Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<We just believe in protecting an innocent life.>> Then you should be against capital punishment since it's a proven fact that innocent people have been executed. <<I am not against birth control>> Then you shouldn't be in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood, since that's the majority of their business. Only 3% of their total business is abortion-related. If you're not against birth control, you should be a strong supporter of PP.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Nixon actually did many great things (as well as the bad), but he was a Californian ;-)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think it was Nixon who sarted federal funding for Planned Parenthood.<< Which ought to tell you how far to the extreme right Republicans have moved now that they try and demonize it (along with PBS, bus drivers, teachers and fire fighters). Maybe someday I'll wake up from this nightmare.
Originally Posted By Donny ecdc as a former fire fighter I can tell you that it was the unions that the republican party does not like and it was the union that protected fire fighters that should have been fired years ago and put people in danger .thats the twisting of the truth I don't like
Originally Posted By TomSawyer " Yes, birth control and sex education is important, but you're still going to have rape, cases where the mother's life is in danger, and likely something else I'm unable to think of right now." Of course, which is one reason that I'm against making abortion illegal. I've had two friends that have terminated pregnancies due to major developmental abnormalities in the fetuses.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 I'm pro-choice. I believe it is up to the mother but what people tend to forget is if you're pro-choice it doesn't mean the mother terminates the pregnancy. Choice also means she may keep it.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<I can tell you that it was the unions that the republican party >> Donny I'll say this. I'm not the biggest fan of unions I think they like most other special interest groups have gotten out of control. But they serve a purpose and for that I can't fault them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>what people tend to forget is if you're pro-choice it doesn't mean the mother terminates the pregnancy. Choice also means she may keep it.<< That's a good point.
Originally Posted By Mr X I call myself "pro-choice" in the sense that I believe it should be legal and available, but that doesn't mean I'm in favor of it nor would I necessarily council any women (or girls for that matter!) in my life towards it if they asked for my advice. Aside from that sort of thing, it's really none of my business anyway. But I don't care for it one bit, I'm more of a "you made your bed you should lie in it" sort of guy...so rape or danger to the Mom or massive birth defects are far more understandable to me. For others, I think adoption should really be the consideration of choice if they really think they can't handle being parents for whatever reasons.
Originally Posted By Donny Should fathers have the choice not to pay child supports for a child they did not have the choice to have ?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That's a good point.> That is a good point. And another (inconvenient, for some) point is that not all abortions are had by unmarried teenagers. Sometimes they're had by married women who already have 3 kids, decided to stop at 3, and then 7 or 8 years later have an unplanned pregnancy. Now, many women in that position will have the baby, but many others will choose not to, for whatever reason. And if abortion wasn't safe and legal, they'd still have it. That's another thing we can't forget. Laws like this one in SD are not going to reduce the number of abortions in South Dakota. They're just going to reduce the number of safe ones. They'll increase the number of amateur or self-induced ones... and the number of dead women. Abortion is a very complicated issue and certainly a very personal one, that too many people want to make black-and-white. <There are, but some of them mean recognizing that unmarried people have sex. For a lot of "pro life" people, that is a huge no-no, a sin, naughty. And they'll always see contraception as condoning premarital sex.> I really think that's key. To a lot of these pro-life people, you simply shouldn't be having sex unless you're married, and if you do, I think their attitude is pretty much "you got what you deserve, slut." If you really want to reduce the number of abortions (which they always say they do), the best way to do that is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. And the best way to do that is to make contraception readily available, with a populace educated on how to make intelligent choices among the various options. B-b-but... that requires acknowledging that some people who "shouldn't" be having sex are having sex. And they just can't bring themselves to do that. They'd rather the number of abortions increase, although they have a cognitive dissonance that allows them to think that their position is not leading to exactly what they say they don't want.
Originally Posted By ecdc The "pro-choice/pro-life" dichotomy is another example of conservatives creatively labeling and liberals falling for it. Everyone is "pro-life" - everyone wants as few abortions as possible. And we ought to be able to figure out a good policy with that in mind, but too many people see abortion as the last act in a line of grievous sins, starting with sex and ending with murder. You cannot compromise or have a rational discussion with those in that frame of mind.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Should fathers have the choice not to pay child supports for a child they did not have the choice to have ?<< No. I think too many men (boys) think they have that choice already, and are too lazy (and/or selfish) to do something to prevent pregnancy, leaving it all to the woman. In addition to unwanted pregnancies, it's the major reason STDs are spread. There really isn't a lot of effort put into driving home the idea that males should be much, much, much more responsible. That has to change as well, but so far, I haven't seen much effort in that direction. So, no, they don't get a choice after the fact. And they should know that they are required to pay child support for the next 18 years should they get stupid.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The "pro-choice/pro-life" dichotomy is another example of conservatives creatively labeling and liberals falling for it.<< Another excellent point. There's a similar thing in terms of patriotism. Too many conservatives feel that only the right wing is patriotic, anything from the Democrat side is instantly socialism, anti-American values. This really took off back in the Reagan era, with the whole Moral Majority hoo hah, and got worse during the Clinton Years, worse still in the Bush 2 era. Now it's all simply off the charts. Happily, there is starting to be a little push-back from more reasonable conservatives, that's why they seem to be struggling to find a presidential candidate to rally around for the long run. I think (hope) that the days of Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich and other extremists are slowly fading.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I meant to include that because the GOP has such a stars and stripes forever John Phillips Sousa lock on what is patriotic, many on the left shy away from embracing many outward displays of patriotism because it feels so "Republican." And that's a shame. Both sides can disagree and be patriotic, too.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Should fathers have the choice not to pay child supports for a child they did not have the choice to have? There's a lot of adminable stuff I'd like to say in response to this, but I won't. Yes. Of course they should.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 At my job I work with at least one or two divorce cases a day. Trust me, the dad rarely gets out of paying child support.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Should fathers have the choice not to pay child supports for a child they did not have the choice to have ?>> Fathers already have a choice, Donny. It's called, "keeping your pants zipped up."
