Planned Parenthood

Violence it's not an option here, I'm not a wild rigth-activist.

The secret here is free will, we all have it, and we all should have it, All of us have the option of make our mind and take our decisions and then live with the consequences.

And, yes take the way of the abortion is an option, I think that we are evolving and society too hedonist, avoiding responsabilities, and looking for the easiest way out; because we are set our very own pleasure and satisfaction above everything.
I'm not saying that we all need to be martirs and live a life without thinking in our selves, we rather need and equilibrium between the physical and the spiritual.

A news on this matter...

Thank you for being patient, Pid. I will try to respond within the next day or two, as you've clearly made at least some effort towards continuing a very worthwhile discussion. I want to honor that, and will try to keep it going as soon as I can.

No sweat! So, did you use a condom with this girl or not??

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

That's rather vague: when what comes out of the mother? The entire body? Any part of it? The head? Is that not an actual baby inside a woman who is 8.9 months pregnant?


It's an analogy, not an equation. And no, I don't believe it was at all weak; at least, no weaker than attempting to rebuff something by simply saying "that one was so weak."


The fact that no human should have the power to destory another human arbitrarily.



Roughly, yes. If it IS a human being, then clearly no rational justification can be made for killing it. As such, the entire issue hinges on the question of when life begins. I'm quite sure you've agreed with this in the past.


You're merely repeating yourself. I asked you before to substantiate this, and I'm merely getting the statement over again. As a refresher, here was my response:

"How, pray tell, are any of the claims I've made anchored in Biblical values? I also presume that you threw in 'ancient' as some sort of slam, even though the bulk of your morality is identical to 'ancient' principles."


For who?


I've implied no such thing. I haven't been railing against women who have abortions flippantly. As for the comparisons: I fail to see how using an analogy is "cold-hearted."

I could very well say that the selfish, greedy instinct which causes some people to hoard money they don't need also causes people to steal at times. But does that mean I'm saying a miser and a thief are the same thing? No, they simply have a parallel somewhere. I know you're intelligent enough to understand this principle, so I'm rather exasperated over this sensationalistic act you pull everytime a crime-related analogy is used.


No, probably not (though you could definitely make the argument that having children forces people to grow up in ways they would not have otherwise...happens every day). But I don't have to make that argument...I only have the make the argument that it's silly to imply that death is preferable to life with an unfit mother.



What's "madness" from a medical point of view is the idea that the fetus is not a distinct entity, biologically, from its mother. As for "undemocratic" -- that's a wholly rhetorical statement. I could just as easily use the same adjective to describe the pro-choice view.

Yes, some abortions would take place anyway. But there would be much fewer of them, and the fact that some people will inevitably break a law is not sufficient justification to abolish that law altogether. You don't have laws because people will obey them...if they did, you wouldn't need them. People breaking these laws is exactly why they exist in the first place.


You're asking me why it's a good thing that children should be allowed to live out their lives? I'd have thought that was obvious. That's regardless of the enhanced level of respect for human life that a ban would espouse.


I don't recall using this so-called "strategy" in any matter but this one. But even if I do, that doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong. I can't help but note that you STILL haven't really answered my slogan accusation. You say it's insulting, you say it's wrong...but you've yet to tell me why.

That said, sure, Nikki made it clear where she stands; I never denied that. But you also say that her post was logical. One of the reasons she gave for her stance was "It is her decision and hers alone." She should have the decision because it's her decision? I don't think I need to point out that that's circular.

The ONE real reason she gave for her views was that the woman is the one who lives with the consequences -- but as you can see, that presupposes the idea that the child is not alive. If the child is alive, then clearly the woman is NOT the only one who bears the consequences. So ultimately, Nikki gave an opinion, and not an argument. Which is her prerogative, of course.


As I stated before, I don't have a problem with slogans per se. I've no grudge with summing something up in a catchy, clever, or simple way. But I do dislike it when people use slogans in lieu of actual arguments, yes.



