Forums | MacLife

freakoutjackson wrote:

As the great William Jefferson Clinton said, If every "pro-lifer" adopted a child we wouldn't need to have this debate.

if every person was responsible for their own actions we wouldn't need to have this debate

user wrote:

Doesn't sound like she was using abortion for birth-control to me.

what did she use abortion for, then?

bratboy wrote:

NokX wrote:

and apparently you didn't read "Jane Roe's" testimony as to why she changed her stance.

Irrelevant.

then you might wanna put your "Irrelevant." after oatmeals main post since she was apparently a "convert"

bratboy wrote:

NokX wrote:

i feel sorry for the girl who became pregnant and wasn't planning on having a child until later on in life, but she made a choice and consequences (good and bad) follow.  you have to grow up and be responsible.

...what if she cannot afford to take care of the child, or simply doesn't want to?

she should've thought of that before being pro-choice about having sex.  you can't go around holding everyone's hand through every decision their whole lives.

bratboy wrote:

Yes, it's a potential "life."  I don't like the practice of abortion, but as a legal matter...I don't believe that a few month old fetus has rights.

there's a right to life that everyone is entitled, too.  that should be unarguable.

Laura wrote:

Some women do make the decision to have an abortion and regret it. 20yrs ago my best friend found out that she was pregnant (we were both 19) but she didn't know until she was about 3 1/2 months along. (She's always been very irregular) Anyway she had had a few nights of seriously drinking and was worried about the effect on the baby. So she had an abortion...but on her date that she would've been due she thinks about it every year and says how old it would be and wonders what kind of person it would be. She still doesn't have any children...she just got married last year. She wonders if she'll ever get pregnant! I feel so bad for her now.

If people didn't have negative reactions as they do towards abortion, I don't think women would feel so horrible doing it.

My mother had an abortion before she had me. She and my dad weren't ready at the time for another child. But yes, to this day, she feels guilty. I wish she wouldn't...

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

punkgeek wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

some stuff about being against sex before marriage, blah blah

What about married couples who get pregnant when they're not ready?

You're projecting...

I'm not against it.  This is America.  We have freedoms and can do whatever we (legally want.

But we know what happens when a boy and a girl have sex.  And we weren't ready for that.

You're going off about people who have sex before marriage...blah blah blah...well, I'm saying what about people who ARE married? Sex before marriage is bad...oh, it can lead to pregnancy! blah blah ad nauseum...so...what about married couples?

bratboy wrote:

NokX wrote:

she should've thought of that before being pro-choice about having sex.  you can't go around holding everyone's hand through every decision their whole lives.

So...poverty, crime, abuse be damned....you got knocked up and you're going to pay the consequences?

you choose to have sex

you don't choose what income bracket you're born into
you don't choose to be robbed
you don't choose to be abused

bratboy wrote:

NokX wrote:

there's a right to life that everyone is entitled, too.  that should be unarguable.

I don't believe that ANY rights extend to a fetus that can not yet live apart from the body, and whatever your opinion on the practice of abortion...I don't believe that the regulation of pregnancy should be under government control.

then that's where we differ and we'll never agree...

we were all at that stage once and if anyone of us would've been aborted we wouldn't be here today.  it's an end to life.

and like the bald eagle scenario i've given time and time again - apparently an eagle egg is more valuable than a human baby.  kill a human in the womb, it's "ok" - crush a bald eagle egg and pay the price.

Actually NO ability to regulate abortion exists, thats my point.

punkgeek wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

But let's not kid ourselves.  A little self restraint in 97% of the cases would solve this issue in a hurry.  Considering the teeny-tiny window available for babies to be conceived every month anyway, a little bit of Natural Family Planning  (aka the counting method) would go very, very far.

How can you possibly expect everyone to think like you? Mistakes happen. People don't always use 'self restraint'. So you'd rather them not be able to have an abortion because as you say, it 'stops a beating heart'? You'd rather they give up that child for adoption? Or try and raise it when they're 16, 17?

