Home - List All Discussions

Abortion Should Be Mandatory for Pregnant Teens

An article by Ted Rall

by: micah

What do you all think of this article? I personally think mandating abortion is just as bad as banning it, but up until the end the author makes a lot of good points.
-------------------------------------------------------
BRISTOL DID THE WRONG THING by Ted Rall
Abortion Should Be Mandatory for Pregnant Teens
You don't need a rich imagination to picture the scene. In the Alaska governor's mansion, a pair of parents and their visibly pregnant teenage daughter sit on a dead bear sprawled across a couch they had to have shipped because there isn't an Ethan Allen in Anchorage. On a second sofa, on the opposite side of a glass coffee table festooned by the exoskeleton of a giant crab, fidget a second set of parents and their son, a.k.a. The Extremely Nervous Boyfriend. Heads of dead animals line the walls.
"Levi, Levi, Levi." The governor pauses, reveling in the others' discomfort. Moments like this are how she earned the sobriquet Barracuda.
She leans in. "You little s---. You knocked up my daughter. Do you know how close your little sexcapade came to screwing up my plan for global domination? Now you're going to do the right thing."
A few days later, Extremely Nervous Boyfriend blinks under the bright lights of a stage in St. Paul, elevated to the even more challenging role of America's Unhappiest 18-Year-Old. I met a guy the night before he was executed. Levi Johnston had the same look in his eyes.
Sarracuda's 17-year-old fry was nearly as miserable. "Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby," the McCain-Palin campaign claimed in its press release. Did the daughter of the mother of all anti-choice governors really have a choice? Well...
By pro-life standards, Sarracuda is an extremist. Parting ways with five out of six Americans, she's against abortion even in cases of rape and incest. For Bristol, doing the "right thing"--carrying the baby to term, getting married, being paraded across 37 million TV sets--was the path of least resistance.
In reality, Bristol is doing the wrong thing. She's having the kid. She's marrying the father. Three lives will likely be destroyed.
Even pro-choice liberals are afraid to speak the truth: teen marriage and parenthood are disasters for everyone concerned. I have serious problems with well-off married couples who decide to terminate their pregnancies for frivolous reasons. Conversely, abortion ought to be mandatory for people under 18. Twenty-five would be better. Teen marriage should be banned.
Anyone who went to high school knew a student couple where the girl became pregnant. What the unlucky couple decided to do about it would determine their future. The girls who had abortions went on with their lives. They graduated from high school and, if they were headed that way before the dipstick turned pink, continued with college and careers and all the other stuff young people are supposed to go on to do.
Then there were the girls who kept their babies. With few exceptions--I've never heard of any, but I imagine they exist--it was the wrong decision. Their lives were ruined.
Many never graduated from high school, much less college. Their futures were grim: low educational attainment doomed them to dead-end jobs in the low-wage service sector. Married too young and under pressure, most wound up divorced. Many never remarried, or married stepfathers who barely tolerated their children. Their kids, raised in poverty in families led by single, stressed-out young moms, were themselves likely to repeat the cycle of downward mobility by getting pregnant in their teens.
Obviously, there are exceptions: teen pregnancies leading to lifelong partnerships with high school sweethearts, loving stepparents, daughters of 15-year-old parents making $1 million a year. But in most cases, studies confirm the anecdotal evidence.
Having kids and getting married too young are a prescription for unhappiness.
Teen moms are more than twice as likely to drop out of high school. "The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reports that less than 40 percent of women who have a child before the age of 18 will graduate from high school, compared to a high school graduate rate of 75 percent for those who delay parenthood until their early twenties," law professors June Carbone and Noami Cahn wrote in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Teen brides are ten times more likely to plunge into poverty. In 2005 University of Rochester economist Gordon Dahl found that "that a woman who marries young is 28 percentage points more likely to live in poverty when she is older." A 1993 study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation determined that only 8 percent of women who finished high school, married before having a child, and married after age 20 became poor. 79 percent of women who didn't do these things wound up poor.
As the daughter of a possible future president, Bristol Palin probably won't be poor. (Although prominent figures, like Bill Cosby and Alan Keyes, do disown their children.) Even setting aside Levi's famous MySpace page ("I don't want kids"), his pending marriage to Bristol is probably doomed.
When teenage girls become pregnant, eight out of 10 of the fathers never marry them. One can hardly blame the runaway grooms, considering the probable outcomes. A 2002 study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicates that 59 percent of couples who marry before age 18 split up within 15 years. But waiting a few years markedly increases a marriage's odds: 64 percent of couples who get hitched after age 20 are still married 15 years later.
I'll say it again: There are exceptions to every rule. Guys smoke two packs a day and live be to be 100. I've driven 115 miles per hour and I'm still here. But neither smoking nor speeding are smart choices. One should be illegal; the other is. Society sets rules and regulations and laws to cover common situations and typical outcomes. On the matter of teen pregnancy and marriage, the typical outcome is terrible.
Those who keep silent about Levi and Bristol's bad decisions--especially those marketing them as examples to be emulated--are doing society a disservice. Levi and Bristol are about to compound one tragedy (unplanned teen pregnancy) with another (involuntary marriage). They're setting a terrible example for other teenagers who will find themselves in their situation.
Congress should act to protect these kids from themselves--ban teen marriage, mandate teen abortion.
(Ted Rall is the author of the book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)
http://www.rall.com/2008/09/this-weeks-syndicated-column-bristol.html

reply from: AshMarie88

If abortion should be/should've been mandatory for teens, over HALF of my family would not be living right now.
Good post, Augustine.

