Pro Choice Republicans

[crb]

I was just thinking to myself how many Republican VP prospects are pro abortion this year.

Rudy Guiliani
Tom Ridge
Kay Baily Hutchison
Joe Lieberman
Mitt Romney*

all of them have been mentioned as possible running mates, and have been prochoice. Whereas the list of people who are prolife..

Bobby Jindal
Mitt Romney*
Mike Huckabee
Tim Pawlenty
Sarah Palin

isn't much bigger.

I call it progress. the GOP needs to throw off the shackles of the religious right (as the Dems need to throw off the shackles of the moveon.org crowd, labor unions, etc).

[NocturnalRob]

this is one of the points on which i diverge from my conservative ways. strongly pro-choice.

[AnticorRifling]

Same. Although I prefer to call it pro-I don't give a shit it's not me that has to make the choice and or live with it.

[Keller]

Agree on both points, crb.

[NocturnalRob]

Same. Although I prefer to call it pro-I don't give a shit it's not me that has to make the choice and or live with it.

ah, yes. ambivalence. also known as "it doesn't effect me, so why should i care?" also known as "quintessential Republican."

that r me

[AnticorRifling]

Correct.

[Parkbandit]

The Abortion debate along with the same sex marriage debate needs to be purged from the Republican platform. How are they so imporant when they effect so few.

[NocturnalRob]

The Abortion debate along with the same sex marriage debate needs to be purged from the Republican platform. How are they so imporant when they effect so few.

it would certainly deflate the liberal agenda quite a bit.

[ClydeR]

Mitt Romney*

Ha ha. Very clever. :rofl:

[Ashliana]

I was just thinking to myself how many Republican VP prospects are pro abortion this year.

I imagine that virtually nobody is "pro-abortion." People are pro-not having the government limit your rights based on a moral objection, especially when outlawing the behavior does not stop it.

In any case, I'm glad that both candidates have refrained from bringing idiotic culture wars arguments into the campaign. It's pretty clear where both candidates stand--McCain is strongly anti-choice, Obama is strongly pro-choice, Obama is gay-friendly (I suspect he's actually pro-gay marriage, but actually wants to get elected, and hasn't said as such), and that McCain is actually fairly uninterested in the issue, leaning towards the anti-side.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'll poor some gas on this potential fire.

I don't believe in abortion. I believe in responsibility and consequence. People that cannot afford to have a baby should be sterilized until that situation changes. People that don't want to have a baby should be sterilized until (if) that situation changes. People should be required to demonstrate some level of parenting before they can have children.

This is probably one of the items I actually think the government should mandate. No child should be without because their parents are dipshits, no child should be conceived without planning for it, and once they are born, the government should do everything possible to ensure a healthy existance, a complete education and an opportunity to be a contributing member of society. Sure, it sounds like welfare, and no I'm not an advocate of welfare in it's current form. No, this will never happen because we are a free nation and it'd be nuts to even attempt to do something like this.

I know it's not that simple, but people should think of something besides their own immediate gratification, and the rest of the nation shouldn't be burdened by their selfishness.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Oh, PS, I'm pro-choice actually. I just don't believe in abortion, but I believe we should have the choice. How's that for contradicting my post above?

[Gan]

The Abortion debate along with the same sex marriage debate needs to be purged from the Republican platform. How are they so imporant when they effect so few.

x2

[Hulkein]

I was just thinking to myself how many Republican VP prospects are pro abortion this year.

Rudy Guiliani
Tom Ridge
Kay Baily Hutchison
Joe Lieberman
Mitt Romney*

all of them have been mentioned as possible running mates, and have been prochoice. Whereas the list of people who are prolife..

Bobby Jindal
Mitt Romney*
Mike Huckabee
Tim Pawlenty
Sarah Palin

isn't much bigger.

I call it progress. the GOP needs to throw off the shackles of the religious right (as the Dems need to throw off the shackles of the moveon.org crowd, labor unions, etc).

The 'religious right' don't have a monopoly on the pro-life view point. Plenty of Democrats and moderate Independents are pro-life.

[Keller]

x2

I would absolutely vote for McCain if he came out and said he would appoint judges that would protect a woman's right to control her body.

The single biggest issue for me is that my nieces and my daughters have that potential.

[Hulkein]

The single biggest issue for me is that my nieces and my daughters have that potential.

That's a plus, we want as little of your lineage on Earth as possible.

[ClydeR]

The Abortion debate along with the same sex marriage debate needs to be purged from the Republican platform. How are they so imporant when they effect so few.

Between 40 and 50 million innocent children have been murdered by abortion. That sounds like more than a few to me.

And on the issue of marriage, homosexual "marriages" affect everyone by weakening the institution of marriage. That's why John McCain is committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage.

[Parkbandit]

Between 40 and 50 million innocent children have been murdered by abortion. That sounds like more than a few to me.

And on the issue of marriage, homosexual "marriages" affect everyone by weakening the institution of marriage. That's why John McCain is committed to protecting the sanctity of marriage.

