Abortion

[PLAYER57832]

Frankly, if it hadn't been for the military, I'm pretty sure neither of those would have been very successful. But that's the key...we were lucky. We were some of the fortunate few.

You were more than lucky. You had character. And, as you noted, you must have had some background to help you.

[Night Strike]

Disclaimer: I've only read the first half of the thread.

Many "abortions" are actually surgical removeal of already dead infants. This is just one example of how the so-called "right to lifers" don't bother understanding facts.

We all know what's being discussed, no matter what technical definition you want to throw out there. There is a major difference between a natural miscarriage and an artificially induced abortion, and this thread is obviously discussing the latter. No need to waste time and space discussing the first kind and, even worse, trying to use it to justify the existence of the second.

The REAL argument, debate is over the best way to limit abortions. History gives us the best argument for that. The FACTS are that women died over and over in the past because they did not have acces to safe abortions.

.......

The QUESTION is how best to limit. Here the right wing is hypocritic beyond belief. The way to limit abortion is to educate young girls and boys about the facts of life. To inform them honestly about the risks not just of pregnancy, but disease. AND, yes, because not everyone lives in a household where premarital sex is considered wrong or entirely wrong, they do need to learn some protection methods, along with the honest truth about effectiveness. This includes telling even kids in houses without "traditional" values that getting pregnant as a teen is not a good idea, medically, socialy, etc. A GOOD program reduces teen pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies in general. The FACTS do bear that out. If you don't wish to believe history, just look at Texas.

If you truly want to limit abortions, here are a number of easy steps that can be taken.
1) Close all "clinics" whose primary means of income is abortions. Let's remove these abortion mills such as where doctors come for one day a week and do many abortions and have all procedures done in an actual hospital (you know, where actual surgeries take place).
2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.
3) Stop glorifying irresponsibility!!!!!!!! Enough with Octomom, Teen Mom shows, and other media praises of people who make bad choices. We as a society have got to stop rewarding people who make irresponsible decisions and quit finding ways to praise them for those decisions. There is a huge difference between giving someone assistance and praising them for their actions. Our society used to have a negative stigma on teen pregnancies, and that wasn't just about religion. Almost all teenagers do not have the ability to provide for themselves and their children, so we should remind others that this life is not one to be glorified as some perceive it to currently be.
4) Stop giving government assistance to people who continue to have kids while already receiving government assistance.

[natty dread]

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

Having their consent? So if an underaged gets pregnant, her parents can force her to have the child against her will? Man, you're a genius.

And sometimes teens & kids are afraid to tell things to their parents. If an minor can't get an abortion without letting her parents know, don't you think that will make it harder for the minor to seek help with an unwanted pregnancy?

Minor or adult, no one should be forced to carry a child she doesn't want. Here's an idea, how about looking after the children that are already born, before worrying about the rights of the unborn.

Our society used to have a negative stigma on teen pregnancies, and that wasn't just about religion. Almost all teenagers do not have the ability to provide for themselves and their children, so we should remind others that this life is not one to be glorified as some perceive it to currently be.

Why do you think teen pregnancies are so common in the first place?

Poor sex education and abstinence programs probably have nothing to do with it, right?

4) Stop giving government assistance to people who continue to have kids while already receiving government assistance.

Why stop there, why not just sterilize all the poor people while you're at it.

[PLAYER57832]

Disclaimer: I've only read the first half of the thread.

fair enough, but I tackled some of this in a later post. I will try not to repeat, but still will address your points.

Many "abortions" are actually surgical removeal of already dead infants. This is just one example of how the so-called "right to lifers" don't bother understanding facts.

We all know what's being discussed, no matter what technical definition you want to throw out there. There is a major difference between a natural miscarriage and an artificially induced abortion, and this thread is obviously discussing the latter. No need to waste time and space discussing the first kind and, even worse, trying to use it to justify the existence of the second.

WRONG, because this involves the law and per the law those definitions very much do matter.

You can dismiss that, but then you dismiss what the statistics so often reported say. AND, you miss the real points.

The REAL argument, debate is over the best way to limit abortions. History gives us the best argument for that. The FACTS are that women died over and over in the past because they did not have acces to safe abortions.

.......

The QUESTION is how best to limit. Here the right wing is hypocritic beyond belief. The way to limit abortion is to educate young girls and boys about the facts of life. To inform them honestly about the risks not just of pregnancy, but disease. AND, yes, because not everyone lives in a household where premarital sex is considered wrong or entirely wrong, they do need to learn some protection methods, along with the honest truth about effectiveness. This includes telling even kids in houses without "traditional" values that getting pregnant as a teen is not a good idea, medically, socialy, etc. A GOOD program reduces teen pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies in general. The FACTS do bear that out. If you don't wish to believe history, just look at Texas.

If you truly want to limit abortions, here are a number of easy steps that can be taken.
1) Close all "clinics" whose primary means of income is abortions. Let's remove these abortion mills such as where doctors come for one day a week and do many abortions and have all procedures done in an actual hospital (you know, where actual surgeries take place).

WRONG.. and your answer shows ignorance of history. That doesn't stop abortions, it pushes women to clinics.

In many areas, doctors who do abortions face serious threats to their families, lives, etc. THAT is why you have roaming doctors who do little else.

Here, some data for you:
full link to article: http://www.emedicinehealth.com/abortion/article_em.htm

•Worldwide, some 20-30 million legal abortions are performed each year, with another 10-20 million abortions performed illegally. Illegal abortions are unsafe and account for 13% of all deaths of women because of serious complications. Death from abortion is almost unknown in the United States or in other countries where abortion is legally available

Note that the last bit is changing as more and more place make legal abortion even more difficult or impossible.

and..

•From 1900 until the 1960s, abortions were prohibited by law. However, the Kinsey report noted that premarital pregnancies were electively aborted, and public and physician opinion began to be shaped by the alarming reports of increased numbers of unsafe illegal abortions.


In 1965, 265 deaths occurred due to illegal abortions. Of all pregnancy-related complications in New York and California, 20% were due to abortions. A series of US Supreme Court decisions granted increased rights to women and ensured their right to choice in this process. No decision was more important than Griswold v Connecticut, which, in 1965, recognized a constitutional right to privacy and ruled that a married couple had a constitutional right to obtain birth control from their health care provider.

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

Numbers?
here, from the heritage foundation a noteably RIGHT WING source..:

In 1985, 13.5 abortions were performed on minors for every 1,000 girls between the ages of 13 and 17. By 1999, the abortion rate for minors had fallen by over 50 percent to 6.5 per 1,000 teenage girls ages 13 to 17.

AND note.. per earlier comments,the other thread on Google, I looked at several pages and almost all of the listings given were from noted right wing sources. Some give trustworthy data, but that this bias exists in what should be an unbiased search is disturbing and points to how the internet is shaping, not informing opinion in many cases.


ANYWAY, requiring consent of parents is not going to limit abortions significantly. What DOES reduce the number is education of teens. Its a parent's job to teach the mroality. It is the school's job to give facts, so that each teen can make better decisions within that moral framework.. even if its not a moral framework you or I might like. Truth is, NO ONE sane wants teens to be pregnant today. And NO ONE sane wants abortion to be the "solution". But cutting off that as an option doesn't make teens behave any better. The real issue is that teens are raised with varied values AND even those supposedly taught to "not get pregnant" won't often think through the consequences fully. They won't understand how easy it is to be pregnant, the emotions involved, etc. Information, education can help put a bit of a brake on that. Even when that doesn't work, letting them have prevention information at least keeps abortions down. And, finally... sometimes abortion is an option people want.

PS you are wrong about the Tylenol in high school bit, at least in PA. In PA, a child of 15 is able to make their own medical decisions.

3) Stop glorifying irresponsibility!!!!!!!! Enough with Octomom, Teen Mom shows, and other media praises of people who make bad choices.

I agree, except that many of those shows serve well to show how BAD those choices are. And, well, you have been strong among those voicing opposition to effective sex education.

