Home - List All Discussions

I don't care if a fetus is a human person. I would remain pro choice if they were.

by: ProLulzer

Humans do not have the right use other humans without their consent. You can not use my kidney to live if you need if I do not wish to give it to you. In the same vein, a woman would not have to support fetus if it was a person.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. I know some of you would argue it is, so I will avoid that debate with a simple argument. You can withdraw consent when someone is using your body whenever you wish. If you are having sex with me I can make you stop if I want. At any time. So even if a woman did consent to pregnancy she can withdraw her consent whenever she wishes.

reply from: scopia1982

Look out everyone!! Wes gots us another one!!

reply from: ProLulzer

Oh, I am dreadfully sorry that I responded. For a moment I thought I was looking at a rebuttal and began to make this post. But I was wrong .

reply from: ProLulzer

By law, parental obligation is not dependent on parental consent.
[/quote]Incorrect, which is why why have adoption. So we can terminate the gal obligation that one has to a child when one chooses. You may at any moment void your parental responsibilities for not other reason than your personal desires. Even if that were not s, I think it would still be immoral to say that they should not be able to do so. No one should be forced to care for someone if they do not wish to do so, and if you tried to make parents who did not want their children care for them you would create abuse.
[quote]
Nor is a pregnant woman required to sacrifice any body part in order to gestate and give birth.
[/quote]She may endanger her life, but you may wish for me to use a different example. Then let us just say that there is a rapist who has been brainwashed into raping a woman. He is as innocent as a fetus is in the matter and will be gone much more quickly than the fetus would from the womans body. Yet even though his use of her body is temporary it is still a violation. She can defend herself and remove him in anyway that is required without waiting for him to vacate the premises.
[quote]
Ever hear of parental obligation? Parents are required to support their offspring. "In the same vein," if the unborn person was acknowledged to be same under law, it could certainly not be arbitrarily killed.
[/quote]See above
[quote]
It won't kill the man to stop during sex. If it did, that would change everything.[/quote]It really would not. You do not have a obligation to continue to allow him to have sex just because it was sustaining his life anymore than you would have to give him your kidney. His right to life does not trump your right to do what you wish with your body.
[quote] You can certainly "revoke consent" under circumstances where doing so would not cause harm to another, but the right of the other not to be harmed takes precedent over your right to revoke consent otherwise.
[/quote]No, it does not.
[quote]
For example, you are not required to hold onto a rope tied to me, and if you consented to do so, you could certainly revoke that consent and decide you no longer wish to hold the rope. If you lower me over the edge of a precipice, and releasing the rope would send me plummeting to my death, you would be required to hold the rope until such time as you could release it without harming me.[ To intentionally release the rope, knowing that by such action you would cause my death, would be murder, and while you might otherwise be entitled to "revoke consent," you are not entitled to harm anyone.
[/quote]This is incorrect. While it may seem cold I can withdraw my aid to you at anytime I desire. This is a good reason not to go rock climbing with someone you do not trust, but it certainly does not refute my point.
[quote]
Understand? While you certainly have rights, when they infringe on the rights of others, there must be a weighing of rights,[/quote]I disagree. I think that someones right to do as they desire with their body trumps any other need someone else might have to use it to survive regardless of any circumstances.
[quote] which generally involves weighing the potential severity of the consequences to all parties involved. You have a right to drive your car, but not a right to run me over. If proceeding in your car means running me over, you may not proceed, even though you would otherwise have that right.
Bad analogy since me running you over with my car is a situation in which I did not have anything to do with you before the incident. In the situations above the parties involved all were dealing with the use of ones persons body by another for a specific purpose. This just deals with me hitting you.

reply from: CharlesD

I would jump in here, but you seem to be doing quite well on your own. I'll just observe and enjoy another pro choice argument being ripped to shreds. Got any popcorn?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh my god! That's an awesome example!!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh my god! That's an awesome example!!
I disagree. The person on the other end of the rope isn't using your body without consent. You might have given consent to go rock-climbing, but you didn't give consent to belay a stranger over a cliff.
If the stranger leaps over the cliff and yells "GRAB MY ROPE!" are you suddenly obliged to belay him to prevent him injuring himself?
I thought you prolifers were all rather big on the consequences of your actions.
If this guy jumps over a cliff, he consented to injury, right?
Why would you be obliged to get involved?
1. He didn't jump off, YOU lowered him down.
If I am holding the rope, my body is being used without my consent literally as "life support" for the hanging person. MY arms are holding them. My bodu is straining against their weight. I am unable to leave if I need to pee, or to even move around. The other person quite literally has me prisoner...
And NONE of that gives me the right to let go. The only reason I would have to let go is if I were about to die too, from a rockfall, from slowly being pulled over the egde from the weight, etc. To save yourself, you always have a right.

reply from: CharlesD

Ok, I'm done driving for the day, so I guess I can chime in again. All of these arguments are fine and dandy, but at the risk of repeating myself, this issue really is simpler than that. Say what you will about who is using who's body with or without who's permission, but in the end that isn't addressing the real issue. It is wrong to deliberately take the life of an innocent human being. Unborn children are innocent human beings. Abortion takes the life of an unborn human being. Everything else is a side issue that isn't pertinent to the real issue. Pro choicers have to use those side arguments because there is no valid argument against those three points. Science has settled that argument. Case closed.
Does a pregnant woman consent to her body being used to support an unborn child? If a woman doesn't know that sex results in pregnancy, then she's just plum stupid. If you are engaging in sex, especially unprotected sex, you have to know that a very possible outcome is pregnancy. It's like those people who want to sue McDonald's when they get fat. Come one, did you really think Big Macs, fries, and coke weren't going to do that to you? What happened to personal responsibility? I weigh more than I should. Who's fault is that? It's mine and only mine. I know what eating too much and not exercising will do to you and I knew that while I was putting on the pounds. Now that I'm trying to take them off, I can't blame anyone else but myself for the shape I let myself get into. If a woman ends up pregnant, (rape aside) it's nobody's fault but hers. She has to face the consequences of her own actions. Don't want a baby, put it up for adoption. Don't want to go through a pregnancy, tough. You made your bed, now you have to lie in it, but perhaps you'd better consider the possible outcome of inviting someone else into it.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Different situation from pregnancy entirely, however I will humor you. If someone did yell that, and I would not put myself in too much immediate danger, yes I would grab the rope. I'd be hauling them up and asking what the hell was wrong with them, but I am not the type of person to idly sit by and watch someone die. Are you? By the direction of your questions I assume you are. But that's just like pro-lifers who feel nothing should be done to save a dying pregnant woman even if the only solution is abortion. By refusing a life-saving procedure, they are killing her.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't feel that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. That doesn't give you the right to kill, it just makes it an accident.

reply from: scopia1982

Abortion in the sense of intentionally killing the child is never the only solution. Efforts should be made to save both, to stop the bleeding so that pregnancy can continue, if they have to take the baby, than if its viable it must be put on life support. If it isnt viable, than the childs death is an unfortunate accident.I am assuming you are talking about an accident situation or a ectopic pregnancy. In the case of a woman with a medical condition, I am sorry does not justify an intentional effort to kill the child. She may have to stay in bed a few months and the baby maybe born early and placed on life support, but it is wrong to delibertaly sacrifice one to safe the other.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Abortion in the sense of intentionally killing the child is never the only solution. Efforts should be made to save both, to stop the bleeding so that pregnancy can continue, if they have to take the baby, than if its viable it must be put on life support. If it isnt viable, than the childs death is an unfortunate accident.I am assuming you are talking about an accident situation or a ectopic pregnancy.
Yes; situations where there's no time to think or plan, where a decision must be made to do the right thing, which is save the most viable patient.
I think that's a difficult situation.

reply from: sk1bianca

so an unborn child is supposed to understand that he should first check if his mom is "pro-choice" and avoid being conceived, right?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

so an unborn child is supposed to understand that he should first check if his mom is "pro-choice" and avoid being conceived, right?
Good point: conception is not a choice. No one can choose whether to concieve or not. The person climbing on the rope in that example CAN choose to climb. A child cannot choose how or when it is concieved. When YOU have sex, YOU are more of the affector than the unborn in the process of conception, since if you had chosen to used protection or birth control, you would have prevented it.
If you don't properly dock your boat and the current pulls it away, it's not the ocean's fault. The ocean doesn't decided "today, I'm going to pull away that boat."

reply from: scopia1982

Liberal: "Yes; situations where there's no time to think or plan, where a decision must be made to do the right thing, which is save the most viable patient."
You almost got my point. That is still deliberatly sacrificing one to save the other. With the exception of a tubal pregnancy, efforts must be made to save both. You cannot choose one over the other.

reply from: Hosea

Our rights are given to us in this order: Life, Liberty , and the pursuit of happiness. They are in that order for a reason. IF someone takes away your freedom ( like a boss changes your duties on the Job) You cannot kill him. If somone steals some money from you, you can't tka ehis liberty by making him your servant for a few years. There is a reason for the order 1. LIfe 2 Liberty 3. Happiness. You can't kill a baby because you are not happy(3) and you don't have as much freedom(2). Only when that baby threatens your life (1) is it justifiable to have that baby removed, and then, he need mot be dismembered. Life is a beautiful freedom/ right which should be protected by law.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

so an unborn child is supposed to understand that he should first check if his mom is "pro-choice" and avoid being conceived, right?
The man shouldn't screw a woman if he is pro life and she is pro-choice.
Simple.
And if he does, is it his fault if she kills the child? It's OK to kill innocent children to start with? Even a woman who says she is opposed to abortion can abort, right?
They can, and they do. Just ask ChurchMouse.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That makes a lot of sense, strangely. Pro-choicers will of course try to say that the woman's life is being endangered by the unborn, and I say to ask her:
"Are you dying right now?"
"No."
"Then you don't need an abortion right now."
The more I read it the more I like it, like on a really subconscious level! It feels totally sensible. Do you mind if I retype a portion of that to be shorter and put it in my signature, crediting you?
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. The Pursuit of Happiness.
You can't abort because you are not happy(3) or you don't have as much freedom(2). Only when your life is threatened(1) is it justifiable to have the baby removed. Life is a right which is protected by law.

reply from: ProInformed

Good analogy IMHO but pro-aborts aren't exactly interested in logic.
They mostly just want to have sex minus responsibility.
Also there are many pro-abort females who pretend their innocent baby is a parasitic intruder that is using their body because they lack the integrity and/or self-esteem to admit they abort because they can't say no to males who use female bodies as sex objects.

reply from: Hosea

The more I read it the more I like it, like on a really subconscious level! It feels totally sensible. Do you mind if I retype a portion of that to be shorter and put it in my signature, crediting you?
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. The Pursuit of Happiness.
You can't abort because you are not happy(3) or you don't have as much freedom(2). Only when your life is threatened(1) is it justifiable to have the baby removed. Life is a right which is protected by law.
Feel free to quote me anytime.

