants. Oh, yeah, now I remember......LOL :eek:

[catatonic]

QueenAdrock, I know we clash on this issue, but I really want to talk to the rest of the board.

I do care about all the Democrat issues that, for instance, Harry Reid stands for.

I heard on conservative radio that 51% of women in America are now pro-life. Look, there are too many people who Democrats want that are pro-life. You just can't fund abortions. You don't need to go pro-life with the Democrat candidate, but like Howard Dean said, and he's got pretty good common sense, you need a candidate who shares the views of the pro-life.

Democrats for life of America are pro-choice and have a plan to cut 95% of abortions in 10 years. Everyone seemed to like Clinton's view on abortion. Please, I'll hate myself if after all this effort to help Democrats they legalize gay marriage or encourage abortion.

You have to remember most liberals aren't as liberal as this board. Democrats and Liberals need to get busy making more babies to catch up with Republicans, not encourage an act that makes them even more at a disadvantage! I'm sure most of these Republicans for choice hold a similar view and want to make abortion rarer.

[QueenAdrock]

Umm, did anyone else get a "/hacked_by_zehirgibi/" pop-up when you went on this page?

[yeahwho]

Umm, did anyone else get a "/hacked_by_zehirgibi/" pop-up when you went on this page?

yeah zehirgibi

[Funkaloyd]

You wouldn't have if you were cool and used Mozilla.

[minton]

Thanks for letting us know about that. Hit me if you see it again. In the mean time we'll try and patch it even though it's Microsoft's fault.

For the record: the code wasn't in anyway harmful, it was just a simple pop-up box.

[Medellia]

This would all be really funny if South Carolinians hadn't known all along about Strom Thurmond's black family and voted him in for 50 years.
Wait, I thought that information didn't come out until after he died.

Ah, who cares.

[QueenAdrock]

Please, I'll hate myself if after all this effort to help Democrats they legalize gay marriage or encourage abortion.

You have to remember most liberals aren't as liberal as this board. Democrats and Liberals need to get busy making more babies to catch up with Republicans, not encourage an act that makes them even more at a disadvantage! I'm sure most of these Republicans for choice hold a similar view and want to make abortion rarer.

I don't see what's wrong with gay marriage. I'd see something wrong with it if marriage was still considered a moral and religious institution, but seeing as how anti-God atheists can get married, and how the divorce rate is so high, I don't correlate marriage with "sacred" anymore. And it's especially sad to see two devoted, and loving people who believe in God want to get married, and turned away and told they're different and that God hates them.

But enough about gay marriage. What you seem to be saying is that you believe Democrats are "encouraging" abortion by being pro-choice. That would be like saying that since the Republicans are pro-NRA, they encourage gun-related murders. No, that's not the case with them. They believe in having the option of protecting themselves in times of need, and many, many of them will never use that gun in having to protect themselves.

My stance on the issue is I'm pro-choice. Let me define the word "pro-choice": A woman's ability to choose to keep the baby, giving the baby to adoption, or abortion. So when the pro-lifers on campus yell at me at their monthly pro-life rallies "YOUR MOTHER CHOSE LIFE!" I calmly reply, "Yes. She CHOSE life."

I may not agree with abortion myself (I seriously doubt I would ever have one), but I'm not going to hold my beliefs against someone else going through mental anguish, an emotional turmoil of having to make the hardest decision of her life. No one in the Democratic party is pro-abortion. No one enjoys having to decide whether or not to get an abortion; everyone believes it shouldn't have to be an issue in the first place. But shit happens. And it's unfortunate that it happens. And though I'd encourage women to seek out alternatives before abortion, I'd understand and support her if she wanted an abortion.

And you do have to take the statistic of "51% of women being pro-life" with a grain of salt, especially if you heard it on conservative radio. The question could have been "Would you ever get an abortion?" to which I could see 51% of women saying no. However, that doesn't mean that they're not pro-choice. They may be in the exact same situation as I am.

ANYWHO, in conclusion, I think that most people want abortions to be rarer. No one wants to be raped, and forced to make the decision of having to abort the fetus. No one wants to have the condom break, and have to make the decision of whether to keep the fetus and get a second job to barely make ends meet because the government won't help you out with welfare nearly as much as you need. It's unfortunate circumstances, and I feel for these people. I think most people do, and should. But I don't think it's our place to tell others what to do. The day abortions are outlawed should be the same day that all guns are taken away from the red-staters. Seems like a fair trade to me. :)

[Funkaloyd]

when the pro-lifers on campus yell at me...You know, you're lucky in a way. Students here are too apathetic to yell about anything outside of election season. And even then, we don't have anyone as colourful as pro-lifers.

[Ali]

You know, you're lucky in a way. Students here are too apathetic to yell about anything outside of election season. And even then, we don't have anyone as colourful as pro-lifers.Your last election was a real nail-biter, wasn't it?

Who won?

[Funkaloyd]

Labour got the most votes and seats, though the centre-right National Party hasn't conceded, and since Labour didn't get 50% + 1 > of the total, either party could still win if they can form a majority coalition. But it seems quite unlikely that National will get enough support from the minor parties.



Edit:
No, I was wrong, it looks like National has conceded since I last checked :o

[Ali]

Labour got the most votes and seats, though the centre-right National Party hasn't conceded, and since Labour didn't get 50% + 1 > of the total, either party could still win if they can form a majority coalition. But it seems quite unlikely that National will get enough support from the minor parties.



Edit:
No, I was wrong, it looks like National has conceded since I last checked :oA bit like the German election, then?

At least one of your parties conceded.

[QueenAdrock]

You know, you're lucky in a way. Students here are too apathetic to yell about anything outside of election season. And even then, we don't have anyone as colourful as pro-lifers.

Aw, man EVERYONE yells about something on campus. We've got the PETA people outside of our student union who tell me I'm going to hell because I enjoy McNuggets. And then we've got the liberals telling us to protest the war, and to impeach Bush. (Not that that's a bad thing IMO, but still yelling nonetheless.) And at least once or twice a semester, the Catholic Terps get together and make a wonderful display of illegal, bloody abortions of 7-month old fetuses that have long since been banned in America, compared to the Holocaust of the Jews. Lemme tell you, after they pulled that stunt, comparing abortions to the premeditated and carefully planned out murdering of the Jews...well, the Rabbis on campus came out and yelled the shit out of them.

So, in other words, we're just a huge liberal campus overall, and that makes the conservatives feel like they have to fight twice as hard to have a voice, which in effect makes the liberals even more vocal in response.

It's recockulous. I should join in the yelling. I think my motto will be "YOU'RE GOING TO THE MAIN STATE SCHOOL IN A HUGE BLUE STATE YOU RETARDS, SHUT THE HELL UP AND TAKE IT WHERE IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. Thanks."

[sam i am]

I may not agree with abortion myself (I seriously doubt I would ever have one), but I'm not going to hold my beliefs against someone else going through mental anguish, an emotional turmoil of having to make the hardest decision of her life. No one in the Democratic party is pro-abortion. No one enjoys having to decide whether or not to get an abortion; everyone believes it shouldn't have to be an issue in the first place. But shit happens. And it's unfortunate that it happens. And though I'd encourage women to seek out alternatives before abortion, I'd understand and support her if she wanted an abortion.

Queen - it's not that "shit happens" or that it's "unfortunate that it happens" (fortune has nothing to do with it), it's that a woman CHOSE to have sex and, effectively, CHOSE to get pregnant. Any woman who believes a man will "pull out" or that she is safe because she's not ovulating is just plain uneducated.

[Funkaloyd]

Condoms break. Shit happens.

[QueenAdrock]

Queen - it's not that "shit happens" or that it's "unfortunate that it happens" (fortune has nothing to do with it), it's that a woman CHOSE to have sex and, effectively, CHOSE to get pregnant. Any woman who believes a man will "pull out" or that she is safe because she's not ovulating is just plain uneducated.

So I guess women choose to be raped, then? Mind you, most rapes aren't even reported. Or how about my friend, who couldn't have her boyfriend get off, when she was in tears and told him to stop? I guess she's choosing to get pregnant, too. I also suppose that people who use defective condoms want to have babies, too. I guess I want to get pregnant, too because I'm on birth control, which can still be faulty.

