Pro Life Conservatives

[newoldtech]

I think most conservatives are pro life. I also think that most conservatives are fiscally conservative. They are against most welfare type programs. So how does a conservative reconcile being against someone who cant afford to have a child getting an abortion? If they dont get the abortion, there will most likely be another unloved child that has to be supported by the system. I like to consider myself pro life but I also accept the fact that its probably in everyones best interest not to have too many unwanted birthes. How do you guys see it?

[Tool-Slinger]

I think most conservatives are pro life. I also think that most conservatives are fiscally conservative. They are against most welfare type programs. So how does a conservative reconcile being against someone who cant afford to have a child getting an abortion? If they dont get the abortion, there will most likely be another unloved child that has to be supported by the system. I like to consider myself pro life but I also accept the fact that its probably in everyones best interest not to have too many unwanted birthes. How do you guys see it?
I think you are basically going to run up against a wall of "murder of an innocent child" there.

While I agree most conservatives are anti-abortion, that is not a defining issue for most of us who identify themselves as 'conservative'.

This is not a welfare issue, an innocent human life is not a fiscal policy issue. The nation is divided about 50-50 on the abortion issue, it crosses political boundaries. I think your question is loaded. It is not about money for any of us. Is it?

[cehs]

If they cannot afford the child, they can put it up for adoption...
WHY do so many people ignore the adoption option?
.

[oil lp man]

From what I understand there is a long waiting list for adopting babies in this country.

[Tool-Slinger]

From what I understand there is a long waiting list for adopting babies in this country.
I do not want a baby. I don't like children, they are annoying and they stink and they are contagion factories. But I would gladly adopt a baby to save him/her from an abortion to raise as my own. There is no need to kill them for convenience of the would-be mother.

I would make exceptions for rape, killing the seed of the offender. And exception for very early term abortion as birth-control. Very early. There is a difference between 1 months blob of goo and 8 months fully formed. We can go back and forth arguing the issue if we are not catholic or progressives.

But at the end of the day this is not a money issue for conservatives. It is a money issue for liberals. China comes to mind for some reason. Liberals only want to create perfection as do conservatives do also. The liberal agenda also promotes the killing of babies, so I am figuring that is a pretty good compass to base one's loyalties on.

I have personally long ago considered and rejected liberal concepts. Abortion was not an issue. But if I had chosen a different path and become a liberal, the baby-killing idea would have perhaps caused me a a second consideration. Even Hitler never did anything so inhumane. That is sick, killing babies. Fiscal policy? LOL!

[acmanko]

How any group can be prolife and pro death penalty at the same time is what's odd.

[Tool-Slinger]

How any group can be prolife and pro death penalty at the same time is what's odd.
Another good question. People are equally perplexed by the position of others on both sides of that one too.

Easy answer though:

In the case of a baby you are terminating innocent life.
In the case of a murdering criminal you are 'rendering justice' by terminating that life. The criminal deserves to be put to death.

[acmanko]

Another good question. People are equally perplexed by the position of others on both sides of that one too.

Easy answer though:

In the case of a baby you are terminating innocent life.
In the case of a murdering criminal you are 'rendering justice' by terminating that life. The criminal deserves to be put to death.

so, what if the unborn child is the result of rape, a criminal act. And junior looks just like dad

[Tool-Slinger]

so, what if the unborn child is the result of rape, a criminal act. And junior looks just like dad
I, and most who oppose abortion, make an exception for rape. Only a handful of really puritan extremists will not allow the rape exception. Technically, the baby is still an innocent life being the point.

But forcing a rape victim to be further victimized by having to have the rapist's baby is an injustice of such absurdity, we are willing to let that trump the abortion issue.

[mcjo tech]

But forcing a rape victim to be further victimized by having to have the rapist's baby is an injustice of such absurdity, we are willing to let that trump the abortion issue.

IMHO forcing any women to have a child she does not want is a injustice and absurdity.

[Tool-Slinger]

IMHO forcing any women to have a child she does not want is a injustice and absurdity.
I can see that, say if it is a very early term blob of flesh. But at some point we are talking about a baby here. Just because it is not wanted by the mother does not justify killing it. I mean, really, you could say the same thing about a 1 year old.

[mcjo tech]

I can see that, say if it is a very early term blob of flesh. But at some point we are talking about a baby here. Just because it is not wanted by the mother does not justify killing it. I mean, really, you could say the same thing about a 1 year old.

I would agree.

If the mother has not decided by late into the term then she should have to have the child.

I do not have an issue with that.

But we may disagree on how far the pregnancy could go before it is too late.

I myself could be talked into not letting it go as far as we do now.

Many liberals are not pro abortion, we are pro choice.

And if the women has not decided in the proper time then their choice is no longer available.

[Special Ed]

If you're for killing an unborn child even under the worst of circumstances or at even the second after conception then you are pro-death (oops - I mean, pro-choice).

Most, if not all, people who willfully submit their bodies & unborn children to an abortion do so for no other reason than convenience: "but that thing in my belly will just get in the way of my partying lifestyle!" or "I don't have money!", etc, etc.... Rarely, if ever, is rape or incest the true reason why women get an abortion; in fact, I think the real percentage is somewhere well below the one percent mark. So, that reason is nothing more than a smoke screen.

I think that if people don't want or can't afford a child then it would probably be best to abstain from having sex altogether.

[newoldtech]

I can see that, say if it is a very early term blob of flesh. But at some point we are talking about a baby here. Just because it is not wanted by the mother does not justify killing it. I mean, really, you could say the same thing about a 1 year old.

Too many gray areas. Whats early, whats too late? I remember going with my wife for an ultrasound when she was about six weeks pregnant. It was very small to see on the screen but you could see it. The doctor said, see that blinking on the screen, thats the heartbeat. For me at that moment that was a child. I'm no pro life fanatic but I do believe the bumper sticker that says
"Its not a choice its a life". It can and is justified in different ways by most, even me at times, but it is a conscious decision to kill IMO.

[Tool-Slinger]

I would agree.

If the mother has not decided by late into the term then she should have to have the child.

I do not have an issue with that.

But we may disagree on how far the pregnancy could go before it is too late.

I myself could be talked into not letting it go as far as we do now.

Many liberals are not pro abortion, we are pro choice.

And if the women has not decided in the proper time then their choice is no longer available.
Well said. Sounds like we are in perfect agreement philosophically. I would think the majorities of both liberals and conservatives can meet on this common ground.

We, as a nation, should have a rational dialogue on establishing 'when' it is too late. But any rational discussion tends to get thwarted by bomb-throwers on both extreme sides of the issue......

Just look at this thread as an example. Abortion has been compared with the death penalty for murderers and lack of fiscal responsibility. On the other side, you got extremists who even oppose condom use. Truly difficult topic, too bad everyone is not as rational as you are.

[mcjo tech]

If you're for killing an unborn child even under the worst of circumstances or at even the second after conception then you are pro-death (oops - I mean, pro-choice).

Most, if not all, people who willfully submit their bodies & unborn children to an abortion do so for no other reason than convenience: "but that thing in my belly will just get in the way of my partying lifestyle!" or "I don't have money!", etc, etc.... Rarely, if ever, is rape or incest the true reason why women get an abortion; in fact, I think the real percentage is somewhere well below the one percent mark. So, that reason is nothing more than a smoke screen.

I think that if people don't want or can't afford a child then it would probably be best to abstain from having sex altogether.

IMO your pro death comparison couldn't be farther from the truth.

And many of us don't share in your beliefs.

But you are welcome to have them.

[Special Ed]

You guys into rationalizing or finally coming to a logical decision that abortion is tantamount to murder?

[Tool-Slinger]

Too many gray areas. Whats early, whats too late? I remember going with my wife for an ultrasound when she was about six weeks pregnant. It was very small to see on the screen but you could see it. The doctor said, see that blinking on the screen, thats the heartbeat. For me at that moment that was a child. I'm no pro life fanatic but I do believe the bumper sticker that says
"Its not a choice its a life". It can and is justified in different ways by most, even me at times, but it is a conscious decision to kill IMO.
I am sorry but I cannot answer that. When is too early or too late? I think we need to figure that out as a nation and run with it.

I can suggest this: How about 1 week after she has determined she is pregnant?

[mcjo tech]

Well said. Sounds like we are in perfect agreement philosophically. I would think the majorities of both liberals and conservatives can meet on this common ground.

We, as a nation, should have a rational dialogue on establishing 'when' it is too late. But any rational discussion tends to get thwarted by bomb-throwers on both extreme sides of the issue......

Just look at this thread as an example. Abortion has been compared with the death penalty for murderers and lack of fiscal responsibility. On the other side, you got extremists who even oppose condom use. Truly difficult topic, too bad everyone is not as rational as you are.

Some common ground by moderate individuals is possible if we could stop the extreem sides of both parties.

We can allow choice and apply limits to that choice and in the end save thousands of unborn children.

Instead we just continue to fight about it.

It is a shame.

[batdude]

What about bombing pregnant women in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, etc.?
Most of the pro-lifers are actually only pro-fetusers. Once that joker is OUT he becomes fair game. (But on the bright side, were there ever a crying need for hypocrisy lessons...)
What's that famous quote to the effect that mankind's most wanton, cruel and craven acts are committed most enthusiasistically when they are done due to religion?
As evidence, we merely point to the Ayatollah Santorum's stated opposition to abortion in cases of rape. Where he cousels "make the best of a bad situation," otherwise known as losing your mind listening to the man in the clouds.
But I guess society is making progress on that score. Mere scant weeks ago Jesus and the Golden Rule were lustily booed at the SC debate.

[corny]

I believe in the death penalty because by the time a person is 18 or so....actually a lot earlier and Im all for lowering the age on the death penalty and other prison sentances.....

But the people who are subject to the death penalty are full aware of the possibility that their actions may one day get them a ticket to the death chamber.....after that long 20 year ride there....

[tunnel_rat]

IMHO forcing any women to have a child she does not want is a injustice and absurdity.

If she did not want a child, perhaps she should not ingage in the activity that produces a child. It is common knowledge how that happens. I guess asking people to be responsible for their actions is too much for some folks....

[mcjo tech]

If she did not want a child, perhaps she should not ingage in the activity that produces a child. It is common knowledge how that happens. I guess asking people to be responsible for their actions is too much for some folks....

Just because they are irresponsible does not mean that they should be forced to bear a child.

There are lots of things people should do but don't.

In a perfect world they would all use contraception or abstain but we need to deal with the realities in life and not have our heads buried in the sand.

[tunnel_rat]

Just because they are irresponsible does not mean that they should be forced to bear a child.

There are lots of things people should do but don't.

In a perfect world they would all use contraception or abstain but we need to deal with the realities in life and not have our heads buried in the sand.

So, just because I'm irresponsible and drive drunk, I shouldn't have to pay fines or do jail time? Where does personable responsibility begin? I have to pay for idiots that can't run their own life? Life ain't perfect, you're right. So when you f-up, it's on YOU, not the rest of us. Stop expecting the rest of us to pay for your mistakes....Grow up and be responsible for yourself.

[RoBoTeq]

I think most conservatives are pro life. I also think that most conservatives are fiscally conservative. They are against most welfare type programs. So how does a conservative reconcile being against someone who cant afford to have a child getting an abortion? If they dont get the abortion, there will most likely be another unloved child that has to be supported by the system. I like to consider myself pro life but I also accept the fact that its probably in everyones best interest not to have too many unwanted birthes. How do you guys see it?
The way I look at it, I myself believe that the Universe is of an intelligent design. That means that there is an intelligence so more advanced then man's that we cannot even fathom the most insignificant feature of it. We usually refer to this intelligence as God. I don't care what you want to call it, if it is the Creator of the physical Universe, I am beholding to it.

If the Universe is of intelligent Creation, then the process for procreation is also a design and intent of that intelligence. We are meant to have babies. Since we are meant to have babies, and babies are part of the intelligent designers intent for His Creation of the Universe, then I figure that we should not be defying this design intent.

Abortion is not the only answer to an unwanted pregnancy. Obviously, the designer's intent is so powerful that women who claim to not want to give birth still continue to become pregnant, despite the multitude of ways to prevent becoming pregnant. Even so, the child can be adopted. There are many adults who want to adopt newborns.

Still, others do not feel the same as I do or believe in an intelligent design or feel that they should be more responsible about how they conduct themselves. For those woman, I personally have no right to any say so in their doing what ever they want to do with their bodies. I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO BECOME RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING TO PAY FOR THEIR BELIEFS OR THEIR IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR!

If an irresponsible woman who does not believe in any form of intelligent Creation cannot afford to have an abortion, then others who believe the same way need to become responsible and support one of their own. Let Planned Parenthood be only funded by those who directly support what they do. Then Planned Parenthood can pay for all of the abortions for irresponsible women who are too damned selfish to even have the baby and give it up for adoption that they want to.

IS THERE ANY RATIONAL REASON WHY THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT ABORTION IS WRONG AND SO ARE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO NOT CAUSE A PREGNANCY SHOULD BE FORCED TO PROVIDE MONEY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SO IRRESPONSIBLE THAT THEY BECOME PREGNANT?! :anyone:

[mcjo tech]

So, just because I'm irresponsible and drive drunk, I shouldn't have to pay fines or do jail time? Where does personable responsibility begin? I have to pay for idiots that can't run their own life? Life ain't perfect, you're right. So when you f-up, it's on YOU, not the rest of us. Stop expecting the rest of us to pay for your mistakes....Grow up and be responsible for yourself.

I really don't understand you saying YOU Fuc..d up and that I should be responsible .

You don't know anything about me so lighten up.

Unwanted pregnancy is still going to happen regardless of how much you spout off about personal responsibility.

The only thing I can say is that abortion is legal in this country.

If you want that changed you will need to somehow get the Supreem court to change thier prevoius decision.

If you want to equate it to personal responsibility then go ahead but that is not a viable solution to the problem.

And just because you state that they need to be more responsible (which everyone already knows) that is not going to change any of the true realities that will continue to occur.

[RoBoTeq]

I think you are basically going to run up against a wall of "murder of an innocent child" there.

While I agree most conservatives are anti-abortion, that is not a defining issue for most of us who identify themselves as 'conservative'.

This is not a welfare issue, an innocent human life is not a fiscal policy issue. The nation is divided about 50-50 on the abortion issue, it crosses political boundaries. I think your question is loaded. It is not about money for any of us. Is it?
No matter what our personal beliefs are, we must stay within legal guidelines for this issue. Legally, life does not begin until the child is born. A fetus is a fetus, not a human life, not a child. While there are some laws associated with fetus homicide, that is still not murder of a human child. Unless laws are changed to state otherwise, it is only theological opinion that abortion at any stage is murder. Even those of faith have varying theological opinions regarding this.

[newoldtech]

IS THERE ANY RATIONAL REASON WHY THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT ABORTION IS WRONG AND SO ARE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO NOT CAUSE A PREGNANCY SHOULD BE FORCED TO PROVIDE MONEY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SO IRRESPONSIBLE THAT THEY BECOME PREGNANT?! :anyone:

Thanks for the detailed response. I dont know all the details especially about where the money comes from. But I think part of it is that as a society many have decided that it is in the best interests of all to make it relatively easy for women to have abortions in lieu of adding more unwanted and not properly raised kids. I think many people already see too many of these young girls having kids who just run the streets creating problems for society. So they figure lets make abortion easily available to them and maybe that will cut down on some of these crack addicted, fatherless babies. Is it right? Anyone with an ounce of conscious knows its not. But like elections, sometimes it comes down to the lesser of evils. :.02:

[Tool-Slinger]

No matter what our personal beliefs are, we must stay within legal guidelines for this issue. Legally, life does not begin until the child is born. A fetus is a fetus, not a human life, not a child. While there are some laws associated with fetus homicide, that is still not murder of a human child. Unless laws are changed to state otherwise, it is only theological opinion that abortion at any stage is murder. Even those of faith have varying theological opinions regarding this.
Understood. Did you read the whole thread? We were discussing this earlier.