People make mistakes. It happens. I'm floored by people like you who think ONLY of the 'beating heart' inside and nothing of the parents and their situation.

Fiiiiiiine, people should be more cafeful. Fiiiiine, people should save sex for marriage. But sometimes, it doesn't work that way. So your moral high ground certainly doesn't hold water.

Woe is you.

You're missing the whole point of my post(s).

There is no "moral high ground".  There is no "better way".

Why do we resign ourselves to only one way of thinking?  What happens if we are both right?  What happens if we are both wrong?  Pay attention to our posting pattern.  We actually think in the same direction.  We are just "erring" on different sides of the fence.

I'm not advocating an end to all abortion everywhere.  I'm not even against kids having a little hanky-panky in their free time.  But I worry... is that so bad?

So stop worrying. It's bad for your health, you know.

NokX wrote:

you choose to have sex

you don't choose what income bracket you're born into
you don't choose to be robbed
you don't choose to be abused

No no no...unwanted children are likely to be abused, live in poverty, commit crime, and then have more unwanted children....all of which will likely drain on government money.  You may dislike the idea of killing a fetus, but this idea of 'children as punishment' bothers me, too.

then that's where we differ and we'll never agree...

we were all at that stage once and if anyone of us would've been aborted we wouldn't be here today.  it's an end to life.

and like the bald eagle scenario i've given time and time again - apparently an eagle egg is more valuable than a human baby.  kill a human in the womb, it's "ok" - crush a bald eagle egg and pay the price.

That's a terrible example, you should stop using it.  Bald eagles are endangered, for one.  Secondly, a bald eagle isn't going to be charged for smashing its own egg.  Ridiculous, sure...but so is your example...nearly as bad as "I didn't like salad and now I do, therefore homosexuality is a choice."

NokX wrote:

punkgeek wrote:

It's certainly not a 'human' in the womb.

And bad eagles are endangered. Human beings aren't going extinct at our rate of production, abortions or not, thank you very much.

endangered or not - you're putting the "worth" of a bird's life above a human's when you state that it's ok to discard a baby human but it's ok to protect a baby bird

Maybe they are more worthy than humans because we've managed to do such a bang up job of destroyin' the place while they have not?

isaly wrote:

NokX wrote:

punkgeek wrote:

It's certainly not a 'human' in the womb.

And bad eagles are endangered. Human beings aren't going extinct at our rate of production, abortions or not, thank you very much.

endangered or not - you're putting the "worth" of a bird's life above a human's when you state that it's ok to discard a baby human but it's ok to protect a baby bird

Maybe they are more worthy than humans because we've managed to do such a bang up job of destroyin' the place while they have not?

Heh.

Touche.

I find it interesting that in every one of NokX's posts he states that "SHE knew the consequences, SHE shouldn't have had sex!"  Is there no room for the MALE responsibility in your argument?

And the point of the original article is that it is a GOOD THING that abortions are SAFE and legal for those who choose them.  Make abortion illegal and women will find less safe ways of ending their unwanted pregnancies.

isaly wrote:

Respecting a culture of life means access to health care for all.

the problem with a socialist health care program is that there are too many who take advantage of it.  when we have to pay for people who choose to smoke, who choose to eat bad and not excercise, who choose to abuse their body, etc...  i definitely think everyone should have access to health care, but i don't necessarily think it's the roll of the government, either.  my church offers free flu shots to the public every year.  costs the tax payer $0.

isaly wrote:

Respecting a culture of life means you ought not tell a man he has to work in order to eat, have shelter, and clothe himself, and then allow people to pay less than a living wage.

it's not everyone else's job to work so others don't have to

isaly wrote:

Respecting a culture of life means that we don't wage war except as a last resort against someone who has directly attacked us, and then only sufficiently to force the other side to stand down.

agreed (and i know where you were heading with that, but that's a whole other thread)

isaly wrote:

