You're missing what I'm saying here, I am not arguing the issue, I'm arguing the nature of it, which in my opinion nullifies any real validity it has as a social issue.

 

You're a registered Republican but a social liberal and fiscal conservative. That doesn't mean s*** to me, you're arguing the liberal side of the abortion issue here.

 

I'm a conservative bisexual independent who is fiscally liberal. Big whoop.

We'll I wasn't spouting off "liberals like you....". I just felt the need to inform you like I have informed other people on here before. And I think you might be the one making stereotypes... oh he is pro-choice that means I should say "liberal like you...".

 

 

And what is the nature of it to you? To me the nature of this is taking away rights of people who are grown up enough to know what is the best for themselves, their body and their life. I think you need to respect the rights and decisions of people already alive and well and in a decision making position before you worry about someone who is not alive and in such a position.

 

Most women who have abortions, I highly doubt, go into to see the doctors with attitudes like "Oh yeah I am gonna kill that grubby little thing inside of me mwuahahahahahahhaahhaha!" I have a hard time believing that, I guess you can believe whatever you want. I think, and from what I have seen from my experience, is that women who go have abortions have thought it through and are not exactly happy to be doing what they are, but whatever it is they know it must be for the better. Who are we to tell people they have to make their lives harder by forcing them to have a baby they don't want or was basically forced into their body?

If you're pleaing the case for abortion because of rapes, take into account just how few (under 1% but I am not certain) abortions are results of rapes.

 

 

 

Abortion should be available as a medical procedure in cases like rape, incest, etc, and it should be done in the first trimester.

 

 

 

But arguing for it's use (and the majority of it's use IS for 'birth control') for convenient birth control is wrong.

 

 

 

 

But I guess that sums up the liberal social agenda in one word: convenience.

But if you outlaw abortions completely that would close all legal avenues for someone who was raped to have an abortion. There is no way to argue out of those facts.

 

Here let's look at some fact I got from About.com link

 

Why women who have abortions in the US have them:

* 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.

* 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.

* 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.

* 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)

* 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.

* 7.9% of women want no (more) children.

* 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.

* 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

 

 

I bolded the percentages that I found can be best justified. Are all abortions morally right? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think however it should be society's place to judge it should be the mother's. And if she was wrong she will be punished later on in the afterlife.

 

Anyway looking at the numbers:

 

Out of what I bolded 39.6% of abortions seem to have very solid reasons behind them.

 

Should women be forced to have babies they don't feel they could be able to give a proper upbringing to? If you can't afford a baby what kind of life can you give them? Should we force parents to have babies they can't feed or clothe?

 

Or if a girl's parent's force her to have an abortion she can't get out of that. It also means if he parents have that much influence on her life that she is a minor and still in highschool. Should we be forcing highschoolers to have babies they don't want? Because that means that teen won't be going to college if she has a new born to take care of, at least probably not to a 4 year university, potentially stealing her future and potential away from her, something you can not put a price on.

 

And the last two I think are no brainers. Do you think it is right force women to put their own or their babies lives on the line?

 

Even if you just agree with the last two that makes up 6.1% of abortions, or a total of about 83,750 abortions a year. Are you telling me on a given year you want to force nearly 84,000 women a year to risk their health or their babies health if it could be avoided?

 

Also no worries about late term abortions, for the most part.

88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

 

 

Should abortions be restricted? Maybe, maybe not. The problem is where do you draw the line?

The problem is that you can't draw a good line. I agree that we can't outlaw abortion wholesale, it's use needs to be cut down though

 

I for one can't justify abortion for financial reasons or being too young a mother. Adoption is an option. It IS. There are couples waiting in line for years to adopt.

But just because someone can't afford a baby doesn't mean they don't want the baby. I am sure they were plenty of wanting to be mothers out there who were pregnant, but were single working a minimum wage job, doesn't have a strong financial family and knew there was no way she could provide for this baby even though she might have truly wanted to have it. Should we force those parents to have the baby and then give the baby away because they can not afford the baby? Do you know how heart broken that person would be? Forcing people to give up literally part of themselves because they are in a bind, how is that right?

