I wouldnt vote for Romney for dogcatcher and no I do not agree with that.Originally Posted by peggy
I wouldnt vote for Romney for dogcatcher and no I do not agree with that.
The problem with your comment is.....we are talking about two different issues. The topic was not rape, or molestation.
Convos on this forum dissolve into nothing most of the time because the topic goes in a thousand directions. The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value shows why our society and world is in the condition it is. Life has no meaning to those who think like that. It has no value. A baby is as important as a pig, to them. Nothing matters. And it shows when we pick up the paper or turn on the news......welcome to the world where anything goes.
Originally Posted by peggy
poetry writer, i"m curious. Mitt Romney said yesterday that as President he would completely de-fund Planned Parenthood. Do you agree with that?
I wouldnt vote for Romney for dogcatcher and no I do not agree with that. (poetry_writer)
----------------------------------------------------------
boy, it looks like you'll probably find yourself between a rock and a hard place, poetry_writer.......I can't imagine that you are a fan of President Obama, and on the other side, it's likely to be a choice between Mitt Romney and Santorum......Romney is far more likely to be the nominee, making you have effectively no choice at all, because if you wouldn't vote for Romney for dogcatcher, surely you wouldn't be willing to vote for him as President of the United States.
And, if by some chance, Rick Santorum gets the nomination, and is able to do what HE wants to do, which is to be against contraception altogether out of fear of contraception leading to "improper sexual behavior", HIS policies will be almost SURE to end up in massive numbers of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, and way MORE abortions........and, of course, he is MORE than willing to see Planned Parenthood defunded completely.
really comes down to retreating into a cave somewhere, for you, I guess....... no wonder you feel so hopeless. ;-)
You havent changed a bit......:o)
Was there ever a golden age when the world wasn't in the condition it is, when things mattered, and when it wasn't a world where anything goes? When? The U.S. in the 50s maybe (after our government had just dropped the bomb on Japan - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, if indescriminate wiping out of whole cities is not "killing is fine and human life has no value" what is?). Or maybe the golden age was the middle ages? It seems to me in the past that a lot of mothers died in childbirth though and that in the old days the life of the mother was a very real issue. Or maybe it's just western culture that is debased and other cultures have existed where human life has mattered and we should emulate them? Ok, care to provide examples? Or maybe there hasn't been a golden age, not since Eve ate the apple, and it's been east of eden ever since - well .... at least that position is consistentConvos on this forum dissolve into nothing most of the time because the topic goes in a thousand directions. The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value shows why our society and world is in the condition it is. Life has no meaning to those who think like that. It has no value. A baby is as important as a pig, to them. Nothing matters. And it shows when we pick up the paper or turn on the news......welcome to the world where anything goes.. Maybe the golden age exists only in the future when human beings have evolved (even if just by cultural evolution) to be much more compasionate, loving, aware and sensitive beings than they are now. It starts with what? Ok ... maybe .... being more careful about birth control so less babies are aborted, then maybe being sympathetic to people dying in other countries due to our wars, then maybe sympathizing with a people that is losing the island they have always lived on due to global warming, then maybe respecting old people and not devaluing them because they are old (I'm talking about basic respect not radical life extension at all costs here). Well .... I respect idealism so ... ok, have at it
Trees don't grow on money
I think killing is acceptable, even necessary, in some circumstances.
That position does not come from a belief that "life has no value", but rather the opposite.
Ditto - and to Gregg too. I feel that birth control can, and should, be made more readily availble and affordable to all - and would especially love to see it as a covered service of medical insurance plans. BUT, if you can't afford it, or can't readily obtain it (and I'm talking about ALL types of contraceptives - including making the boys "suit up"), then you shouldn't have sex UNTIL you can obtain contraceptives. That's justr a matter of personal responsibilty to avoid becoming preggers. Same with avoiding STD's - if I get AIDS or some other STD because I didn't follow safe sex practices, I am the one who is responsible for that, no one else. And no one is saying abstain for life, just be personally responsible for your actions and their outcomes. With the myriad of birth control choices out there - many VERY inexpensive ones that can be used in tandem to greatly increase effectivness - no one should ever need an abortion except for in dire circumstances (rape, incest, severe fetal problems to child or mother). Abortions shouldn't be used as a means of casual day to day birth control IMHO.
Last edited by Spartana; 3-15-12 at 5:01pm.
Originally Posted by poetry_writer:
The fact that some here think killing is fine and life has no value ...
That's your entirely subjective interpretation, and I haven't seen a jot or tittle of evidence that it's the truth.
But the topic *is* about whether abortion is "ok" in some instances or not and a girl getting pregnant because she is raped once (or repeatedly raped as in the case of incest) certainly has to be considered. And the ultra conservatives who want control over the power to make laws concerning abortion and contraception, etc don't see a problem with not having an exception to the rule in the case of pregnancy as a result of rape, and that absolutely turns my stomach.
Abstinence-only education doesn't take into consideration that the girl may not have ANY choice in the matter.
Like Gregg, I agree that if woman in a consensual relationship gets pregnant from lack of contraceptive use, an "oops, I'm pregnant" scenario, abortion would be my last advice to give to her; she danced, and she can pay the fiddler by having the child and giving up for adoption. But in the case of pregnancy-by-rape, there has to be a way to spare that girl the trauma of carrying the rapist's child to term, every day being a constant reminder of was done to her and taken away from her. It is for that reason that I am pro-choice.
My Blog: Confessions of a Wannabe Housewife
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote