Reply #26 October 10, 2005 6:53 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: TobleronePosted: Monday, October 10, 2005I wonder, toblerone, do you wish you were aborted? Because if you don't....and if you were not aborted....then where is YOUR arguement?I'm talking about the mother not the aborted fetus. Of course I don't wish I was aborted, that would be a bit self-defetused.Note: Toblerone has now been sent directly to hell for both being pro-abortion and using a terrible pun, but he's loving

I do not think someone goes to hell for how they feel about this issue. Nor do I think it's my place to tell you how to think about this issue either.

Reply #27 October 10, 2005 7:11 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

but what about a teen girl who has made a mistake?

Then she should face the consequences of her mistake rather than murdering her child. If you killed a two year old because it was inconvenient, you would go to jail. To me, it's the same. To some people, if they're young enough it doesn't count as killing someone.

I don't think that anyone disagrees that murdering children is wrong, we just disagree on what constitutes a child.

Reply #28 October 10, 2005 7:18 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Yeah it is fine for those that are adopted (I never said children that ARE adopted are unwanted by the way (my uncle was adopted BTW), but I know how you like fight straw men). What about those that spend their entire lives going from foster home to foster home. Oh no I forgot every child must get adopted because you implictly said so. Talking of proof, where is your proof that abortions are getting out of control or an abused procedure as you put it?

Once you prove your point, I will prove mine.  Or you can google it.

Reply #29 October 10, 2005 7:27 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I believe except for extreme cases, IE: mothers life at risk, rape, incest, abortion should be banned on the federal level and left up to individual states.

In the case of rape, does the right of the mother to not carry the child of the rapist outway the child's right to live? If so, is the child's right to live a lesser right? If so, wouldn't that open the door for more abortions based on the principle that the child's right to live is not a real right?

And what does it mean when you say "banned on the federal level and left up to individual states"? Do you think abortion should be banned on the federal level XOR do you think it should be left up to individual states? The two are mutually exclusive.

Gideon has a point. Abortions shouldn't be tax-funded or subsidised. All the arguments for tax-funded or subsidised healthcare boil down to allowing the poor to have decent healthcare. But why this applies to abortions, I cannot see (except in cases where the mother's life is in danger). Abortions are, to put it bluntly, more cosmetic than required to survive. Having a child is not a chronic illness.

As for adoption, perhaps the rules should be changed to make it easier to adopt. Of course many of the rules are probably in place to protect the workers of adoption centres. Something must be done to protect them so they don't have to worry so much about who they give these kids to. It's impossible to both hold them accountable AND accelerate the process. If they are fully accountable, they WILL stall the process, to protect the children and ultimately to protect themselves.

I think outlawing abortion (except when medically necessary) and allowing gay couples to adopt and streamlining the adoption process could be a good compromise.

Reply #30 October 10, 2005 7:55 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

27 by Spc Nobody Special Monday, October 10, 2005

but what about a teen girl who has made a mistake? Then she should face the consequences of her mistake rather than murdering her child. If you killed a two year old because it was inconvenient, you would go to jail. To me, it's the same. To some people, if they're young enough it doesn't count as killing someone. I don't think that anyone disagrees that murdering children is wrong, we just disagree on what constitutes a child.

wow you mean that someone should take RESPONSIBILITY for there mistakes? wow what a concept.

Reply #31 October 10, 2005 7:57 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

28 by Dr. Guy Monday, October 10, 2005

I know how you like fight straw men).

"fight straw men" liberal speak for "how dare you disagree with me"

Reply #32 October 10, 2005 7:59 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

29 by Leauki Monday, October 10, 2005

And what does it mean when you say "banned on the federal level and left up to individual states"? Do you think abortion should be banned on the federal level XOR do you think it should be left up to individual states? The two are mutually exclusive.

means exactly what is says, banned as some kind of right that the federal gov, gives through SCOTUS, and left up to individual states to decide.

Reply #33 October 10, 2005 8:00 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

think outlawing abortion (except when medically necessary) and allowing gay couples to adopt and streamlining the adoption process could be a good compromise.