I took a shit yesterday morning that probably had millions of single celled 'life forms' in it yesterday.. did I also commit murder when I flushed them down into the sewer?

[Parkbandit]

Originally Posted by Keller
The single biggest issue for me is that my nieces and my daughters have that potential.

Man.. if I were a real douche bag, I would probably respond with "The reason you are worried about your daughters getting knocked up is because they are whores"

Thankfully, I'm not.....

[Kembal]

I took a shit yesterday morning that probably had millions of single celled 'life forms' in it yesterday.. did I also commit murder when I flushed them down into the sewer?

ClydeR 1, PB 0. If you believe (as I do) he's a liberal pretending to be a conservative, why did you respond to this?

[Hulkein]

I took a shit yesterday morning that probably had millions of single celled 'life forms' in it yesterday.. did I also commit murder when I flushed them down into the sewer?

I hope you're much smarter than trying to put forth this as an argument. It doesn't take a genius to understand the difference between a single cell that will never grow into a breathing baby and an embryo.

[Warriorbird]

I'm going to avoid saying something here. It'd be relevant though.

Instead I'm going to say that if minus the idiotic wasteful spending the social/religious idiocy is one of the few things that separates me from the Republican Party.

[Hulkein]

By wasteful spending you mean what? Not that I disagree with you that there is wasteful spending, but you saying there are only a 'few things' that separate you from the Republican party is not an accurate statement, imo.

[Warriorbird]

Iraq. Tax cuts combined with spending increases. All the faith based politics.

It is rather a lot considering that I doubt any of it will end.

[Kefka]

Abortion is a Conservative issue. Republicans drop a wedge issue like this and they will lose Conservatives. A huge bulk and most vocal of the Republican base is the religious right. McCain didn't make it as far as he have by being more like Rudy or himself. He embraced Conservatism as Bush did. We've seen how well things worked out for Rudy.

[Parkbandit]

ClydeR 1, PB 0. If you believe (as I do) he's a liberal pretending to be a conservative, why did you respond to this?

I believe I was the first to bring forth this theory.. but it's just fun to get him to do some reverse thinking.

[ViridianAsp]

Two Words:

Patient confidentiality, abortion will never be illegal.

I'm don't agree with it, for many reasons..but it's like everything else, drinking, smoking...people are going to do it because it's their life and their body, and you really can't tell them what to do with it.

I can see why republicans would be pro choice.

[Parkbandit]

By wasteful spending you mean what? Not that I disagree with you that there is wasteful spending, but you saying there are only a 'few things' that separate you from the Republican party is not an accurate statement, imo.

You are indeed an excellent fisherman. This is merely tugging on the bait to see if there's a big sucker on the bottom you could land.

[Ashliana]

My biggest problem with the so-called "Pro-Life" movement/lobby is that they're not "Pro-Life" so much as they are against liberty and freedom.

How so? People are stupid. They're impulsive, take risks, and don't think about the consequences of their actions. Legislation is not going to change this. Restricting the inherent freedom and liberty of control over one's own body is simply going to make it more dangerous for both the mother, doctor and potentially the baby that could've been saved.

There are numerous ways of actually reducing abortions, if that was actually their goal--but it isn't. What's a good example? Sex education.

Bush is a big proponent of abstinence-only sex education, and the religious right continously oppose expanding funding for sex education programs that actually stress the importance of condoms and committed relationships over "waiting until marriage."

It's an attempt to legislate their religious beliefs, or at least manipulate the secular government into not teaching contrary policy, in the face of science that contradicts the dogma. Teens are impulsive, risk-taking, and have generally poor judgment compared to adults. Insisting that they can only be told "you can't have sex until marriage," especially in a sex-charged society that we have, where we bombard people through virtually all forms of media with sexually charged content, is backwards and irresponsible at best, self-deluded and counterproductive at worst.

Expecting a teen to refrain from sex until marriage, when they're growing up, experiencing sexual desires for the first time and coupled with the not-yet-fully-developed judgment centers of their brains, and the sexually charged popular media, and then turning around and blaming young people for having children they can't afford, or the freedom they have to actually reverse the situation, seems hypocritical and idiotic.

Also--that religious-right concern suddenly drops when the child is actually born. You don't want people to have the freedom to choose abortion, and yet you want that obviously unprepared teenage mother to take care of the child all by herself, and routinely oppose government assistance? Makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to reduce abortion: teach the kids the value of not having kids till they're ready, the danger and responsibility of sex, including pre-marital sex, and help take care of the children (or aiding adoption) that are born so the mother won't CONSIDER aborting it.

[Keller]

Man.. if I were a real douche bag, I would probably respond with "The reason you are worried about your daughters getting knocked up is because they are whores"

Thankfully, I'm not.....

It would be something akin to, "The reason you are worried about your daughters getting knocked up is because you plan on being a negligent father and expect them to have daddy issues."

[Jorddyn]

I imagine that virtually nobody is "pro-abortion."

The more people I meet, the more I believe that I truly am pro-abortion.

