If you are against Abortion, why are there......

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: syracusa Define backward and non-backward, please. Backward is an insulting term, by the way, which is OK. I am all for telling it how you feel here. I am not PC. However, there are many life domains (non-material) where countries like Romania are millenia ahead of the US. Come back and talk about "backwardness" when you will have lived in both places and will have understood the ills and the genius of both the US and Romania (or a similar country). You, adorable self-aggrandizers Gotta love'em!!!

I watched a documntary on Romania and when I saw the people I was shocked. They had nothing. They were all very depressed. Any country can be backward if it lets its people down somewhere along the way. They had nowhere for anyone to work, but seems times have changed since possibly the documentary was made.

I don't think Romania was millenia ahead of anybody when this documentary was filmed. Life was far too harsh on the people I observed. They had nothing to do. They were so poor they had almost nothing to eat. That's depressing.

I wasn't comparing Romania to anybody else, and this didn't need to get into some sort of "I'm better than you are" scenario.

I have nothing further to say. This is too childish.

What would you say about the Third World countries? Oh they have redeeming qualities, too I know, no food, no hospital care, but they have redeeming qualities.

[webjedi]

if the connection between promiscuity and pregnancy were real, then the implication was that women who become pregnant are promiscuous, and that is offensive and untrue.

It may be offensive, but it is not untrue:

Early initiation of sexual activity and higher numbers of non-marital sex partners are linked in turn to a wide variety of negative life outcomes, including increased rates of infection with sexually transmitted diseases, increased rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and birth, increased single parenthood, decreased marital stability, increased maternal and child poverty, increased abortion, increased depression, and decreased happiness.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint there is not a direct cause and effect relationship between sex and pregnancy. Sex does lead to pregnancy, but not every time; in fact, sex does not lead to pregnancy most of the time. Therefore people are lulled into a false sense of security by the number of times that they have sex without conceiving a child, and they are surprised by conception when it does occur. Blame biology, not people.

Are you being serious?

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Quote by: WebJedi I think that the argument "life begins at conception" is fundamentalist and I disagree with it anyway. However, to completely disregard a growing human being as nothing more than an inanimate object is also wrong in my view. I disagree that seeing a fetus as more than an inanimate object would solve the problem. Can I ask why it is wrong to view a fetus as an inanimate object? It has only the life that its mother grants it; why should it have any more value than she grants it? If a mother views it as an inanimate object, who am I to argue with her?

First, let's define morality, since it doesn't seem to be a obvious here:

morality noun:   concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct

So what is good and what is evil? Well that is laid out fairly well in the #1 best selling book called the Bible. You shouldn't kill, you shouldn't steal, you shouldn't lie - who says??? The Bible. In the Aztec culture, it was OK to sacrifice virgins for the appeasement of the gods. The Bible is the doctrine of law that we draw our view of issue from, it is not innate.

We have a God-given right to life, which is enshrined in our Constitution; a document born out of morality. "We are endowed by our Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution is very specific on this: The President, the Congress, and the prevailing public view cannot start sacrificing virgins, God forbids it.

So does a baby, once it is born only have the value that the parents grant it? Of course not. If you killed a child you would be guilty of murder under the Bible, therefore the Constitution, therefore United States law.

Furthermore, a baby can survive outside of the womb at a certain point in the pregnancy; if you were to take the live child out of her womb you would have to murder it to stop it's life, would you not?

So the question becomes when does the mother, or anyone else, cross the line from a "legal" (and therefore moral) abortion, and the murder of a defenseless baby?

At a certain point a pregnant woman no longer has any say as to whether the child has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because that is our law, that is our morality. If you disagree you should move to the jungle and become an Aztec.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I simply have a problem with trying to stop abortions through legislation, or through moralistic proselytizing.

The pro-choice movement did not achieve it's goal thru the democratic process, so that doesn't surprise me.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Telling women they are bad when they have sex is not a good solution, in my opinion; that is a position I would consider to be spiritually bankrupt and intellectually vacant, to use your phrase.

