Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Hey barboy, do you kill insects, eat meet, or shower the rest of your male reproductive cells off? What's the difference. They are just cells in the beginning.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>If a public plan offered free birth control and free adoption services, I see no reason why abortion should be available, unless a doctor signs off on danger to the mother or issues like Tom outlined above.<<< But proving the danger to the mother can take too long to where the fetus can become viable. This is an ever worse situtation. And many of you guys talking about adoption services have no idea how big the strain, cost and poor outcomes for children are. If it is the cross between abortion and children in care, during the 1st trimester, the abortion wins every time. You do not want to see the atrocities, the psychological problems, and the fact our prisons are full of care leavers. Obviously, there are some good news stories, but they are actually in the minority.
Originally Posted By mele <<Let's qualify that- not all REpublicans are like that, most aren't. It's just that the ones who seem to have taken it over right now make them all seem that way.>> LOL, I was joking...even though it's true for a lot of people no matter what their political leanings are. ;-)
Originally Posted By barboy I don't understand your question, davewasbaloo. Can you either approach the question from a different angle or rephrase it and I'll do my best.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo The issue is, the impact of child abuse, fostering and adoptions are huge. On the psychological wellbeing of the child (who is 10 times more likely to commit crimes later in life), the costs of the service, and the fact that there are already not enough foster parents and adoptive parents to cope with current demand. It seems very cruel rather than killing off the cells in the early stages. Hey, there are more cells that form life that go down the toilet when a sexually active man urinates.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And I suppose the anti abortion folks are against eating omlettes too.
Originally Posted By barboy Now I'm even more confused than before. Are you asking me a question or dispensing rhetoric, or both? It looks like both but I'm not sure. Anyway, all this talk about killing insects, omelettes and men peeing viable sex cells into toilets in relation to public funds paying for abortions leaves me baffled.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo It was a bit of both. To me, paying for an abortion out of public funds is less abhorant than paying for additional social services and prisons for unwanted children.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Anyway, all this talk about killing insects, omelettes and men peeing viable sex cells into toilets in relation to public funds paying for abortions leaves me baffled.<< I think it's meant to act as rhetoric to demonstrate what the other side frequently does. I've already said I'm in favor of a compromise that provides free birth control and free adoption services in a public option, and not abortions, unless two doctors are willing to sign off on the issue of danger to the mother or a fetus that won't survive outside the womb. Reasonable people can find solutions - imperfect though they will inevitably be. But when opponents portray the morning after pill as "abortion," and demonize anything and everything associated with abortion, that's not being reasonable. That makes compromise impossible. And that's the problem in our bloody country right now. We're dealing with religious fanatics who view the world in moral absolutes. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." That mindset doesn't exactly create a conducive environment for compromise and discussion, does it? Some of us who are otherwise pro-choice have said we could see a compromise that largely leaves abortion out of a public plan. But that ain't good enough for a red-blooded 'Merican Christian, now is it! No siree! They won't be satisfied until every sperm and egg is classified as a divine human being and protected under threat of capital punishment. So here we are.
Originally Posted By barboy ///paying for an abortion out of public funds is less abhorant than paying for additional social services and prisons for unwanted children./// I now understand your point..... and it's a good one. I still don't want to contribute to an abortion even if the one who would have been aborted ended up in prison or became a ward of social services. You do make a strong case based on 'wasted' money and social practicality. But for me my personal faith comes before expediency.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>> But for me my personal faith comes before expediency.<<< And you are not alone. But where do you draw the line? There are others that claim faith and march against these reforms.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo The far more christian thing would be to abort the zygoat or early faetus. I swear it is far more humane.
Originally Posted By mele But what about the quality of life for a lot of those children who are unwanted? I don't know that I put such a high value on a life of abuse and pain. Yes, sometimes people go on and live happy lives, etc, but many also are miserably unhappy and often go on and create another generation of children who go through the same suffering. I've told my story many times but I was raped when I was 19. It wasn't a violent rape and I didn't report it because I felt I had some responsibility for my own actions (being drunk) at the time. (But I was in my own home when it happened.) I kept my son because it was the right thing to do. He'll be 18 in January and I only have a vague idea of where he is now. He ran away over and over again during the past few years and has committed various crimes and was getting violent with me. It has been a nightmare to live through. And I wasn't one of those "welfare moms" people talk about. I really kept on the straight and narrow and married when he was 2 years old. He had a very stable home life but was completely unwilling to follow our rules or society's rules. He has made a LOT of people miserable and has used a LOT of public funds, what with special education, social services and legal troubles. I can't say that I would change my decision but I've paid a huge price and so has everyone in our community. Statistically, he fell right into line with what happens to young, unwed mothers. (A fact that is devastating to me, as you can imagine.) It's just not so cut and dried as "I'm against it, they can't have it." (Which I know isn't your position, barboy, but it is the position of many other people. Just things to think about.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And indeed Mele, you gave a stable environment. There are many who would have tried to abort by going down the stairs, the mothers that try to kill their babies, and the kids if they don't fit the preconceived mold, that may end up in 20 plus homes in their lives and as many schools. Or get abused and neglected. Maybe they fall into drugs or prostitution. As well as the abusive cycles with their own kids. Not all, but many. Not cool at all.
Originally Posted By RockyMtnMinnie If you are going to ban the morning after pill than you'd in the same line of thinking pretty much have to ban all medical forms of contraceptives as birth control pills and iuds both create an environment in the uterus that prohibits a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall and is expelled. That leave us with barrier methods or the rhythm method both of which are far inferior forms of birth control and would lead to additional unplanned pregnancies.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin The thing is with an on demand abortion, women will be in the safety of a clinic or hospital, with people who presumably know what they are doing and have back up standing by in case of unforeseen complications. We know that just because you make a law to ban something, that doesn't keep it from happening. There will be women who have complications and will die because a safe medical procedure was not open to them. Not to mention the increase in workload in ER because of perferations, infections and such...and who's going to pay for that? Yep, you and me, and it's going to cost a lot more than providing the procedure in the first place. And you know what, if a man had what is essentially a parasite residing in their person, it would be considered a religious sacrament to have it removed. I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic who doesn't own and drive a car themself. Why do I have to ask a bunch of predominently male politicians about what happens in my uterus?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But what about the quality of life for a lot of those children who are unwanted? I don't know that I put such a high value on a life of abuse and pain.<< I've never been a fan of this argument from the pro-choice side (and I am quasi-pro-choice myself). I know too many people who desperately want to adopt children, and it is an expensive and exhausting process, and many people who would be great parents eventually give up. I have to believe that in this country that children who are unwanted by a birth parent would be able to find a loving, welcoming home out there. I have a new nephew, age 6, just adopted into our family. I would hope that any well-rounded healthcare program would explain that adoption is always one of the options available to those unwilling or unable to take on the responsibility of raising a child. So the only workable solution, I think, is one that won't fully satisfy pro-life or pro-choice advocates, but would be better than an all-or-nothing solution. And to me, that's keeping abortion safe and legal, but not spending taxpayer dollars to fund it.
Originally Posted By mele I think, in general, it's best to trust the mother's intuition about what is the right decision. Of course, there are cases where this isn't the case. The abortion issue seems like such a small, small piece of the entire health care debate. I feel that conservatives who focus on this are only trying to rile up their base.