Respecting a culture of life means not ruining the environment.

agreed

isaly wrote:

Respecting a culture of life means that we are entitled to better ourselves and that we are entitled to the fruits of our labor for having done so but that we ought not to take hundreds of times what it takes to live comfortably and deny others because we deem they haven't worked to our satisfaction.

the poor don't need another loaf of bread because after they're done with that loaf, they're still in the same situation and hungry.  the poor need inspiration and opportunity.

think about it...  what makes you want to do well in life?  with work?  for your family?  you're inspired.  if people get inspired they'll no longer be poor.

we should want to help others, not be forced to.  gifts that come from the heart go much further.

isaly wrote:

Respecting a culture of life means understanding that there's more then enough for everyone many times over and that regardless of how much you've chosen to "work" you don't get to control most of it.

but people need to show incentive, too

isaly wrote:

Respecting a culture of life means that while I may not like the choices that some folks make, that when people violate the social compact they be dealt with in a manner that addresses the crime but is humane because WE are civilized. Someone else's criminal behavior does not give us the right to act as if we are UNCIVILIZED.

whole other thread

isaly wrote:

Respecting a culture of life means understanding that while the Senior Partner of the law firm may deserve the biggest paycheck, they wouldn't get any clients at all without the custodian who cleans their halls, offices, and toilets, or the mail clerk who makes sure that correspondence gets routed to the proper people.

then the custodian needs to find it within themselves to change their lives for the better.  why are they a custodian in the first place?  is it something they enjoy?  (some do and to them - they don't want or need a six figure income to be happy) or is it because they didn't push themselves and take advantage of opportunities to be more than a custodian?

bratboy wrote:

No no no...unwanted children are likely to be abused, live in poverty, commit crime, and then have more unwanted children....all of which will likely drain on government money.  You may dislike the idea of killing a fetus, but this idea of 'children as punishment' bothers me, too.

it bothers me, too...but it's not the child's fault.  why should it have to die?  the problem in your one scenario is irresponsible parents...not the child.  that's where the problem lies.

bratboy wrote:

That's a terrible example, you should stop using it.  Bald eagles are endangered, for one.  Secondly, a bald eagle isn't going to be charged for smashing its own egg.  Ridiculous, sure...but so is your example...nearly as bad as "I didn't like salad and now I do, therefore homosexuality is a choice."

that's not a terrible example.  what's terrible is that it's true.  if we end the life of a bird in the "womb" it's a federal crime.  why?  i'm not killing a bird (using your "a fetus isn't a person" analogy)

and defending your poor stance at supporting it because "it's endangered" just shows how sad some people have become in society.

and i've never said homosexuality as a choice - so you can quit attempting to be clever

stoned wrote:

i would put an endangered bird's life above most human's life.

which is another reason why we'll never agree on this issue and i feel sorry for many people who feel the same way as you do

Pithecanthropus wrote:

I find it interesting that in every one of NokX's posts he states that "SHE knew the consequences, SHE shouldn't have had sex!"  Is there no room for the MALE responsibility in your argument?

And the point of the original article is that it is a GOOD THING that abortions are SAFE and legal for those who choose them.  Make abortion illegal and women will find less safe ways of ending their unwanted pregnancies.

no because whenever i mention a man i get a reply such as...

Troutski wrote:

Spoken like a real man, Nokx.  Which of course makes you wholly unqualified to tell a woman what she can do with her body.

but if you've read any of my posts you'd see i said responsibility falls there, too...

NokX wrote:

if my girlfriend got pregnant i would be a man and care for our child.  period.  no questions or excuses.

but i'm not surprised you're biased

NokX wrote:

that's not a terrible example.  what's terrible is that it's true.  if we end the life of a bird in the "womb" it's a federal crime.  why?  i'm not killing a bird (using your "a fetus isn't a person" analogy)

You're violating the right of the eagle to make reproductive choices as she sees fit.