People are not bad for having sex, people are not bad or good anyway - their actions are good or bad. Abusing your sexual powers is bad - it is immoral, and it is destructive (note the study referenced above). Having sex like a sane person, as often as you like, but with someone you love and are monogynous with is not only moral, but it is intelligent. If want to have sex with multiple people in short succession then you should exercise discipline so that you do not screw up your life.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint you should argue for what you think is right, not for what makes you seem nicer.

I never suggested otherwise.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I do not reject morality wholesale; I simply reject YOUR morality.

As I explained above, morality was defined before you or I were born, it is not subjective. Values are subjective. You cannot decide to go sacrifice a virgin tomorrow because you suddenly have a vision that this is now moral. You are constrained to following rules made without your consent, as are we all.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint The problem is that you consider [unwanted] pregnancy to be the result of bad behavior; it isn't. It is the result of several factors,

You have committed a logical fallacy - you are equivocating on the term "result". My argument refers to an action, your definition refers to a process. We have no disagreement on the process of insemination, the disagreement we have is when it is right or wrong to take the action that leads to insemination.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint including the availability of birth control, the efficacy of the method used, the level of education in the proper use of the birth control,

Birth control is available to every woman, everywhere in the country via your local pharmacy, and, failing that, public facilities funded with our tax money. Furthermore, a woman can insist that the man bring the contraception. Furthermore, she can not have sex, which as I understand it is 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint and several things that cannot be controlled, such as the woman's menstruation cycle, the fertility of both parties, the viability of the sperm, the woman's body chemistry, and of course, blind, dumb luck.

Those factors are addressed with the responsible use of birth control.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint The choice to have sex is not the choice to be pregnant,

Correct. However - by the same logic not wearing your seat belt is not a choice to be injured in an accident. The fact that you can be injured is real, and physics will hold you responsible for that decision.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint the choice to use birth control is not the choice to avoid pregnancy.

You're not making sense. What else would you use birth control for???

Quote by: CoffeeSaint One can have sex and not become pregnant, and one can use every method of birth control available, and still conceive a child.

And one can drive drunk all his life and never get into an accident - but is it wise to do so? If all abortions, or even the majority, were do to a failure of birth control I would not be practically opposed to it (I would still be morally opposed to it); but the fact is abortion as it is currently practiced is due to the failure of human judgement - not the failure of medical science.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint The statement that some women who are sluts are thus responsible for great suffering, is therefore false, and inflammatory;

We established If you are against Abortion, why are there...... it isn't false.

Inflammatory to whom? And why?

Quote by: CoffeeSaint it sounds, in fact, as if you personally have suffered from the actions of a promiscuous woman, and thus are lashing out at them. You are attempting to demonize pregnant women, in order that you then may argue that they should suffer sanctions for their "bad behavior."

Sounds like you are lashing out, but whatever the case I am only concerned with your argument as you should be mine; your ad hominum attack does not deserve any additional response.

I am not trying to "demonize women". That's an ignorant thing to say. Most women are intelligent, responsible, moral people who do not want to mess up their lives by having an unwanted pregnancy. However, everyone makes mistakes. Getting pregnant by accident is a particularly stupid thing to do, and we should do everything we can to motivate people - both men and women to deal with reality before reality smacks them in the face.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint It is a path to arguing that women should have the right to choose taken away from them, since pregnancy is the result of sin, and should be treated as a naturally occurring punishment for that sin -- women should face the consequences of their actions. Isn't that your position, in a nutshell?

No, the option of abortion abridged should be discouraged to the extent that it would affect more personal responsibility.

+

[webjedi]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I would argue that pregnancy is an accident

Pregnancy is an accident? Your viewpoint is so fundamentalist that you are now denying the basic facts of biology.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint If a woman has an abortion, the issue is resolved.

Having a vacuum hose shoved up your vagina and getting the contents of your womb sucked out is not an ideal resolution, I would say:

Vacuum Aspiration: This method of abortion involves the use of a tube which has a strong suctioning ability. It has been said that this machine has a suctioning strength about 27 times that of a household vacuum cleaner. This device is inserted into the womb and in pieces, the baby, along with the placenta, are sucked form the womb and then disposed of in a waste bin of some sort. This method is usually only used in the first three months of pregnancy.