 

And being too young is a big problem too. Middle schoolers and high schoolers are taught junk about sex-ed. They are taught touching a penis can make you pregnant and other stuff like that. Also some parents don't let their kids take sex-ed or teach them about sex. So if a 16 year old girl has sex, not knowing about protection or any of that stuff because of lack of education and gets pregnant you would force her to have the kid in your world? That really makes me feel warm and cuddly. So there she is a 17 year old girl with a baby. She can't bring the baby to highschool, so that already makes life harder. She probably would need just to pull out of school and work some minimum wage job just to be able to be able to support the baby. Let alone the tramua a girl who didn't know anything about this has to go through with carrying the baby, but using your alternative and then having to go through all that trauma to then only give the baby away. Yeah, I am sure they wouldn't mess her up psychologically.

My favorite thing about social conservatism:

 

They don't want you to abort the baby even if you can't financially care for the baby, yet they're gung-ho against welfare although the Bible is all about helping the poor, and simultaneously they don't want to spend money on social programs like government child care, improved foster home conditions, etc. I'm loving the hypocracy. It's basically, have the baby even if it's completely impossible to raise it properly, then when it's a problem later in life because mostly poor people commit crimes, through the book at it and don't try to understand any circumstances.

 

At any rate, continue the argument, I just wanted to throw in my uber-liberal $0.02. Might as well add that I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice, if that makes sense.

But just because someone can't afford a baby doesn't mean they don't want the baby. I am sure they were plenty of wanting to be mothers out there who were pregnant, but were single working a minimum wage job, doesn't have a strong financial family and knew there was no way she could provide for this baby even though she might have truly wanted to have it. Should we force those parents to have the baby and then give the baby away because they can not afford the baby? Do you know how heart broken that person would be? Forcing people to give up literally part of themselves because they are in a bind, how is that right?

 

And being too young is a big problem too. Middle schoolers and high schoolers are taught junk about sex-ed. They are taught touching a penis can make you pregnant and other stuff like that. Also some parents don't let their kids take sex-ed or teach them about sex. So if a 16 year old girl has sex, not knowing about protection or any of that stuff because of lack of education and gets pregnant you would force her to have the kid in your world? That really makes me feel warm and cuddly. So there she is a 17 year old girl with a baby. She can't bring the baby to highschool, so that already makes life harder. She probably would need just to pull out of school and work some minimum wage job just to be able to be able to support the baby. Let alone the tramua a girl who didn't know anything about this has to go through with carrying the baby, but using your alternative and then having to go through all that trauma to then only give the baby away. Yeah, I am sure they wouldn't mess her up psychologically.

641322[/snapback]

 

 

Yea, killing a baby and watching a fetus die thinking that could have been you and that was supposed to be your kid wouldnt mess her up psychologically either.

 

:banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead

Yea, killing a baby and watching a fetus die thinking that could have been you and that was supposed to be your kid wouldnt mess her up psychologically either.

 

:banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead

642384[/snapback]

 

When someone goes to have an abortion I assume they have come to the decision it is for the btter. Sure it probably upsets them, but I doubt it shakes women to their core. Accorrding to the link above, nearly 43% of women have at least one abortion by the age of 45. Are you telling me 43% of women are psycholgically amiss? That would mean at least a quarter of the american population would be mentally unfit according to you.

My favorite thing about social conservatism:

 

They don't want you to abort the baby even if you can't financially care for the baby, yet they're gung-ho against welfare although the Bible is all about helping the poor, and simultaneously they don't want to spend money on social programs like government child care, improved foster home conditions, etc. I'm loving the hypocracy. It's basically, have the baby even if it's completely impossible to raise it properly, then when it's a problem later in life because mostly poor people commit crimes, through the book at it and don't try to understand any circumstances.

 

At any rate, continue the argument, I just wanted to throw in my uber-liberal $0.02. Might as well add that I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice, if that makes sense.

