Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic

1:If I was a Christian, I would probably remember my family and I would feel very obligated not to do it. so no.

Is having the child aborted before it's eating, breathing, and in your hands better than having it die of starvation, or put in an orphanage, never to know it's mother? I think that the obvious choice here is to have an abortion.

...this should be discussed by women ... Where are they? C'mon girls, get your heads in the game!

...swearers may never perform surgery to remove stones....

Would that make everyone happier?

But what about the unborn child's feelings?

And what about girls that are pressured into abortion by their families or boyfriends? Who's protecting their rights?

I've not really been personally threatened as you appear to feel here yesterday.

And what about girls that are pressured into abortion by their families or boyfriends? Who's protecting their rights?

A quick thought: How would you feel if you had been aborted early in life.

Would you like it if you never got a chance, too?

I guess one's stance on this issue has a lot to do with how one understands human ontogeny.

I can't deny that abortion is, by some standards, murder. But, in my opinion, due to the lack of development shown...

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians' rights. If the woman in question is not brave/strong/confident enough to refuse abortion based on her beliefs, the fact that the option to abort exists doesn't have much effect on that.

I'm angry on behalf of all the women who are feeling oppressed by this issue.
In short, the topic upsets me because, were I to live elsewhere than Canada, my rights would be compromised. And I don't agree with that.

Apologies in advance if I've offended, ...I don't want to beat any points to death here, so I'll stop now.

It is not the executive nor the legislative branch of our government that has fallen, it is the judicial branch. The same basic group of self-serving activists that just killed Terri Schiavo in cold blood.

Of course, it wasn't until a few weeks ago that a man in the U.S. could legally kill his own wife. Now, with Michael Schiavo's test case out of the way, the we can prepare for a complete reversal of any progress we've made in the way of womens' rights.

We supposedly have such a list of rights, but the judges I've mentioned are misrepresenting every single one so as to push something bad down our throat while making illegal the original right. For example, we have the right to free speech. What that means is that we have the right to any poitical opinion and to express it. What it's been turned into is a license for rappers to cuss, slanderers to slander, and people to lie under oath, while at the same time the judges have ruled that non-profit organizations are banned from expressing political opinions and public records of politicians! The same kind of thing is happening to all of our rights. Innocent Terri Schiavo is killed while many States don't have death penalties for psychopathic serial killers.

Even in Canada, your rights are limited. You can't go to the corner market, buy a gun, and shoot your boss before work (or teacher before class). The question is not a general one about all rights, or even comparison with other countries. It's a question as to whether you can do what you want to do, and your appreciation for that ability.

Apologies in advance if I've offended, and if I've failed to address your concerns with my earlier posts. I've tried to be as clear as I could, and it's resulted in my longest post ever, and I don't want to beat any points to death here, so I'll stop now.

Buz wrote:

Yeah you can they are called Saturday night specials. We have them here in the US too. It's part of that whole Second Amendment thing.

I believe (biologically), once the DNA have merged to create a new human in that first zygotic cell, a new person (who should have rights) exists, and the right for anyone to do harm to themselves ends where that child's body starts (placenta/umbilica).

I don't believe there's any vast conspiracy to keep women down by some secret masculinist underground society that controls the government and business.

But anything that takes power away from women and gives it to sexual predators is, in my book, continuing millenia of sexual opression.

...there's really not a special place in the forum where only guys can read so we could keep you safe.

Buz wrote:

...there's really not a special place in the forum where only guys can read so we could keep you safe.

For some reason, this offends me slightly. I don't feel I need to be kept safe. I'm 25, I'm a big girl. And I understand that this forum is mostly male-dominated, and therefore it makes perfect sense that this thread is mostly male-dominated. And that's okay. It's just that I feel that, through no fault of your own, some of you gentlemen were ignoring the female perspective to this issue.

It's good to have a female prospective on this issue. I'm glad that MHG decides to post on here and I hope she continues to post on this issue and other issues in the R&P section.