Dilation and Curettage: In this case, the mother’s cervix is dilated and ring forceps are inserted in her womb. Piece by piece, the baby is extracted, and a sharp loop-shaped knife is inserted back into the mother and used to scrape away the remnants of the baby or placenta. This method is normally used at the end of the third month of pregnancy, or the beginning of the second trimester, and profuse bleeding tends to follow.

Dilation and Evacuation: After the thirteenth week of pregnancy, this method is used. Like the previous method, the mother’s cervix is dilated. The unborn baby is dismembered with the aid of forceps. The forceps are used to grab the leg or other body part, twisted, and the force used to pull it out snaps the baby’s spine and crushes the skull. To ensure no remnants of the baby are left in the womb, the pieces of the baby are reassembled. If all parts are not removed, this can cause serious complications and death can occur. 

Quote by: CoffeeSaint The only thing I am against is the choice to ignore the pregnancy, to pretend that one is not pregnant, and hope that the whole problem just goes away; that, to me, is irresponsible.

That I wouldn't classify that as irresponsibility, I would classify that as insanity.

Quote by: CoffeeSaint There is no need to lay blame. When you try to do so, you are trying to impose a set of moral beliefs on people, and that is a violation of everything this country stands for, and everything I personally hold dear: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

See above for the definition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you hold these God-given rights so dear then how can you say it is right for you to deny that for somebody else? What right do you have to decide who should live or die?

I realize it is inconvenient to have to adhere to rules, but that is why we don't practice cannibalism or enslave people or settle disputes by bashing each other's heads in with dinosaur bones.

The argument that women have no control over their reproductive system before they get pregnant, but suddenly gain control over it after they get pregnant is completely illogical; I don't buy it.

Unfortunately, both pro-chociers and pro-lifers stand in the way of any sane approach to the problem. On the one hand the pro-lifers want to sweep the problem away by stopping people from having sex, which is not going to happen. One the other hand the pro-choicers pretend there is nothing wrong with abortion and it is unharmful, which is untrue. Neither want to face the reality of life, and neither are interested in any reasonable solution - they are both extremist camps intent on proving their opinion is superior to the other.

The only solution that I can see is to face the fact that women have been irresponsible with their use of the abortion option, and re-establish social consequences for it.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe You don't have to be a bible thumper to see the importance of life, or the miracle of it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

::

[syracusa]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I watched a documntary on Romania and when I saw the people I was shocked. They had nothing. They were all very depressed.

This is the only reply I will post here related to the above - because the thread is about abortion, not Romania. However:

I am from an Eastern European country and have been all over the place in that region and I can tell you that the only problem with your story above is that "you watched a documentary".

Documentaries are politically charged. The vast majority of Romanians have food and water and are not depressed. They may not have as much Wall-Mart-bought stuff as Americans, do but they do have food and water.

Let me tell you what I "watched" when traveling through the country side of Alabama. Hicks living in cardboard trailers that Romanians would not house chickens in; with so much junk and nastiness around their places that I did not think that was humanly possible. And yes, those hicks also looked depressed, isolated and brainwashed - literally non-human.

USA must be a backward country based on what I "watched".

Moral: stop watching "documentaries".

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: syracusa USA must be a backward country based on what I "watched". Moral: stop watching "documentaries".

http://www.relieffundforromania.co.u...p_romania.html

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: webjedi It may be offensive, but it is not untrue:

This does not say that pregnancy is more common for promiscuous women than it is for women in stable relationships; it says that single motherhood is more common. Do women who are promiscuous get pregnant at a greater rate than women who are monogamous? Until you can prove that, I'm going to continue to call the characterization of pregnant women as sluts as untrue. I still think it more likely that women in stable relationships have sex more often, and that they get pregnant more often than do promiscuous women.

Quote by: webjedi Are you being serious?

No, this whole thing is a big frigging joke. Do you actually have a response here?

Quote by: webjedi So what is good and what is evil? Well that is laid out fairly well in the #1 best selling book called the Bible. You shouldn't kill, you shouldn't steal, you shouldn't lie - who says??? The Bible. In the Aztec culture, it was OK to sacrifice virgins for the appeasement of the gods. The Bible is the doctrine of law that we draw our view of issue from, it is not innate.

