|
Post by tragicpizza on Jan 19, 2007 11:40:05 GMT -5
... and have all pro-death-penalty guests, then make sure and change the name of the show from "Attack Machine" to "We're Just Like Everyone Else Machine," OK?
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Jan 19, 2007 11:43:16 GMT -5
... and have all pro-death-penalty guests, then make sure and change the name of the show from "Attack Machine" to "We're Just Like Everyone Else Machine," OK? 95 Jamz.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Jan 19, 2007 12:00:31 GMT -5
That's right folks, if you don't like the show, don't dare make suggestions, or you shall incur the prepubescent wrath of the barely-literate brandon!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 19, 2007 12:35:53 GMT -5
Maybe they coudn't get any pro-murderer guests on.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 19, 2007 12:58:25 GMT -5
Maybe they coudn't get any pro-murderer guests on. BINGO! Or maybe they all just happen to of attended that lecture I gave in speech class that had everyone chanting "fry the SOBs!"
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Jan 19, 2007 13:26:00 GMT -5
"Pro-murder?"
You're hilarious.
Perhaps there are other points of view in the world, people. And as shocking as this may be, perhaps your point of view isn't right.
Yes, definitely, in that case, a good idea to keep the talk shows toeing the Conservative Fundamentalist line. By all means, limit guests to those who hold to the hypocrisy of being against abortion and for the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 19, 2007 13:42:33 GMT -5
"Pro-murder?" You're hilarious. Perhaps there are other points of view in the world, people. And as shocking as this may be, perhaps your point of view isn't right. Yes, definitely, in that case, a good idea to keep the talk shows toeing the Conservative Fundamentalist line. By all means, limit guests to those who hold to the hypocrisy of being against abortion and for the death penalty. There is no hypocrisy. Death of innocents and the resulting penalty for the guilty are established for both and there is no contradiction. Baby = Innocent Victim of murderer = Innocent Murderer = Not innocent Baby = Shouldn't be killed Victim of murderer = shoudn't be killed Murderer - Should be killed. Yes, there are other points of view in the world. Like I said, maybe they coudn't get a Pro-Murderer on the show.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 19, 2007 13:45:07 GMT -5
"Pro-murder?" By all means, limit guests to those who hold to the hypocrisy of being against abortion and for the death penalty. You have an insanely valid point. But, at risk of "being flamed". I'm for both but under circumstances. As a means to control the population.. on either account. As whole, wrong. If the convict in question is a murder, rapist, child molestor, or other wise a violent indivdual who ruined or took away the lives of ohers... fry them. The victims aren't getting their lives back why should that guy? If the woman was raped or in danger of her life, she should have the right to choose. Elsewise, the crime wasn't violent, or the woman was just careless... neither should be allowed. If the criminal is a drug trafficer, or a theif or someone who can be reformed they should be, if they cna't be reformed leave em to rot. Women have this lovely thing, call birth control. It's insanely handy. Go to any county health department and you will get free birth control methods. My sister used the pill. I used the depo shots until I relised how much weight they cause me to gain (50 lbs in less than a year) now I'm on the patches (I lost 45 lbs in 3 months). Neither me nor my sister have ever ppaid one red cent for our birth control. Abortion as a form of birth control? 100% wrong, stupid and just SCREAMS "hey! let's all take NO responsibility for our actions!"
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 19, 2007 14:04:39 GMT -5
galaxygoddess-
This isn't a flame, unless you would consider disagreement as flaming.....
"If the woman was raped or in danger of her life, she should have the right to choose."
If a woman's 14 year old daughter was raped, should she kill her? No? Why not? If a woman can love an adopted child, could she not love a child that is half her genetic makeup? There are woman all the time that have children from sperm donors and they love them. That only leaves the stigma factor...if a woman can not deal with that, then put the baby up for adoption...if after the birth, she decides to keep the child, which would happen a lot probably, then that's good too. I don't see how committing a murder would somehow wash away the crime of rape.
I hear this, danger of her life argument all the time. Could you tell me one medical condition where it is known ahead of time that a woman will die from carrying a pregnancy to term? Just curious, since this mystery condition is never detailed to any degree at all.
