Screw Abstinence Party

[Nuc]

Would you be in favor of limiting the right to abortion in any way?

Yes.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hopefully one day we will live in a world where abortion is not necessary. In the meantime legal abortion is favored by a large majority of Americans. Republicans like to make noise about abolishing abortion rights, but they will not actually do anything about it because that would tip the balance against them. The last two elections were very close. If they ever succeeded in outlawing abortion (unlikely because they are not even trying) there will be a huge backlash against the Republicans. That might help them in some local elections, but on a national level it will backfire.

Abolishing slavery and giving women the vote gave those people more rights. Abolishing abortion takes away rights. Or if you prefer it takes away the rights of people who are in a position to vote. Fetuses can't vote. The analogy is not really equivalent.

First, abortion is not favored by a majority of Americans. That is a myth of the pro abortion crowd.

Second, abortion wouldnt even be an issue if we simply overturned Roe V Wade, a decision that should never have happened. Then the states would have control over the issue. Im sorry to tell you there wouldnt be a backlash agaisnt Republicans. Because the red states who wanted abortion banned would have them banned and the blue states that want to keep infanticide legal will keep it legal. And of course there will be those in between. The fact is abortion wont be an issue. but as long as Roe v Wade is the law of the land it will be an issue, because the people have no choice in the laws.

Third, There is no right to murder you freakin idiot. You have no right to kill a child simply because it might inconvenience you to take responsibility for your actions. We are talking about an completely new being. and the Constitution was designed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note, that protecting life is the first responsibility of our government.

It's sad that people would want to kill their children. its even sadder that others dont give a damn about human life and wont lift a finger to try to save that child. Abortion is the one thing in this nation that is more evil than slavery. With slavery atleast the slaves had the chance to be taken care of or had the hope to someday escape and be free. Atleast they had some choice in what they did although severely limited. The children murdered by you and those like you have no chance to be free. They have no chance of being taken care of. They are dead.

So stop pretending you are pro choice. You arent. You are pro death. If you were pro choice youd give the child a chance to live his or her life rather than supporting his/her murder.

It's so sad that there are people that heartless in the world.

 

[Nuc]

First, abortion is not favored by a majority of Americans. That is a myth of the pro abortion crowd.

Second, abortion wouldnt even be an issue if we simply overturned Roe V Wade, a decision that should never have happened. Then the states would have control over the issue. Im sorry to tell you there wouldnt be a backlash agaisnt Republicans. Because the red states who wanted abortion banned would have them banned and the blue states that want to keep infanticide legal will keep it legal. And of course there will be those in between. The fact is abortion wont be an issue. but as long as Roe v Wade is the law of the land it will be an issue, because the people have no choice in the laws.

Third, There is no right to murder you freakin idiot. You have no right to kill a child simply because it might inconvenience you to take responsibility for your actions. We are talking about an completely new being. and the Constitution was designed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note, that protecting life is the first responsibility of our government.

It's sad that people would want to kill their children. its even sadder that others dont give a damn about human life and wont lift a finger to try to save that child. Abortion is the one thing in this nation that is more evil than slavery. With slavery atleast the slaves had the chance to be taken care of or had the hope to someday escape and be free. Atleast they had some choice in what they did although severely limited. The children murdered by you and those like you have no chance to be free. They have no chance of being taken care of. They are dead.

So stop pretending you are pro choice. You arent. You are pro death. If you were pro choice youd give the child a chance to live his or her life rather than supporting his/her murder.

It's so sad that there are people that heartless in the world.

Lighten up "freakin idiot". I was describing the political climate, not advocating abortion. Ever hear of the word "objectivity"? That's when you look around you and describe it. Describing something doesn't mean you condone it. If you disagree with my analysis, fine, but there is no reason to name-call or attribute intent. Grow up!

 

[Gabriella84]

As always, I refuse to refer to anyone who supports the death penalty as "pro life." If you are equating a collection of cells with a living, breathing person, you are seriously misguided. If only God can take a human life, extend that to everyone. Otherwise, you are being seriously hypocritical.

Otherwise, I have always favored limits to abortion rights:

**Except when the life of the mother is at risk, any abortion past the first trimester is unacceptable.
**Anyone seeking an abortion must submit to counseling. That is counseling to all the options, NOT Christian "counseling."
**Any female who has already had one abortion and seeks a second must agree to mandatory sterilization. Abortion should not be used a birth control.

