iclim4 said: blegs1992 said: At the time of the choice, maybe she assumes she is 100% sure she will not get pregnant if a condom is used or she turns to the morning after pill, so to her there is no risk.  First, no form of protection is proven to work 100% of the time, even if he withdraws.  So if birth control just doesn't work the way it should, is it right to punish her by giving her a child to raise for something she didn't have control?  Now we're going into whether or not she should just be abstinent:  Now it must only be allowed if you want to have a child?  I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that... Only mothers that want to raise a child should engage in sexual behavior.  That's the "Republican Motherhood" idea of "women should stay at home with the kids" that was all over the country before the 1940's and 50's. Knowledge is important, if you want to engage in a potentially life altering act you have to know the risks involved and not just "assume" you're 100% safe even though you're really not. Ignorance really isn't a proper excuse.

 

 Knowledge is important, I'll agree with that.  I feel sad to say though that not everyone feels that knowledge is important.  I don't think, however, that lack of knowledge is really not that big of a deal.  I'm not saying ignorance was a proper excuse for getting pregnant and aborting a child.  I was saying that ignorance is not a good enough reason to punish her with a child to raise.

And as for the adoption argument, there are homeless people in the country, and we should AT LEAST make sure these people are helped before we introduce a lot of new people to feed and clothe.

MontanaHatchet said: luinil said: @ikilledkenny: I already have shown that it can shift that much in a year. 96-97 was a 9 point jump. @blegs1992: I fail to see how wanting to protect of a innocent unborn baby is saying "all women should be at home." And your arguments have already been answered, but to reiterate.... You have a choice, engage in a risky behavior with potentially unwanted consequences (a child), or not to engage in it. Why not use double protection? How about a morning after pill in some cases? Or perhaps the oldest form of birth control? I don't know what a child may grow up to be, but aborting them before we find out is a risky proposition. You might have just killed the next great artist of this century. There are plenty of resources to feed and clothe and house most or even everyone in this world. Sadly there are other political problems with getting that done, like warlords and other such things. Alright, I hate this argument so much. Do you really think we need to have more kids to find the great artist of the century, or the one who will cure cancer? Trust me, this planet has plenty of kids already. If we really cared about children, the U.S. in particular would focus more money on education and less on the military, and third world governments would put money into agriculture and education instead of keeping themselves in power. What about the kid that's starving in a third world country, do you think he could have been the great artist of the century? For all we know, if he had been born in the right place at the right time, he could have been. All I'm saying is that the people on earth right now have plenty of potential, and a fetus isn't any more promising than any kid already born.

 

Ouch! Montana just pwned you.

I pretty much agree with what you just said Montana

blegs1992 said: iclim4 said: blegs1992 said: At the time of the choice, maybe she assumes she is 100% sure she will not get pregnant if a condom is used or she turns to the morning after pill, so to her there is no risk. First, no form of protection is proven to work 100% of the time, even if he withdraws. So if birth control just doesn't work the way it should, is it right to punish her by giving her a child to raise for something she didn't have control? Now we're going into whether or not she should just be abstinent: Now it must only be allowed if you want to have a child? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that... Only mothers that want to raise a child should engage in sexual behavior. That's the "Republican Motherhood" idea of "women should stay at home with the kids" that was all over the country before the 1940's and 50's. Knowledge is important, if you want to engage in a potentially life altering act you have to know the risks involved and not just "assume" you're 100% safe even though you're really not. Ignorance really isn't a proper excuse.   Knowledge is important, I'll agree with that. I feel sad to say though that not everyone feels that knowledge is important. I don't think, however, that lack of knowledge is really not that big of a deal. I'm not saying ignorance was a proper excuse for getting pregnant and aborting a child. I was saying that ignorance is not a good enough reason to punish her with a child to raise. And as for the adoption argument, there are homeless people in the country, and we should AT LEAST make sure these people are helped before we introduce a lot of new people to feed and clothe.

 

While there is a problem with the working homeless, and there are people who are homeless through no fault of their own, the majority of people who are homeless for extended periods of time are homeless because they choose to be ... I'm not saying that these people sit down and make a rational decision to be homeless, but a lot of them are unwilling or unable to choose the path that would make it so they aren't homeless.

This isn't saying that we shouldn't try to be compassionate or try to feed and shelter these people, but their choice to be homeless has very little to do with the number of people in the world.