I do give you kudos for having a stance that abortion should not be a form of birth control...hopefully you will re-consider your stance on one or both of the other circumstances you think are valid.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 19, 2007 14:25:15 GMT -5
If tomorrow a woman is raped, and later discovers she is pregnant, should she be forced to give birth, to go through pain and medical bills? Should she HAVE to tear her body apart, to go through the hormonal and emotional changes, be forced every day for 9 months to relive what she went through? A woman who has been violated would rather get it resolved and way and forgotten about as soon as possible. That is why women immediately take a shower to wash away the misery and hell and to feel clean again (even though it destroys the evidence) should she be forced to think about it for 9 months.. for it to be blared in her face, for the WORLD to see and ask her about the baby and have to explain, I'm not keeping it because I was raped? The humiliation and degradation of it all? It is re-victimizing the poor woman by forcing her to give birth to a child she had no control over conceiving??
what if she is married? what if she already has children? How will she explain to the children.. the baby in mommy's belly wont stay with us, it'll be taken away. Should she be forced to raise a rapist's child? To endure 18 years because she was a victim?
Being raped destroys the woman and to give birth as a result can destroy her whole family, her whole life. Should we re-victimize the woman just because she cannot be allowed to choose whether or not she wants to go ahead with the pregnancy? There have been victims commit suicide because they can't access an abortion clinc... now you have two deaths instead of one.
in the case of life threatening...
Typically, it's a weak heart or blood pressure issues.
There are many factors typically from a weak body or even the uterus not being about to fully support function and the threat of loosing the baby.
It's a woman's coice if she continues to get pregnant after being told not to, that's her screw up.
However, if a woman gets pregnant and then later told "giving birth could endanger your life" then she should have a choice.
Also, if the baby is going to be born a twisted vegetable, it is more cruel to endure that life than to have it over with. To have this leech on society that can never progress beyond it's current state. It's one thing if you're equipped and prepared to handle that yourself, but to have to give it up to the state because you either can't or wont take care of it on your own, do you honestly think DHR is kind to those children? Hell no, they're a leech and most of them don't even get their diapers changed let alone the drool wiped off their faces. I've seen the physically and mentally twisted children of DHR and it is a hell. I'd rather be shot in the head than to live like that because they couldn't have ended my suffering before it even began.
Don't get me wrong, abortion as a means of crowd control? Wrong.
Before I was born, my brother was. That's all my biological father needed. When mom became pregnant with me, she was expecting twins. He kicked her in the stomach until she lost one, I stayed. He dragged her kicking and screaming to an abortion clinic, she escaped. I was born. When I was 1 1/2 that man cracked my skull with a flashlight. I was a crime against him. Not only was I born... I had the GALL to be born female.
I am pro choice, even though I wouldn't be alive if mom had gone through, she instilled in me the choice. A form of birth control.. wrong and dangerous to the woman's health, as a form of saving yourself, I'd rather waste one life instead of all around affected by this.
My husband's mother died after giving birth to his sister... he hasn't been the same since. His sister is still alive today, but his mother isn't. Now his brother refuses to let his wife get pregnant because he's terrified of loosing her that way. He was just 6 years old. He didn't know better.
If she had known it was going to endanger her life.. if she had known how screwed up her children wound up being after the fact... I personally would have chosen to not have the child, or get pregnant in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I like his sister, but I have to do damage control on the nightmares....
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Jan 19, 2007 15:08:27 GMT -5
That's right folks, if you don't like the show, don't dare make suggestions, or you shall incur the prepubescent wrath of the barely-literate brandon!!!!!! Retard.
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Jan 19, 2007 15:25:15 GMT -5
That's right folks, if you don't like the show, don't dare make suggestions Would you prefer that we tailor our opinions to those in the crowd or give you how we feel? If we are wrong you are more than welcome to call in. Are we always fair? No, but have we ever claimed to be? If I tailored my opinions to the audience, I imagine you (tragicpizza) would have more problems with it. To call this show a conservative talk show would be fair, to refer to it as, "toeing the Conservative Fundamentalist line" is not honest.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Jan 19, 2007 16:11:08 GMT -5
That's right folks, if you don't like the show, don't dare make suggestions Would you prefer that we tailor our opinions to those in the crowd or give you how we feel? If we are wrong you are more than welcome to call in. Are we always fair? No, but have we ever claimed to be? If I tailored my opinions to the audience, I imagine you (tragicpizza) would have more problems with it. To call this show a conservative talk show would be fair, to refer to it as, "toeing the Conservative Fundamentalist line" is not honest. Yet you fall all over yourself to get hooked into pro-death-penalty groups, feature them on your show... There are anti-death-penalty groups in Birmingham who are both articulate and ready to converse on your radio station, I am sure. I just want one stinking place on the radio dial where dissenting opinions are given equal time. Sure, I can call and give a dissenting opinion, but who the hell am I? All I'm saying is that if you give studio time to someone from VOCAL, you should give the same amount of time to someone from an anti-death-penalty group. But hey, it's your show. Protest all you want to about not toeing the line.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Jan 19, 2007 16:12:39 GMT -5
By the way, galaxygoddess and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum re abortion and capital punishment, BUT I can respect her position because it is consistent.