[RoBoTeq]

I really don't understand you saying YOU Fuc..d up and that I should be responsible .

You don't know anything about me so lighten up.

Unwanted pregnancy is still going to happen regardless of how much you spout off about personal responsibility.

The only thing I can say is that abortion is legal in this country.

If you want that changed you will need to somehow get the Supreem court to change thier prevoius decision.

If you want to equate it to personal responsibility then go ahead but that is not a viable solution to the problem.

And just because you state that they need to be more responsible (which everyone already knows) that is not going to change any of the true realities that will continue to occur.
Vehicular manslaughter is also still going to happen, regardless of how any of us feel about it. That does not mean that our taxes should be in any way supporting the legal fees to defend someone who was irresponsible with how they drive.

Yes, abortion is legal, so let those who are irresponsible go directly to those who don't have an issue with paying for those who are irresponsible for an abortion. I got no problem with that. Just don't tell me that I have to support abortions or defense for those who irresponsibly become pregnant or kill someone with their vehicle.

This is not a matter of allowing irresponsible woman to have abortions, it is about not being forced to pay for those abortions. If you want to pay for the irresponsibilities of others, knock yourself right out. But that is not what Socialist Democrats want. Socialist Democrats want to force everyone to have to pay for the actions of irresponsible people.

Here's a wild idea; let irresponsible people take responsibility for their actions and maybe, just maybe...they will become more responsible and not be such a burden on society. :whistle:

[RoBoTeq]

How any group can be prolife and pro death penalty at the same time is what's odd.
Why? Are you incapable of comprehending the difference between innocence and guilty of a criminal act?

If there is a death penalty for an action, then it is the person who commits the action that has made the decision to be put to death.

[RoBoTeq]

Too many gray areas. Whats early, whats too late? I remember going with my wife for an ultrasound when she was about six weeks pregnant. It was very small to see on the screen but you could see it. The doctor said, see that blinking on the screen, thats the heartbeat. For me at that moment that was a child. I'm no pro life fanatic but I do believe the bumper sticker that says
"Its not a choice its a life". It can and is justified in different ways by most, even me at times, but it is a conscious decision to kill IMO.
To "you", that heartbeat meant that the fetus was a child. I happen to agree with you. That is still just our opinion, not what is law. We must operate within what we as a society have determined to be law. The best way to change a law such as at what point is a fetus a human life is by teaching, not preaching.

There are very logical, biological arguments against a fetus being a conscious human life. You could have a parasite in you that has a heartbeat. Would you not want to kill it? A cancer cell is a lifeform.

I am only playing devil's advocate with the above arguments, so please don't bother to dispute them. I don't personally agree with those arguments, but to a person without spiritual faith, those arguments seem a lot more valid then a person of faiths arguments do. In a free, secular society, both opinions are just as valid.

[RoBoTeq]

Thanks for the detailed response. I dont know all the details especially about where the money comes from. But I think part of it is that as a society many have decided that it is in the best interests of all to make it relatively easy for women to have abortions in lieu of adding more unwanted and not properly raised kids. I think many people already see too many of these young girls having kids who just run the streets creating problems for society. So they figure lets make abortion easily available to them and maybe that will cut down on some of these crack addicted, fatherless babies. Is it right? Anyone with an ounce of conscious knows its not. But like elections, sometimes it comes down to the lesser of evils. :.02:
The reasons by any laws is rarely for the benefit of society. That is simply an excuse for those who will benefit from a new law to get the masses to support that law.

The argument that unwanted children will be a burden on society is just bullcrap! The only unwanted children that are a burden on society are those children who were wanted enough for the mother to get more welfare money but not enough to be responsible for caring for that child. Those are not the women getting abortions. Those women want to have babies in order to get more money and use the babies for stealing and prostituting. All of this is due to other Socialist programs that create benefits for the perpetual welfare recipients to continue having babies.

For the woman who gets pregnant because she was not responsible enough to not get pregnant, and who does not want to be responsible for raising that child, there is adoption. But, if that woman wants to have an abortion, there is nothing preventing her from doing so. If she cannot pay for an abortion, then those who support the irresponsible behaviour of such a woman need to step up and put "THEIR" money where their mouths are.

[RoBoTeq]

Understood. Did you read the whole thread? We were discussing this earlier.
Believe it or not, I miss a post or two now and then:grin2:

[mcjo tech]

Vehicular manslaughter is also still going to happen, regardless of how any of us feel about it. That does not mean that our taxes should be in any way supporting the legal fees to defend someone who was irresponsible with how they drive.

Yes, abortion is legal, so let those who are irresponsible go directly to those who don't have an issue with paying for those who are irresponsible for an abortion. I got no problem with that. Just don't tell me that I have to support abortions or defense for those who irresponsibly become pregnant or kill someone with their vehicle.

This is not a matter of allowing irresponsible woman to have abortions, it is about not being forced to pay for those abortions. If you want to pay for the irresponsibilities of others, knock yourself right out. But that is not what Socialist Democrats want. Socialist Democrats want to force everyone to have to pay for the actions of irresponsible people.

Here's a wild idea; let irresponsible people take responsibility for their actions and maybe, just maybe...they will become more responsible and not be such a burden on society. :whistle:

As we have discussed previously.

My tax dollars are also spent on things I do not support.

Just like yours.

That is just the way it goes in a democracy.

Want it changed?

Get your guys elected.

[Tool-Slinger]

Believe it or not, I miss a post or two now and then:grin2:
I would think the accuracy of your strafing runs would be greatly improved with a little more attention to the assessment of the target. Just a casual observation.

[acmanko]

when I hear a woman say she is fine with men telling her what she can do with here body, maybe I'll change. But I doubt it.

[SolarMike]

Abortion is legal in Canada, and supported by the national health system, to some extent as there are doctors who won't do the procedures for their own reasons. The determination is pretty well set out, first trimester, generally no problems, second...there must be a good reason, third....generally not unless a life is in danger (mom or fetus). The decision is the womans, generally.

What is saved by having it done in a legal and regulated facility is eliminating the probability that the woman will injure herself by getting someone with a coat hanger to do it in a back alley, which only makes more healthcare costs, pain and misery.

The bigger problem is we as men, especially when we are 16 and want to get laid to anything in a skirt, can't control ourselves and the girls have a similar problem. Most of us don't have 2 brain cells to rub together at that age. It is just a part of growing up and there is no way you can take away a strong biological desire. There has to be a mechanism to eliminate the rotten consequences of this and contraception and abortion are what is available.

And that's the facts jack...

[Tool-Slinger]

Abortion is legal in Canada, and supported by the national health system, to some extent as there are doctors who won't do the procedures for their own reasons. The determination is pretty well set out, first trimester, generally no problems, second...there must be a good reason, third....generally not unless a life is in danger (mom or fetus). The decision is the womans, generally.

What is saved by having it done in a legal and regulated facility is eliminating the probability that the woman will injure herself by getting someone with a coat hanger to do it in a back alley, which only makes more healthcare costs, pain and misery.

The bigger problem is we as men, especially when we are 16 and want to get laid to anything in a skirt, can't control ourselves and the girls have a similar problem. Most of us don't have 2 brain cells to rub together at that age. It is just a part of growing up and there is no way you can take away a strong biological desire. There has to be a mechanism to eliminate the rotten consequences of this and contraception and abortion are what is available.

And that's the facts jack...
first trimester, generally no problems, second...there must be a good reason, third....generally not unless a life is in danger (mom or fetus).

That is starting to sound reasonable. In the USA we do have any uniform standard policy. We have some that want abortion illegal, some that think it is okay at 8 1/2 weeks. Most of us in the middle have our voices drowned out by the extremists on either end.

[Tool-Slinger]

when I hear a woman say she is fine with men telling her what she can do with here body, maybe I'll change. But I doubt it.
Well at some point you are talking about the body of a child, it might be in the body of the woman, but it still a child. I am resisting temptation to go graphic here.

I guess I am just saying that the baby has rights also. At 8 months, it is in fact a baby. At 2 weeks, probably not.

[k-fridge]

This thread highlights one of the biggest problems with the abortion issue, the fact that it's been hijacked by politics.

Abortion should not be a political issue, it is one of morality regardless of which side you're on. The fact that there is a clear split down party lines only demonstrates the level of brainwashing the parties have on us.

Both political parties took up the abortion issue because it's a highly emotional one, and has been effectively used to rally the troops for many years. Even worse, it has been used to divide the American people over something that, in reality, the politicians trumpeting the issue have very little control over.

Many people decide their vote on this single issue, instead of over issues that a candidate could actually have some effect on if he/she is elected. The fact is, that pro-life candidate is not going to make abortion illegal if he gets elected, even the POTUS can't overturn a SCOTUS ruling. By the same token, it's ridiculous to vote for the candidate who is going to "protect your right to choose" because it doesn't need protection.

FWIW...I am pro-life because I believe an unborn child is innocent human life and that we don't have the moral right to terminate it. And I believe that Roe was a bad ruling that gave the federal government a power that the constitution did not delegate to them. But...I am also realistic enough to know that it's extremely unlikely that Roe will ever be overturned, and therefore all this politicization of the abortion issue is ridiculous.

Politicians need to be discussing the real issues at hand like how to fix this awful economy and stop the insane spending, and we should be deciding our votes on those issues as well.

[RoBoTeq]

As we have discussed previously.

My tax dollars are also spent on things I do not support.

Just like yours.

That is just the way it goes in a democracy.

Want it changed?

Get your guys elected.
No, having Federal governement spend your tax dollars on things that are for social issues is not a Democracy, not that the U.S. is a real Democracy. It is not right for Federal government for the U.S. to be involved in anything concerning our social lives. That is what Socialist governments do, not Democratic Republics.

Our children are being taught to be Socialists in schools that are being run by Socialists because Federal government has become Socialist.

More so then just voting in politicians who oppose the Socialistic way we have become, we need to remove the Socialism from government by greatly reducing government intervention into our lives.

Personally, I think we have gone too far. Personally, I believe that a revolution against the Socialist coup since the FDR administration could occur within my lifetime. Just be aware that if it comes down to a revolt, while people like you will be attempting to control people like me, people like me will be lining up head shots for people like you. Nothing personal, just the way it is.

[RoBoTeq]

I would think the accuracy of your strafing runs would be greatly improved with a little more attention to the assessment of the target. Just a casual observation.
I'm more of a grenade kind of a guy :whistle:

[RoBoTeq]

when I hear a woman say she is fine with men telling her what she can do with here body, maybe I'll change. But I doubt it.
What does this have to do with anything? No one is telling women what they can do with their bodies, just that they should be the ones responsible for the results of what they do with their bodies.

[RoBoTeq]

Abortion is legal in Canada, and supported by the national health system, to some extent as there are doctors who won't do the procedures for their own reasons. The determination is pretty well set out, first trimester, generally no problems, second...there must be a good reason, third....generally not unless a life is in danger (mom or fetus). The decision is the womans, generally.

What is saved by having it done in a legal and regulated facility is eliminating the probability that the woman will injure herself by getting someone with a coat hanger to do it in a back alley, which only makes more healthcare costs, pain and misery.

The bigger problem is we as men, especially when we are 16 and want to get laid to anything in a skirt, can't control ourselves and the girls have a similar problem. Most of us don't have 2 brain cells to rub together at that age. It is just a part of growing up and there is no way you can take away a strong biological desire. There has to be a mechanism to eliminate the rotten consequences of this and contraception and abortion are what is available.

And that's the facts jack...
The only facts you have stated are that when men and women are irresponsible, they become a burden to your society. A lot more women would be a lot more responsible if they had to pay for abortions rather then be able to get them done as if they were having a boil removed.

The fact that you are stating is that people are not being taught to be responsible for themselves. While a coat hanger abortion is worse then an abortion in a legitimate venue, all abortions are hard on a woman's body. Why should society promote irresponsibility?

[RoBoTeq]

Well at some point you are talking about the body of a child, it might be in the body of the woman, but it still a child. I am resisting temptation to go graphic here.

I guess I am just saying that the baby has rights also. At 8 months, it is in fact a baby. At 2 weeks, probably not.
Once again, regardless of what else is being stated in this thread or any other source, this is not legally accurate. This is your opinion.

Legally, as long as the fetus is still in the body, it is a fetus and not a child, baby or any other human related lifeform.

You are arguing from a standpoint of emotional belief, not what is legal.

There are already laws that protect fetus's after a certain time of growth. Even so, they are still fetus's and not a child or baby.

You may very well be correct from a theological, moral, ethical or even biological standpoint, but you are not correct from a legal standpoint.

Now, that was not straffing. That was a direct shot.

[mcjo tech]

No, having Federal governement spend your tax dollars on things that are for social issues is not a Democracy, not that the U.S. is a real Democracy. It is not right for Federal government for the U.S. to be involved in anything concerning our social lives. That is what Socialist governments do, not Democratic Republics.

Our children are being taught to be Socialists in schools that are being run by Socialists because Federal government has become Socialist.

More so then just voting in politicians who oppose the Socialistic way we have become, we need to remove the Socialism from government by greatly reducing government intervention into our lives.

Personally, I think we have gone too far. Personally, I believe that a revolution against the Socialist coup since the FDR administration could occur within my lifetime. Just be aware that if it comes down to a revolt, while people like you will be attempting to control people like me, people like me will be lining up head shots for people like you. Nothing personal, just the way it is.

Thats the biggest bunch of bullsh!t
you have ever spewed out of your mouth.

And whats your fetish with shooting and killing people today?

Sometimes I wonder if you are actually sane.

[tunnel_rat]

Here's a wild idea; let irresponsible people take responsibility for their actions and maybe, just maybe...they will become more responsible and not be such a burden on society. :whistle:

Wow, now THAT'S a radical idea......It'll never catch on.................

[Tool-Slinger]

Once again, regardless of what else is being stated in this thread or any other source, this is not legally accurate. This is your opinion.

Legally, as long as the fetus is still in the body, it is a fetus and not a child, baby or any other human related lifeform.

You are arguing from a standpoint of emotional belief, not what is legal.

There are already laws that protect fetus's after a certain time of growth. Even so, they are still fetus's and not a child or baby.

You may very well be correct from a theological, moral, ethical or even biological standpoint, but you are not correct from a legal standpoint.

Now, that was not straffing. That was a direct shot.
I know legally a baby in a body is not protected by the law. Most everyone agrees that is wrong. We have a problem agreeing on what term constitutes a baby. I am willing to take the matter in "baby-steps" so to speak. I suggest we outlaw 3rd term abortions. Start there, and then try to work out the rest of the issue. I don't think anyone will oppose that with any enthusiasm.

[mcjo tech]

I know legally a baby in a body is not protected by the law. Most everyone agrees that is wrong. We have a problem agreeing on what term constitutes a baby. I am willing to take the matter in "baby-steps" so to speak. I suggest we outlaw 3rd term abortions. Start there, and then try to work out the rest of the issue. I don't think anyone will oppose that with any enthusiasm.

Once again you make good sense.

There needs to be some type of compromise and a starting point for it.

Otherwise it will remain the same.

It is easy to complain about it, coming up with some type of viable solution is much more difficult.

[Tool-Slinger]

Thats the biggest bunch of bullsh!t
you have ever spewed out of your mouth.

And whats your fetish with shooting and killing people today?