By the way, the "day after" pill is NOT an abortion pill. It does not "kill" a fertilized egg. It merely prevent the egg from being fertilized.

 

[Hobbit]

As always, I refuse to refer to anyone who supports the death penalty as "pro life." If you are equating a collection of cells with a living, breathing person, you are seriously misguided. If only God can take a human life, extend that to everyone. Otherwise, you are being seriously hypocritical.

Otherwise, I have always favored limits to abortion rights:

**Except when the life of the mother is at risk, any abortion past the first trimester is unacceptable.
**Anyone seeking an abortion must submit to counseling. That is counseling to all the options, NOT Christian "counseling."
**Any female who has already had one abortion and seeks a second must agree to mandatory sterilization. Abortion should not be used a birth control.

By the way, the "day after" pill is NOT an abortion pill. It does not "kill" a fertilized egg. It merely prevent the egg from being fertilized.

See, this is why we don't like you. First off, equating a collection of cells to a human being is quite common. You're a collection of cells. I'm a collection of cells. Everybody is a collection of cells. You just call fetuses that to dehumanize them so you can justify killing them in your mind. A fetus is only attached to the mother through the umbilical, and the blood systems don't even connect. Thinking one is a person is a logical conclusion and not accepting it as a valid opinion is a sign of ignorance and arrogance. I understand that you believe a fetus is not a person. I don't think that's true, but I know how you got to that conclusion and think it's logically sound, if incorrect. You start with the false assumption that people who think fetuses are people are just stupid, which is not only false but insulting.

Now, your second assumption is that pro-lifers believe only God should be allowed to take a life, and that's not true, either, or we'd be as anti-war as the more left wing of the libs. What we do believe is that everyone deserves the right to either succeed or fail at life, no matter what the circumstances are. A fetus has not been given that right. A convicted murderer has been given that right, but has failed at life. Now, I'm not 100% behind the death penalty, but believing in the death penalty, but not abortion is not hypocritical.

 

[Gabriella84]

Someone on this board made a very good statement of fact a while back, and I apologize for not remembering who it is. Life should be considered as anything that can survive on its own, or with the help of medical science.
If you lift a five-week old embryo out of its womb, it's not going to survive. I am not one of those extremist who believes life begins at birth. But it does not begin at conception, either.

One of the main tenets of the anti-abortion movement has always been that only God should be able to determine who lives and who dies. Similarly, only God should decide who has "failed in life." It should not be not up to mere humans. God has forgiven sinners with their last dying breaths.
In my opinion, the worst punishment you can inflict on a living human being is to confine them for the rest of their life. Especially in our prison system. Death is a easy way out.
I consider George W. Bush to be a "failure in life." I believe he is a mass murderer. He should be tried before the same tribunal as Saddam and Osama. It depends on whose opinion you are soliciting.

 

[Hobbit]

Someone on this board made a very good statement of fact a while back, and I apologize for not remembering who it is. Life should be considered as anything that can survive on its own, or with the help of medical science.
If you lift a five-week old embryo out of its womb, it's not going to survive. I am not one of those extremist who believes life begins at birth. But it does not begin at conception, either.

One of the main tenets of the anti-abortion movement has always been that only God should be able to determine who lives and who dies. Similarly, only God should decide who has "failed in life." It should not be not up to mere humans. God has forgiven sinners with their last dying breaths.
In my opinion, the worst punishment you can inflict on a living human being is to confine them for the rest of their life. Especially in our prison system. Death is a easy way out.
I consider George W. Bush to be a "failure in life." I believe he is a mass murderer. He should be tried before the same tribunal as Saddam and Osama. It depends on whose opinion you are soliciting.

The bolded statement is completely asinine and does not merit any more response than this. Your status as a contributing member of society has fallen considerably for having said it. If you want an argument for it, read the forum archives. There's enough said ther to bury you if I thought it was worth the effort to dig it up.

As far as survivability, what about test tube babies? They survive outside the womb through the help of medical science. The brain activity of an embryo is also greater than that of non-brain dead coma patients. So is this brain activity simply irrelevant or should comatose patients be 'aborted' as well? What about babies who have been prematurely born before the abortion limits of many states and have lived? There have even been children who have survived abortion. What if we figure out a way to grow a baby completely from conception to birth in a lab with no womb involved? Since they can now be kept alive by medical science, are they upgraded to people? What if humans layed eggs (an inferior form of birthing, as our large brains require more nourishment to develop than that of egg-laying creatures)? Then, babies could survive outside the mother after the egg was laid, so would you then say that they're only alive if they can live outside the egg, even though they're completely independant of all other life forms or would you stick by your original statement?