I agree, pulling out and the rhythm method is really stupid. I don't advocate those birth controls. I advocate EFFECTIVE birth control, that has been proven to work.

Shit does happen. And I'm sorry, but I don't feel like it's a guy's decision to have any input, period. It's nice to think that some guys won't be jerks, and probably some men like you would stick around with the woman and marry her because you feel obligated, and want to help out with the baby. But there are so many other men out there who run once they hear "I'm pregnant" because they're 19 years old and have their whole lives ahead of them (and women don't?).

I've known a few girls who've gotten pregnant and heard "Don't worry baby, we'll take care of everything. We'll get married, I'll work full-time, and everything will be fine." Uh-oh. 6 months later, and he realizes HE'S too young to be a father, and high-tails it out of there. I've wanted to run after them and cut their fuckin' balls off, too. It's so hard on those girls to be single mothers, and plain and simple, men don't have to carry a baby for 9 months. They don't have to make the emotional and difficult decision of whether or not to have an abortion - they'll never have to have it on their consciences. It's easy to turn away and say "fuck it" if you realize you have an easy escape from the situation - just leaving.

[Medellia]

^Exactly. Men don't have to carry it, they don't have to put up with the pain of childbirth, and they don't have to deal with the health risks related to pregnancy. Why should they be allowed to have a say in what we do?

[Documad]

I support abortion even when the woman/girl made completely stupid choices regarding the circumstances of conception. In fact, I support it even more then.

I think it's insane to frame the debate along the lines of "maybe she was raped" just because we might find common ground in those limited circumstances. I support early abortion for any and all reasons, but mostly because it gives the woman/girl a chance to for a child-free future (until she decides she wants a child). The state has no place in that decision.

P.S. I <3 all you young women who keep talking about this.

[Medellia]

Aww, I <3 you too, Doc.

[QueenAdrock]

I think it's insane to frame the debate along the lines of "maybe she was raped" just because we might find common ground in those limited circumstances.

That's the thing, though. I don't think they're that limited. The rapes that are reported are limited, but I know of so many cases of women saying "No" and men still doing it. It's happened to a lot of my friends, and they don't want to say anything because they say "Hey, I initiated it in the first place, even if I said no halfway through, I can see why he didn't want to stop." Or women going to bars, getting way too drunk, and ending up having sex because she was so out of it. Granted, it's not smart to get that drunk in the first place, but that falls under the "shit happens" category, as well. A lot of those girls are so drunk that they'd say or do pretty much anything, and that's wrongly taken advantage of.

I think most people will realize that RAPE-rape is bad. Man attacking woman, forcing himself on her. But there's many shades of gray, of unreported rape, of things that could be considered rape, but are not. And I feel like those are often overlooked which is why it is simply said that "cases of rape are rare."

[Documad]

But there's many shades of gray, of unreported rape, of things that could be considered rape, but are not. And I feel like those are often overlooked which is why it is simply said that "cases of rape are rare."
That's a good point, and one that a lot of people miss.

I also think that even when a girl/woman fully consents but made a poor choice and for whatever reason gets pregnant she is equally entitled to an abortion. I've made some really stupid choices in my life and I've been really lucky. I have friends who made the same bad choices and weren't lucky. Abortion was the right choice for many of them.

[sam i am]

Condoms break. Shit happens.

Use the pill and wait to have sex until you know someone doesn't have STD's.

[sam i am]

So I guess women choose to be raped, then? Mind you, most rapes aren't even reported. Or how about my friend, who couldn't have her boyfriend get off, when she was in tears and told him to stop? I guess she's choosing to get pregnant, too. I also suppose that people who use defective condoms want to have babies, too. I guess I want to get pregnant, too because I'm on birth control, which can still be faulty.

I agree, pulling out and the rhythm method is really stupid. I don't advocate those birth controls. I advocate EFFECTIVE birth control, that has been proven to work.

Shit does happen. And I'm sorry, but I don't feel like it's a guy's decision to have any input, period. It's nice to think that some guys won't be jerks, and probably some men like you would stick around with the woman and marry her because you feel obligated, and want to help out with the baby. But there are so many other men out there who run once they hear "I'm pregnant" because they're 19 years old and have their whole lives ahead of them (and women don't?).

I've known a few girls who've gotten pregnant and heard "Don't worry baby, we'll take care of everything. We'll get married, I'll work full-time, and everything will be fine." Uh-oh. 6 months later, and he realizes HE'S too young to be a father, and high-tails it out of there. I've wanted to run after them and cut their fuckin' balls off, too. It's so hard on those girls to be single mothers, and plain and simple, men don't have to carry a baby for 9 months. They don't have to make the emotional and difficult decision of whether or not to have an abortion - they'll never have to have it on their consciences. It's easy to turn away and say "fuck it" if you realize you have an easy escape from the situation - just leaving.

Notice I never talked about rape.

Also, if a condom breaks or you get pregnant using the pill, you have at least MINIMIZED the chances of getting pregnant. If you do anyway, you were informed enough that neither of those methods is fool-proof, unless you've been living in a vacuum for the past 30 years or so. So, anyone who is informed enough to use birth-control should be informed enough to be able to hold down a decent job.

If a woman can't use her MIND to overcome her BIOLOGY, what are we saying about women? Are they too weak, outside of rape, to say NO? Why do you assume that women can't NOT get pregnant? Abstain and masturbate rather than have an unwanted pregnancy. If not, give it up for adoption - I've adopted 4 children myself and there are MILLIONS out there who are willing to adopt - this information is out there in society and there is little to no excuse for unwanted pregnancy outside of rape.

Foolishly believing a man? Face the consequences of your foolishness, but track down the guy and make sure you get child support until that kid is 18. Use the law - it's on your side.

[sam i am]

That's the thing, though. I don't think they're that limited. The rapes that are reported are limited, but I know of so many cases of women saying "No" and men still doing it. It's happened to a lot of my friends, and they don't want to say anything because they say "Hey, I initiated it in the first place, even if I said no halfway through, I can see why he didn't want to stop." Or women going to bars, getting way too drunk, and ending up having sex because she was so out of it. Granted, it's not smart to get that drunk in the first place, but that falls under the "shit happens" category, as well. A lot of those girls are so drunk that they'd say or do pretty much anything, and that's wrongly taken advantage of.

I think most people will realize that RAPE-rape is bad. Man attacking woman, forcing himself on her. But there's many shades of gray, of unreported rape, of things that could be considered rape, but are not. And I feel like those are often overlooked which is why it is simply said that "cases of rape are rare."

How is CHOOSING in the first place to get drunk or put yourself in a situation where you feel OBLIGED to say yes when you mean no a "shit happens" circumstance? It's not. It's a CHOICE to be there, doing that, except in the case of rape.

BTW, the situation where a girl or woman says no, then the guy goes anyways, should ALWAYS be rape, IMHO.

[sam i am]

That's a good point, and one that a lot of people miss.

I also think that even when a girl/woman fully consents but made a poor choice and for whatever reason gets pregnant she is equally entitled to an abortion. I've made some really stupid choices in my life and I've been really lucky. I have friends who made the same bad choices and weren't lucky. Abortion was the right choice for many of them.

But the CHOICE was there PRIOR to getting pregnant, don't you see? If one CHOOSES to NOT have sex, or get drunk and use that as an excuse to have sex, then they remain in control of their intellect and faculties, capable of making INFORMED choices about what they do with their bodies.

[QueenAdrock]

Notice I never talked about rape.

So you DO agree with abortions for cases of rape?

Also, if a condom breaks or you get pregnant using the pill, you have at least MINIMIZED the chances of getting pregnant. If you do anyway, you were informed enough that neither of those methods is fool-proof, unless you've been living in a vacuum for the past 30 years or so. So, anyone who is informed enough to use birth-control should be informed enough to be able to hold down a decent job.

