Forums | MacLife

Ribtorus wrote:

Actually, no.

There are examples of industrial nations with similar societies with similar or more permissive abortion laws that have significantly lower abortion rates, lower teen pregnancy rates and lower teen sexual activity rates; yet more permissive laws.

This is an example where critical thinking is useful.
Is the cause of the effect more permissive laws, or is the cause of the effect something else?
It also should be noted that abortion statistics are collected differently in different locations, and demographics of the population will have a large impact as well, and availability of a clinic that performs them.

It also should be noted that there are countries where abortion is illegal that have very low abortion rates - which is counter to your suggested cause and effect relationship.

So throwing the book at people isn't the answer to saving lives. Of course, if the goal is to punish (and shame) rather than actually preventing abortions, that's another matter.

The goal is not to punish and shame anyone.
The goal is to prevent the murder of living humans who have no voice, no way to defend themselves, and have done no one any wrong.

Last edited by resedit (2005-05-30 9:04 pm)

debbiedowner wrote:

Podesta wrote:

I again will restate that I would oppose someone with Resedit's attitudes adopting minority children.  Based on my experiences and observations, I can foresee trouble ahead.     And, white folks are, of course, free to tell what I had better think and say or else.   The attitude is not exactly new, you know.   Congratulations to Debbie Downer on being the latest.

I do not understand this post at all. Where did I tell you what to "think and say or else"? Why would Resedit's attitudes on abortion preclude him from adopting minority kids?  Logic?

You're wasting your time, he's firmly in oppressed black man mode.

KingFred wrote:

She.

Really?

Hot.

Donovan Osaya wrote:

KingFred wrote:

She.

Really?

I think so... I believe there was mention of a husband in an early post. But that doesn't mean anything for certain of course, since XYZ refers to his husband as well. Perhaps s/he will clear this up.

resedit wrote:

More serious reply to gozer -

not everyone "thinks" it's murder.
What is the reasoning behind your thought? If your reasoning is that you want abortion to be legal, then you are defining what life is to support your position. That's not reasoning.

If that is not your reasoning, then what is it?
We know a fetus is biologically alive, we know it has brain activity very early on - it is difficult to measure but as our techniques improve we detect it earlier and earlier. We also know it is biologically distinct from the mother.

I'm sorry - but it is a living human being, and you want to condone killing it so you that people can smurf without consequence. That is twisted.

i have a fun idea.....i'm going to just shout out a time....any time....in the development of the fetus and you tell me why it's murder.

ready.....

2 days!

a week!

a month!

2 months!

and after that's done i'll tell you why i don't......OMG MISS CANADA WON MISS UNIVERSE......think it's anyone else's choice besides the mothers because it's something growing inside her body. especially in the first oh let's be arbitrary and say 4 months because i feel like it right now. it might be repugnant and morally reprehensible to you and hey just for shucks lets say you consider it murder but as far as i'm concerned it's completely up to mom and hey guess what i don't believe there's a soul inside the wittle baby so

you call it murder and i'll call it decision except you want everyone to call it murder and i just think that people who think it's murder should call it that.

good call. i'm sure a lot of mothers who've carried it to term would then have it terminated. there would be baby corpses everywhere and everyone would tell that joke about the dead babies and the bowling balls.

think of all those dead eggs king fred dead eggs spilling out of vaginas everywhere.

KingFred wrote:

Donovan Osaya wrote:

gah, but with that logic, then why don't we have post-natal abortion, since the child is practically attached at the teat post birth?!

And with that logic, why don't we charge anyone (well, men, specifically) who masturbates with murder?

Chromosome counts and nervous systems, my friend.

KingFred wrote:

Donovan Osaya wrote:

gah, but with that logic, then why don't we have post-natal abortion, since the child is practically attached at the teat post birth?!

And with that logic, why don't we charge anyone (well, men, specifically) who masturbates with murder?

You just want me to get out the visual aids and go through the facts of life again don't you.
Well I'm not falling for that a 27th time mister.

Uh oh, does this mean I am murdering the children I could have with every woman I see that I don't sleep with?

debbiedowner wrote:

A few points: Two adults in a romantic relationship when both are healthy: not having sexual relations for six years?  That's not abstinence: that's dysfunction.

Gah!  again with the insulting... unless you meant to add a " "

Anyway, I shall once again defend the honor of my bride.

She was a virgin.  (I wasn't)  I respected that.  She didn't "know" what she was missing.  Add into the equation that we went to college for four of those years (same college) but we didn't see a whole lot of each other during those four years.

Anyway, we weren't in a hurry to "get it on" and that contributed to us not "getting it on".

Besides, we "get it on" all the time, now.  It just didn't seem all that important back then.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Uh oh, does this mean I am murdering the children I could have with every woman I see that I don't sleep with?

yes. hhave sex with them now. all of them. you're doing it for jesus.