Jsc, serious question about homosexuals

[Van]

Wags, when it comes to debating skills, logic, intellectual acuity, emotional honesty, personal integrity...you name it...you couldn't hold one of these guys...



...at arm's length.

[poptart]

You are truly ignorant if you believe you can legislate / control human behavior

You've found your method for controlling human behavior, haven't you?

Kill it and it will never engage in any behavior whatsoever.


http://www.grtl.org/docs/roevwade.pdf


Interesting read on the stats.

Pro-abortionists grossly exaggerate the number of illegal abortions and deaths
before Roe vs. Wade. One of the major ongoing lines of defense offered to keep abortionon-
demand legal is to insist that the Roe decision did not result in an increase in abortion:
that the same number of abortions is now done legally which were formerly done
illegally. Significantly, however, the minute they are asked for data to back up their
charges, in their typical "hit and run" debating style, they rush off to another topic.
An all-too-common example of this mode of attack appeared in an article by Suzanne
Gordon in the April 4, 1989 Washington Post Health Magazine. She stated, "more than
1.2 million women are estimated to have had illegal abortions each year before Roe v.
Wade, and approximately 5,000 died annually as a result." Obviously, no official record
of the number of illegal abortions exists. Pro-abortion public relations firms may make
such estimates of more than 1 million illegal abortions and 5,000 deaths annually. But
anyone who looks at the actual figures of abortions after 1973 and the number of all
pregnancy-related maternal deaths before 1973 would disagree. These statistics prove
that the pro-abortion estimates have no basis in either fact or logic.
During 1973, after the Supreme Court had legalized abortion-on-demand
nationwide in January of that year, 744,600 abortions were done (according to the Alan
Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, which surveys abortion
providers and compiles abortion statistics). If abortion supporters want to claim that more
than 1.2 million illegal abortions took place before 1973, then they must also explain why
the legalization of abortion caused an immediate drop of more than 450,000 in the
number of abortions!

As for the number of deaths from illegal abortions, in 1960 the total number of all
pregnancy-related deaths (from abortions as well as from childbirth and other problems
during pregnancy) was 1,579 (according to the Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol.
II, Mortality, Part A. 1960-77). To believe the pro-abortion argument that over 5,000
illegal abortion deaths occurred, one must believe that the 1,579 officially recorded
maternal deaths were all caused by illegal abortions and an additional 3,421 deaths were
also caused by illegal abortions and the death certificates were falsified to attribute the
death to something such as "heart attack" or "cirrhosis of the liver," and that no woman
died from any other pregnancy-related cause. But in fact, for 1960, Vital Statistics
attributes 289 of those 1,579 deaths to abortion (legal and illegal).
In 1968, Vital Statistics reports 859 total pregnancy-related deaths; 133 of the 859
attributed to abortion.

[lovebuzz]

Oh FFS, mvs, you're tedious. i posted my own opinion/thoughts speaking from my own practical experience, Deadwood.
you then came along and claimed :

Abortion is merely the most vile and barbaric aspect of our accountability-free culture.

i then responded that :

Child molestation and abuse is at least equally vile and barbaric. It happens all too often

you then somehow decided that because even poptart makes allowances for circumstances such as those i was once in that this drivel was necessary :

Save your bullshit for the brain dead. Even poptart makes allowances in the instance of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. That isn't even part of the discussion, dumbfuck.

We're talking about the other 96% of abortions which are performed soley for the mother's convenience.

Actually it WAS part of the discussion because i put it out there, pop's allowances, your misogynistic mentality and Wags bible thumping, soap boxing aside.

Geez. Go have a drink, pop some Midol and watch some more Deadwood.

[M Club]

Does anyone actually think the family unit has grown stronger since Roe v. Wade?

For a couple of generations, America has put policies in place which do not encourage responsible behavior.

So guess what?

We've got irresponsible behavior.

Abortion is illegal in your beloved South Korea yet your in-laws are eating scrambled eggs at a similar per capita rate as Americans. Perhaps your ideas for social engineering aren't as brilliant as you've fooled yourself into believing.

[M Club]

I'm confused. Is it:

Fuck you, who think you have the right to decide who should live or die before a human being is even given the chance...

Or:

No. Rape is of course a legit reason for an abortion.

?????????

So apparently you've decided who should live or die before given the chance. That rape fetus never bothered anyone, so why does it have to die while a poverty fetus has to live?