Sometimes I wonder if you are actually sane.
Hypothetically speaking, that was hypothetical making a stretch too far.

This is what always happens with the abortion debate. Any rational position is flummoxed by bold moves from extreme ends of the sides.

Those on the left should understand that the right-wing extremists figure you are advocating the killing of babies. I personally understand that is not your intention, but that is the perception so it opens up a whole new can of worms for game-play rules. It gets ugly fast.

Me and mcjo could solve this handily to the satisfaction of most. But we are reasonable persons, albeit conflicting political views, and any suggestion we might put forward will be ridiculed by one side or the other. Extremists. I have better things to do with my time. I am going to go pee off of my porch now.

[mcjo tech]

Hypothetically speaking, that was hypothetical making a stretch too far.

This is what always happens with the abortion debate. Any rational position is flummoxed by bold moves from extreme ends of the sides.

Those on the left should understand that the right-wing extremists figure you are advocating the killing of babies. I personally understand that is not your intention, but that is the perception so it opens up a whole new can of worms for game-play rules. It gets ugly fast.

Me and mcjo could solve this handily to the satisfaction of most. But we are reasonable persons, albeit conflicting political views, and any suggestion we might put forward will be ridiculed by one side or the other. Extremists. I have better things to do with my time. I am going to go pee off of my porch now.


I'm done also for today on this subject.

Time to get a cold one and relish a wonderful winter Tucson afternoon.

73 here today.

To everyone who likes NFL Football at its best:

ENJOY THE GAME!!

[RoBoTeq]

This thread highlights one of the biggest problems with the abortion issue, the fact that it's been hijacked by politics.

Abortion should not be a political issue, it is one of morality regardless of which side you're on. The fact that there is a clear split down party lines only demonstrates the level of brainwashing the parties have on us.

Both political parties took up the abortion issue because it's a highly emotional one, and has been effectively used to rally the troops for many years. Even worse, it has been used to divide the American people over something that, in reality, the politicians trumpeting the issue have very little control over.

Many people decide their vote on this single issue, instead of over issues that a candidate could actually have some effect on if he/she is elected. The fact is, that pro-life candidate is not going to make abortion illegal if he gets elected, even the POTUS can't overturn a SCOTUS ruling. By the same token, it's ridiculous to vote for the candidate who is going to "protect your right to choose" because it doesn't need protection.

FWIW...I am pro-life because I believe an unborn child is innocent human life and that we don't have the moral right to terminate it. And I believe that Roe was a bad ruling that gave the federal government a power that the constitution did not delegate to them. But...I am also realistic enough to know that it's extremely unlikely that Roe will ever be overturned, and therefore all this politicization of the abortion issue is ridiculous.

Politicians need to be discussing the real issues at hand like how to fix this awful economy and stop the insane spending, and we should be deciding our votes on those issues as well.
I am in complete agreement with you, however, abortion is far from being an issue newly hijacked by politics.

There was a plant called the silphium plant that was so popular for use for abortions that it is now extinct. Abortions have been recorded as far back as 3,500 years ago. Only because of modern surgical techniques in the late 1800's has surgical abortion been a viable way to abort fetuses, but surgical abortions that also killed the woman were also performed in ancient times.

[RoBoTeq]

Thats the biggest bunch of bullsh!t
you have ever spewed out of your mouth.

And whats your fetish with shooting and killing people today?

Sometimes I wonder if you are actually sane.
I have been tested and have been determined to be sane, albeit needing meds to suppress base human instincts for survival. Thank you for your concern :cheers:.

As for your disputing what I have stated, tell me how I am wrong.

If we could take government back to what it was allowed to control prior to 1913, how would we not be much better off then we are now?

[newoldtech]

This thread highlights one of the biggest problems with the abortion issue, the fact that it's been hijacked by politics.

Abortion should not be a political issue, it is one of morality regardless of which side you're on. The fact that there is a clear split down party lines only demonstrates the level of brainwashing the parties have on us.

Both political parties took up the abortion issue because it's a highly emotional one, and has been effectively used to rally the troops for many years. Even worse, it has been used to divide the American people over something that, in reality, the politicians trumpeting the issue have very little control over.

Many people decide their vote on this single issue, instead of over issues that a candidate could actually have some effect on if he/she is elected. The fact is, that pro-life candidate is not going to make abortion illegal if he gets elected, even the POTUS can't overturn a SCOTUS ruling. By the same token, it's ridiculous to vote for the candidate who is going to "protect your right to choose" because it doesn't need protection.

FWIW...I am pro-life because I believe an unborn child is innocent human life and that we don't have the moral right to terminate it. And I believe that Roe was a bad ruling that gave the federal government a power that the constitution did not delegate to them. But...I am also realistic enough to know that it's extremely unlikely that Roe will ever be overturned, and therefore all this politicization of the abortion issue is ridiculous.

Politicians need to be discussing the real issues at hand like how to fix this awful economy and stop the insane spending, and we should be deciding our votes on those issues as well.

I agree with you that it shouldn't be a political issue. Which is why I started this thread because the politics of being a conservative doesn't seem to mesh well with many of the social aspects of it to me. But I dont think that you can say that the POTUS doesn't have a strong influence on it. Yes its a SCOTUS decision but the POTUS appoints the judges. And that has to account for something.

[RoBoTeq]

I know legally a baby in a body is not protected by the law. Most everyone agrees that is wrong. We have a problem agreeing on what term constitutes a baby. I am willing to take the matter in "baby-steps" so to speak. I suggest we outlaw 3rd term abortions. Start there, and then try to work out the rest of the issue. I don't think anyone will oppose that with any enthusiasm.
Once again, I personally agree with your viewpoint on morals and ethics, but is it really a good thing to create more laws?

Third term abortions are more difficult to perform, and therefore are more expensive. If only those who have no problem with third term abortions are made to be responsible for the cost of third term abortions, the issue will work itself out without the need for another law.

No federal tax money should ever be used in any way to support abortion or to support any organization that in any way promotes abortion. That would protect government from abusing the earnings of Americans who oppose abortions. A fund to be used for abortions for women who are victims of criminal rape should be acceptable by most citizens if there are no other ways for those women to be properly treated after an attack.

No insurance should cover abortion unless an additional premium is paid to cover abortion. In this way, the general population would not have to pay higher premiums due to the irresponsible minority.

The only way to make abortion a rational illegality for any term abortion is to redefine what the beginning of a human life is. At this time, we are "born" at the time we are delivered from the womb and take our first breath. If it is determined, legally, that a fetus is to be considered a human life 3 months prior to birth, then we all become 3 months older.

This too is an issue that has been discussed for millenia. From Judeo-Christian scripture, if a pregnant woman who has been hit by a man who is fighting, delivers a still born fetus, the man is to pay a certain sum of money for the loss. However, if the woman hereself dies in the attack, then the man is to be put to death. This clearly indicates that while a fetus has a value, it is not yet considered a human life that has been murdered.
Exodus: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[/URL] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands (http://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/passage.aspx?q=exodus+21:15-25#fn-descriptionAnchor-c) and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth,[URL="http://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/passage.aspx?q=exodus+21:15-25#cr-descriptionAnchor-7"] (http://www.biblestudytools.com/exodus/passage.aspx?q=exodus+21:15-25#cr-descriptionAnchor-6) hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

[RoBoTeq]

Hypothetically speaking, that was hypothetical making a stretch too far.

This is what always happens with the abortion debate. Any rational position is flummoxed by bold moves from extreme ends of the sides.

Those on the left should understand that the right-wing extremists figure you are advocating the killing of babies. I personally understand that is not your intention, but that is the perception so it opens up a whole new can of worms for game-play rules. It gets ugly fast.

Me and mcjo could solve this handily to the satisfaction of most. But we are reasonable persons, albeit conflicting political views, and any suggestion we might put forward will be ridiculed by one side or the other. Extremists. I have better things to do with my time. I am going to go pee off of my porch now.
And here I thought is was you and mcjo who were the extremists....I did.....still do...:putergreet:

[tunnel_rat]

If we could take government back to what it was allowed to control prior to 1913, how would we not be much better off then we are now?

Once I hear a reasonable answer to that, then, I would take many of the views expressed here alot more seriously.:whistle:

Progressives have succeeded in softening up too much of this country. They are a soft lot, and want to bring the rest of us down to their level.....

[RoBoTeq]

Once I hear a reasonable answer to that, then, I would take many of the views expressed here alot more seriously.:whistle:

Progressives have succeeded in softening up too much of this country. They are a soft lot, and want to bring the rest of us down to their level.....
It is so unfortunate that Americans of today, myself included, just do not fully appreciate the sacrifices that need to be made in order to be truly free.

We are extremely disrespectful to the founding fathers of the United States of America, to those who have fought in military battles to secure and maintain the freedoms of Americans and to God, who gives us so much that we throw much of it away in arrogance.

I don't know if we can get back to what made us so great without having to sacrifice more then we really want to in order to appreciate what it takes to be free of the tyranny and oppression of government regulations and socialized control.

It may just be that we all have become too soft.

[Tool-Slinger]

I have been tested and have been determined to be sane, albeit needing meds to suppress base human instincts for survival. Thank you for your concern :cheers:.

As for your disputing what I have stated, tell me how I am wrong.

If we could take government back to what it was allowed to control prior to 1913, how would we not be much better off then we are now?
1913? He11 I'd like to roll it back to 1813. Seriously, buy me a soda and I will go for 1786. That still doesn't solve the abortion issue. It would let the feds keep their nose out of it, good starting point though.

[Tool-Slinger]

Once again, I personally agree with your viewpoint on morals and ethics, but is it really a good thing to create more laws?

Third term abortions are more difficult to perform, and therefore are more expensive. If only those who have no problem with third term abortions are made to be responsible for the cost of third term abortions, the issue will work itself out without the need for another law.

No federal tax money should ever be used in any way to support abortion or to support any organization that in any way promotes abortion. That would protect government from abusing the earnings of Americans who oppose abortions. A fund to be used for abortions for women who are victims of criminal rape should be acceptable by most citizens if there are no other ways for those women to be properly treated after an attack.

No insurance should cover abortion unless an additional premium is paid to cover abortion. In this way, the general population would not have to pay higher premiums due to the irresponsible minority.

The only way to make abortion a rational illegality for any term abortion is to redefine what the beginning of a human life is. At this time, we are "born" at the time we are delivered from the womb and take our first breath. If it is determined, legally, that a fetus is to be considered a human life 3 months prior to birth, then we all become 3 months older.

This too is an issue that has been discussed for millenia. From Judeo-Christian scripture, if a pregnant woman who has been hit by a man who is fighting, delivers a still born fetus, the man is to pay a certain sum of money for the loss. However, if the woman hereself dies in the attack, then the man is to be put to death. This clearly indicates that while a fetus has a value, it is not yet considered a human life that has been murdered.
I suppose I am actually a little ignorant on topic as far as the actual law is concerned. I don't think my tax dollars should be funding any abortion. I think third trimester abortions are horrific and should be outlawed. Abortions will happen, whatever the law, so I guess first trimester abortions should be protected as a 'woman's right'. And those in-between, I don't know.

Pretty sad state of moral affairs in our nation that it has to be a subject. Women used to like babies.

[RoBoTeq]

1913? He11 I'd like to roll it back to 1813. Seriously, buy me a soda and I will go for 1786. That still doesn't solve the abortion issue. It would let the feds keep their nose out of it, good starting point though.
The only reason the abortion issue cannot be resolved is that two extreme factions both want to control the issue rather then allow individual Americans the right and freedom to do what they feel is right for them.

The U.S., pre 1913, had come away from it's initial growing pains, come back together as a nation for the first time since the uncivil war between the states and was at it's peak as a truly free Republic. It was the influx of Communism coming out of Russia at the time that changed the game. Russia went through a period where Russian Jews embraced Communism under Lenin before having to flee Russia under Stalin.

These people came to the U.S. with the belief that Communism is what set them free from Czarist Russia. When Communism became a bad word because of Stalin, American Communists switched to calling themselves Progressives. It was still lenin's Marxist style Communism, just under a different name. This is what has been growing in the U.S. for a full century now. This is what has brought us to where we are under the Obama regime coup on Capitalism and freedom.

[RoBoTeq]

I suppose I am actually a little ignorant on topic as far as the actual law is concerned. I don't think my tax dollars should be funding any abortion. I think third trimester abortions are horrific and should be outlawed. Abortions will happen, whatever the law, so I guess first trimester abortions should be protected as a 'woman's right'. And those in-between, I don't know.

Pretty sad state of moral affairs in our nation that it has to be a subject. Women used to like babies.
Woman still like to have babies. History shows us that women have always aborted fetus's as well. My guess is that the 35% rate of pregnancies that are aborted in the U.S. is a lot more then in past years, but I really don't even have data to prove that is true.

I suppose the real fact is that women like, or are compelled to have sex more then they like having babies. This is just not a new issue at all. It is as old as mankind.

As far as when abortions can be done, that should be between a woman and her doctor with the possible influence of the father. Abortion is now a medical issue that should not be a political issue.

Those of us who believe that abortions are against nature (theologically ie; the will of God) could do a lot better educating women...and men, about birth control, sexual morals etc., rather then attempting to just tell them how we think they should deal with abortions.

We should be dwelling on educating how abortions are harmful to a woman's body. How abortions can be completely prevented through responsible behaviour. How special a woman is for even being able to become pregnant and give birth to another human being. We need to dwell on the humanity involved in this issue and stop talking about it like it is just another medical proceedure such as removing a cyst.

[acmanko]

Anyone who wants the Country to return to pre 1913 either has not studied history or is just on some idealistic trip into the past.

Maybe he/she /it should google Panic of 1907 and see why the Fed was Created before they talk out their ass.

[RoBoTeq]

Anyone who wants the Country to return to pre 1913 either has not studied history or is just on some idealistic trip into the past.

Maybe he/she /it should google Panic of 1907 and see why the Fed was Created before they talk out their ass.
The 1907 panic is exactly where we started going downhill due to government intervention. Had government not intervened, and had let the failing businesses fail, there would have been a temporary crash in the economy that would have worked itself out, just as previous economic crashes in the U.S. worked themselve out.

Just because a lot of people make the same bad decision in their investments doesn't mean that they should be given a pass for their bad decisions. May I suggest that mr. mancow should look up;

Panic of 1819
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857
Panic of 1873
Panic of 1893

Why was the Great Depression so great? Maybe because it followed the bad decisions for government intervention after the panic of 1907.

[WebCTRL]

Some common ground by moderate individuals is possible if we could stop the extreem sides of both parties.

We can allow choice and apply limits to that choice and in the end save thousands of unborn children.

Instead we just continue to fight about it.

It is a shame.

Even if we have differing opinions on any items, I think your above comment is the DING DING DING winner!!! If we save one life it is a Huge win. I have to totally agree with this outlook. It might not be my perfect solution, but what ever is, right? Let's do something to make it better Quickly.

[WebCTRL]

What about bombing pregnant women in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, etc.?
Most of the pro-lifers are actually only pro-fetusers. Once that joker is OUT he becomes fair game. (But on the bright side, were there ever a crying need for hypocrisy lessons...)
What's that famous quote to the effect that mankind's most wanton, cruel and craven acts are committed most enthusiasistically when they are done due to religion?
As evidence, we merely point to the Ayatollah Santorum's stated opposition to abortion in cases of rape. Where he cousels "make the best of a bad situation," otherwise known as losing your mind listening to the man in the clouds.
But I guess society is making progress on that score. Mere scant weeks ago Jesus and the Golden Rule were lustily booed at the SC debate.