Conservative = male? Somebody call Ann Coulter.

Anyway, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take the "conservative" label as an insult.


Depends on what you mean; you could argue that it doesn't make the fetus any happier because it's aborted before it appears to have the ability to feel happiness or sadness anyway. But if you're asking who it benefits, I'd say it benefits the fetus more than me.

Vague? Yoda, when were you born? What date? I bet if you ask your mom she can even tell you the time on the minute. You don't have to agree with me but it sure as hell isn't vague.

Comparing a pregnant mother to siamese twins is a good anology? Equation? Comparision? Call it what you will it has nothing at all to do with abortions.

Hypocrisy. You support war and capital punishment, don't you? Masses of innocent people have died in wars and if the quote above is the number one reason to why abortions shouldn't be allowed, how can you live with the possibility that innocent people are going to die in the electric chair?

For you, not for me. I am not locked to this very simplified question about when life starts the way you are. And I am quite sure you understand this by now.

Have I? What I agree with is that it matters in the discussion, not that the entire issue hinges on that question. That's your close-minded definition.

Let me first ask you this: Do you believe abortion is a sin?

The Pope and Santa Claus. You don't think being unwanted by your parents is tragic? Even if you happen to think it is not even close to as tragic as an abortion, won't you please admit that it is at least a bit tragic?

Ok, let's play it your way. Women who use abortions as contraceptive are like thieves, and those who do it out of, say for example, desperation of some sort, are like misers? But what they all have in common is that they are selfish and greedy? Did I understand you correctly? Because there must be some reason to why you compare women who have abortions to thieves and criminals, right?

Yes, you are right, I am intelligent enough to see the parallel. I am also intelligent enough to understand the rethoric strategies you are using. To replace substancial arguments with "analogies" and to compare these women to objects with negative connotations (thieves/criminals) just doesn't work on me. To me, who lives in a world where the terms pro-lifers and pro-choicers don't even exist (that's how absurd this discussion is to me), it is pretty clear who the criminals are: the ones who are trying to control the mind and bodies of female individuals and women as a group.

To me an unborn fetus doesn't live the life of a human being so therefore I think it is silly to imply that abortion is the same as killing a human being. I thought you had understood my postition on that matter by now.

That's your reply? What do you say about what I said about the fact that abortions, because you won't get rid of them you know, will be much more dangerous and lethal if you abolish them? That is just something that comes with the territory, or what?

Oh yeah? First of all, "rethorical statement" how? I think it is very undemocratic not letting women decide over their own bodies and if they decide to have an abortion, to have it performed as safe as possible. I think that is a democratic right. My beliefs are not rethorical statements no matter how much you disagree with them.

Secondly, please feel free to "use the same adjective to the describe the pro-choice view". Now, that would be a "rethorical statement". Explain to me how taking away the right to decide for themselves from the people (=demo), and give it to the authorities/government is more democratic! Sure, you could say that it is democratic to act in the best intrests of the people even if it means taking away their rights (we've had this discussion about the Patriot Acts I and II), but as long as the society or the people don't benefit from the action (because they won't) then it's wrong.

Even if it is possible, we don't know that. What we do know is that the ones still performed would be a hell more messy and poorly performed. We would have a lot more women getting sterilised for life and a lot more women dying from bloodloss and other complications. We would also have abortions taking place after the "time limit" is out. In short, all the safety regulations and medical ethic rules would vanish. Abortion would not.

So the fact that laws against abortion don't exist in most developed and secularized places doesn't tell you anything?. Do you really think that the reason to why I'm opposing abolishing of abortions is that too many people would break the law??

Nice words. Really. Too bad that uncompromising respect for human lives is only applied in this case exclusively.

I am telling you why all the time. That's not the issue. The issue is that you are accusing others for using slogans instead of arguments while you yourself are basing everything you say on slogans and anologies all the time. When you don't like my arguments or can't respond to them, you call it "rethorical statements". I think you are being inconsistent.