That's a pretty large blanket statement. I know many girls in high school who were smart enough to use a condom. And yeah, they might be able to hold down a decent job, if they want to work 12-hour days to pay for rent, food, health insurance, car insurance, clothing, utilities, whatever else necessities are needed - for TWO. There aren't many jobs out there for people who don't have college degrees, unless they require long hours, or have shit pay. I know a few people who are able to support themselves by working full time (7 days a week) because they have a diploma. But if they ever got into the situation where they'd have to pay for another child, they wouldn't be able to.

If a woman can't use her MIND to overcome her BIOLOGY, what are we saying about women? Are they too weak, outside of rape, to say NO? Why do you assume that women can't NOT get pregnant? Abstain and masturbate rather than have an unwanted pregnancy. If not, give it up for adoption - I've adopted 4 children myself and there are MILLIONS out there who are willing to adopt - this information is out there in society and there is littlt to no excuse for unwanted pregnancy outside of rape.

Women don't have to get pregnant. She can use her mind to overcome her biology. I've been on the pill for 2 years now, and it's worked fine for me. I don't think you understand what I'm saying - I think we should teach more about safe sex, how not to get pregnant, how to be careful as to not get STD's. Women who are safe and use protection each time should be allowed the option of abortion as a last resort. The chances of them becoming pregnant are slim to none, yet I do think that option should be available. Thus my idea of "Shit Happens". You've tried your best to be safe, but sometimes it's not 100%.

I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control, that would be considered immoral in my opinion. However, I know many organizations who would rather say "abstain" than say "safe sex". Many Christians I know say that children should be taught to abstain. By their theory, these teenagers will somehow listen to them, and agree not to do it. Just like the anti-drug campaigns, abstenence-only teaching will work, and will curb teenagers having sex and getting pregnant, correct? No. Safe sex NEEDS to be taught to teenagers and encouraged (if they are to do it), and then maybe our abortion rates will drop.

And I do applaud you for adopting children. But I don't see the "millions" of people wanting to adopt. I DO see childless couples spending thousands of dollars on fertility products, and artificial insemination. And I have met only two adopted children in my whole life, and I live in the ever-busy DC-metro region. I just don't see people wanting to adopt these children, and I certainly wouldn't want to see them growing up running from foster home to foster home because they were an unwanted pregnancy.

Foolishly believing a man? Face the consequences of your foolishness, but track down the guy and make sure you get child support until that kid is 18. Use the law - it's on your side.

Good luck tracking down the guy. My friends said the guy up and left, and never heard from them again. There's not much you can do in situations like that.

How is CHOOSING in the first place to get drunk or put yourself in a situation where you feel OBLIGED to say yes when you mean no a "shit happens" circumstance? It's not. It's a CHOICE to be there, doing that, except in the case of rape.

It's a shit-happens circumstance when women don't know how much alcohol is enough. When you go to college, you have to learn boundaries of how much is too much, but in learning those boundaries, you are bound to make mistakes. And in those situations, it may not be an "obligation" to say yes, it may be the sort of situation where you're so out of it that you wouldn't even know in the morning if you'd said yes or not. Was it rape? Who knows? You could have said yes, but you don't remember. I've have a friend who got really drunk her first time drinking because she was inexperienced, and woke up with a guy on top of her, and she then blacked out again. People make mistakes. She shouldn't have drank that much and put herself in a position of vulnerability, but I also don't feel like because of that mistake she should be forced to drop out of school and take care of a child. If not for any other reason, for the fact that she's not mature enough to have a child.

[sam i am]

I'm glad we're having a mature discussion about this topic.

Ok. It SEEMS to me that you are saying that girls, mostly, are inexperienced and, therefore, should not be accountable for their actions. That they should have the OPTION of aborting, despite the fact that they CHOSE to put themselves in a position to get pregnant in the first place. Is that a correct statement?

Before I move on, I'd like to be clear on where you stand.

As far as a job, etc. If they give the child up for adoption, they don't have to deal with the consequences of their decision, either, except for the wear and tear on their bodies from the pregnancy (and possible complications). Also, the possible complications and wear and tear (both physical and psychological) are well documented from abortions.

As far as adoption goes - go to google and put in the word "adoption." You'll see literally 100's of thousands of options for those who are willing to carry out a pregnancy and have their child raised in a two-parent home rather than face the consequences of being a single mother.

As far as not being able to track down a father of a child - again there are countless options. Private detectives, the State apparatus, which has a vested interest in having a birthfather pay for his child, friends and family intervention in finding a birthfather, etc. If someone is SO slammed that they can't REMEMBER who they got pregnant by - well, is that really someone who should be raising a child in the first place? Give that child up for adoption and let the child have a fruitful life with loving parents who will give them much more opportunity than that person probably can.

I do believe that you, Queen, and most others are VERY misinformed when it comes to the options with adoption that are available to those who do NOT have abortions. I KNOW what it is like to go through the pain of not being able to conceive, then still want a child and be able to adopt.

It is an HONOR to have a child, not a burden. Adoption (and since I have put my money and my fatherhood where my mouth is, I DO feel entitled to speak on this subject) is a gift that I have received from my beautiful children. Every day, when they smile at me and call me DAD is a precious memory. Every day, when my children have a DAD around who wants them and loves them is a day of joy.

Ok, now don't think I'm alone in this sentiment. Really do a BIT of research on adoption before anyone knee-jerks with "well, it's not up to you, it's only up to the woman." Please. For the sake of the children and the mothers who CHOOSE abortion. Let those women know that they DO NOT have to live the life-long trauma of abortion. They CAN have their children and NOT have to raise them and live a life of poverty and that child living without a father. Those children that CHOSEN to live CAN have a life.

[QueenAdrock]

I'm glad we're having a mature discussion about this topic.

Ok. It SEEMS to me that you are saying that girls, mostly, are inexperienced and, therefore, should not be accountable for their actions. That they should have the OPTION of aborting, despite the fact that they CHOSE to put themselves in a position to get pregnant in the first place. Is that a correct statement?


No. The only time I've said women are inexperienced, or can be, is when it comes to drinking. I think women should have the option of aborting if they have been safe, smart beings with their bodies and decisions, or if certain circumstances outside of their control have arisen (thus, women drinking too much, men not listening to them saying no, rape, etc). I don't agree with abortion as birth control, I consider it to be the last option. However, you say in your post that "Children are a gift" yet also ask me whether or not women should "be held accountable for their actions". Since when has having a child synonymous with being punished? Women shouldn't feel like their child is a punishment or a burden. Which is exactly why, for some women, they should wait to have children when it IS considered a gift, and not just something they were "accountable for."


As far as a job, etc. If they give the child up for adoption, they don't have to deal with the consequences of their decision, either, except for the wear and tear on their bodies from the pregnancy (and possible complications). Also, the possible complications and wear and tear (both physical and psychological) are well documented from abortions.

No, I do agree that women should look into adoptions. They should try to find parents who are willing to adopt, and not just put them in agencies. But some women don't want to go through with the pregnancy to begin with. There's a social stigma of being anywhere from 15-22 years old and obviously being pregnant. People ditch you as friends, they think you're a whore, they think you're irresponsible and immature if you got yourself in that situation. For some women, they don't want to have to deal with the emotional anguish of carrying the baby to term. What if you're Christian and made a mistake by having sex and gotten pregant? (watch the movie "Saved", by the way.) What will the church say? What your Christian parents say? Will you still get support? Though I'd like to say yes, I don't see it as much as I should. I do know a Christian girl who has very supportive parents (she has a baby and she's 19), but she's been ostracisized from the church by having relations outside of marriage. The condom broke for her. She could have had an abortion and no one would have known, except for her, but instead she's going through emotional difficulties and broken friendships for seeing the pregnancy through. How's that for hypocrisy?

And just like abortion, adoption will give you psychological and physical problems, too. Especially the attachment aspect. You can't just carry a baby inside of you for 9 months and not expect to grow to love that child. It's very trying for women to have their own baby, and give it up to adoption after they've carried it inside them for all that time.