reply from: Hosea

I only had one comment. Life is not protected by law if you live in the womb. It should be. IF you live in the womb, you are discriminated against because of your place of residence.....denied the right to life which all born persons have.
I hope this changes. Education is the key and your being open minded enough to listen and form an opinion is a credit to your intellegence.
That makes a lot of sense, strangely. Pro-choicers will of course try to say that the woman's life is being endangered by the unborn, and I say to ask her:
"Are you dying right now?"
"No."
"Then you don't need an abortion right now."
The more I read it the more I like it, like on a really subconscious level! It feels totally sensible. Do you mind if I retype a portion of that to be shorter and put it in my signature, crediting you?
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. The Pursuit of Happiness.
You can't abort because you are not happy(3) or you don't have as much freedom(2). Only when your life is threatened(1) is it justifiable to have the baby removed. Life is a right which is protected by law.

reply from: ProInformed

That makes a lot of sense, strangely. Pro-choicers will of course try to say that the woman's life is being endangered by the unborn, and I say to ask her:
"Are you dying right now?"
"No."
"Then you don't need an abortion right now."
The more I read it the more I like it, like on a really subconscious level! It feels totally sensible. Do you mind if I retype a portion of that to be shorter and put it in my signature, crediting you?
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. The Pursuit of Happiness.
You can't abort because you are not happy(3) or you don't have as much freedom(2). Only when your life is threatened(1) is it justifiable to have the baby removed. Life is a right which is protected by law.
I would like to add that getting an abortion just because they feel like their SEX LIFE may be in danger should not be a good enough excuse to kill an innocent human baby.
Pro-aborts rely heavily on the twisted interpretations of words to hide what they support and do. The "maternal health" wording in Roe v Wade gives the false impression that Roe v Wade only allowed third trimester abortions if the life of the mother was in danger. But the truth is (as defined in Doe v Bolton) "maternal health" excuses for third trimester abortions include financial, relationship, career plan... whatever 'health' excuses, thereby legalizing even third trimester abortions on-demand. Pro-abort politicians and media reps routinely pretend that late-term abortions are ONLY done to save the life of the mother when in fact most late-term abortions are done on healthy mothers. Pro-aborts accuse pro-lifers of opposing saving the mother's life when in fact the mother's life being in real danger is rarely an issue (and even then there ARE ways to remove the baby from the mother's body without subjecting the baby to fatal violence so it's still not even a valid argument for late-term abortions).

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yeah, LIFESTYLE does not equal LIFE. I thought that was demented even as a pro-choicer.

reply from: Hosea

That makes a lot of sense, strangely. Pro-choicers will of course try to say that the woman's life is being endangered by the unborn, and I say to ask her:
"Are you dying right now?"
"No."
"Then you don't need an abortion right now."
The more I read it the more I like it, like on a really subconscious level! It feels totally sensible. Do you mind if I retype a portion of that to be shorter and put it in my signature, crediting you?
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. The Pursuit of Happiness.
You can't abort because you are not happy(3) or you don't have as much freedom(2). Only when your life is threatened(1) is it justifiable to have the baby removed. Life is a right which is protected by law.
I would like to add that getting an abortion just because they feel like their SEX LIFE may be in danger should not be a good enough excuse to kill an innocent human baby.
Pro-aborts rely heavily on the twisted interpretations of words to hide what they support and do. The "maternal health" wording in Roe v Wade gives the false impression that Roe v Wade only allowed third trimester abortions if the life of the mother was in danger. But the truth is (as defined in Doe v Bolton) "maternal health" excuses for third trimester abortions include financial, relationship, career plan... whatever 'health' excuses, thereby legalizing even third trimester abortions on-demand. Pro-abort politicians and media reps routinely pretend that late-term abortions are ONLY done to save the life of the mother when in fact most late-term abortions are done on healthy mothers. Pro-aborts accuse pro-lifers of opposing saving the mother's life when in fact the mother's life being in real danger is rarely an issue (and even then there ARE ways to remove the baby from the mother's body without subjecting the baby to fatal violence so it's still not even a valid argument for late-term abortions).
I agree true threat to life of the mother is rare but it does happem in the cases of tubal pregnancy and pre-eclampsia. The baby will die if the mother dies. In the cases of babies who are 20 weeks or older a c-section should be performed and the baby's life attempted to be saved. I do not take life of the mother lightly.
As I have said on other posts:
My perspective on the issue of life of the motheris this. Of course, if the mother dies the baby dies also so what would be the point of making the mother carry the baby until she dies? This does not help either one. In the case of a tubal pregnancy the baby can be up to 12 -14 weeks gestation before recognized. In this case the baby must be removed or the mother will die. The baby will always die. I think as pro-lifers we must recognize that this can be ending the life of a child (if that child is still alive). Further in pregnancy, if a baby is in the uterus and the mother is really on the brink of death the baby should be removed whole. There is no need to dismember this child in a normal abortion. The baby should be given assistance to live, if there is any chance of survival. If there is no chance of survival, the mother should be allowed to hold her child as he dies and to say good bye and tell him that she loved him. She should not have the torture of knowing that her child was taken from her by dimemberment. I think this would be healing to the mother and consoling to the child as he died. IMO Personally, I also believe by taking the baby out whole it would allow for the baby to be baptized prior to death.
Life of the mother should always be an exception. Yes, I do believe in removing the baby whole and giving the child life saving measures if the baby can be saved. The mother is acting in self defense and does not wish to harm the child.
This situation happened with my cousin this year. They waited to olong my cousin became very sick and the baby died after 10 breaths. She was 33 weeks and the baby posssibly could have been saved if they acted sooner. My cousin would also not have been so seriously sick from eclamsia which is life threatening.
There is no need to dismember this child as in an abortion. The baby should be given assistance to live, if there is any chance of survival. If there is no chance of survival, the mother should be allowed to hold her child as he dies and to say good bye and tell him that she loved him. She should not have the torture of knowing that her child was taken from her by dimemberment. I think this would be healing to the mother and consoling to the child as he died. IMO Personally, I also believe by taking the baby out whole it would allow for the baby to be baptized prior to death.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So basically, you're ok with ending the pregnancy to save the mother's life, just not purposely killing the child.

reply from: scopia1982

In the case of a mom with a severe medical condition and the baby has reached post viabilty I think it is ethical to induce early labor or perform a csection as long as the baby is put on life support. In previablity mom needs to be given treatment to allow her to get at least IMHO to 22 weeks, where their is a chance to save the baby no matter how slim. In the case of care accident, if a woman is in the previable stage if they cannot stop the bleeding, which usually indicates the placenta has detatched, the child is already dead or will be soon, obviously common sense says the child has to be removed, but it should be done so intact. If it is post viable than the child should be put on life support. If the child dies, it is an act of nature, not a deliberate abortion.

reply from: galen

________________________________________________-
at the risk of stating the obvious... you can not just go out and kill another person either. You have no controll over another person's life any more than they can controll yours.
the child did not have a 'choice' to come into exsistance so why should someone else get to have the 'choice ' to kill them?
Death is permenant pregnacy is not.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, exactly!
You and scopia1982 need to check out my new topic!

reply from: yoda

That's a really good point, thank you for making it. What sickens me is that I've run afoul of many prochoicers/proaborts who try to use those two words interchangeably, as if they meant the same thing.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yeah, Birch did that a lot. It drove me nuts.

reply from: BossMomma

Then humans shouldn't be killed without their concent either. A fetus is as much a person as a born child and deserves that recognition. The desire to avoid 9 months of inconvenience do not justify the brutal killing of an innocent child.

reply from: ProLulzer

________________________________________________-
at the risk of stating the obvious... you can not just go out and kill another person either. You have no controll over another person's life any more than they can controll yours.
the child did not have a 'choice' to come into exsistance so why should someone else get to have the 'choice ' to kill them?
Death is permenant pregnacy is not.
If there is a mad rapist who was brainwashed into rape he is as innocent as any fetus. If a woman had the chance to kill him to prevent her rape, and not other choice available we would let her do it because intent is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

reply from: ProLulzer

Those three rights are in the declaration of independence which has no standing out law. The constitution, however, does and guarantees the right to an abortion in the 14th amendment.
That makes a lot of sense, strangely. Pro-choicers will of course try to say that the woman's life is being endangered by the unborn, and I say to ask her:
"Are you dying right now?"
"No."
"Then you don't need an abortion right now."
The more I read it the more I like it, like on a really subconscious level! It feels totally sensible. Do you mind if I retype a portion of that to be shorter and put it in my signature, crediting you?
1. Life
2. Liberty
3. The Pursuit of Happiness.
You can't abort because you are not happy(3) or you don't have as much freedom(2). Only when your life is threatened(1) is it justifiable to have the baby removed. Life is a right which is protected by law.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Learn to quote properly, then I'll bother to reply.

reply from: BossMomma

________________________________________________-
at the risk of stating the obvious... you can not just go out and kill another person either. You have no controll over another person's life any more than they can controll yours.
the child did not have a 'choice' to come into exsistance so why should someone else get to have the 'choice ' to kill them?
Death is permenant pregnacy is not.
If there is a mad rapist who was brainwashed into rape he is as innocent as any fetus. If a woman had the chance to kill him to prevent her rape, and not other choice available we would let her do it because intent is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
On the flip side what if that fetus would grow into the Dr. who finds the cure for AIDS and aborting him/her causes the death of thousands of AIDS patients. For good or ill most children have a future ahead of them if they would but be allowed to live. If the pregnant woman doesn't want to parent that child there are thousands of would be parents lined up to love that baby and give it a home, family and, come what may a future.

reply from: ProLulzer

________________________________________________-
at the risk of stating the obvious... you can not just go out and kill another person either. You have no controll over another person's life any more than they can controll yours.
the child did not have a 'choice' to come into exsistance so why should someone else get to have the 'choice ' to kill them?
Death is permenant pregnacy is not.
If there is a mad rapist who was brainwashed into rape he is as innocent as any fetus. If a woman had the chance to kill him to prevent her rape, and not other choice available we would let her do it because intent is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
On the flip side what if that fetus would grow into the Dr. who finds the cure for AIDS and aborting him/her causes the death of thousands of AIDS patients. For good or ill most children have a future ahead of them if they would but be allowed to live. If the pregnant woman doesn't want to parent that child there are thousands of would be parents lined up to love that baby and give it a home, family and, come what may a future.
The fetus could just as easily grow up to be the next Hitler. What if games in this context are stupid and not important the discussion . As for adoption, I have no problem with it and do not care if people put their children up for it as long as abortion remains legal.

reply from: BossMomma

________________________________________________-
at the risk of stating the obvious... you can not just go out and kill another person either. You have no controll over another person's life any more than they can controll yours.
the child did not have a 'choice' to come into exsistance so why should someone else get to have the 'choice ' to kill them?
Death is permenant pregnacy is not.
If there is a mad rapist who was brainwashed into rape he is as innocent as any fetus. If a woman had the chance to kill him to prevent her rape, and not other choice available we would let her do it because intent is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
On the flip side what if that fetus would grow into the Dr. who finds the cure for AIDS and aborting him/her causes the death of thousands of AIDS patients. For good or ill most children have a future ahead of them if they would but be allowed to live. If the pregnant woman doesn't want to parent that child there are thousands of would be parents lined up to love that baby and give it a home, family and, come what may a future.
The fetus could just as easily grow up to be the next Hitler. What if games in this context are stupid and not important the discussion . As for adoption, I have no problem with it and do not care if people put their children up for it as long as abortion remains legal.
And if abortion were one day illegalized as an elective procedure? If the ability to kill your unborn child for what ever reason were taken away would you then go to extremes to see your will be done?