She should have the decision because it is her body. Nothing circular about that at all.

Well, if Nikki doesn't believe that the fetus is alive the way you think it is, then your argument is nothing but an opinion to her either. You're doing it again. You present arguments while those who oppose you present opinions. You are being very Django here, Yoda.

Me too.

Conservative doesn't mean exclusively male, you are right. I should have put it differently to you. But the more conservative (politically speaking) something is, the more dominated by traditionally male thinking it probably is.

Sure.

It sure as hell is to someone who (according to your definition) a human being once they've been fully birthed, but apparently just a lump of meaningless cells about, oh, 5 minutes beforehand.

And you're right, she can tell me the time on the minute; and I'm asking the same of you. If your birthday analogy is any indicator, it sounds like you draw the line only when the entire body is out of the womb. Is this correct, or not?
The siamese twins analogy is a simple way to illustrate that when two people are bound to each other physically, we don't throw out the rules of one in favor of the other. I can't be held responsible if you have some bizarre distaste for analogies.
If I were to employ YOUR "strategies," I would start angrily asking why you're comparing innocent children to people on death row, and complain that this has "nothing to do with abortions."

But I'm not going to do that, despite it being the flagship of your posts on the matter. No, I don't think it's hypocrisy, because a war (or a death sentence) need not be arbitrary, but merely are sometimes when mistakes are made. On the other hand, with abortion, an arbitration sentence is inherent in the act. The former is the result of mistakes; but with an abortion, it's the SUCCESS of the act, not the failure, that causes arbitrary death. That said, I think you agree that arbitrary death is a bad thing, regardless or whether or not you think I've contradicted myself, and as such you should see my point.
If you're saying that it does not hinge on the question of life for you, then you are indirectly stating that there are ways to justify abortion even the fetuses involved ARE human beings as some believe. So, either you're contradicting yourself, or you're telling me that killing unborn human children can be justified in today's society. Which is it?
I see nothing close-minded about the claim that you can't plausibly justify killing a human child...and if that's true, then logically the issue DOES hinge on that question. I think the only reason you say it does not is simply because I think you know that the answer to that question isn't likely to bode well for your point of view.
Yes, I do. If you're going that road, however, then logically you'll have to declare every moral value I hold as "rooted in ancient religious values," but you and I both know that basic morals are self-evident.
Absolutely.
The sensationalism is tired; give it a rest. No, I'm not saying that they're like thieves...or misers. I'm showing you how comparing two groups of people does not necessarily mean you think they're akin. In another thread Golgot likened some of today's political tactics to those used in Nazi Germany. According to your logic about comparisons, he's calling us Nazis and is using a "rhetorical strategy" to associate us with them. Right?
Perhaps it's time we got to the bottom of this irrational view of analogies as deceptive. To me, a good analogy merely explains something we're trying to understood by using the example of something we do. If someone has an emotional attachment to a teddy bear, and can't quite explain it to someone else, it'd be perfectly reasonable of them to liken it to a family member of spouse to explain why the inanimate object means something to them.And if you want to talk about rhetorical strategies, what of the "control the mind and bodies of female individuals" line? Surely that qualifies, seeing as how you know I believe that, in reality, it is YOU that wants to control and restrict people...namely, unborn children. What you said above is either one of the rhetorical strategies you speak so disparagingly of, or else an accusation that I oppose abortion for misogynist, rather than rational, reasons.
I understand quite well...but what you don't seem to understand is that your opinion is not necessarily correct. You seem to have walked into this with the idea that not only are you right, but you're so right you need not even consider being wrong...as if merely stating your opinion settles the matter.You're trying to have it both ways. I say "killing a human being," and you say it isn't a human being to you, so it's silly for me to talk that way. But on the other hand, you reply with things that are inaccurate or irrelevant to anyone who honestly believes that a fetus is a human child. Or, put a better way: you can't make arguments under the assumption that you're right, because not everyone shares that assumption.Frankly, you seem offended by the idea that I'm asking you to defend your statements. I get the distinct impression that you're incredulous over the mere fact that you're being questioned on this matter, which is no way to approach this kind of discussion.
A person who willingly inflicts a dangerous act on themselves -- while clearly an awful thing -- is still a step up from allowing someone to issue a death sentence to a child with no say in the matter. Neither is desirable, but at least the former is chosen to some degree.
Then you're saying two things, by implication: first, that anything undemocratic is bad, and second, that a ban on abortion is somehow in direct opposition to the idea of democracy (perhaps you could explain how?). Is this correct?
Because giving that right to those group of people appears to me to deprive a more basic right from another group of people. Ever hear the phrase "my right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins"?
First off, I'd say that, if we're being reasonable here, we DO know that. I don't think there's any reason to doubt that abortions would drop significantly were it made illegal -- at least here in America. And yes, the regulations would vanish...and yes, some people would do it anyway. But I don't see the rationale in making a bad thing legal on those grounds. You imply (quoted below) that people having abortions anyway is not why you oppose the ban...but if that's so, what precisely are you getting at with the above?
It's one of the reasons you listed, so yes, it sounds like that's one of the reasons you oppose the idea. And I don't think the fact that most developed places allow abortion tells us anything other than that people demand convenience at any cost when their standard of living goes up.
It doesn't...but, admittedly, the feeling is stronger when the human lives in question are wholly innocent and utterly defenseless.
I am in no way whatsoever basing everything I say on slogans, and I still see no adequate reason for dismissing analogies...especially considering the fact that you used one in your last post. That said, no, I don't believe you've ever explained to me how her statements addressed any pertinent questions.