[mvscal]

That rape fetus never bothered anyone, so why does it have to die while a poverty fetus has to live?

It's called a compromise, pindick.

[poptart]

Does anyone actually think the family unit has grown stronger since Roe v. Wade?

For a couple of generations, America has put policies in place which do not encourage responsible behavior.

So guess what?

We've got irresponsible behavior.

Abortion is illegal in your beloved South Korea yet your in-laws are eating scrambled eggs at a similar per capita rate as Americans. Perhaps your ideas for social engineering aren't as brilliant as you've fooled yourself into believing.

That's one vote for - the family unit has grown stronger since 1973.

I would also simultaneously chalk one vote up for - insanity.

your ideas for social engineering...

Do you really think pro-lifers are the ones engaging in social engineering?

I think we're the ones who are saying that nature should simply be allowed to take it's rightful course.

Isn't it groups like PLANNED parenthood who are involved in social engineering?

They are the ones who seek to interrupt nature (in a very barbaric way) in order to have a person achieve a situation which they perceive to be socially pleasing.

I don't believe you thought that take through very well.


Abortion is technically illegal (with exceptions) in S. Korea, so whatever numbers are trotted out (and they vary) are suspect.

As you know, when infants are born in Korea they are given the age of... one.
Culturally, and just generally speaking, the people seem to have placed a higher value on the unborn than Americas have.

But in the early '70s, Korea followed America's lead and thought it was somehow advancing itself by liberalizing attitudes toward abortion - although they never took the step to fully legalize it like America has.

At any rate, yes, way too many abortions occur in Korea, also.



M Club, rape abortions account for just 1% of the total number.

While Wagon could have technically clarified himself completely, I'm pretty sure he was eliminating that 1% (which obviously demands that a tough decision be made) from his take.

[poptart]

Exceptional circumstances? I stated that every single pregnancy results in sickness, disfigurement, physical difficulties and permanent physical changes. I stated that you would never allow someone to compel you to do those things to yourself against your will.

Van, you've repeatedly used the "It's not right to force a woman to do something which is against her will" rational in defending abortion, but in doing this, you conveniently overlook the giant elephant (not KC Paul) in the room.

That being, THE WOMAN is the one who took the step to get herself implanted with the new life which she is obviously designed to carry.

It wasn't the pro-life clan that somehow magically got her preg' - so that they could then make her suffer by carrying a baby against her will.

A pregnant woman's WILL was to let herself get pregnant, wasn't it?

Yes, it was.

Her will was to create a new life and she has a moral responsibility to follow through and deliver it.


The issue is so divisive because the two camps begin approaching it from completely different points of view.

The pro-lifers begin with the recognition that the fetus is a helpless life which ought to be protected.
The pro-choicers begin with a conviction that a woman must have freedom to be able to make decisions involving her own body.

Not much middle ground to be found.

[poptart]

Just so you know, Jsc, Skeptic's Annotated is as HUGE a *FAIL* as there is.

just as the people citing the Bible are wrong in claiming that shows marriage is limited to one man and one woman...

People can (and do) make marriage many different things, but God (in the Bible) has surely shown us what His intention is - and Jesus verified it.



People have their own views on abortion and homosexual marriage, and I get that, but when I see them actually thumping the Bible and using it to try to verify these view which they have adopted, I somehow think of what God said in Genesis 6 - just before knocking man's very proud Tower of Babel down to the ground.

Genesis 11:6
and THIS they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do

[Smackie Chan]

The pro-lifers begin with the recognition that the fetus is a helpless life which ought to be protected.
The pro-choicers begin with a conviction that a woman must have freedom to be able to make decisions involving her own body.

Not much middle ground to be found.

Not much at all, which is why this will be a never-ending debate. There is no middle ground between allowing life to continue and deciding to cut it short. It also hinges on there being a distinction made between humanity and personhood. While there is no debate regarding the fact that a zygote is human, it's not legally a person with individual human rights, including due process.