Don't get me wrong, Sam. I do agree that adoption is a great choice for some. But I don't feel like it's the RIGHT choice for everyone. That is exactly why I'm pro-choice; I feel like women should look into all options, and though I would prefer to see more women keeping their babies or giving it to adoption, I don't feel like that's a viable choice in all options. Which is why, as a last resort, I support the right to choose abortion.

[sam i am]

Queen - you are still missing my main point.

I am stating that the CHOICE is there PRIOR to sex. Once that choice is made, again excluding the whole sub-issue of rape, who does it BENEFIT to abort? Who is making the judgment call that abortion is any LESS traumatizing for a woman than carrying a child and adopting it out?

Have you ever stopped to ask who BENEFITS from abortions? Follow the money - it will surprise, and, I hope, anger you.

There is an entire INDUSTRY that PROFITS from abortions being as plentiful as possible. Also, don't be fooled into thinking that there is a ton of marketing to downplay the destruction that abortion causes for the mother who aborts.

Again, do more research on adoption and you will see that there are WAY more options for mothers who carry children than those who abort.

[Documad]

Ha ha ha! So if you decide to have sex, you don't get any more choices?

It's very telling that men think they have to pay child support and that's their role. I don't want to raise a child even if guaranteed a shit load of child support (and most women don't get near enough). I don't want to have a child and let the father raise it because there's no foolproof way he can waive child support. I don't want to give birth to a child that I'm not keeping because there is no way I could keep my identity private from the kid. (we've had rape victims who were guaranteed privacy and who were later mortified when they were tracked down by the kids they gave away.)

If I were in college today and had consensual sex and for whatever reason I found myself pregnant, I'd go have a short medical procedure, experience minimal cramping, and get on with the rest of my life.

[Medellia]

Ok, now don't think I'm alone in this sentiment. Really do a BIT of research on adoption before anyone knee-jerks with "well, it's not up to you, it's only up to the woman." Please. For the sake of the children and the mothers who CHOOSE abortion. Let those women know that they DO NOT have to live the life-long trauma of abortion. They CAN have their children and NOT have to raise them and live a life of poverty and that child living without a father. Those children that CHOSEN to live CAN have a life.
From the same damn post:
As far as a job, etc. If they give the child up for adoption, they don't have to deal with the consequences of their decision, either, except for the wear and tear on their bodies from the pregnancy (and possible complications). Also, the possible complications and wear and tear (both physical and psychological) are well documented from abortions.
So why should anyone else have a say when the "wear and tear on their bodies (and possible complications)" affect ONLY them?

[QueenAdrock]

Queen - you are still missing my main point.

I am stating that the CHOICE is there PRIOR to sex. Once that choice is made, again excluding the whole sub-issue of rape, who does it BENEFIT to abort? Who is making the judgment call that abortion is any LESS traumatizing for a woman than carrying a child and adopting it out?

Have you ever stopped to ask who BENEFITS from abortions? Follow the money - it will surprise, and, I hope, anger you.

There is an entire INDUSTRY that PROFITS from abortions being as plentiful as possible. Also, don't be fooled into thinking that there is a ton of marketing to downplay the destruction that abortion causes for the mother who aborts.

Again, do more research on adoption and you will see that there are WAY more options for mothers who carry children than those who abort.

Yeah, I understand that you believe women have choices. And if they make wise decisions and still end up pregnant, she's done all she could to avoid it. I have no problem for responsible, safe-sex minded women having options available when it comes to keeping the baby or not.

And I never said that adoption and abortion are one in the same, in regards to trauma. They're both pretty horrible to the emotions of women. But that's up for the woman to decide. If she thinks she can handle becoming attached to her baby and then being forced to give it away after 9 months of raising it inside her, good for her. If she thinks that the easy way is to abort it when it's still sub-human, good for her. It's up for the women to decide, thus being her CHOICE.

Who benefits from abortions? Well, not people who need the stem cells badly to regrow appendages that could help them in life, because I'm pretty sure we've gotten rid of the research, right? Probably the abortion doctors. I know a pretty nice one who has the office right underneath mine.

I'd like to think that you're right, and that there's a large, big-business industry out there that funds abortions, because at least that way we'll know that they won't be outlawed under the Republicans anytime soon. That is, if they're smart enough to pay off the administration, which I'm sure they are.

Either way, you're missing MY point. I do think that adoption should be considered before abortion. I never said that women should look to abortions as a first option, it should always be the last option. But the option should still be there, for women to utilize if they feel there is no other choice for them. You make it sound like I'm pro-abortion. I'm not. I just feel as though women should have all options available to them.

[sam i am]

You make it sound like I'm pro-abortion. I'm not. I just feel as though women should have all options available to them.

I apologize if that was your impression. I do not believe you are pro-abortion. Who would be? Maybe those abortion doctors, as you stated. It's a VERY interesting history lesson to find out who founded the movement to legalize abortions and how the funding came about to begin marketing abortions nationwide leading up to and immendiately following Roe v. Wade. Do some more research and I think you'll be quite surprised, and, again, quite angered at the duping job that has gone on in regards to this issue over the past 30+ years.

Again, follow the money and you'll see what I mean....

[Documad]

I don't know what "pro-abortion" means, but I suspect that I am. I have supported friends who decided to have one. I'd rather they hadn't gotten pregnant in the first place, but this is the real world and it happens.

I think these references to profits made from abortions is silly. Fewer and fewer doctors are doing them--in some parts of the US it's impossible to find one who will because of intimidation, bombings, etc.

The procedure itself is very common--it's used for a variety of female problems when there isn't a fetus present.

As for government funding, I'm happy to spend $500 or so of my tax dollars on an abortion for any woman who wants, but can't afford one (provided she doesn't wait too long).

And it's a crime that the Catholic Church and other religious groups can't get behind birth control. Many of the underage girls I saw getting permission to have an abortion without dad's consent were from solid Catholic families. All the ones I personally knew were.

[Ali]

Banning abortions will only drive it underground, forcing desperate young women to try to abort the foetus by themselves, or to travel to a country where it is legal.

Why is there even a debate about this? If somebody wants to abort, they will find a way to do it, legal or not!

Having an abortion is not the 'easy way out'. It's a horrible, horrible experience that no woman would ever choose lightly. Legalising abortion's not going to result in more promiscuity or less contraceptive use. All it's going to do is allow a young woman, who's accidentally gotten pregnant and doesn't feel ready to be a mother, another chance.

I doubt that there are many women who have multiple abortions, once is enough!

[Documad]

I hate to say it, but having a legal abortion is not a horrible experience for all women. The procedure itself is not a big deal when done in a hospital setting.

From the emotional side, I know you hear about the women who feel bad about it, but there are more who know they made the right decision. I wish they would talk about it publicly but I understand why they don't want to.

[Ali]

having a legal abortion is not a horrible experience for all women. The procedure itself is not a big deal when done in a hospital setting. Not from what I've heard. It's incredibly painful and you bleed for days after. The emotional side of it is another story.

[Documad]

Not from what I've heard. It's incredibly painful and you bleed for days after.
It sure doesn't have to be if you go to a doctor who knows what he/she is doing. It depends on the procedure used. There is sometimes minor cramping and they tell you to wear a pad, but I've never heard a horror story. I'm sure there are some, because they warn you to watch out for signs. There are similar warnings for all routine medical procedures.

Now, you wouldn't believe what happened to some of my friends who gave birth within the last three years. One of them was absolutely butchered.

[QueenAdrock]

It's a really simple procedure, folks. The doctor sticks a fork in your cooter and scrambles the brains, and you queef it out yourself.


But yeah, I'm sorta scared to be working at the dental office that I am, because we have a Planned Parenthood right underneath us. But he's got CRAZY security up in there. We had a pipe leak at 3 AM one Sunday, and it leaked into the downstairs office. The abortion doctor got a call at home from the cops, who were already at the office checking things out. Motion sensors, lasers, eeeeeeeeeeverything.

[sam i am]

If I were in college today and had consensual sex and for whatever reason I found myself pregnant, I'd go have a short medical procedure, experience minimal cramping, and get on with the rest of my life.

If only "minimal cramping" was the only consequnce from having an abortion. It's not, and it's disingenuous for you to state it as categorically so.