reply from: ProLulzer

________________________________________________-
at the risk of stating the obvious... you can not just go out and kill another person either. You have no controll over another person's life any more than they can controll yours.
the child did not have a 'choice' to come into exsistance so why should someone else get to have the 'choice ' to kill them?
Death is permenant pregnacy is not.
If there is a mad rapist who was brainwashed into rape he is as innocent as any fetus. If a woman had the chance to kill him to prevent her rape, and not other choice available we would let her do it because intent is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
On the flip side what if that fetus would grow into the Dr. who finds the cure for AIDS and aborting him/her causes the death of thousands of AIDS patients. For good or ill most children have a future ahead of them if they would but be allowed to live. If the pregnant woman doesn't want to parent that child there are thousands of would be parents lined up to love that baby and give it a home, family and, come what may a future.
The fetus could just as easily grow up to be the next Hitler. What if games in this context are stupid and not important the discussion . As for adoption, I have no problem with it and do not care if people put their children up for it as long as abortion remains legal.
And if abortion were one day illegalized as an elective procedure? If the ability to kill your unborn child for what ever reason were taken away would you then go to extremes to see your will be done?
Define extreme

reply from: BossMomma

________________________________________________-
at the risk of stating the obvious... you can not just go out and kill another person either. You have no controll over another person's life any more than they can controll yours.
the child did not have a 'choice' to come into exsistance so why should someone else get to have the 'choice ' to kill them?
Death is permenant pregnacy is not.
If there is a mad rapist who was brainwashed into rape he is as innocent as any fetus. If a woman had the chance to kill him to prevent her rape, and not other choice available we would let her do it because intent is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
On the flip side what if that fetus would grow into the Dr. who finds the cure for AIDS and aborting him/her causes the death of thousands of AIDS patients. For good or ill most children have a future ahead of them if they would but be allowed to live. If the pregnant woman doesn't want to parent that child there are thousands of would be parents lined up to love that baby and give it a home, family and, come what may a future.
The fetus could just as easily grow up to be the next Hitler. What if games in this context are stupid and not important the discussion . As for adoption, I have no problem with it and do not care if people put their children up for it as long as abortion remains legal.
And if abortion were one day illegalized as an elective procedure? If the ability to kill your unborn child for what ever reason were taken away would you then go to extremes to see your will be done?
Define extreme
Binge drinking, quack with a coat hanger, mail order abortifacient herbs etc.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

TAKE
THE
SPACES
OUT
OF
YOUR
POSTS.

reply from: smom

(in general)
How is a child wrecking one's life? Thats when people actually are 'naturally forced' to grow up and mature and find out what others did for THEM!!! How hard is it to raise one's self up by his own self. And when they finally are in the situations the lights start to turn on. They finally SEE what others did for them.
The majority of families end up doing things for the betterment of their communities with having raised children and want more for them.... They are an ASSET TO OUR COUNTRY!!!! children are our future.. they are your judges, lawyers, doctors, police, nurses, even menial laborers that do the things YOU dont want to do!!!!!..etc... they will be caring for you when you cannot pick your self up and use the toilet!!!!!!! Even in hardships... some children grow through those hardships in outstanding ways... We cannot judge who will be the best of the litter.. or we choose our own demise!!!! Who of you are free from sin? Even children in the richest of homes and the bestest of schools and full from everything theyve ever wanted dont always grow to be roses... more like thorns... life was never meant to be fair and God has made us to face our consequences of every aspect of our lives....
I LOVE the examples used. And yes ectopic is very dangerous and very fast. My aunt had to have her ovary, baby and falopian tube removed. She almost died. baby died. She was devastated for her baby. It was very sad. THANKFULLY she was able to have another child and more whom are stars in school sports and are very loved.
We need to stop allowing girls to play the victim in this. They ARROGANTLY played with fire-they consequently got burned. Its not the baby's fault. If they dont WANT to raise the baby-they dont HAVE to. and they should be ashamed for their actions that they were gifted a beautiful baby when others dont even have that CHOICE! I was absolutely amazed at the studies of my state of all the abortions in 2004. I thought it would be the young teenagers but apparently our programs are pretty startling good! It was our young ladies at COLLEGE and certain colleges are absolutely out of control!!!!!!!!!!! It was like 5000 babies in one county. I was absolutely stunned and couldnt believe my eyes. 20-24age... mostly white girls. WTFK!!!!!!! Grown ladies who should know better and whom cant be bothered with the idea of having a baby. 5000 innocent lives slaughtered in one year in one county. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!!!! If they would have had the threat of going to jail for hiring someone to slaughter their own baby.... i think the numbers would have dropped dramatically. When its just a afterthought of... ridding yourself of your problems... Im sorry. Its totally murder... If we could ALL rid ourselves of our problems.. such as not paying our debts that WE accrue.. offing our husbands because they dont act like the storybook princes....
We have all the evidences of the world to bring these young ladies and fathers to court and bring justice. Its all in the DNA. Abortion is a genocide and infantcide. Its more illegal to bag your pups and throw them in the icy cold river than it is to have your own infant mutilated inside your body. There is absolutely NO....(LET ME REPEAT) ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO ABORT A BABY IN THE LAST TRIMESTER, SO HELP ME GOD. we have ALLL the resources to save an innocent child's life and distinctive caring nurses whom do their job quite well. If they die in that care, they die. But at least we DID everything that could be done for them.. I do believe that is a hospital vow that was initially made for the caring of patients. Occasionally people die such as a triage. Its last minute, overwhelming decisions that people are forced to make decisions.. But thankfully pregnancy is not a 'triage' ordeal for the most part. As long as us mothers are doing OUR part to stay healthy for the baby too. There are sadly some mothers who rather smoke 5 packs a day and even others who are addicted to meth and other horrendous forms of drugs that it probably WOULD be best to remove the baby as quickly as possible and raise them up in a more caring and safer environment.. and thankfully we have the equipment to do so!!!! I believe... if they are strung up on meth and crack and such... since those chemicals go STRAIGHT to their unborn child through their blood stream and cord............................ they need to do the right thing and have their parts removed if they cannot get themselves cleaned up. period. If they are that out of control with themselves they should at least make ONE good decision in life.
Having my children has brought so much joy in my life. Even at a young age I couldnt wait to hold my baby and try to be a good mom. I couldnt wait for the arrival date of my child. I was marking the days.... it was the LONGEST wait of my ENTIRE LIFE. (even when he was an unexpected baby..he was an unexpected JOY..) (i never said i didnt have emotional baggage to work through until he arrived and it was a blessing to repair those things before he came!!) I may of had birthing pains..(for one day of all my some odd years) but to have this magical child grow inside me and LIVE energetically inside me and wait, wait, wait... to see his beautiful face and form... To see this wonderful baby who has grown through these years... Into a great kid and sweetheart/terrior mix...He was NOT a punishment... but a lifechanging force in my life. Life changing for the BETTERMENT of me. Now its my job to teach him for the betterment of him so he can be an outstanding adult in our community and have a good life ahead of him. And ENJOY this small time in my life that he has walked in..till he walks out. ITS AN ABSOLUTE GIFT. BABIES AND CHILDREN ARE GIFTS IN LIFE. WE SHOULD TREAT THEM AS SUCH. My mother was hurt at first... she had spent so much time raising me 'right'.... but when my friend came and was so overly joyed for the coming of the baby... my mother woke up from her own stupor as i did too! THIS WAS WONDERFUL!!!! it was lifechanging.. but we had to do our riggors of making our life fit for our baby... not making our baby fit our lives! It wasnt a punishment.. it was a change in pace. It was a pleasure. It was a honor.
You men have no idea.... little girls DREAM of having their own children... they pick out the names of their kids years before it even happens... they dream of how many kids they will have and play babydoll from the time they are one year of age!!!!! Little kindergartner girls dreaming of their pretend pregnancies... Girls, women, ladies, tots.... have a natural desire to nurture and go through the experience... its ingrained in our bones... (for the majority of us) ITS NOT A HORRIBLE THING... we might scream bloodie murder.. but... it was the best thing that ever happened... too many people allowing excuses to take presidence over responsiblity and obligations(that are not that truely horrible)... if it were the logic of men.. and men giving birth.. having babies would cease to exist!!! we ladies are crazy but thank God he made us a puddle of mush to an infant...
I swear.. I get next to a baby and thats it!!!!
I came acrossed a list of names that i made when i was a dreamie teenager... (fifteen years after) and the top four names were my own children's names on that list..... Long before my children were born... they were very much planned and very much loved.... Long before.. I didnt even remember those names that we had chosen... These names were just hand picked in a book with the hub.... but long before they were very much created..... before they were even formed.
These girls are just confused and in the heat of the moment of decisions... we need to have a sound plan for them to consider. Abortion is absolutey out of the question when they are so emotionally mixed up... We need to help them define their emotions and give them healthy solutions that they can agree upon. Death is absolutely out of the question- If it is wrong to end our own lives.... it should definitely be wrong to end others who are not posing a risk of life or death situations to ourselves!!!!!!! period.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I do not find sex to be arrogant. I do find it stupid to have unprotected sex if you know better. I was NOT arrogant, I was terrified. Thankfully I never became pregnant, but I was fooled into thinking a child would ruin my life. Not the child itself, but the pregnancy, since I had no intention of keeping it. My life WOULD have changed, I know that for sure. I needed a counselor, a real one who could have listened to me and helped me, that's what I feel almost all women facing an unwanted pregnancy need: a shoulder to cry on, someone to listen to. The don't need to be insulted as you have done.
I don't want to define ANYONE's emotions, that is up to them.