reply from: Teresa18

The author of this piece ought to be aborted.

reply from: sk1bianca

if abortion should be mandatory for teens, then sex should prohibited for teens.
(hi, i'm back )

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Kids should wait until they are OLD ENOUGH to have sex and deal with the consequences before they mess around and end up pregnant. Birth control should be mandatory for all unmarried people having sex! (Nope, just kidding, that would be absolutely impossible and actually ridiculous.)
Kids need complete sex education to inform them of the effects of sex and pregnancy on the young, including detailed information on fetal development and the statistics about poverty, lack of education and limited opportunities for teenage mothers and fathers.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Sexual education needs to continue on past orgasms. It needs to discuss what happens IF you get pregnant, HOW you get pregnant, and where to go to get help for yourself and the child.
Babies are a part of sex, let's face it. No, we don't always intend to become pregnant but it can happen just as often as catching an STD. So why is it glossed over? "Just take these pills and you won't have to worry."

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I agree with you that sex education is incomplete and needs to be expanded to included all aspects of pregnancy and parenting.
But really, is current sex ed telling kids to just take pills? I thought that many of the sex ed programs don't even MENTION birth control. They need to integrate the birth control part into the program AFTER going over all of the biological and sociological topics.

reply from: yoda

How about pre-teens? Do you agree with one poster on this forum that pre-teens should be forced to have abortions?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

How about pre-teens? Do you agree with one poster on this forum that pre-teens should be forced to have abortions?
I don't agree with the author because I don't think ANYONE should be forced to have an abortion.
Other than that, he does make a great number of important points about pre-teen and teen pregnancy. Yoda, how do YOU think pregnancy can be reduced (or even better, eliminated) in this age group??

reply from: yoda

A LOT of things need to be done, but the very first thing should be to outlaw elective abortion. After that, more "homes" for unwed mothers, more outreach help for unwed mothers still living at home, more promotion of adoption, and more assistance for unwed mothers raising their own children. And I'm sure there are plenty of other things that could be done, but that is what I think needs to be done first.

reply from: faithman

Teach folks to garden.

reply from: scopia19822

This whole thing is just vile and disgusting. Mandating abortion for teens would be just as henious as Chinas forced abortion policy.

reply from: CharlesD

Mary was a teenage mother. Enough said.

reply from: Rosalie

Mandating abortions is just as vile, disgusting and disturbing as mandating that women continue their pregnancies against their will.
And I am so sick of all these cheap shots at young mothers. Yes, the situation is not so good. Yes, more should be done to prevent teen pregnancies. But nothing will ever be sorted out by shaming these girls, putting them down and judging them in advance just because of how old they are. That's not just counter-productive, that's cruel.

reply from: BossMomma

I doubt Bristol and Levi were forced into marriage, furthermore if Sarah were worried about her image she would have secreted her daughter off to an abortion clinic to get rid of any evidence of sexual activity. I believe that Bristol kept her baby of her own free will, married Levi of her own free will and, with the support of family the two will do quite well. Forced abortion is barbaric.

reply from: BossMomma

Oh now that was a real pro-life statement. I thought you opposed abortion.

reply from: BossMomma

How about pre-teens? Do you agree with one poster on this forum that pre-teens should be forced to have abortions?
No, in this case it should be left to the pre-teen and a doctor to decide.

reply from: Rosalie

I don't know. We'll never know if she wanted to marry him or if someone was pushing her to do it so it'd look like she did "the right thing". Same with the pregnancy.
Forced abortion is just as barbaric as forced gestation.

reply from: BossMomma

I don't know. We'll never know if she wanted to marry him or if someone was pushing her to do it so it'd look like she did "the right thing". Same with the pregnancy.
Forced abortion is just as barbaric as forced gestation.
Gestation 9 times out of 10 kills no one, abortion kills someone everytime. With the exception of rape no one forced the woman to engage in an act that would create an unwanted life. To needlessly throw that innocent child away is barbaric and cowardly and it furthers the opinion that women can't handle up.

reply from: Rosalie

It's the fact that the woman's basic rights are infringed upon in the most horrific way that these two scenarios have in common.

reply from: BossMomma

It's the fact that the woman's basic rights are infringed upon in the most horrific way that these two scenarios have in common.
Oh yes, bringing forth a baby is just so awful. It's far more empowering for her to sling her feet up in the stirrups and let an abortion provider force dilate her cervix, stick a suction hose into her uterus and rip apart an innocent child, then scrape her out with a currette, right? Women's basic rights are not infringed upon, she consented to the sex that put the new life in peril in the first place.

reply from: scopia19822

"Women's basic rights are not infringed upon, she consented to the sex that put the new life in peril in the first place."
I was at the local health department yesterday to pick up my pills as it was pregnot day. They had signs posted up all over that says "IF YOU CHOOSE SEX WITHOUT USING A METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL. YOU HAVE MADE THE DECISION TO BECOME PREGNANT" The message is very clear if you consent to sex, especially unprotected sex you have consented to a potential pregnancy.