|
|
|
Post by brandon on Jan 19, 2007 16:16:29 GMT -5
I just want one stinking place on the radio dial where dissenting opinions are given equal time. Sure, I can call and give a dissenting opinion, but who the hell am I? But who in the hell are they? Just because they belong to some group doesn't make their opinions any more significant than any one else. Call in and dissent if you wish. If you're articulate and can give the hosts a run for their money in a debate then that's better than hearing any ol' shmoe from an anti-death penalty group.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Jan 19, 2007 16:42:57 GMT -5
I just want one stinking place on the radio dial where dissenting opinions are given equal time. Sure, I can call and give a dissenting opinion, but who the hell am I? But who in the hell are they? Just because they belong to some group doesn't make their opinions any more significant than any one else. Call in and dissent if you wish. If you're articulate and can give the hosts a run for their money in a debate then that's better than hearing any ol' shmoe from an anti-death penalty group. Oh, I'm articulate, but a phone call does not hold the same weight as a studio appearance. Studio time implies respectability. It says that this person, whoever he or she is, has standing enough to be allowed to use a real mike and headphones and breathe the same air as the hosts. You made my point for me, brandon. Just because they belong to some group you agree with doesn't make their opinion any more significant than anyone else, but honoring them with live air time does.[/i]
|
|
|
Post by Dale Jackson on Jan 19, 2007 17:18:39 GMT -5
Hold on for a second... here is the story that all this came from... www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/116921240011600.xml&coll=2. The group is a victims rights group, who may hold pro-death penalty views. Either way this guy's death sentence was over turned and over turned again. So, he got off the death penalty on a technicality, fine that is the system. The issue here is this guy, an admitted murderer, could be released. The death penalty and abortion have nothing to do with this. Tragicpizza, do you think he should be released?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 19, 2007 19:33:16 GMT -5
galaxygoddess- This link is in response to most of your comments in regards to rape. www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_29.asp"in the case of life threatening..."I appreciate your opinion and would suggest that any real medical condition of this nature is quite rare and medical technology is at a point where carrying a child to full term is not a requirement. I guess it also depends on the person, would you murder another person(your child) to save your own life? That's a rhetorical question of course but apparently out of the hundreds of cases a year, some do. "Also, if the baby is going to be born a twisted vegetable, it is more cruel to endure that life than to have it over with. To have this leech on society that can never progress beyond it's current state. It's one thing if you're equipped and prepared to handle that yourself, but to have to give it up to the state because you either can't or wont take care of it on your own, do you honestly think DHR is kind to those children? Hell no, they're a leech and most of them don't even get their diapers changed let alone the drool wiped off their faces. I've seen the physically and mentally twisted children of DHR and it is a hell. I'd rather be shot in the head than to live like that because they couldn't have ended my suffering before it even began."Now your adding in a third allowance. So your real position is that abortion should not be done for birth control but can be done for instances of rape, some risk of death of the mother and if a child will be a leech. Wow, that's a first, I have never heard of children born with disabilites as being called leeches. "Don't get me wrong, abortion as a means of crowd control? Wrong."Just so long as they are not conceived by a rape, since the baby would be an extra reminder of a life altering event for 9 months, the mother may have a risk of dying, which all mothers do and that they are not leech babies, which depending on some people's wide defintion could encompass a lot of children. Your story is sad but I'm glad your mother chose not to have you aborted....to be quite honest...I would consider your fathers actions more abhorent than the crime of rape. Your husbands brother is either using it as an excuse or needs serious counseling but then again, he probably discussed that he didn't want to have children with his wife prior to getting married, so no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 19, 2007 20:38:32 GMT -5
As opposed to the hypocricy of being pro-abortion and against the death penalty?
Would you like it if I made the charge that you want to free murderers while killing babies?
I'd think you'd be outraged....at least I'd hope you were.
Sorry, but a casual reading of the Constitution clearly states that the death penalty >IS< permissible:
"No person....shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
So as long as a person is given due process of law, they CAN be deprived of life. You can argue whether or not our current judicial system constitutes "due process", but that's not entirely relevant to your contention here.