And I think you're thinking wishfully. You've implied in the past that I've dodged issues, only to have me produce massive responses to your points shortly afterwards. Please consider the possibility that you are, -- for whatever reason -- unusually quick to accuse people of things like this.
She didn't say it was her decision because it was body. She, while attempting to explain why it should be a woman's decision, said that "It is her decision and hers alone." That's circular any way you slice it.That said, even if she did say "it's her decision because it's her body," that'd still only underscore my slogan accusation: if the entire discussion is about whether or not it's part of her body, or a body of its own, then how, I wonder, is saying "it's her body" addressing the issue?
If all I did was repeat "abortion kills children!" again and again, THEN you'd be right...but I'm not. "Abortion kills children!" is, by itself, a slogan, because it doesn't help us figure out if these are children we're talking about. Similarly, "It's her body!" doesn't help us figure out just whether or not it really is her body, either. Neither makes any points, offers any insights, or puts forth any arguments...hence, my claim that they are "slogans."
I think you could make the case that most all political slants are dominated by male thinking, too, but that's neither here nor there.

[How was me answering your question about when life starts using an anology?

Anyway... Yes, my life and your life started when we popped out of our mothers. What you really are looking for is when I think the time is overdue to have an abortion, when we should start considering the fetus to have developed into a human being and when an abortion is too risky. I can't answer you precisely but I think the laws we have in Sweden are sufficient. I don't know about the ones you have in USA.

Well, you will be every time I think they suck. That analogy sucked.

By all means, please do! I would answer you as good as I could.

I didn't compare innocent children to people on death row. Actually, I haven't been talking about innocent children at all. Do you think I would be pro abortions if I thought it was the same as killing innocent children? You think this hinges on the matter of when life starts. I think it is pretty clear that it hinges on whether you consider a fetus as being the same as an innocent child or not. I obviously don't belive so and you obviously do.

You think a fetus is sacred. Shouldn't there be laws about pregnant women not being allowed to smoke or drink or do drugs while pregnant? Is it not more important to focus on those children with dysfunctional parents and children who are actually being born and that are in need of help? Why not spend time, money and energy on kids in the ghetto or kids with drug addict parents (i.e. innocent children) instead of persecute those who make the tragic and painful decision to have an abortion.