Dude, Quit throwing spin around. Santorum has personal beliefs as he clearly and succinctly stated but he also made it clear how he would vote and his personal belief on abortion never interfered with how he voted.

Your "evidence" fails, case dismissed! Even your last point is totally spun, man you should be a writer for PMSNBC. Only your lies are easier to see...

[WebCTRL]

Progressives have succeeded in softening up too much of this country. They are a soft lot, and want to bring the rest of us down to their level.....

AMEN. And they have been very dam_ed good at strategically getting that done!

If I remember correctly, there was no Dept. of Education in the Federal gov't prior to 1913 (for some (ROCK), that's sarcasm regarding the date), so that one change alone would cripple the progressive strategy of dismantling the family and indoctrinating our children.

[Tool-Slinger]

Woman still like to have babies. History shows us that women have always aborted fetus's as well. My guess is that the 35% rate of pregnancies that are aborted in the U.S. is a lot more then in past years, but I really don't even have data to prove that is true.

I suppose the real fact is that women like, or are compelled to have sex more then they like having babies. This is just not a new issue at all. It is as old as mankind.

As far as when abortions can be done, that should be between a woman and her doctor with the possible influence of the father. Abortion is now a medical issue that should not be a political issue.

Those of us who believe that abortions are against nature (theologically ie; the will of God) could do a lot better educating women...and men, about birth control, sexual morals etc., rather then attempting to just tell them how we think they should deal with abortions.

We should be dwelling on educating how abortions are harmful to a woman's body. How abortions can be completely prevented through responsible behaviour. How special a woman is for even being able to become pregnant and give birth to another human being. We need to dwell on the humanity involved in this issue and stop talking about it like it is just another medical proceedure such as removing a cyst.
First let me ask are you sure it is 35%? That is a fairly jaw-dropping number, I had no idea it was anything even approaching that! That is sort of shocking, I would have guessed 1% or something like that.

I don't think we are in stark disagreement here. But somewhere or another the law has to come into play to 'right' the problem. We cannot end abortions, it simply cannot be done. And maybe it is none of my business if a woman wants an abortion. I can be reasonable here and go along with that but I would just like the pro-choicers to be reasonable also and agree to do away with the third term abortions. Those are pretty nasty, as those babies could actually survive outside the womb and they are basically full-formed and all. I think this is where the law has to step in. Just to establish some basic boundaries. The feds are already involved as is. Maybe they should pass a law guaranteeing abortion rights 1st term and outlawing the 3rd term.

But yes it should be addressed as an educational issue also. It is a human tragedy. I am sorry if I sound callous about the issue.

[Tool-Slinger]

The only reason the abortion issue cannot be resolved is that two extreme factions both want to control the issue rather then allow individual Americans the right and freedom to do what they feel is right for them.

The U.S., pre 1913, had come away from it's initial growing pains, come back together as a nation for the first time since the uncivil war between the states and was at it's peak as a truly free Republic. It was the influx of Communism coming out of Russia at the time that changed the game. Russia went through a period where Russian Jews embraced Communism under Lenin before having to flee Russia under Stalin.

These people came to the U.S. with the belief that Communism is what set them free from Czarist Russia. When Communism became a bad word because of Stalin, American Communists switched to calling themselves Progressives. It was still lenin's Marxist style Communism, just under a different name. This is what has been growing in the U.S. for a full century now. This is what has brought us to where we are under the Obama regime coup on Capitalism and freedom.
I find that very interesting. Thanks.

[Tool-Slinger]

Even if we have differing opinions on any items, I think your above comment is the DING DING DING winner!!! If we save one life it is a Huge win. I have to totally agree with this outlook. It might not be my perfect solution, but what ever is, right? Let's do something to make it better Quickly.
I also strongly agree. You guys have the attitudes of movers and shakers, not bi=chers and moaners. This nation needs more like you. And we need far fewer of the others.

[RoBoTeq]

First let me ask are you sure it is 35%? That is a fairly jaw-dropping number, I had no idea it was anything even approaching that! That is sort of shocking, I would have guessed 1% or something like that.

I don't think we are in stark disagreement here. But somewhere or another the law has to come into play to 'right' the problem. We cannot end abortions, it simply cannot be done. And maybe it is none of my business if a woman wants an abortion. I can be reasonable here and go along with that but I would just like the pro-choicers to be reasonable also and agree to do away with the third term abortions. Those are pretty nasty, as those babies could actually survive outside the womb and they are basically full-formed and all. I think this is where the law has to step in. Just to establish some basic boundaries. The feds are already involved as is. Maybe they should pass a law guaranteeing abortion rights 1st term and outlawing the 3rd term.

But yes it should be addressed as an educational issue also. It is a human tragedy. I am sorry if I sound callous about the issue.
On our theological and ethical thinking, I don't think we are in disagreement at all. Where we are dividing is over the legal aspects. When it comes to the legal aspects, I would rather not have my way completely on abortion in order to get the U.S. back to the basis of freedom it was founded on.

In order to have a truly free society, there must be a lot of tolerance between the social, theological and even moral beliefs of the various peoples who are citizens of a truly free society. The United States was actually designed to be able to be just that sort of tolerant country, even though the tolerance was not practiced well even from the very beginning.

I completely disagree that "there oughta be a law"! That is the chant of Socialism. To have government dictate what citizens are allowed to do needs to be limited strictly to things that directly, adversely affect more then the citizen doing that thing.

An American should be able to smoke cigarettes or pot, as long as their cigarette or pot smoke does not infringe on others. Unless a fetus is legally deemed to be a human life, which it is not currently, then a woman should have the right to do with that fetus as she desires to do, as long as she is responsible for all aspects of what she decides to do.

[RoBoTeq]

First let me ask are you sure it is 35%? That is a fairly jaw-dropping number, I had no idea it was anything even approaching that! That is sort of shocking, I would have guessed 1% or something like that.


This really shocked me as well. Here is a rundown on how abortions have "progressed" since Roe v Wade;


Summary: It is estimated here that, as of 2008, about 28% of U.S. women ages 15-64 have had abortions. This figure has risen from 2.8% in 1973 to 11% in 1980, 19% in 1987, 24% in 1994, and 27% in 2001. In 2008, of women ages 40-55, about 40% have had abortions in their lifetimes. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/uslifetimeab.html

I found from 23% to 48% statistics for the amount of abortions performed in the U.S. from various sites. I took an average and came up with the 35% mark, attempting to maintain a fair and reasonable attitude.

[acmanko]

So what's wrong with 35%, I find it suspiciously low

[Tool-Slinger]

On our theological and ethical thinking, I don't think we are in disagreement at all. Where we are dividing is over the legal aspects. When it comes to the legal aspects, I would rather not have my way completely on abortion in order to get the U.S. back to the basis of freedom it was founded on.

In order to have a truly free society, there must be a lot of tolerance between the social, theological and even moral beliefs of the various peoples who are citizens of a truly free society. The United States was actually designed to be able to be just that sort of tolerant country, even though the tolerance was not practiced well even from the very beginning.

I completely disagree that "there oughta be a law"! That is the chant of Socialism. To have government dictate what citizens are allowed to do needs to be limited strictly to things that directly, adversely affect more then the citizen doing that thing.

An American should be able to smoke cigarettes or pot, as long as their cigarette or pot smoke does not infringe on others. Unless a fetus is legally deemed to be a human life, which it is not currently, then a woman should have the right to do with that fetus as she desires to do, as long as she is responsible for all aspects of what she decides to do.
Thanks for the info on the numbers %. That saddens me. It is what it is I guess. But that only firms my position that I would extend legal recognition to the unborn at some point [say 3rd trimester] as being a human life and having rights as such.

My opinion is not a militant anti-abortion one. And I would not want to step on the rights of the mothers either. Neither am I a big fan of government involvement in everything, but in this case I think the government should be involved and allow some protections for human life in late term pregnancies. By law. Unless we could have some guide-lines like someone from Canada posted earlier, but I don't see that happening here in the USA.

[RoBoTeq]

So what's wrong with 35%, I find it suspiciously low
That would be because of the types of people you associate with. I thought it was really high, as did Tool.

The numbers are all over the place, depending on what source you are looking at. This article on worldwide abortions puts the numbers much lower;

Results: Approximately 26 million legal and 20 million illegal abortions were performed worldwide in 1995, resulting in a worldwide abortion rate of 35 per 1,000 women aged 15–44. Among the subregions of the world, Eastern Europe had the highest abortion rate (90 per 1,000) and Western Europe the lowest rate (11 per 1,000). Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000, was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000, for Belgium and the Netherlands. Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

Then again, that article is from 1995. According to that article, the average worldwide abortion rate was only 3.5% in 1995. If the abortion rate has gone up as dramatically as other articles claim it has, then we have a gauge that is indicative as to the loss of responsibility and morality worldwide in a very short span of time.

No wonder Islam is growing so fast. People want to be moral. People need to be associated with a faction that supports their need to be moral. This is why so many Pagan heatens flocked to Christianity 2,000 years ago to exchange a lifestyle of partying heartedly and sexual orgies as part of their religious activities for a structured moral life in Jesus Christ.

The more "Progressives" allow for immorality, the more people will flock to Islam in order to be part of a moral support group.

Abortion

Islam's approach to the issue of birth control and abortion is very balanced. It allows women to prevent pregnancy but forbids them to terminate it. In case of rape the woman should use the morning after pill or RU486 immediately after the sexual assault in order to prevent the possible implantation of a fertilized ovum. Modern technology (like ultra sound scan) has made it possible to know whether or not a child has a defect long before he is born. Some people justify the abortion of a defective fetus.

The Shari'ah allows abortion only when doctors declare with reasonable certainty that the continuation of pregnancy will endanger the woman's life. This permission is based on the principle of the lesser of the two evils known in Islamic legal terminology as the principle of al-ahamm wa 'l-muhimm (the more important and the less important). The Prophet said, "When two forbidden things come [upon a person] together, then the lesser will be sacrificed for the greater." In the present case, one is faced with two forbidden things: either abort the unborn child or let a living woman die. Obviously, the latter is greater than the former; therefore, abortion is allowed to save the live person. 1 http://www.islamawareness.net/FamilyPlanning/Abortion/abortion3.html

[acmanko]

That would be because of the types of people you associate with. I thought it was really high, as did Tool.

The numbers are all over the place, depending on what source you are looking at. This article on worldwide abortions puts the numbers much lower; http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

Then again, that article is from 1995. According to that article, the average worldwide abortion rate was only 3.5% in 1995. If the abortion rate has gone up as dramatically as other articles claim it has, then we have a gauge that is indicative as to the loss of responsibility and morality worldwide in a very short span of time.

No wonder Islam is growing so fast. People want to be moral. People need to be associated with a faction that supports their need to be moral. This is why so many Pagan heatens flocked to Christianity 2,000 years ago to exchange a lifestyle of partying heartedly and sexual orgies as part of their religious activities for a structured moral life in Jesus Christ.

The more "Progressives" allow for immorality, the more people will flock to Islam in order to be part of a moral support group. http://www.islamawareness.net/FamilyPlanning/Abortion/abortion3.html[/FONT]

So, in essence, right winger prolife conservatives are complaining about what is really a non issue.

[WebCTRL]

Unless a fetus is legally deemed to be a human life, which it is not currently, then a woman should have the right to do with that fetus as she desires to do, as long as she is responsible for all aspects of what she decides to do.

Well the last part of that sentence totally obliterates your exact point. Many, maybe most, aren't responsible. And, some states are trying to get laws on the books regarding when life actually starts, but again, because of extremists on both sides, they can't get a normal, reasonable law written, such was the case in MS this last November.

We can modify existing law to delineate when during pregnancy an abortion can be performed and then outline extenuating circumstances, rape, life of mom, etc.

I believe we are basically talking about them passing something they have submitted a few times, basically, a ban on partial birth abortions, right?

[RoBoTeq]

So, in essence, right winger prolife conservatives are complaining about what is really a non issue.
How so? It is an issue to them. It just is not a legal issue.

[RoBoTeq]

Well the last part of that sentence totally obliterates your exact point. Many, maybe most, aren't responsible. And, some states are trying to get laws on the books regarding when life actually starts, but again, because of extremists on both sides, they can't get a normal, reasonable law written, such was the case in MS this last November.

We can modify existing law to delineate when during pregnancy an abortion can be performed and then outline extenuating circumstances, rape, life of mom, etc.

I believe we are basically talking about them passing something they have submitted a few times, basically, a ban on partial birth abortions, right?Exactly because of all of the social variables, federal government has no right having any influence on the subject of abortion at all. Abortion needs to be addressed at a theological and medical level in order to prevent a direct mixing of church and state.

For government, there is a paradox. If laws are made that support theological viewpoints about abortions being against the will of God, there is a basis for not maintaining a seperation of church and state. Yet, if laws are made that make any determinations on abortions being legal, therefore becoming eligible for government funding, we again cross that line of seperation of church and state.

Theologically speaking, there is no doubt that Judeo-Christian scripture tells us that sodomy is against the will of God. Therefore, allowing government to continue screwing us up the wazoo is again violating the seperation of church and state.

[WebCTRL]

Exactly because of all of the social variables, federal government has no right having any influence on the subject of abortion at all. Abortion needs to be addressed at a theological and medical level in order to prevent a direct mixing of church and state.

For government, there is a paradox. If laws are made that support theological viewpoints about abortions being against the will of God, there is a basis for not maintaining a seperation of church and state. Yet, if laws are made that make any determinations on abortions being legal, therefore becoming eligible for government funding, we again cross that line of seperation of church and state.

Theologically speaking, there is no doubt that Judeo-Christian scripture tells us that sodomy is against the will of God. Therefore, allowing government to continue screwing us up the wazoo is again violating the seperation of church and state.

OK! But from a strictly legal standpoint, when is or should a "fetus" be deemed a viable life? This, i guess, is the crux of the argument.

Some, as viewed earlier in this thread, say it may should be the last trimester of pregnancy, others, like some local doctors, say that it is much earlier in pregnancy. I am in this latter camp, but would settle (bad choice of words) for the last trimester being protected in order to come to an agreement with the Right To Choose crowd. My wife's brother was born at 21 weeks into his mom's pregnancy, and through God's will along with some very determined and dedicated small town doctors, he made it, albeit, a long period of time in the ICU, this was before NICUs were developed (this way believe it or not, 1963).

Our last child was born 10 weeks premature and he again is a healthy 3 year old today. My point being, that we need to protect the innocent lives of children, by first determining a legal standpoint of when a fetus is a viable life and allow the choice for abortion to be before this, not after unless the previous mentioned exceptions are in effect with the pregnancy.

And to throw another wrench in the spokes, maybe this should be at a State level and not at the Federal level, to be more in line with the Constitution.

[RoBoTeq]

OK! But from a strictly legal standpoint, when is or should a "fetus" be deemed a viable life? This, i guess, is the crux of the argument.

Some, as viewed earlier in this thread, say it may should be the last trimester of pregnancy, others, like some local doctors, say that it is much earlier in pregnancy. I am in this latter camp, but would settle (bad choice of words) for the last trimester being protected in order to come to an agreement with the Right To Choose crowd. My wife's brother was born at 21 weeks into his mom's pregnancy, and through God's will along with some very determined and dedicated small town doctors, he made it, albeit, a long period of time in the ICU, this was before NICUs were developed (this way believe it or not, 1963).

Our last child was born 10 weeks premature and he again is a healthy 3 year old today. My point being, that we need to protect the innocent lives of children, by first determining a legal standpoint of when a fetus is a viable life and allow the choice for abortion to be before this, not after unless the previous mentioned exceptions are in effect with the pregnancy.