 

The fact is that there are far more people who are willing to support and raise a baby in this world than there are unwanted pregnancies that are not being aborted, so the only reasons that healthy babies are being aborted by healthy mothers is that these women are embarassed and afraid that people will learn of their mistake and/or because the baby is some how undesireable.

I'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice (would best be described as an abortion as a last resort kind of person) but I am sick of all the dishonest pushing of abortion as being a necessity to save women from becomming single mothers against their will.

MontanaHatchet said: Thanks for misinterpreting what I said. It's so easy to do when you disagree with someone, but it also makes you a jerk. So don't do it. I was just pointing out the obvious, which is that millions if not billions of kids will never see their potential for reasons other than being aborted. Hitler's mother considered having an abortion, but she decided against it. Don't you think the world would have been a good bit deal better off if Hitler never saw his potential? A potential child could be a life-saving doctor or a tyrannical dictator. I don't think "he or she could have been" is a very good argument for abortion at all. By the way, no one's going to slow down their kid production. A young work force is necessary for a strong and healthy economy, and no nation is going to sacrifice their might for the good of humanity.

Calm down there Montana. No need to be hostile or to start name calling.
What happened to the days where VGC prided itself for being civil?
"You misinterpreted what I said, what I was trying to convey was..."

And I'm not using the "He she could have been" argument, I'm saying once the kid has reached conception(situational) give that kid a shot. (My beliefs lies closer to Vagabound's) instead of snuffing him out because I don't want to bear the responsibility or because we have enough kids in the world.
Color me naive but I would rather shoot straight to the root which is conception itself rather than go for an often selfish remedy which is abortion.

MontanaHatchet said: Trust me, this planet has plenty of kids already. What about the kid that's starving in a third world country, do you think he could have been the great artist of the century?

MontanaHatchet said:  no one's going to slow down their kid production. A young work force is necessary for a strong and healthy economy, and no nation is going to sacrifice their might for the good of humanity.

Sounds like they don't know where to go. They think they're getting over populated and can't feed everyone, but then they don't want to diminish their work force.
Aborting kids is already "Sacrificing" their might:
"I would rather shoot straight to the root which is conception itself rather than go for an often selfish remedy which is abortion."

blegs1992 said: I'm not saying ignorance was a proper excuse for getting pregnant and aborting a child.  I was saying that ignorance is not a good enough reason to punish her with a child to raise.

Sure it's not a good enough reason to punish her with raising a kid, a lot of things happen to people who don't deserve it. 
Let's say for example my parents told me not to play with the electric socket, as a curious kid I disobeyed them and electricuted myself and became paralized. Was it my fault? Yes. Did I deserve to be paralyzed for the rest of my life? No. Take that person in my other analogy, he didn't deserve to get HIV either. It happened, and there is no "reset" button. In the case of abortion, there is, but at a cost. You could either take responsibility to what you have done, or past it on to someone else.

Also, don't look too far into my analogies because pregnancy is not some life taking, life altering disease, and no one else suffers for you when you take medication or do therapies.

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

^^^ give that man a coke.

OT: So, um, what do you suppose the odds are that the poll question had some sort of subtle change in it that drew more people to the pro-life side? I don't mean intentionally of course, but you know the way you word a question can have a major impact on the answers you get.

This just in: Gallup changes polling audience from Massachusetts to Alabama.

mrjuju said: ^^^ give that man a coke. OT: So, um, what do you suppose the odds are that the poll question had some sort of subtle change in it that drew more people to the pro-life side? I don't mean intentionally of course, but you know the way you word a question can have a major impact on the answers you get.

 

It is statistically proven that people would rather vote "Yes" on referenda than "No", whether or not this translates to Gallup polls or not is another question.

They asked way more then one question though.

I mean further breakdowns...

22% Abortion Legal under any circumstnace
15% Legal under most circumstances
37% Legal under some circumstances (presumibly rape, life in danger....)
23% Not Legal.


To compare to last year... every positions is down except Not Legal... which got an 8 point boost.

Furthermore this study is in line with three other surveys.

Two more Gallup polls and a Pew poll.

Oh... and why they cover in the article too...

More republicans have moved over to Pro-Life by a large number.

Possibly threatened by the Obama presidency and what they see as rising socialism.