There are a plethora of cases where it is not a "short medical procedure," where there is prolific bleeding and infertility FOR LIFE, not "minimal cramping," and MOST women who have had abortions DO NOT just "get on with the rest of [their] lives," they deal with it emotionally, psychologically, and, often, physically, for the rest of their lives.

[Documad]

Your opinion--not fact. Anti-choice websites love to spread the misinformation.

I'm guessing that my opinion is based upon better data, but because I'm not willing to explain it further it doesn't really matter. :)

[Medellia]

It's a really simple procedure, folks. The doctor sticks a fork in your cooter and scrambles the brains, and you queef it out yourself.
Hahahaha, ewwwwwwwwwwwwww.

[Ali]

Now, you wouldn't believe what happened to some of my friends who gave birth within the last three years. One of them was absolutely butchered.Don't get me started on modern birthing techniques. Dunno about the US or UK, but French doctors treat the baby as a foreign object, needing to be removed! You get booked in for an induction, given an epidural, forced to lie on your back, hooked up to infant heart monitoring equipment and the poor, drugged little thing is dragged out with foreceps or suction or whatever. At the first hint of trouble, they whip out the scalpel and go in through the abdomen and they always do an epesiotomy, regardless.

'Luckily' for us, my son was born in the car (http://nerve.fugacious.net/drf/archives/000919.html), on the way to the hospital... :eek:

[Documad]

Those are the most gorgeous just-had-a-baby photos I've seen. That woman did not just give birth!

I can't believe you had the baby in a car. Oh my god that had to be scary.


Seems like most of my friends are having babies now. They're all very assertive people but a few of them gave over all their decision making to the doctor and there were some really bad results. Two women I know ended up going back into the hospital shortly after they went home because of problems related to what their doctors did to them for reasons no one can fathom. They are very smart and assertive women who were presented with a serious of bad decisions when they had little or no control. Also, I had a couple of close friends who had miscarriages lately (or worse--the pregnancy that should miscarry but doesn't quite). Doctors have suddenly gotten very odd in the way they present the "options" so as to avoid anything that sounds like abortion. I couldn't believe some of the "alternatives" the doctors presented to a D&C.

[Ali]

Those are the most gorgeous just-had-a-baby photos I've seen. That woman did not just give birth! She is a Bradley (http://www.bradleybirth.com/) Mum!

[sam i am]

Don't get me started on modern birthing techniques. Dunno about the US or UK, but French doctors treat the baby as a foreign object, needing to be removed! You get booked in for an induction, given an epidural, forced to lie on your back, hooked up to infant heart monitoring equipment and the poor, drugged little thing is dragged out with foreceps or suction or whatever. At the first hint of trouble, they whip out the scalpel and go in through the abdomen and they always do an epesiotomy, regardless.

'Luckily' for us, my son was born in the car (http://nerve.fugacious.net/drf/archives/000919.html), on the way to the hospital... :eek:

What a cute baby! Congratulations, BTW!

[sam i am]

Your opinion--not fact. Anti-choice websites love to spread the misinformation.

I'm guessing that my opinion is based upon better data, but because I'm not willing to explain it further it doesn't really matter. :)

My facts and opinions are NOT based on "anti-choice websites," so please do not mischaracterize them as such.

You can follow the money trail just as easily as I. Who PROFITS from abortions? Hmmmmm?

My ex had two abortions right after Roe v. Wade became legal back in the 70's. She has been unable to hold a pregnancy since. We tried for three years - in vitro and artificial insemination as well.

Thousands of dollars and heartache later, I looked into adoption.

There are literally millions of married couples who are out there and willing to adopt. There is no GOOD excuse to abort. Why not give a child into a loving family and give the gift of life to those who most WANT to take care of and raise children?

[Funkaloyd]

Population control.

[zorra_chiflada]

My facts and opinions are NOT based on "anti-choice websites," so please do not mischaracterize them as such.

You can follow the money trail just as easily as I. Who PROFITS from abortions? Hmmmmm?

My ex had two abortions right after Roe v. Wade became legal back in the 70's. She has been unable to hold a pregnancy since. We tried for three years - in vitro and artificial insemination as well.

Thousands of dollars and heartache later, I looked into adoption.

There are literally millions of married couples who are out there and willing to adopt. There is no GOOD excuse to abort. Why not give a child into a loving family and give the gift of life to those who most WANT to take care of and raise children?

unfortunately, adoption is only available to middle and upper class couples. and many couples are more interested in having a child with their own genetic material.
because of this, there is not an adoptive family for every child aborted.

[Documad]

Plus I have no interest in spending a bunch of my time and energy, endangering my own health, etc., when a simple medical procedure can put my life back on track.

I admire the handful of healthy white girls who give the baby up for adoption to a loving home. When I worked in juvenile court, I saw that scenario exactly once and it was quite touching. For the rest of the 1000 or so girls I saw, they either aborted or kept the baby and lived on welfare.

[Medellia]

My ex had two abortions right after Roe v. Wade became legal back in the 70's. She has been unable to hold a pregnancy since. We tried for three years - in vitro and artificial insemination as well.
No offense intended, but I'm sure that the procedure is safer now than it was in the 70s. Of course there are going to be complications for some. Every medical procedure is rife with potential for serious problems. But that doesn't mean it's AS dangerous now after a few decades of legalisation than it was when your ex first had her's done.

[sam i am]

unfortunately, adoption is only available to middle and upper class couples. and many couples are more interested in having a child with their own genetic material.
because of this, there is not an adoptive family for every child aborted.

COMPLETELY FALSE.

If you adopt through the State (public adoption), there is NO COST INVOLVED WHATSOEVER.

There is NOT a litmus test for suitably adoptive parents, other then willingness and a clean criminal background.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not spread false information.

[sam i am]

Heh, Sam is shooting blanks.

Dear cuntybullocks : FUCK YOU and the horse you rode in on....

That being said, I clearly stated it was not MY problem, arsehole.

[sam i am]

No offense intended, but I'm sure that the procedure is safer now than it was in the 70s. Of course there are going to be complications for some. Every medical procedure is rife with potential for serious problems. But that doesn't mean it's AS dangerous now after a few decades of legalisation than it was when your ex first had her's done.

I'm not offended....

Anyhow, the point of all I've been saying is that there exists a HUGE population out there willing to adopt babies, black white or whatever. The propoganda that says otherwise is COMPLETELY FALSE (see above post).

Please, follow thye money and really THINK about whether you would continue to support abortions if there existed plentiful homes for those babies, because there are.

Now, if you all agree, because I'd hate to offend anyone as well, I'll post some links to REPUTABLE adoption websites so you can research and come to your own conclusions....all agreed? If not, why not?

[STANKY808]

COMPLETELY FALSE.

If you adopt through the State (public adoption), there is NO COST INVOLVED WHATSOEVER.

There is NOT a litmus test for suitably adoptive parents, other then willingness and a clean criminal background.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not spread false information.

"Suitably adoptive parents?" as in no same sex couples? I understand in some jurisdictions age can also be a barrier to adoption.

What is meant by follow the money? Would a doctor practising abortions not make more money by seeing the pregnancy through to birth? Clearly I am missing your point.

[QueenAdrock]

Actually, when I think of it, if I got pregnant now and decided I didn't want to keep it, the only way I'd adopt it out is if I could give it to a gay couple I adore. They're so loving and they'd be great parents.

Looks like the state would have to make the decision of abortion vs. gay parents. :eek: OH NOES!!1

[zorra_chiflada]

COMPLETELY FALSE.

If you adopt through the State (public adoption), there is NO COST INVOLVED WHATSOEVER.

There is NOT a litmus test for suitably adoptive parents, other then willingness and a clean criminal background.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not spread false information.


i didn't say there was a cost as in to "buy the child," i meant that you can only be an adoptive parent if you are of a reasonable socio-economic status. they're not going to let anyone of lower socio-economic status adopt a child. (or same sex couples for that matter)

[racer5.0stang]

Actually, when I think of it, if I got pregnant now and decided I didn't want to keep it, the only way I'd adopt it out is if I could give it to a gay couple I adore. They're so loving and they'd be great parents.

