+19

Under the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004", someone can be sent to jail for killing a six-week old human fetus, yet aborting the fetus months later is OK. That is, at the very least, inconsistent, amirite?

Man tricks pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion pill - CNNMan pleads guilty to tricking pregnant girlfriend into taking abortion pillhttp://www.cnn.com/2013/09/10/justice/girlfriend-abortion-case/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
72%Yeah You Are28%No Way
PhilboydStudges avatar Politics
Share
1 110
The voters have decided that PhilboydStudge is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
This user has been banned.
@1942843

And all the top brass KNOW that ONLY law abiding citizens abide by laws to begin with. So to get more violators, they keep tightening the ratchet and turning more and more misdemeanors in to felonies. This way, a greater percentage of the population can be "criminalized" and will feed the system's insatiable greed for the almighty dollar. That is the REAL name of the game.

This is why I don't know if I am pro-life of pro-choice. I just don't know.

BuddyCakess avatar BuddyCakes Yeah You Are +1Reply
@fuzala I'm with you on that one I guess the easy answer is "it depends"...

I, personally, could never get an abortion. It would haunt me forever.

BuddyCakess avatar BuddyCakes Yeah You Are 0Reply
@BuddyCakes I, personally, could never get an abortion. It would haunt me forever.

I will probably NEVER EVER get an abortion too.
Probably cause I'm a dude...

@BuddyCakes I, personally, could never get an abortion. It would haunt me forever.

I hope that I never reach such a stage in life where I have to make that decision

you know what I mean?

fuzalas avatar fuzala Yeah You Are 0Reply
@fuzala I hope that I never reach such a stage in life where I have to make that decision you know what I mean?

Yeah, I feel like I would explode from the stress and pressure of the decision.

Which would solve the issue, 'cause then everyone is exploded.

BuddyCakess avatar BuddyCakes Yeah You Are +2Reply

I think it has to do with how humanely it's done

@Watchful_questioneer I think it has to do with how humanely it's done

So there is a humane way to kill a human? I missed that part.

@freespeechfreelancer So there is a humane way to kill a human? I missed that part.

hu·mane
/( h)yo͞oˈmān/
Adjective
1.Having or showing compassion or benevolence.
2.Inflicting the minimum of pain.
Synonyms
human - humanitarian

So yes there's a humane way to kill a human, by definition anyway.

@Len hu·mane /( h)yo͞oˈmān/ Adjective 1.Having or showing compassion or benevolence. 2.Inflicting the minimum of...

So kind of the same thing as a parent getting ready to spank their child and telling them they love them very much, and this is going to hurt the parent more than the child.................gee, I get it exactly.
One bullet or two? Cut off a leg or slit the throat? Saline solution or suction of body parts for the abortion?
I wonder if humanitarian activist groups would agree with you. They don't think our prisoners or prisoners of war are treated properly or fairly. Or what about the death penalty? We have gone from hanging, to the electric chair, to lethal injections - and still the activists are not happy with the "minimum of pain" being inflicted. They fight against death at all, for any reason [except abortion - it is perfectly fine since a fetus is a blob of cells that are not human].
And then there is that thing called WAR..........

@Len hu·mane /( h)yo͞oˈmān/ Adjective 1.Having or showing compassion or benevolence. 2.Inflicting the minimum of...

So kind of the same thing as a parent getting ready to spank their child and telling them they love them very much, and this is going to hurt the parent more than the child.................gee, I get it exactly.
One bullet or two? Cut off a leg or slit the throat? Saline solution or suction of body parts for the abortion?
I wonder if humanitarian activist groups would agree with you. They don't think our prisoners or prisoners of war are treated properly or fairly. Or what about the death penalty? We have gone from hanging, to the electric chair, to lethal injections - and still the activists are not happy with the "minimum of pain" being inflicted. They fight against death at all, for any reason [except abortion - it is perfectly fine since a fetus is a blob of cells that are not human].
And then there is that thing called WAR..........

Proponents for abortion always have an excuse and way of explaining how killing a baby is not really killing a baby. If someone other than the potential mother-to-be, helps abort the baby through/by force or against her will, then the fetus is called a human baby, and the offender is charged with murder. If the mother seeks to abort herself or goes to a clinic and chooses to have an abortion, the fetus becomes a blob of molecules and is not sentient.
Those who can classify it as a baby in one instance but a blob in another, are NOT being honest or consistent. There is a clear hypocritical double standard regarding this issue. A fetus can't only be a baby when law enforcement or political agendas choose to say so for their own purposes and gains. It is either always a baby OR never a baby. It can't be both at the same time, and it certainly has NOTHING to do with what a woman CHOOSES. Her choice does not make it a baby today (because she decides she wants to keep it), but a sentient molecular blob tomorrow (because someone induces her miscarriage or she decides she wants to throw the baby away as trash).

@freespeechfreelancer Proponents for abortion always have an excuse and way of explaining how killing a baby is not really killing a...

Here is a classic example that is just making the news today. This guy is being tried for murder because he slipped his girlfriend an abortion pill. You can only be tried for murder IF a human being has been killed. In this instance, the pill made the fetus abort, and it is being treated as a murdered human. If SHE had taken the pill on her own, or gone to an abortion clinic to have the fetus removed, THEN it would not have been a human being and murder has not occurred.
TWISTED to say the least.
http://tbo.com/health/medical-n...ll-b82492225z1

@freespeechfreelancer Here is a classic example that is just making the news today. This guy is being tried for murder because he slipped...

What you said can only make sense, that's pure logic.
This guy did administer his girlfriend chemicals that have a non negligible effect on the body, without consent, and caused her unjustified emotional pain in the process. I believe this to be a major offense, and that it should be punished accordingly.
But he can't be charged for murder, for he killed no one.

@freespeechfreelancer Proponents for abortion always have an excuse and way of explaining how killing a baby is not really killing a...

I think the woman should always have the right to keep a baby, and restricted options for aborting it (if it's within a designated time frame).

A woman cannot be forced through childbirth, so she should have options not to (unless she blows them off, and decides too late- then, the fetus's interests need to be taken into account at a certain point in development).

You call it a double standard, but I think it has an aspect of fairness to it- women should get more of a say than men, because childbirth is a very intense procedure that a woman should not be forced into.

A man should not induce abortion, because if he would prefer the woman have one, he should be allowed to avoid being legally responsible for the child. If the woman knows the man doesn't want to help, and that she can stop the fetus from developing, she should be allowed to. But if not, then she should be legally recognized as a single parent, and the man shouldn't have to pay child support.

@Watchful_questioneer I think the woman should always have the right to keep a baby, and restricted options for aborting it (if it's...

A woman should always have the right to keep her baby. Agreed. John Welden violated this right, and he should be punished.

I think I understand the aspect of fairness you talk about too. However, at some point a fetus should be considered a living human being worthy of rights, and those rights need to be weighed against a woman's rights. I believe at some point the fetus' right to live must outweigh a woman's right to her own body. I know this sounds domineering and offensive to many, but this is my opinion.

Anyway, the double-standard is that where this line is drawn seems to depend on the say of the woman. All I'm saying is that aborting a 6-week old fetus is either murder or it is not.

@PhilboydStudge A woman should always have the right to keep her baby. Agreed. John Welden violated this right, and he should be...

Both positions make sense to me.
All the problem is determining when is that line, and of course the mother doesn't get to decide — her baby doesn't become sentient coz she sez so.
We can't accept a double standard anyways, it is against logic (and thus, reality).
Before the baby is considered complete enough to be granted the rights every other human are, the choice is up to the mother, and anyone giving her utero-laxatives or punching her in the belly is guilty of serious charges (NOT of murder, mind you). But after that, the baby is a full-fledged human being, and his life is not to be taken by anyone.