Now, as to the abortion aspect of your argument, all one need ask of you is:
WHERE is the "due process" for the unborn?
In a crime in which capital punishment is a possible outcome, a trial- or, indeed, several trials- may be conducted, evidence weighed, arguments weighed and verdicts rendered. This is what the Founders meant by "due process".
For the equivalant to take place re: abortion, the woman seeking the abortion would have to make her case in Court, her unborn child would have an advocate and a Judge or jury would have to decide whether or not the abortion is warranted. that would constitute due process in my book.
Just want to be consistent here....
|
|
|
Post by ahughes on Jan 19, 2007 22:12:49 GMT -5
galaxygoddess- I hear this, danger of her life argument all the time. Could you tell me one medical condition where it is known ahead of time that a woman will die from carrying a pregnancy to term? Just curious, since this mystery condition is never detailed to any degree at all. My Stepdaughter was born with a vein of galen malformation. Long story short she's pregnant(on birth control but still pregnant) and has been told that if she tries to carry the child to term she will probably develop a bleed in her brain(due to increased cardio output) and die. She is having an abortion. Detailed enough for you? Should she be forced to die so the fetus can live?
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Jan 20, 2007 17:48:06 GMT -5
Hold on for a second... here is the story that all this came from... www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/116921240011600.xml&coll=2. The group is a victims rights group, who may hold pro-death penalty views. Either way this guy's death sentence was over turned and over turned again. So, he got off the death penalty on a technicality, fine that is the system. The issue here is this guy, an admitted murderer, could be released. The death penalty and abortion have nothing to do with this. Tragicpizza, do you think he should be released? Well of course not! I can't reconstruct the exact conversation, of course, but it went something like: Her: I know you've said that you would join any pro-death-penalty group, so (we'd like your support?). You: We'd like to have you on. So the issue as presented was death penalty. As such, I'd like to see representation for both sides. As regarding convicted killers, there is no appropriate period after which they should be paroled.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Jan 20, 2007 17:51:35 GMT -5
galaxygoddess- I hear this, danger of her life argument all the time. Could you tell me one medical condition where it is known ahead of time that a woman will die from carrying a pregnancy to term? Just curious, since this mystery condition is never detailed to any degree at all. My Stepdaughter was born with a vein of galen malformation. Long story short she's pregnant(on birth control but still pregnant) and has been told that if she tries to carry the child to term she will probably develop a bleed in her brain(due to increased cardio output) and die. She is having an abortion. Detailed enough for you? Should she be forced to die so the fetus can live? While I am, in principle as opposed to abortion as I am to the death penalty, there are cases, such as this, where there is no other choice. One's religious fervor can overpower common sense, and one can allow an issue to become more important than the humanity which that issue impacts. Perhaps as medicine advances this kind of hard choice will no longer be necessary. But as it stands now, the mother's life takes precedence.
|
|
|
Post by tragicpizza on Jan 20, 2007 18:00:34 GMT -5
As opposed to the hypocricy of being pro-abortion and against the death penalty? Would you like it if I made the charge that you want to free murderers while killing babies? I'd think you'd be outraged....at least I'd hope you were. Sorry, but a casual reading of the Constitution clearly states that the death penalty >IS< permissible: "No person....shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." So as long as a person is given due process of law, they CAN be deprived of life. You can argue whether or not our current judicial system constitutes "due process", but that's not entirely relevant to your contention here. Now, as to the abortion aspect of your argument, all one need ask of you is: WHERE is the "due process" for the unborn? In a crime in which capital punishment is a possible outcome, a trial- or, indeed, several trials- may be conducted, evidence weighed, arguments weighed and verdicts rendered. This is what the Founders meant by "due process". For the equivalant to take place re: abortion, the woman seeking the abortion would have to make her case in Court, her unborn child would have an advocate and a Judge or jury would have to decide whether or not the abortion is warranted. that would constitute due process in my book. Just want to be consistent here.... For the record, again, I oppose abortion and the death penalty. Further, being opposed to the death penalty does in no way equal wanting to free murderers. Life without possibility of parole is a better alternative. You won't find me opposed to making these convicts earn their keep, either. In regards to abortion, addressing the issue takes an opposite approach, in my mind, to addressing the death penalty. The death penalty is a human rights issue, and one which is controlled by the state. Abortion is a human rights issue, but has become, thanks to the idiocy of a few anti-abortion types, a women's rights issue. While access to abortion is controlled by the state, the actual process is driven by the same forces as drive Wal-Mart: supply and demand. We can no longer, in my mind, expect to impact the supply side; thus the greatest impact on the issue is made by offering alternatives to lessen the demand for these services. By conceding the right of the supply-side to exist, we also leave open what is a disagreeable, but sometimes needed, compassionate route for those who need the service. It isn't a perfect argument, but few arguments are.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 20, 2007 22:18:12 GMT -5