If you want to argue the Bible, we're done here. I don't believe in it, I don't agree with it, I couldn't care less what it tells me is right and wrong.

Quote by: webjedi We have a God-given right to life, which is enshrined in our Constitution; a document born out of morality. "We are endowed by our Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution is very specific on this: The President, the Congress, and the prevailing public view cannot start sacrificing virgins, God forbids it. So does a baby, once it is born only have the value that the parents grant it? Of course not. If you killed a child you would be guilty of murder under the Bible, therefore the Constitution, therefore United States law.

You are wrong. The Bible is not the basis for the laws of the United States. That quote is not in the Constitution, it is in the Declaration of Independence, and nowhere in any document that this country's government is based on does it refer to the Christian God or to the Bible as the source for anything. We do not have a god-given right to life, because there is no God.

Under our laws, a baby once born is legally a person, and therefore cannot be killed. Before it is born, it is NOT a person, and so it can be killed, with certain restrictions after the first trimester. Those restrictions, however, are possible because we give the child the benefit of the doubt, not because it has legal rights; it does not. Before birth, it is property, not person. That is the law.

Quote by: webjedi Furthermore, a baby can survive outside of the womb at a certain point in the pregnancy; if you were to take the live child out of her womb you would have to murder it to stop it's life, would you not? So the question becomes when does the mother, or anyone else, cross the line from a "legal" (and therefore moral) abortion, and the murder of a defenseless baby? At a certain point a pregnant woman no longer has any say as to whether the child has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because that is our law, that is our morality. If you disagree you should move to the jungle and become an Aztec.

I would love to live in the jungle and be an Aztec. But that wouldn't change my argument on this issue. Once the child is viable, I would agree that the mother should not be able to abort it, but again, that is giving the child the benefit of the doubt; I do not confer upon it any legal or definitive status, and neither do our laws. They cannot; how can a child demand its right to liberty, when it is still an unborn fetus? It cannot be a person until it is freed from its mother's womb by birth.

Quote by: webjedi People are not bad for having sex, people are not bad or good anyway - their actions are good or bad. Abusing your sexual powers is bad - it is immoral, and it is destructive (note the study referenced above). Having sex like a sane person, as often as you like, but with someone you love and are monogynous with is not only moral, but it is intelligent. If want to have sex with multiple people in short succession then you should exercise discipline so that you do not screw up your life.

If you are going to limit your moral judgements to actions and not people, then I will expect you to withdraw your characterization of women as sluts, immediately. Otherwise, I would ask you to prove that being in a monogamous relationship is sane and intelligent, but I read your argument about this with the Bacon Guy, and I don't think you can prove it.
The only point that matters for this argument is whether promiscuity leads more often to pregnancy, and I doubt that it does.

Quote by: webjedi As I explained above, morality was defined before you or I were born, it is not subjective. Values are subjective. You cannot decide to go sacrifice a virgin tomorrow because you suddenly have a vision that this is now moral. You are constrained to following rules made without your consent, as are we all.

Maybe so, but I'm sure as hell not constrained by the Bible's rules.

Quote by: webjedi You have committed a logical fallacy - you are equivocating on the term "result". My argument refers to an action, your definition refers to a process. We have no disagreement on the process of insemination, the disagreement we have is when it is right or wrong to take the action that leads to insemination.

You've got a lot of gall, calling me an equivocator after these last two points of yours about good and bad actions and morality versus values.
My argument, in regards to pregnancy as a process, is correct. Pregnancy is a process. It is not the result of a simple choice. The choice to have sex is not the choice to become pregnant, and therefore the two should not be conflated into one argument. We can disagree about whether it is right or wrong to have sex, but our individual moral choices have no bearing on the argument over abortion, because sex is not pregnancy and therefore is not abortion. If you want to argue about sex being bad, start a new thread; otherwise you need to stick to pregnancy here.

Quote by: webjedi Correct. However - by the same logic not wearing your seat belt is not a choice to be injured in an accident. The fact that you can be injured is real, and physics will hold you responsible for that decision.