Then let's not forget how many abortion activists have started crossing into the realm of post-natal abortions, a soft, cold, lifeless term for executing a baby for convenience. That's how the holocaust started. A German couple begged the Fuhrer to allow them to kill their deformed baby. Their request was granted. The Fuhrere then thought it would be a good idea to go ahead and 'cleanse' the population of 'inferior genes' for the benefit of future generations. Then the definition of 'inferior genes' expanded to include a very large portion of non-Germans. Next thing you know, Jews are being slaughtered by the millions because, oh, they aren't really people.

You want to know the difference between execution and abortion? It's all about respect for life. Like I've said before, I'm not fully behind the death penalty. However, when somebody is executed, there's no sterilization of the process. A living, breathing, human being is going to die. A human life is being taken and there's no softening it. An execution is not just another day, it is a dark day. It's a day when not only is a human life taken, but all are reminded of the reprehensible acts for which such a thing is necessary. Those who execute are fully away of the full ramifications of such an act. The condemned will die and go to whatever afterlife you believe in. Abortion, on the other hand, is a cold and dehumanized act. When a mother aborts her baby, she tells herself that she isn't killing anyone. Everyone involved tells themselves that it's just another day and just another medical procedure. The condemned is not offered a final meal, last rites, or even the slightest bit of comfort. The condemned is simply butchered like a dead cow while still alive and then passed through the birth canal in parts. When somebody is executed by lethal injection, everyone knows a human life has been taken. When somebody is executed by abortion, everyone tells themself that this life they just took is really nothing more than a pair of infected tonsils, a defective piece of tissue that needs to be removed. That is the difference.

Oh, and your entire justification for life imprisonment instead of the death penalty seems to be malicious. That's not a good justification if you ask me, especially when you consider that most American prisons are less than cruel now, what with conjugal visits and cable and all.

 

[Gabriella84]

The death penalty is not malicious?

That's how the holocaust started. A German couple begged the Fuhrer to allow them to kill their deformed baby. Their request was granted. The Fuhrere then thought it would be a good idea to go ahead and 'cleanse' the population of 'inferior genes' for the benefit of future generations. Then the definition of 'inferior genes' expanded to include a very large portion of non-Germans. Next thing you know, Jews are being slaughtered by the millions because, oh, they aren't really people.

 

[no1tovote4]

Here is an interesting link to the NAZI ideology based in Darwinism....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp

The story of the couple with the child is based in reality but it is an urban legend. In actuality Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf in 1925, long before he was the Fuhrer, about Darwinism and the cleansing of inferior genes based on Darwinistic "science".

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This one is demanding a link? That's plain funny.

 

[Hobbit]

Here is an interesting link to the NAZI ideology based in Darwinism....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp

The story of the couple with the child is based in reality but it is an urban legend. In actuality Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf in 1925, long before he was the Fuhrer, about Darwinism and the cleansing of inferior genes based on Darwinistic "science".

Heard it on Glenn Beck, and he typically checks out stuff like this to make sure it's not an urban legend. Well, I guess everyone slips up now and then. The fact still remains that executions don't lie or make up euphamisms about what they are, whereas even the term "abortion" is euphamistic and pretentious. It's the same argument I make about veal (I'm all for killing and eating animals, but veal goes a *little* too far). If people called veal "baby cow meat," the market would probably decline sharply. Same thing with abortion. If an abortion was called a "baby killing," fewer people would get it.

About the death penalty being malicious, you're being contradictory in your argument. We shouldn't kill anyone because it's cruel and wrong, but we should imprison them for life because it's even crueller? That makes no sense.

 

[Gabriella84]

Life is more cruel than death? Perhaps...

Anyways, that has nothing to do with abstinence. Which I believe is the topic here.
The whole philosophy behind the abstinence thing is not to have sex before marriage. Which is based on Biblical interpretation. There is also an interpretation that basically says "the man and women who take each other and forsake all others, in their heart of hearts, have fulfilled the vows accorded by marriage."
It's called "being married in your hearts."

Whatever the case, I admit to being a sinner. I've had a mutually exclusive relationship for almost six years with someone I love. Sex is a natural extension of love.
That's my excuse anyway.