And to throw another wrench in the spokes, maybe this should be at a State level and not at the Federal level, to be more in line with the Constitution.
No matter how we say it, we are going to trip over the terminology pertaining to this issue. Your question is "when is or should a "fetus" be deemed a viable life?". Viable? Life? Yes, a fetus is a living thing, just as a tumor is. Viable? In most arguments throughout history, there has been some form of viableness to a fetus. Biblically there is a monetary value put on a fetus without deeming the fetus to be worth the same as a human life. Today, there are fetus homocide laws. So, we sort of do determine that a fetus is viable, at least in it's final stages of developement.

Viable life is not the same as "human life". Can a fetus be considered human life while it is still in the womb or even test tube (for lack of better term)? I know of no legal standard ever in history where a fetus is considered to be human being. If this is so, what is birth? Is not birth the transition between fetus and human being? Is not birth the point at which we determine our age of existance as a human being?

Are third trimester abortions really that common? A 10 week premature birth, to me, is an example of God's miraculous gifts to us. However, what if a fetus with 10 weeks to go before delivery is causing the death of the mother? Should the mother have to go through legal channels to have the fetus aborted or should that decision be strictly between her, possibly the father and her doctors? I say no. For that reason, I say no to any legal determinations about abortion.

State level legal decisions would not be as bad, but I would still be against them where I live.

[acmanko]

If women were responsible, they would not keep getting knocked up by someone who is not going to care for the baby.

[WebCTRL]

No matter how we say it, we are going to trip over the terminology pertaining to this issue. Your question is "when is or should a "fetus" be deemed a viable life?". Viable? Life? Yes, a fetus is a living thing, just as a tumor is. Viable? In most arguments throughout history, there has been some form of viableness to a fetus. Biblically there is a monetary value put on a fetus without deeming the fetus to be worth the same as a human life. Today, there are fetus homocide laws. So, we sort of do determine that a fetus is viable, at least in it's final stages of developement.

Viable life is not the same as "human life". Can a fetus be considered human life while it is still in the womb or even test tube (for lack of better term)? I know of no legal standard ever in history where a fetus is considered to be human being. If this is so, what is birth? Is not birth the transition between fetus and human being? Is not birth the point at which we determine our age of existance as a human being?

Are third trimester abortions really that common? A 10 week premature birth, to me, is an example of God's miraculous gifts to us. However, what if a fetus with 10 weeks to go before delivery is causing the death of the mother? Should the mother have to go through legal channels to have the fetus aborted or should that decision be strictly between her, possibly the father and her doctors? I say no. For that reason, I say no to any legal determinations about abortion.

State level legal decisions would not be as bad, but I would still be against them where I live.

Fetal Homicide laws exist in 36 states, so that gives a basis for establishing that killing a fetus is against the law, how so then is it not killing a fetus via abortion is also not against the law in those 36 states?

"The Supreme Court determined in 1973 in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade that a fetus does not qualify as a “person” for constitutional purposes. Similarly, a number of homicide convictions have been overturned based on judicial determinations that a fetus is not a “person” or “human being” under general homicide statutes. However, Massachusetts and South Carolina courts have determined that a fetus is a “person” for purposes of a homicide. An Arizona court stated that while a fetus is a “person” under a civil wrongful death statute, a fetus is not a “person” under the penal murder statute. Thus,
the deceptively simple question of whether or not a fetus is a person may have a different answer under the law based on which state and even which area of law is being discussed."

See http://www.homicidecenter.org/Feticide%20versus%20Homicide.pdf

And, ok on the viable life isn't human life, so I'll restate my wording from viable life to "a viable human life" as far as to what stage a fetus becomes a viable human life.

And Birth, that definition is open for legal wrangling too!

"In states without fetal homicide laws, a live birth is still required for a homicide. This may appear to be a simple requirement, but disagreement exists about what constitutes “live birth.” Some jurisdictions consider a child in the process of being born a “live” human being. Others require a child to be completely expelled from the mother’s body and attain a separate and independent existence. A third theory adds the requirement of a showing of
independent circulation and/or respiration, though some argue the third theory is only an attempt to explain “separate and independent existence” rather than a unique theory."

"In Roe v. Wade, in addition to determining a fetus is not a person, the Supreme Court went on to determine that a state does not have a compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus until viability, when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother’s womb."

(same link as above) So, the law of the land says until viability, right? So we are right back at what the legal definition of viability is, and, as we can see, that is differenet at almost every State level. And from this, I contend, that it must be determined at a State level (at a minimum) and from this "viability" we must then protect the unborn from that point (including exceptions as noed previously). It's the goverments ruling that put this question in place, right, so it has to be the law that makes the determination (whether State or Federal).

Here's a blurb from an OK case where fetus was determined to be a human life,

"Because the purpose of the homicide statute is, ultimately, to protect human life,” the court explained, and because “a viable human fetus is
nothing less than human life,” the term “human being” in the
Oklahoma homicide statute, according to its “plain and ordinary
meaning,” necessarily includes a viable human fetus."

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1397&context=dlj

I think we'll probably just have to agree to disagree but I do appreciate your point of view and your reasoning.

[SolarMike]

If women were responsible, they would not keep getting knocked up by someone who is not going to care for the baby.

And if men were responsible they wouldn't go after the women especially when they are 16.

yea ...right

[RoBoTeq]

Fetal Homicide laws exist in 36 states, so that gives a basis for establishing that killing a fetus is against the law, how so then is it not killing a fetus via abortion is also not against the law in those 36 states?

"The Supreme Court determined in 1973 in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade that a fetus does not qualify as a “person” for constitutional purposes. Similarly, a number of homicide convictions have been overturned based on judicial determinations that a fetus is not a “person” or “human being” under general homicide statutes. However, Massachusetts and South Carolina courts have determined that a fetus is a “person” for purposes of a homicide. An Arizona court stated that while a fetus is a “person” under a civil wrongful death statute, a fetus is not a “person” under the penal murder statute. Thus,
the deceptively simple question of whether or not a fetus is a person may have a different answer under the law based on which state and even which area of law is being discussed."

See http://www.homicidecenter.org/Feticide%20versus%20Homicide.pdf

And, ok on the viable life isn't human life, so I'll restate my wording from viable life to "a viable human life" as far as to what stage a fetus becomes a viable human life.

And Birth, that definition is open for legal wrangling too!

"In states without fetal homicide laws, a live birth is still required for a homicide. This may appear to be a simple requirement, but disagreement exists about what constitutes “live birth.” Some jurisdictions consider a child in the process of being born a “live” human being. Others require a child to be completely expelled from the mother’s body and attain a separate and independent existence. A third theory adds the requirement of a showing of
independent circulation and/or respiration, though some argue the third theory is only an attempt to explain “separate and independent existence” rather than a unique theory."

"In Roe v. Wade, in addition to determining a fetus is not a person, the Supreme Court went on to determine that a state does not have a compelling interest in protecting the life of the fetus until viability, when the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother’s womb."

(same link as above) So, the law of the land says until viability, right? So we are right back at what the legal definition of viability is, and, as we can see, that is differenet at almost every State level. And from this, I contend, that it must be determined at a State level (at a minimum) and from this "viability" we must then protect the unborn from that point (including exceptions as noed previously). It's the goverments ruling that put this question in place, right, so it has to be the law that makes the determination (whether State or Federal).

Here's a blurb from an OK case where fetus was determined to be a human life,

"Because the purpose of the homicide statute is, ultimately, to protect human life,” the court explained, and because “a viable human fetus is
nothing less than human life,” the term “human being” in the
Oklahoma homicide statute, according to its “plain and ordinary
meaning,” necessarily includes a viable human fetus."

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1397&context=dlj

I think we'll probably just have to agree to disagree but I do appreciate your point of view and your reasoning.
Everything about this post just proves what I stated about the abortion issue never going to be determined from a legal standpoint. All it does is feeds attorneys and politicians.

Another reason I don't want abortion to be illegal is that abortions always have been and always will be for those who get pregnant who do not want to have a child. As long as abortion is not illegal, these women can at least get abortions safely. Making abortion illegal is not going to stop abortions, just make them more dangerous and more costly.

On the subject of cost, if women are made to be responsible for the cost of abortion, or at least have to ask for help from private sources if the become pregnant, it will decrease the amount of women getting pregnant. The proof of this is the increase in abortions over the past decade.

[RoBoTeq]

And if men were responsible they wouldn't go after the women especially when they are 16.

yea ...right
One difference between someone too far to the left and rational thinking people is that you leftists don't think that anyone should have to be responsible for anything.

Here's a news flash for you elitist lefties; people are a lot more capable of being responsible then you give them credit for.

[SolarMike]

One difference between someone too far to the left and rational thinking people is that you leftists don't think that anyone should have to be responsible for anything.

Here's a news flash for you elitist lefties; people are a lot more capable of being responsible then you give them credit for.

If they are, we shouldn't be having this discussion. Hormones rule the world when you are a teenager.

[acmanko]

And if men were responsible they wouldn't go after the women especially when they are 16.

yea ...right

It's not a mans responsibility to be responsible

[RoBoTeq]

If they are, we shouldn't be having this discussion. Hormones rule the world when you are a teenager.
It has always been this way because that's the way we were Created. One major problem is that too many people are denying that we were Created to be a certain way and to be able to control ourselves in the way we were Created.

By making excuses for not being able to control ourselves, we are doing society as a whole a great deal of disservice. When we get back to being more focused on moralities, as are set in the many guideline scriptures of theology of many religions, we will bring the issue of abortion back to a reasonable and easier to handle situation.

We have gone astray as a society. We have lost our way, once again. By turning our backs on nature and on the laws of nature set down by the Intelligent Design for the Universe, we are bucking the system.

Do we need more man created laws? No! Not if we simply get back to obeying the laws of nature and the laws of the Creator of what nature is.

[RoBoTeq]

It's not a mans responsibility to be responsible
I don't believe that you really believe this.

[scrogdog]

It has always been this way because that's the way we were Created. One major problem is that too many people are denying that we were Created to be a certain way and to be able to control ourselves in the way we were Created.

Even though our beliefs are different, I think we can find common ground here. I too would like to see a consensus on morality but the idea presents many obstacles.

The elephant in the room is simply that in the same way that we evolve biologically, we also evolve socially depending on our environments. That means that points of view are not going to be shared by the masses. For example, it is why certain groups will band together to vote a certain way. And how mid-western farmers feel about a thing is often much different than how northeastern industrialists feel about them.


By making excuses for not being able to control ourselves, we are doing society as a whole a great deal of disservice. When we get back to being more focused on moralities, as are set in the many guideline scriptures of theology of many religions, we will bring the issue of abortion back to a reasonable and easier to handle situation.

Controlling ourselves is not possible in the way that you mean it. God and the bible acknowledge this else why would we have needed the sacrifice? It's not about making excuses, its about being flawed to the point that a perfectly "good" person may do something that he or she knows is wrong going in.


We have gone astray as a society. We have lost our way, once again. By turning our backs on nature and on the laws of nature set down by the Intelligent Design for the Universe, we are bucking the system.

Do we need more man created laws? No! Not if we simply get back to obeying the laws of nature and the laws of the Creator of what nature is.

I think my point is that it is irrelevant what the source of morality is. I think man is perfectly capable of coming up with all the same laws that you think God gave to us. However, given that points of view are not and cannot be shared by all men, then it is truly irrelevant as far as which one of us is actually correct.

[SolarMike]

I don't believe that you really believe this.

I think he forgot the sarcasm notification

[SolarMike]

It has always been this way because that's the way we were Created. One major problem is that too many people are denying that we were Created to be a certain way and to be able to control ourselves in the way we were Created.

By making excuses for not being able to control ourselves, we are doing society as a whole a great deal of disservice. When we get back to being more focused on moralities, as are set in the many guideline scriptures of theology of many religions, we will bring the issue of abortion back to a reasonable and easier to handle situation.

We have gone astray as a society. We have lost our way, once again. By turning our backs on nature and on the laws of nature set down by the Intelligent Design for the Universe, we are bucking the system.

Do we need more man created laws? No! Not if we simply get back to obeying the laws of nature and the laws of the Creator of what nature is.

The point is, that for centuries women were blamed for getting pregnant and men often go off scott free. Morality is relative and that is why we have the problems we have. It takes two to tango and if he is 200 lbs and she is 100 lbs, you can guess who is going to win (that point is only about rape) and men have to take responsibility for what they do. It is crazy that a woman will get stoned for being pregnant outside of marriage in some countries, even after being raped.

It is basic respect that is needed, regardless of who you believe created us, or how we were created.

[RoBoTeq]

Even though our beliefs are different, I think we can find common ground here. I too would like to see a consensus on morality but the idea presents many obstacles.

The elephant in the room is simply that in the same way that we evolve biologically, we also evolve socially depending on our environments. That means that points of view are not going to be shared by the masses. For example, it is why certain groups will band together to vote a certain way. And how mid-western farmers feel about a thing is often much different than how northeastern industrialists feel about them.



Controlling ourselves is not possible in the way that you mean it. God and the bible acknowledge this else why would we have needed the sacrifice? It's not about making excuses, its about being flawed to the point that a perfectly "good" person may do something that he or she knows is wrong going in.



I think my point is that it is irrelevant what the source of morality is. I think man is perfectly capable of coming up with all the same laws that you think God gave to us. However, given that points of view are not and cannot be shared by all men, then it is truly irrelevant as far as which one of us is actually correct.Scrog, why reinvent the wheel? Man does not have to design laws to live by because we already have them from the designer of the entire Universe.

While you are correct that all theological scripture tells us that man cannot fully behave ourselves, the more we rely on the designer's manuals, the better shot we have at success in behaving ourselves.

What is really impressive is that done correctly, without the influence of those who go way too far to the right, we can enjoy life more with less adverse consequences by abiding by the laws of nature as they pertain to the Created Universe.

[RoBoTeq]

I think he forgot the sarcasm notification
Nope! I actually don't care for sarcasm, though I do revert to it from time to time. What I wrote, I meant as it was written. But thanks for attempting to think you know more about what I write then I do.

[RoBoTeq]

The point is, that for centuries women were blamed for getting pregnant and men often go off scott free. Morality is relative and that is why we have the problems we have. It takes two to tango and if he is 200 lbs and she is 100 lbs, you can guess who is going to win (that point is only about rape) and men have to take responsibility for what they do. It is crazy that a woman will get stoned for being pregnant outside of marriage in some countries, even after being raped.

It is basic respect that is needed, regardless of who you believe created us, or how we were created.
I agree and so does scripture. So why not support scripture rather then attempting to change the laws of nature that cannot be changed?

[BACnet]

Scrog, why reinvent the wheel? Man does not have to design laws to live by because we already have them from the designer of the entire Universe.

While you are correct that all theological scripture tells us that man cannot fully behave ourselves, the more we rely on the designer's manuals, the better shot we have at success in behaving ourselves.

What is really impressive is that done correctly, without the influence of those who go way too far to the right, we can enjoy life more with less adverse consequences by abiding by the laws of nature as they pertain to the Created Universe.

Every muslim in the world agrees with this post 100 percent.

They call it sharia law...

[RoBoTeq]

Every muslim in the world agrees with this post 100 percent.

They call it sharia law...
Sharia Law is man made.
Since 1980, some countries with fundamentalist Islamic regimes like Iran have attempted to reverse the trend of westernization and return to the classic Sharia. But most Muslim legal scholars today believe that the Sharia can be adapted to modern conditions without abandoning the spirit of Islamic law or its religious foundations. Even in countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Sharia is creatively adapted to new circumstances. http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/the-origins-of-islamic-law.html

Unlike Judeo-Christian teachings that came from God through many prophets over hundreds of years, all Islamic teaching comes from one man during the course of his single lifetime. Since that man died, his teachings are continually reinterpreted to meet the social and political attitudes of the day for Islamic leaders. In Judeo-Christian teachings, the laws of nature are what they are and always will be. Mankind may alter it's perception of man's obeyence or disobedience to laws of nature, but the laws of nature are not able to be changed.