[Sean]

We understand Jorddyn.. we all wish we could abort Iowa too.

[Khariz]

Here's my take on the abortion thing:

I'm pro-life, personally, but let me explain what that means. It means that one viable, living being, should have a right to life, just as the next.

But here's how I see that belief affecting the abortion debate:

I have NO PROBLEM with a woman's right to "terminate her pregnancy", but I have a big problem with women having the unfettered right to "kill the fetus". I say that if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, we pull the fetus out for her.

If it's far enough along to be viable, then she doesn't get to choose to kill it. If it dies because it was pre-viability, oh well. Partial birth abortion is one of the most highly offensive things my brain has ever analyzed. I can understand a woman having a right to her own body (only because of law school, as the right isn't affirmative found in the constitution), but that has NOTHING to do with a woman having a right to kill another living being inside of her just because she feels like it.

I'm pro-right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy.

I'm not pro-right of a woman to choose whether or not the fetus dies.

Many times when I assert this view, people come back with "But Khariz, you are also staunchly against any government handouts and socialist programs, so who would pay to take care of the baby, and how?"

That's a good point. The way we are are set up now, the child would have to go into a state agency, or an adoption agency, but the only reason that is so, is because of the way we have the welfare state set up with DHR and all that jazz. I guarantee that if women lost the right to kill the fetus and were forced instead to give it up alive, if they didn't want it, that non-government groups would step up to the plate to care for the children until new families could be found. Hell, the Catholic Church and many Catholic organizations would step up to the plate almost immediately if the need arose (no priest jokes please).

Anyway...just my thoughts. I'm cool with a woman having the CHOICE to end the pregnancy, but the choice to kill does not NEED to be hers.

[Warriorbird]

What a logical trainwreck. Enjoy your Swift much?

[Khariz]

What a logical trainwreck. Enjoy your Swift much?

You talking to me? If so, I have no clue what you are talking about. My post was neither illogical, nor do I , offhand, know what "Swift" means.

[Warriorbird]

So you're saying that partial birth abortion is terrible... then you suggest that you 'tear the baby' out of women.

One hopes you're familiar with Jonathan Swift and 'A Modest Proposal'... but you've expressed a distaste for history at times.

[Khariz]

So you're saying that partial birth abortion is terrible... then you suggest that you 'tear the baby' out of women.

Please don't act like an idiot. That's not what I said and you know it.

I'm saying if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, let her make that choice. We go in, deliver the baby, and let her go on about her way. If the fetus is viable, and it can live, we care for it like any other human, and find a home for it. If it dies, then that's a shame, but it's not our problem. If it wasn't medically viable, then it's just a classic "abortion" and we deal with it.

Edit: And no, I've never read that.

[Sean]

Abortion fight round 20490294029402

On the other hand I'd be interested to hear Khariz solution for what to do with all the unadopted children we have now before we start adding to the numbers.

[Khariz]

Abortion fight round 20490294029402

On the other hand I'd be interested to hear Khariz solution for what to do with all the unadopted children we have now before we start adding to the numbers.

I don't have one. Soylent green? (Joke).

You may note that the reason for the number of unadopted children has more to do with the rediculous process and difficulty, and less to do with unwilling families though. Every wonder why so many people adopt from other countries? It's actually easier to do so in most states.

[Warriorbird]

For some reason after reading your post, Khariz, I'm reminded of the beginning of 300. You going to call in wolves to fight the left behind kids and then call them Spartans?

[CrystalTears]

I don't even have the strength to tackle Khariz's fucked up stream of thought with abortion.

[Khariz]

Right. Cause it's not fucked up.

Nobody can use logic to refute the fact that there is not a need for a women to be able to choose to kill another living being. There's just now realistic way to do it.

Choose to end the pregnancy early? Sure.

Choose to kill the baby in order to do so? No.

[CrystalTears]

Usually the abortion is performed when it's not viable to live on its own. You seem to be okay with "well if it does on it's own, oh well" when the reason it died is because the abortion removed it's only viable way to live. So either you're okay with the process or you're not.

And since there isn't a way for them to remove an embryo intact and insert it into another woman who is willing to care for it full term, we'll just have to either accept that the baby will be lost or that it's old enough to care for, which usually means giving it up for adoption.

[Khariz]

Usually the abortion is performed when it's not viable to live on its own. You seem to be okay with "well if it does on it's own, oh well" when the reason it died is because the abortion removed it's only viable way to live. So either you're okay with the process or you're not.

And since there isn't a way for them to remove an embryo intact and insert it into another woman who is willing to care for it full term, we'll just have to either accept that the baby will be lost or that it's old enough to care for, which usually means giving it up for adoption.

I'm only arguing against post-viability abortions. I've long since given up on the fact that we have decided as a society, a government, and a judiciary that women have a read-into-the-constituational right to terminate the pregnancy.

As the line of viability moves backwards toward birth though, a much higher percentage of abortions involve potentially viable fetuses. That's not really a debatable point.

[Jorddyn]

The more people I meet, the more I believe that I truly am pro-abortion.