We as a society have got to stop rewarding people who make irresponsible decisions and quit finding ways to praise them for those decisions.

Agreed.
Yet, as a single, independent female, I had no "place" within most churches. Sure, people were friendly enough, happy to try and hook me up with men. However, the single women with 2 kids from different fathers got more real assistance, social support and plain welcome than I WITHIN THE CHURCH. This is not "just me". Look around, talk to women and you find it is commonly the case. So... the very groups claiming to put forward responsible behavior inadvertantly do the opposite. Add in that they ALSO try to prohibit education and you get a fair number of girls who get pregnant either honestly not truly knowing "how it happened" or who are all too willing to do as their boyfriends ask, because that is what they think they are supposed to do, no matter how much lip service is given to other choices.

There is a huge difference between giving someone assistance and praising them for their actions. Our society used to have a negative stigma on teen pregnancies, and that wasn't just about religion. Almost all teenagers do not have the ability to provide for themselves and their children, so we should remind others that this life is not one to be glorified as some perceive it to currently be.

FURTHERMORE, cutting funding to children actually increases the chance that someone will have an abortion.

You claim that society "used to have a stigma". Yes, but almost exclusively targeted to women. Far too many men come out publically opposed to all of this, but turn around with a "wink and a nod" when it comes to boy's behavior. We STILL do not raise girls to fully stand up to men. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot teach girls that thier primary role in life is to submit to and support men and then condemn them severely when they submit to what winds up being the wrong guy.

That is not about abortion. It is about idiocy versus sense and education. And... again, you have come out against education. (no, the so-called "abstinence only" stuff you advocate is not really education, it is keeping information from kids).

4) Stop giving government assistance to people who continue to have kids while already receiving government assistance.

[/quote][/quote]
Again, but what about the choice to keep a child who can only survive hooked up to multiple machines, at taxpayer expense... while ALSO cutting funding for the most basic care for children who need only a little help to stay fully healthy and productive.

What about the moral decision to keep any child alive with utterly artificial means, no matter the quality of that child's life, no matter the expense, no matter the impact to the parents and other children in the family.

You cannot have it both ways. You want to take funding for food from a mother who chose to have her child, but then will object to someone who wants to terminate a pregnancy when they are told their child will never, ever be able to function in society. (and please note I am not saying we should force abortion, I am saying you should not force them to keep the child).

[thegreekdog]

I build a device that takes some eggs and some sperm. When I press a button the device will activate and in 10 minutes time the eggs will be fertilized with 99% probability, the egg is then cared for "Brave new world" style . Therefore the device will likely produce a living human.

By your definition, what is alive in those 10 minutes? The individual eggs and sperm? The whole contraption? If I press a second button and stop the fertilization am I liable for murder?

now we're talking...

i'm not a biological expert, but i really don't see how terminating what is guaranteed to result in human life can not qualify as murder. whether it's justified murder or not (euthanasia for example is technically murder but can be justified) is an entirely different debate. but it irks me that people talk about unborn children as objects. they are producing human life, and you are terminating it...

however, i would only consider it murder if the organism was virtually guaranteed to be alive now or in the future. this is why abortions for life-threatening miscarriages can be justified; the net outcome of the abortion is one life saved and one life terminated a bit sooner than it would be otherwise.

Does this (the bolded part) mean that a parent who prevents their daughter, who's currently ovulating, from having unprotected sex by bursting in on her and her boyfriend is committing murder?
Does a person commit murder if they stop a rape from happening that would've left the woman pregnant?

Does the bolded part mean that a parent who kills their two year old daughter is engaging in an abortion? Why are we ignoring MrAdams' points?

[Mr_Adams]

Because they have no clear decisive counter argument.

