Whistler Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 Andrea Yates??? Did she have an abortion? I’m not going to get into a chicken and egg debate with you. You can make abortion illegal if you want to; it will just go back underground and you can claim some sort of moral victory that will be smoke. Reality is a bitch ... but as long as you think you win ... hey that’s easy!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 7, 2003 Report Share Posted October 7, 2003 Actually, when abortion was illegal far fewer of them occurred than was even previously thought. A former director of NARAL admitted that the figures for so-called back-alley abortions quoted in the Roe vs. Wade case were complete fabrications with no grounding in truth. If we make abortion illegal, it'll still happen, much as murder still happens even though it's illegal. What we can be sure of, though, is that hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistler Posted October 8, 2003 Report Share Posted October 8, 2003 May your 15 year old daughter never come home to tell you she is quitting high school and moving in with her boyfriend in order to care for their yet to be born child. Or maybe she should, you would understand and have more compassion for the already born as a result maybe less children will die as a result of the mothers being overwhelmed later in life and her attempts to get out from under it...a la Andrea Yates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 8, 2003 Report Share Posted October 8, 2003 I would rather my 15-year-old daughter take responsibility for her actions, than to come home and tell me that she had a doctor dissolve my first grandchild in saline solution and throw the remains in a dumpster. as a result maybe less children will die as a result of the mothers being overwhelmed later in life Why, because they are already dead? Great solution. By that standard, let's kill every black male child in America. It'll spare them the pain of gangland shootings later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistler Posted October 8, 2003 Report Share Posted October 8, 2003 Lets hope your wife makes the really important decisions regarding your children, you daughter’s future could depend on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 8, 2003 Report Share Posted October 8, 2003 Regarding my hypothetical daughter's future, even if there were no way she could attend university (for instance) I would rather that, than my grandchild to be killed by a particularly barbaric method. Please tell me, do you agree with abortion-on-demand, up to the day before birth (including, therefore, late-term and partial-birth abortion), or do you believe that there should be some cut-off date after which no abortion can be performed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistler Posted October 8, 2003 Report Share Posted October 8, 2003 If my wife’s or daughter’s life was in peril, you bet right up to 10 centimeters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 8, 2003 Report Share Posted October 8, 2003 Abortion in the event of pregnancy imperiling the life of the mother has always been legal. What about if the mother's life or health were not in danger, though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistler Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 Her health is in danger as having to work two low wage jobs to put food on the table and cover daycare? Her health is in danger as not having the education needed to rise above poverty or even know which foods are best for her and her child to eat? Or her health is in danger because she has to prostitute herself. Danger to ones health comes in many flavors. I just don’t feel it is anyone’s right to decide what is best for these potential mothers. To answer an earlier question, I do not feel bringing a life into misery, neglect, and abuse; a life that will only know rejection and despair, a life that will know no self worth is not fair to society, the mother and more importantly the child. I will not change your mind and you will not change mine. I offer you the last word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 If you don't want the baby put it up for adoption. Thats the best way to do it. Not death that isn't the answer. If you don't want the baby, can't give care for it, give it to a family who will. Aborting the baby isn't the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistler Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 Good point Derek, how many HIV positive, crack addicted, deformed babies can we put you down for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 Good point Derek, how many HIV positive, crack addicted, deformed babies can we put you down for? Doesn't mean we should kill them, but in your twisted view, oh get rid of them, they are hideous, is that what you are trying to say, whistler? Yes adoption may not be the answer in most unplanned pregnencys but in most cases, if you don't want the baby, give it up, don't kill it. Which would you rather do whistler, give up the baby, or kill it? Thats the question, i hope you have an answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistler Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 Please get over the KILL THE BABIES crap I’m not buying it. We are talking about the unborn. And YES it is more humane in many instances to CANCEL THE PREGNANCY. Don’t even try to label me as an unsympathetic brut ....that dog ain’t even in the truck. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 When does the "unborn" become a "baby", exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted October 9, 2003 Report Share Posted October 9, 2003 Please get over the KILL THE BABIES crap I’m not buying it. We are talking about the unborn. And YES it is more humane in many instances to CANCEL THE PREGNANCY. Don’t even try to label me as an unsympathetic brut ....that dog ain’t even in the truck. :angry: I don't give a crap if you don't buy it. Thats what it is. People like you sicken me. We are talking about the unborn, so they don't mean crap, right? OH I SEE, think you for getting your point across. The Unborn, and babies, are both people. Whether you like it or not. So don't try to give me that crap that the Unborn are not people, IM NOT BUYING IT!!!!!! haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal.F. Posted October 10, 2003 Report Share Posted October 10, 2003 Here we have a case in Illinois where a woman Murdered her baby and got away with it . The baby was born, and she killed it before the umbelical cord was severed. This is the result of a woman's "choice" . Whatever happened to responsibility for one's actions. You sleep with someone, you are aware that the risk of pregnancy is present. Should one then have the right to escape those consequences at the price of an innocent life...someone else's. I was put up for adoption by a 16 year old who had the courage and morals to live up to her responsibilities, and I can tell you as a longtime pro-life advocate that there are more people who want to adopt children than there are children available for adoption. How do you explain the thousands of Canadians heading to China every year to adopt? The answer can be found in garbage bags behind Morgentaler's charnel houses....in sales of saline solution.... And yes, there are people who do adopt HIV positive , crack addicted children..... they do so out of Christian love and compassion..to give these children the possibility of knowing love, and Jesus Christ. Abortion is the wilful taking of another's life. It is murder, plain and simple and should be treated as such. I mean Jail terms for abortionists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Burke Posted October 11, 2003 Report Share Posted October 11, 2003 First of all, I believe in abortion in certain cases but I do not believe in it in all cases. Laws should be passed as so: A. If the woman's pregnancy is unintentional but a result of willful intercourse than abortion should not be allowed. B. If the woman's pregnancy is unintentional but a result of rape than the state has the right to decide. C. If the woman's pregnancy will result in a sickly child that will be born still, seriously mentally deformed, or crippled by sexual disease (i.e., AIDS) an abortion shall be allowed by all states. My opinions (braces for the impact ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted October 11, 2003 Report Share Posted October 11, 2003 I tried to ask this hypothetical question to Nuclear awhile back but I guess it got lost in the shuffle. I offer it now to all; Suppose, in a hypothetical new world it was decreed that abortion was illegal but infacide up to one year old was OK by law. Clinics were set up for women to take their infants to and have them put down. Would you do something illegal to stop it? One suggestion I made was a realiviely harmless one of snatching the babies out of the arms of the mothers and take them to the local adoption agency. What action, if any would you take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistler Posted October 12, 2003 Report Share Posted October 12, 2003 ...and I can tell you as a longtime pro-life advocate that there are more people who want to adopt children than there are children available for adoption. How do you explain the thousands of Canadians heading to China every year to adopt? “...While revised upward by just over a thousand from the figure reported in the CDC's preliminary report in January,1 the 1,186,039 abortions reported by CDC for 1997 still represent the lowest figure reported by the CDC since 1977 The CDC's rates of 20 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age (ages 15-44) reported for 1995, 1996, and 1997 reflected lower annual rates than any seen since 1975. The CDC found a ratio of 306 abortions for every 1,000 live births3 in 1997, again the lowest figure of that sort reported since 1975. As has been the case in recent years, teens accounted for just over one-fifth (20.1%) of the abortions reported to the CDC. Those 25 years and older increased its share to nearly half (48.2%). Minorities, unfortunately, continue to be very much overrepresented in CDC abortion statistics. While information from the 1998 Statistical Abstract shows black American women comprising just 14.2% of the overall population of women of childbearing age in 1997, CDC figures show this group as undergoing 35.9% of all the abortions performed that year. The same statistics show the population of Hispanic women aged 15 to 44 as comprising just 11.6% of the total number of women of childbearing age in the U.S. in 1997. Yet Hispanic women accounted for 15.6% of the total number of abortions reported to the CDC...” http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL12/cdc.html Did you say hundreds of thousands or millions of parents are looking for adoptions? This might be a case of “be careful what you wish for”. It is a tragedy of life but world wide the