So, if you find WMD in Iraq, the deaths of innocent iraqi children are justified, but if you don't find any WMD, it's as bad as abortion?

I think we can both agree on that innocent people die in wars and that unfortunately is something that is not avoidable. The point here isn't that we probably disagree when it is ok to go to war. The point is that you think the biggest reason (or at least one of them) to why abortion is wrong is that taking an innocent life is always wrong while you at the same time approves of innocent lives being taken for the sake of an so called improvement of your own personal safety (the removal of a potential future iraqi threat). Arbitrary or not, it is still hypocrisy of finest sort.

The second one. Has there ever been any doubt regarding my thoughts on that? Call abortion "killing unborn human children" and demonize me as much as you want. I have never tried to glorify abortion in any way, but I still believe it is a choice that the individual, not the society, should make.

Read what I wrote above....

So you don't think the fact that you think abortion is a sin has influenced your opinion on the matter?

Of course, the societies we both come from are rooted in christian morals. The difference between you and me though is that you use the bible as a guiding principle while I have chosen to base my opinons on other... eh.. stuff.

Come on, sensationalism... Please... "you're telling me that killing unborn human children can be justified in today's society." What about your anologies? Which by the way were what lead me to this "sensationalism".

You can't seriously ask me to comment on a thread that I haven't, to my knowledge, even read! But, no, I don't think that is what he is calling you. Was Golgot using the nazis example as an analogy, btw? What was the nazis supposed to be symbolizing?

First of all, I don't think you oppose it for neither misogynist nor rational reasons. I would say traditional reasons probably.

And use as many anologies as you want. What I don't like is when you say: "It's just like saying that..." and then use examples that doesn't have anything to do with anything. Like the example with the simamese twins. But of course, that has nothing to do with this discussion and it has been blown out of proportion by now so I won't say anything more about it. Soon. But if I say that I oppose abortions because I think it's not the business of the government but of the individual, after having explained to you also where I stand in the matter whether abortion is the same as killing children or not. How is that not an argument worthy of a respond rather than being called a rethoric strategy? When you compare the woman and the fetus to siamese twins, we are drifting far away from the topic in my opinion since it is not a fair comparition at all. But if you insist in calling it the same, well, then I guess I will have to revalue my position on the matter and start debating on the difference between siamese twins and woman/fetus instead of abortions.

Exactly. And the same goes for you. Just like with any issue I've been debating with you I don't see a chance in hell that you will actually think like I do in the end. I guess my goal is that my arguments will leave you speechless.

I get offended when my arguments are being called slogans. Also, I get offended by that you want to take away the right for people to decide for themselves. You would still have control over your own life if the pro-lifers got their way. The pro-choicers would not have control over their own lives if the pro-lifers had their way. I respect and even understand the reasons to why you don't approve of abortions. I am not sure how I would react myself if I found myself in a situation when abortion was an option. BUT I WANT THAT OPTION! That's where my anger lies, that not only do you indirectly call me a supporter of child murder, you also want to take away my girlfriend's right to decide if and when she wants to give birth to a new life.

But Yoda... The former includes what you call a death sentence to a child as well! Only that it might kill the mother too. You are basically saying that in illegal abortions no unborn children are killed - only in those sanctioned by the government.

Anything undemocratic is bad, yes. You don't agree? Having a government is not 100% democratic if you mean that democratic means that it is always the people down to every single individual who make all decisions ever made. But the job of the government is supposed to be to put the will of the people in action and to work for the best for the people.

I don't think abortion was on the top of the agenda when the greeks developed the idea of democracy. The greeks had slaves. You mourn the abolition of slavery? But yes, I think the ban of abortion is in direct opposition to the modern democratic society. The result of a ban would be a lot of things that are bad to society. In short, it would widen the gaps between the upper and lower classes further. Abortion can be, as paradoxical as it might sound, the only way for poor families to survive in some situations.