While this could turn into a long-winded post, I'd rather cut to the chase and try to envision how the legal landscape would have to change were abortion to be outlawed. There would most certainly be abortionists who would operate illegally, and clients who would avail themselves of their services. When caught, who would be charged, and with what? Would the abortionist be considered a contract killer, and the patient charged with murder for hire? How would the victim be referred to, since there's no birth certificate or other record of personhood? Would Certificates of Conception need to be issued to prove the existence of human life? If a third party (not the woman carrying the child) knowingly finances the abortion, would that also be a chargeable offense? In most murder cases, prosecutors want to have a body & murder weapon as part of their case against the defendants. Recovering bodies as evidence that abortions have been performed could be challenging. Not surprisingly, the "winners" were this to happen would be the lawyers (Jsc's take on the subject notwithstanding). And I guess the children who would be born rather than aborted would also be considered to be winners, though many, if not an overwhelming majority, would likely be the "losers" of society.

[DC Smackmaster]

Very interesting take, Smackie. I've never considered those things.

[Truman]

The pro-lifers begin with the recognition that the fetus is a helpless life which ought to be protected.
The pro-choicers begin with a conviction that a woman must have freedom to be able to make decisions involving her own body.

Not much middle ground to be found.

Not much at all, which is why this will be a never-ending debate. There is no middle ground between allowing life to continue and deciding to cut it short. It also hinges on there being a distinction made between humanity and personhood. While there is no debate regarding the fact that a zygote is human, it's not legally a person with individual human rights, including due process.

You sure about that, Smackie? Then why are killers charged with double homicide when they take out a pregnant woman with a stray bullet or in a drunken hit-and-run?

So who determines when a fetus is legally a person with individual human rights, including due process? Who legally draws the line in the sand? And where is the line drawn? Babies have been born at 21 weeks – well within the 2nd trimester, by my count - and lived. As medicine continues to advance, who’s to say babies born even earlier won’t grow to become productive adults?

My bitch all along has been with the hypocrisy of the law. If the law states that it is OK to terminate a pregnancy at 4 weeks, then there should be no complaint when a pregnancy is terminated at 34. A human life is a human life at either stage of development.

[trev]

Birth control works most of the time. Failed birth control is not why so many abortions are performed. I intentionally tried to get pregnant twice. I got pregnant twice. It's pretty simple.

[Smackie Chan]

The pro-lifers begin with the recognition that the fetus is a helpless life which ought to be protected.
The pro-choicers begin with a conviction that a woman must have freedom to be able to make decisions involving her own body.

Not much middle ground to be found.

Not much at all, which is why this will be a never-ending debate. There is no middle ground between allowing life to continue and deciding to cut it short. It also hinges on there being a distinction made between humanity and personhood. While there is no debate regarding the fact that a zygote is human, it's not legally a person with individual human rights, including due process.

You sure about that, Smackie? Then why are killers charged with double homicide when they take out a pregnant woman with a stray bullet or in a drunken hit-and-run?

Wondered about that myself as I was typing my post. I just know that if personhood was legally conferred to fetuses, abortion would be illegal since it would constitute the willful killing of a person. On the subject of personhood, from wiki:

According to some theories, once human beings are born, personhood is considered automatic. However, personhood could also extend to fetuses and human embryos, depending on what theory one ascribes to. With respect to abortion, 'personhood' is a term used to describe the status of a human being having individual human rights. The term was used by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade.

I agree it appears the goalposts are moved when the crime is the killing of a pregnant woman and the accused can be charged with double murder because the fetus is counted as a victim. Common sense would dictate that either a fetus is a person or it isn't, irrespective of the circumstances. But common sense and the law don't always walk hand-in-hand. My guess is that the distinction is made so that an accused killer of a pregnant woman can have more charges brought against him, and the issue of human rights and due process protection is not on the table in this case (you can't protect someone who's already dead). And I'm wondering if a murder charge for the killing of a fetus can only be brought when the mother is also killed. Not sure if there are any cases in which, say, someone assaults a pregnant woman causing her to miscarry, but the mother lives, and the attacker is charged with murdering the fetus while only assault & battery charges can be filed for the attack on the mother.

So who determines when a fetus is legally a person with individual human rights, including due process? Who legally draws the line in the sand?

The courts.

And where is the line drawn?

Not sure what the law is or what sentences can be handed down when an abortion is performed after the fetus has reached the stage of development beyond which abortions can be legally performed. My understanding is that personhood is not conferred until birth. Not aware of any cases where a doctor was charged with murder for performing an illegal abortion. Is malpractice the worst an abortionist can be charged with if caught performing illegal late-term procedures?