My Stepdaughter was born with a vein of galen malformation. Long story short she's pregnant(on birth control but still pregnant) and has been told that if she tries to carry the child to term she will probably develop a bleed in her brain(due to increased cardio output) and die. She is having an abortion. Detailed enough for you? Should she be forced to die so the fetus can live? While I am, in principle as opposed to abortion as I am to the death penalty, there are cases, such as this, where there is no other choice. One's religious fervor can overpower common sense, and one can allow an issue to become more important than the humanity which that issue impacts. Perhaps as medicine advances this kind of hard choice will no longer be necessary. But as it stands now, the mother's life takes precedence. You may consider it to be religious fervor but most of the time it comes down to motherly instinct, which some people refer to as a concept called LOVE...a human mother will go to an extreme, including the loss of life, to protect the life of her children. That being said, I can imagine that there are actual medical conditions where a woman IS going to die, not maybe or possibly or at risk of..but is and that would be a hard decision to make. The point is these situations are very rare and most of the time it's a B.S. excuse of mental health or something in order to justify in their own minds why they are making the choice to kill their baby. The fact is the Pro-Choice groups don't want any limits on abortion. The infamous Barbara Boxer telling Rick Santorum that the option to kill a baby only ends when the mother takes the baby home from the hospital comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on Jan 21, 2007 20:17:01 GMT -5
Pizza-
A fair argument and certainly not the worst one I've heard.
A question for you though:
You state that you are pro-choice. I'd ask where on the pro-choice spectrum you fall.
Would you reject any and all restriction on abortion (the "abortion on demand" position) or do you believe that some restrictions (parental/spousal notification, waiting periods, points in the pregnancy after which abortion should be illegal {with medical exceptions though limited}, being informed of what happens to the fetus during an abortion [so-called "fully informed" abortions}, etc.)?
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 22, 2007 11:37:38 GMT -5
In the case of my husband's brother.. no she desperately wants a baby and has even gone so far as to say "if you won't let me have one I'll find someone who will" which has caused a number of problems I won't get into at the moment.
My terms of "leeches" is used roughly in the aspect of how they are treated. How they are represented to the world so to speak. In high school I used to "hang out" with 3 such "leeches" as I referred to them here, but not personally(meaning I didn't think of them as leeches I'm using that term as a means of conveying how other people viewed them). They were my friends. 2 of the three were in wheelchairs and were just crumpled balls in those chairs. The third could use the stilts (or whatever they're called I can't think of the term at the moment) There was another boy I often saw who had to be "carted around" by a helper at all times. She was appointed by the state to take care of this boy. More than a few times I walked over there and wiped the drool off his face myself because she would let it sit. I think she would have let him drown in his own spit if it happened. Out of my own free will I befriended these three girls. Yes I will admit a tiny part was pity, but when i honestly got to know them, there was more there than anyone gave them credit for. I used to take one girl's tray for her everyday just to help her out. She never asked me to. I was getting up anyway.
Now, you may think it's hypocritical of me to have been nice to these people, to explain there was more there than previously seen, but to be honest, if I was in their place, I would want to be shot in the head. I couldn't live like that. If I had to, I'd hate the person who made me. But I guess I have too much anger in my heart.
But, to everyone else in that school, they stopped talking to me. The "popular kids" made fun of these people. They were hateful and cruel. They are the ones who conned the term "leeches" I use them as my example. If you are willing to care for these kids for the rest of your life, that is your choice, but if you are going to condemn them to life like that in a child's home. That is no crueler than ending their suffering before it even began. Society views these "disabled" as "leeches" I've seen what they have to go through. I've heard what they are called to their faces. I've heard one of my friends say "I wish I was never born, why did I have to be born like this? This is cruel, there is no god."
I want to help them but I can't, they have to live like this all of their lives... no surgery, no therapy, nothing can help them.