[thegreekdog]

On a personal note, I would never ask my significant other to have an abortion if she was pregnant, regardless of my age or ability to care for a child. This is absolutely based on my religion and the value we place on human life ("life" as not defined by the United States Supreme Court). Without getting into details, we were told that our unborn child may have an issue. It is no longer an issue, so we're okay there (which is why I feel comfortable talking about this now). The potential issue was identified in week 20 of my wife's pregnancy (or approximately 5 months). At this point the fetus had a heartbeat and we could feel it move. Our prenatal specialist indicated that among the solutions to any potential issue was termination of the pregnancy. She indicated that we could terminate the pregnancy up to and including week 24. On a personal level, this disgusted me (the idea that a fetus with an audible heartbeat and tactile movement could be terminated this late).

All that being said, the United States Supreme Court has ruled as it has ruled and therefore abortion is not murder and women have the right to choose to terminate their pregnancies up to at least 24 weeks into the pregnancy. I would not choose to have an abortion and if someone asked me I would counsel against it, but it is not my place to preach to others when the highest court in the United States has determine that such a course of action is not only legal, but is a right.

We've argued this issue before and it engenders a lot of angry feelings. I have never known anyone to have their minds changed based on this discussion (although I heard somewhere that the woman in the Roe v. Wade case is now a pro-lifer... not that it matters). But, as Mr. Adams indicated a few pages ago, if we base viability of life on whether a baby can care for itself, we're making a rather specious argument.

[PLAYER57832]

Because they have no clear decisive counter argument.

which post?

do you mean this one?

I think it's hilarious that most anti-abortion people are men.....

Hahahaha. Morons.

Most people who didn't support slavery were non-slave owners.

I did not respond because I posted a lot already.

the answer, however, is that the two situations are not parallel. While non slave-owners have the potential to own slaves, men almost never get pregnant. (when they do, it requires such an extraordinary effort only one truly wanting to become pregnant would try!)

Also, even today, even in this country the decision about whether to become pregnant is more often the man's choice, not fully the woman's. (women have far more options today than in the past, but things are not "even")

[PLAYER57832]

On a personal note, I would never ask my significant other to have an abortion if she was pregnant, regardless of my age or ability to care for a child. This is absolutely based on my religion and the value we place on human life ("life" as not defined by the United States Supreme Court). Without getting into details, we were told that our unborn child may have an issue. It is no longer an issue, so we're okay there (which is why I feel comfortable talking about this now). The potential issue was identified in week 20 of my wife's pregnancy (or approximately 5 months).

So glad to hear it all turned out well!

[thegreekdog]

On a personal note, I would never ask my significant other to have an abortion if she was pregnant, regardless of my age or ability to care for a child. This is absolutely based on my religion and the value we place on human life ("life" as not defined by the United States Supreme Court). Without getting into details, we were told that our unborn child may have an issue. It is no longer an issue, so we're okay there (which is why I feel comfortable talking about this now). The potential issue was identified in week 20 of my wife's pregnancy (or approximately 5 months).

So glad to hear it all turned out well!

Thanks. To be honest, we're still worried, but we're a whole lot less worried than we were a few months ago.

[Mr_Adams]

At some point in this thread, somebody asked when gametes become equal to the mother, and that is an interesting question, which I would like that person to please answer for us now. Let's look at the facts:

An unborn child is:
1)unable to feed itself
2)unable to defend itself
3)Is, in fact, genetically identifiable as human.
4)Is genetically identifiable as separate from the mother and father.

Arguments one and two trump 3 and 4, therefore abortion is moral, right? Let's observe another situation.

A two year old is:
1)unable to feed itself
2)unable to defend itself
3)Is, in fact, genetically identifiable as human.
4)Is genetically identifiable as separate from the mother and father.

Well, Holy crap! my sister should be able to slaughter her two year old with a kitchen knife by this argument!

I'm just following the observed argument to it's logical conclusion.

This one. the only response we got was a stupid something to the effect of

"And 2=1"

[Woodruff]

... by Page 9, "Murder" is winning.
... That's interesting to me.

You don't go broke by betting on the lack of intelligence of the American public. Or something.

[Woodruff]

If you truly want to limit abortions, here are a number of easy steps that can be taken.
1) Close all "clinics" whose primary means of income is abortions. Let's remove these abortion mills such as where doctors come for one day a week and do many abortions and have all procedures done in an actual hospital (you know, where actual surgeries take place).