Babies have been born at 21 weeks – well within the 2nd trimester, by my count - and lived. As medicine continues to advance, who’s to say babies born even earlier won’t grow to become productive adults?

If they're born, they're people and have legal human rights, regardless of how long they spent in utero. As long as mom is still the host, they have no such rights. At least that's my understanding.

My bitch all along has been with the hypocrisy of the law. If the law states that it is OK to terminate a pregnancy at 4 weeks, then there should be no complaint when a pregnancy is terminated at 34. A human life is a human life at either stage of development.

Which is what prompted my post. Are the nouns person and human synonymous? If so in all cases, abortion would be illegal. But a legal distinction has been made between humanity and personhood, whereby all persons are human, but not all humans are persons, and, ironically, human rights are only granted to persons.

[Truman]

I intentionally tried to get pregnant twice. I got pregnant twice. It's pretty simple.

If you really want to freak your kids out, trev, tell them you remember the exact moment that you created them. Works like a champion!

[trev]

I intentionally tried to get pregnant twice. I got pregnant twice. It's pretty simple.

If you really want to freak your kids out, trev, tell them you remember the exact moment that you created them. Works like a champion!

Never tried this one.

I'll wait for the right moment and strike.

[Van]

And where is the line drawn?

You answered your own question, right here...

babies have been born

Once they're born, they attain real personhood.

[trev]

^^^ yea, then you can tell tham about swallowing their siblings

[mvscal]

Who is anyone to force those risks and consequences on a woman?

She accepted those risks and consequences when she allowed herself to get knocked up. Who the fuck is she to force somebody else to die in order to make her life more convenient?

[Truman]

And where is the line drawn?

You answered your own question, right here...

babies have been born

Once they're born, they attain real personhood.

Birth = personhood, eh? Good to know.

Under the Intact D&X method, the largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements.[3] Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.

But to address your take, no, I didn't answer my own question. But if it helps you rationalize the legal killing of persons, then by all means...

Don't parse the quote. Forty states currently outlaw 3rd trimester abortions. So what magically changes on day 1 of week 27 should a woman suddenly decide she no longer wants to carry her baby to term? I'm pretty sure the baby was just as viable on day 7 of week 26.

[Van]

Dunno. Trying to choose an acceptable specific date while it's still in her body seems just as arbitrary to me as it does to you.

[Derron]

Wow...15 pages and still going...another compelling debate on T1B.

[poptart]

God said in Genesis 6 . .

Not to beat this to death, again, but . . .

"God said" Did he? Really? And who is he? And who says He said it? And how are you sure god is a "he?"

Not saying that Wiki is the Truth either, but it surely represents current scientific knowledge, as applied to the old writings.

Perhaps "god" spoke to each of those early writers and editors and interpreters and placed them all in synch and then blessed the "Authorized Version" of the King James version of the bible to quote his words. Perhaps in the middle ages, the church hierarchy was pure in intentions and didn't rewrite any of the stories to serve their selfish purposes. And perhaps those same church leaders were pure when they $old tickets to heaven, killed the non-believers, and groomed the young boys for their pleasure. Perhaps. But the pope Is a catholic. And perhaps the other 66% of the world, who are not "christians" are wrong and doomed to "hell."

Also perhaps the bible is a compendium of very wise stories and wisdom, a collection of one cultural groups thinking. And the believers call the source of it "god."

Remember too, once the earth was flat and the universe rotated around it.

"God said." That statement is so fraught with ignorance, narcissism, and blind faith in second hand information as to make it seem just plain silly. I am not making fun of your religion, or demeaning it, just asking you to take off the rose colored glasses for a moment and think for yourself. Maybe you have, and have also come to the conclusion that "God said so." Like issues concerning abortion, that is your personal choice (if you are a woman), but for heaven's sake, do not push it on others, or use it to judge what others do or think.

A response to this would surely kick-start another 19 pages added to this thread, so I'll decline.

But if you ever feel like posting some of these takes and questions in that other forum, I'll be glad to reply.

[War Wagon]

They want everyone to accept their deviant behavior as if it were normal. Sorry, I don't, I won't and it's not.

Can we go through this? Of course I don't expect to change your mind, but I would like to understand it, at least on this point.

You say that homosexuality is not normal, is that why you oppose same sex couples from getting married?