Fair enough. I don't agree but I understand why you think so.

I said that people breaking the law was not why I opposed the ban. With that I meant that increased criminality per se is not why I oppose the ban. That would be very stupid.

Anyway, I think people's personal conviction would triumph over the ban. They would just go to another country, and if that wasn't possible, it's not like all the doctors who are capable of doing it and with the conviction that it is the right thing to do would stop doing it "undercover". Some more devious elements would probably also start making big bucks from it. I don't know how many american states have the ban but I think it would be completely impossible to introduce a ban in the rest of the states without a democratic decision, a referendum.

The only thing that would go down significally is the legal abortions.

Well, with developed and secularized I didn't mean people with high living standards. But when you take away religion, you take away the sin part. And when you bring in the concept of capitalism and profit in every situation you simply take away the time from women to have kids. This is why it is not surprising that it is conservatists that promote this idea of a ban the most since the consequences will not affect the privileged, only the working class.

ok

Pertinent to me but not to you perhaps. What is the analogy you are talking about?

Well if me accusing you of dodging issues leads to you producing massive responses, then that must be a good thing right? I don't know if I am unusually quick to accusations like this, and I don't care. If I think someone is dodging, I'll let them know.

I don't think it is circular at all, but nevermind... You don't think a woman that thinks that the fetus is a part of her body and therefore thinks it's her decision since "it's her body" is addressing the issue? Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean....

Basically, what you have been doing on this thread all the time is defending your standpoint with the argument that abortion is the same as killing unborn children, nothing else. I think that is a slogan just as much as "It's her body" which to me also is an argument just as much as "Abortion kills children!" is an argument.

I think feminism is mostly left wing rather than right wing actually.

My views on abortion are somewhat mixed. I will say this, Roe Vs. Wade is one of the biggest travesties to the constitution in the past 50 years.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

A lot of people who say I give people too much choice with my views seems perfectly okay with giving women the choice to perform abortions, when it does directly hurt another human being. I'm definitely not pro-life, just an interesting observation of hypocrisy.

Henry, you just can't drop the fact that I criticized you on the heroin, can you? I, just like Yoda I presume, don't think it is an issue about freedom of choice in every single situation. But in this case I do think it is a matter of the individual's own choice, and in the case of hard drugs, I don't. You can't state your views on a forum on a thread that is debating drugs or abortions or whatever and expect no one to argue with you about them. (Yoda: THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! Piddzilla: NO, IT IS NOT!!! ). I understand where you coming from with your views; they don't make me upset or anything, I just don't agree with you and all I've done is trying to explain why. Or haven't I? I don't see the conflict in opposing hard drugs while being in favour of legal abortions. I choose to view these seperate issues seperately, not make them subodinated in some bigger ideologic system that "controls it all".

I wasn't really referring to you. I was referring more to the people who say that drugs hurt other people emotionally yet still are for abortion. It's just interesting to me, most political idealologies contain hypocrisies.

Well, I wouldn't put it that way, but sure, you can find something contradictory in all political ideologies. At least the "orignial" ones like socialism, liberalism, and conservatism. I wouldn't say that I am a devoted follower of just a single one of any of those.

Anyway, I don't use an emotional approach when it comes to issues like abortions or drugs, I'd rather put it in a social context. And in a social context, i.e. what I think is best for society, I absolutely think hard drugs should be banned but abortion should not. Simply because I think the people, individually and collectively, benefit the most from having it that way.