For example; we may no longer put a person to death for sodomy, but the adverse affects of sodomy are still exactly the same. In this case, by not continuing to teach against sodomy, and having societies that promote sodomy, we increase the adverse affects on society by not adhering to the teachings against sodomy.

[BACnet]

So one religion's "laws to live by" as codified in their holy book, deemed to have been dictated by God himself don't square with what another religion's "laws to live by" (also declared to have been dictated by God himself).

It is precisely these theological discrepancies that give credence to secular laws like we have here in the United States. It's to protect us from people too ignorant to know what they are saying. Be they Muslims pushing Sharia law, or Quasi-Christians like you pushing RoboTeq law.

Either way, there is a good reason that we have laws in this country. The fact that you are unable to grasp that the theocracy you propose would be the end of the United States, both figuratively and literally is troubling but par for the course with you.

[RoBoTeq]

So one religion's "laws to live by" as codified in their holy book, deemed to have been dictated by God himself don't square with what another religion's "laws to live by" (also declared to have been dictated by God himself).

It is precisely these theological discrepancies that give credence to secular laws like we have here in the United States. It's to protect us from people too ignorant to know what they are saying. Be they Muslims pushing Sharia law, or Quasi-Christians like you pushing RoboTeq law.

Either way, there is a good reason that we have laws in this country. The fact that you are unable to grasp that the theocracy you propose would be the end of the United States, both figuratively and literally is troubling but par for the course with you.
Well, let's see what seems to be more logical; seemingly unrelated stories from dozens of people in dozens of different locations spanning hundreds of years culminates in a conclusive era with a prophetic warning that there would be false prophets and false teachings to come....OR.....

Fast forward 600 years to a singular man who comes from a Pagan tribe who takes existing scripture, rearanges it and adds a new ending to it. Despite not having any faith in any theology at all, if you were told that one of these standards is real and one is false, which one would you logically realize to be te real one?

[scrogdog]

Scrog, why reinvent the wheel? Man does not have to design laws to live by because we already have them from the designer of the entire Universe.

While you are correct that all theological scripture tells us that man cannot fully behave ourselves, the more we rely on the designer's manuals, the better shot we have at success in behaving ourselves.

What is really impressive is that done correctly, without the influence of those who go way too far to the right, we can enjoy life more with less adverse consequences by abiding by the laws of nature as they pertain to the Created Universe.

My point was that there is NO one set of laws that will suit all men. It doesn't matter who came up with them or what position of assumed authority is at their roots.

If you think about it, can it be said that this is exactly why there are different religions in the world? I believe this is also what BACnet is alluding to.

I'm sure that you'll remember that I've said many times that this is one of the reasons that I personally find the bible to be a flawed work. Because it makes these exact same impossible assumptions. Sometimes I also call such things "the signature weaknesses/flaws of man clearly present in the bible". By that I mean that seemingly only a flawed human could make that flawed assumption; certainly not a god. Which, of course, loosely supports my contention that the bible was not divinely inspired and 100% a construct of man.

Now, that can mean many things. It could mean that some well-intentioned individuals noting the moral decline of Rome (in their opinion) "invented" a savior and Jesus was merely a pawn in a grand scheme.

Or. it could also mean that the bible is the work of Satan who has fooled weak humans in to believing that it is the literal word of God. After all, that's what he's good at, no?

Just because the bible is flawed and the idea that all men can fit under one umbrella is impossible is by no means evidence that God doesn't exist. However, to me it IS evidence that if he does exist that the bible is not his word.

If he does exist and it is his word, I think we've got a crap load more problems then the upcoming end of the world this December. :)

[gevans]

I know my two grandsons are glad they were considered people at less than 6 months. They are almost 10 now.
If you take away the consequences of the act, people run wild. We had less abortion and birth control available 75 years ago, but FAR less unwanted pregnancies and children.

[RoBoTeq]

My point was that there is NO one set of laws that will suit all men. It doesn't matter who came up with them or what position of assumed authority is at their roots.

If you think about it, can it be said that this is exactly why there are different religions in the world? I believe this is also what BACnet is alluding to.

I'm sure that you'll remember that I've said many times that this is one of the reasons that I personally find the bible to be a flawed work. Because it makes these exact same impossible assumptions. Sometimes I also call such things "the signature weaknesses/flaws of man clearly present in the bible". By that I mean that seemingly only a flawed human could make that flawed assumption; certainly not a god. Which, of course, loosely supports my contention that the bible was not divinely inspired and 100% a construct of man.

Now, that can mean many things. It could mean that some well-intentioned individuals noting the moral decline of Rome (in their opinion) "invented" a savior and Jesus was merely a pawn in a grand scheme.

Or. it could also mean that the bible is the work of Satan who has fooled weak humans in to believing that it is the literal word of God. After all, that's what he's good at, no?

Just because the bible is flawed and the idea that all men can fit under one umbrella is impossible is by no means evidence that God doesn't exist. However, to me it IS evidence that if he does exist that the bible is not his word.

If he does exist and it is his word, I think we've got a crap load more problems then the upcoming end of the world this December. :)
You know that I don't believe that the Bible is flawed. I actually don't believe that many theological scriptures are flawed other then our awkward means of depicting spiritual intervention with us. What is flawed is our ability to truly comprehend theological scriptures. So much of scripture is beyond our intellectual grasp just as much as calculations of quantum physics is beyond the grasp of someone with an 8th grade education.

I believe that true scripture is derived from God, by persons of faith, who in turn must attempt to relay what given to them, to others. In this way, even the Pagans were in communication with God. They simply did not understand that God is a single conscieousness rather then seperate, individual entities for each of God's attributes. There never has been a "their gods versus our God". In truth, their gods combined, were our God. That which we call God has always been and will always be the same God of Creation, no matter how we depict the Creator.

The myth of the Mayans believing in an end of times calculated on the Mayan calendar is a fabrication of admirably inventive minds. The same kind of imagination has been used to conjur up all sorts of wild stories based on bits and pieces of Revelation from the New Testament.

In other words, I submit that there is no contest between faiths, only between man's conjured up images of what each believes is what passages of scripture means.

For instance, it is a long held belief by more conservative minded Christians that the Bible(s) make it clear that God detests homosexuallity. Having studied passages that are claimed to depict this, I see it more that God is teaching us to not commit acts of sodomy, no matter with whom. There are no specifics that can be stated directly condemn love and even physical relationships between men or women with others of the same sex, as long as the act of sodomy is not part of their love.

[RoBoTeq]

I know my two grandsons are glad they were considered people at less than 6 months. They are almost 10 now.
If you take away the consequences of the act, people run wild. We had less abortion and birth control available 75 years ago, but FAR less unwanted pregnancies and children.
From the statistics on abortion that I have been reading, what you state here is true from even 40 years ago. Abortions have been increasing tremendously since the 1970's.

[SolarMike]

243111

Check this out

[RoBoTeq]

243111

Check this out
Like I stated before, you can find so called statistics on abortion all over the place.

Why does it not surprise me that you have posted data from a group that was formed by a Socialist eugenisist who was the president of Planned Parenthood for some years.
Many are aware that Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion in the U.S., had eugenic beginnings. Founder Margaret Sanger was influenced by Malthusian eugenics, and noted eugenicists were on the PP board, including Alan Guttmacher, vice president of the American Eugenics Society1.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_lefts_genocide_of_minorities.html#ixzz1lqLL3NQ s

You really do like Socialist sources, don't you?

[SolarMike]

Like I stated before, you can find so called statistics on abortion all over the place.

Why does it not surprise me that you have posted data from a group that was formed by a Socialist eugenisist who was the president of Planned Parenthood for some years.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_lefts_genocide_of_minorities.html#ixzz1lqLL3NQ s

You really do like Socialist sources, don't you?

This is a UN sponsored report and is not there to push one ideology or another, unlike the one you posted. Ohhh yea, ANYONE to the left of you is deemed socialist. If you got rid of all the "socialists" (by your definition) there would be almost no one left. You really are in a minority.

[RoBoTeq]

This is a UN sponsored report and is not there to push one ideology or another, unlike the one you posted. Ohhh yea, ANYONE to the left of you is deemed socialist. If you got rid of all the "socialists" (by your definition) there would be almost no one left. You really are in a minority.
You have got to be kidding! Are you telling me that you don't believe that Alan Guttmacher is a Socialist and a eugenisist? Did you not read the links I provided? It's not like these people are trying to hide what they are. Alan Guttmacher was the VP of a eugenist organization. He was a devout Socialist.

And yes, pretty much anyone who is to the left of me, at least socially, is a Socialist. When it comes to social issues, I am fairly liberal. After all, I am the one who does not want abortion to be illegalized.

And yes, I am in a minority in that I don't like being labeled either liberal or conservative. I'd like to believe that I am pretty much a decent combination of both liberal and conservative, depending on the subject. As far as I am concerned, those who identify themselves either totally liberal or totally conservative are really limiting themselves. Most of the great people in history were closer to Renaissance men, with both liberal and conservative aspects to their character and beliefs.

OH! The U.N. is indeed Socialist;
Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, is the author of a report presented on October 20, 2010 to the United Nations General Assembly, which perfectly illustrates the socialist ideology that is all too prevalent amongst United Nations bureaucrats and its so-called ‘experts.’ http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29162

And that is one of your countries organizations.

[SolarMike]

If you will notice, I posted a statistic only, no opinions, unlike most of what you post.

[scrogdog]

You know that I don't believe that the Bible is flawed. I actually don't believe that many theological scriptures are flawed other then our awkward means of depicting spiritual intervention with us. What is flawed is our ability to truly comprehend theological scriptures. So much of scripture is beyond our intellectual grasp just as much as calculations of quantum physics is beyond the grasp of someone with an 8th grade education.

Well, that's all well and good, but you have also described why (to me) that the bible fails as a handbook. If God wants to send us philosophy and law, what would be the problem with sending that message with perfect clarity so there are no arguments about trifles like translations? In fact, I'd say God has additionally failed by not providing an update which is more in tune with modern times.


I believe that true scripture is derived from God, by persons of faith, who in turn must attempt to relay what given to them, to others. In this way, even the Pagans were in communication with God. They simply did not understand that God is a single conscieousness rather then seperate, individual entities for each of God's attributes. There never has been a "their gods versus our God". In truth, their gods combined, were our God. That which we call God has always been and will always be the same God of Creation, no matter how we depict the Creator.

I have no problem with you believing that. I'm simply saying that two-thirds of the people on this planet do not call themselves Christian. I find it hard to believe that even you would say that fully two-thirds of the human race is going to hell simply because they chose an alternate path to a good life.

Or are you saying that it is impossible to live a good life without God?

How would that be so? I said in my Christmas post that it doesn't matter how various philosophies came to be. What's important is that we recognize them as good and follow them. Therefore, I ascribe to most of what Jesus said and live that way. It is simply that I do not believe he was divine nor the source of "goodness".


The myth of the Mayans believing in an end of times calculated on the Mayan calendar is a fabrication of admirably inventive minds. The same kind of imagination has been used to conjur up all sorts of wild stories based on bits and pieces of Revelation from the New Testament.

Again, there mere fact that it can and is used in those ways showcases its own failure.


In other words, I submit that there is no contest between faiths, only between man's conjured up images of what each believes is what passages of scripture means.

It sure doesn't seem to me that you feel this way when you openly and intolerantly attack Muslims and their faith. There are good Muslims and bad ones. There are good Christians and bad ones. There are good cops and bad ones.


For instance, it is a long held belief by more conservative minded Christians that the Bible(s) make it clear that God detests homosexuallity. Having studied passages that are claimed to depict this, I see it more that God is teaching us to not commit acts of sodomy, no matter with whom. There are no specifics that can be stated directly condemn love and even physical relationships between men or women with others of the same sex, as long as the act of sodomy is not part of their love.

God is a fool to detest anything about his own creation, in my opinion.

[RoBoTeq]

If you will notice, I posted a statistic only, no opinions, unlike most of what you post.
Typical leftist bullcrap of making accusations that are not true. If available, I always post statistics, and I always make it known when something is my opinion, which I back up with statistics. You are a very naughty little leftist....

[ControlsInMT]

If all of the Socialists left the US and headed to Cananda, I'd still be down here!!!

And man would I enjoy it!

[RoBoTeq]

Well, that's all well and good, but you have also described why (to me) that the bible fails as a handbook. If God wants to send us philosophy and law, what would be the problem with sending that message with perfect clarity so there are no arguments about trifles like translations? In fact, I'd say God has additionally failed by not providing an update which is more in tune with modern times.



I have no problem with you believing that. I'm simply saying that two-thirds of the people on this planet do not call themselves Christian. I find it hard to believe that even you would say that fully two-thirds of the human race is going to hell simply because they chose an alternate path to a good life.

Or are you saying that it is impossible to live a good life without God?

How would that be so? I said in my Christmas post that it doesn't matter how various philosophies came to be. What's important is that we recognize them as good and follow them. Therefore, I ascribe to most of what Jesus said and live that way. It is simply that I do not believe he was divine nor the source of "goodness".



Again, there mere fact that it can and is used in those ways showcases its own failure.



It sure doesn't seem to me that you feel this way when you openly and intolerantly attack Muslims and their faith. There are good Muslims and bad ones. There are good Christians and bad ones. There are good cops and bad ones.



God is a fool to detest anything about his own creation, in my opinion.
All of this reinforces my understanding that you have a desire to alienate yourself from God rather then to accept and at least try to understand God. God IS...whether we want to accept that or not. Just because you turn from God does not cause God to no long be.

God Created mankind with the full ability to freely choose what we want to do and what we want to accept. I have no more understanding of why God set things up the way they are any more then anyone else does, but it is clearly up to us to figure out what is acceptable to God's design of the Universe and what is not.

When it is said that God detests or hates something, it is well understood by theologins that means that God does not accept that thing because it goes against the laws of nature and physics in which God has designed the Universe to obey.

Again, I don't know the specifics of why or what exactly, but it is obvious that there is an opponent of God's will that is hell bent (pun intended) to divert us from the will of God and persuade us to do things that are not acceptable to God (against nature, hated or detested by God...). The more we focus our lives on understanding God's will, the better our lives as mortals will be and the closer we will be to God.

Why bring up that most people in the world are not Christian? I have never shown contempt for beliefs in God in other faiths. I do believe that Islam is not of God and may even be of whatever that entity is that is against God, but as long as Musliim's believe they are praying (communicating) with God the Father, the Islamic deciet fails with them. I have often stated that Eastern faiths, tribal faiths and even Paganism are mostly all still focusing on God the Father, just without the same recognition of God that Jews and Christians have.

You keep asking mortals such as myself to help you to understand God, and we cannot. You must open yourself completely to God in order to understand God. Others can only tell you, in our own feeble and irrational sounding way, what "our" experience is with God. To those who refuse to even try to get to know God, our words appear to be nonsense and babbling. This is a paradox of our complete free will to love God or not to love God. In loving God, I am referring to acknowledging that God IS, and that God is the intelligence responsible for the Creation of the Universe, including ourselves. Loving God is to accept that we are part of God's Creation.

We are in times that are wonderful for understanding God better. We are made in the image of God. Since God is not a physical being, this cannot refer to our physical image. That means that we are made in the spiritual image of God. God is a Creator. As being in the image of God, we too are creators. In this time of mankind's development, we have created computer worlds.