Depending on how you use the term, homosexuality is normal and it is not. It is not normal in the sense that the majority of the population is not homosexual; of course, in that regard, things like being left handed, having red hair, and being a fan of Missouri football are not normal. I trust that you don't oppose those people from getting married, even to each other.

On the other hand, homosexuality is normal in they're sense that it happens naturally, a small percent of every population in history has been gay. Likewise, homosexuality naturally occurs throughout the animal kingdom, so again in that sense, homosexuality is normal.

So I'm wondering how you are using the term

I want you to know that I'll ponder this for a while before giving it the response it deserves.

[War Wagon]

i'm not in your face. if i were, you'd know.

I like the sassyness, at least.

[War Wagon]

don't go breaking your arm. I said I'd get back to you. On my time, not yours.

I'm listening to Tune Town right now, what the hell are you doing?

[poptart]

There is a percentage of the population which engages, for example, in self-mutilation.
Pulling one's own hair out, cutting one's self with sharp objects, etc.

Nobody taught this behavior to these people.
It happens naturally.

Hey boss, must be normal.


The fact that something happens is not cause to declare it... normal.

Wtf?


lol

[Van]

Who gives a fuck what's normal? Why should that ever be the most cherished yardstick?

[M Club]

That rape fetus never bothered anyone, so why does it have to die while a poverty fetus has to live?

It's called a compromise, pindick.

Seems like your issue is the act that led to conception, so fair enough, but for folk who think they're giving a voice to those without one life was conceived regardless, so no free passes for rape, incest, etc.

[M Club]

[

your ideas for social engineering...

Do you really think pro-lifers are the ones engaging in social engineering?

I think we're the ones who are saying that nature should simply be allowed to take it's rightful course.

Isn't it groups like PLANNED parenthood who are involved in social engineering?

They are the ones who seek to interrupt nature (in a very barbaric way) in order to have a person achieve a situation which they perceive to be socially pleasing.

I don't believe you thought that take through very well.

well, fair enough. Social engineering is a term either side of an argument can use to advance their point since any decision affecting society has an outcome in mind. What I meant by social engineering was your idea that by making abortion illegal and cutting government entitlements the abortion rate would somehow magically drop, but you already live in a case study of that scenario, and no.

Abortion is technically illegal (with exceptions) in S. Korea, so whatever numbers are trotted out (and they vary) are suspect.

Suspect in that they're underreported, so Koko's probably throwing away even more fetuses per 1000 preggers than the States.

Regardless of whether you live in a decadent society that mandates three abortions in order to graduate high school or in a very traditional, Confucian society that requires a parent's permission just to make a doodie, the question of abortion will always come down to the point Van's been tirelessly trying to make about a woman's experience. I don't necessarily mean in a "my body, my choice" sort of way, because despite his hyperbole about pain and disfigurement through childbirth, it's still the way we've been propagating for much longer than the Bible says we've even existed, so boohoo, I suppose. But a woman is the only one of a sexual pair who HAS to take on full responsibility for the resulting child. In America, with all those supposed abortions-on-demand, it far too often means a woman with little earning potential contending with three other baby mammas for her child's father's attention (and financial support). Some people are lucky enough to have parents and other relatives to help out with the child rearing and some aren't. Either way, le dad can skip out completely on his responsibilities and the only consequences will be some clucking from people in his community, if they even care. I suppose baby mama can go the legal route to get some child support, but I believe in real life that looks like [1] er, I have to pay for an attorney? and [2] you really think a deadbeat, walk-out father has any sort of gainful employment?

You'd think Soko would be the complete opposite with its strong traditional values - both Christian and Confucian - but women there are having abortions more frequently than their ghetto American cousins, mostly because of what happens to single mothers. They get kicked out of their families and are generally shunned by the rest of society. Men, on the other hand, are free to go back to their wives, or continue with their studies, or resume whatever it is they were doing before.

The only way to drastically reduce abortions is to begin treating women better or stop people from having pre-marital sex, which hahahahahahahahaha. I guess this is where you'd say ladies should be more discerning with whom they give their cookies to, but that'd be quite the hypocritical stance for most of the people I or any other dude has ever come across, including quite a few people on this board. And regardless of your religious views on sex, I'd rather have a bunch of unmarried folk bumping uglies than deal with a society full of neurotic, repressed 30-year-olds. (The Middle East, an open laboratory for all your fundamentalist experiments.)