642101[/snapback]

Fritz. You are amazing. Thought I'd add that.

 

 

I'll also add this: Social Conservatives right now are the dominant force of the neo-conservatives who run the Republican party right now, and that the majority of people who are in the military are poor people who look for the money that the military can provide. 3 years, get your degree after, have a good life. Social conservatives don't want any welfare or anything to help the poor so they can fight their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Might as well add that I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice, if that makes sense.

 

 

 

'Course it makes sense. Just because you're pro-choice doesn't mean you'd chose to have an abortion (were you a female), just that you'd like woman to have the right to make up their own minds about it.

 

 

And please people, don't throw the notion around that "liberals" are happy with abortions. It's a disgusting accusation. Even the most socially liberal person ideally wants to see abortions legal, safe, and rare.

My favorite thing about social conservatism:

 

They don't want you to abort the baby even if you can't financially care for the baby, yet they're gung-ho against welfare although the Bible is all about helping the poor, and simultaneously they don't want to spend money on social programs like government child care, improved foster home conditions, etc. I'm loving the hypocracy. It's basically, have the baby even if it's completely impossible to raise it properly, then when it's a problem later in life because mostly poor people commit crimes, through the book at it and don't try to understand any circumstances.

 

At any rate, continue the argument, I just wanted to throw in my uber-liberal $0.02. Might as well add that I'm anti-abortion, but pro-choice, if that makes sense.

642101[/snapback]

Fritz. You are amazing. Thought I'd add that.

 

 

I'll also add this: Social Conservatives right now are the dominant force of the neo-conservatives who run the Republican party right now, and that the majority of people who are in the military are poor people who look for the money that the military can provide. 3 years, get your degree after, have a good life. Social conservatives don't want any welfare or anything to help the poor so they can fight their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

642416[/snapback]

 

Damn how wrong you both are. its Amazing. Just thought I'd Add that in. Social conservatives are not against welfare, those are fiscal conservatives. In fact, Catholics who in general are socially conservative are fiscally liberal and very much in favor of welfare. Furthermore social conservatives arent the dominant force of the neocons you think are running the republican party, thats what a neocon is an extremist social conservative (oversimplistic i know, i just posted more on it elsewhere). Most social conservatives are not particularly fiscal conservatives, thats a common misconception. Fiscal conservatives such as me often argue with people like CFdodge (im not jabbing you buddy just making a point) who are more fiscally liberal but socially conservative. Yet we both tend to vote rpeublican lately, him for moral values and me for fiscal matters. Another misinformed piece of information in Fritz's post is that it isnt hypocrisy for a christian to be against abortion and against welfare. Why? Because your assuming that Christians dont donate to charity, which in fact the largest charitable donations come from christian groups. Being against welfare means you are against GOVERNMENT taking away your money by force and doing whatever they please with it. I am against those types of fascist dealings, i am for freedom to give to charity as my religious beliefs indicate.

I'm against welfare, I've given about 3 G's worth of stuff to different charities over the past week. Just because you don't want the government handling these things doesn't mean you are against it, that's a very common misconception.

 

But I'll go back into my having no heart because I am conservative shell.

I'm against welfare, I've given about 3 G's worth of stuff to different charities over the past week. Just because you don't want the government handling these things doesn't mean you are against it, that's a very common misconception.

 

But I'll go back into my having no heart because I am conservative shell.

643870[/snapback]

 

This is exactly my point, conservatism is about freedom not about letting the hungry starve. In fact christians donate to charity often b/c thats what their evil religion indicates, the helping of others. Government intervenign in a persons life is authoritarian in nature, and true im not saying FDR is a dictator but i have the freedom to help people as i please, and govt's role is not to force me t odo it

morally abortion is wrong.

 

 

legally there's little that should be done about it.

 

 

what really needs to be done is some point established as to where life begins.

 

 

where is that, just pick some point that the majority agree on.

I'm against welfare, I've given about 3 G's worth of stuff to different charities over the past week. Just because you don't want the government handling these things doesn't mean you are against it, that's a very common misconception.