reply from: sheri

Boy, Sarah P. really got under their skin didn't she? I couldn't finish reading that. I'm sure the freak that wrote it thinks it's *****ens quality, how many others got through the a quarter of it?

reply from: faithman

It's the fact that the woman's basic rights are infringed upon in the most horrific way that these two scenarios have in common.
Oh yes, bringing forth a baby is just so awful. It's far more empowering for her to sling her feet up in the stirrups and let an abortion provider force dilate her cervix, stick a suction hose into her uterus and rip apart an innocent child, then scrape her out with a currette, right? Women's basic rights are not infringed upon, she consented to the sex that put the new life in peril in the first place.
It is time we quit making excuses for killers. We should work to take them away. You have to be willingly ignorant to not understand that sex, even with "protectiion", could cause one to become pregnant. That is not "invasion" that is invitation. It should not be legal to slaughter an invited guest.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's the fact that the woman's basic rights are infringed upon in the most horrific way that these two scenarios have in common.
Your rights? Your rights end where another human's body begins. That would be the child's body.

reply from: scopia19822

"Your rights? Your rights end where another human's body begins. That would be the child's body."
I agree 100%.

reply from: micah

I really doubt that single pregnant women would like to be at your mercy.
A LOT of things need to be done, but the very first thing should be to outlaw elective abortion. After that, more "homes" for unwed mothers, more outreach help for unwed mothers still living at home, more promotion of adoption, and more assistance for unwed mothers raising their own children. And I'm sure there are plenty of other things that could be done, but that is what I think needs to be done first.

reply from: micah

Okay, I would never force anyone to have an abortion. That's just as anti-choice as the pro-lifers. With that being said, I think if a young teen gets pregnant, abortion should be seen as the default choice. As the author explains, young teens should not be having kids, as it tends to be disastrous for their emotional health (although there are always exceptions.)
How about pre-teens? Do you agree with one poster on this forum that pre-teens should be forced to have abortions?

reply from: carolemarie

I was a young teen and abortion was disasterous for my emotional health as well.

reply from: micah

You had an abortion?

reply from: Banned Member

How many people who you know would be dead if teens were forced to have abortions?

reply from: micah

oh okay. I'm not judging you or anything.

reply from: Banned Member

Pro-aborts never judge anyone. More importantly, pro-aborts never judge anything. An abortion, 10 abortions, its all the same thing. For the pro-abort, no abortion is a bad abortion.

reply from: CharlesD

The right of all innocent humans to live is paramount. Anything that infringes on that is not a right.

reply from: Rosalie

It is if you don't want it. And the fact that there are many complications and sacrifices and that most women have their responsibilities which might be hindered by this unwanted pregnancy is not good, either.
It's a choice.
Women's basic rights would be infringed upon if you had your way. We are not going to allow that, though.
And consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
If you have sex without protection, then you're irresponsible. I STILL wouldn't want that person, even though they're irresponsible, to be punished with a pregnancy.
First of all, that's not how babies should be brought to the world. Punishment is just not a good reason to have children. And second of all, it is far too complicated and potentially dangerous to use pregnancy as a form of punishment. Not to mention it's wrong.
My rights to my body are not dismissed the moment I become pregnant. My rights to my body are STILL THERE.
My rights to decide about my body are non-negotiable.
The right of all innocent humans to live is paramount. Anything that infringes on that is not a right.
No, the questionable "rights" of a zygote/embryo/fetus are certainly not paramount to my rights. My body will not be used against my will. Not if I can help it.

reply from: faithman

It is if you don't want it. And the fact that there are many complications and sacrifices and that most women have their responsibilities which might be hindered by this unwanted pregnancy is not good, either.
It's a choice.
Women's basic rights would be infringed upon if you had your way. We are not going to allow that, though.
And consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
If you have sex without protection, then you're irresponsible. I STILL wouldn't want that person, even though they're irresponsible, to be punished with a pregnancy.
First of all, that's not how babies should be brought to the world. Punishment is just not a good reason to have children. And second of all, it is far too complicated and potentially dangerous to use pregnancy as a form of punishment. Not to mention it's wrong.
My rights to my body are not dismissed the moment I become pregnant. My rights to my body are STILL THERE.
My rights to decide about my body are non-negotiable.
The right of all innocent humans to live is paramount. Anything that infringes on that is not a right.
No, the questionable "rights" of a zygote/embryo/fetus is certainly not paramount to my rights. My body will not be used against my will. Not if I can help it.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: BossMomma

It is if you don't want it. And the fact that there are many complications and sacrifices and that most women have their responsibilities which might be hindered by this unwanted pregnancy is not good, either.
It's a choice.
Women's basic rights would be infringed upon if you had your way. We are not going to allow that, though.
And consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
The child's basic rights are infringed upon by the woman's choice. A child is a human person not a choice, what you advocate is degrading for both woman and child.

reply from: yoda

Give me a day or two and I might find someone who cares what you think. You are a craven coward.