Thisa could be a SOLUTION but I do not agree with allowing gays to adopt either.

Reply #34 October 10, 2005 8:21 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

This could be a SOLUTION but I do not agree with allowing gays to adopt either.

There is no fundamental reason that would contradict that solution, assuming our principle here is personal responsibility.

Whether or not to allow gay couples to adopt is a question that must be dealt with, but it is not on the same level as the abortion question, as there is no question of life and death.

If we argue that personal responsibility should govern our position, we must accept gay adoption, as it does not contradict personal responsibility; abortion arguably does.

But then you obviously understood my point as you admit gay adoption as a solution in theory.

Reply #35 October 10, 2005 8:29 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

34 by Leauki Monday, October 10, 2005

If we argue that personal responsibility should govern our position, we must accept gay adoption, as it does not contradict personal responsibility; abortion arguably does. But then you obviously understood my point as you admit gay adoption as a solution in theory.

agreed. now the context I was using gay adoption for was about the left says abortion is a right, all these unwanted children, blah blah blah, The left also are proponents of gay marriage and they should be allowed to adopt like any other married couple, I was wondering why the left cannot tie these 2 sets of circumstances together, If you want gays to adopt, stop aborting children because they are "inconvenient" and let gays adopt.

btw I disagree with gay marriage, civil unions, fine. marriage, no!

Reply #36 October 10, 2005 8:31 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

35 by little_whip Monday, October 10, 2005

you make my argument so much more concisely and eloquently.

I hate you!

heh

Reply #37 October 10, 2005 9:27 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

btw I disagree with gay marriage, civil unions, fine. marriage, no!

If this "civil union" is legally the same as marriage tax- and resposibility-wise, I'm fine with that. I think that religion should be removed from government here anyway.

Let the government create civil unions and the religions can than marry these people according to their beliefs if they want to.

Reply #38 October 10, 2005 9:54 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

38 by Leauki Monday, October 10, 2005

btw I disagree with gay marriage, civil unions, fine. marriage, no! If this "civil union" is legally the same as marriage tax- and resposibility-wise, I'm fine with that. I think that religion should be removed from government here anyway. Let the government create civil unions and the religions can than marry these people according to their beliefs if they want to.

perfect, esactly how I feel it should be, give the homo's the same rights as a married couple, everything, Cept adoption btw} Marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman and is a religious ceremony, the two should be seperate.

Reply #39 October 10, 2005 10:02 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Let the government create civil unions and the religions can than marry these people according to their beliefs if they want to.

Another convert! And what I started, and others now seem to be agreeing with me on. (well, I did not start it, I was just the first - that I know of - to state it on JU).

Reply #40 October 10, 2005 10:11 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Another convert!

Not really. I have been thinking this for some time.

Incidentally, this is close to how many western countries handle it. In Germany there are separate state and church ceremonies. It would only take the renaming of the first and the system would be in place.

Reply #41 October 10, 2005 10:13 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

But what about religions that allow gay marriage? Should they be forbidden to practice their ceremonies or forced not to call the result a marriage?

Reply #42 October 10, 2005 10:30 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

40 by Dr. Guy Monday, October 10, 2005

Let the government create civil unions and the religions can than marry these people according to their beliefs if they want to. Another convert! And what I started, and others now seem to be agreeing with me on. (well, I did not start it, I was just the first - that I know of - to state it on JU).

That has been my belief since before the massa chew shit supreme court decided gay marriage is ok.

Reply #43 October 10, 2005 10:31 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

41 by Leauki Monday, October 10, 2005

Not really. I have been thinking this for some time. Incidentally, this is close to how many western countries handle it. In Germany there are separate state and church ceremonies. It would only take the renaming of the first and the system would be in place.

well now we do think and believe on many things don't we?

Reply #44 October 10, 2005 10:32 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

#42 by Leauki Monday, October 10, 2005

But what about religions that allow gay marriage? Should they be forbidden to practice their ceremonies or forced not to call the result a marriage?

if it's forbidden by the folks in charge of that particular religion, that's fine, The government should have NO SAY in church practices, ever.