 

[Gabriella84]

I've seen the light since I've been reading this message board. You have all influenced me greatly. I have taken a vow of chastity until I am legally married.

 

[Hobbit]

Life is more cruel than death? Perhaps...

Anyways, that has nothing to do with abstinence. Which I believe is the topic here.
The whole philosophy behind the abstinence thing is not to have sex before marriage. Which is based on Biblical interpretation. There is also an interpretation that basically says "the man and women who take each other and forsake all others, in their heart of hearts, have fulfilled the vows accorded by marriage."
It's called "being married in your hearts."

Whatever the case, I admit to being a sinner. I've had a mutually exclusive relationship for almost six years with someone I love. Sex is a natural extension of love.
That's my excuse anyway.

Eh, in addition to religion, I'll go for the stats. Statistically, I have a much greater chance of having a stable marriage if both me and my wife are virgins before the wedding. I'll also have a 0% chance of getting an STD or getting some girl pregnant accidentally if I keep that policy. Well, I may, one day, get my wife pregnant by accident after we're married, but that's not anywhere near the disaster it is if you're not married. Abstinence is the bomb!

 

[Gabriella84]

Statistically, I have a much greater chance of having a stable marriage if both me and my wife are virgins before the wedding.

I will agree with the STD/pregnancy part, but the above statement confuses me. I don't see it being relevant in any way. Look at my parents -- they still have a great marriage after almost 30 years.
Hobbit, I hope you don't turn down a wonderful partner just because she is not a virgin. That shouldn't have any bearing on what kind of person you are. Some girls might have made a few wrong turns when they were younger. It would be like telling a girl "if you have ever had a drink or smoked a cigarette, I can't marry you."
Just people by who they are NOW, not by who they once were. Consider all their qualities, not just one or two.
Also, consider this: How are you going to prove that a girl is a virgin? Anyone can say they are.

 

[Hobbit]

I will agree with the STD/pregnancy part, but the above statement confuses me. I don't see it being relevant in any way. Look at my parents -- they still have a great marriage after almost 30 years.
Hobbit, I hope you don't turn down a wonderful partner just because she is not a virgin. That shouldn't have any bearing on what kind of person you are. Some girls might have made a few wrong turns when they were younger. It would be like telling a girl "if you have ever had a drink or smoked a cigarette, I can't marry you."
Just people by who they are NOW, not by who they once were. Consider all their qualities, not just one or two.
Also, consider this: How are you going to prove that a girl is a virgin? Anyone can say they are.

I don't require that she be a biological virgin, but my religious convictions require that if she's not a virgin, that she repent of that and vow never to have sex again until marriage. It's a process that's commonly referred to as "regaining virginity." Jesus forgives and so can I, as long as the repentance is genuine.

Now, for the statistics. Keep in mind, these are statistics. When I say "odds are," or "statistically," you may know counter cases, but they are the exception, not the rule, at least according to all the stats I've seen.

If you remain abstinent until marriage, statistically:

You are less likely to divorce your spouse.

- You are more likely to trust your spouse not to have sex outside of marriage.

- You are more likely to refrain from sex outside of marriage.

You are completely free from any sexual comparisons, meaning you don't inadvertantly compare your spouse to others you've had sexually.

You are free from the fear of STD's.

You are free from the fear of a pregnancy, yours or hers, forcing you to drop out of school and get married prematurely, pay child support for the rest of your life or otherwise ruinining your life.

Then there's the romantic side of it. Now, call me an idealist, but it just seems like it would be the most special moment in the world if, on my wedding night, I could look deeply into the beautiful eyes of my new bride and truthfully say that she was the first and only. She'll probably appreciate that gift a whole lot more than any of the numerous cheap, plastic kitchen utensils that people who don't really like you that much send as presents.

Oh well, it's late, and my latest bit of insomnia is wearing off. It's time for bed.

 

[Gabriella84]

Well stated. I accept your logic.

 

[nakedemperor]

I guess I'm a bit slow... are these people SERIOUSLY against teaching kids to wait to have sex? How could that possibly be a bad thing, regardless of your political affiliations?

These people are against *only* teaching kids to wait. As indicated by the failures of "abstinence only" sex ed in Texas from '95-2000, promoted by Bush and the religious right, promoting *only* abstinence, without providing information on contraceptives, teen pregnancy declined in Texas at the slowest rate in the nation; teen pregnancy was 5th highest during that time.

"Abstinence only" is dangerous and misguided. "Abstinence-based" is the way to go.