This statement raised a question and maybe someone can answer it...

How is it possible for someone who is gay to claim that they were born that way when said person does not have the ability to reproduce?

If it is genetic (and not a choice) how are the genes passed on?

[Funkaloyd]

Blondes can give birth to brunettes, parents with 20/20 vision can give birth to blind children, and people can be born infertile.

Remember that a child is more than just its father's body + its mother's body.

[racer5.0stang]

Blondes can give birth to brunettes, parents with 20/20 vision can give birth to blind children, and people can be born infertile.

Remember that a child is more than just its father's body + its mother's body.

So are you saying that it could be a recessive gene?

[ms.peachy]

This statement raised a question and maybe someone can answer it...

How is it possible for someone who is gay to claim that they were born that way when said person does not have the ability to reproduce?

If it is genetic (and not a choice) how are the genes passed on?
WTF? Have you ever taken a biology class?

First of all, being gay is not the same as being 'unable to reproduce'.

Secondly, you seem to have very little concept of how genes are passed on. The amount of genetically coded information we inherit is massive. However, not all genetic markers 'surface' to become a dominant characteristic. For exmple, Joanne might not look much like either parent, but looks dead on exactly like Great Auntie Mildred who died in 1952. That's because somewhere in the mix, the things that made Great Auntie Mildred look like herself were swirling around the double helix that kicked off Joanne's physical development. We all (and plants, and other animals) all have huge swathes of 'junk genes', the bits that didn't come to dominate, all lurking there inthe background. (Although junk genes may not in fact be all that junky, and may in fact serve some as yet undefined purpose other than to keep the genetic lottery interesting, but we don't actually know all that much about that yet.)

[racer5.0stang]

First of all, being gay is not the same as being 'unable to reproduce'.

So you know of a human male and male or female and female being able to reproduce from themselves?

[sam i am]

i didn't say there was a cost as in to "buy the child," i meant that you can only be an adoptive parent if you are of a reasonable socio-economic status. they're not going to let anyone of lower socio-economic status adopt a child. (or same sex couples for that matter)

STILL COMPLETELY FALSE.

There are NOT income barriers to adoption.

Gay couples ARE allowed to adopt through the state.

All of your misinformation is NOT based on the actual FACTS.

Please, all of you, do some research prior to posting your inaccuracies.

I'd MUCH rather have adoptions go to gay couples than have the children aborted.

Why not?

[ms.peachy]

So you know of a human male and male or female and female being able to reproduce from themselves?
Being gay is not the same thing as being sterile.

Plenty of gay people are parents. I personally know at least 5.

You are confusing 'being unable to reproduce' with choosing to be in a relationship that does not produce offspring. Which also, by the way, is not the same as being gay.

[catatonic]

Queen Adrock mentioned as a reason for gay marriage that marriage in general is degrading in moral strength anyway. That's true, but it can be struggled against.
Here are some things that could be said to discourage gay marriage and encourage fidelity in straight marriages.

From the LDS Church's Proclamation on the Family (http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html)

"Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God."
"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."
"Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children."
"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."
"The disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
And the last words of the proclamation express the simple truth that the family is "the fundamental unit of society."

Some things that are discouraging good families, not from the proclamation:

Many larger national and international institutions that used to support and strengthen families now try to supplant and even sabotage the very families they were created to serve.



In the name of "tolerance," the definition of family has been expanded beyond recognition to the point that "family" can be any individuals of any gender who live together with or without commitment or children or attention to consequence.



Rampant materialism and selfishness delude many into thinking that families, and especially children, are a burden and a financial millstone that will hold them back rather than a sacred privilege that will teach them to become more like God.

And some ideas for Christian families:

1. Be consistent in holding daily family prayer and weekly family home evenings. Both of these invite the Lord's Spirit, which provides the help and power we need as parents and family leaders. The Church curriculum and magazines have many good ideas for family home evening. Also consider holding a family testimony meeting where parents and children can express their beliefs and feelings to each other in a private and personal setting.

2. Teach the gospel and basic values in your home. Establish a love for reading the scriptures together. Too many of our parents are abdicating this responsibility to the Church. While seminary, auxiliaries, and priesthood quorums are important as a supplement to parental gospel instruction, the main responsibility rests in the home. You might want to choose one gospel subject or a family value and then watch for opportunities to teach it. Be wise and do not involve children or yourselves in so many activities out of the home that you are so busy that the Spirit of the Lord cannot be recognized or felt in giving you the promised guidance for yourself and your family.

3. Create meaningful family bonds that give your children an identity stronger than what they can find with their peer group or at school or anyplace else. This can be done through family traditions for birthdays, for holidays, for dinnertime, and for Sundays. It can also be done through family policies and rules with natural and well-understood consequences. Have a simple family economy where children have specific chores or household duties and receive praise or other rewards commensurate to how well they do. Teach them the importance of avoiding debt and of earning, saving, and wisely spending money. Help them learn responsibility for their own temporal and spiritual self-reliance.


Now as for abortion, you're probably right about everything you've said in this thread, but let me point out a few things. The vast majority of Americans want to limit abortions more. It would discourage rape about which, you're right, it is a lot more common than reported. Rape is an excuse to have an abortion and that should be defended. Abortions not due to rape or inability of the mother or child to survive should not happen. Unfortunately more legality to abortions is a reason to promote rape. It is better to just speak strongly condemning abortions and not act like you're going to allow them than to talk tolerantly.

[Funkaloyd]

Why not?
Population control.

[QueenAdrock]

STILL COMPLETELY FALSE.

Gay couples ARE allowed to adopt through the state.

All of your misinformation is NOT based on the actual FACTS.

Please, all of you, do some research prior to posting your inaccuracies.

I did do some research, and as much as I'd really love to say you're right, there are quite a few barriers for gays adopting.
Many states have laws or policies that discourage adoption by unmarried couples, and these laws are frequently used to discriminate against gay couples. (http://www.lethimstay.com/bigpic_parenting_couples.html)

Mississippi full-out refuses to adopt out to gay couples. So does Florida. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62672-2005Jan10.html) And only 4 states specifically state that it's 100% okay for gay couples to adopt. Many have barriers up, that gay couples have to dodge in order to adopt. Many times, one has to adopt it, and the other has to ask for adoption rights later on, which is a hassle and leads to messy red tape and more barriers, not to mention confusion if the one doing the adopting happens to have something happen to him/her. It seems as if they're not married, they're S.O.L. And it's pretty much banned in countries outside the United States, too. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/05/08/for_gays_adoption_irony/)

I believe there's only around 10 gay couples with legally adopted children in this country. At least that was the count last year when I read an article, I'm not sure if the level's increased this year. I hope so, at least.

[catatonic]

I believe there's only around 10 gay couples with legally adopted children in this country. At least that was the count last year when I read an article, I'm not sure if the level's increased this year. I hope so, at least.

I hope not unless the children can't be adopted which, based on this thread, I would say is very unlikely, for children have the right to a father and mother, not to be confused by parents whose sexual orientation is different than them. A father and a mother adds priceless psychological effects to help a child develop. The child can be jealous of his father and in love with his mother. Both will therefore naturally be in the best position together to help the child develop.

[Funkaloyd]

children have the right to a father and mother
So the state should have appointed me another father when my dad died? My mother has violated my rights by raising me on her own?

I find it strange that you use Sigmund Freud's Oedipus Complex to justify oppression, when he himself wrote:

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too."

If it could be shown that gays are actually more likely to be good parents, would you reverse you stance? Or are you more concerned with dogma than the welfare of families?

[Medellia]

I believe there's only around 10 gay couples with legally adopted children in this country. At least that was the count last year when I read an article, I'm not sure if the level's increased this year. I hope so, at least.
I know a woman who's son is gay; he and his partner adopted a disabled child that never would have been adopted otherwise. They live up north and can't come to Oklahoma to see his family because their afraid their son will taken from them because of the state's adoption laws.

[catatonic]

So the state should have appointed me another father when my dad died? My mother has violated my rights by raising me on her own?