Yes, but the choice to not wear your seatbelt does not have anything to do with whether or not you get into an accident. The fact that a woman could get pregnant because she has sex does not mean that choosing to have sex is choosing to get pregnant -- just like getting in your car is not choosing to have an accident, though if you don't get in your car, it is 100% sure that you will not get into a car accident. Should we blame drivers for getting into their cars? Or should we look realistically at all of the factors that led to a specific accident?

Quote by: webjedi And one can drive drunk all his life and never get into an accident - but is it wise to do so? If all abortions, or even the majority, were do to a failure of birth control I would not be practically opposed to it (I would still be morally opposed to it); but the fact is abortion as it is currently practiced is due to the failure of human judgement - not the failure of medical science.

I disagree. Abortion is necessary to protect the rights of a woman; why she has an abortion makes no difference to that. The freedom of speech, for instance, does not rely on you having made the right choices when picking your opinions -- same thing here. Abortion is necessary under our laws. I also happen to think it is acceptable, but that's just me.

Quote by: webjedi We established If you are against Abortion, why are there...... it isn't false. Inflammatory to whom? And why?

I love it! You reference yourself to prove your arguments? What logical fallacy would you call that?
You haven't proven that promiscuity leads to pregnancy more often than sex within a monogamous relationship. So it is false. And it is inflammatory to al the people you pissed off, remember?

Quote by: webjedi Sounds like you are lashing out, but whatever the case I am only concerned with your argument as you should be mine; your ad hominum attack does not deserve any additional response. I am not trying to "demonize women". That's an ignorant thing to say. Most women are intelligent, responsible, moral people who do not want to mess up their lives by having an unwanted pregnancy. However, everyone makes mistakes. Getting pregnant by accident is a particularly stupid thing to do, and we should do everything we can to motivate people - both men and women to deal with reality before reality smacks them in the face.

I made no ad hominem attacks; I was pointing out what I see as the weakness of your argument, which in this instance has to do with the language you use to make your points. I said it sounded as if you were lashing out, not that you were.
Isn't calling me ignorant an ad hominem? And aren't you calling some women stupid here?

[belverron]

Quote by: webjedi We have a God-given right to life, which is enshrined in our Constitution; a document born out of morality. "We are endowed by our Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

*cough*Declaration of Independence*cough*

Quote by: webjedi If you killed a child you would be guilty of murder under the Bible, therefore the Constitution, therefore United States law.

Excuse me?

Quote by: webjedi Unfortunately, both pro-chociers and pro-lifers stand in the way of any sane approach to the problem.

The problem is not abortion, though; the problem is unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is just the most grisly solution.

[belverron]

Oopsie.

[belverron]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint Once the child is viable, I would agree that the mother should not be able to abort it, but again, that is giving the child the benefit of the doubt; I do not confer upon it any legal or definitive status, and neither do our laws.

Actually, the Supreme Court does take viability of the fetus into account in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, as they did in Roe. The trimester rules of Roe v. Wade are outdated due to technological advances, and the court recognized that. An abortion can now be performed safely later, but the fetus is viable sooner; it's an interesting problem.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: webjedi Pregnancy is an accident? Your viewpoint is so fundamentalist that you are now denying the basic facts of biology.

What a bizarre thing to say. Are you disagreeing with me about the factors that lead to pregnancy? Do I need to prove that one can have sex without creating a child? Do I need to prove that there is no way to control all of the factors that result in pregnancy?

No birth control is 100% effective. Prove that statement wrong, and we can talk about the choice to become pregnant or not as being a corollary to the choice to have sex. But until you prove that there is a 100% effective method of birth control, there are factors involved in pregnancy that are outside of one's control, which means that the choice to have sex is not the choice to become pregnant.

Quote by: webjedi Having a vacuum hose shoved up your vagina and getting the contents of your womb sucked out is not an ideal resolution, I would say:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, abortion is gross. So is pregnancy and birth. What's your point?

Quote by: webjedi That I wouldn't classify that as irresponsibility, I would classify that as insanity.

And you are welcome to your opinion.

Quote by: webjedi See above for the definition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you hold these God-given rights so dear then how can you say it is right for you to deny that for somebody else? What right do you have to decide who should live or die?