reply from: smom

urp... i deleted the line of advocates (sometimes i feel like a parrot). I very much believe in advocates. Advocates that take the time to help a FAMILY through the crisis. not just mom. not just mom and dad of baby... but grandparents too.. my needed that boost just as much as i did. they went through their own emotional trip too! BUT DONT THINK THEY DIDNT TURN THEMSELVES AROUND BY THEIR OWN BOOTSTRAPS AND BECOME THE GRANDPARENTS THEY SHOULD BE!!!! They were consumed by the emotions in the beginning...at that moment in time... Dont we all sometimes???
Its arrogant because when one knows the truths- thats just as bad or even worse. When one KNEW it could have been prevented just as not hiring someone to kill your abusive hub... When one knows they could have prevented in the most cases with precautions, arrays of birthcontrol methods, sterilization, Or just stayed out of that bad relationship, etc... We are not that stupid. We all know what happens when we PLAY with sex. we (as a people) have lost our desire to keep it sacred and careful... They drill us from childhood what happens/and all the precautions of that time and age. Of course mistakes happen. Of course we get stupid. I know I did. I was young.. But thankfully it was taught me from young that it is not okay. But FIVE THOUSAND innocent children were legally SLAUGHTERED over our CARELESS decision making. Even the clinic didnt feel the need to make any (effing) changes. THATS the sickness... They dont even TRY to talk to these girls and counsel??? Impossible with FIVE THOUSAND.. (especially in our area) Its ludicrous. Its every year and Its to THEIR CAPACITY.. as long as they come... the clinic will get its funds and they will carry out the dim tasks. They have not even bothered to end their demented ways. It just keeps going, and growing, and going, and growing!!!!! Look at the stats over the years of this sick disease. Its continued to just go up hill. Where its not even a matter of choice.. its a way of life a lifestyle to rid yourself of the 'burden'.. Its not even about belief anymore. (not until someone woke up from the haze).. Its just murder in its coldest form. Just as the trains entered the deathcamps and the guards marched the people in droves in lines and did their job. Never even questioning anymore. Just doing their job and gettin paid. Just shutting their consciences off and programmed to do what they are told and never question. Who cares if that little five year old clings to her mother. If those teenagers were completely embarrassed of being stripped of their clothes and filed in. No emotion. No link to life. Just march them in and do their deed. Who cares if they picked through their clothes....and belongings.. they were lesser of people-right?? Not like them. Not one of them. So they were right, right?
Its time to STOP making excuses and do what is right.
They should show an abortion ultrasound. A baby fighting for his life all by himself. What a tragedy. Those statements from the other topic of those nurses and doctors are enough for me. The awakened people. the people that stand and say- Im NOT going to take it ANYMORE. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!! Its the greatness of it all. Its the awakening of our hearts and minds that shows the beauty of it all. The realizations. The reality of behind closed doors and the mixed emotions that grip us all in those situations.. The asking of a distraught girl who THINKS she needs this.... and the asking of a doctor to commit it for her... the asking of a nurse to be apart of it too!!! hourly, daily, weekly, through the years... Its a sickness. Its almost just as bad as a baby being flushed... or found in the garbage... why not?? its the same thing. its just 'professionally' murdering them. (NO PAIN KILLERS) Those girls who throw their babies away are guilty. they should be punished and we should be straight up with them. as long as we allow this to happen with 'no fault' with no precaution to the law.... they are well enough to know the law.. they should know the FULL EFFECT. Dont give in to their innocent looks and tragic faces... grief stricken they still have a brain.(Ive seen how we all get gaga over a cute blonde cheerleader who kills her innocent baby...its a CRIME... what If they cannot cope... WHY SHOULD THEY COPE..???THEY HAVENT BEEN GIVEN A REASON TO. why should they not be punished for SOMETHING. GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO REASON WITH. JUST AS THE BOYS GET PUNISHED FOR THEIR ACTIONS..(down to the millisecond in some cases) ITS SO BIASED FOR GIRLS.
Defining emotions... spelling it out for them... when they are all mixed up and cannot even think straight... what is wrong with giving them a bigger picture to look at.. I mean.. all it took for my mom to turn around in her emotions was the fact that this was actually a JOYOUS occasion. She was about to be a grandma!!! She just couldnt see past that fog until it was spelled in front of her with the blessings of others and the fact that ...deep breath... we will be okay. we are alright. it will be fine. this is actually a GOOD thing. And you know it DID help when she was in the hospital room with me watching my birthing pains.... what was it she said? Oh yes.. " this is MUCH better from My angle" Do you know how absolutely bent i was to hear her joy in My pain??? We have to all remember that we ALL need to relax and find the goodness and the joy in it all... sometimes the crisis takes presidence over the GREAT things that are about to happen... its NOT A CRISIS. HANGING FROM YOUR ROOF IN A FIRE IS A BLOODIE CRISIS!!!!!!! Its just a change in pace. A new way of living. Not for you... but for others... Oh how bloodie dreadful.
Im not blaming you. Im upset that we are allowing this attrocity to continue without any remorse or thought to repair or make right. Its out of control. Its time to come up with something else. Im angry that our lawmakers and media have not put THIS in our faces but the fact that Brittney has no underwear or Madonna is getting divorced takes presidence in the public knowledge than common facts that affect us all. Our young ladies are being floated through a factory killing machine and dont have a clue what is going on behind the wall or what is truely in store for them in their futures. Lines of girls having their babies executed because its lawfully okay to do so. If it were unlawfully okay- unless in the defense of life... not because of abnormalities... I'd be a much happier camper and tax payer!(remember 12 billion $$$ budget...over 350 million tax dollars were allotted for them to carry on with consent)(( watch how the charts have gone through the roof through these years))
Im not blaming you. Im praying for you. Im sorry that you even had to face those decisions and that you were misguided into believing... or felt that it would be better for you. Im very sorry. Its a sad situation. Pray for these other gals that they dont fall into this line of belief. That they dont take more value for their own lives than that small innocent child that didnt even get the chance to see, smell, taste, breathe, feel this wonderful world. That innocent baby that was bouncing in his warm safe womb, eating when he needed, protected from harm-(the safest place we sometimes all enviously wish we could return..)ripped tragically from it with a malicious form of intent. To rid the burden.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I can understand being very gung-ho for a cause and I can understand your anger/frustration. I certainly hope no other woman has to feel the way I felt; but there's so much work to do to change that. It's a mindset, a very way of life that needs to change. So many of us are raised to view an unwanted pregnancy as the worst thing - really - that can ever happen to a woman aside from rape. Maybe more worse than rape even. That needs to change. I also promote all forms of contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening. I don't see a problem with sex. I don't see a problem with pregnancy. I don't see a problem with birth control. Unfortunately, many women are taught to fear pregnancy.

reply from: smom

I agree with you!
Im concerned with this arrogant stigma about sex that has been indoctrinated in our children with the media and hollywood for years now. They will never be held accountable for their nonchalant ways that inflicted our nation. Poor excuses for celebrity men that boasted their nonrealistic ideals of our girls and all the freebase things they could 'do' to them without any thought of what this would DO to our society as a whole. With all this sex,sex,sex.... what did they THINK would happen to our people who are on simple means and held accountable for EVERY ACTION we take. Its sad when we have men frustrated for all their families theyve made and cant financially keep up with them and very much held accountable.... its sad because they couldnt figure out they were wrong for going on a bliss trip hell bent. And now.. they face jail time. They face their incomes being stripped four different directions... Its sad that we allowed these fruitless ideals to become mainstream. Now we have many custodial payments jamming up our court systems. We needed the voices of the parents.. we needed people getting just as loud as the music that taunted us all... and bring us all back to reality. We pay the costs.. all of us for this. We carry the burden of these laxadaisical ideals. We pay for it in our welfare, programs, courts, and communities... our single mothers.. our children that are getting short changed in the whole of it all.... we have a stake in this too!!! This arrogance needs to be smothered. Arrogance of sex is more than we can afford. We need to reach within ourselves as a society and find ways to bring more meaningful relationships and building stronger nests that promote families. Promote healthy relationships within our nest. And not go hog wild free nilly the day we are freed from our parents nests.... We need to counteract the abuses that were heavily indoctrinated in our society and find what the greater purposes are. Love is an action verb. It takes within ourselves to do what it takes.
If people are so heavily against having a baby. If its the biggest burden... sterilization is very optional. Im sure society would be more happier to meet the needs of a wanted sterilization than an abortion. Waiting for the right time should not be down casted too! Hell, i didnt sleep with every boyfriend i met?! Its not top priority to jump into bed with everyone you may or may not spend your life with... Its time we value ourselves enough to wait and see what comes along. And to know the more acceptable time to make a family with someone. Not that their will be the heat of passion/ and blurps.... but this is above and beyond... our court systems are filled to the brim of the sadness of this.
If babies are in need of a home.. they should list the babies in need in the paper just as they inform us of any births and deaths.. it should be public knowledge that there is a child in need of a home. I would gladly bend over backwards if they were in the angst of finding a home. Im sure there are many others who would too. It has to be in our faces... common knowledge that there is a need for a home. And publically award those who open themselves up selflessly to take on a child for someone else. We need to lose the worry of the 'burden' of the mothers...and be strong in what is best for mom and baby.... and build up those who act in kindness above others to do for others.
We are so ass backwards on how things are dealt....behind closed doors and allowing atrocities to take presidence over common sense that we need to get our collective heads together. I pray that their will be such a movement in the coming days.
Pray for the babies, moms to be, our girls, our children our families, our marriages, our leaders.. and our country. peace be with you.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I waited for love, but he was only my first. I'm no longer with him so obviously I'm going to have sex with someone else some day. I don't regret it for a moment; it was wonderful. I don't mind sex being a part of our culture, because sex is a part of life. But I think our view of sex is very distorted.
Adoption can't be quite as public as that because parents need to go through stringent background checks. Isn't it wild that adoptive parents have to go through so much... and a 15 year old just needs to orgasm?

reply from: smom

obviously its not so tight in the adoption program if they are willing to hand them out to gay/lesbian couples. (sorry my oppinion) But, oh yes they are tightening their belts on parents and families too! Its almost like micromanaging. and burning a candle on both ends... Its scary. I had NO idea what was in store for me with the school system until they lambasted me when i was pregnant and going through a birth in the school year. Lighten up-people.
http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2112 (a interesting read)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70325 the government knows parenting better than you...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64364 state falsely acuses 3000 of child abuse...('power of God' can ruin lives at the stroke of a pen)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61722 Im a parent, arrest me...
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53892 california proposes jail time for spanking.
I heard it said that it takes the court of law to lose your home/car.. but the stroke of a pen and a bureaucacy that is bounded by almost nothing to lose your kids. Its scary how much power is in their hands.
Honestly its enough to put someone in a 'mental' birthcontrol.. To give birth to children and then a couple years later have them ripped out of your arms with no regard. In the farce of 'SAVING THE CHILD' from their horrible parents...They are saving the world...watch out! rookie hotheads. Even parents face jailtime if you do anything wrong or make a bad/poor decision or say something possibly incriminating. Ive seen peoples lives turned upside down... Years of creating themselves with hard work and college work...and the methodical building of a marriage and family...to facing court/jail/the complete breakdown of a family and separations and life career revoked over minor stuff that a few years ago would have been hogwash-like the use of a paddle in the instance of a child's rebellion. You should hear how California is... I'd never live there. what a psycho trip. parents are not perfect.
these 'officials' that we elect... are the same lawmakers that got our economy sold out for 'greener pastures' and.. spent our retirement/socialsecurity like it was a shopping spree... we are giving them free liberties to decide the fates of our families and children? Some things should be off limits... what did the 'arrest me' gal say? God gave US the children... not the state!!!!!! We need to be pro family and protect it. Thats what Reaganomics would do. To preserve the family and what is best for the family. Its amazing that children are so overprotected by the laws.. and yet a innocent baby in the womb in its most protective state and in its most dependent and innocent of times of their lives is deemed worthless by law. Absolutely stunning how our laws trump families..and unborn babies.
Parents, love your children.. Cherish them.
I know relationships sour. I married one. I pray you meet someone special that appreciates you as much as you him.