Think of these computer worlds as if the Universe is a virtual world Created by God. There are set rules and bounderies for everything in any virtual created world. In computer program creations, the basic law of everything is "if-then". The laws of physics and the laws of nature for the Universe are also based on "if-then". "If" we do a thing, "then" a reaction will occur. Strings of "if-thens" make the combination of variables seem to us to be infinite. More then likely, God understands the finiteness of any "if-then" string, but we are in awe of those we cannot understand.

We believe in chaos and randoms because we cannot comprehend the "if-then" strings or their inevitable conclusions. I don't believe in a pure form of chaos or that anything is really random. Everything follows a pattern of "if-thens", whether we can follow that pattern or not. Scientific evidence of this is in those who can count cards and those with savant syndrome. These people see the strings of "if-thens" where most cannot.

Think about it, then close your eyes and open your mind and think; "God, are you there?"

[RoBoTeq]

If all of the Socialists left the US and headed to Cananda, I'd still be down here!!!

And man would I enjoy it!
I understand your sentiment. Unfortunately, if that were to occur, we would be inundated with extreme right wing factions who would just want to rule over us in their ways.

Better that we all try to follow a singular guidance. That guidance must be spiritual, because mankind has proven time and time again that we are terrible at getting along without God.

[WebCTRL]

Everything about this post just proves what I stated about the abortion issue never going to be determined from a legal standpoint. All it does is feeds attorneys and politicians.

Another reason I don't want abortion to be illegal is that abortions always have been and always will be for those who get pregnant who do not want to have a child. As long as abortion is not illegal, these women can at least get abortions safely. Making abortion illegal is not going to stop abortions, just make them more dangerous and more costly.

On the subject of cost, if women are made to be responsible for the cost of abortion, or at least have to ask for help from private sources if the become pregnant, it will decrease the amount of women getting pregnant. The proof of this is the increase in abortions over the past decade.

Well that changed the subject...:grin2:

[RoBoTeq]

Well that changed the subject...:grin2:
How so?

[WebCTRL]

How so?

Viable human life. I can't type on my phone so I'll respond later.

[SolarMike]

I know my two grandsons are glad they were considered people at less than 6 months. They are almost 10 now.
If you take away the consequences of the act, people run wild. We had less abortion and birth control available 75 years ago, but FAR less unwanted pregnancies and children.

Actually, because it was all illegal 75 years ago, there are no real stats on what the abortion rates were. There were still a lot of unwanted pregnancies and a lot of kids that grew up in households where they were abused (because the parents didn't really want them and were mad that they had to take care of them, and a host of other reasons) which in turn helps to turn them into murderers and sociopaths.

Every born child should be a wanted child and if that fetus is not wanted, it is doing a kid a disservice to bring him/her up in a that environment.

[RoBoTeq]

Actually, because it was all illegal 75 years ago, there are no real stats on what the abortion rates were. There were still a lot of unwanted pregnancies and a lot of kids that grew up in households where they were abused (because the parents didn't really want them and were mad that they had to take care of them, and a host of other reasons) which in turn helps to turn them into murderers and sociopaths.

Every born child should be a wanted child and if that fetus is not wanted, it is doing a kid a disservice to bring him/her up in a that environment.
It is true that there are no real stats on abortion up until 1973. The only charts I could find on abortions shows a flat line zero for abortions from 1900 to 1973 when abortions became legal again. That flat line may actually be poetically indicative of the dangers of abortion to a woman's health.

Interestingly, it looks like some early women's rights advocates such as Susan B Anthony were dead set against abortions because of their dangers. These advocates focused on blaming men for women having to get abortions, which I did not get into enough to understand.

It is only those like you, SolarMike, who believe that eugenics is the way to prevent breeding criminals by letting children be born whose mothers prefer not to give birth. I wonder how good citizens who were able to choose how to better themselves after being unwanted feel about your thinking that you have a right to take that choice away from them by snuffing out their existance before they are ever given a chance to make decisions. How many good citizens have come from being an unwanted pregnancy?

The sheer arogance of your claiming that children of unwanted births is the reason people become criminals is astounding! I was evidently the result of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. My biological father never believed I was his child because of problems in my parents marriage during the time I was concieved. In your mind, it would have been better that I never existed. What a pompous, elitist atitude you have to think that you or anyone else has the right to decide who should exist and who should not.

Those of you who believe in this sort of eugenics are dangerous to society. Your god complex is obviously a mental disorder that has led you to believe you are a better control agent of nature then the actual Creator of nature is.

[ControlsInMT]

IMHO, there are a lot of people out there that are more than willing to adopt these "unwanted babies". Look at how convuleted the adoption process is in the US. That's why so many people go overseas to adopt! In the US it costs thousands and thousands of dollars and sometimes years. Don't punish the unborn child.

[RoBoTeq]

IMHO, there are a lot of people out there that are more than willing to adopt these "unwanted babies". Look at how convuleted the adoption process is in the US. That's why so many people go overseas to adopt! In the US it costs thousands and thousands of dollars and sometimes years. Don't punish the unborn child.
Exactly! Yet, according to those who believe in eugenics (Socialists, Progressives, SolarMike, Adolf Hitler.....), these children are destined to be the bane of society. I wonder how these people who were abandoned by their parents feel about this subject;


50 Cent, born Curtis Jackson, was raised in Southside Jamaica, Queens. 50 grew up in a broken home. His hustler mother passed away when he was only eight, and his father departed soon after, leaving his grandmother to parent him.
Carol Burnett and her sister were both raised by their loving grandmother. It has long been a matter of public record that Burnett credits her grandmother for encouraging her to utilize her comic and musical talents to the fullest.
Dylan McDermott was born in Waterbury, Connecticut, to Diane (née Marino) and Richard McDermott. His mother was fifteen and his father was seventeen when he was born. By 1967, the couple had divorced, and Diane and her children were living with her mother. On February 9, 1967, his mother was accidentally shot and killed with her boyfriend's gun; McDermott was five. Her boyfriend reported to newspapers at the time that she picked up his gun and it went off. He and his sister, Robin, then began to be raised by their maternal grandmother, Avis Marino, in Waterbury.
Jack Nicholson was abandoned by his father in his childhood, he was raised believing his grandmother was his mother and his mother was his older sister. The truth was revealed to him years later when a Time magazine researcher uncovered the truth while preparing a story on the star.
Jamie Foxx was raised by his grandmother, the original church lady, whose warm loving arms were capable of boxing his ears, who couldn't resist adopting Foxx, "this big-headed skinny kid," as he remembers himself, after his mother couldn't keep him.
Kellie Pickler was raised by her grandparents in North Carolina after her parents separated and her mother left when the country star was only 2-years-old.
After her birth, Oprah Winfrey's mother traveled north and Winfrey spent her first six years living in rural poverty with her grandmother, Hattie Mae Lee.
Pierce Brosnan's father left when he was an infant, and his mother subsequently went to England to work as a nurse. That’s when actor Pierce Brosnan went to live with his grandparents. He stayed with them until their deaths, and eventually reunited with his mother, who had been living in Scotland.
According to her biography, Vanna White was raised by her grandparents after her parent's were divorced when she was a baby.
Willie Nelson began performing music as a child growing up in Abbott, TX. After his father died and his mother ran away, Nelson and his sister Bobbie were raised by their grandparents, who encouraged both children to play instruments.
By the standards of Socialist's who support eugenics, all of these people would have been advised to be aborted. How many great men and women has the world never known because of progressive Socialists playing god?

[BACnet]

That argument doesn't make sense to me. Sure those people are great (Vanna aside, perhaps) but your argument is rooted entirely in the simple fact that they were born vs them not having been born.

At the root, there is no difference between someone not being born because:
1) Their mother took the morning after pill the day after conception
2) One of their parents used birth control
3) One of their parents missed their flight and was out of town that night
4) One of their parents had already married another person
Etc, etc, etc.

Every single person reading this thread is the result of an unbroken string of absolutely mind-boggling odds. Abortion is only one of literally trillions upon trillions upon trillions of things that could have kept the people on your list from being born in the first place.

In other words, your argument is just as strong for anti-abortion as it is anti-condom. Or anti any dangerous job either parent might have had. Or anti... (Etc). I assume you get the point.

[BACnet]

And just in case you're still pretending that the percentage or absolute number of abortions is rising, I present you with the official data:

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm

As you can see Robo, once again you are caught in a lie.

[RoBoTeq]

That argument doesn't make sense to me. Sure those people are great (Vanna aside, perhaps) but your argument is rooted entirely in the simple fact that they were born vs them not having been born.

At the root, there is no difference between someone not being born because:
1) Their mother took the morning after pill the day after conception
2) One of their parents used birth control
3) One of their parents missed their flight and was out of town that night
4) One of their parents had already married another person
Etc, etc, etc.

Every single person reading this thread is the result of an unbroken string of absolutely mind-boggling odds. Abortion is only one of literally trillions upon trillions upon trillions of things that could have kept the people on your list from being born in the first place.

In other words, your argument is just as strong for anti-abortion as it is anti-condom. Or anti any dangerous job either parent might have had. Or anti... (Etc). I assume you get the point.
I really cannot get my mind to think the way yours appears to be thinking.

All of those famous people were people who, if Planned Parenthood or some other Socialist organization supporting eugenics were involved, would have been aborted and would never have existed.

I am pointing out to SolarMike how wrong he is about children who were not wanted by their parents turn out to be the murderer's and thieves of our society.

[BACnet]

I really cannot get my mind to think the way yours appears to be thinking.

I agree. In fact I have never doubted your ability to be confused by people who use their brains.


All of those famous people were people who, if Planned Parenthood or some other Socialist organization supporting eugenics were involved, would have been aborted and would never have existed.And I'm pointing out that if their parents had used condoms, the argument would be the same. Thus abortion is but one of trillions of events that didn't occur that could have produced the same outcome- (the people on your list not being born).

It's not a tough concept for most people to understand.

[RoBoTeq]

And just in case you're still pretending that the percentage or absolute number of abortions is rising, I present you with the official data:

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm

As you can see Robo, once again you are caught in a lie.
What's with the personal attack?

I have posted a half dozen reports, all making various claims on percentages of abortions. I have posted several times that I can only assume an average based on the erratic data I was finding.

Now you come along and declare that the CDC is the "official data" on abortion rates. What makes the CDC the official data?

I cannot have lied because I have not stated anything specific because there is too much contriversial data avaliable. What is it that makes you believe that what you found is the absolute fact?

Even if it is, it does not change one thing in anything that I have posted about abortions having become more common place since the 1973 ruling on Roe V Wade. It does not change the fact that a womans "choice" to have an abortion eliminates a potential child's "choice" to do anything.

Given the "choice", tell me how many leftists would have chosen that their own fetus be terminated.

I expect you to have the decency to apologize for calling me a liar.

[ControlsInMT]

And I'm pointing out that if their parents had used condoms, the argument would be the same. Thus abortion is but one of trillions of events that didn't occur that could have produced the same outcome- (the people on your list not being born).

It's not a tough concept for most people to understand.

That is your opinion, just like my opinion states life begins at conception so that would make your statement wrong....in my opinion...:.02:

[RoBoTeq]

I agree. In fact I have never doubted your ability to be confused by people who use their brains.

And I'm pointing out that if their parents had used condoms, the argument would be the same. Thus abortion is but one of trillions of events that didn't occur that could have produced the same outcome- (the people on your list not being born).

It's not a tough concept for most people to understand.
So, you believe that a remedy for a situation is the same as having prevented the situation from occuring in the first place?

How about I shoot you and you just go have an operation to remove the bullet rather then you doing something to prevent me from shooting you in the first place? Is that good with you? According to you, the end results will be the same....right?

[RoBoTeq]

That is your opinion, just like my opinion states life begins at conception so that would make your statement wrong....in my opinion...:.02:
But your opinion doesn't count because you are a stupid conservative....:whistle:

Only the smarty pants leftists who think they have a right to tell others how to live have valid opinions.....don't ya know?

[BACnet]

So, you believe that a remedy for a situation is the same as having prevented the situation from occuring in the first place?

How about I shoot you and you just go have an operation to remove the bullet rather then you doing something to prevent me from shooting you in the first place? Is that good with you? According to you, the end results will be the same....right?

Of COURSE the end result is the same. Please tell me you're joking- you can't possibly be that thick.

The outcome of your example is that I can walk just fine. The potential causes of getting to this outcome include:

1) I've always been fine and able to walk
2) Some loser shot me but surgery fixed that
3) I was born with only one leg but I got a prosthesis.
4) Some mental midget tried to shoot me in the leg but I turned the gun on him instead.
Etc.

Logic doesn't cease to exist just because you don't get it, robo.

[BACnet]

That is your opinion, just like my opinion states life begins at conception so that would make your statement wrong....in my opinion...:.02:

Well that's demonstrably wrong. What you have stated is that abiogenesis occurs during fertilization.

To put it a different way- the Egg and the Sperm are both "alive" prior to joining up, it's not as though two inanimate things come together to create life at conception, that's just silly.

But more importantly, if someone was not born, the cause of them being not born doesn't effect the fact that they were not born. So you're both wrong with your statement and misguided as to the point you're trying to refute.

[RoBoTeq]

Of COURSE the end result is the same. Please tell me you're joking- you can't possibly be that thick.

The outcome of your example is that I can walk just fine. The potential causes of getting to this outcome include:

1) I've always been fine and able to walk
2) Some loser shot me but surgery fixed that
3) I was born with only one leg but I got a prosthesis.
4) Some mental midget tried to shoot me in the leg but I turned the gun on him instead.
Etc.

Logic doesn't cease to exist just because you don't get it, robo.
Oh, I think logic is quite safe around you; there is no way that you have a grasp of it....:whistle:

There are some things in life that just cannot be "taken back" or "remedied" without there being a permanent affect. Logically, you can unscrew a lightbulb, but not a woman. Logically, you can shoot the breeze witout real consequences, but you can't shoot another person without consequences. It is the consequences that need to be either avoided all together or responsibly taken care if avoidance was unsucessful.

I still demand an apology for your calling me a liar.

[BACnet]

Oh, I think logic is quite safe around you; there is no way that you have a grasp of it....:whistle:

There are some things in life that just cannot be "taken back" or "remedied" without there being a permanent affect. Logically, you can unscrew a lightbulb, but not a woman. Logically, you can shoot the breeze witout real consequences, but you can't shoot another person without consequences. It is the consequences that need to be either avoided all together or responsibly taken care if avoidance was unsucessful.

I still demand an apology for my feeling being hurt when you pointed out I was lying.

Your lies are for everyone to read, please don't ask me again to help you hide that fact.

I think perhaps you've pushed this discussion into an area you didn't mean to. I have not weighed in on abortion at all here. My comments today were to point out the flaw in your silly post about people who were not aborted.

By mentioning that there are other things that also didn't keep them from being born I was pointing out how your logic was flawed. I was at no point saying that abortion is good or bad, just that your post was not making the point that you thought it was.

But by all means, continue to state how you simply don't get it.

[RoBoTeq]

Your lies are for everyone to read, please don't ask me again to help you hide that fact.

I think perhaps you've pushed this discussion into an area you didn't mean to. I have not weighed in on abortion at all here. My comments today were to point out the flaw in your silly post about people who were not aborted.

By mentioning that there are other things that also didn't keep them from being born I was pointing out how your logic was flawed. I was at no point saying that abortion is good or bad, just that your post was not making the point that you thought it was.

But by all means, continue to state how you simply don't get it.
PUt up or own up; either show a post where I lied or admit that you are too cowardly to admit when you are wrong.