As you know, when infants are born in Korea they are given the age of... one.
Culturally, and just generally speaking, the people seem to have placed a higher value on the unborn than Americas have.

I'm pretty sure the system of Korean age reckoning predates contemporary views of abortion. Could have something to do with finding it more logical to be considered one year old during your first year of life, two during your second, etc., otherwise wouldn't they celebrate their first birthday three months after birth? The Korean legal system uses Western age, FWIW.

[poptart]

Abortion is technically illegal (with exceptions) in S. Korea, so whatever numbers are trotted out (and they vary) are suspect.

Suspect in that they're underreported, so Koko's probably throwing away even more fetuses per 1000 preggers than the States.

I doubt it and I suspect the opposite.
I suspect the 'illegal' estimates are inflated for dramatic purposes - to try to show people how awful it is that these women are getting dangerous abortions, and we therefore need to legalize it.

In the link I posted in response to Scott, prior to Roe v. Wade in 1973, pro-choice people were claiming that 1.2 million abortions were occurring every year.
But then in the first year of legalization, less than 800,000 occurred.

oops!

Why would we see a drop of over 400,000 in the very first year they became legal? lol

They were obviously inflating the illegal estimates for dramatic purposes - and I suspect the same thing is done now with the Korea numbers - because there are those who push for full legalization of the procedure here, and they like to claim the illegal ones are dangerous, etc.

But a woman is the only one of a sexual pair who HAS to take on full responsibility for the resulting child. In America, with all those supposed abortions-on-demand, it far too often means a woman with little earning potential contending with three other baby mammas for her child's father's attention (and financial support). Some people are lucky enough to have parents and other relatives to help out with the child rearing and some aren't. Either way, le dad can skip out completely on his responsibilities and the only consequences will be some clucking from people in his community, if they even care. I suppose baby mama can go the legal route to get some child support, but I believe in real life that looks like [1] er, I have to pay for an attorney? and [2] you really think a deadbeat, walk-out father has any sort of gainful employment?

I remember when Alan Keyes was running for prez - I think in 2000?

He was all up in arms about what you are describing - the deadbeat daddy.

The Keyes' solution?

Public floggings of fathers who ditch their wife and/or kids.





I almost voted for Mr. Keyes on this basis alone.

:wink:

[M Club]

They were obviously inflating the illegal estimates for dramatic purposes - and I suspect the same thing is done now with the Korea numbers - because there are those who push for full legalization of the procedure here, and they like to claim the illegal ones are dangerous, etc.

Who exactly is "they"? I'd understand your point if I were pulling stats off a .org site with an agenda, but they were numbers quoted from the South Korean government, which finds itself in a position right now to limit abortions as much as possible, negative birth rate and all. That and everyone's anecdotal "friend" who had to pay for a girlfriend's abortion.

Interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/world ... wanted=all

I remember when Alan Keyes was running for prez - I think in 2000?

He was all up in arms about what you are describing - the deadbeat daddy.

The Keyes' solution?

Public floggings of fathers who ditch their wife and/or kids.





I almost voted for Mr. Keyes on this basis alone.

:wink:

Ja, douchies should be offed, as well as the women who go to bed with them knowing he already has seven other kids he doesn't give a fuck about. Is part of the reason I don't necessarily agree with abortion myself but will withhold judgment of a woman who gets one. Contrary to what some of you seem to think, most abortions are only "convenient" in that it's far too easy to characterize another person's plight that way from the perch we all sit in.

[poptart]

Who exactly is "they"? I'd understand your point if I were pulling stats off a .org site with an agenda, but they were numbers quoted from the South Korean government, which finds itself in a position right now to limit abortions as much as possible, negative birth rate and all.

The they in my post to Scott was specifically Suzanne Gordon, who wrote in the April 4, 1989 Washington Post Health Magazine that 1.2 million illegal abortions had been happening every year in America before Roe v. Wade passed.
But she stepped on her dick because the first year after Roe v. Wade passed, less than 800,000 occurred.
She was exaggerating the number of illegal abortions which were taking place.

The article you linked says that a SK gov study showed that about 340,000 abortions happened in S. Korea in 2005.
But in 2005 S. Korea had a liberal administration heading the government, and the fertility rate issue hadn't become the really hot issue that it now is.