 

But I'll go back into my having no heart because I am conservative shell.

643870[/snapback]

 

This is exactly my point, conservatism is about freedom not about letting the hungry starve. In fact christians donate to charity often b/c thats what their evil religion indicates, the helping of others. Government intervenign in a persons life is authoritarian in nature, and true im not saying FDR is a dictator but i have the freedom to help people as i please, and govt's role is not to force me t odo it

644304[/snapback]

 

 

just something to consider, although you probably wouldnt give a s***: christian groups are the only groups that visit jails to preach. when i was locked up, its the only hope i had and the only thing that set me straight in there. what do the people that go to prisons, jails and detention centers gain from going there? they donate bibles and time to people with no hope. yes christianity is evil. youre an idiot. if it wasnt for religion or a God, the law would be the only thing controling peoples actions. and thats not enough. if you dont have a religion youre soft cuz the law isnt alot to stop you from most things. go cheat, steal, beat ppl . who cares right?

I'm against welfare, I've given about 3 G's worth of stuff to different charities over the past week. Just because you don't want the government handling these things doesn't mean you are against it, that's a very common misconception.

 

But I'll go back into my having no heart because I am conservative shell.

643870[/snapback]

 

This is exactly my point, conservatism is about freedom not about letting the hungry starve. In fact christians donate to charity often b/c thats what their evil religion indicates, the helping of others. Government intervenign in a persons life is authoritarian in nature, and true im not saying FDR is a dictator but i have the freedom to help people as i please, and govt's role is not to force me t odo it

644304[/snapback]

 

 

just something to consider, although you probably wouldnt give a s***: christian groups are the only groups that visit jails to preach. when i was locked up, its the only hope i had and the only thing that set me straight in there. what do the people that go to prisons, jails and detention centers gain from going there? they donate bibles and time to people with no hope. yes christianity is evil. youre an idiot. if it wasnt for religion or a God, the law would be the only thing controling peoples actions. and thats not enough. if you dont have a religion youre soft cuz the law isnt alot to stop you from most things. go cheat, steal, beat ppl . who cares right?

646625[/snapback]

 

I hope you arent referring to me as an idiot b/c if you are then you're the idiot. What you just said validates my point. In other words I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!! Everything you said is the same thing im saying. Reread my post and clear up misconceptions you have. Christianity is great. Please respond so we cna clear up this misunderstanding. When i said evil relgion, I was clearly being sarcastic, making fun of anti-christians. Not only am I a christian, I have also worked with christians groups such as the chrsitian coalition on several occasions

Pro-Life Democrat and damn proud of it too.

 

Abortion is wrong, murder, grotesque. Not enough bad things I can say about it.

 

They say well what about the mothers right to privacy? I say, it's not the mother thats going to be killed.

 

And for those who have said that the baby has to be alive outside of it's mothers body to be a human. But then say when the baby is aborted its a dead person.

 

Well if it was dead, it had to be a human at some point.

 

Life begins when the heart begins to beat. So technically the baby never existed by that logic if it was never "alive as a human" or "dead as a human".

 

And when a woman is pregnant she says, "I can't wait to have a baby!" Not "I can't wait to have a fetus!"

Pro-Life Democrat and damn proud of it too.

 

Abortion is wrong, murder, grotesque. Not enough bad things I can say about it.

 

They say well what about the mothers right to privacy? I say, it's not the mother thats going to be killed.

 

And for those who have said that the baby has to be alive outside of it's mothers body to be a human. But then say when the baby is aborted its a dead person.

 

Well if it was dead, it had to be a human at some point.

 

Life begins when the heart begins to beat. So technically the baby never existed by that logic if it was never "alive as a human" or "dead as a human".

 

And when a woman is pregnant she says, "I can't wait to have a baby!" Not "I can't wait to have a fetus!"

656112[/snapback]

 

this is the same argument i always use. Which in my opinion is not a matter of religion or morality as much as an issue of life, liberty and property. The standards by which our country abides.