Author:	thefreakyblueman [ Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Alright, this is what I was looking for: more of a view on why abortion is wrong to most people. Thank you for elaborating on this, d-man. Not being a Christian, but Jewish, I'm not sure where or what is said in the Bible that demotes abortion, so I think that that would be helpful. My point of view is that really only in the most dire situations (as I stated in my example before) would it be ethical; as the ability to have an abortion whenever would promote much more recklessness in young people and their sex lives--but this should not be applied to law. No matter what the most ethical thing is, I strongly think that it should be the woman's choice. Although, sadly, a survey of reasons in the United States says that 46% of the reasons given for an abortion is the lack of contraception. About the religious influence about abortion, that really should be on the woman's part, since if she thinks that it's best for her, it probably is, and if she thinks it's wrong, then so be it. Obviously, since I am (and most people in this conversation are) male, we don't have a clear insight to this, and nothing of what it feels like to have to have a child. Again, this part needs to be the woman's decision, since we can't say what's right and wrong for them. doodyman500 wrote: 1:If I was a Christian, I would probably remember my family and I would feel very obligated not to do it. so no. I don't really understand this; why would your family make you think it would be any easier to care for a child? Much less, make you feel obligated to not have one? Just the fact that they didn't abort you? If so, that's because they planned for you, while most women who have an abortion didn't plan on it. Your parents wanted to have a child because they were married, but as you can guess, most women who have an abortion are not. To me, this also applies to the quote you put, since your parents WANTED to have you, while if you were the woman who was raped or otherwise, you didn't plan on it. The big solution here is not to disallow abortion, but to educate women on the subject. There are not nearly enough sex education programs in the country, and they are the most effective weapon we have against premature pregnancy, since that is a huge amount of the given reasons for an abortion. If every woman in this country knew the dangers of having sex without protection, then the irresponsibility would (hopefully) vanish, and with it, the need for abortion in premature pregnancies.

Author:	Buz [ Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Abortion
thefreakyblueman wrote: Is having the child aborted before it's eating, breathing, and in your hands better than having it die of starvation, or put in an orphanage, never to know it's mother? I think that the obvious choice here is to have an abortion. What about the choice between aborting the child versus having the child grow up happy and healthy in a loving household with parents, and then growing up to have an education, a career, and a family of his or her own? Well, now, the choice is even more obvious! Nobody in the U.S. starves to death unless someone intentionally starves them. There are no orphanages. Why? Well, among other things, there are so many loving families that are ready to adopt a baby that there's actually more willing families than babies given up for adoption. So your situation is not only a false dichotomy, it's unrealistic. Freakyblue, I really do respect your level of concern for your peers and other girls in a hard situation. It is truly difficult, and you're right that they need something to help them. I simply think that a greater good can come of the situation! You think that abortion is a crumby choice that's nonetheless sociologically necessary sometimes, and I think that a tragedy can be averted by choosing a win-win situation instead of a sorta-win-very-lose alternative. I know several families that have adopted babies and those smiling children growing up in my midst have been such a joy! Dr. Zaius, thank you for addressing my claims. I stand corrected on accusing you of valuing money. I won't make that mistake again. I think our discussion about euthanasia has shed light on the abortion point of view, but if we're going to continue we should probably start a euthanasia thread. I am not motivated to do so.

Author:	doodyman500 [ Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:07 am ]
Post subject:
Actually blueman, What I meant with the whole "Christian family" thing was that I would be raised with values and more than likely my family would discuss things like abortion and why it's wrong. Therefore I would feel obligated not to do it because either a:I would feel way further away from my family if I did it. b:I would feel like It was wrong because of the beliefs I was raised with. c:both of these And I agree, this should be discussed by women (Although if it were up to me, they'd all know it's a bad choice.) Where are they? C'mon girls, get your heads in the game!