@hugo Both positions make sense to me. All the problem is determining when is that line, and of course the mother doesn't...

The guy [Castro] who had those 3 women locked in his house and had gotten them pregnant was also charged with murder for hitting at least one of them in the stomach and causing a miscarriage. So yes, murder.
http://www.amirite.com/761840-o...or-can-legally

Thank God, he hanged himself in his jail cell, so is no longer in the equation.

@freespeechfreelancer The guy [Castro] who had those 3 women locked in his house and had gotten them pregnant was also charged with...

I don't know for USA... and I don't know how old was the child.

I don't think that's a murder if it's really young... anyways I guess everyone is eager to put the most possible charges on this abominable being.

Anyways I guess in this case the child was kind of lucky not to have been born ?

@Watchful_questioneer I think the woman should always have the right to keep a baby, and restricted options for aborting it (if it's...

There is an aspect of fairness in a fetus being a blob in one instance but a human in another? Wow - talk about selective reasoning!
And who gets to decide that certain point in development? Probably the woman of course. Her body, her choice, her rights. The baby has no say and is just along for the ride. I sort of in a very crude way wish that everyone who believes in abortion had had a mother who believed in it and exorcised her right to abort. Where would that have left all those who are so in favor of it? Non existing of course, and without a voice or opinion.

@freespeechfreelancer There is an aspect of fairness in a fetus being a blob in one instance but a human in another? Wow - talk about...

Perhaps I should have clarified this- there seems to be confusion- women don't get to decide whether it's a baby or a fetus- it's a fetus either way. However, the woman has the right to decide what it will become, because it is her that will give birth. As long as it can be dome painlessly to the fetus, it should be legal.

In response to your last comment, I can honestly say that the world would flat out suck if everybody acted on every issue like you are.

"I wish everybody who disagrees with me had never been born."

That's just immature. I'm 16, so that should mean something coming from me.

I think you'll agree with me in saying that a fetus is not a human. It is not sentient, can't (until a crucial point) feel pain, and therefore I do not feel guilt in allowing people to end it before it truly begins to be human-like, if it will improve somebody's life, and potentially allow them to have a child at a better time in life, when they are actually prepared to raise it.

@Watchful_questioneer Perhaps I should have clarified this- there seems to be confusion- women don't get to decide whether it's a baby or...

You are losing your touch with debating and reality. I DID NOT say that everyone who disagrees with me should not have been born. I simply said and clearly meant that if you believe in and support the killing of babies as fetuses, then where would all who believe that be if the same belief and practice had been applied to them? How you twisted around what I said to your version was wreckless and irresponsible.
And you can keep calling me immature all you wish, but you are way out in left field. If I agreed with you about a fetus, I would NEVER make the comments and posts I do against abortion.
And the women are deciding in some cases, and the courts are deciding in many more. The woman does not bring charges of murder - legal officials do. So not only are the women hypocritical with double standards, the entire legal system is as well.
I will not insult your lack of intelligence as you suggest that you have done to mine. Give yourself a few years to grow and experience what life in the real world is all about, and many of your views will not only be challenged, but broadened and deepened to a new level of maturity.

@freespeechfreelancer You are losing your touch with debating and reality. I DID NOT say that everyone who disagrees with me should not...

You actually did. You said that "I sort of in a very crude way wish that everyone who believes in abortion had had a mother who believed in it and exorcised her right to abort".

Seeing as that would result in them not being born, that can be paraphrased as you, in a crude way, wishing they had not been born. And I interpret that as an immature thing to say. I'm not insulting your intelligence, just the morality and rationality of that opinion.

I'n not sure how clear this is, but I don't think a man forcing a miscarriage is murder. It is evil because of the effects on the woman, not the fetus. Abortion, however, is done in the woman's best interests.

If it is because of irresponsibility and unprotected sex that the woman wants an abortion, I do not support it, but I condone it because it is hard to prove it wasn't because of failed contraception, in which case I would support it. I'd rather let people I don't support get an abortion than allow people who I'd support it for not be allowed to, especially because I believe there will be many more people who get abortions because of failed contraception. I may be wrong about that. There may be demographics I don't know about. But I'd still rather leg guilty people off the hook than punish innocent people.

@Watchful_questioneer You actually did. You said that "I sort of in a very crude way wish that everyone who believes in abortion had had...

I question your morality and rationality with each and every comment you make. So I am sure that is immature of me, but it is the way I see your reasoning.
You are free to believe and hold to any views you wish, as am I. I view every fetus as life and deserving to be born. Those who can prey on the most helpless of all human beings while still in their mother's uterus, are in my view, nothing short of savage.

@freespeechfreelancer I question your morality and rationality with each and every comment you make. So I am sure that is immature of me...

Than I hope that your integrity holds to that view- would you kill a spider you see crawling on your wall?

Because that spider has an even greater level of sentience and emotion than a fetus, and aborting a fetus can improve the life of the child that the family has when it's actually ready.

It does more good than killing a spider, and doesn't seem as cruel.

@freespeechfreelancer I refuse to fall to such a low level of logic or understanding.

Then explain to me why it's a bad example, since you know I'm going to ask.

I'm quite used to you insulting my opinions and consider myself fairly tolerant of it, but at least give me a reason so that I can defend it, or understand.

Seriously. That's just poor sportsmanship. Is your goal to come to an understanding, or to make yourself look better than me? Because it's starting to look like an ego battle, and that's a waste of my time. So either bring this back to respectful debate, and try to actually understand what I'm thinking and help me understand what you are, or this is pointless.

@Watchful_questioneer Then explain to me why it's a bad example, since you know I'm going to ask. I'm quite used to you insulting my...

When you can claim that aborting a fetus "does more good than killing a spider" - I am both dumbfounded and appalled. Is that an ego booster on my part? Your example puts the spider on a higher plane and status than a fetus, and as far as I am concerned, proof that you have simply lost touch with reality. That is not an insult - just plain simple analysis.
If you believe in Evolution and are going to tell me that animals are simply our early descendants, then killing a spider might be a huge offense. I don't ascribe to such nonsense, so for me, killing a spider is not murder. Murder is reserved for the human endeavor [unless of course our government decides to punish anyone killing an animal on the endangered species list]. The penalties for killing such an animal or destroying the egg of such, is sometimes worse than killing a fetus [another blatant hypocrisy in my view].
So let's just assume for debate's sake that all animals are on an equal plane and should be treated equally and fairly. Can you name me one animal species that has the right or choice to decide which of its offspring lives or dies? When nature runs it course, all pregnancies result in a birth. The baby may die during or after the process, but at least it was allowed to be born. Those who adhere to evolutionary principles and patterns should be learning BY and FROM what occurs and has been occurring for centuries. If there were NO politics involved and no money to be made from the abortion issue, this matter would resolve itself quickly and easily. But abortion is a HUGE money maker, and the REAL motivating factor behind its popularity and continuance. The fact that the hypocrisy exists [in some instances killing a fetus is murder and in others it is legal] clearly proves that the ISSUE is NOT about the woman's choice. If a fetus can be murdered, ever, in any instance, then it has to be a HUMAN BEING - not just when it is convenient for the woman or for the Courts.

@freespeechfreelancer When you can claim that aborting a fetus "does more good than killing a spider" - I am both dumbfounded and...

Okay, let me throw at you an issue that you haven't yet talked about- if, say, a condom broke and a woman becomes pregnant at a time when she is not ready to have a baby, could it possibly be better for her, and humanity alike to allow her to abort it, then have a baby when she is ready? You can hardly refute that the second child will have a better life, and you'd be taking the life of a fetus that has yet to even recognize that it is alive. That, to me, is similar to a spider- not through comparison in the order of species importance, but taking account of the level of sentience, emotional development, and capability to feel pain.