Reply #45 October 10, 2005 10:32 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

But what about religions that allow gay marriage? Should they be forbidden to practice their ceremonies or forced not to call the result a marriage?

Please inform me on what religion allows that?

Reply #46 October 10, 2005 11:26 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

There's been a couple in the last few months that have approved gay marriage. Can't remember which ones, and I'm too lazy to google.

Reply #47 October 10, 2005 11:26 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Three and a half MILLION abortions are performed in America every year, Toblerone. That's an awful lot of "mistakes" being made, don't you think?

It is nothing compared the the 295,734,134 lving breathing citizens in the US right now with self awareness.

"fight straw men" liberal speak for "how dare you disagree with me"

No it's Toblerone speak for you are arguing against a point I didn't make in the first place.

Pregnancy is a temporary condition, lasting only nine months. Death is forever.

You can't experience death if you've never even been aware of living. Pregnancy may only last nine months but that child is there for its lifetime.

wow you mean that someone should take RESPONSIBILITY for there mistakes? wow what a concept.

So you think having to make a decision to end a pregnancy doesn't count as responsibility. You think raising a child you can't afford or giving it up is more responsible?

I say, "If you arent prepared to deal with the possible consequences of your sexual behavior, don't have sex." It's not the end of the world, you know? There are other ways to get your rocks off that don't involve penetration, and you can always, always masturbate.

Yes and calling for abstinence works so well doesn't it.

There is more to sex than orgasms last time I checked. I think about 2 billion years of sexual reproduction and evolution have seen to it that the craving for penetration has outweighed our desire to avoid unwanted prenancies. If that weren't true we'd be screwed because our species has a high rate of spontaneous natural abortion aside from induced ones (at least 25% of pregnancies end in the first 12 weeks as my sister recently found out).

Reply #48 October 10, 2005 11:53 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Monday, October 10, 2005But what about religions that allow gay marriage? Should they be forbidden to practice their ceremonies or forced not to call the result a marriage?Please inform me on what religion allows that?

do not know the religion doc, but happens alla time.

Reply #49 October 10, 2005 11:54 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Monday, October 10, 2005There's been a couple in the last few months that have approved gay marriage. Can't remember which ones, and I'm too lazy to google.

I tried google but could nofind anything, maybe I am using wrong keys words. let me know if you find something baker.

Reply #50 October 10, 2005 12:01 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: TobleronePosted: Monday, October 10, 2005Three and a half MILLION abortions are performed in America every year, Toblerone. That's an awful lot of "mistakes" being made, don't you think?It is nothing compared the the 295,734,134 living breathing citizens in the US right now with self awareness.

I do not understand the point you are trying to make with this statement.

fight straw men" liberal speak for "how dare you disagree with me"No it's Toblerone speak for you are arguing against a point I didn't make in the first place.

I stand corrected.

Pregnancy is a temporary condition, lasting only nine months. Death is forever. You can't experience death if you've never even been aware of living. Pregnancy may only last nine months but that child is there for its lifetime.

wtf? you and I have no clue if the spirit of child is experiencing death. off base about that .

wow you mean that someone should take RESPONSIBILITY for there mistakes? wow what a concept.So you think having to make a decision to end a pregnancy doesn't count as responsibility. You think raising a child you can't afford or giving it up is more responsible?

ok that is a responsible decision, but not one I think is right or support.

say, "If you are prepared to deal with the possible consequences of your sexual behavior, don't have sex."It's not the end of the world, you know? There are other ways to get your rocks off that don't involve penetration, and you can always, always masturbate.Yes and calling for abstinence works so well doesn't it.There is more to sex than orgasms last time I checked. I think about 2 billion years of sexual reproduction and evolution have seen to it that the craving for penetration has outweighed our desire to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If that weren't true we'd be screwed because our species has a high rate of spontaneous natural abortion aside from induced ones (at least 25% of pregnancies end in the first 12 weeks as my sister recently found out).

ummm contraception? Even though its only 99.99% safe it's better than none at all.

Where did you get that 25% figure from ? one in every four pregnancies end with spontaneous miscarriage? hmmmmmm