Author:	Buz [ Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:57 am ]
Post subject:	Threat
doodyman500 wrote: ...this should be discussed by women ... Where are they? C'mon girls, get your heads in the game! It's OK. This discussion may be rather threatening to women. You see, the Feminist political movement has made abortion and child care their flagship political hot topics, so it may not be safe for a woman to speak her mind here politically. Also, while this is an ethical question for me, it'll never be a practical question (since I am a man who will remain pure until he marries). A lady perusing this topic may feel compelled to remain silent because of the personal stake she may have in it. One may say: her heart over her head. Finally, the way us guys are talking about it -- the absolutes and the anger and the accusations -- are not very welcoming. So, on those three dimensions, I suggest that it's OK for our ladies to read our thoughts and take them into account, rather than enter a charged debate on a personally threatening and politicized topic. For the record, StrongCanada spoke on page 1, and her views (and the thinking and feelings that were taken into consideration for those views) are made clear.

Author:	IantheGecko [ Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:12 am ]
Post subject:
The question of abortion, IMHO, goes back to the Hippocratic Oath: To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; to look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot. Therefore, a doctor who performs an abortion would go against the Oath he took when he became a doctor.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Abortion http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1030	Page 4 of 8

Author:	furrykef [ Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:23 am ]
Post subject:
It should be noted that the precise Hippocratic Oath is not universal and it's common to omit that portion. - Kef

Author:	InterruptorJones [ Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:28 am ]
Post subject:
I don't know why I'm even replying because the Hippocratic Oath has no bearing on whether or not abortion itself is wrong (only whether certain people performing it is in contradiction with an oath they took), but it's worth noting that the version of the Oath you quoted, though historically accurate, looks very little like the Oath most doctors take today. According to PBS, in 1993, only 8% of Oaths taken prohibited abortion. [1] If you'd read the very text you quoted, you'd also note that it mandates that medical instruction always be performed for free (next time you visit your doctor ask them how much med school cost them), and that swearers may never perform surgery to remove stones. Next time I recommend you take the time to actually read the text and do a little background Googling before you paste it into a discussion.

Author:	Buz [ Fri Apr 15, 2005 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Life and death.
InterruptorJones wrote: ...swearers may never perform surgery to remove stones.... Actually, I believe that ancient reference to stone was neither gall nor kidney, but "masculine." Other ancient references I've read to stones anatomically have meant that. Though emasculation of slaves was much more common in ancient times than it is now, it was a means of subduing cultures and controlling slaves, not a matter of medical need. It's my understanding that the Oath was meant to separate and elevate medical practice above politics and money, as to which point the stones operation is evidence. Politics and money are the DRIVING FORCE behind modern abortion. There is a documented fraction of a percent of abortions performed for medical reasons, the rest are for money and power. And since someone asked again, I'll answer again. The actual reason many people believe abortion is wrong and evil is because we believe the baby, though unborn, is actully a living human being. To end that life is paramount to murder. There is no other reason, no political or monitary motivation, that I find abortion to be inconvenient, and if it weren't a living human being I would not care. I know you're young and have grown up with the state of things being basically the same all your life, so it's scary to think that you live in a country doing something legal but morally wrong every 15 seconds. But I'm also doing everything I can to stop the spread of HIV, I was against the jugde-ordered murder of Terri Schiavo (I know there's a thread for that but apparently everyone there is grossly misinformed about the facts of the case) by the incredibly cruel and unusual process of dehydration, and think that it's OK for Americans to have any political opinions they wish to hold.

Author:	ModestlyHotGirl [ Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:
As a woman, I just thought I'd throw out my opinion that if I were ever unfortunate enough to experience an unwanted pregnancy (due to rape or contraceptive malfunction) I'd like to have the option to abort. At this point in my life I don't think I have the emotional or financial capacity to support a child. For me, adoption is not a feasible option. What some people don't seem to understand is that pregnancy is expensive. If I knew I didn't plan to keep my baby, why would I want to spend money on drugs, birthing classes, maternity clothing... Not to mention the time I would lose in school and work in order to have the baby. If I decided I wasn't keeping the baby for myself, I believe there's no point in spending time or money on these things. Nobody owns our bodies except ourselves. And there's no way anyone - I mean anyone - will tell me what to do with my body. I'm a responsible young woman, and I don't take silly chances with my reproductive system, but accidents do happen (and, unfortunately, some women are unlucky enough to be impregnated by rapists). If an accident were to happen, I'm glad to be living in Canada where the choice is mine. The financial responsibility is mine, and I will have to deal with the emotional ramifications. If I choose to take that upon myself, that's up to me. Society has been controlling women in one way or another for too long. And it sickens me. I won't be a victim to that, nor do I believe any woman should have to be. Now, I don't know how things work in the US, but here, girls and women can get condoms for free at family planning clinics, and can get oral contraceptives for a nominal fee there as well (about $5 per month's supply if they don't have a benefits plan). Better sex education and better accessibility to these resources would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, reducing the need for abortion. Would that make everyone happier?