reply from: micah

Unless they are post-birth and need tax dollars for health insurance, in which case, they can die for all the pro-lifers care.

reply from: scopia19822

"Unless they are post-birth and need tax dollars for health insurance, in which case, they can die for all the pro-lifers care. "
You have some like that who call themselves prolife and you have prochoicers that would rather have poor and minority women abort so they dont have to have their precious taxdollars used to care for these children through social welfare programs. As a Catholic Im not that way. I believe in the right to life from conception until natural death. I care just a much about the child once its born as I do when its preborn. I have no problem having my taxdollars used to help these children and their mothers as long as the mother is willing to help herself by either working, going to school or enrolled in a job training program.

reply from: micah

Coming from the anonymous creepy guy who spends his weekends taking pictures of women he thinks are "naughty".
Give me a day or two and I might find someone who cares what you think. You are a craven coward.

reply from: carolemarie

I am prolife and certainly don't feel that way! I know lots of prolifers who don't.

reply from: micah

Yeah, you're probably right. But even you have to admit that the pro-lifers seem to have a large share of loonies. The guy who wants to lock a woman is his basement, the other perv who photographs the girls, etc.
I am prolife and certainly don't feel that way! I know lots of prolifers who don't.

reply from: carolemarie

I agree, there are nuts on both sides!

reply from: faithman

...and then there are the double minded nuts like you who is on both sides. But let me help you off the fence. Both in word and dead you are a womb child hater, and advocate for fellow womb child haters.

reply from: carolemarie

I know I know, I don't like your bill. The real problem....

reply from: faithman

I don't have a bill, and the real prob is what I say it is, not what you try and twist it into. You are a womb child hater and that is the prob. At the end of the day, you say women have the right to kill their children.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't have a bill, and the real prob is what I say it is, not what you try and twist it into. You are a womb child hater and that is the prob. At the end of the day, you say women have the right to kill their children.
That is a lie!
I oppose abortion, except in the case of the life of the mother. I can live with the rape and incest exceptions to ban the other 98 % of abortions. Too bad you are unable to comprehend that.
And it is no excuse to drag up my past constantly and try to hurt me with it.

reply from: faithman

I don't have a bill, and the real prob is what I say it is, not what you try and twist it into. You are a womb child hater and that is the prob. At the end of the day, you say women have the right to kill their children.
That is a lie!
I oppose abortion, except in the case of the life of the mother. I can live with the rape and incest exceptions to ban the other 98 % of abortions. Too bad you are unable to comprehend that.
And it is no excuse to drag up my past constantly and try to hurt me with it.
A past you flaunted. A past you have not completely forsaken. You would fight personhood which absolutly stops the slaughter because yopu care more about your fellow killers than the ones they kill. I comprehind just fine. You are the one who left your conscience, and your ability to think clearly in the clinic trash can with your children. False lifers like you fighting personhood assures that ALL womb children are at risk to be aborted. It is you who can not comprehend that. Folks would not have known about your past until you bragged about it. Your mouth is your own worst enemy, not the true pro-lifers here. We just state the obvious.

reply from: scopia19822

"oppose abortion, except in the case of the life of the mother. I can live with the rape and incest exceptions to ban the other 98 % of abortions. Too bad you are unable to comprehend that.
And it is no excuse to drag up my past constantly and try to hurt me with it."
I have to disagree with you on these "exceptions" every child has the right to life. However I agree there is no excuse to keep dragging your past up to hurt you when you have clearly repented of your past sins.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't have a bill, and the real prob is what I say it is, not what you try and twist it into. You are a womb child hater and that is the prob. At the end of the day, you say women have the right to kill their children.
That is a lie!
I oppose abortion, except in the case of the life of the mother. I can live with the rape and incest exceptions to ban the other 98 % of abortions. Too bad you are unable to comprehend that.
And it is no excuse to drag up my past constantly and try to hurt me with it.
A past you flaunted. A past you have not completely forsaken. You would fight personhood which absolutly stops the slaughter because yopu care more about your fellow killers than the ones they kill. I comprehind just fine. You are the one who left your conscience, and your ability to think clearly in the clinic trash can with your children. False lifers like you fighting personhood assures that ALL womb children are at risk to be aborted. It is you who can not comprehend that. Folks would not have known about your past until you bragged about it. Your mouth is your own worst enemy, not the true pro-lifers here. We just state the obvious.
I knew it! It is because I don't like your personhood bill that you call me names!. It is what you always bring up, claiming unless I support it, I am not prolife.
Well, I don't support it and I am prolife. You however, are okay with burning abortion clinics down and hanging abortion providers....so I wonder if you are prolife or even understand that advocating killing is prodeath (hint...it is prodeath dude)

reply from: faithman

This whole isssue has always hinged on the word Person. Anyone who does not suport personhood is not pro-life. You are pro killer scanc. You have not repented of child killing, as is evidenced by your total lack of concern for the womb child while lavishing false compassion on the killers. SSSSSOOOO just keep mouthing off killer. Like I say, you epose just how phony you are everytime.

reply from: carolemarie

Translation:
The whole issues is if you agree with my precious personhood bill. If you don't then I hate you.