reply from: Witness

Posted by ProLulzer: Humans do not have the right use other humans without their consent. You can not use my kidney to live if you need if I do not wish to give it to you. In the same vein, a woman would not have to support fetus if it was a person.
But you're advocating that the child be killed without his/her consent . . . your logic is entirely illogical. The child in the womb is entirely human. So, by your logic the child in the womb should not be killed for the mother's convenience. You make our case for us.

reply from: yoda

Well worth repeating.

reply from: ProLulzer

Witness, I don't know if you're retarded or just can't read but let me explain. The woman is not using the fetus. I make the case that the fetus is using the woman and she does not have to allow it to do so. The fetus is the one who is using someone without consent.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I think your opinion is shit. Sorry, just MY opinion. Being a great parent has nothing to do with your sexuality. I know a lot of straight "parents" who don't deserve the title, and a lot of gay couples that are so absolutely wonderful with kids yet are denied because of people like you with shitty opinions.
Who lambasted you, and why? Which school system, highschool, college? Were you a teacher or a student?
I am pro-spanking by the way, I was spanked (like, once) and I'm not traumatized.
And it's scary to see students come to school every day who are being abused at home, and whom the government won't help because they want to "Keep the families together".
Personally, there's more failure on the end of not removing kids from homes that are rotten.
LMAO. "Regean SMASH!"
I know may families that don't need preserving. They are ruining their child.
Well I hope I do too.

reply from: scopia19822

"I think your opinion is *****. Sorry, just MY opinion. Being a great parent has nothing to do with your sexuality. I know a lot of straight "parents" who don't deserve the title, and a lot of gay couples that are so absolutely wonderful with kids yet are denied because of people like you with *****ty opinions. "
If it is a state run adoption agency, than i think it is fair to say that discrimination based on sexual orientation should not be allowed. But in the case of those that are religious affilated like Catholic Charities, they should not be forced to compromise their beliefs and be forced to adopt children out to gay or single persons. Many Catholic Charities have been forced to stop offering adoption services because of this issue.
"I am pro-spanking by the way, I was spanked (like, once) and I'm not traumatized. "
My aunt used to take a hickory switch to my behind quiet frequently as a child. I think that is the problem with alot of these kids today. Parents are too scared to spank them if its needed.
"And it's scary to see students come to school every day who are being abused at home, and whom the government won't help because they want to "Keep the families together".
It seems to me it is because CPS is going after parents over stupid stuff, a scrape on the arm or a bump on the fore head, this is especially a fact of life if one has an active little boy. We were taking my son to a counselor to help manage some behavior problems. One of the problems we have had with him is lying. One weekend he and a friend of his were playing star wars with toy light sabers. the other little boy accidentally hit him in the forhead, left a small yellow bruise. He went to school on Monday, his teacher did not notice anything. That afternoon he went to the counslours and told her I hit him with a wooden spoon. We got a visit the next day from CPS. She asked him how he got the bruise and he told her from the light saber duel with his friend. He said" I told the nice lady mommy hit me because she said I could not have any M&Ms" I had told him no junk food that morning and he did not like that. Well the case was closed. But it makes you wonder, how many kids that are really being abused fall through the cracks because CPS is dedicating its resources to petty stuff.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, I suppose a religiously run agency has the right to discriminate. But not state ones, you're right.

reply from: Witness

Wrong, O Banana Mush Brain, since the actions of the mother caused the child to be placed in the womb in the first place, the woman owes the child the courtesy of continued growth until the child can be birthed and, therefore, be independent of the mother's body. To kill the guest implanted by the mother's own actions is like inviting someone to dinner and then slitting their throat.

reply from: Rosalie

Wrong, O Banana Mush Brain, since the actions of the mother caused the child to be placed in the womb in the first place, the woman owes the child the courtesy of continued growth until the child can be birthed and, therefore, be independent of the mother's body. To kill the guest implanted by the mother's own actions is like inviting someone to dinner and then slitting their throat.
That would require consent to sex being automatically consent to pregnancy, which it is not.
A woman does not owe anything to a fetus. It is still her body, it is always her body, and she has the right ot decide whether she allows anyone use it.

reply from: Witness

Wrong, O Banana Mush Brain, since the actions of the mother caused the child to be placed in the womb in the first place, the woman owes the child the courtesy of continued growth until the child can be birthed and, therefore, be independent of the mother's body. To kill the guest implanted by the mother's own actions is like inviting someone to dinner and then slitting their throat.
That would require consent to sex being automatically consent to pregnancy, which it is not.
A woman does not owe anything to a fetus. It is still her body, it is always her body, and she has the right ot decide whether she allows anyone use it.
Wrong again, Stoneheart, since the child did not consent to be placed in the womb in the first place, the mother does owe the child time to grow and exit alive. Otherwise, no one should have a choice where they're placed or what is done to them once there.

reply from: Rosalie

If you want to engage in a debate, kindly stop calling me names. If you can't do that, it says a lot about your manners and your character and I have no desire to continue any conversation with you.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well, but sex isn't exactly consent to pregnancy. Yes, sex causes pregnancy but I don't feel having sex means you consent to pregnancy. I understand your metaphor, I'm just pointing out the flaw that pro-choicers will find in two seconds.

reply from: yoda

It IS consent to the possibility of pregnancy.

reply from: ProLulzer

No more than walking along the street is an acceptance of the possibility of being raped. You know it is there, but will stop it from happening because it is not your goal. Abortion is just like shooting a rapist.

reply from: lukesmom

You are one nutso cookie. You make a statement like this and think anyone will actually listen to you or actually take you seriously?

reply from: CharlesD

Walking down the street is not an act that has a natural consequence of getting raped. The rape is not the natural end result of walks down the street. The rapist is intentionally violating the woman. Does a baby intentionally violate the womb of its mother? The baby had no say in whether or not it would end up there. It is innocent. The rapist is not innocent. If you have sex, the natural end of that behavior is pregnancy. There are precautions you can take, but pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex. That analogy is so inconsistent it's almost laughable.

reply from: ProLulzer

A rapist who was brainwashed into raping a woman would be innocent, but she would still be able to kill him for raping her. Same goes for a murderer. We don't have any special rules that say that if you are "innocent" you can violate someones body Charles D. As for your talk of the "natural end", well in early human history people used to throw women to the ground if they liked it or not when we were cave men. Such actions are the things that male humans have evolved to do naturally, and fall under the heading of the "natural end" of human interaction.

reply from: ProLulzer

You are one nutso cookie. You make a statement like this and think anyone will actually listen to you or actually take you seriously?
Let us imagine there is a good man with a family of five children. A real saint of a guy. One night he is sleepwaking and is having a dream about a sex game with is wife. He wonders outside where the girl who lives next door is sitting while she listens to music. In he sleepwalking state he trips over her, but he does not wake up. Thinking she is his wife and a willing participant he starts to rape her. The girl killing him in this situation is similar to a woman having an abortion. Both end life in order to stop an unintentional violation of the human body.

reply from: lukesmom

Really reaching with this. Could you please show the stats on how many rapists are "brainwashed" when raping someone. Just curious about the numbers, for my own safety. Thank you.

reply from: ProLulzer

Really reaching with this. Could you please show the stats on how many rapists are "brainwashed" when raping someone. Just curious about the numbers, for my own safety. Thank you.
I don't see how this addresses the point. It's possible , so tell us if you are going to be logically consistent and say his innocence means she has no right to kill him if she gets raped.

reply from: lukesmom

You are one nutso cookie. You make a statement like this and think anyone will actually listen to you or actually take you seriously?
Let us imagine there is a good man with a family of five children. A real saint of a guy. One night he is sleepwaking and is having a dream about a sex game with is wife. He wonders outside where the girl who lives next door is sitting while she listens to music. In he sleepwalking state he trips over her, but he does not wake up. Thinking she is his wife and a willing participant he starts to rape her. The girl killing him in this situation is similar to a woman having an abortion. Both end life in order to stop an unintentional violation of the human body.
You have a vivid imagination if nothing else. Why don't we leave your fantasy land and discuss real life here for a change?

reply from: CharlesD

He would still be guilty of rape. If you commit a rape, you are guilty of that act and a woman would have the right to defend herself. A baby in the womb is guilty of no act deserving death. The natural result of sex is pregnancy, and it is not a curse. The bottom line is that, apart from rape, women aren't forced to have sex. If you're having sex of your own free will, then pregnancy is not forced on you. Babies don't violate wombs. The purpose of womb is to house a baby. A woman who has sex is putting that baby there. It is not invading of its own free will.

reply from: sk1bianca

so the chances of getting pregnant from sex are equal to the chances of being raped by a sleepwalker who mistakes you for his wife?
is the presence of the fetus in the womb an act of agression? or was he "invited" there when his mother chose to have sex?

reply from: CharlesD

People who support abortion have to try to come up with all these what if scenarios because the real argument has been settled. The unborn child is a human being, killing innocent human beings is wrong, and abortion kills innocent humans. Case closed, bang the gavel, and run along now.

reply from: ProLulzer

You are one nutso cookie. You make a statement like this and think anyone will actually listen to you or actually take you seriously?
Let us imagine there is a good man with a family of five children. A real saint of a guy. One night he is sleepwaking and is having a dream about a sex game with is wife. He wonders outside where the girl who lives next door is sitting while she listens to music. In he sleepwalking state he trips over her, but he does not wake up. Thinking she is his wife and a willing participant he starts to rape her. The girl killing him in this situation is similar to a woman having an abortion. Both end life in order to stop an unintentional violation of the human body.
You have a vivid imagination if nothing else. Why don't we leave your fantasy land and discuss real life here for a change?
I can see you recognize that you have been logically defeated. It does not matter that we do not know of an example of this actually occurring, because the point was to demonstrate that most of us do not equate innocence with the right to violate another.
However, let us change the situation so that you lose all excuse for a failure to answer. What about a CRAZY rapist. Someone who is insane can not be held accountable for their actions and we know that crazy people have raped before. Since they are unable to understand their actions they are total innocents just as a fetus and the rapist from my previous example are.
Answer my question.
Does the fact that he is innocent mean a woman has no right to stop the rape by killing him?

reply from: lukesmom

You forgot: "NEXT CASE"
(and we do get some "cases" here, don't we?)

reply from: ProLulzer

So killing the rapist is something that the woman should not be allowed to do in my example CharlesD? You think she should accept her violation?

reply from: sk1bianca

prolulzer, your story has nothing to do with abortion. try finding something more comparable, mabye then someone will bother to answer.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It IS consent to the possibility of pregnancy.
Is driving in a car consenting to being injured? No.