I find it strange that you use Sigmund Freud's Oedipus Complex to justify oppression, when he himself wrote:

"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too."

If it could be shown that gays are actually more likely to be good parents, would you reverse you stance? Or are you more concerned with dogma than the welfare of families?

Sorry about your father's passing. It is up to the mother to decide whether to remarry when a husband dies. However, although it's harder to be raised without a living father, the memory of your father etched in your mother's and your mind and heart would help to raise you more than the memory of one dead mother when your other parent was a mother.

I don't have anything against what Sigmend Freud said there about homosexuals, but it doesn't mean he would be for gay marriage.

If you can show me some evidence of gay adoption raising children better, I will be more persuaded, although I suspect the evidence won't give the whole picture. I am not dogmatic. I am not fundamentalist.

[sam i am]

I did do some research, and as much as I'd really love to say you're right, there are quite a few barriers for gays adopting.
Many states have laws or policies that discourage adoption by unmarried couples, and these laws are frequently used to discriminate against gay couples. (http://www.lethimstay.com/bigpic_parenting_couples.html)

Mississippi full-out refuses to adopt out to gay couples. So does Florida. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62672-2005Jan10.html) And only 4 states specifically state that it's 100% okay for gay couples to adopt. Many have barriers up, that gay couples have to dodge in order to adopt. Many times, one has to adopt it, and the other has to ask for adoption rights later on, which is a hassle and leads to messy red tape and more barriers, not to mention confusion if the one doing the adopting happens to have something happen to him/her. It seems as if they're not married, they're S.O.L. And it's pretty much banned in countries outside the United States, too. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/05/08/for_gays_adoption_irony/)

I believe there's only around 10 gay couples with legally adopted children in this country. At least that was the count last year when I read an article, I'm not sure if the level's increased this year. I hope so, at least.

I actually don't care even that much if it's a single parent. At least that child has life.

If you're willing to back up ANY adoptions, why abort?

I know, funkaloyd's answer will be, "population control." Why not population control BEFORE abortion : i.e., my whole previous missive on the efficacy of NOT having sex in the first place?

Heck, if you really want to stretch the point, if someone is COMPLETELY homosexual, they have inherent population control - i.e., they would not want to father or mother children except through artificial means. If they adopt, they still are not INCREASING the existing population but are giving a life to a child.

[catatonic]

I hate to say it, but educating people not to have too many children in the world appears to be very necessary!

However, that doesn't mean you should do something like killing, or undermine families. No I am deadset that we are going to pay for our laxadaisical attitude and learn to replenish the earth's resources with this many people.

If you think abortion is justified then so is war, and there are those who want to wipe out half the population.

What really has to happen is we don't need to have fewer kids we just need to accept and live responsibly when we do!

[Funkaloyd]

Why not population control BEFORE abortion : i.e., my whole previous missive on the efficacy of NOT having sex in the first place?
Preventative population control should consist of the government distribution of free condoms, and giving abstinence supporters the same rights as ducks in duck hunting season. I think the latter can be considered reductive population control as well.

[QueenAdrock]

I hope not unless the children can't be adopted which, based on this thread, I would say is very unlikely, for children have the right to a father and mother

So one's the butch, one's the bitch. What's the problem here?

I don't care what the parents are like. All studies show that children raised by same-sex couples turn out JUST as well rounded (if not more so) as children raised by a male and female couple. The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. (http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm)

I know that's engrained in you that one woman + one man is the only way to raise a child, but there's a difference between personal belief and what is actually best for children. The article I read last year was about a girl who was raised by two gay dads. She said she loves them both so very much, and doesn't regret not having a close female figure in her life. If she ever felt like she needed to talk about "girl stuff," she could go to her best friend's mom. Just like someone who has a dead mother.

I think it's fine for one man and woman to raise a child. And I also think it's fine for same-sex couples to raise a child too. It won't turn them gay, they're well-rounded individuals, and have loving families. If same-sex couples aren't allowed to adopt, where do you draw the line? Should single people not be allowed to adopt? What about my one friend who was raised by her mother and her aunt? She had two "moms," did that fuck up the way she was raised? No.

Bottom line is, a loving family is a loving family, and we need MORE of them in the world. When one sees the amount of parents emotionally and physically abusing their children in this world, I don't see how anyone can be against loving families just because they're not "traditional." America's changed. We're not traditional. We have step families, half-brothers and sisters, divorced parents, single parents, and yes, gay parents. And I think it's great.

[Funkaloyd]

the memory of your father etched in your mother's and your mind and heart would help to raise you more than the memory of one dead mother when your other parent was a mother.
Would my memory of my dead father somehow be less significant if I had another father? I'm sure you didn't mean it to be, but that seems rather insulting.

If you can show me some evidence of gay adoption raising children better, I will be more persuaded, although I suspect the evidence won't give the whole picture. I am not dogmatic. I am not fundamentalist.
Nobody does it better (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/10/05/gay_parents/index.html). The first page is just the author's anecdotal observations, but after that you get the results of research.

Even if gays didn't make better parents, would it matter? If studies showed that Southerners are more likely to abuse their kids, would you advocate taking away their freedoms?

You may not be a fundamentalist, but you sure seem to shape your political views through your faith rather than independent reasoning.

[sam i am]

So one's the butch, one's the bitch. What's the problem here?

I don't care what the parents are like. All studies show that children raised by same-sex couples turn out JUST as well rounded (if not more so) as children raised by a male and female couple. The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. (http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm)

I know that's engrained in you that one woman + one man is the only way to raise a child, but there's a difference between personal belief and what is actually best for children. The article I read last year was about a girl who was raised by two gay dads. She said she loves them both so very much, and doesn't regret not having a close female figure in her life. If she ever felt like she needed to talk about "girl stuff," she could go to her best friend's mom. Just like someone who has a dead mother.

I think it's fine for one man and woman to raise a child. And I also think it's fine for same-sex couples to raise a child too. It won't turn them gay, they're well-rounded individuals, and have loving families. If same-sex couples aren't allowed to adopt, where do you draw the line? Should single people not be allowed to adopt? What about my one friend who was raised by her mother and her aunt? She had two "moms," did that fuck up the way she was raised? No.

Bottom line is, a loving family is a loving family, and we need MORE of them in the world. When one sees the amount of parents emotionally and physically abusing their children in this world, I don't see how anyone can be against loving families just because they're not "traditional." America's changed. We're not traditional. We have step families, half-brothers and sisters, divorced parents, single parents, and yes, gay parents. And I think it's great.

Good for you, Queen. I'm proud of you.

If there were more people who are "pro-choice" who would ALSO fight for adoptions throughout this country, then the "pro-choice" movement would get a heck of a lot more support, IMO.

If abortions were limited to rape cases and health of the mother and ONLY in the first trimester, MOST of the debate would go away, IMO.

Adoption support and expansion, IMHO, is the way for us all to get past this EXTREMELY divisive issue and tackle all the other issues we need to in this country, let alone in the world.

[catatonic]

Thanks. I'm being grilled or even threatened on almost all my message boards today, so this is something I look forward to thinking about.

[catatonic]

Fortunately, I don't have to say my Church is wrong, and I don't have to disagree with you. The proclamation only says parents are entitled to be raised by a father and mother. It doesn't say they have to be. I agree with you that gay parents can almost definitely raise children as well as or probably better than straight ones, but I disagree with gay marriage and gay sex.

[racer5.0stang]

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:24-28

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient

(vv. 24-28) Three times God is said to give sinful man over to the evil desires of his heart (vv. 24, 26, 28). Within these declarations is a note of sorrow, together with a pronouncement of judgment.
(v. 24) Homosexuality is pictured by Paul not as the ultimate sin but as the ultimate distortion of God's creative genius. When the human family indulges in sexual behavior antithetical to that for which they were biologically, psychologically, and emotionally designed, the "futile" imagination has so "darkened" the foolish heart (v. 21) that it is virtually impossible to view anything as God intended. To these awesome sins of homosexuality and sodomy, Paul applies six terms of evaluation: (1) "uncleanness" (v. 24), (2) "lusts" (v. 24), (3) "dishonor" (v. 24), (4) "vile passions" (v. 26), (5) "against nature" (v. 26), and (6) "shameful" (v. 27). After listing a host of other iniquities, Paul concludes the section with the promise of the certainty of God's judgment against all such sin. Additional passages demonstrate that homosexuality is a hideous sin which falls under the scope of God's judgment (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9).