I'm no neuroscientist, but an underdeveloped fetus does not feel pain yet, and a spider can, even if level of sentience is 0 in both. That's why I don't see it as murder.

In exchange for killing an organism without any sentience, or mental processes, you are enabling a future child to be raised by more prepared parents, which seems more responsible to me than forcing the first child to live a potential life of neglect, just to teach the parents a lesson. Plus, they might be financially ruined and not be able to pay for college for the child. Tell me how that's better than allowing the parents to actually be ready and raise the next child at a better time. That's the real issue to me, not profit. While profits are made off of it, that doesn't necessarily make it the only reason it's good. I agree with it morally because it's utilitatianistic.

@Watchful_questioneer Okay, let me throw at you an issue that you haven't yet talked about- if, say, a condom broke and a woman becomes...

Now you are going to resort to hypotheticals or the lowest possible percentage of all reasons why abortions are done to begin with. Rape is the only factor that should be given any real discussion as to a reason for possible abortion. If a woman is forced upon by a man and the sex was clearly against her will, then I fully believe she should be able to decide what she wants to do with the child. Many rape victims choose to still have the baby because they realize the baby had nothing to do with the pregnancy and they are concerned about preserving LIFE at all costs. I salute those women and they are heroes in my book.
As for your non-sentient comment: do a little more research and you will find that very early fetuses can and do feel pain.
As for your condom example. Any person out practicing sexual activity should be aware of all possible consequences of their actions BEFORE taking the plunge. If youth today were being taught as I was, that abstinence is the best and ONLY way to insure a non-pregnancy, there would be no discussion or issue. I am a baby boomer and my generation was taught to be fully accountable and responsible for ALL of our actions and behaviors. We were taught and knew that with every choice and decision comes a responsibility and accountability. The greatest percentage of youth did not engage in sexual activity at the early ages they do today. And most who did, were either in love or planning to be married. And there was still a very strong sense of not engaging in any sexual activity UNTIL a couple was actually married. Saving yourself for the one you love and want to spend your life with was a big deal and meant something.
Fast forward to today's generation. From everything I read and the young people I am able to engage conversation with, that has all changed. Sleeping around is no big deal. Multiple sex partners is the going thing, and the message in most music and movies seems to be "the more the merrier." I have read accounts where girls in elementary school are now engaging in sexual activity!
Everyone talks about the message of "safe sex," but that is almost an oxymoron. Having sex WILL result in pregnancies. Condoms, the pill, gels, foam, IUD's, or pulling out before climax are NOT fool proof methods of avoiding pregnancy. But I highly doubt you are hearing that message in the public schools these days. The ONLY 100% sure method of avoiding a pregnancy IS abstinence. That is undisputable.
But your generation wants instant everything and wants no accountability or responsibility for anything. And the saddest part of the abortion debate is that the highest percentage of women having them are unmarried and under age 25. So we are predominantly talking about girls who are out playing the game and wanting to do adult things without any repercussions or consequences to their actions. As far as I am concerned, abortion is a huge cop-out and escape mechanism for all those who fooled around but don't want to accept responsibility. So the whole thing was turned in to a "choice" issue over the fact that once a life is created we should figure out how to deal with it. Throwing away a human being's opportunity to be birthed is treating humanity like a piece of trash. And many women have done that very thing with their newborns. I have read numerous stories where women delivered a baby in a restroom or some other out of the way place, and walked off and left it. Or how about the mothers that actually throw their newborn in to a dumpster? Some of those are miraculously discovered and somehow survive. Surely you have seen some of these stories yourself, and you probably view them as perfectly acceptable and fine. And we call ourselves "humane" and "civilized?" Really?
To my knowledge, every state has a law that will allow ANY woman who does not want her newborn to leave it at the steps of a fire station, police station, or hospital, and she will never be questioned. The baby will live, be cared for, and a home found. There are many alternatives to abortion, but groups like Planned Parenthood thrive on and line their pockets off the "mistakes" and "mishaps" of an irresponsible youth. If women would get back to being ladies and having dignity and pride in who and what they are as women, then much of this could be curtailed. But as long as there is no strong family unit in society, no morals or values being instilled in young people, and an "easy out" for irresponsible behavior, the abortion issue will thrive and continue. A woman who gets caught with an unwanted pregnancy is not the victim. Her fetus however, is often the victim of her "mistake." If women can't afford to bring a child in to this world, then clearly, they should stop engaging in the activity that creates children until they are fully ready and willing to step up to the plate.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion...on_statistics/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab..._United_States

This user has been banned.
@1943432

The government and FDA won't allow it because it would take away all the business from Planned Parenthood. It still dodges the real issue, but it might be the lesser of 2 evils.
And nobody is forcing children to have children. The better question is, should children be having sex? If they are, why? We teach children that certain behaviors and practices are not age appropriate (with or without religion), but for some reason, we have come to accept that it does not apply or won't work for this issue. We don't let children smoke, drink, attend R or X rated movies, drive, go to night clubs, etc., but engaging in adult sexual activity which produces babies is no biggee! Something very strange and twisted about that rationale.
And if you noticed, I specifically have been avoiding in ALL my comments or debates to bring Bible or God in to the mix. Why? Because I KNOW it not only offends some people, but is also viewed as an old fashioned prudish approach to life. I appeal to people's common sense of decency and respect for their fellow human.

This user has been banned.
@1943440

I will answer with another question: Is it a good idea to feed the machine and greed of Planned Parenthood for a quick dollar? The average abortion costs roughly $2,000. Multiply that by 1.5 million abortions per year, and tell me it is not HUGE big business? The one lesson that every American must learn, is that you never mess with the gravy train of money flow - where ever it is found in this country. The dollar is sacred and protected at any expense.
We are in a current state for a reason. Things were not always as they are. Anyone willing to do the research will be able to prove that there has been a steady decline in morality in this country. Again, with or without religion, morality is an important necessity to the survival and well being of any nation. History has shown us that abandoning morality altogether could very likely lead to our undoing and demise.
The welfare state could be curbed greatly over night, but nobody has the cojones to step up and take charge. Again, welfare state equals more and bigger government dependency. We are well on our way to imploding the entire country.

This user has been banned.
@1943448

I agree it is everybody's fault, and nobody seems to be willing to fix or change it. The people seem to want it, but there is that huge glut in D.C. standing in the way. The mighty teet of mama government is feeding thousands of workers at the Federal level who would never vote themselves pay cuts or reductions of any kind. This huge governmental machine then seeks to appease the masses by throwing money at them and making empty promises. Meanwhile, the debt keeps growing and growing, never being really addressed or resolved.
If enough people would wake up and band together at one point and time, we could say ENOUGH and force a change. Working through the present channels, in my view, is pointless. The system is broken, and a repair is not likely or time efficient. We need a drastic change fast. The PEOPLE have the right to scrap their government and do with it as they see best fit for their interests and well being.
If even half of the nation (which is about all who are paying taxes to begin with) would not file a tax return this coming tax year, there is not enough law enforcement, government employees, or jails to deal with the uprising. We tell them we have had it once and for all, and start demanding the changes that we expect. We could try it peacefully at first, but if we still did not have their attention, commence using force.
I am afraid if something of this nature does not occur, we really and truly are up a river without a paddle.

This user has been banned.
@1943455

I will believe that a revolution could and would work. What I am not convinced about, is the people ever being willing to do it. Our forefathers did it to bring us to where we are. It is time to see if we are willing to take the baton and pass the test.

This user has been banned.
@1943463

Enough older people do.....but they are in no shape to pull it off. And the youth (most of them) honestly do not have a clue and can't see it. They are living IN the changes, so that is their normal context. We are SEEING the changes and have watched it happen.