We understand Jorddyn.. we all wish we could abort Iowa too.

Case in point #1.


Here's my take on the abortion thing:

Case in point #2.

[crb]

My biggest problem with the so-called "Pro-Life" movement/lobby is that they're not "Pro-Life" so much as they are against liberty and freedom.

How so? People are stupid. They're impulsive, take risks, and don't think about the consequences of their actions. Legislation is not going to change this. Restricting the inherent freedom and liberty of control over one's own body is simply going to make it more dangerous for both the mother, doctor and potentially the baby that could've been saved.

There are numerous ways of actually reducing abortions, if that was actually their goal--but it isn't. What's a good example? Sex education.

Bush is a big proponent of abstinence-only sex education, and the religious right continously oppose expanding funding for sex education programs that actually stress the importance of condoms and committed relationships over "waiting until marriage."

It's an attempt to legislate their religious beliefs, or at least manipulate the secular government into not teaching contrary policy, in the face of science that contradicts the dogma. Teens are impulsive, risk-taking, and have generally poor judgment compared to adults. Insisting that they can only be told "you can't have sex until marriage," especially in a sex-charged society that we have, where we bombard people through virtually all forms of media with sexually charged content, is backwards and irresponsible at best, self-deluded and counterproductive at worst.

Expecting a teen to refrain from sex until marriage, when they're growing up, experiencing sexual desires for the first time and coupled with the not-yet-fully-developed judgment centers of their brains, and the sexually charged popular media, and then turning around and blaming young people for having children they can't afford, or the freedom they have to actually reverse the situation, seems hypocritical and idiotic.

Also--that religious-right concern suddenly drops when the child is actually born. You don't want people to have the freedom to choose abortion, and yet you want that obviously unprepared teenage mother to take care of the child all by herself, and routinely oppose government assistance? Makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to reduce abortion: teach the kids the value of not having kids till they're ready, the danger and responsibility of sex, including pre-marital sex, and help take care of the children (or aiding adoption) that are born so the mother won't CONSIDER aborting it.
Half of what you say is true, half is false.

I wouldn't call them hypcrites for being both against birth control and abortions, as they are true to their beliefs, but you're right. They certainly aren't practical. If birth control was provided for free by the government (lets face it, pills are cheaper for society to pay for than unwanted babies) we might have much less abortion. But that isn't likely to happen.

Your accusation about them not caring about the baby once it is born is way off base and just liberal spin. Just because they don't want big government programs run by bureaucrats doesn't mean they don't want to help. People in red states give more to charities than people in blue states, and almost all religious organizations in the country do some sort of community outreach to help needy people.

[crb]

I'm only arguing against post-viability abortions. I've long since given up on the fact that we have decided as a society, a government, and a judiciary that women have a read-into-the-constituational right to terminate the pregnancy.

As the line of viability moves backwards toward birth though, a much higher percentage of abortions involve potentially viable fetuses. That's not really a debatable point.
We've discussed this previously, but remember there was a thing in Illinois where Barack Obama was the only member of the state legislature voting against a bill making it a crime to kill a baby if it survives an abortion (ie, viable outside the wound, then they crush it's skull). He even gave a speech, the only member... but no... he's privately prolife...

[Kefka]

We've discussed this previously, but remember there was a thing in Illinois where Barack Obama was the only member of the state legislature voting against a bill making it a crime to kill a baby if it survives an abortion (ie, viable outside the wound, then they crush it's skull). He even gave a speech, the only member... but no... he's privately prolife...

More BAIPA... Obama's politically pro-choice. Keep your religion out of our government.

[Ashliana]

We've discussed this previously, but remember there was a thing in Illinois where Barack Obama was the only member of the state legislature voting against a bill making it a crime to kill a baby if it survives an abortion (ie, viable outside the wound, then they crush it's skull). He even gave a speech, the only member... but no... he's privately prolife...

Obama has already addressed this.


Painted during the Democratic primary as weak on abortion rights, Barack Obama is now being portrayed by opponents of abortion as an extremist who literally supports killing babies.

Both portraits are based on his handling of a related issue in the Illinois Senate, and Obama insists they distort his position.

The Democratic presidential candidate says he firmly supports a woman's right to choose but can accept some restrictions — including a requirement that medical care be provided for any fetus that survives an abortion.

"For people to suggest that I and the Illinois Medical Society, so Illinois' doctors, were somehow in favor of withholding lifesaving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous," he recently told the Christian Broadcasting Network. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination."

But as a state senator, Obama repeatedly voted against that requirement and other restrictions on what opponents label "born alive" abortions. Obama says he opposed it because of technical language that might have interfered with a woman's right to choose and because Illinois law already required medical care in such situations.

Hillary Rodham Clinton argued during the primary that Obama hadn't been vocal enough in his opposition to this and other abortion legislation, and questioned his commitment to protecting women's access to abortion.

Abortion opponents say Obama's position amounts to an endorsement of killing babies, and that he has lied about it.

"Barack Obama is so radically pro-abortion he supports infanticide," Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse and anti-abortion activist, wrote on her Web site.