reply from: Witness

Translation:
The whole issues is if you agree with my precious personhood bill. If you don't then I hate you.
Why would you oppose personhood for someone who is a person? Children are people. I think it truly a sad comment on our society that there is a need for a personhood bill. It should go without saying.

reply from: Witness

Oh, and as to the topic of this thread, forced abortion should be illegal in every circumstance. Unfortunately, it happens all the time and is ignored because the "right to abort" is considered by some to be more important than protecting women from enforced abortion.

reply from: scopia19822

"Oh, and as to the topic of this thread, forced abortion should be illegal in every circumstance. Unfortunately, it happens all the time and is ignored because the "right to abort" is considered by some to be more important than protecting women from enforced abortion."
Having been forced to have an abortion, I agree with you on this 100%.

reply from: faithman

Translation:
The whole issues is if you agree with my precious personhood bill. If you don't then I hate you.
Why would you oppose personhood for someone who is a person? Children are people. I think it truly a sad comment on our society that there is a need for a personhood bill. It should go without saying.
What is equally sad is someone who shows preferance to killers over the ones being killed. If one is not for equality thru personhood for the womb child then one is not pro-life. The question really is,"why do some hate womb children so much that they would deny them personhood so they could be continuously legally slaughtered?" You need to ask the phonies why they don't want all killers punished? Why should we let those who pay for the death of womb children skate of into the sunset free? Yes, personhood should be without saying, but as long as we have phony pro-lifers willing to deny it for the sake of killer freedom, We must say it loud and often. If you are not pro-personhood you are not pro-life!!!

reply from: faithman

Then why do you fawn over a killer of three who is more for her fellow killers at the expence of personhood for the womb child? Why do you defend a phony who has point blank said that the womb child person is not equal to the born person?

reply from: scopia19822

"Then why do you fawn over a killer of three who is more for her fellow killers at the expence of personhood for the womb child? Why do you defend a phony who has point blank said that the womb child person is not equal to the born person?"
Carole has repented for her sins . Do I think shes wrong about her exceptions, certainly I do, but how would Jesus handle someone like her? With kindness,compassion and firm but loving rebuking. Given that Carole was a prostitute in her past, she is getting the treatment that the Pharisees gave the woman they wanted to have stoned for adultery. Jesus told her to go and sin no more. Carole is wrong and I will continue to tell her so and pray for God to make her see that, but I will not be a Pharisee and condemn her for her past.

reply from: Rosalie

I have already explained that to you and I have nothing else to add. You're of course free to further ignore everyone else's opinion but yours.

reply from: BossMomma

I have already explained that to you and I have nothing else to add. You're of course free to further ignore everyone else's opinion but yours.
I chose to disregard blatant selfishness, which you so clearly support. I also disregard cowardice and cop outs which you also vigorously support. Anything else?

reply from: GodsLaw4Us2Live

Mary was a pregnant teen when she had Jesus. Both of my parents were teenagers when they had me.
Protecting the life of a living human being should always be mandatory. A Who is a Who, no matter how small. Protect the little boys and girls.
Abortionists should receive the maximum punishment available by law for first degree intentional homocide. Dads and moms are also party to the murder and should receive appropriate sentences (the same as the hired assassin).

reply from: carolemarie

One more reason to be glad that to make a law, we have to first get support from the MAJORITY of people, who would not elect someone who is an extremest

reply from: micah

You mean the American people won't elect someone who would force women to have their rapist's babies? I never.

reply from: Rosalie

If you call wanting the best for you and your family selfishness then I'm happy and proud to be selfish.
I of course strongly disagree with your use of the word cowardice because there's nothing cowardly about controlling your own medical choices and making your own medical, reproductive decisions.
You act like a cold, bitter woman who would like to hold everyone else to what I view as very distorted standards and when they refuse, they're immediately selfish cowards.

reply from: faithman

If you call wanting the best for you and your family selfishness then I'm happy and proud to be selfish.
I of course strongly disagree with your use of the word cowardice because there's nothing cowardly about controlling your own medical choices and making your own medical, reproductive decisions.
You act like a cold, bitter woman who would like to hold everyone else to what I view as very distorted standards and when they refuse, they're immediately selfish cowards.What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: BossMomma

If you call wanting the best for you and your family selfishness then I'm happy and proud to be selfish.
I of course strongly disagree with your use of the word cowardice because there's nothing cowardly about controlling your own medical choices and making your own medical, reproductive decisions.
You act like a cold, bitter woman who would like to hold everyone else to what I view as very distorted standards and when they refuse, they're immediately selfish cowards.
Right so if I disagree with you I'm a cold, bitter, judgemental twat? The majority of the time pregnancy does nothing to harm the woman and the abortion is for pure convenience. Abortion is not just a reproductive choice it is a death sentence when one is not warrented. I'm done being insulted by you, obviously you are not intelligent enough to hold a debate without derogatory personal attacks against your opponent.