Author:	Didymus [ Sat Apr 16, 2005 4:57 am ]
Post subject:
But what about the unborn child's feelings? While I can appreciate a woman's feelings on this topic, I still keep coming back to this one point: the child is being ignored. No one ever asks an aborted fetus whether he or she wanted to live or die. So, it seems to me, no matter how you look at it, somebody's freedom of choice is being violated. And what about girls that are pressured into abortion by their families or boyfriends? Who's protecting their rights?

Author:	Buz [ Sat Apr 16, 2005 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:	I am not sure I understand...
MHG-- You keep mentioning how upset this topic makes you. Why? At whom are you so angry? I said earlier on this page (or maybe on the last one) that this was a sensitive topic for a number of carefully enumerated reasons. But who are you angry at? This not to say I've never gotten hot under the collar participating in this forum. But that's been when Dr. Zaius and his ilk have said things like "everyone who doesn't agree with me should be ceremonially executed and their bodies hung in the market place as an example that everyone should be as full of hate and selfishness as Dr. Zaius, and anyone who has any sense of tolarance or an open mind will end up like these corpses." Other than that, I've not really been personally threatened as you appear to feel here yesterday. I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your feelings. You are! I simply don't understand them and would like to know why the topic upsets you the way it does.

Author:	ModestlyHotGirl [ Sat Apr 16, 2005 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Okay, I can safely say that, a day later, I have calmed down significantly. I realize that I came off as pretty angry yesterday, and I'll get to that. But first: Didymus wrote: But what about the unborn child's feelings? I guess one's stance on this issue has a lot to do with how one understands human ontogeny. In the first trimester, the fetus is in the organogenesis stage, meaning that organs are in the process of being formed. Differentiation between organs doesn't occur until the second trimester, and so it is my belief that fetae aren't at all cognizant until at least the second. In the third, the brain is sufficiently developed that the fetus can be conditioned, but that doesn't necessarily mean that conscious thought is present. Many so-called "primitive" animals can be conditioned, but we still kill them every day for food. Is that not also, by your logic, violating the animals' freedom of choice? I can't deny that abortion is, by some standards, murder. But, in my opinion, due to the lack of development shown in the first and early second trimesters (which is the latest an abortion should take place, I think), it's no worse than killing animals. I'm not a vegetarian, so I don't mean to persecute meat-eaters. Didymus wrote: And what about girls that are pressured into abortion by their families or boyfriends? Who's protecting their rights? I don't mean to offend, but I don't really see how this fits in here. My issue is that a woman's right to choose shouldn't be violated, and in your scenario, she still has that right. The right to choose implies two (or more) choices: abortion, adoption, keeping the child, and anything else I may have missed. I'm not saying that every unwanted/accidental pregnancy should end in abortion. I'm just saying that women should have the choice. Nobody should be able to control what happens to a woman's body, and that includes pressure to abort (except in the case of health problems which may be debilitating to mother and/or child). In addressing my support of the right to choose, don't forget the other choices. What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that women should be free to decide what course of action to take, be it abortion, adoption, etc. As for who's protecting their rights, I'm not sure of the constitution in the US, but here in Canada, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians' rights. If the woman in question is not brave/strong/confident enough to refuse abortion based on her beliefs, the fact that the option to abort exists doesn't have much effect on that. Buz wrote: I've not really been personally threatened as you appear to feel here yesterday. I think my appearance of feeling personally threatened has to do with the simple fact that I'm a woman. I haven't had an abortion, but it is a definite possibility that, sometime in my life, I might want to. I suppose that, as only the second female to reply to this topic (if memory serves), I'm angry on behalf of all the women who are feeling oppressed by this issue. In short, the topic upsets me because, were I to live elsewhere than Canada, my rights would be compromised. And I don't agree with that. Apologies in advance if I've offended, and if I've failed to address your concerns with my earlier posts. I've tried to be as clear as I could, and it's resulted in my longest post ever, and I don't want to beat any points to death here, so I'll stop now.