"Justifying the killing of newborn babies is deeply troubling," former Sen. Rick Santorum wrote in a column early this year.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor called such statements "distortions and lies."

"The suggestion that Obama — the proud father of two little girls — and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting," Vietor said in a statement Tuesday.

The dispute revolves around what happens in rare circumstances when a fetus survives an abortion.

Illinois abortion opponents repeatedly tried to pass laws defining any fetus that survives an abortion as a person with full rights, requiring a second doctor be present to provide medical care and creating a right to sue on behalf of the infant.
They argued the U.S. Senate had voted 98-0 for a federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act that defined such a fetus as a person, so Illinois lawmakers should have no trouble doing the same thing. President Bush signed the legislation in 2002.

Abortion rights supporters, led by Obama, opposed the Illinois legislation, arguing that it was designed to interfere with abortion. They said doctors were already required to care for any fetus that might survive an abortion; abortion opponents dispute that.

Over the years, Obama repeatedly has said the Illinois measure was different from the federal version in a key way — it lacked language spelling out that it would not interfere with abortion rights. If the Illinois legislation had that provision, he said, he would have backed it.

Now, however, abortion opponents have pointed out that Obama opposed a version of the bill that included a "neutrality clause." The bill was killed in 2003 by a state Senate committee Obama chaired.

"He needs to explain misleading people. He needs to explain why he apparently covered that up," Stanek said.

The Obama campaign's explanation is that even if the federal and state versions had identical language, they would have very different consequences.

The federal government doesn't have a law regulating abortion, so Congress could pass a "born alive" measure without actually affecting anything. But Illinois has an abortion law that would be muddled by changing the definition of a person with full rights, the campaign says.

Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, backs Obama's position. The federal law essentially does nothing, she said, but the same language in Illinois would complicate state abortion laws.

Sutherland noted that Illinois eventually adopted a version of the "born alive" law but only after including a section that specifically states abortion rules would not be affected.

"They're being very dishonest about their depiction of what happened with that bill — or just clueless," she said of abortion opponents.

Sutherland also scoffed at the idea that opposing the legislation is the equivalent of supporting infanticide. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous," she said.

Now focused on the general election, Obama wants to show that he may disagree with abortion opponents, but understands and respects their views.

The Democratic Party platform is being revised to bolster the section on reducing the need for abortion. The version awaiting approval at the Democratic convention in Denver says the party supports efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies and understands the need to help women who choose to have children.

Democratic officials also gave a convention speaking slot to Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Pa., who opposes abortion rights.

Yet more whitewashing of reality, or simple ignorance on Crb's part.

[Hulkein]

Usually the abortion is performed when it's not viable to live on its own. You seem to be okay with "well if it does on it's own, oh well" when the reason it died is because the abortion removed it's only viable way to live. So either you're okay with the process or you're not.

And since there isn't a way for them to remove an embryo intact and insert it into another woman who is willing to care for it full term, we'll just have to either accept that the baby will be lost or that it's old enough to care for, which usually means giving it up for adoption.

I'm not an expert, but aren't post-viability abortions already illegal? When is it legal up to, the third trimester? Can a baby have any legitimate shot at life before 6 months? And if so, how high is the hospital bill to incubate a 6 and a half month old fetus to viability?

I hate abortion and think Ashliana's soap box rant is bullshit (the belief that all humans have a right to life that supersedes the right to 'control' ones own body isn't necessarily an attempt to legislate a religious belief, and the fact that you think only religious people would feel that way scares me), but your viewpoint is a little out there.

[Ashliana]

I'm not an expert, but aren't post-viability abortions already illegal? When is it legal up to, the third trimester? Can a baby have any legitimate shot at life before 6 months? And if so, how high is the hospital bill to incubate a 6 and a half month old fetus to viability?

I hate abortion and think Ashliana's soap box rant is bullshit (the belief that all humans have a right to life that supersedes the right to 'control' ones own body isn't necessarily an attempt to legislate a religious belief, and the fact that you think only religious people would feel that way scares me), but your viewpoint is a little out there.

I said "moral objection." I never implied that abortion is right, or proper, or moral--but the government--the collective will of the people--has no business in restricting the freedom of women on this issue.

If your goal is to actually prevent abortion, legislation is the wrong way to go about it. It's as simple as that. You will, for all intents and purposes, never be able to eliminate abortion through legislation. It's a desperate, tragic act. Give the women having abortions other, better options than abortion and you'll see abortion fade away. Trying to limit the freedom to my own body isn't the right way to go about it.

[Kyra231]

I'm not an expert, but aren't post-viability abortions already illegal? When is it legal up to, the third trimester? Can a baby have any legitimate shot at life before 6 months? And if so, how high is the hospital bill to incubate a 6 and a half month old fetus to viability?

I hate abortion and think Ashliana's soap box rant is bullshit (the belief that all humans have a right to life that supersedes the right to 'control' ones own body isn't necessarily an attempt to legislate a religious belief, and the fact that you think only religious people would feel that way scares me), but your viewpoint is a little out there.