Yods, i don't think you can compare my comparison of Goering's take on mass-manipulations and current governmental actions with the examples you did. Well, i say that coz i believe there's a bigger difference between a murder and an "abortionist" than the above example (which all rests on me being right about government mass-manipulation for self-serving/"expansionist" ends of course, and this war being unjustified)

By my reckoning a murderer makes the world a worse place in most cases (with the intention of improving their own personal position alone in many/most[?] cases), whereas an abortionist takes a life to improve everyone's position [even the victims if we argue that an unwanted/unloved/blamed life will not be a good one and will cause yet more negative repurcussions for all involved - and i'm going on the principle that these are the situations when abortion is justified]. i.e. the result is intended to be and probably is far more beneficial than that of the murderer. The foetus doesn't go thru comparable suffering to that of murder-victim either.

I'm saying they're not comparable actions on that level, whereas i am saying the actions are probably comparable in my war example. I'm not calling the bush-admin nazis [as you aknowledge ] but you are perhaps attributing more aspects of murder to abortion than you should.

....

-generally, i think there's a problem of "purpose" amongst some pro-lifers arguments (not yours nescessarily), where people think "sex is for making babies", therefore to interfere is to interfere with god's will etc.

-I'd prefer to see an interpretation that goes like...we have the free-will to make the world a better or worse place (and hence closer to "godliness" ??), so if we can agree this action has more beneficial repurcussions, let's consider it god's will

-I think the foetus-is-part-of-the-mother argument has some strong points in it's favour. The umbilical chord attaches them, the foetus is dependant on the mother for healthy current and continuing growth etc. But the most valid argument is that of the-best-life-for-all (as put above in bold). A split condom shouldn't be considered god's will, but one where we can't take responsability for our actions in full (or we make the world a better place if we make this hardest of all decisions - come on, abortion is a horrible enough decision on its own - let's not make it any harder eh?)

-incidently, i'd be interested to hear people's opinions on the pill. It's freed up women to have a more even stake in modern life and to live on a more "equal" footing to men. However, what about the potential damage to their bodies and the world around us? [i'm still trying to find some very disturbing stuff iread in new scientist - i'll post when i unearth it - you can be sure ] I still think the pill's a great thing, but both it and the morning-after pill are open to over-use/abuse (and if it is the case that their over-use has negative repurcussions for the female body and the water/food-chain etc, should we re-address it's use/find other ways of keeping this window of oppertunity open? All thoughts gladly received )

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Furthermore, I have trouble respecting anybody that would deny a preteen the right to have an abortion after being raped.

fair enough. Think you're arguing with the wrong people possibly then

Probably. But I've met a surprisingly large amount of people who think the girl should still be required to have the baby. It's pretty sickening, frankly.

"The 9 year old has already had her chance at life, the baby should have to be born even if the girl can't handle it."

Christ! Where the hell did that quote come from?? (unfortunate choice of words on my behalf perhaps)...but... Did someone REALLY say that??? Bloody hell! Quick man - move over here where there's next to no fundamentalists. You don't get anything like that in non-britney-land. I'm always amazed by the stories i hear from friends who lived in DC etc about the all pervasiveness of churches and related strong opinions. Give me barely-practicing, semi-spiritualised secularism any day (or is that suckulism? Sorry to joke - but ****, that's full on! My reaction to extremity like that is to take the mick - as we say)

Man, i've got a fairly non-PC, racist and anti-religious joke which i like to tell: it's not very structured, it goes like this: Thank god we shipped all our religious nutters off to america (or let them ship themselves - looking for the infinite truth they can't find in front of their own noses!)

Harsh, but occasionally i think it's fair!! Well, when i read stuff like that anyway!

Get the boat back my man - we'll welcome you with open arms (or possibly offer you an arms contract - it's hard to tell these days)

oh, woe is my joking defense-mechanism. We're supposed to be civilised dogdammit!

It was said word-for-word at another forum I post at. It was during that whole ordeal with the 9 year old in some South American country who was raped and then got pregnant. When she had the abortion, the church excommunicated her and her family. It was a pretty sad story, added to by some truly distrubing thoughts.

yeah, the world is always full-on enough, without idiots like that making it worse! No-one's been quite that "there-are-no-exceptions"-ish on this site tho have they?

keep on howling...

Gg