Any way you slice it (no pun), neither of us really knows for sure what the real numbers are - but there are too many happening, imo.


But you know what?

Korea put a FULL ban on abortion in 1953 - which lasted until the limited exception law of 1973 was passed.
It was that limited exception law of '73 that allowed women to more freely get the procedure done, because it became possible to fudge on the real reason for aborting the fetus.

Do you think there were as many abortions in S. Korea in the '50s and '60s (full criminal ban) as there have been since things opened up more in 1973?

I don't.

[Van]

the question of abortion will always come down to the point Van's been tirelessly trying to make about a woman's experience. I don't necessarily mean in a "my body, my choice" sort of way, because despite his hyperbole about pain and disfigurement through childbirth

Hyperbole?





Yeah...not so much. The pain is real, it occurs every time, and it's nothing to minimize. The disfigurement is real, some degree of it occurs every time, and it's also nothing to minimize.

Again, it's very easy for people to sit up on their high horses and pontificate about what women must and must not do, but there is no way in hell men would ever allow themselves to be legislated into doing this to their bodies against their will. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

Not saying you're among those cavemen, M Club. In fact, I highly suspect you are not. I'm speaking of the poptarts and War Wagons of the world who are so ready to drop "a lifetime of shame and regret" on a woman lest she do their misogynistic bidding.

[R-Jack]

In a thread about fruits getting "his" and "his" jewelry and baby/fetus killing, that last pic was uncalled for

[Van]

Nah. Threads evolve, and that last pic is something every woman who's ever been pregnant can relate to. It's not hyperbole. It's every-day fact.

[M Club]

The they in my post to Scott was specifically...

Mah bad. I meant "they" in to mean the stats I was referencing. I read you wrong and thought you were saying the ones I found from the SK government were part of a liberal conspiracy to promote abortion.

The article you linked says that a SK gov study showed that about 340,000 abortions happened in S. Korea in 2005.
But in 2005 S. Korea had a liberal administration heading the government, and the fertility rate issue hadn't become the really hot issue that it now is.

Any way you slice it (no pun), neither of us really knows for sure what the real numbers are - but there are too many happening, imo.

The article I linked to a few days ago was much more recent and suggested unwed pregger women alone accounted for nearly 200,000 abortions a year. But yes, neither of us know exactly how many are going down, just that a whole lot are getting terminated whether legal or not, which was my point to begin with: women who wake up pregger are going to take stock of their future and make a decision accordingly, and that's without even considering the men in their lives who will coax them into one even if homegirl doesn't want to.

But you know what?

Korea put a FULL ban on abortion in 1953 - which lasted until the limited exception law of 1973 was passed.
It was that limited exception law of '73 that allowed women to more freely get the procedure done, because it became possible to fudge on the real reason for aborting the fetus.

Do you think there were as many abortions in S. Korea in the '50s and '60s (full criminal ban) as there have been since things opened up more in 1973?

I don't.

The only thing resembling historical data I could find is here: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/ ... korea.html

Big jump after 73 though looks like abortions were already considered a fun Saturday night.

[M Club]

Yeah...not so much. The pain is real, it occurs every time, and it's nothing to minimize. The disfigurement is real, some degree of it occurs every time, and it's also nothing to minimize.

Again, it's very easy for people to sit up on their high horses and pontificate about what women must and must not do, but there is no way in hell men would ever allow themselves to be legislated into doing this to their bodies against their will. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

Not saying you're among those cavemen, M Club. In fact, I highly suspect you are not. I'm speaking of the poptarts and War Wagons of the world who are so ready to drop "a lifetime of shame and regret" on a woman lest she do their misogynistic bidding.

Of course it's nothing to minimize. But it's also the natural process we're stuck with. It happens. I just think "it's my body" is not much of an argument compared to "I have to make 100% of the sacrifices here." But yes, I'm totally on your side about self-righteous men pontificating about their holy role perpetuating god's children.

[mvscal]

That rape fetus never bothered anyone, so why does it have to die while a poverty fetus has to live?

It's called a compromise, pindick.

Seems like your issue is the act that led to conception, so fair enough, but for folk who think they're giving a voice to those without one life was conceived regardless, so no free passes for rape, incest, etc.

Only the most hardcore fundamentalists advocate that. The rest of those who oppose abortion hold a more pragmatic view.

[mvscal]

Roe v. Wade is Law -

For the time being.