This user has been banned.
@1943444

"Don't do it because we tell you so" most often fails because those telling are not practicing what they say themselves. The parent who tells their child not to smoke while puffing on a cigarette in front of them has already failed. "Do as I say, not as I do" never works. People watch people and learn by example better than by just being told. This is why our government is such a failure - they are telling us many things, but not practicing it themselves. The same is true with much of law enforcement. I get a ticket for speeding or making an "illegal" U-turn, but Johnny Hot Cop can do it every day in front of me with no recourse!
I could easily argue that the reason there has been such a huge breakdown in society is because the adults decided to quit setting the example for the young. And once that is lost, then it really is all downhill from there. That is pretty much what has been occurring over the past 30-40 years. I graduated in 1976, and the changes and shifts were just starting to surface.

This user has been banned.
@1943449

So basically, continue doing nothing but talk about it all - which is pretty much what we have been doing. It isn't working.....................

This user has been banned.
@1943454

So the moral of this story and motto is: there is no turning back.......................

This user has been banned.
@1943461

Imploding is not the only scenario. There is the very real danger of being overthrown. We are so weak and broke as a nation right now, that we are sitting ducks.

This user has been banned.
@1943464

Very true.........from the inside out.

@freespeechfreelancer Now you are going to resort to hypotheticals or the lowest possible percentage of all reasons why abortions are...

It is not fair to force people to not engage in sexual activity until they're ready to have a child, because in this day and age, with college such an extensive and expensive hassle, that could very well be at 35 or later. Abstinence is taught in schools to be the only 100% method, although you can't blame someone for not having the will to wait 35 years to lose their virginity when there are 99% effective methods. If you do, then you have quite unrealistic standards.

I'd like to also bring up a certain generalization that stood out to me, of yours- "the highest percentage of women having them are unmarried and under age 25. So we are predominantly talking about girls who are out playing the game and wanting to do adult things without any repercussions or consequences to their actions". There are very many girls out there that conceive intentionally, and then perhaps circumstances change- and suddenly that child's upbringing could turn out very differently.

Abortion is about what's best for the child, not about what teaches the mother a lesson. You have, once more, beat around the bush regarding my assertion that aborting one child may drastically improve the life of another. It swaps an unfulfilled childhood with a fulfilled and healthier one.

Do you believe in recreational sex at all? Because society tends to, and when contraception fails or circumstances change during a pregnancy, the family should be allowed to abort a child in order to give a subsequent child a better life. Especially if they can't financially handle the child. Aren't enough people on welfare as it is?

When it comes to girls that do just act irresponsibly, I believe restrictions should play a role. Abortions should be done in a humane manner that avoids causing pain to the fetus- so if it is capable of feeling pain, it doesn't suffer. It should be an expensive procedure- enough to be deterrent (plus, taxes will get collected off of it, which is a benefit). Lastly, I believe abortion needs stigma. It should have a negative connotation- not reputation-ruining, but enough to make people lose respect for someone who does not acknowledge the magnitude of what they're doing.

I'd really like to hear what you've got to say regarding what I consider my primary reason for supporting right to abortion- that is can help a subsequent child have a better life than the first fetus is unknowingly losing.

@Watchful_questioneer It is not fair to force people to not engage in sexual activity until they're ready to have a child, because in...

I'll take a stab at the "aborting one child may drastically improve the life of another" assertion. My assumption is that we're talking about a fetus we both agree is a human worthy of rights.

Even if your assertion was supported by evidence (I'm not aware of any), I don't think we want to live in a world where it's accepted that some people will be killed so that others may lead better lives.

This user has been banned.
@1943478

I remember a teacher in my (Catholic) high school saying that if you had a nocturnal emissions you need to grow up. That is definitely weird.

@PhilboydStudge I remember a teacher in my (Catholic) high school saying that if you had a nocturnal emissions you need to grow...

My mind was racing ahead of your words as I read, and I thought when I saw the word "emissions" you were going to say, "need to put a muffler on it." LOL

@1943478

Yes. They told us that abstinence is the only 100% method, showed us percentages of effectiveness for varying methods of contraception (usually from 80's to 99% effective), and told us abstinence was 100%. But they did not explicitly tell us it was the best choice, and they took a very open stance towards sex in general- to do what you prefer, but as safely as possible, and not to if we were comfortable with that.

And when I say do whatever you prefer, I mean whatever you prefer. Their stance on mouth to ass sex was neutral. I was quite surprised. The teacher quite openly stated that different people have different preferences, and that we shouldn't bash.

@Watchful_questioneer Yes. They told us that abstinence is the only 100% method, showed us percentages of effectiveness for varying...

I will bash ANY and EVERY single time someone wants to portray urinating on bodies or in mouths or defecation in mouths as healthy normal sexual activity! I read quite a bit about topics of interest, and some of the sexual practices that are popular are completely disgusting.

@freespeechfreelancer I will bash ANY and EVERY single time someone wants to portray urinating on bodies or in mouths or defecation in...

Yeah, I don't think that's what my teacher was referring to- that's actually unsanitary and unhealthy. I'm sure consumption had no part in what she referred to. And her basis for neutrality was predicated on the premise that a barrier method of STD protection was being used in the act.

@Watchful_questioneer Yeah, I don't think that's what my teacher was referring to- that's actually unsanitary and unhealthy. I'm sure...

Well that is very "mild" compared to practices that are occurring in our society. I have Googled certain sexual topics, and the images that go along with them are really unbelievable. The BDSM lifestyle is way out there - but very popular. These are the kinds of things that many college students are being exposed to and taught as being just fine. And it doesn't help any when you have huge pop artists like Rihanna singing S&M (which stands for Sadomasochism).

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rihanna/sm.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadomasochism

What people choose to do in THEIR bedrooms, really and truly should remain there. But sexual preferences have gone full mainstream, and these darker practices are being glamorized as "normal" and perfectly "acceptable." And nobody is talking about the fact that if we start feeding our young children a steady diet of sexual practices, give it to them in movies, video games, most television shows, at school, and among peers - is it really any wonder that kids would grow up with sexual addictions and appetites? And you have the crazy mentally unstable people out there (mostly all men) who are making dungeons in their homes and kidnapping girls and women to practice all their creepy addictions on. We have created a monster, and nobody is willing to own up to it or take it on.
I don't mind pointing it out or talking about it because I have absolutely nothing to lose or gain.

@freespeechfreelancer Well that is very "mild" compared to practices that are occurring in our society. I have Googled certain sexual...

I actually agree with you. Certain practices are unsanitary, and deserving of stigma- not for the purpose of discouraging those who truly prefer it, but to prevent as many people as possible from liking it. Something like that is influenced by media and pop culture, unlike sexual orientation, so I find it perfectly moral to discourage it.
We should not endorse it, but we shouldn't forbid it. We should discourage encouragement of it, and just be tolerant. People who chose to do that by themselves have a right to, but it's better if people take pleasure in less unhygienic and harmful practices. It should be allowed.
But encouragement should be stigmatized.

@Watchful_questioneer I actually agree with you. Certain practices are unsanitary, and deserving of stigma- not for the purpose of...

And you are making my overall point - that if sexual practices and preferences are kept in the privacy of one's living quarters and not dragged out in to mainstream media or pop culture, then much of this would resolve itself. We can not forbid things people do in PRIVACY, nor should we. But we should not allow the minority groups to take charge of the agenda or debate on sexual issues either. The majority of people KNOW what they like and want, and that is why there is a clear majority of people practicing certain sexual behaviors.
Just so you can see where the sex education is headed, look in to something called Common Core. It is being legislated across the board right now and will be implemented in all government schools.