reply from: ProLulzer

He would still be guilty of rape. If you commit a rape, you are guilty of that act and a woman would have the right to defend herself. A baby in the womb is guilty of no act deserving death. The natural result of sex is pregnancy, and it is not a curse. The bottom line is that, apart from rape, women aren't forced to have sex. If you're having sex of your own free will, then pregnancy is not forced on you. Babies don't violate wombs. The purpose of womb is to house a baby. A woman who has sex is putting that baby there. It is not invading of its own free will.
The purpose a vagina is to house a penis. A penis does not violate a vagina. A woman who exists put off chemical signals which cause any heterosexual man to want to use her. Rape is a natural occurrence which has mainly ceased because we have gained the power to reason.
You can't be guilty of an act you are forced into (brainwashed), or do not understand (insane). The law of the USA understands this and allows people to plead insanity when they are accused of a crime. The men in the examples are forced into the situation just like a fetus is.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, he was not "invited". I don't believe pregnancy is a hostile OR an innocent act. It is an act of nature and thus is above ethics and morals. The child didn't ask to be conceived, and the mother didn't ask to become pregnancy. Prenancy is NO one's fault in that aspect.

reply from: ProLulzer

If you can't put out why my analogy is flawed then withdraw your claim.

reply from: scopia19822

It IS consent to the possibility of pregnancy.
Is driving in a car consenting to being injured? No.
Will you 2 stop arguing like my son and his kindergarten friends? May I offer my prespective? Too damn bad I am going to do it anyway. When 2 people consent to have sex, even with precautions, both consent to dealing with the consequences of those actions what ever those may be. It can be an STD or pregnancy. This applies or should apply to both parties involved. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences of sex than one should not have sex until they are prepared to do so and understand what they are. Precautions can be taken to diminish those risks, but they can still happen never the less and you have to be prepared to deal with them.

reply from: lukesmom

Actually, I have not been "logically" defeated as your case in points, up to this point in time, have very little chance of happening. Everyone has the right to defend themselves against an aggressive attacker. The difference between a rapist, crazy, sleepwalking, whatever, and an unborn child is that child was actually put into the womb by the woman (and her partner). This child, in most cases, did not aggressively put him/herself in the womb. Therefore he/she is not an aggressor. None of this should be that hard to understand.

reply from: ProLulzer

It IS consent to the possibility of pregnancy.
Is driving in a car consenting to being injured? No.
Will you 2 stop arguing like my son and his kindergarten friends? May I offer my prespective? Too damn bad I am going to do it anyway. When 2 people consent to have sex, even with precautions, both consent to dealing with the consequences of those actions what ever those may be. It can be an STD or pregnancy. This applies or should apply to both parties involved. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences of sex than one should not have sex until they are prepared to do so and understand what they are. Precautions can be taken to diminish those risks, but they can still happen never the less and you have to be prepared to deal with them.
Abortion deals with the consequences splendidly.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So killing the rapist is something that the woman should not be allowed to do in my example CharlesD? You think she should accept her violation?
I don't think the girl being accidentally raped should just let it happen, but I also don't think she should kill him. He would not be found guilty in a court if he survived, but the girl WOULD be found guilty of at least uintended manslaughter. She would be the guilty one for using excessive and unecessary force.

reply from: CharlesD

A rapist and an unborn child are not moral equivalents.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It IS consent to the possibility of pregnancy.
Is driving in a car consenting to being injured? No.
Will you 2 stop arguing like my son and his kindergarten friends? May I offer my prespective? Too damn bad I am going to do it anyway. When 2 people consent to have sex, even with precautions, both consent to dealing with the consequences of those actions what ever those may be. It can be an STD or pregnancy. This applies or should apply to both parties involved. If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences of sex than one should not have sex until they are prepared to do so and understand what they are. Precautions can be taken to diminish those risks, but they can still happen never the less and you have to be prepared to deal with them.
I think we have different definitions of the word "consent". To me, consent means "That's ok with me"! I certainly don't say "getting injured is ok with me!" when I drive in a car!!

reply from: ProLulzer

So you think if the child was put there by rape abortion is alright?
If a man is brainwashed he is not the aggressor; the person who brainwashed him is and is using him as a tool. He was put there just like a fetus is put into the womb If he is crazy he may be the aggressor but he is still just as innocent. I am glad we have established your logical inconsistency.

reply from: ProLulzer

A rapist and an unborn child are not moral equivalents.
They are if both of them are completely innocent in the situation, as they are in the examples I provided.

reply from: ProLulzer

So killing the rapist is something that the woman should not be allowed to do in my example CharlesD? You think she should accept her violation?
I don't think the girl being accidentally raped should just let it happen, but I also don't think she should kill him. He would not be found guilty in a court if he survived, but the girl WOULD be found guilty of at least uintended manslaughter. She would be the guilty one for using excessive and unecessary force.
What if killing him the only way to stop him? Should she just wait out the sex? Not like it would take nine months or something....

reply from: CharlesD

A rapist, whether in possession of his faculties or not, is guilty of rape. That guilt might not be guilt in the legal sense of being prosecutable, but even then if he is caught he will most likely be locked in some sort of an institution to protect society from him. He was still engaging in an action that is a threat to another person, therefore self defense is allowed. The woman has every right to defend herself in any way, even killing him if necessary. But, and this is a big but, that is not the moral equivalent to an unborn child in the womb. The unborn child is not even guilty of any aggressive act of violation, whether prosecutable or not. Your analogy is flawed in that way. The crazy rapist still performed an illegal act, whether the law can prosecute him because of his craziness or not.

reply from: ProLulzer

So you think that people are guilty if they are not in possession of the faculties? I guess all those crazy people are still guilty of sin and are going to burn in hell then? Even though they could not have gotten saved because they are crazy. I would like you to tell that to the Christian families that have children with autism and other such disorders, because their children need to die before they become adults. If you accept that all children go to heaven then they can still go to heaven if they die as such, but as adults born into the fallen world they lack the ability to be saved and so will burn in hell under your system, because guilt had nothing to do with the possession of the ability to use ones faculties. Thats some system you've got there.
Second, self defense is what abortion is. It protects you from hormonal changes and your body changing slightly, which are things that sex might not even do. If you think the woman can defend herself from rape she can defend herself from pregnancy.
The fetus, under your system of guilt, is also guilty. It is guilty of using another person against their will, rather like me stealing your kidney, or riping your hair off to eat as I was dieing.

reply from: lukesmom

Doesn't matter what I think. What matters is the fact that a life has been created through no action of it's own. It has the inalienable right to continue it's life until a natural death.
The man you have created IS the aggressor, whether innocent or not,in the fact he forced himself aggressively on another. Now the person being attacked has no idea he possibly is "brainwashed" so, yes, she can defend herself. The unborn child is not aggressively attacking anyone. The unborn has not forced him/herself on anyone and the person who's body is "being used" actually created this life. No aggression involved in most cases. How many ways do we have to say the same thing?

reply from: ProLulzer

Doesn't matter what I think. What matters is the fact that a life has been created through no action of it's own. It has the inalienable right to continue it's life until a natural death.
The man you have created IS the aggressor, whether innocent or not,in the fact he forced himself aggressively on another. Now the person being attacked has no idea he possibly is "brainwashed" so, yes, she can defend herself. The unborn child is not aggressively attacking anyone. The unborn has not forced him/herself on anyone and the person who's body is "being used" actually created this life. No aggression involved in most cases. How many ways do we have to say the same thing?
I already pointed out that if he is the tool he is not the aggressor. He is the tool. He might be more analogous to a baby conceived in a rape because both re violating someone through no fault of their own. So since your position is that babies conceived in rape should live is your position, then you would remain logically inconsistent even if my other arguments did not apply.
Second, why does the fact that he tries to rape outside the womb, that he is the "aggressor", make a difference? He is still morally innocent. I can't see how this would matter for our discussion.

reply from: lukesmom

So you think that people are guilty if they are not in possession of the faculties? I guess all those crazy people are still guilty of sin and are going to burn in hell then? Even though they could not have gotten saved because they are crazy. I would like you to tell that to the Christian families that have children with autism and other such disorders, because their children need to die before they become adults. If you accept that all children go to heaven then they can still go to heaven if they die as such, but as adults born into the fallen world they lack the ability to be saved and so will burn in hell under your system, because guilt had nothing to do with the possession of the ability to use ones faculties. Thats some system you've got there.
Second, self defense is what abortion. It protects you from hormonal changes and your body changing slightly, which are things that sex might not even do. If you think the woman can defend herself from rape she can defend herself from pregnancy.
The fetus, under your system of guilt, is also guilty. It is guilty of using another person against their will, rather like me stealing your kidney, or riping your hair off to eat as I was dieing.
Do you not agree there are degrees of guilt? "Crazy" people are not guilty by means of insanity and are therefore removed from society and treated. If the treatment is successful, they are returned to society. Exactly who said these people are going to "burn in hell"? I musta missed something here or you are more delusional than I initially thought! Could you please show me where anyone said "crazy" people or autistic children or children with "other such disorders" were going to burn in hell. I would really like to know as I have a child with "other such disorders".
Abortion "protects you from hormonal changes and your body changing slightly"? No, by the time a woman has an abortion, she already has hormonal and body changes. The only thing that perfectly protects you from the above is an aspirin between the knees. LOL!
Again, the unborn child is using no aggression such as would be used when actively stealing a kidney or whatever. You are not being very logical here in these scenerios.

reply from: ProLulzer

So you think that people are guilty if they are not in possession of the faculties? I guess all those crazy people are still guilty of sin and are going to burn in hell then? Even though they could not have gotten saved because they are crazy. I would like you to tell that to the Christian families that have children with autism and other such disorders, because their children need to die before they become adults. If you accept that all children go to heaven then they can still go to heaven if they die as such, but as adults born into the fallen world they lack the ability to be saved and so will burn in hell under your system, because guilt had nothing to do with the possession of the ability to use ones faculties. Thats some system you've got there.
Second, self defense is what abortion. It protects you from hormonal changes and your body changing slightly, which are things that sex might not even do. If you think the woman can defend herself from rape she can defend herself from pregnancy.
The fetus, under your system of guilt, is also guilty. It is guilty of using another person against their will, rather like me stealing your kidney, or riping your hair off to eat as I was dieing.
Do you not agree there are degrees of guilt? "Crazy" people are not guilty by means of insanity and are therefore removed from society and treated. If the treatment is successful, they are returned to society. Exactly who said these people are going to "burn in hell"? I musta missed something here or you are more delusional than I initially thought! Could you please show me where anyone said "crazy" people or autistic children or children with "other such disorders" were going to burn in hell. I would really like to know as I have a child with "other such disorders".
Abortion "protects you from hormonal changes and your body changing slightly"? No, by the time a woman has an abortion, she already has hormonal and body changes. The only thing that perfectly protects you from the above is an aspirin between the knees. LOL!
Again, the unborn child is using no aggression such as would be used when actively stealing a kidney or whatever. You are not being very logical here in these scenerios.
CharlesD has said that the fact that they people are not able to understand their crime does not mitigate their guilt. "A rapist, whether in possession of his faculties or not, is guilty of rape." In other words, someone is guilty even if they do not understand their actions or the world around them. If CharlesD is correct about what we are guilty of then all the insane people in the world, who are unable to come to Jesus because of their insanity, are all guilty of original sin and not coming to Jesus. Since that is so they will all burn in hell. So, if we accept CharlesD definition of what entails moral guilt, then we are forced to conclude all those people who are born without the possibility of accepting Jesus are damned unless they are killed as children.
Logically then all parents of such children should kill them at once to save them from hell.