As far as I am aware, I have never posted a deliberate lie.

[k-fridge]

Some of these comments are pushing the limits. I suggest that we all be careful what we post.

[BACnet]

PUt up or own up; either show a post where I lied or admit that you are too cowardly to admit when you are wrong.

As far as I am aware, I have never posted a deliberate lie.

Here is your lie:


Abortions have been increasing tremendously since the 1970's.

Now please refrain from lying more in this thread. K-Fridge is pretty clear that this has to stop.

[k-fridge]

Here is your lie:



Now please refrain from lying more in this thread. K-Fridge is pretty clear that this has to stop.
Your language is included in that.

Please reign it in now.

Thanks

[BACnet]

I thought I had been dotting my i's extremely closely, but you're the boss Ken. Sorry if I misjudged what can/can't be said here.

:cheers:

[mcjo tech]

But your opinion doesn't count because you are a stupid conservative....:whistle:

Only the smarty pants leftists who think they have a right to tell others how to live have valid opinions.....don't ya know?

You call liberals stupid and deseased along with many other derogatory terms lots of times in various posts.

Yet you post a comment like this.

Complete double standard.

This time we get to call you the whinney one like you do everyone else.

Don't worry we will call you a Whaaaaambulance.

It should arrive soon.

[SolarMike]

It is true that there are no real stats on abortion up until 1973. The only charts I could find on abortions shows a flat line zero for abortions from 1900 to 1973 when abortions became legal again. That flat line may actually be poetically indicative of the dangers of abortion to a woman's health.

Interestingly, it looks like some early women's rights advocates such as Susan B Anthony were dead set against abortions because of their dangers. These advocates focused on blaming men for women having to get abortions, which I did not get into enough to understand.

It is only those like you, SolarMike, who believe that eugenics is the way to prevent breeding criminals by letting children be born whose mothers prefer not to give birth. I wonder how good citizens who were able to choose how to better themselves after being unwanted feel about your thinking that you have a right to take that choice away from them by snuffing out their existance before they are ever given a chance to make decisions. How many good citizens have come from being an unwanted pregnancy?

The sheer arogance of your claiming that children of unwanted births is the reason people become criminals is astounding! I was evidently the result of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. My biological father never believed I was his child because of problems in my parents marriage during the time I was concieved. In your mind, it would have been better that I never existed. What a pompous, elitist atitude you have to think that you or anyone else has the right to decide who should exist and who should not.

Those of you who believe in this sort of eugenics are dangerous to society. Your god complex is obviously a mental disorder that has led you to believe you are a better control agent of nature then the actual Creator of nature is.

It is crazy for you to say that I believe in Eugenics. I have never stated that nor anything like it.

"Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to the manipulation of human populations"

What I did mean to say is that a well meaning woman (and/or father) who knows her financial or emotional situation should be able to admit that it might be better not to have a child that cannot be brought up in the healthy environment. And while you are right that some people have grown up through adversity to become great human beings, there is a much higher probability, than average, that abuse occurs at the hands of an unwilling parent. This has consequences on that child for life and that is very unfortunate.

[RoBoTeq]

Here is your lie:



Now please refrain from lying more in this thread. K-Fridge is pretty clear that this has to stop.
How is what I stated a lie? I also posted the sites I got that information from. My statement is even supported by the CDC site you posted.

Abortions in the early 1970's were nearly zero. Abortions today are over 1,200,000 a year, amounting to over 1 BILLION abortions from the 1970s to today. If that is not a tremendous rise, what is? That is over a million to one increase per year. Even more when you take into account that some years were even higher. Where have I lied?

Do you understand what a lie is?

[RoBoTeq]

You call liberals stupid and deseased along with many other derogatory terms lots of times in various posts.

Yet you post a comment like this.

Complete double standard.

This time we get to call you the whinney one like you do everyone else.

Don't worry we will call you a Whaaaaambulance.

It should arrive soon.
How is this a double standard? I just posted that conservatives are stupid. Man! You leftists are really hard to please...:whistle:

And since you didn't seem to understand my having fun with leftists, any and all references I have ever made about liberals being stupid was purely joking around, and not in the least bit able to be taken seriously. I have never, ever claimed liberals to be diseased. I have mentioned that by the symptoms of mental illness, liberals do seem to have a mental illness, and that one I need to stand by.

Did you also know that most homosexuals are leftists?

[mcjo tech]

How is this a double standard? I just posted that conservatives are stupid. Man! You leftists are really hard to please...:whistle:

Except one comment you posted was your condesending sacastic opinion and the other one was just your real opinon.

I'm sure we all know which is which.

And as far as your derogatory comments being a joke.

You really expect us to believe that? If we did we would be truly stupid.

And to top things off you had to throw in a liberal homosexual slur. Nice.

[BACnet]

How is what I stated a lie? I also posted the sites I got that information from. My statement is even supported by the CDC site you posted.

Abortions in the early 1970's were nearly zero. Abortions today are over 1,200,000 a year, amounting to over 1 BILLION abortions from the 1970s to today. If that is not a tremendous rise, what is? That is over a million to one increase per year. Even more when you take into account that some years were even higher. Where have I lied?

Do you understand what a lie is?

You have been asked to stop posting lies like this. Please comply with that request.

[RoBoTeq]

It is crazy for you to say that I believe in Eugenics. I have never stated that nor anything like it.

"Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to the manipulation of human populations"

What I did mean to say is that a well meaning woman (and/or father) who knows her financial or emotional situation should be able to admit that it might be better not to have a child that cannot be brought up in the healthy environment. And while you are right that some people have grown up through adversity to become great human beings, there is a much higher probability, than average, that abuse occurs at the hands of an unwilling parent. This has consequences on that child for life and that is very unfortunate.
Your statements about controlling population by aborting fetuses of mothers who are poor or may not properly care for their child is absolutely an eugenics attitude. You have cited some of the most famous eugenics advocates in recent years as well. You may not want to think of yourself as an advocate of eugenics, but you are. Maybe you are not as sophisticated as those who want to use eugenics to alter the DNA of fetuses. Maybe you just stick with the more crude eugenics of destroying any fetuses that you have determined to not be worthy of your ideas of what kind of babied should be allowed to be born. Either way, you are an advocate of eugenics; the control of population based on race or social status.

[RoBoTeq]

You have been asked to stop posting lies like this. Please comply with that request.
I am defending myself from your attacks on me.

[SolarMike]

How is this a double standard? I just posted that conservatives are stupid. Man! You leftists are really hard to please...:whistle:



Did you also know that most homosexuals are leftists?

Do you mean left handed?:whistle:

While this MAY be true, it could probably be because right wing pseudo-religious types want to stone them and I would guess that is not one of their favorite past times.

[SolarMike]

Your statements about controlling population by aborting fetuses of mothers who are poor or may not properly care for their child is absolutely an eugenics attitude. You have cited some of the most famous eugenics advocates in recent years as well. You may not want to think of yourself as an advocate of eugenics, but you are. Maybe you are not as sophisticated as those who want to use eugenics to alter the DNA of fetuses. Maybe you just stick with the more crude eugenics of destroying any fetuses that you have determined to not be worthy of your ideas of what kind of babied should be allowed to be born. Either way, you are an advocate of eugenics; the control of population based on race or social status.

It has been said here that women should take more responsibility for their actions, and men as well. So, one of those responsible options IS knowing when you have the where-with-all to take care of a baby properly and when you don't.

[k-fridge]

Two reported posts on this thread. I'm shutting her down for awhile before someone gets an all expenses paid vacation to the phantom zone.

You guys need to learn to discuss things instead of insulting each other.

[k-fridge]

OK, I'm gonna give this one one more chance.

Some of you (you know who you are) were waaaaay too angry yesterday.

Seriously...if you're getting that pissed off at posts on an internet forum, you need to walk away from the computer for awhile. Besides...any semblance of discussion is gone at that point and it becomes nothing but a pissing match (AKA competitive urinating).

:cheers:

[RoBoTeq]

Do you mean left handed?:whistle:

While this MAY be true, it could probably be because right wing pseudo-religious types want to stone them and I would guess that is not one of their favorite past times.
LOL! and; touche!

I'm glad to see that someone can appreciate my sometimes tactless humor.:cheers:

[RoBoTeq]

It has been said here that women should take more responsibility for their actions, and men as well. So, one of those responsible options IS knowing when you have the where-with-all to take care of a baby properly and when you don't.
If we were dealing with a mistake that was not so passionately contraversial as to the creation of a life, I would tend to agree.

Getting pregnant is not like buying a car you realize you can't afford. Sure, the responsible thing would be to get rid of the responsibility of owning the car by returning it to the dealer or selling it.

Being pregnant however, is not like owning a car. A pregnancy is the beginning of the creation of a living human being. While not yet a human being, a fetus is a creation of a developing human being. We are indeed discussing a living entity, whether yet considered human or not, allowed to develope, it will be a human being. For this reason, a the responsibility to a developing human being is different then the responsibility to an inanimant object such as a car.

To put this analogy into a more precise perspective, to do with the car what we do with a developing human fetus we would need to destroy the car in order to "do the responsible thing". We would need to commit insurance fraud by destroying the car in order to get out from under the payments. Does that really sound responsible?

Since the responsible thing to do with the car is to return it to the dealership or to sell it to someone who wants to take on the responsibility, those should be the responsible options for a human fetus.

Since we cannot return the human fetus to the manufacturer, the responsible thing to do is to let someone else take responsibility for the human fetus once it is capable of being transferred.

I know this is an odd analogy, but it was what developed in my mind as I was typing and I do think it is worth thinking about. Destruction of property in order to get out from under responsibility is not an ethical thing to do.

[Gib's Son]

I know this is an odd analogy,

We've come to expect nothing less of you Robo.:bump:

[SolarMike]

Robo, I agree with parts of your analogy so I will take it a bit further. When you buy a car or sign a contract for natural gas supply, in Canada at least, you have a 10 day period (some places more, some places less) to cancel the contract.

If that gas purchase was done when you were drunk or sick and not thinking straight, you have a remedy. Abortion is not anyones first choice (I have accompanied 2 women to the clinic over the years, neither were mine) and I know it is a very hard decision and no fun at all but some times it is simply the best option by a wide margin.

[acmanko]

A newborn infant might easily be adopted, but over 1/2 a million unwanted childern are kept in foster homes and other government sponsored agencies awaiting aadoption. When all you prolifers reduce this number to zero, then start talking about wether a woman can have an abortion or not.

I'm sure there are a few of you here that could adopt some unwanted teenager with social problems.

[RoBoTeq]

We've come to expect nothing less of you Robo.:bump:
I've learned to accept that my mind just works on a slightly different plane then most others. I can't help the pictures that pop into my brain that I then have to try to articulate. Most times it is helpful, at least to me.

[BACnet]

I'm sure there are a few of you here that could adopt some unwanted teenager with social problems.

Heck, why stop there- some people are adopting full grown adults. (http://http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/01/florida-businessman-adopts-adult-girlfriend-as-his-daughter/)

[RoBoTeq]

Robo, I agree with parts of your analogy so I will take it a bit further. When you buy a car or sign a contract for natural gas supply, in Canada at least, you have a 10 day period (some places more, some places less) to cancel the contract.

If that gas purchase was done when you were drunk or sick and not thinking straight, you have a remedy. Abortion is not anyones first choice (I have accompanied 2 women to the clinic over the years, neither were mine) and I know it is a very hard decision and no fun at all but some times it is simply the best option by a wide margin.
The time span seems to be the biggest argument. On time span, I am not even positive how I think of the abortion issue. I do think that I can fully accept the morning after pill time span, so that fits in with your grace period.

According to this, there is at least six days before the sperm actually completly enters the egg;
After being fertilized for eight days, embryo completed its “landing” mission. It tries to embed itself into the endometrium (inner membrane of the uterus). This time, it starts to split into a few hundred of cells. http://scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/how-sperm-meets-an-egg-to-fertilize-a-fetus-in-the-mothers-womb/#ixzz1m6Q4Yl6G

For me, that is another six days of grace period to cancel the deal without doing any damage to the production process.

Somewhere within the next six weeks the fetus becomes humanoid and a heartbeat is formed; [quote]After having fertilized for nearly 6 weeks, human shape is formed. Its heart beat is 140 to 150 beats per minute. Its heartbeat is two fold of its mother’s.[quote] Anything past this point is to me the killing of a human lifeform. So, there is still a one week to six week window after conception that I consider a grey area.

This is just my personal conviction on the matter. I have been directly, partly responsible for three abortions in my younger years, and I don't really have regrets because I did what I believed was best, albeit with not very much real knowledge on the subject. I believed that since abortion had become legal (just, and I had to take the women to clinics out of my state to have the abortions done.) that it must be right. Now, I understand that just because it is legal to do something does not mean that it is always right, and vice versa.

[RoBoTeq]

A newborn infant might easily be adopted, but over 1/2 a million unwanted childern are kept in foster homes and other government sponsored agencies awaiting aadoption. When all you prolifers reduce this number to zero, then start talking about wether a woman can have an abortion or not.

I'm sure there are a few of you here that could adopt some unwanted teenager with social problems.
I already did mancow. I took responsibilities for a ten year old an his 13 year old brother when their alcoholic mother was not able to care for them. I raised them along with my biological son and both have turned out to be fine men.

[mcjo tech]

I already did mancow. I took responsibilities for a ten year old an his 13 year old brother when their alcoholic mother was not able to care for them. I raised them along with my biological son and both have turned out to be fine men.

Way to go Robo,

I'm impressed!!

[RoBoTeq]

Way to go Robo,

I'm impressed!!
My dad was actually a step dad who took on the responsibility of three children when he married my mom. My dad and I had better relationship then many biological fathers and sons have. He was my inspiration, and I miss him dearly.

[k-fridge]

Shared DNA does not a dad make.

[acmanko]

Shared DNA does not a dad make.

That sounds like gay sex

[k-fridge]

That sounds like gay sex
You should know.

[SolarMike]

You should know.

I was waiting for that to come from someone, but i thought it would be Robo or Glennac:cheers:

[k-fridge]

[QUOTE=SolarMike;12432801]I was waiting for that to come from someone, but i thought it would be Robo or Glennac:cheers:[/QUOTE

Talking about leaving himself wide open. :grin2:

[BACnet]

I was waiting for that to come from someone, but i thought it would be Robo or Glennac:cheers:

Talking about leaving himself wide open. :grin2:
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9173/santorumarblog480.jpg

// Has this thread just come full circle?

[k-fridge]

ACE and I are kidding around. We're buddies.

[mcjo tech]

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/9173/santorumarblog480.jpg

// Has this thread just come full circle?


Yes :grin2: :cheers:

[acmanko]

ACE and I are kidding around. We're buddies.

I read it, got up from the computer for awhile and when I returned it was just sitting there and I'm saying to myself' that sounds really weird' so I bit.

[SolarMike]

always a good thing

[RoBoTeq]

Shared DNA does not a dad make.
In my case, I thank God for that.

It is funny how people who knew my dad and I, but not that he was my step dad, would often say things like "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree." or "Boy, you can tell they are father and son." My dad also never let anyone think I was not his biological son. Even though our last names were always different, some of my medical records under my dad's Merchant Marine healthcare have me listed with his last name. He simply would not tell people that I was not his biological son.

[RoBoTeq]

Yes :grin2: :cheers:
It'd be nice if Santorum got the Republican candidacy.

[BACnet]

It'd be nice if Santorum got the Republican candidacy.

Since Santorum is not electable in a general election then it stands to reason that you would deem it to be "nice" if Obama was to win the election.

Don't forget that the real election is not until November.