What right do you have to decide what a woman does with her body? Who made you the master and all women your slaves?
Please note that I have never argued that women should get abortions, nor that they should bear children; what a woman does with her body is entirely her choice, not mine. You are the only one in this argument that wants to remove the rights of others, not I. I have never fathered a child, I have never caused a pregnancy, and I never will: I am personally blameless in this in every way. I will never decide who gets to live and who gets to die.
But I will continue to argue that women deserve the right to decide that for the fetus inside of them.

Quote by: webjedi I realize it is inconvenient to have to adhere to rules, but that is why we don't practice cannibalism or enslave people or settle disputes by bashing each other's heads in with dinosaur bones.

The banning of abortion is slavery of women. Not inconvenience. By removing their ability to control their own bodies, their own lives, you take away their most basic, fundamental right.
I agree that abortion removes the inherent rights that a fetus has. I simply believe that this is a necessary sacrifice. I have always advocated the proper road to a solution here: an artificial womb and the ability to transfer a fertilized zygote. Once the child can be separated from the mother without dying, then the woman would have no right to kill it, and I would happily agree to ban abortion except in life-threatening emergencies. But until that is possible, a woman's right to control her body is more important than a fetus's right to life.

Quote by: webjedi The argument that women have no control over their reproductive system before they get pregnant, but suddenly gain control over it after they get pregnant is completely illogical; I don't buy it.

It isn't illogical at all. Women always have control over their reproductive systems to the extent that that is medically possible. If we could not perform abortions, I would not argue that they should be an option; since we cannot absolutely control conception, I do not argue that the control of conception should be legally mandated. When we have control, it should become a factor in this issue.

Quote by: webjedi Unfortunately, both pro-chociers and pro-lifers stand in the way of any sane approach to the problem. On the one hand the pro-lifers want to sweep the problem away by stopping people from having sex, which is not going to happen. One the other hand the pro-choicers pretend there is nothing wrong with abortion and it is unharmful, which is untrue. Neither want to face the reality of life, and neither are interested in any reasonable solution - they are both extremist camps intent on proving their opinion is superior to the other. The only solution that I can see is to face the fact that women have been irresponsible with their use of the abortion option, and re-establish social consequences for it.

That isn't a solution, and it also isn't possible. But I wish you the best of luck.


And by the way, I see the value of life: but I will not mandate for others the value of life. I also believe in assisted suicide, euthanasia, and DNR/living will rights. If someone wants to die because they believe their life is worthless, I might try to talk them out of it, but I wouldn't try to pass a law to stop them. If a pregnant woman believes that her fetus is a valuable life, then good for her, and I would try to protect that fetus if I could. But if a pregnant woman does not believe that life inside her has any value, who am I to tell her differently?

[Kamehameha34]

How does stopping a fetus from developing a month after it is fertilized make it a travesty when stopping a fetus from forming with a condom is perfectly viable?

It is natural selection. If a lioness can not support her young, the young dies.

Yes, we do have alternate means of raising these children, but each one of these children will just turn into another "throwaway kid".

In the words of a very wise man: "Abortion fanatics care deeply about anything that can be interpretted as human life in the most radical fashion, but, apparently, once they are born they can go f**k 'emselves."

[webjedi]

Quote by: belverron Quote by: webjedi We have a God-given right to life, which is enshrined in our Constitution; a document born out of morality. "We are endowed by our Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." *cough*Declaration of Independence*cough*

OK, you've uncovered the charade - I guess I have no choice but to admit I am human. Nevertheless, the point remains - the right to life, granted not by humans or Darwin or dumb luck but by God - is the basis for the equality of all men and women. Otherwise the intelligent people should not let the stupid people vote, the strong people should not waste time and money and resources helping the weak.

Quote by: belverron Quote: Quote by: webjedi If you killed a child you would be guilty of murder under the Bible, therefore the Constitution, therefore United States law. Excuse me?

Re-read my post. I explained it thoroughly. If you disagree please specify where. I cannot answer "excuse me?"

Quote by: belverron Quote: Quote by: webjedi Unfortunately, both pro-chociers and pro-lifers stand in the way of any sane approach to the problem. The problem is not abortion, though; the problem is unplanned pregnancy. Abortion is just the most grisly solution.

I completely agree. Well said.

::