reply from: CharlesD

I said that the person is guilty of having committed the act, not that the guilt he carries is prosecutable. You are putting words into my mouth that I did not pen when you talk about moral guilt and original sin. That is an altogether different issue, one of accountability through knowledge of sin. An infant who dies does not go to hell because the infant was not capable of making a conscious choice to follow or reject Christ. A crazy person who commits a crime is in essence guilty in that he did indeed do the act, but he in not necessarily punished by the legal system for doing something he didn't understand. He is removed from society because he might be a threat, but he is treated for his illness in a controlled environment. That person is not analogous to an unborn child who was put there by deliberate action of its parents. That child has no guilt of any kind at that point; it has committed no act that would be construed as a guilty act if it was perpetrated by someone with the mental capacity to understand.

reply from: ProLulzer

CharlesD, what is guilt?
Main Entry:
guilt Listen to the pronunciation of guilt
Pronunciation:
\?gilt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, delinquency, guilt, from Old English gylt delinquency
Date:
before 12th century
1: the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty ; broadly : guilty conduct2 a: the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously b: feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : self-reproach3: a feeling of culpability for offenses
You've already said that we can be guilty without understanding our crime. All men CharlesD are born with original sin-they are guilty of it from the moment they are born. Most people think that since the insane never get the ability to accept Christ they are not guilty, but if you are correct they are guilty because of original sin. You can't say they won't go hell because you have already admitted they are guilty. The fact they do not understand will not stop them from being guilty.
Second, I said ADULTS , not children. I said that it makes sense to kill children who would grow up to be such adults, so they can go to heaven.

reply from: lukesmom

Yoda, is that you in disguise?!

reply from: CharlesD

No, it's someone who is trying to argue all manner of side issues rather than attempt to come up with a logically sound justification for killing innocent human beings. It's also someone who has a major issue with Christians. I thought all atheists and agnostics practiced "tolerance."

reply from: lukesmom

No, it's someone who is trying to argue all manner of side issues rather than attempt to come up with a logically sound justification for killing innocent human beings. It's also someone who has a major issue with Christians. I thought all atheists and agnostics practiced "tolerance."
I just thought it was funny she/he did the dictionary thing as that is Yoda's territory! Of course she/he can't argue the abortion issue head on and must sidestep into idiotic fantisies. The truth would possibly undo her/him/it. As for religious tolerance, you aughta live where I live. Every hear of Anne Gaylor and her discrimative bunch?

reply from: ProLulzer

No, it's someone who is trying to argue all manner of side issues rather than attempt to come up with a logically sound justification for killing innocent human beings. It's also someone who has a major issue with Christians. I thought all atheists and agnostics practiced "tolerance."
Can't refute it? Sorry you got pwned

reply from: lukesmom

No, it's someone who is trying to argue all manner of side issues rather than attempt to come up with a logically sound justification for killing innocent human beings. It's also someone who has a major issue with Christians. I thought all atheists and agnostics practiced "tolerance."
Can't refute it? Sorry you got pwned
Can't refute what?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm sure blowing up the twin towers was "splendid" in Al Quaeda's opinion. I find it horrifying to imagine the dismemberment of a baby as "splendid". I suppose any murderer finds their work to be splendid...

reply from: LiberalChiRo

So killing the rapist is something that the woman should not be allowed to do in my example CharlesD? You think she should accept her violation?
I don't think the girl being accidentally raped should just let it happen, but I also don't think she should kill him. He would not be found guilty in a court if he survived, but the girl WOULD be found guilty of at least uintended manslaughter. She would be the guilty one for using excessive and unecessary force.
What if killing him the only way to stop him? Should she just wait out the sex? Not like it would take nine months or something....
There are ways to non-lethally defend yourself, like punching and screaming. Killing is NEVER the only way to stop someone. I'm pretty sure a sharb punch to the man's groin would wake him up, and that's a good attack against any rapist. To be honest, I don't think it's right to kill someone for raping you. Not at all.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

No, it's someone who is trying to argue all manner of side issues rather than attempt to come up with a logically sound justification for killing innocent human beings. It's also someone who has a major issue with Christians. I thought all atheists and agnostics practiced "tolerance."
I just thought it was funny she/he did the dictionary thing as that is Yoda's territory! Of course she/he can't argue the abortion issue head on and must sidestep into idiotic fantisies. The truth would possibly undo her/him/it. As for religious tolerance, you aughta live where I live. Every hear of Anne Gaylor and her discrimative bunch?
Never hear of Anne Gaylor, so I had to look her up. Is she the "freethinker" who is married to a former fundamentalist preacher? Strange bedfellows, indeed!

reply from: CharlesD

Not a matter of can't, but a matter of not needing to. Your definition you posted actually made my point.
1: the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty.
In other words, guilt in the strict sense of the words is only saying that you actually committed the act. That definition says nothing about the culpability of the guilty person and does not indicate that the penalty involved is necessarily applied to everyone who commits that act. A person can be guilty of rape, being that he actually did rape someone, but he can be found to be not culpable because of insanity. Sure, the legal wording might say "not guilty by reason of insanity", but a strict meaning of the word guilt does not preclude legal guilt. A strict definition of the word only indicates that you did indeed do the act.
You sure do love to get into all sorts of side issues. I think you just enjoy debating things with people and this is all some sort of game you like playing. There is a difference between you and me. I look for like minded people online that I can discuss things with, while I think you probably look for people who don't agree with you so you can debate them because you have fun doing it. Am I too far off base there?

reply from: lukesmom

No, it's someone who is trying to argue all manner of side issues rather than attempt to come up with a logically sound justification for killing innocent human beings. It's also someone who has a major issue with Christians. I thought all atheists and agnostics practiced "tolerance."
I just thought it was funny she/he did the dictionary thing as that is Yoda's territory! Of course she/he can't argue the abortion issue head on and must sidestep into idiotic fantisies. The truth would possibly undo her/him/it. As for religious tolerance, you aughta live where I live. Every hear of Anne Gaylor and her discrimative bunch?
Never hear of Anne Gaylor, so I had to look her up. Is she the "freethinker" who is married to a former fundamentalist preacher? Strange bedfellows, indeed!
I don't know who she is married to but she is co president of the Freedom From Religion Fountation. Her darling daughter Annie Laurie Gaylor is the other co pres of the foundation. They have taken "freedom from religion" to no religion allowed period. They have made a mockery of the courts here.

reply from: BossMomma

So killing the rapist is something that the woman should not be allowed to do in my example CharlesD? You think she should accept her violation?
I don't think the girl being accidentally raped should just let it happen, but I also don't think she should kill him. He would not be found guilty in a court if he survived, but the girl WOULD be found guilty of at least uintended manslaughter. She would be the guilty one for using excessive and unecessary force.
What if killing him the only way to stop him? Should she just wait out the sex? Not like it would take nine months or something....
There are ways to non-lethally defend yourself, like punching and screaming. Killing is NEVER the only way to stop someone. I'm pretty sure a sharb punch to the man's groin would wake him up, and that's a good attack against any rapist. To be honest, I don't think it's right to kill someone for raping you. Not at all.
I hate to tell you but in your view I'm a potential murderer, as a prison guard my post has occasionally been an outside control tower in which I'm armed with a shot gun and an AR-15. The intended purpose of these weapons is to shoot escapees.

reply from: carolemarie

You can kill to defend yourself. If a man rapes you he may decide to kill you, you don't know either way. Lots of them don't want witnesses to id them.
You guys talk about rape like it is nothing, but a woman is scared with good reason! She is physically overpowered, threatned with death and bodily injury, usually hit, sometime savagely beaten, not to mention raped. If she gets away and can shoot him to protect herself, that is justifable, because she is defending her own life.
If she is given emergency contreception, then she will not get pregnant, she may have AIDS or STDS from the attack, but she will escape being pregnant.

reply from: Hosea

I hate to tell you but in your view I'm a potential murderer, as a prison guard my post has occasionally been an outside control tower in which I'm armed with a shot gun and an AR-15. The intended purpose of these weapons is to shoot escapees.
Are you a prison guard at a women's prison? Life Talk did a segment years ago on a social worker who did survey's with the inmates. She siad that 80% of the women were in there for drug abuse and 90% of them started using drugs after their abortion. Has any such survey happened in your prison?

reply from: sk1bianca

prolulzer, you cannot compare rape with pregnancy.
1. rape is violent, it has an agressor and a victim. pregnancy is natural. like Liberal said, morally, it's nobody's fault (although, biologically speaking, it's the parents' fault).
2. the unborn child is not satisfying his sexual desires with the woman (conscious or not), he is simply using her uterus to survive.
3. killing the rapist might be the only way to stop the rape. pregnancy ends naturally after 9 months. no killing needed.
4. a woman's feelings towards her child can change during pregnancy, from "unwanted" to "loved and wanted". even if she has an abortion, there are high chances she will regret it.
i doubt that happens in the case o rape (feeling sorry she didn't enjoy it, or that she killed the rapist).