reply from: galen

_________________________
I agree.

reply from: Rosalie

No. Calling other people selfish and cowards for making choices different from yours makes you a cold and callous.
I tried to explain the twat thing elsewhere but I think a small copy&paste will do no harm:
"My fiancé is an Aussie and I lived in the UK for some time so it's different from me, I use a lot of English words more freely and/or differently because I'm not bound by geographical boundaries, I've travelled a lot and learned a lot from it.
I'm sorry if that's how you understood it, that wasn't intentional. Even though I understand why you may want to think it was."
I find it funny that you think that I insulted you but when it comes to you treating women with disdain and calling them selfish and cowards - these are somehow not insults at all. Double standards much?

reply from: BossMomma

No. Calling other people selfish and cowards for making choices different from yours makes you a cold and callous.
I tried to explain the twat thing elsewhere but I think a small copy&paste will do no harm:
"My fiancé is an Aussie and I lived in the UK for some time so it's different from me, I use a lot of English words more freely and/or differently because I'm not bound by geographical boundaries, I've travelled a lot and learned a lot from it.
I'm sorry if that's how you understood it, that wasn't intentional. Even though I understand why you may want to think it was."
I find it funny that you think that I insulted you but when it comes to you treating women with disdain and calling them selfish and cowards - these are somehow not insults at all. Double standards much?
I called no one selfish or cowardly, I was refering to the act of aborting, not attacking anyone personally. You attacked me personally just for having a different opinion. I too have been to Europe and could have refered to you as a right balmy tosser as you are clearly not using all of your mental faculties but I prefered to debate without personally insulting my opponent. Don't act like you're so worldly wise when you know so little about the woman on the other end of the argument.

reply from: faithman

No. Calling other people selfish and cowards for making choices different from yours makes you a cold and callous.
I tried to explain the twat thing elsewhere but I think a small copy&paste will do no harm:
"My fiancé is an Aussie and I lived in the UK for some time so it's different from me, I use a lot of English words more freely and/or differently because I'm not bound by geographical boundaries, I've travelled a lot and learned a lot from it.
I'm sorry if that's how you understood it, that wasn't intentional. Even though I understand why you may want to think it was."
I find it funny that you think that I insulted you but when it comes to you treating women with disdain and calling them selfish and cowards - these are somehow not insults at all. Double standards much?
I called no one selfish or cowardly, I was refering to the act of aborting, not attacking anyone personally. You attacked me personally just for having a different opinion. I too have been to Europe and could have refered to you as a right balmy tosser as you are clearly not using all of your mental faculties but I prefered to debate without personally insulting my opponent. Don't act like you're so worldly wise when you know so little about the woman on the other end of the argument.
HARK!!! one of the cats turned woman!!!

reply from: Rosalie

That's just not true.
If that's what you want to believe.
And when did I ever said you weren't or that travelling was a pre-requisite to anything?
I have been trying to explain to you that English is used differently in the world. It's the very same thing in the UK with the word c-u-n-t - they don't understand or use it the same way most people in the USA do.
When you travel, you tend to absord some habits you liked or a certain way of talking, cetran patterns, certain phrases. I HAVE apologized to you because you misunderstood what I meant but like I said before - if you prefer to rage on and stuff it's your business.
Ahh, good old condescending attitude. Well, that was to be exptected, I guess.

reply from: faithman

That's just not true.
If that's what you want to believe.
And when did I ever said you weren't or that travelling was a pre-requisite to anything?
I have been trying to explain to you that English is used differently in the world. It's the very same thing in the UK with the word c-u-n-t - they don't understand or use it the same way most people in the USA do.
When you travel, you tend to absord some habits you liked or a certain way of talking, cetran patterns, certain phrases. I HAVE apologized to you because you misunderstood what I meant but like I said before - if you prefer to rage on and stuff it's your business.
Ahh, good old condescending attitude. Well, that was to be exptected, I guess.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: scopia19822

"I have been trying to explain to you that English is used differently in the world. It's the very same thing in the UK with the word c-u-n-t - they don't understand or use it the same way most people in the USA do.
When you travel, you tend to absord some habits you liked or a certain way of talking, cetran patterns, certain phrases. I HAVE apologized to you because you misunderstood what I meant but like I said before - if you prefer to rage on and stuff it's your business"
When in Rome do as the Romans do. Hence if a word or gesture is considered an insult in one place that your traveling too its best not to use that word or gesture.

reply from: Rosalie

Gee, next time my UK friends visit, I'll be sure to tell them that they cannot use British slang here BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Please.
As a citizen of the US I actually do not support US-centrism. And I refuse to limit something as limitless as the English language. If anyone here was actually honest, you would confess that there was another meaning of the word that you weren't aware of before and that maybe you were actually mistaken.
But for you people it's better to to use it just as another excuse to spread belligerence.

reply from: yoda

You don't think that BHO is an extremist on abortion?

reply from: carolemarie

You don't think that BHO is an extremist on abortion?
Who is BHO?

reply from: yoda

Your hero, the guy you said you were for in the last presidential election:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.........

reply from: micah

Let me put it to you this way. I don't expect abortion rates under Obama will be much higher (if at all higher) than under Bush.

reply from: carolemarie

I never said I was for Obama. I voted for Sarah Palin

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I find that hilarious since it implies people can't even be bothered to read your signature... where it says "Another PTA mom for Sarah Palin!"