@freespeechfreelancer And you are making my overall point - that if sexual practices and preferences are kept in the privacy of one's...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "letting the minority groups take charge of the agenda". I think that some people still would still practice things, and the only people we should try to change are those that are just going with the media flow and trying things like s&m because of media influence like rhianna. Those are the 2 groups of people who practice s&m. The other should be left alone- not judged in either direction for what they do. So yeah, I was agreeing with you.

Also, I just looked on the web page of the Common Core organization, and I couldn't find anything about sexual education. Are you just referring to the idea of standardized curriculum as the future of sex ed? Because I don't think it's that bad, if they teach morally sound principles- first off, they're not forcing views, and second, they will most likely teach kids that different sexualities and practices are okay. I honestly didn't notice any encouragement of anything in my health class last year. The only real emphasis was when someone would say "why would anyoen want to do that?" regarding mouth to ass (called analingus), and the teacher showed her first sign of actual vehemence when she responded sort of like "well, to each his/her own. different people like different things", in a tone that generally discouraged further judgment of sexual practices. And I like that stance, because it does not push anybody in any direction, and discourages anybody from trying to do just that- push.

@Watchful_questioneer I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "letting the minority groups take charge of the agenda". I think that...

On the Common Core, I have looked up and read the actual entire booklet of the standardized sex ed they seek to implement. It starts in Kindergarten, and has actual specific objectives and methods to use to reach the objectives. I don't have the story right at my fingertips, but you might be able to Google a high school where the teacher insisted that girls ACT OUT lesbian encounters by having the female students role play a scenario of meeting, holding hands, and kissing! There are enough stories that make the news for me to know it IS going on. I have never said the extreme things are going on in every school, but even in some is far too many. You seem to have a pretty balanced school and that is great.

@freespeechfreelancer On the Common Core, I have looked up and read the actual entire booklet of the standardized sex ed they seek to...

Yeah, i wish there were a way to know more about that. I don't think they actually make kindergartners kiss- just pretend they do, most likely. In terms of teaching about orientation, I think they should teach complete tolerance (but again, no specific support). People have distinct sexualities that i'm pretty sure don't change, but can only be suppressed if stigmatized, and some people might just act a certain way because it's popular. But I think those are the stark minority. In terms of sexual practice, schools should teach that some things are better for you and how so, but it's up to the person, ultimately. It's so hard to get on the same page with people on that.

On an unrelated note, one thing that bothers me about my school is that they place social issues at a higher level of importance than economic. And that bugs me a lot. Most people support leaders who reflect their social issue stance, and I kind of get that because both parties can come up with an economic plan that sounds good, but could be complete crap. It's easy to argue how welfare, in theory, raises employment levels, but it's tough to argue that it did, in practicality. So it gets implemented without people doing enough critical thinking on it's effectiveness and how it will be implemented. And so they decide on social issues first, then look for things to support their preexisting bias towards that candidate, and easily believe whatever crap economic plan that candidate throws at them. What voters (and most kids) need is more prioritizing, and critical thinking. And damn humility. As soon as it comes to politics, nobody seems to ever admit they're wrong (and my teacher addresses that). Because we believe what we do for pride, not for accuracy. I mean, tell me honestly- with all the conflicting information, lies, and illegitimacy of political information people form a basis off of, what are the odds that anyone has formulated the complete correct, credible, and sound opinion, from only credible sources and without any bias. That they have found what is objectively the best path (the most utilitarianistic path) for humanity. And yet everybody is 100% sure that they have.

@Watchful_questioneer Yeah, i wish there were a way to know more about that. I don't think they actually make kindergartners kiss- just...

I am reading a book right now entitled "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. You can Google his name to see who he is. He was a CBS news man and insider for years. The book is about how over the years he was seeing the outright bias and slant that the news organizations were putting on social issue stories. He worked under Dan Rather for many years, and states that Dan was one of the worst.
After several years of wanting to write a story about bias within the media, and getting turned down each and every time, he decided to go public by writing an op-ed piece which was featured in the Wall Street Journal. As soon as his story went public, his colleagues all turned on him immediately.
I am about halfway through it, and it is a fascinating read. And he clearly points out that there is a complete bias on how reporting is done and why. That is why I turn to as many alternative sources as I can to get news. The big 3 (CBS, NBC, ABC) are all losing viewership. CNN has the lowest viewership of all, and yet still gets credited for being something special and credible. And even though I know that many people despise people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, FOX News, or other conservative news sources, they are on the cutting edge of news reporting and have the most viewers and listeners.
You touched on something extremely important - that being how we can know anything with accuracy or truth. All of our information for the most part is 2nd or 3rd hand. We are not eyewitnesses to any of the stories we hear or read about. And we only know about the stories THEY decide to bring to our attention. What I despise more than anything, is when they break a story, but have no actual information to give us. They make it up as the story develops, and then we get the real story when the investigations and information is released by the authorities.
If a person has a high level of distrust regarding authority types (as I do), then that only compounds the problem. I have a buddy who has this saying: "Don't believe anything you hear, and most of what you see." And the older you get, the more that makes sense. I have a post on this site that says: "The only thing I am certain about, is that nothing is for certain." All I can tell you is that we can only try and learn as we wade through the sea of life. Those who succeed and do well, must have figured out some things that many more do not.

@freespeechfreelancer I am reading a book right now entitled "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. You can Google his name to see who he is. He was...

Exactly. So some more humility and critical thinking would undo the stark polarization that political parties have generated. But the reason that isn't happening is because people have to chose between actually being closer to right by constantly questioning themselves as wrong, or to be horribly wrong, but stubbornly convinced they're right. And people want to be proud, not on their toes.
And so they're wrong, selective, and act like they're the only ones with common sense, too proud to question themselves.

@Watchful_questioneer Exactly. So some more humility and critical thinking would undo the stark polarization that political parties have...

Good comments and very healthy discussion. I think you have a future. BTW - do you have any idea what you would like to do or become?

@freespeechfreelancer Good comments and very healthy discussion. I think you have a future. BTW - do you have any idea what you would...

Well, I take great interest in psychology, and am also taking AP chemistry, which is full of opportunities. So I hope to find a place somewhere along that spectrum. It gives me a wide range, so I can adapt. But for now, I find psychology very interesting. Chemistry is more of a practical field to find a job in. Maybe pharmaceuticals will suit me.
But regardless of what I do, I want to write a book on the side. That's one thing I really want to do.

@freespeechfreelancer Good for you. Keep your nose in the books. It will pay off.

Thanks. But all the homework is absurd. After school I have cross country/track until around 4:30, and I hardly get any free time at all because of the sheer amount of it.

@Watchful_questioneer Thanks. But all the homework is absurd. After school I have cross country/track until around 4:30, and I hardly get...

That is the price you pay to have something better later. Invest now, reap the benefits in the future. Are you in a public school, charter school, or private school?
What distances do you run? I always hated running - gave me a headache [literally].

@freespeechfreelancer That is the price you pay to have something better later. Invest now, reap the benefits in the future. Are you in a...

I go to public school, but it's a very good one on a national (and state) scale

I run long distance- 5k in cross country, and half mile to 2 mile in track (also 200's for fun, which I'm surprisingly decent at)

@freespeechfreelancer Cool. I enjoy watching good runners - a big stress on watching. LOL

Heh, running is interesting- it really sucks when you're out of shape but when you're in shape and at your peak, you have so much control and it feels great. With experience, you can actually run a lot smarter and more strategically, and races become less stressful. I never really expected that.

@freespeechfreelancer Well we sure changed the topic on this post! What is your best or fastest mile time?

5:18, from last year. I'd be faster now, though. Right now I'm running 5k's, and those depend a lot on the course.

@Watchful_questioneer 5:18, from last year. I'd be faster now, though. Right now I'm running 5k's, and those depend a lot on the course.

Super cool. When I was teaching, I had some cassette story tapes that I would play for the students during our daily story/reading time. One of them featured a story about Glenn Cunningham. As a little boy, he and his brother would light the stove in the one room school house. A man would deliver the Kerosene each morning. On one morning, the delivery guy left gasoline instead of Kerosene. There was a huge explosion and Glenn's brother was killed and Glenn's legs were charred to the bone. He was told he would never walk again. He instead became one of this country's all time greatest runners. Here is a short link to just a short story.
http://www.mybestyears.com/Inte...enn080409.html

@freespeechfreelancer Super cool. When I was teaching, I had some cassette story tapes that I would play for the students during our...

Wow, that's amazing. It seems many great runners come from disadvantage- I went to a running camp this summer and there were some fascinating speakers who told their stories. A lot of runners actually stink at first, and are rejected from other sports because they're too small. But hard work from ANYBODY is enough to become great.

@freespeechfreelancer Super cool. When I was teaching, I had some cassette story tapes that I would play for the students during our...

It's funny how fast people improve over years- I know somebody who's right on track to being much faster than him- two people, actually.

@Watchful_questioneer It's funny how fast people improve over years- I know somebody who's right on track to being much faster than him-...

It is too bad about that double amputee with the blade legs "blade runner" Oscar Pistorious. He has been charged with murder. His trial is set for March of next year. He is an example of what we are talking about.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/s...nkamp/2670029/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Pistorius

@freespeechfreelancer I am reading a book right now entitled "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. You can Google his name to see who he is. He was...

My dad told me something very similar regarding the news. Don't believe anything you read, and only have of what you see.

@PhilboydStudge My dad told me something very similar regarding the news. Don't believe anything you read, and only have of what...

LOL....I just told that quote to someone on here a couple of days ago. It really is tragic that we can't trust the ones who report news to us, but to ignore that it is going on is complete ignorance. Many want to ignore it and act as if everything is just fine.

This user has been banned.
@1944564

I don't know if I have "insight" as you call it, but I have seen this and many more like it. There are several secret societies, and many of Washington's "elite" belong to one or more of them. Jesse Ventura has documented much of their activity and behind closed doors meetings. Between their wealth and secrecy, I have no doubt that there are powers and forces at work that we will never hear or know the details of.
But it is extremely clear to any astute student of observation, that American is going through a transformation for the worse. While Obama chides and impugns America and men like Ted Cruz or Republicans who want to uphold our Constitution, he has a "historic" phone call with the Muslim President of Iran (Hassan Rouhani) who clearly has issues with Israel and other hidden agendas. Our president has no trouble being sympathetic with world leaders who hate America and Israel. This says far more about him than any words he could ever possibly speak from his mouth. He has no problem trying to strike a deal with people who have no history of being trusted, but can not reach across the aisle in D.C. to cooperate with America's representatives or the American people. If something does not fit or meet his agenda, then he wants nothing to do with it.

@Watchful_questioneer I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "letting the minority groups take charge of the agenda". I think that...

Just found this story this morning. Since we had been talking about Common Core, I thought it might interest you. The clip does not even address anything to do with the content of Common Core - just a concerned parent. This is a school board/parent meeting, and a parent tries to ask a question against Common Core. I will not decide for you or anyone what follows, but from my perspective, this man is treated like a criminal for simply wanting to question. Notice that in this day and age, you are considered a threat and suspect just for wanting to oppose what officials and the "authorities" have already decided on.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories...-public-forum/

@freespeechfreelancer Just found this story this morning. Since we had been talking about Common Core, I thought it might interest you...

Hmm, I disagree with the man- not for his action, but his opinion on how it's bad to lower the standard. I think that that's not so bad, because it synchronizes school to prepare the standard to raise in unison, which is good. But that can't really happen when nobody's on the same page, and the only way to get people on the same page is to lower the standard. i just hope it's as a temporary step, not permanently to encourage people to take lower paying jobs.

But it was good that he asked, because that question is crucial, and in the question format presented, they couldn't possibly have gotten to everybody's, and he wouldn't have a chance to question their answer.

The school acted wrongly- they should have waited for him, clarified that that was not in line with the protocol, and answered his question. He seemed imposing- I feel like he would have just talked and talked and talked if given the chance, but the representatives should have had an answer, which I hope they at least gave after he was taken out.

He actually was hindering the meeting aside from his question, because he never gave them the chance to answer. He just talked over them, then tried to get everybody to riot when he was taken out.

However, I can't really tell what the rest of the meeting was like:
Would they have answered his question if he'd written it down like he was supposed to?
Would he have accepted an answer, or reacted with anger and demanded rebellion regardless of what they said?
Did the forum not want questions because they wanted to suppress dissent, or because meetings have been ruined in the past by stubborn parents?

@Watchful_questioneer Hmm, I disagree with the man- not for his action, but his opinion on how it's bad to lower the standard. I think...

As a general rule, once something is changed or lowered, it is twice as hard to ever get it back. And it takes twice as much good to right a wrong or an evil.
As I saw it, he did nothing illegal or worthy of an arrest. Questioning or even rebuking officials should not be a crime or a reason to make him leave. Taxpayers fund all of government - including city officials. One thing many young people don't seem to realize is that: THEY WORK FOR US, NOT WE WORK FOR THEM. They are accountable to the people, the taxpayers. But this is not happening any more. All public "servants" have taken on the entitlement status, and are using their power and positions to beat us down.
If parents don't want something in the schools, then they should be able to express that and even be able to get it removed. Wasn't religion, God, and prayer forced out of schools? And that was clearly against a majority of parent's wishes.

@freespeechfreelancer As a general rule, once something is changed or lowered, it is twice as hard to ever get it back. And it takes...

I agree with your point that arrest is completely absurd in this instance. But perhaps it only seems like some people supported him, and the rest disagreed? He shouldn't get kicked out for what he said (and I'm not sure he was), but for the fact that he didn't give anyone a chance to speak and was imposing his opinion on an issue that the forum actually planned to address. He was taking away the say of other parents, potentially, and that may be why he was removed. After all, nobody else really questioned the forum except him and the few others shouting in support. I don't know if that's the case, but for all we know, it might be, so that's why I think it's early to jump to conclusions. That was just a counterproposal.

@Watchful_questioneer I agree with your point that arrest is completely absurd in this instance. But perhaps it only seems like some...

Well like you said earlier, we don't know what happened before or after the clip - so hard to reach lots of conclusions. Mainly I sent it because it dealt with the Common Core we had discussed. I do know it has received lots of opposition.

@freespeechfreelancer Well like you said earlier, we don't know what happened before or after the clip - so hard to reach lots of...

Yeah, I'm glad you brought it up, but there's room to interpret both parties as at fault depending on circumstances. I hope that gets more coverage- not because I expect to get informed, but to see if the media takes the organization's side or not if the man gets arrested. That would be tough to defend, and unjustified.

@freespeechfreelancer As a general rule, once something is changed or lowered, it is twice as hard to ever get it back. And it takes...

I agree with your point that arrest is completely absurd in this instance. But perhaps it only seems like some people supported him, and the rest disagreed? He shouldn't get kicked out for what he said (and I'm not sure he was), but for the fact that he didn't give anyone a chance to speak and was imposing his opinion on an issue that the forum actually planned to address. He was taking away the say of other parents, potentially, and that may be why he was removed. After all, nobody else really questioned the forum except him and the few others shouting in support. I don't know if that's the case, but for all we know, it might be, so that's why I think it's early to jump to conclusions. That was just a counterproposal.

@Watchful_questioneer It is not fair to force people to not engage in sexual activity until they're ready to have a child, because in...