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Prolulzer - "The purpose a vagina is to house a penis. A penis does not violate a vagina. A woman who exists put off chemical signals which cause any heterosexual man to want to use her. Rape is a natural occurrence which has mainly ceased because we have gained the power to reason."
Your ignorance of the purpose of the vagina is appalling. Little girls have vaginas - should their vaginas be used to "house a penis?" And the "chemical signals" - that's pretty silly, because pheromones do NOT cause just any heterosexual man to desire ALL women, just certain ones whose pheromones "match" his.
As for rape being a "natural occurence which has mainly ceased" - no, it's NOT natural and NO, it has NOT mainly ceased.
You are a scary person.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I think they were being sarcastic. However, I have actually heard a man try to justify rape using that example, so who knows?

reply from: CharlesD

Well, it really wasn't made to "house" it, but merely to be a temporary residence. If it was housed there, as in more of a permanent arrangement, it would be pretty hard for people to accomplish much of anything else.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Thanks for making me laugh hard enough to fall out of my chair!

reply from: lukesmom

OMG! Too, too funny! Heck my dh could still have a beer and watch the game! Although, I would be a little uncomfortable and bored because I only like watching my kids sports and that would be just plain weird.

reply from: BossMomma

Are you a prison guard at a women's prison? Life Talk did a segment years ago on a social worker who did survey's with the inmates. She siad that 80% of the women were in there for drug abuse and 90% of them started using drugs after their abortion. Has any such survey happened in your prison?
No, I work in a mens facility where the population is 75% sex offender, many of which have committed sexual acts against children under the age of 12. I have done over time at a womens state jail and transient unit where women serve 6 months to 2 years for prostitution, drug sales or use, theft and domestic violence.
I do not conversate with offenders, I'm there to manage them, not make friends or listen to why they did what they did or even know why exactly they are there. We have had no surveys that I know of.

reply from: scopia19822

"I do not conversate with offenders, I'm there to manage them, not make friends or listen to why they did what they did or even know why exactly they are there. We have had no surveys that I know of."
I understand that you have your job to do and must abide by certain guidelines. But does the prison you work in have an prison ministry? I think that we as a society need to ask ourselves "WHY" people do what they do, especially violent offenders.If we know more about how they think, maybe we could know what to look for and either intervene with treatment before they can offend or offer treatment so they might be less likely to reoffend. I know that it is hard to do that with violent pedophiles, all we can do is keep them locked up. I hate it when the prison system is called the department of corrections, yet they make no effort to correct and rehabiltate those who can be helped. If they are not taught how to think, act and function in society they are going to most likely end back up in prison because freedom so overwhelms them that they cant handle it. Boss the best thing to do would be to listen from a distance, you will be amazed at what you can learn, without ever having direct contact with them.

reply from: BossMomma

We have a chaplain and various church functions for offenders who wish to participate. We correctional officers are not councilors, we are not psychologists and we are told to refrain from providing such services in any capacity save for suicidal offenders. If an offender shows behavior characteristic of those who are suicidal we are to pull the offender aside, question him as to whether he is thinking of committing suicide and, upon gaining a yes to those questions we are to refer the offender to a supervisor.
We do correct bad behavior, we curb drug, weapon and, contraband trafficking by pat searching, strip searching and cell searching. We curb acts of violence, sexual deviance and, theft with disciplinary cases that remove privilages such as commissary, recreation and, visitation.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Not to be crude, BossMomma, but don't you ever get the urge to rip the genitals off a man who has raped little girls? I don't think I could get NEAR one of those guys without wanting to rip his face and other body parts off.

reply from: BossMomma

No, because I don't know a drug dealer from a child molester in prison. I don't ask what their offense was, I don't want to know because if I did it would effect my professionalism in the work place. In my opinion the offender has already stood before judge and jury, I am there to see his punishment carried out by keeping him confined. I leave it at that.
As to being near them and wanting to inflict physical violence, if you saw some of these guys you'd change your mind in a heart beat. They can hurt you a lot more than you could hurt them.

reply from: scopia19822

"We have a chaplain and various church functions for offenders who wish to participate. We correctional officers are not councilors, we are not psychologists and we are told to refrain from providing such services in any capacity save for suicidal offenders. If an offender shows behavior characteristic of those who are suicidal we are to pull the offender aside, question him as to whether he is thinking of committing suicide and, upon gaining a yes to those questions we are to refer the offender to a supervisor.
We do correct bad behavior, we curb drug, weapon and, contraband trafficking by pat searching, strip searching and cell searching. We curb acts of violence, sexual deviance and, theft with disciplinary cases that remove privilages such as commissary, recreation and, visitation."
Like I said in my previous post Boss, I understand you have a job to do and guidlines to follow. When I was talking about correcting bad behavior, I was thinking more about rehabiltation of the offenders that can be reached. I think that it should be mandatory that they take classes in citizenship so they will know how to function upon release and it should be mandatory that those who are high school dropout complete their GED and others should be required to learn a trade or other job skills so that they will be able to support themselves upon release and be less likely to reoffend. That of course is something that would have to be done at the top level .

reply from: JRH

Hey remember when I pwnd you in my thread when you posted information which I refuted and then you dropped the point? I remember that.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

JHR, are you 12!? You're acting like a petulant child from /b. "I pwned you!"

reply from: JRH

/b? What is this /b you speak of? I only know of /b/, which attracts as many adults as it does children.

reply from: smom

Who lambasted you, and why? Which school system, highschool, college? Were you a teacher or a student?
--I wasnt a teacher or student... just a simple mom/parent who was trying to work third shift, pregnant/nurse, raise four kids, and be a good parent/volunteer/worker/wife. Unfortunately... I had a few days that I had dozed off in between the couple of hours after work/get kids ready for bus..( a couple more than their..4 day target.) Its proven to be a weakness of mine--during that TIME in my life. On that,.... they have bombarded our family with 'help'; more than we want... theyve 'targeted us' ... and i dont see us leaving their sites. they got wind of our financial situations by... a overheard conversation.... and that was it. we work our tails off each day(homework,chores,work,school) and go to church... and always try to be in the up and up... never partied, drugged, or nothin... but yet.. ive been pinned and have had 'visits' and felt demeaned and treated almost like a criminal/problem. my children have had to go through the riggors of...the counselor... and her constant questioning them like a wolf-weekly... as she taunted them with candy and prizes.. which i find very scary. they finally....let up. its been a psycho trip. I have a ornery son who just wants to be left alone and be 'normal' ..he hates the attention...and...since they gave him so much... he REALLY hates school... and i have a daughter whom is the opposite of my son.. and is very much a delight in the teachers apple of her eye... its been hard on all of us. we just try not to make ANY mistakes.. or they are on us like a pirana. I FREAK, when they leave without the essentials... the list of morning do's.... im physically and emotionally AFRAID of the system. You do know they keep a list of Jimmy/Kate's appearances each day..right??? Some parents are not aware.... and some kids.... dont care if they have HAT HEAD!!! they WANT to wear their ripped jeans and old favorite shirt.... And.. some have naughty language...to be cool... not because their parent talk like the gutters! Life aint easy in a zero tolerance system.....specially for bumpkens who could care less about trends...to a fault..that would be another weakness of mine.
such as.. a tear in the knee of his jeans...
her wardrobe malfunction...
every day is a new challenge... a new event... a..way to condemn someone for the little things. zero tolerance!!!! life is imperfect in this 'perfect society'
Im almost scared to send them as to what will happen next...and you have NO control of what could happen.... my children have minds of their own... they make choices all the time.. and sometimes... its not what i taught them nor what they should... lets pray that any of your children dont get marked as... a problem child.. or... do something that would not be approved by others.... Lets pray for those parents that dont think that video games/movies/music are a big deal... when they start their cussing tirade at school... imitate what theyve seen and heard...and act what theyve been indoctrinated.. in a zero tolerance society.. we have a plethera of children that will be condemned to the society's way of rule..... lets hope that families are not destroyed over it too. Not that this is even a problem in my home.. if that be the case..its more of them imitating their friends. Im very protective. thats the crazyiness... it doesnt matter how good you are... in this life of law. anyone can end up in trouble. Pray for us as a family that we are protected and that we stay whole. Its been quite a trip through the....dun, dun, DUNNNNN...***school system!****
which can be a parents worse nightmare..... never in my life as i was a kid growing that parents had it so hard.
I am pro-spanking by the way, I was spanked (like, once) and I'm not traumatized.
-- I was whooped plenty. I lived. Im AFRAID to touch my child in such a way.... our state has a 'code' on what and how we should do ...(with a hand-once-nomarks((let me tell you..it does nothing ..and most times.. they laugh it off)) its scary to even think about. i dont even like talking about it. i miss the old school. looser rules... and relaxed people. ...the thing that i have trouble with is.... they always say to take things away that they enjoy.... when you dont have much.. that can be a huge problem. and 'things' dont really amuse him. he can get very arrogant at times.
And it's scary to see students come to school every day who are being abused at home, and whom the government won't help because they want to "Keep the families together". if its THAT bad.. the police can do their job. i dont think a college girl should decide the fate of a family when she has never had the luxury of raising one and lived the life of a circus trainer. ...and what works for one family doesnt necessarily work for another...
Personally, there's more failure on the end of not removing kids from homes that are rotten. I dont know... i hear of many kids being abused in the system due to the fact that nobody will love YOUR kids as much as you do. They dont have that bond.. its sad when the natural parents cannot find it too!!! truely sad.
LMAO. "Regean SMASH!" ...maybe so... but at least its possitive and gives a family hope. Ive felt so much dread.. fear... helplessness... almost as pain as of losing a child because of the not knowing and the not knowing my rights.. oh yeah.. im not sure i have rights. I have worked my ASS off for over ten years raising my family... you can say what you want.. I DEMAND protective rights to keep my family adhered. Life is so precious. And you only get ONE go around. I demand it WITH my children. Im not perfect. Im human. I damned well do what i can to protect them and take care of their needs... Its not easy... especially when they try to PROVE they dont need you from the time they start to crawl!!!!!!~! parents need a break sometimes!!!!!!
I know may families that don't need preserving. They are ruining their child.
Who are you to decide whats best? Do you think that poverty is lesser than from other children?? Society ruins children more than parents. Look at porn.and what has cropped up from that... offenders out the wazoo.
My goals as a parent... to raise them to be independent, selfsufficient, giving, compassionate, educated, christian adults...
and enjoy them as they are in our nest... And to have a loving, happy family that is productive, and efficient, and always seeking ways to help others, and hopefully that meets the needs of each of them individually and always seek to protect that which was gifted to me.
Well I hope I do too.

reply from: CharlesD

Someone help me out here. I've been on the internet for a good number of years, but I've never kept up on a lot of the jargon. I tend to frequent sites where people use proper grammar and punctuation and words that have been around longer than the internet. What the heck is pwned? Did someone mean to type owned and make a typo and then it stuck? Either way, I find it rather silly. I prefer to use more sensible mature language myself.
I finally did a little digging and found out what some of the abbreviations mean, which is why I put people who use them on ignore. If a certain word that starts with F is not allowed on the forum, then I'd just as soon not read little strings of letters that are meant to represent a phrase containing that word.

reply from: nancyu

I don't care if you're pro choice. If a fetus is human person (and a fetus IS a human person) it is illegal to deprive them of life without due process of law.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Someone help me out here. I've been on the internet for a good number of years, but I've never kept up on a lot of the jargon. I tend to frequent sites where people use proper grammar and punctuation and words that have been around longer than the internet. What the heck is pwned? Did someone mean to type owned and make a typo and then it stuck? Either way, I find it rather silly. I prefer to use more sensible mature language myself.
I finally did a little digging and found out what some of the abbreviations mean, which is why I put people who use them on ignore. If a certain word that starts with F is not allowed on the forum, then I'd just as soon not read little strings of letters that are meant to represent a phrase containing that word.
Yes Charles, that's exactly what happened so it seems. Internet lore is fuzzy on the details.

reply from: Banned Member

A person is a person and ProLozer would still kill them. Thank you for sharing your complete unapologetic depravity! Refreshing, but still ultimately morally unsupportable. Abortion kills a human person. That is fact, not a theory!

reply from: CharlesD

I don't think the guards have to do it. From what I've heard from other people who did time, the child molesters aren't exactly treated that well by the other inmates.

reply from: BossMomma

I don't think the guards have to do it. From what I've heard from other people who did time, the child molesters aren't exactly treated that well by the other inmates.
Indeed, child molesters are reviled even among criminals. You can't even join a gang if you're a sex offender. What is sad though is often these sex offenders started out as victims themselves.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics