Teen mothers "sluts"

[Xavier_Onassis]

What the frell??  Purposely trying to muddy the debate?  Apples & oranges, Xo.  Let me know when you're going to back to the apple, that of the topic on abortion.  and if you want to start a completely different debate on all those oranges, by all means, start a new thread.
--------------------------------------
Observe please that YOU brought up the topic of "everything".
To wit:
Those that are anti-abortion are ALSO pro-choice of everything and anything, EXCEPT abortion, which is why it's actually called pro-abortion vs anti-abortion

The fact remains that no one is pro abortion, as in abortions should be mandatory.
Those who favor the right of the woman to choose, are not pro-abortion or anti-abortion, they are simply saying that it is not their decision. The woman should choose. Hence the term "PRO-CHOICE".

[sirs]

What the frell??  Purposely trying to muddy the debate?  Apples & oranges, Xo.  Let me know when you're going to back to the apple, that of the topic on abortion.  and if you want to start a completely different debate on all those oranges, by all means, start a new thread.
--------------------------------------
Observe please that YOU brought up the topic of "everything".

Everything in relation to the topic of ABORTION and the birthing of a child.  Kind of thought that was a given

gads.      You can't be that dense, so it again must be a concerted effort to completely derail the dicussion into some completely outlandish tangent, such as transvestites.  Here's a hint, Xo.  Next time you want to spearhead a completely comical tangent, do what i did.....add a smiley face on the end, so you don't look so ridiculus

[Michael Tee]

<<When was rape considered a "bad choice"?? >>

I'll type real slow so that you can understand this.

Rape is not a choice.  A woman who has been raped has not made any choice.  Not a good choice, nor a bad choice.  The fetus was FORCED upon her.

So, sirs is willing to allow her the privilege of abortion.  She did not get into her predicament through bad choices, so she gets the right to kill the fetus.

A girl who has unprotected sex made a bad choice, according to you.  Right?  So, not being raped, she does not get the right to kill the fetus.  She is forced to keep the fetus to full term and deliver it.

In effect, sirs really sees the granting or withholding of abortion rights as dependent on the conduct of the mother. A blameless mother (e.g., a rape victim) can kill the fetus if she wants to.  A blameworthy mother (e.g., one who chose to have unprotected sex) can not.  She has to live with the consequences of her bad choices.

Well, the problem with that kind of thinking, of course, is that it is totally destructive of the key idea of the fetus as a fully human life form.  If a fetus really is a human being in every sense of the word, then NOBODY has the right to kill it for any reason, neither the blameless mother, much less the blameworthy mother, the maker of "bad choices."

Once you assign to some people (blameless mothers) the right to kill the fetus, then you have automatically signed on to the idea that the fetus is something less than a full human being, that killing a fetus can not be murder.  Because nobody on this earth has the right to take innocent human life, no matter how much easier things might thereby become for the killer's mind and/or body.

[Michael Tee]

Actually, to tack one more idea onto my last post - - the theory I just articulated there is probably the reason why the religious right will not concede the right of abortion to rape victims.  Because they see that fetus as innocent human life regardless of how engendered.

[Plane]

In effect, sirs really sees the granting or withholding of abortion rights as dependent on the conduct of the mother. A blameless mother (e.g., a rape victim) can kill the fetus if she wants to.  A blameworthy mother (e.g., one who chose to have unprotected sex) can not.  She has to live with the consequences of her bad choices.

Well, the problem with that kind of thinking, of course, is that it is totally destructive of the key idea of the fetus as a fully human life form.  If a fetus really is a human being in every sense of the word, then NOBODY has the right to kill it for any reason, neither the blameless mother, much less the blameworthy mother, the maker of "bad choices."

Once you assign to some people (blameless mothers) the right to kill the fetus, then you have automatically signed on to the idea that the fetus is something less than a full human being, that killing a fetus can not be murder.  Because nobody on this earth has the right to take innocent human life, no matter how much easier things might thereby become for the killer's mind and/or body.

Does the status of a being as human depend on your or my acnoledgement?

[Michael Tee]

<<Does the status of a being as human depend on your or my acnoledgement?>>

No, only on mine. 

[kimba1]

I`m gonna trivilize the rape talk here alittle
there is a trick that aging prostitutes do in vegas
I saw this in CSI so it gotta be true
as a retirement package they get a used condom from a rich john and inseminate themselve so they will be finacially secure with child support
true no sex was involved but doesn`t this shadow somewhat the rape scenerio?
men can be victims too
we talk about the women being unwilling victims
but what about men
remember even men who are not biologically the father can still be responsible for the child

[sirs]

<<When was rape considered a "bad choice"?? >>

Rape is not a choice.  A woman who has been raped has not made any choice.  Not a good choice, nor a bad choice.  The fetus was FORCED upon her.  So, sirs is willing to allow her the privilege of abortion.... 

Based on the fact, currently conceded, that she had no choice in getting pregnant.  An extremely small fraction of those who do get abortions, BTW.  The rest are.....well, it goes without saying.  And if you hadn't grasped it the 1st time around, it is a hypocritical position

A girl who has unprotected sex made a bad choice, according to you.  Right?  So, not being raped, she does not get the right to kill the fetus.  She is forced to keep the fetus to full term and deliver it.

Her choice in having unprotected sex.  Her choice to risk getting pregnant.  Her choice....her repercussions, once a 3rd party innocent life, with NO choice, is involved

[Michael Tee]

<<Her choice in having unprotected sex.  Her choice to risk getting pregnant.  Her choice....her repercussions, once a 3rd party innocent life, with NO choice, is involved>>

Oh, I got THAT alright.  That's the strong side of your argument.

But the weak side is the rape victim - - she's blameless, but that life that she's terminating is innocent.  Now being blameless does not give anyone the right to terminate an existing innocent human life.  So once you concede that she has that right, then logically what she is terminating has to be something less than a fully human life.

For example, a nice young lady through no fault of her own, gets terminal liver cancer but some poor guy in the slums of Calcutta has a liver that's a perfect match.  Now as blameless as she is, she can't kill the guy and take his liver, no matter how much it benefits her.  But you're saying she can, for her own benefit, terminate the fetus.  The fetus is less of a human being than the Calcutta slum-dweller.

[sirs]

<<Her choice in having unprotected sex.  Her choice to risk getting pregnant.  Her choice....her repercussions, once a 3rd party innocent life, with NO choice, is involved>>

Oh, I got THAT alright.  That's the strong side of your argument.  But the weak side is the rape victim - - she's blameless, but that life that she's terminating is innocent.

Absolutely.........did you AGAIN miss that fact that my position on this is a hypocritical middle ground, and only affecting a minute fraction of all abortions performed??     

Now being blameless does not give anyone the right to terminate an existing innocent human life.  So once you concede that she has that right, then logically what she is terminating has to be something less than a fully human life.

No, quite the contrary in fact.  It's called nuance.  You'd a thunk that you leftists would have been on top of that one

[Plane]

"The fetus is less of a human being than the Calcutta slum-dweller."


Is that supposed to be the bottom of the human spectrum?

If you are going to resort to logic , then we will just be returning to what it is that makes any human being human in the first place , and why any of them should be protcted from any other.

Sirs is looking for a compromise that might soften the presently drastic law. Saveing some lives perhaps by allowing some others to be thrown off the sleigh.

Logicly all of these people are people no less than any each  other , but a hugeclass of us have no protection of law from being killed in great pain. If the unrotected class could be reduced and more protected this mnight be the best we can get.

For the product of conception that is still going to be sacrificed , we could mandate some pain killing medication before their dismemberment. Perhaps the same for the convicted rapist too.

[Michael Tee]

<<Absolutely.........did you AGAIN miss that fact that my position on this is a hypocritical middle ground, and only affecting a minute fraction of all abortions performed?? >>

Did you really mean "hypocritical" or were you thinking "hypothetical?"

In any event, the whole anti-choice argument is founded on the sanctity of human life.  Once you compromise that sanctity, the whole thing falls apart.  A value like human life is absolute.  It is or it is not sacrosanct.  You can't say of a supposedly sacrosanct life form, well sometimes it's sacrosanct, and sometimes it's not.  It's kind of like being "a little bit pregnant."  If the fetus is not 100% sacrosanct as precious human life, then there's no point at all in it standing in the way of any human ambition, be it the innocent rape victim's or the careless party girl's.  And obviously if the degree of reverence that fetal life is entitled to is dependent upon the conduct of the mother, then you have admitted once and for all that it is not anything about the fetus that makes it a life form entitled to the same reverence as normal human life, but the fetus will live or die depending on how you, sirs, have judged the mother.  And THAT, my friend, is totally fucked.

<<No, quite the contrary in fact.  It's called nuance. >>

You lost me with that one, sirs.  I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[sirs]

<<Absolutely.........did you AGAIN miss that fact that my position on this is a hypocritical middle ground, and only affecting a minute fraction of all abortions performed?? >>

Did you really mean "hypocritical" or were you thinking "hypothetical?"

As in what I typed.....hypocritical.

[Michael Tee]

You're admitting your position is hypocritical?

[Xavier_Onassis]

MT is right on the money here. If aborting any fetus is murder, and all murder is wrong, then it is just as much murder in the event of rape as it is in any other scenario.

Otherwise, you are admitting that abortion is only SOMETIMES murder, and your buns are sliding rapidly down that slippery slope.