Why would this limit abortions - because of the cost? If that's your criteria for who should be able to get an abortion and who should not, your priorities are seriously fucked up.

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

I absolutely agree regarding informing the parents - I also find it ludicrous that the parents are not required to be informed. By the same token, I disagree that it should be the parents' decision. Many parents would opt for the abortion rather than carrying to term.

3) Stop glorifying irresponsibility!!!!!!!! Enough with Octomom, Teen Mom shows, and other media praises of people who make bad choices.

Agreed.

4) Stop giving government assistance to people who continue to have kids while already receiving government assistance.

Agreed, as long as it's not counting the first one. For me, the key is "continue". Also, I wouldn't STOP giving assistance, I simply wouldn't ADD to that assistance.

[PLAYER57832]

At some point in this thread, somebody asked when gametes become equal to the mother, and that is an interesting question, which I would like that person to please answer for us now. Let's look at the facts:

An unborn child is:
1)unable to feed itself
2)unable to defend itself
3)Is, in fact, genetically identifiable as human.
4)Is genetically identifiable as separate from the mother and father.

Arguments one and two trump 3 and 4, therefore abortion is moral, right? Let's observe another situation.

A two year old is:
1)unable to feed itself
2)unable to defend itself
3)Is, in fact, genetically identifiable as human.
4)Is genetically identifiable as separate from the mother and father.

Well, Holy crap! my sister should be able to slaughter her two year old with a kitchen knife by this argument!

I'm just following the observed argument to it's logical conclusion.

This one. the only response we got was a stupid something to the effect of

"And 2=1"

ah, OK. Sorry, but the appropriate response is not 2=1, its "garbage in = garbage out"

The problem is you start with a false assumption. #1 and 2 are irrelevant, or far from reason to say abortion is OK under some circumstances (well, maybe not "OK", but the better of bad alternatives) and should be legal.

I actually answered this point more fully above, in one of my long posts. (I think the response to BS?)

the reason, from a pure scientific standpoint, is that what exists might resemble a human, but really has few of the qualities we associate with being human. There are other reasons and I don't want to argue this point. ( I believe a fetus is a human) However, there it is.

I think that false assumption might be why so many just ignored your post. They (myself included) did not take it seriously.

[Mr_Adams]

So, how are 1 nad 2 false premises? And what do you mean "does not resemble a human"? Do deformed people not count as people because they don't LOOK the same? by 20 weeks, a fetus has all human organs needed to function (though not developed enough to live on it's own), but people with different forms of Palsy have the same range of function. does that make them less than human?

[PLAYER57832]

So, how are 1 nad 2 false premises? And what do you mean "does not resemble a human"? Do deformed people not count as people because they don't LOOK the same? by 20 weeks, a fetus has all human organs needed to function (though not developed enough to live on it's own), but people with different forms of Palsy have the same range of function. does that make them less than human?

First, twenty weeks is generally the cutoff for when its called "abortion". So, when talking about legal decisions, medical statements that early fetuses are not truly human yet, they are not talking about a 20 week old baby.

An "elective" abortion is only allowed within the first trimester. At that point, the fetus looks pretty human, but according to the experts, there is no sensation, etc. Now, I said I don't want to debate that issue myself. I brought it up because your point has no bearing on the medical /biological assessment. Its rather like arguing that holding the hand of a two year old crossing the street is restrictive because by age 10 they ought to do it on their own. A two year old is not as developed "congitively" as a 10 year old.

I agree we don't 100% know, etc. I make other points myself. (is death the worst thing that can happen to a child, what are the real alternatives-- and note that a healthy live birth is too often NOT the real alternative).

And your comment about deformed infants is part of why I said no one took your comment seriously. Ironically, looks are about all an early fetus has to share with more mature humans.

[note, buried in there seems to be a serious question -- is there a point at which someone is so disabled that we no longer have an obligation to keep them alive, a point at which there are too many machines, too much "cost" (not just in money) to justify keeping that person alive against their or their parent's will? However, if you seriously want to tackle that, it might be better discussed in another thread.]

[Night Strike]

If you truly want to limit abortions, here are a number of easy steps that can be taken.
1) Close all "clinics" whose primary means of income is abortions. Let's remove these abortion mills such as where doctors come for one day a week and do many abortions and have all procedures done in an actual hospital (you know, where actual surgeries take place).

Why would this limit abortions - because of the cost? If that's your criteria for who should be able to get an abortion and who should not, your priorities are seriously fucked up.

My intent with that point was to stop the clinics that are available where the only medical procedures they do are abortions. Those clinics and their doctors tend to make millions just by providing abortions and no other medical procedures. There are some that don't even have the ability to provide emergency services should something go wrong during the procedure. Close down the abortion clinics and have all abortions done in an actual hospital.

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

I absolutely agree regarding informing the parents - I also find it ludicrous that the parents are not required to be informed. By the same token, I disagree that it should be the parents' decision. Many parents would opt for the abortion rather than carrying to term.

I understand many of the arguments against getting the consent of a parent as well as the possibility of the parent forcing their teenager to get an abortion. I'm sure a middle ground could be found between the two, possibly even a waiting period to give families a chance to discuss all their options, after which the teenager gets full rights to choose.

4) Stop giving government assistance to people who continue to have kids while already receiving government assistance.

Agreed, as long as it's not counting the first one. For me, the key is "continue". Also, I wouldn't STOP giving assistance, I simply wouldn't ADD to that assistance.

Stopping the additional assistance was my intention with that point.

[Snorri1234]

So, how are 1 nad 2 false premises?

They are not "false" premises, they're irrelevant. They don't matter because noone justifies abortion by saying "lol it couldn't feed itself anyway".

And what do you mean "does not resemble a human"? Do deformed people not count as people because they don't LOOK the same? by 20 weeks, a fetus has all human organs needed to function (though not developed enough to live on it's own), but people with different forms of Palsy have the same range of function. does that make them less than human?

And since abortion only happens in those first 20 weeks (ignoring medical reasons and such) this argument is silly.

[Snorri1234]

1) Close all "clinics" whose primary means of income is abortions. Let's remove these abortion mills such as where doctors come for one day a week and do many abortions and have all procedures done in an actual hospital (you know, where actual surgeries take place).

Why?

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

No it is not. If we accept that abortion is solely up to the one single person then it follows that they are also the only one who determines who knows and who doesn't.

3) Stop glorifying irresponsibility!!!!!!!! Enough with Octomom, Teen Mom shows, and other media praises of people who make bad choices. We as a society have got to stop rewarding people who make irresponsible decisions and quit finding ways to praise them for those decisions. There is a huge difference between giving someone assistance and praising them for their actions. Our society used to have a negative stigma on teen pregnancies, and that wasn't just about religion. Almost all teenagers do not have the ability to provide for themselves and their children, so we should remind others that this life is not one to be glorified as some perceive it to currently be.

Totally with you there actually.

4) Stop giving government assistance to people who continue to have kids while already receiving government assistance.

Huh?

[Snorri1234]

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

I absolutely agree regarding informing the parents - I also find it ludicrous that the parents are not required to be informed. By the same token, I disagree that it should be the parents' decision. Many parents would opt for the abortion rather than carrying to term.

Why should parents be informed?

[Woodruff]

If you truly want to limit abortions, here are a number of easy steps that can be taken.
1) Close all "clinics" whose primary means of income is abortions. Let's remove these abortion mills such as where doctors come for one day a week and do many abortions and have all procedures done in an actual hospital (you know, where actual surgeries take place).

Why would this limit abortions - because of the cost? If that's your criteria for who should be able to get an abortion and who should not, your priorities are seriously fucked up.

My intent with that point was to stop the clinics that are available where the only medical procedures they do are abortions.

Why?

Those clinics and their doctors tend to make millions just by providing abortions and no other medical procedures.

So?

There are some that don't even have the ability to provide emergency services should something go wrong during the procedure.

If any, they are exceedingly few.

Close down the abortion clinics and have all abortions done in an actual hospital.

I'm still not seeing the point. I'm not trying to be obtuse...I just don't think you've touched on anything real yet.

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

I absolutely agree regarding informing the parents - I also find it ludicrous that the parents are not required to be informed. By the same token, I disagree that it should be the parents' decision. Many parents would opt for the abortion rather than carrying to term.

I understand many of the arguments against getting the consent of a parent as well as the possibility of the parent forcing their teenager to get an abortion. I'm sure a middle ground could be found between the two, possibly even a waiting period to give families a chance to discuss all their options, after which the teenager gets full rights to choose.

That seems very reasonable to me.

[Phatscotty]

Right now, all of the options (except for the kittens one ♥) are all bias towards the negative pits of abortion.

"Abortion is abortion" isn't negative.

As for the rest...while I disagree personally, I can at least understand someone considering it homicide...though not murder except in certain circumstances. But slavery? I don't get it...who is the slave in this instance?

Rick Santorum argues that abortion a kind of/equal to/ as bad as slavery. Thoughts?

I'll add other options if you can argue for their presence.

I certainly understand why he would say that, but I don't agree.

Please explain it then, for those of us who are not insane enough to make the connection. Thanks.

What, beacuse It's impossible to understand an ideological opponents positions? I thought that was one of the first things you need to do before you can form your own? I understand his position, 100%. I don't understand your question or it's relation to insanity.

[Woodruff]

Right now, all of the options (except for the kittens one ♥) are all bias towards the negative pits of abortion.

"Abortion is abortion" isn't negative.

As for the rest...while I disagree personally, I can at least understand someone considering it homicide...though not murder except in certain circumstances. But slavery? I don't get it...who is the slave in this instance?

Rick Santorum argues that abortion a kind of/equal to/ as bad as slavery. Thoughts?

I'll add other options if you can argue for their presence.

I certainly understand why he would say that, but I don't agree.

Please explain it then, for those of us who are not insane enough to make the connection. Thanks.

What, beacuse It's impossible to understand an ideological opponents positions?

Why do you believe he is an ideological opponent of mine in this position?

I thought that was one of the first things you need to do before you can form your own?

In order to form an opinion of my own, I must understand the insane ramblings of the man?

I understand his position, 100%. I don't understand your question or it's relation to insanity.

I simply asked for you to explain his position on the subject. However, rather than doing so, you question my ability to form an opinion on the subject. This leads me to believe you not only don't understand my question nor it's relation to insanity, but you don't even understand his position.

[Woodruff]

1) Close all "clinics" whose primary means of income is abortions. Let's remove these abortion mills such as where doctors come for one day a week and do many abortions and have all procedures done in an actual hospital (you know, where actual surgeries take place).

Why?

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

No it is not. If we accept that abortion is solely up to the one single person then it follows that they are also the only one who determines who knows and who doesn't.

Don't you see the gross inconsistency at play here? The child is not intellectually capable of making the decision to take a Tylenol, but that same child is intellectually capable of having an abortion? This makes sense to you?

2) Stop allowing minors to get abortions without a minimum of informing their parents and preferably having their consent. Parents have to give high schools permission to give their children Tylenol, yet some schools will bus their students off campus without consent to have abortions. That's just utterly wrong.

I absolutely agree regarding informing the parents - I also find it ludicrous that the parents are not required to be informed. By the same token, I disagree that it should be the parents' decision. Many parents would opt for the abortion rather than carrying to term.

Why should parents be informed?

It's the point of consistency. I think we can both agree that taking a Tylenol is far less risky health-wise than an abortion, right? But parental consent is required for the Tylenol and not the abortion. It makes no sense.

[rdsrds2120]

I don't think that the reason the school has to monitor whether they take a Tylenol is due to their intellectual capability, and the rules for those two things are generally run by two different people. I can see why it would have happened, not to say that I agree.

-rd