population grew from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.1 billion in 2000. A part from the economical stress, I fear the Earth can only sustain so many people. If you put any biological matter in a contained environment, feed it freely, it will eventually choke and die of its own waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted October 12, 2003 Report Share Posted October 12, 2003 It is a tragedy of life but world wide the population grew from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.1 billion in 2000. A part from the economical stress, I fear the Earth can only sustain so many people. If you put any biological matter in a contained environment, feed it freely, it will eventually choke and die of its own waste. This is very true whistler, one thing we need to do is not keep feeding people in third world countries but educate them, if they want to be educated then we can feed them. Its proven that when people are educated they have less children. Yes the earth has a certain carrying capacity, and there are many limiting factors that can slow this population rate down. (anyone who knows biology will know what im talking about) But still aborting a baby is not the answer even if the earth is beginning to be over-populated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 12, 2003 Report Share Posted October 12, 2003 It is a tragedy of life but world wide the population grew from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.1 billion in 2000. A part from the economical stress, I fear the Earth can only sustain so many people. Sorry, but this is crap. Firstly, you could put every human alive in the state of Texas and each one of them would have around 1200 square feet of living space. Just for comparison, my house has 1100 square feet and I live in it with my wife and three children. Secondly, the problem of famine is not because of lack of food but because of its poor distribution. Just look at the difference in caloric intakes in North America and in the Third World. Then add all the food that farmers don't grow to keep prices up, add the food that we throw away... Thirdly, even if abortion were an acceptable solution, it is having the most impact in Western countries. In Canada, the USA and Britain the population is actually dropping now and only immigration is sustaining population growth. In the third world, where the population is growing fastest, abortion is having little to no effect. The earth is not becoming over-populated. Abortion, like Kyoto, is a bad solution to a problem that doesn't even exist, in that regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Posted October 12, 2003 Report Share Posted October 12, 2003 Yes you are right Hugo, right now, but the Earth has a carrying capacity, and if we continue to exponentially grow like this, we will reach it too soon. Yes Abortion isn't an answer, it would have little/no affect on the world growth. I say we Need to educate people in the third world countries, while we feed them. This right there would solve many of the world's problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Whistler, Lets hope your wife makes the really important decisions regarding your children, you daughter’s future could depend on it. Just to let you know, I was actually pro-choice until my wife educated me on the truth of abortion and changed my mind. My wife is probably even more pro-life than I am. The idea that all or most women are pro-abort is a myth. More women than men are pro-life. Feminists for Life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistler Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Hugo, are you trying to tell me your families waist stays on your plot of land? We have mercury in our fish, acid in our lakes, holes in the ozone bla, bla, bla. It would be nice to keep all pollution in Texas but until then... I am not addressing famine in third world countries. I’m addressing welfare in the first world. The population seems to be dropping because ‘baby boomers’ have grown out of child rearing years. And... “In the third world, where the population is growing fastest, abortion is having little to no effect.” What abortion? Thank you for demonstrating my point. As hard as it is to say, a majority of these ‘third world’ children are eliminated before their fifth birthday knowing only hunger, disease and want. I’m sure your family and Derek’s are supporting UNICF, Save the Children and are adopting your fair share but not everyone is going to hold up their end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 The population seems to be dropping because ‘baby boomers’ have grown out of child rearing years. The population is dropping because women are having fewer and fewer children per capita. You need 2.1 children per woman to sustain population growth. I believe Canada's birth-rate is around 1.8 children per woman now. This is going to cause a huge problem in a generation or so. If you thought about it, you'd realise that if the birthrate stayed constant, the baby boom would cause a swelling of the population at all subsequent generations and not just a brief expansion. Pollution isn't caused by over-population. We had a far worse pollution problem in the 19th Century, but the population was a lot smaller. Oh, and you never answered my question, did you? When does the "unborn" become a "baby" in your view, and at what point can it be considered human and given rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.