Legit shot at life starts at 5 months. How much is the cost(assuming the fetus is just at the 5 month mark)? 6 figures, depending on what complications there are from the premature birth(not if, just what), more.

[Hulkein]

Give the women having abortions other, better options than abortion and you'll see abortion fade away. Trying to limit the freedom to my own body isn't the right way to go about it.

I agree with you there. That's where the Republican party could drastically improve their policies. Better education, free contraceptives, etc.


Legit shot at life starts at 5 months. How much is the cost(assuming the fetus is just at the 5 month mark)? 6 figures, depending on what complications there are from the premature birth(not if, just what), more.

That early huh? Anyone know at one point abortion becomes illegal? I think it's around 6-7 months but I'm not sure.

Khariz, knowing that your plan would force the state to foot 6 figure hospital bills for these 'aborted' babies, do you still support it?

[crb]

I agree with you there. That's where the Republican party could drastically improve their policies. Better education, free contraceptives, etc.



That early huh? Anyone know at one point abortion becomes illegal? I think it's around 6-7 months but I'm not sure.

Khariz, knowing that your plan would force the state to foot 6 figure hospital bills for these 'aborted' babies, do you still support it?
I do.

How can you be a human being and condone murder of an infant?

On the same token though I wouldn't be above sterilizing the bitch the whelped the kid.

[Warriorbird]

...

[Hulkein]

I do.

How can you be a human being and condone murder of an infant?

On the same token though I wouldn't be above sterilizing the bitch the whelped the kid.

I don't condone the murder of a baby, I'm personally pro-life. However I also don't condone a law would allow a woman to get a fetus removed and the state to pay the enormous bills because it isn't viable without six figure hospital care.

Either outlaw it completely or keep it as is. I don't like Khariz' plan much.

[Lord Orbstar]

i was pro choice....I mean for Abortion. Call it what it is. Abortion. And that is what bothered me to the depths of my conscience as I got older than 18 and saw how the world is and how decisions affect us and others.

Now I call it murder and understand it is not a choice..it is a baby and a human life. Those who abort as a form of birth control surely are damned and morally bankrupt. I KNOW there are cases where abortion is the right choice as a medical necessity. Those you can appreciate the hard hard hard decision that mother has to make and accept it.

We lost our first child before it was born to a miscarriage. Now I am a father of two daughters and know that life is the real choice. Smart, conscientious people can differ. Life is a journey and mine has led me here. Pro Life.

Pro abortion republicans are not progress.

[Khariz]

I'm all for outlawing it completely, but unfortunately we had Supreme Court justices who read shit into the Constitution that wasn't there. Now, 25 years later, there are emanations and penumbras shining out of our collect assholes, and almost 30 years of abortion precedent that aren't realistically going to be overturned.

Last year's Carhart v. Gonzalez was at least a step in recognizing the brutality of partial birth abortion. Though the Court was definitely guilty of the sort of hypocracy that WB accused me of here.

I'm not really sure how you can realistically claim that pulling a baby's head into position, drilling into the skull, and sucking out the brains, is any MORE brutal than ripping the baby into many pieces in the womb and pulling it out piece by piece. /shrug

[Warriorbird]

So... when exactly are the pro life folks going to cover women in that situation, provide for them... pay for their medical care until their kid can be adopted?

Oh... right, that'd be never... which is why were abortion eventually banned the back alley abortion business would kick right back into full swing.

What'd be next? The War on RU486?

Ban them morning after pills?

And those teenage or other 'bitches who whelped them'(compassionate conservative words from crb there) you'll totally not give them any social stigmatization. They'll be able to stay in school. It'll all be a happy little fairy tale just like Juno.

[Khariz]

So... when exactly are the pro life folks going to cover women in that situation, provide for them... pay for their medical care until their kid can be adopted?

Oh... right, that'd be never... which is why were abortion eventually banned the back alley abortion business would kick right back into full swing.

What'd be next? The War on RU486?

Ban them morning after pills?

WTF? Is this the reverse slippery slope argument? Are you arguing against the "Slippery slope of Morality"? Oh noes!

[Lord Orbstar]

it is not the governments role to provide for anyone. It is governments role to provide a safe society in which its citizens flourish based on their own hard work and ingenuity.

Unless you are a liberal democrat. then you believe something else.

[Warriorbird]

Merely pointing out the hypocritical bullshit of the average 'pro life' contingent.

You go on and on about 'THE BABIES!' but you could give a fuck about the parent (who has to raise said baby).

crb summed those views up real nice.

Curiously enough... there seem to be some folks besides liberal Democrats who are pragmatic on this issue. That's the thread topic.

[Lord Orbstar]

The parents "choice" was when they fucked and he squirted in her instead of just having her swallow it like a good date. Adults make their "choice" to procreate, the child is rather defenseless.

If you really dont want a kid, abstain. Or suck cock. Either way, no abortion needed.

[crb]

So... when exactly are the pro life folks going to cover women in that situation, provide for them... pay for their medical care until their kid can be adopted?