reply from: scopia19822

"Gee, next time my UK friends visit, I'll be sure to tell them that they cannot use British slang here BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Please. "
Big difference between using benign slang and using a word that may be offense in the place your visiting. One needs to educate themselves on the customs of where they are going. If someone from the UK came up and asked me if I had a "fag" I would know they were asking me for a cigarette, but someone else may not and could easily be offended. If I was going to visit a country in the middle east I would know not to eat with left hand as its considered offensive , because the left hand is the hand they use to clean themselves after going to the bathroom. I am mostly of Irish descent and identify that as my primary ethinicty and given the bad blood between England and Ireland and what the English did to my ancestors, I cant say I have the desire to ever visit there.

reply from: yoda

If not, it won't be because he isn't trying.

reply from: yoda

You most certainly said you could "live with" Obama, didn't you?

reply from: Rosalie

I disagree. I think we all should be aware that the English language is not limited by geographical boundaries and we should think outside of the confines of our own state, country, state of mind etc. Thinking is good.
My entire point still stands, too. Not ONE of you was able to admit that you were not aware that the word has another meaning - as if it was something to be ashamed of. That's sad.

reply from: Witness

Let me put it to you this way. I don't expect abortion rates under Obama will be much higher (if at all higher) than under Bush.
So, you must be one of those who still believe Planned Parenthood is trying to reduce abortion? Hey, I've got some swamp land . . .

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You most certainly said you could "live with" Obama, didn't you?
I could live with herpes. Doesn't mean I WANT it.

reply from: carolemarie

You most certainly said you could "live with" Obama, didn't you?
I could live with herpes. Doesn't mean I WANT it.
LOL

reply from: scopia19822

"I disagree. I think we all should be aware that the English language is not limited by geographical boundaries and we should think outside of the confines of our own state, country, state of mind etc. Thinking is good."
Of course thinking is good, but one is more inclined to use words and meanings that they hear on a daily basis.Its good to learn the other dialects of whatever country or region one maybe moving too or visting. There are probably many "southernisms"that I use that you may have never heard of and many "new yorkisms" that you use that I have never heard of. Each region of this country has their own dialects.
"My entire point still stands, too. Not ONE of you was able to admit that you were not aware that the word has another meaning - as if it was something to be ashamed of. That's sad."
If someone called me a twat or a*****I would be offended even if I knew in some other country it may have another meaning. Because here in America its an offensive term.

reply from: Rosalie

But I've just explained to you that that was not what I meant but you refuse to accept it.
So be it, it's definitely not breaking my heart. It was to be expected anyway.

reply from: yoda

You were comparing Obama to something like herpes? Is that what you meant? Or are you just too timid to give your own answer?

reply from: BossMomma

I disagree. I think we all should be aware that the English language is not limited by geographical boundaries and we should think outside of the confines of our own state, country, state of mind etc. Thinking is good.
My entire point still stands, too. Not ONE of you was able to admit that you were not aware that the word has another meaning - as if it was something to be ashamed of. That's sad.
Well, don't bring that slang to Texas is all I can say, you're liable to get a cowboy boot up your ass you call someone a twat around here.

reply from: Rosalie

Yeah, I'm shaking in my boots.... not.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You most certainly said you could "live with" Obama, didn't you?
I could live with herpes. Doesn't mean I WANT it.
LOL
Occasionally I am funny XD

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It doesn't matter. Just because I didn't find the word "retard" to be offensive when I first got here didn't mean I wasn't hurting Lukesmom's feelings. Me explaining what I actually meant to her didn't matter; I was still offending her and nothing can change that. So out of respect I don't say it anymore on here.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You were comparing Obama to something like herpes? Is that what you meant? Or are you just too timid to give your own answer?
I figure YOU think Obama is comparable to having herpes. I personally am really excited for tomorrow's inaguration!
Actually, my point was simply this: Just because you can LIVE with something (anything), doesn't mean you WANT that thing or approve of it.

reply from: yoda

How about Rudy Julliani? Did you not say he was your man?

reply from: Faramir

Well, that's all the proof I need that BHO is your "hero."
LOL

reply from: nancyu

But you have judged her. You have made an automatic judgment that she she must have had a very good reason for killing her child.
Would you say "I'm not judging you or anything" to someone who killed a child after it had been born?
Suppose a 15 year old girl waited too long for an abortion, but still knew that she just wasn't ready to be a mother, and she couldn't imagine having to give her child up for adoption.
What if a 15 year old girl had been raped, but didn't know she was pregnant right away. Or maybe she had the baby early and thought she could abort, but she ran out of time.
Would you judge her immediately or would you first consider her story?
I've heard CM's stories, and I don't buy them. I think she is a cold blooded killer who has gotten away with murder. And continues to get away with it by acting contrite, and by playing the innocent victim.
I don't feel this way about all women who have aborted. I don't automatically hate everyone who has had an abortion. There are many reasons, and circumstances behind every abortion, just like there are many reasons and circumstances behind other types of murder. But that doesn't mean we have to say "poor poor murderer, I'm sure you didn't mean it." Because sometimes that is not the case.