Author:	Funkmaster Hoff [ Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:01 pm ]
Post subject:
I say if the woman is going to die if she has the baby, then it should be legal. That is the only case. Anything else, if you ask me, is flat-out murder. If you don't want the baby or don't want to care for it, then put it up for adoption.

Author:	Beyond the Grave [ Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:44 pm ]
Post subject:
Well let me put it to you this way Abortion is gonna happen whether it is legal or not. But the fact that it is legal means it is safer than if it wasn't. Before Abortion was legalized here in the US the only way to have an abortion was to visit the man with the coat hanger. That was dangerous. The coat hanger could easily damage a woman's uterus, so she could never have kids. At least today we have drugs that are not harmful to the mother. Not to mention that Abortion is nobody's business but for the involving parties.

Page 4 of 8	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Didymus [ Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:
But even legal abortion has a 100% fatality rate. The child always dies. And, just as I pointed out to IJ several months back, I do not consider awareness level a key factor in determining whether or not they are a human being. Keep in mind, more than half my patients are in late stages of Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. I will commend MHG on this, though. I do agree that better sex education should be available so that children can make informed choices about sexuality. And they should be encouraged to wait until they are physically and mentally mature enough (i.e., adults) before engaging in sexual behavior. I've recently done some research on sexual addiction as part of my CPE training, and early pregnancy and venereal disease are not the only detremental consequences of immature sexual behavior. The addiction process itself is highly destructive on the person's psyche. And sexual addiction (at least according to the testimonies I have read) almost always begins in the teen years. For more information, here's a few online resources: Dr. Mark Laaser (a leading expert in sexual addiction and recovery). A. Michael Johnson (another expert in sexual addiction recovery) Sexaholics Anonymous Quote: And what about girls that are pressured into abortion by their families or boyfriends? Who's protecting their rights? This comment is relevent. When I was serving Immanuel in Bossier City, we worked with a teen crisis pregnancy center. There are cases where young girls are pressured into abortions by their parents and boyfriends, even though they don't want to have one. And for the rest of their lives, they have to live with the guilt and shame, when in reality others made the decision for them.

Author:	Beyond the Grave [ Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:49 am ]
Post subject:
I totally agree with you Didymus. The child always dies, and that we should have more education about this. However I am saying that Abortion is going to happen whether it is legal or not.

Author:	Joshua [ Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:31 am ]
Post subject:
A quick thought: How would you feel if you had been aborted early in life. Would you like it if you never got a chance, too?

Author:	furrykef [ Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Joshua wrote: A quick thought: How would you feel if you had been aborted early in life. I'd probably feel dead. Quote: Would you like it if you never got a chance, too? Being an illegitimate child myself, I've given this a lot of thought before. I tend to be against abortion -- not the legalization, of which I am currently ambivalent, but the act itself -- because I would more likely than not have been aborted myself if I were conceived in a society that was more permissive about that sort of thing. Now, I'm sure numerous counterexamples can be made of illegitimate children who are strongly pro-abortion, but that's not the point. I'm sure that the ratio of illegitimate children who are against it is much higher. No, I haven't any statistics to back up that claim, but I think anything to the contrary would be surprising enough to raise eyebrows. I know it's fallacious to assume that most other illegitimate children have thought about it the way I have and arrived at the same or similar conclusions, but I still feel it a safe assumption. - Kef

Author:	Didymus [ Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:14 pm ]
Post subject:
Ounce of prevention, pound of cure. I would prefer that kids be better informed and motivated to wait until adulthood so that they can make healthy choices about their sexuality and wait until they're actually physically and mentally mature enough to handle the consequences. And the prospect of an abortion is one of those consequences. And of course, the guilt and shame so commonly associated with it.