Oh... right, that'd be never... which is why were abortion eventually banned the back alley abortion business would kick right back into full swing.

What'd be next? The War on RU486?

Ban them morning after pills?

And those teenage or other 'bitches who whelped them'(compassionate conservative words from crb there) you'll totally not give them any social stigmatization. They'll be able to stay in school. It'll all be a happy little fairy tale just like Juno.
You perhaps missed the post earlier in this thread where I say I think the government should give out free birth control. And yes, morning after pills too.

And a bitch who waits until she is almost full term to get an abortion is a fucking bitch and deserves no sympathy. Do it early, or carry it to term, don't wait until it is almost able to survive, or indeed can survive, to decide to pull the plug, creating suffering for the child if it lives, and even if it dies.

Hmm... actually... bitch is perhaps too nice... they are cunts. Huge fucking cunts, and I'd pay chuck norris to kick them all in the head if I could.

ps. I am not a compassionate conservative, that was GWB remember? I'm a cold hearted practical conservative/libertarian.

[Warriorbird]

Practical? Like eugenics? That's what your sterilization suggestions and misogyny sounds like, crb.

"Abstinence education" actually leads to more pregnancies, Orbstar. I'm sorry reality doesn't fit with your ideals.

[crb]

I won't even mention that eugenics was a liberal ideal... but sterilizing someone who is irresponsible and puts a burden on society through their irresponsibility is not nearly the same thing as sterilizing people because they have dark skin, or aren't tall, or any other characteristic.

It is about preventing the irresponsible behavior from reoccuring. Kevin Mitnick was disallowed to use a computer for like 10 years because of hacking. Bitches (I mean cunts) who get pregnant because they don't take precautions, then wait until they're 7 months pregnant before wanting to get an abortion, can get their tubes tied. Especially if it is like, abortion #2.

[Hulkein]

Merely pointing out the hypocritical bullshit of the average 'pro life' contingent.

You go on and on about 'THE BABIES!' but you could give a fuck about the parent (who has to raise said baby).

crb summed those views up real nice.

Curiously enough... there seem to be some folks besides liberal Democrats who are pragmatic on this issue. That's the thread topic.

The parent is the one making the choice to get railed by someone who is usually not their husband and letting them rip one home without a condom on. It's not like women wake up pregnant. They make a choice and there is a consequence.

[Warriorbird]

So... you do absolutely nothing for the parent that you insisted have a kid... and then their kid grows up into a bad situation... and then a generation passes... and you can blame them for it next.

Awesome.

[Sean]

The parent is the one making the choice to get railed by someone who is usually not their husband and letting them rip one home without a condom on. It's not like women wake up pregnant. They make a choice and there is a consequence.

You say that like condoms are foolproof

[diethx]

The parents "choice" was when they fucked and he squirted in her instead of just having her swallow it like a good date. Adults make their "choice" to procreate, the child is rather defenseless.

If you really dont want a kid, abstain. Or suck cock. Either way, no abortion needed.

So what's your suggestion then for long-term support? Oh, right, the government doesn't need to provide anything for anyone. You're just of the opinion that the fetus has the right to live, but once it's born you think you've done your job and then don't give a fuck about what sort of life that baby is going to have growing up with a mother who wasn't ready (financially, emotionally, etc.) to be a mother. What a damn joke.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=18750

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=18588

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=18727

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=18743

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=18563

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=18489

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=14536

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=14477

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=12492

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=5380

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=34364

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=33408

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=32137

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=26689

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=29614

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=25924

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=24455

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=20944

http://www.forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=24384

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2m-7sBHgbg

[Sean of the Thread]

coitus interruptus:

Withdrawal is accomplished when, during intercourse, the man pulls out his penis just before ejaculation. This requires much discipline. As orgasm is impending, a man may not withdraw in enough time to prevent semen from escaping into the vagina.

To use withdrawal properly, a man should urinate before sex and wipe of the tip of his penis to remove any lingering sperm from a prior ejaculation. If the man is uncircumcised, a complete wash of the penis is a good idea. When he feels he is about to ejaculate, he should remove his penis from his partner's vagina

When that fails find a coat hanger. Please enjoy some of my finer moments of mspaint.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/PRO.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b236/Japgross/fetus.jpg

[Lord Orbstar]

lol, the win. nice art.

[Sean of the Thread]

Hey I've considered getting them pressed. Those were from my 1.75 liter a day days.. obviously the juice gave me some inspiration back then as I can't even make a top 10 douche or cunt poll anymore.

Clearly I'm slacking.

[Kyra231]

I do.

How can you be a human being and condone murder of an infant?

On the same token though I wouldn't be above sterilizing the bitch the whelped the kid.

In Michigan unless the woman has had 3 children or is over 32 the hospital ob/gyn will not do a sterilization procedure.

In private practices they might, however that would indicate the mother has money & then make the entire argument pretty much moot(i.e. mother not being able to care for said child forced upon her).