reply from: nancyu

I have already explained that to you and I have nothing else to add. You're of course free to further ignore everyone else's opinion but yours.
I chose to disregard blatant selfishness, which you so clearly support. I also disregard cowardice and cop outs which you also vigorously support. Anything else?
Great post!
Sometimes I really do like you BossMomma. (and other times...not so much)

reply from: nancyu

Translation:
The whole issues is if you agree with my precious personhood bill. If you don't then I hate you.
Why would you oppose personhood for someone who is a person? Children are people. I think it truly a sad comment on our society that there is a need for a personhood bill. It should go without saying.

reply from: BossMomma

I have already explained that to you and I have nothing else to add. You're of course free to further ignore everyone else's opinion but yours.
I chose to disregard blatant selfishness, which you so clearly support. I also disregard cowardice and cop outs which you also vigorously support. Anything else?
Great post!
Sometimes I really do like you BossMomma. (and other times...not so much)
I'm a faux lifer though right? In reality I fully support baby killing according to your little shyte list.

reply from: nancyu

I don't have a list. I've said before that I don't know if you are a phony pro lifer or a little schizo. Maybe it's a hormone imbalance, maybe our hormones just clash. How should I know.
I just know that sometimes I like what you have to say, other times I disagree, and sometimes (like now) you're just a jerk.

reply from: Faramir

What's it like to ALWAYS be one instead of sometimes?

reply from: BossMomma

Well when you have had enough of a certain group's crap civility tends to go out the window. I try to remain calm and even tempered and btw I'm not schizo I'm bi-polar and I will admit at times I have my moments. I am not faux life, however my empathy goes out to more than just the unborn. Focusing on just the fetus is like trying to view a broad picture with tunnel vision. There are many problems that must be solved before abortion can be ended and the majority of the pro-life extremists do not consider anything but the narrow view.

reply from: carolemarie

How about Rudy Julliani? Did you not say he was your man?
I really like Rudy Guilliani. I still like him!
I lived in NYC under Koch, so I appreciate what Guilliani did for NYC, especially after 911. He did such a great job on crime that Clinton got credit for the decrease in violent crime in the nation, it was from NYC! He reduced the murder rate and went up against the porn industry and won!
But he was out before my state voted in the primaries. I voted for Huckabee in the primary....

reply from: scopia19822

"Well when you have had enough of a certain group's crap civility tends to go out the window. I try to remain calm and even tempered and btw I'm not schizo I'm bi-polar and I will admit at times I have my moments. I am not faux life, however my empathy goes out to more than just the unborn. Focusing on just the fetus is like trying to view a broad picture with tunnel vision. There are many problems that must be solved before abortion can be ended and the majority of the pro-life extremists do not consider anything but the narrow view."
Boss we are proud faux lifers!! We believe in mercy, compassion and forgiveness of women who have aborted and regretted it. We have compassion for women who may find themselves in a crisis pregnancy and feel that abortion is the only option they have by offering them alternatives and access to resources to show them they can choose life. We have compassion for that child once the child is born by offering social service referrals and doing little things to make there lot in life a little easier. We believe that God is merciful and forgiving if a woman repents and asks for his forgiveness. We do things these things because we oppose abortion and because its our Christian duty. We are commanded to take care of the widows, orphans, poor and the oppressed. This will do alot more than just holding signs and chanting babykiller and publicly shaming those who regret past actions.

reply from: BossMomma

And what I find funny is that Nancy will stand crammed shoulder to shoulder with CL2, Yodahater and, F-boy until she gets called out, then suddenly she has no part in the discrimination. Thus far she is the only "pro-life" woman who isn't on that BS list and it's because she as dispassionate with women as the bigoted trio.

reply from: scopia19822

"And what I find funny is that Nancy will stand crammed shoulder to shoulder with CL2, Yodahater and, F-boy until she gets called out, then suddenly she has no part in the discrimination. Thus far she is the only "pro-life" woman who isn't on that BS list and it's because she as dispassionate with women as the bigoted trio."
She said she thought you were schizo, from some of her post I think she hits the bottle a little too often.

reply from: BossMomma

I dunno, if she's an alcoholic she's a belligerent one.

reply from: nancyu

I rarely drink at all. Nice try at slander, though. Typical.

reply from: nancyu

And what I find funny is that Nancy will stand crammed shoulder to shoulder with CL2, Yodahater and, F-boy until she gets called out, then suddenly she has no part in the discrimination. Thus far she is the only "pro-life" woman who isn't on that BS list and it's because she as dispassionate with women as the bigoted trio.
Yes I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them...
I don't care that they have a list, they can think and say what they want about whoever they want. It's just that I don't happen to have a list, so to say that I do when I don't is a lie. Tells me a little about why you might be on their lists.

reply from: Faramir

I believe abortion should be illegal and that there should be legal protection of the embryo and fetus, including the cases of rape and incest.
I believe an an abortion unjustly kills a human person.
I believe in personhood from the moment of conception.
I believe your two forum boyfriends are bullies who hide behind "the babies" as an excuse to pummel others, especially the post-abortive, and I believe that's why you like them and why you imitate them.
Which of these reasons makes me a "pro-abort" or a "faux-lifer"? Do you have a definition that would support it?

reply from: yoda

All proaborts do that, nothing unusual at all.

reply from: yoda

Just can't say "baby", can you? Or "won't"? Which is it?


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