Now you are being pathetically ridiculous again. College at 35 - get real! Obama is helping all you young guns get any and every thing you want - and you know it.
All I can say: you will make a very effective politician or defense attorney. You are defending things that you honestly have no clue about. You speak from a pipe dream and a bubble. That is not a tactic to stroke my ego, it is just throughout your words and understanding.
If you want me to respond to ridiculous, I will throw ridiculous back at you.
Have you ever heard of masturbation? Is it not a possible fact that both guys and girls at minor ages could engage in such to satisfy their sexual need, desire, or cravings until they reached an age to be responsible adults? Or if we really want to think outside the box, how about sex dolls? Ever heard of them or know anything about them? Dad and mom could buy their children a sex doll and let them have the time of their lives - with NO pregnancies! Imagine that.
If young punk kids just have to have sex, then they also just have to smoke, drink, gamble, watch porn, abuse drugs, break all laws, and just do whatever the hell they jolly well feel like. After all, we are talking about an issue that involves feeling good. Do NOT tell me every person has to engage in sexual activity because there are many who choose not to. Some people vow to never engage in sex and live a life of celibacy. So it IS possible to not have sex. Sex is a choice and decision - not a requirement or necessity. A person won't die from NOT having sex.
Again, you clearly think that killing babies is best for the baby. You want to protect and defend the mother at any and all costs - even when she is more times than not out being a loose young girl. Girls can say NO, just as we tell children to say NO to drugs. You keep saying the mother will be so much happier than the baby, but you are not even willing to consider that the baby did not get a say. You have not acknowledged it as a human, so you can easily dismiss its wishes, desires, feelings, or even potential future. But for you and your generation, NO is not an option. Denying anyone from pleasure is not in the equation. And that is where you and I differ completely.
How many great scientists or inventors do you think have been put to death because of abortion? How many great sports stars, teachers, leaders.....? Of course, we will never know.
Your arguments are "straw" in that you did not possibly look at the data in the 2 links I provided. One of the charts shows actual reasons women gave as to why they are having their abortion. You keep appealing to "maybe," "possibly," "perhaps" - all words indicating a grasp at nothingness.
Have you ever heard of adoption? We allow pets a better chance at survival than aborted fetuses. There are entire organizations [and more would spring up] devoted to getting newborn babies to families who can NOT have a child. Those couples often spend thousands and thousands of dollars exploring methods of having a child. The adoption policies in our country are so lengthy and drawn out, that many desperate want to be parents have gone outside the U.S. to bring a child back. You can believe there is no agenda, politics, or money involved in the abortion debate all you like - but money is at the heart of it all. Money always is. The saying "follow the money trail" is not in existence for no reason.
Also, there are many extended families who would love [and often do] to raise an unwanted baby.
When I made a statement earlier about wishing that every person who believes in abortion having to be the recipient of the same, you jumped all over that. But stop and think for one moment. There is an old saying that I am sure you are familiar with, and I believe it is far superior to anything that anyone has ever come up with. I won't tell you who said it or where it is from, but it says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
If you, in good and clear conscience, towards fellow humanity and society, can say you would fully accept an abortion unto yourself, then by all means, you should continue believing and holding your views that fetuses should be aborted. If you can not, then a change would be in order and appropriate.

@freespeechfreelancer Now you are being pathetically ridiculous again. College at 35 - get real! Obama is helping all you young guns get...

Okay, key thing I think you didn't think about- the fact that people who have abortions will, likely, have a child in life that will be better raised in better circumstances- meaning, they are more likely to become successes than the children who would have been born to poor circumstance, unable to afford better education.

As for adoption, there are very many orphans in the world today, and many of them will not get adopted- probably most. So given a choice between increasing the number of orphans in the world, or the number of kids raised in economically and emotionally stable families, I'd chose the latter. I am puzzled as to why you think I said that it's better for the baby for it to be aborted. I said that it is better for the baby that the family will likely have later on, for the first to have been aborted. What will a child's life even be like to have to grow up to parents that would have gladly aborted them, in comparison to letting that family abort, and then truly love and invest 100% in the child they're ready for?

And I'll have you know that college will be harder for my generation on a whole, than yours. I'll likely have to pay over $130,000 in tuition alone, not to mention costs of housing, insurance, and other necessities. Even taking changing value of money into account, that's worse than in prior years. And after that, I'll get crappier pay at my job than most people in the past, and have a harder time finding a job. Maybe if I continue to get straight A's, get a good SAT score, and get scholarships then that will be alleviated, but the national average for such statistics will be worse on the whole, so I don't understand why you think that it's so easy for this generation to go to college. And those figures are real, and based on real tuitions of people I know.

@Watchful_questioneer Okay, key thing I think you didn't think about- the fact that people who have abortions will, likely, have a child...

Adoptions in the U.S. do not compare to orphans in the world. We are not talking about orphans in the world. We are specifically and only talking about abortion in America.
I raised my first 2 boys on an income of less than $20K per year, and left my ex when the second 2 were ages 6 & 3. At the time of my leaving, I still did not make $20K per year (that was 1998). Today, I STILL do not make $20K per year. That is a fact. My present wife does not work, and I am the sole provider to her and myself.
There are plenty of underpaid and underemployed people in this country who are barely surviving. But those people often have babies and raise a very loving and happy family. It can be done. Money is not everything, and it certainly does not buy happiness or love.
I went to college in 1976-77, then 1977-78. I got married at age 19, stopped college, and began working and raising my family. My first son was born in 1979 and the second in 1980. I had NO help from relatives, no savings, no house, no anything. I took full responsibility for our pregnancies. We were not fully planning or trying to have children that soon, but condoms clearly don't work. She did not feel comfortable taking the pill, and I did not insist. Abortion NEVER crossed our minds or was considered an option. I figured and believed that they were my responsibility and I would do everything I could to raise them right and give them a happy family.
I finally got back to college in 1985, and took 5 years going half to three quarter time for that period. I graduated in 1990 with a BA in Elementary Education.
It has never been easy, and I paid dearly for it every step of the way. To this day, I still pay back child support, and probably will for most of my natural life. Since I never made enough income to pay my full monthly amount, I got very far behind.
But I don't complain and I am glad I had all 4 children.
And going to college does not guarantee or secure anything in this day and age. There are fewer and fewer jobs for college grads, and they are left with no income and no way to pay back their student loans. And you all are going to inherit a massive burden being created by Obamacare.
But after saying all of that, I still can not and will not believe, that throwing away fetuses is the solution to any of our problems. Life is more precious and valuable than treating it like garbage.

@freespeechfreelancer Adoptions in the U.S. do not compare to orphans in the world. We are not talking about orphans in the world. We are...

I think your first paragraph isn't right at all- if all the orphans in America were to be adopted, then Americans would start adopting from other countries.

I greatly respect your dedication and financial perseverance, but today, that financial situation would be almost completely unmanageable without welfare. And I don't think it's economically practical to doom people to taking government money. In this day and age, I think the economy takes priority over many other issues.

And you're right- money is not happiness, but there's a partial causal relationship between one and the other, and a child born into a financially stable seems more likely to grow up more understanding of such issues, and happy. I don't consider it wasting a life at all, if it gives another child an even better one.

@Watchful_questioneer I think your first paragraph isn't right at all- if all the orphans in America were to be adopted, then Americans...