In the case of a rape victim... so we should continue to re-victimize the victim? Make them live with their shame? These women have nothing to shame them, they didn't ask for this, they should have every right to purge themselves of something they had no control over. We should not allow the criminals to win. Making a woman live with what happened to her makes us no better than those countries that oppress their women on a minutely basis.
In the case of health, honestly, typically when it is the woman's life it is also the life of the baby. If a woman dies because of her pregnancy, most of the time they can't save the baby either. Two lives when you could have only lost one? Let's say I get pregnant tomorrow because my birth control failed (I'd sue the living hell out of those patch people) and I find out I have whatever it is that person said her relative had (sorry my mind is a little short term deficient) Should I risk my life to have a child I don't even want? Should I risk death, to not see tomorrow for this thing I didn't even want? Now my mom loves children and would take care of my baby, but how fair is that to me? Is my life worthless? am I just a vessel that's a good as useless once a life is ripped out of my body? Should I just die anyway since the baby is the only thing that matters to anyone anyway?
As for someone asked "at what point is it OK and not OK? as in the case of partial birth abortions"? (or something to that effect)
There are 3 trimesters to a pregnancy. There are guides and charts and all sorts of things to development. What part of a human mind doesn't say, I need to do this as soon as possible? What human mind thinks that you should be allowed to do this any time after the first trimester?
I personally would do it as soon as I found out the underlying factors. Before the end of the second month. Preferably before it's brain is even developed or apparent. All you're doing is getting rid of cells if it's not formed yet. "Flushing the bowl" so to speak.
Just because "oops I'm pregnant, i don't want this thing" is the absolute wrong reasons.
To try to take every single abortion to court is just insane. OK, yes I believe these situations and circumstances should be predetermined, but to try to make it take an act of congress is bogus. In the case of rape you are re victimizing the victim. Calling them bad for getting RAPED in the first place. Rape MEANS "AGAINST YOUR WILL". You are no better than the tali ban who KILL a woman for getting raped. Calling them bad for valuing their own life over some developing cells is also equally wrong. Now you may make a personal decision on the value of the life if it's going to be disabled.. sure that might should take a court ruling, but even then, to the courts, a disabled person is about the equivalent of a "leech" if the state is going to have to take care of it anyway.
If you are considering an abortion for a "retarded" (I'm not a fan of that word but I'm using it anyway) fetus, then you don't want to take care of it, and you'll probably give it up to the state anyway costing the taxpayers more money to take care of something you could have prevented.
That is the reason for the birth control clinics that offer free birth control. Either pay (rough estimate) $50 a person a month, or pay $20,000 a year person. Which would you choose? By providing free birth control via pills, shots, patches or condoms, they save themselves money in the long run. But if someone wants to have an abortion because they were too stupid to capitalize on this free birth control, they should be forced to handle their own problem.
That is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Jan 22, 2007 12:03:02 GMT -5
I have a cousin who had all of the prenatal tests. They said her baby would have downs and would probably be severly deformed, due to the abnormalities found int he tests. She refused to abort. 17 weeks after she was told her baby would be, in the words of a very bad doctor, "a freak of nature" she had a PERFECT beautiful baby girl. The tests aren't always right. My neice is pregnant right now. She only has one kidney due to a birth defect. She will probably have to go on dialysis after the baby is born. She refused to abort. I have a dear friend who WAS raped. She DID have a baby. Her daughter is now grown and is the light of her world. A rape does not always mean that the child will be a burden or a reminder of the past. ALL people are different and ALL should be free to make their own choice. I am not pro choice, but that is a PERSONAL choice, not one I could or would force on another.
|
|
|
Post by galaxygoddess on Jan 22, 2007 12:21:34 GMT -5
Exactly.
A personal choice is a personal choice. People should have the right to decide what to do with their own body. I'm not going to stand here and say "you can't do that cause I say so"
|
|
|
Post by billt on Jan 22, 2007 12:28:15 GMT -5
" I am not pro choice, but that is a PERSONAL choice, not one I could or would force on another."
that is WHY debate with you is difficult dixie, YOU contradict yourself.
saying that it IS a "personal choice" IS the very essence of being "pro choice".
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Jan 22, 2007 12:30:24 GMT -5
Exactly. A personal choice is a personal choice. People should have the right to decide what to do with their own body. I'm not going to stand here and say "you can't do that cause I say so" You have the right to do what you want with your own body as long as it doesn't affect the life or liberties of another person. The baby is a person and it's not the mother's body but is in her body. Big difference.
|
|