Author:	Buz [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:41 am ]
Post subject:
ModestlyHotGirl wrote: I guess one's stance on this issue has a lot to do with how one understands human ontogeny. Yes, I agree 100%. The fetus, the placenta, and the unbilical cord have the child's DNA exclusively (barring damage), and I think that my right to swing my fist about ends at your nose. So I believe (biologically), once the DNA have merged to create a new human in that first zygotic cell, a new person (who should have rights) exists, and the right for anyone to do harm to themselves ends where that child's body starts (placenta/umbilica). I have no desire to opress anyone. I don't believe there's any vast conspiracy to keep women down by some secret masculinist underground society that controls the government and business. If there were, I'd be against it. I don't want any women anywhere to be repressed (another reason I'm SO GLAD we toppled the Taliban, the government that was the most opressive to women in modern history). My opinions and actions have to do with my scientific observations and my understanding of the meaning of that science. No societal or gender issues even enter into the equation! ModestlyHotGirl wrote: I can't deny that abortion is, by some standards, murder. But, in my opinion, due to the lack of development shown... This line of reasoning is the only justification for abortion that I will accept. The line af reasoning about economics and social opportunities is all secondary to the question of whether the thing is a human. I cite one U.S. precedent, which I don't know about Canadian analogues. For all endangered species that lay eggs, the law that makes it illegal to kill a species member (say, the bald eagle or some kinds of owls) extends to the eggs. If you destroy a living bald eagle egg, you get hauled in for violating the endangered species ordinance. Legally, you've destroyed a bald eagle. So the federal government has decided that unborn creatures are living representatives of their species. It is not the executive nor the legislative branch of our government that has fallen, it is the judicial branch. The same basic group of self-serving activists that just killed Terri Schiavo in cold blood. And the Didymus thing may need some explaining to a strong, self-asserting woman like yourself. For centuries, men have not only oppressed women in open society, but have oppressed them sexually behind closed doors. This hapens today in, dare I say, every single coed high school in the world. Giving a man more tools to rape and to justify his raping is paramount to continuing opression. If a boy is pressuring his girlfriend to have sex when she doesn't want to, she can no longer say "no, I might get pregnant." The female is thus disarmed from her former weapon of shame since abortion is an alternative. I hope you never, ever have this problem. But anything that takes power away from women and gives it to sexual predators is, in my book, continuing millenia of sexual opression. Of course, it wasn't until a few weeks ago that a man in the U.S. could legally kill his own wife. Now, with Michael Schiavo's test case out of the way, the we can prepare for a complete reversal of any progress we've made in the way of womens' rights. ModestlyHotGirl wrote: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all Canadians' rights. If the woman in question is not brave/strong/confident enough to refuse abortion based on her beliefs, the fact that the option to abort exists doesn't have much effect on that. We supposedly have such a list of rights, but the judges I've mentioned are misrepresenting every single one so as to push something bad down our throat while making illegal the original right. For example, we have the right to free speech. What that means is that we have the right to any poitical opinion and to express it. What it's been turned into is a license for rappers to cuss, slanderers to slander, and people to lie under oath, while at the same time the judges have ruled that non-profit organizations are banned from expressing political opinions and public records of politicians! The same kind of thing is happening to all of our rights. Innocent Terri Schiavo is killed while many States don't have death penalties for psychopathic serial killers. ModestlyHotGirl wrote: I'm angry on behalf of all the women who are feeling oppressed by this issue. In short, the topic upsets me because, were I to live elsewhere than Canada, my rights would be compromised. And I don't agree with that. I said last page that you didn't have to be involved. It's OK, sometimes us guys get to talking and even arguing. While I am impressed by your bravery, I hope you didn't feel unreasonably compelled to post. Many times I read a post that offends me. More often than not, I pass it by and close the tab. Sometimes I do swing in and let people know what's up, but there's really not a special place in the forum where only guys can read so we could keep you safe. In a certain sense, your right to read has been protected! Even in Canada, your rights are limited. You can't go to the corner market, buy a gun, and shoot your boss before work (or teacher before class). The question is not a general one about all rights, or even comparison with other countries. It's a question as to whether you can do what you want to do, and your appreciation for that ability. ModestlyHotGirl wrote: Apologies in advance if I've offended, ...I don't want to beat any points to death here, so I'll stop now. None perceived, and you covered your points with the perfect level of thoroughness. And I have only respect for you (well, as much as someone can garner in an internet forum within reason).