You made one point that you should follow up some more on, that being, that our present government IS dooming and encouraging government dependence.
Since you are not out and about in the big world (your world is limited by home and school), you do not hear many of the things going on and that are common knowledge among many adults [this is not a put down]. For example, on my way home from work today, I was listening to talk radio [which I do every chance I get as a source of current events and a more thorough news source], and they were talking about people who are taking advantage of governmental handout programs - especially welfare and food stamps. Every single caller to the program knew somebody personally or of somebody who is taking advantage of these programs and getting benefits they don't deserve.
We are living in the midst of an economic collapse as we speak. The giveaway programs are becoming greater than the income generated and needed to sustain them. It was just said on the news this morning that Los Angeles County is spending $650 million JUST to fund all programs associated with the illegal immigrant population. Take that number, and multiply it by every major city across America, and that is a sample of what we are up against.
Only about half of Americans pay taxes. Our national debt is roughly 17 trillion, and projected to be at least 20 trillion by the time Obama's reign is over. A record historical number of Americans are unemployed, drawing unemployment, and on Food Stamps [if they can get them]. There is absolutely no way that a drain of this magnitude can continue indefinitely.
And even though Obama panders to the masses still trying to get people to believe he is for the middle class, the exact opposite is true. He is killing the middle class and the economy in our country. His ideology is a failed one, and will never work to produce success or prosperity. Americans are wanting jobs and an economically responsible government, but D.C. does not want it. Only time will tell us the outcome of this madness.

@freespeechfreelancer You made one point that you should follow up some more on, that being, that our present government IS dooming and...

It's funny you bring those things up- they actually are addressed in school. And not with any government bias. My history teacher assigned students to the side they wanted on the issue of raising taxes on the rich vs. lowering them, and whether welfare is good or not. The only bias I saw is the entanglement of the 2 issues- I support raising taxes in general, but not welfare- so I took the side that supported lowering taxes and doing away with welfare.

We were assigned to do our own research from credible sources, and the ensuing debate was quite interesting and involved. I brought up that in 35 states, welfare pays more than minimum wage, and in 15, more than $15 an hour. That means, people on minimum wage in the lowest tax bracket pay taxes to support people who make more than them in at least 15 states, and as much as them in 35. That really made a dent in their argument, but their point that alleviating our country's national debt is not possible without collecting tax money. Funny enough, the tone of the general consensus seemed to reflect my opinion, even though in the crossfire of opinions, I found few opportunities to interject my input. That's a funny thing about me- I can debate 1 on 1, but whenever there are other people on each side, I'm bad at finding a place to say something.

Anyways, I brought that up to say that while I am missing out on a lot because I'm young, I am lucky to have a teacher this year that really wants us to care about politics, and I have some political exposure. But that's about it. I have parental exposure, school exposure, and some media exposure.

@Watchful_questioneer It's funny you bring those things up- they actually are addressed in school. And not with any government bias...

This is some of the best sense I have read from you - bravo! If you have time to check out talk radio stations (mostly AM radio), you get a very diverse exposure to ideas and beliefs. Live callers in to programs are the best source of current events in my opinion. It is real and genuine, and not biased by some news caster.
You also made it obviously clear, that those getting a free ride who can do and are doing better than people like myself making less than $10.00 per hour, are going to be encouraged to stay on the free ride. The last 2 generations believe that they are entitled to handouts by government. The entire welfare program has raised a generation of people who don't know what work is or how to do for themselves. They sit back and wait for their check every month. And our government rewards them by giving them more money for every baby they produce. Where I live, having babies is like winning the lottery.
If you have a teacher who is promoting the kind of discussion we are talking about here, and actually getting good participation, then you should thank him/her several times over. He/she will be one you will always remember.

@freespeechfreelancer This is some of the best sense I have read from you - bravo! If you have time to check out talk radio stations...

Yeah, I do appreciate her, but I'll have plenty of time- I have her for both history, and AP psychology. It's funny, she places a psychological emphasis on politics sometimes. She have us an article about psychological studies regarding credibility of facts, and confidence in them. People who are told false facts that coincide with their political stance and support their views will actually refuse to believe that the facts are false. In contrast, if told beforehand that the incoming fact is false, they will believe it is. That's how big a role the false consensus effect plays on political views. And the false consensus effect if a phenomenon we learned in psychology- that people tend to only see and acknowledge credibility of facts that support their views, thus strengthening their ill-founded conviction, and wrongness in one swoop. It's really shocking. There are so many false facts out there, and our method of judging credibility is so biased that I can't blame anyone for harboring even the most ridiculous of opinions.

I don't believe in getting rid of welfare altogether- especially for people who can't work, physically, have other abnormal issues to manage. I only believe in reducing it to a bare minimum (some students in my class who work at soup kitchens see people with IPHONES walk in- that's just beyond nuts). But the key point is that the proportion of welfare received to income needs to be more gradual. People should receive X dollars worth of food stamps each month, or week, or whatever. And as their income increases (taking income tax into account), the amount of welfare decreases- BY proportionately less, so that they are actually doing better with a job than with welfare. That way, there is constant encouragement to work. In addition, welfare recipients capable of working should have the amount they get decreased each month for on 1 year, down to an eventual bare minimum as incentive to find work. I believe in food stamps more than direct money, because starving people can go to soup kitchens instead of spending money on food, and waste the money on iphones or some frivolous thing.

@Watchful_questioneer Yeah, I do appreciate her, but I'll have plenty of time- I have her for both history, and AP psychology. It's...

Very well said. You are really shining tonight and I thank you. And we are not butting heads or locking horns. That is a beautiful thing............Signing off for now - have to go back to work at midnight till 8 am. I will be on most of the wee hours once at work. Cheers.

This user has been banned.
@1944374

The city I work for doesn't pay crap! I have the lowest level of licensing in my trade (a D wastewater treatment operator) and have tested twice for the C license already. I have not passed that test yet (they are not the same every time and they never let you see or know what you miss, so it is almost impossible to learn by or from your mistakes). I will test one more time for the C and if I don't pass I am just going to take the classes I need to test for my B. Once I finally attain a B license, I can go to a bigger city and make around $20 per hour. Presently, I make less than $10. It took me a year and a half to get this job. I live in an 85% hispanic population and white people are treated like dirt. To even apply for most jobs, they stipulate that you MUST be bi-lingual. I know that is discrimination, but there is no way to fight it. All the attorneys and judges are hispanic. The spoken language in public is Spanish, not English. The illegals and undocumented workers will work for $20-30 a DAY! It is absolute insanity.
So much for "affirmative action." The pendulum has swung so far in favor of minorities that we are now discriminating against whites.

This user has been banned.
@1944411

Drinking water and wastewater are 2 different animals. Most drinking water plants use several chemicals to treat the water and then they have to dechlorinate it to make it "safe." Our plant is only 6 yrs. old and we use no chemicals. The water goes to aeration basins first and is continuously oxygenated for about 12-16 hours. Then it goes in to final clarifiers where any fine solids settle and the pure water is at the top. It runs over the channeled ring at the surface level and makes its way to the final passing point which is the UV (ultraviolet light) channels. The UV light kills any remaining bacteria. As the water leaves the plant, it averages a PH of about 6% and a distilled oxygen level of 5-7%. It flows over to a wetlands area we have set up, and then works its way back in to the arroyo and then the Laguna Madre.
The problem with the testing is, there are no review sheets or guidelines on what to study for the test. You walk in blind each time, and each test is different. I am usually a very good test taker, but for some reason I have not passed the last 2. The only thing I have to study is the manuals from the classes I took. I know the material, but the tests have completely different stuff on them. I have written to and called the organization in charge of the tests, and they won't budge of course. And I still can't believe the guys I work with are passing those tests. I am not prejudice at all, but they are all hispanic, can barely write and speak English, and none have gone to college. I have a 4 yr. degree and maintained a 3.5 gpa throughout my college training. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I am certainly no slouch either.

it should be a criminal act to have an abortion at any stage.

Anonymousmouses avatar Anonymousmouse Yeah You Are 0Reply
Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.