[crb]

In Michigan unless the woman has had 3 children or is over 32 the hospital ob/gyn will not do a sterilization procedure.

In private practices they might, however that would indicate the mother has money & then make the entire argument pretty much moot(i.e. mother not being able to care for said child forced upon her).
I was talking about any current law. Obviously the world is too PC to sterilize women who repeatedly have unwanted pregnancies and then wait until the last minute to abort instead of taking like the morning after pill.

[AnticorRifling]

In private practices they might, however that would indicate the mother has money & then make the entire argument pretty much moot(i.e. mother not being able to care for said child forced upon her).

Nothing says fit parent like a bankroll....

[Warriorbird]

Nothing says fit parent like somebody who didn't want a kid to begin with.

[Hulkein]

So... you do absolutely nothing for the parent that you insisted have a kid... and then their kid grows up into a bad situation... and then a generation passes... and you can blame them for it next.

Awesome.

Maybe after the first kid grows up with a shitty childhood she/he'll take some personal responsibility and not do the same thing to their offspring.

Seriously though, I never said not to do anything. I just don't believe there is as much of an obligation for the government to do anything when it was a DECISION made by a citizen. Again, not a big fan of the nanny-state.


You say that like condoms are foolproof

If you wear a condom and don't let one loose while inside it's pretty much close to foolproof. I realize this takes some self control, but come one. It's either do that or risk the chance that the condom broke and you may have some extra responsibility in 9 months.

[Warriorbird]

Except reality doesn't somehow conform to your view that everybody's going to somehow stop having sex... and it gets worse and worse.

If your party ever seriously wants to end abortion they need to change up how they address the issue.

[Daniel]

Maybe after the first kid grows up with a shitty childhood she/he'll take some personal responsibility and not do the same thing to their offspring.

I'm sure in 20 years you'll be here saying how that kid had his choices in life and it's all his fault too.

[Hulkein]

I said that joking around Daniel. Notice the "Seriously" part of the next paragraph.

But to a certain extent, you're right. People are born with the odds against them and you can't really blame them when they don't turn out well, but it's certainly possible to overcome it.

[Daniel]

I know you weren't serious, but there are plenty of people (on these boards no less) who would say that and be 110% serious.

[ViridianAsp]

I honestly think most people (women) who want an abortion should either:

One, rethink their life and become responsible for what they've chosen and raise the child (I mean they thought they were responsible enough to have sex wether protected or not, with contraception or not, they knew there was a chance of getting pregnant.).

Two, have the child and put said child up for adoption. Adoption is a great thing, my mother and my uncle were adopted by my grandparents who loved and cared for them and loved and cared for me as well.

I was in the situation once were my child's father tried to pressure me into having an abortion, I refused and took up the responsibility of raising my son. I didn't believe it was my right to kill my child because I made stupid decisions.

[Daniel]

I honestly think most people (women) who want an abortion should either:

One, rethink their life and become responsible for what they've chosen and raise the child (I mean they thought they were responsible enough to have sex wether protected or not, with contraception or not, they knew there was a chance of getting pregnant.).

Two, have the child and put said child up for adoption. Adoption is a great thing, my mother and my uncle were adopted by my grandparents who loved and cared for them and loved and cared for me as well.

I was in the situation once were my child's father tried to pressure me into having an abortion, I refused and took up the responsibility of raising my son. I didn't believe it was my right to kill my child because I made stupid decisions.

That would be great if our family services system wasn't in complete shambles.

I think anyone who advocates pro-life should step up to the plate and adopt a child.

[ViridianAsp]

That would be great if our family services system wasn't in complete shambles.

I think anyone who advocates pro-life should step up to the plate and adopt a child.

When I'm older, I definitely intend on adopting.

[Daniel]

Good for you.

[Kyra231]

I do.

How can you be a human being and condone murder of an infant?

On the same token though I wouldn't be above sterilizing the bitch the whelped the kid.

This is what you said, as if said 'bitch' who 'whelped the kid' wouldn't even WANT to be sterilized, unless they're of a certain age or income bracket, it's not even an option ffs.

My clinical rotation there were more than a few ladies who had children & wanted to have tubal ligation afterward, it was not an option for them because 'you're not 35 or you're not irresponsible enough to have 3 kids you can't afford so you don't know if tub. lig. is what you want' decisions being made for them.

If that's not what you meant, then w/e but that was the way it came across.

~K.

[Jorddyn]

Obviously the world is too PC to sterilize women who repeatedly have unwanted pregnancies and then wait until the last minute to abort instead of taking like the morning after pill.

Who are these crazy women who are waiting "until the last minute" to have an abortion? Isn't one of the "perks" of abortion, well, not being pregnant?

[TheEschaton]

it is not the governments role to provide for anyone. It is governments role to provide a safe society in which its citizens flourish based on their own hard work and ingenuity.

Unless you are a liberal democrat. then you believe something else.

Just a clarification - this has NEVER been the defined role of government in any democratic society, until the Reagan Republicans got their hands on the Presidency. That belief has only arisen in the past 30 years, at most.