Author:	Beyond the Grave [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:22 am ]
Post subject:
Man that was a lot of reading. Buz wrote: It is not the executive nor the legislative branch of our government that has fallen, it is the judicial branch. The same basic group of self-serving activists that just killed Terri Schiavo in cold blood. Au Contraire. The judicial branch was the only branch of the government that had any common sense. They stopped something that the government had no business being in. Buz wrote: Of course, it wasn't until a few weeks ago that a man in the U.S. could legally kill his own wife. Now, with Michael Schiavo's test case out of the way, the we can prepare for a complete reversal of any progress we've made in the way of womens' rights. No, this just sent a message to everyone to make sure in this case to have something in writing that says whether you want life support. In no way will this reverse the progress of women's rights. Buz wrote: We supposedly have such a list of rights, but the judges I've mentioned are misrepresenting every single one so as to push something bad down our throat while making illegal the original right. For example, we have the right to free speech. What that means is that we have the right to any poitical opinion and to express it. What it's been turned into is a license for rappers to cuss, slanderers to slander, and people to lie under oath, while at the same time the judges have ruled that non-profit organizations are banned from expressing political opinions and public records of politicians! The same kind of thing is happening to all of our rights. Innocent Terri Schiavo is killed while many States don't have death penalties for psychopathic serial killers. This is called free will this is one of our GOD given rights we can use it in whatever way we deem fit. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. We have and we use it in what ever way we want to. Another thing there is a way to counter slander it is called a lawsuit. If you feel that somebody has harmed you in any way shape of form you can sue them for slander. It's the Great American Way. Buz wrote: Even in Canada, your rights are limited. You can't go to the corner market, buy a gun, and shoot your boss before work (or teacher before class). The question is not a general one about all rights, or even comparison with other countries. It's a question as to whether you can do what you want to do, and your appreciation for that ability. Yeah you can they are called Saturday night specials. We have them here in the US too. It's part of that whole Second Amendment thing. MHG wrote: Apologies in advance if I've offended, and if I've failed to address your concerns with my earlier posts. I've tried to be as clear as I could, and it's resulted in my longest post ever, and I don't want to beat any points to death here, so I'll stop now. What she said.

Author:	furrykef [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:54 am ]
Post subject:
Beyond the Grave wrote: Buz wrote: Even in Canada, your rights are limited. You can't go to the corner market, buy a gun, and shoot your boss before work (or teacher before class). The question is not a general one about all rights, or even comparison with other countries. It's a question as to whether you can do what you want to do, and your appreciation for that ability. Yeah you can they are called Saturday night specials. We have them here in the US too. It's part of that whole Second Amendment thing. I think Buz meant you can't get away with doing that. - Kef