[racer5.0stang]

What really has to happen is we don't need to have fewer kids we just need to accept and live responsibly when we do!

By far the most intelligent thing you have ever said.

[Ali]

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus?!?! You are quoting from Leviticus........

Oh boy. I knew you were dumb, but why do you continually beg to have a can of whup ass opened on ya.

Does anybody here have a choice quote from Leviticus they'd like to share?

Here's a few from Leviticus 20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Lev/Lev020.html)
20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood [shall be] upon him.
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 20:11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Lev 20:12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Lev 20:18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. Should we follow Leviticus to the letter?

[Documad]

The OT also requires a lot of animal sacrifices. Racer, I hope your church is current.

[QueenAdrock]

Leviticus 18:22

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Romans 1:24-28

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient


Diana 9:28 LOL@dead babies! :cool:

[zorra_chiflada]

lets have a coat hanger parade!

[Medellia]

Ooh, can we smoke medical marijuana before we scramble some baby brains?

[racer5.0stang]

The OT also requires a lot of animal sacrifices. Racer, I hope your church is current.

Yeah, instead of sheep and goats we use chicken and cow.

[WHUFC]

Here is a true Republican http://www.quinnipiac.edu/Images/news-events/QUDaily/Gerry-Adams_web.jpg (http://http://www.quinnipiac.edu/Images/news-events/QUDaily/Gerry-Adams_web.jpg)

Gerry Adams the guvnor, taking care of business

[sam i am]

Here is a true Republican http://www.quinnipiac.edu/Images/news-events/QUDaily/Gerry-Adams_web.jpg (http://http://www.quinnipiac.edu/Images/news-events/QUDaily/Gerry-Adams_web.jpg)

Gerry Adams the guvnor, taking care of business

The link is not active.

[beastiegirl23]

is this thing on? what happened to that issue?

Well for my own opinion when women get pregnant, they become a host for the unborn child. That baby starts developing inside the mother. Therefore, the child shares your body...and it is not solely your own body anymore.

The pro-choice movement uses words like "fetus" and so forth to talk about a human child. This kind of language dehumanizes the child. It is meant to frame the child in the same way as a tapeworm within a human body. But it's still human life.

No one accept Michael the Gay Piece of Human Trash would ever deny the responsibilities that go along with having sex. When you get pregnant, the argument that "it's my body" is no longer valid.

even 30 days on fx channel will deal with this issue... its on http://www.fxnetworks.com/30days

[Funkaloyd]

The pro-choice movement uses words like "fetus" and so forth to talk about a human child. This kind of language dehumanizes the child.
Those devious manipulators, calling fetuses "fetuses".

[Ali]

Those devious manipulators, calling fetuses "fetuses".Can we call them Foetuses?

[yeahwho]

is this thing on? what happened to that issue?

Well for my own opinion when women get pregnant, they become a host for the unborn child. That baby starts developing inside the mother. Therefore, the child shares your body...and it is not solely your own body anymore.

The pro-choice movement uses words like "fetus" and so forth to talk about a human child. This kind of language dehumanizes the child. It is meant to frame the child in the same way as a tapeworm within a human body. But it's still human life.

No one accept Michael the Gay Piece of Human Trash would ever deny the responsibilities that go along with having sex. When you get pregnant, the argument that "it's my body" is no longer valid.

even 30 days on fx channel will deal with this issue... its on http://www.fxnetworks.com/30days


Has it ever occured to you individual freedoms and legal rights are part of a woman's life in a country called the United States of America?

Or is that just a fucked up concept you would like to moralize about?

[QueenAdrock]

is this thing on? what happened to that issue?

Well for my own opinion when women get pregnant, they become a host for the unborn child. That baby starts developing inside the mother. Therefore, the child shares your body...and it is not solely your own body anymore.

The pro-choice movement uses words like "fetus" and so forth to talk about a human child. This kind of language dehumanizes the child. It is meant to frame the child in the same way as a tapeworm within a human body. But it's still human life.

No one accept Michael the Gay Piece of Human Trash would ever deny the responsibilities that go along with having sex. When you get pregnant, the argument that "it's my body" is no longer valid.

Michael the Gay Piece of Human Trash? Wow, what a bigot. You, ma'am, are what's wrong with the "pro-life" movement. Gays are human trash, but fetuses are to be treated with the utmost respect. What if that fetus becomes gay? I guess we should have flushed it down the toilet in the first place, because that's what we do with trash, right? (n)

You know what else is a valid point, if you just switch around some of your wording?

"Well for my own opinion when women get sick, they become a host for the disease. That disease starts developing inside the mother. Therefore, the disease shares your body...and it is not solely your own body anymore."

It's your body no matter what. It's not "our" body, because there is a fetus inside, living off of the mother. It is just feeding off the mother, growing and expanding by what YOU give it. You want to know what a pregnancy is, in scientific terms?
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite) And just like anything else that feeds off of you, I believe you should have the ability to take control of the situation, for your own health purposes - be it mental, physical, or other.

Now, don't try and tell me I'm trying to "dehumanize" the situation, I am just giving you cold, hard, scientific facts. It's a fact that the child lives OFF OF YOU. It is also a fact that many women survive abortions. Majority, actually. So if it was "our" body, how come that number isn't much, much lower? A part of my body is my liver, but if I removed that, I'd die for sure. Therefore, a baby isn't "our" body, because if it was, I wouldn't be able to survive an abortion. And that's why it's MY body, rather than "ours." And that is also why it is MY choice to have an abortion.

[beastiegirl23]

you all guys has a point there but we all have our own belief regarding that issue...

are u going to watch 30 days on fx channel which will deal with abortion? they are going to have a hot debate about the topic

[sam i am]

Adoption is the answer....take responsibility for having sex.

[Schmeltz]

Holy shit it's sam!

I would agree with you if there were a way to force the male half of that equation to take responsibility for his actions in the same way that you propose to force women to do so. However, your position simply dooms one side to accomodation of a very serious responsibility while the other is allowed to get off scot-free. To change this would require the implementation of a moral police force with frightening sway over the personal freedoms of an ostensibly free population. We had that in the world at one time. They were called the Taliban and your countrymen, as well as mine, are giving their life's blood to wipe them from the earth before they set us back any further.

Responsibility stems from education, not enforcement. I hope you intend to disseminate your message through means other than legal obligation.

[sam i am]

If there were more people who are "pro-choice" who would ALSO fight for adoptions throughout this country, then the "pro-choice" movement would get a heck of a lot more support, IMO.

If abortions were limited to rape cases and health of the mother and ONLY in the first trimester, MOST of the debate would go away, IMO.

Adoption support and expansion, IMHO, is the way for us all to get past this EXTREMELY divisive issue and tackle all the other issues we need to in this country, let alone in the world.

Schmeltz....thanks for welcoming me back.

Sabbaticals are refreshing.

Anyhow...what I wrote above still stands and would "solve" much of the debate as far as I can see.

Enforcement is a whole different issue. It's (unfortunately) true that abortions will always be a part of the equation, because some women will never have a child no matter what the circumstances. It's also (unfortunately) true that many have moral and ethical opposition to abortion but have only predicated "abstinence" as the one true path to salvation.

I think my solution is a strong moral and ethical middle ground that most reasonable people can agree upon. Take away the illegality factor (which is well-nigh with the Supreme Court being the way it is) and you "solve much of the problem. Fund adoptions as you used to fund public abortions. Remove the incentives and make those adoptions easy. Qualify new parents the same way you do now through state adoption agencies. Expand the education of the new system and keep abortion safe, legal, and (exceptionally) rare so it is only practiced in the conditions above.

Recognize that both sides have strong feelings on the issue and compromise mostly.