Author:	ModestlyHotGirl [ Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Well, Buz, I have to say that you present a convincing argument, although I don't fully agree with everything you've said. Buz wrote: I believe (biologically), once the DNA have merged to create a new human in that first zygotic cell, a new person (who should have rights) exists, and the right for anyone to do harm to themselves ends where that child's body starts (placenta/umbilica). I can understand your opinion regarding when human rights "begin", but it's an opinion. I can see the reasoning (and scientific fact) behind it, but, as I stated above, due to the lack of development and consciousness in the first weeks, I don't agree with you. I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong, or vice versa. I think this particular point is an opinion issue, because we don't know enough about human development to pinpoint when, exactly, a fetus gains consciousness or when its nervous system is sophisticated enough to feel and register pain. Buz wrote: I don't believe there's any vast conspiracy to keep women down by some secret masculinist underground society that controls the government and business. I hope this was, at least a little bit, sarcastic. Because that's a little outrageous - that's not at all what I was suggesting, nor am I suggesting that this oppression is wilful or intentional. I don't believe that pro-life groups purposefully want women to have to suffer, or go through anything that they don't want to. My point is that, for whatever reason, women are not currently under control of their own bodies. It just seems wrong to me. Buz wrote: But anything that takes power away from women and gives it to sexual predators is, in my book, continuing millenia of sexual opression. Are you against contraception as well? Because that also eliminates the woman's pregnancy excuse - rapists can use condoms and feel justified? I do apologize, but, respectfully, I can't even entertain the idea that abortion takes power away from women. I don't believe that abortion or even the "morning-after pill" should be used in place of contraception or abstinence. But, if a woman has chosen to be sexually active, the Pill is only effective 97% of the time, and condoms can break, and it's even possible (however unlikely) that both would fail when used together. So, if a woman such as myself who has chosen to have a sexual relationship with a loving, long-term partner accidentally becomes pregnant despite contraceptive measures, I think she should have the option to abort the pregnancy. I think that if my only options were to keep the child or to give it up for adoption, I would feel more helpless. Buz wrote: ...there's really not a special place in the forum where only guys can read so we could keep you safe. For some reason, this offends me slightly. I don't feel I need to be kept safe. I'm 25, I'm a big girl. And I understand that this forum is mostly male-dominated, and therefore it makes perfect sense that this thread is mostly male-dominated. And that's okay. It's just that I feel that, through no fault of your own, some of you gentlemen were ignoring the female perspective to this issue. And that's okay. I just thought I'd throw in my female opinion, and, unfortunately for some, it's a strong one. There was no unreasonable compulsion involved. It'd be interesting to have a female pro-lifer in this thread, just to see what the gender differences are. Buz, I know you mean no disrespect, and I continue to respect the opinions and views of all in this forum to the best of my ability.

Author:	Beyond the Grave [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:16 am ]
Post subject:
You have gone far with what you know about US Politics.

Author:	PizzaTrophy [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 6:04 am ]
Post subject:
In the Northern Territory where I live, it is legal to have an abortion. It is illegal to kill any living, breathing human being (i.e. being outside of the womb)as stated in the Northern Territory Criminal Code (NTCC). Due to our status as a Territory and not a state, the Federal Government has the power to change the laws that a territory makes through section 122 of the Australian constitution, as they did with the euthanasia debate in teh 1990's in relation to the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. But the Federal Government hasn't changed the law here, so it must not be of high importance. I cannot recall any recent debates on abortion in Aust. Although here, abortion is only legal if it threatens the mother's health. My friend's mother used to work in the hospital, where once a week they would interview the women who were due to have abortions. The only threatening heealth reason that was stated was for 'psychological reasons'. I believe she told me that she only signed one that in which the mother's life was actually in danger (she had been severly beaten). It saddened her that so many teenage girls would come through the system, some more than once. She left soon after due to the moral issues involved, as she had trouble conceving her children. We live in a city of 100 000, which is pretty cut off from the rest of Australia, so sometimes they would get girls flown in from remote areas of Queensland and Western Australia, at the government's expense. When she told me that I was disgusted. I pay my taxes, but not so careless 14 year olds can have abortions. Contraception is readily available, don't be scared to talk to your mums about it if you're planning on having sex! I agree, it is a woman's choice, but it was sad to hear about some girls who came in more than once over several months. I would most definitely consider an abortion if I was raped. No woman would want to live with the guilt, fear and bad memories all of their life. Just adding another female's opinion

Author:	ModestlyHotGirl [ Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:58 pm ]
Post subject:
I do agree with what you're saying, PizzaTrophy, especially when you imply that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. Condoms are cheap (or even free, depending on where you live) and, like I said before, oral contraceptives can also be had for a nominal cost. But we must keep in mind that, even when precautions are taken, accidents can happen, no matter how responsible you are.