| Author |
Message |
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
 Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:41 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Um....I've already stated that I, and many other people that support a ban on abortions, support abortions for rape victims, incest, and when the women's life is in danger. |
I would support that. It would be sick if a woman used after thrid trimester abortions as birth control.
In any case, I think that if a woman in your country wanted to have a legal abortion she could just travel to another country anyway, get it done there, and go back.
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:12 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | I like how the pro-"choice" people don't listen to anyone else but each other. |
Hm, how interesting, I also get that idea from people that are against abortion.
| Founder wrote: | | Just like that is YOUR point of view too. Why is your opinion better than mine? It isn't. |
See above.
I wasn't implying my opinion was better than anyone else. I never am.
| Founder wrote: | | And some people do. Your point? |
That we're talking in circles.
| Founder wrote: | This is not a simple matter of choice.
"The government wants control!!!!"
What kind of stupid control is this? Ultimate control would be not letting women to vote. Not letting them have certain jobs. Not letting them be able to leave their homeworld and gain profit. Etc. |
I think that includes as well that a woman should be able to decide what she should do with her body and anything what's inside it. She should have that right. Although other people don't agree with it, why should they control their lives?
| Founder wrote: | | Did you ever stop to think that out of ALL the things that the evil government could regulate, its the one thing that lets you kill a life? Hhmm? Made that connection yet? |
Again, your opinion that you kill a life. If the woman had that child against her will, she is killing her life too, in essence, although it's not physical. That how I look at it.
I don't expect you to agree with me. This is just how I see it.
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:51 pm |
|
| Birdy wrote: | Hm, how interesting, I also get that idea from people that are against abortion.
Really? Where? It would be nice if you showed it. Cause all I see in this topic is "I think abortions are needed." "I do too" Everytime someone else posts something else, you all ignore it. We aren't doing the same thing. We're trying to get your attention.
I wasn't implying my opinion was better than anyone else. I never am.
Ok, then you need to understand that some people believe something different. Just like we have to for you.
That we're talking in circles.
Indeed.
I think that includes as well that a woman should be able to decide what she should do with her body and anything what's inside it. She should have that right. Although other people don't agree with it, why should they control their lives?
See? There you go again with the "control" talk. This isn't a matter of control, but a concern for life. You keep saying "The child belongs to the mother! She should have free reign on the decisions!" Um...but didn't you just say you don't even consider it a child? Not to mention, it doesn't matter. Her decision is to kill it. And um...why do you all keep saying "She should have control of her body"? We don't want control of her body. We want to save whats inside of her body.
Again, your opinion that you kill a life. If the woman had that child against her will, she is killing her life too, in essence, although it's not physical. That how I look at it.
I don't expect you to agree with me. This is just how I see it. |
I understand and believe it or not, do respect your opinion.
Which is why I think women should have abortions in certain cases. Not just because she doesn't want to. Or that she isn't ready. She shouldn't have been having sex if she wasn't ready. For God sakes people, contraceptives....
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:06 pm |
|
Well, the argument against abortion is that it's an "immoral" act. According to some religions, however, the use of contraceptives is equally immoral. Although in general society we may view one act as being lesser of a violation than the other, in religion most sins carry the same punishment. Is one more "right" or "wrong" at this point? Afterall, on a federal level, both are equally legal. Just an idea.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:13 pm |
|
I understand it ISM. Which is why this is such a hard divide. Which is why I want a compromise. I think abortions for certain cases is a good compromise. For not at least.
Also about Religions not liking contraceptives. Most Religious people ignore it. I mean we find abortion to be a greater evil, rather than using contraceptives. I mean, if we use contraceptives, then abortions could possibly become lower.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:26 pm |
|
I'm inclined to agree that one act is a lesser evil than the other, yet it's suggested that each sin receives equal punishment, no matter the degree of vulgarity. But yeah, society says condoms are okay wherever you go now, so it's become a rather moot point on the religious end of the spectrum. I see what you're getting at, though.
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:02 pm |
|
Contraceptives don't always work...
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:08 pm |
|
I'd say that that's a risk you take with using them. It's posted right on the box that they aren't 100% effective. Therefore, that isn't exactly a legitimate excuse for an abortion. It's not as if you weren't informed ahead of time.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:12 pm |
|
| Janeway_74656 wrote: | | Contraceptives don't always work... |
I know that. But its better than NOT using it isn't it?
And what ISM said is correct.
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:34 pm |
|
My cousin saw this thread and told me a little something. She uses contraceptives. (She's 26). She claims the messages on the box are tiny, so they escape casual view. I don't know this for real, but I'm inclined to believe her...
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:51 pm |
|
Thats probably true. But um...honestly, who doesn't know that contraceptives are not 100% full proof?
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:53 pm |
|
Yeah, they're always advertised as not being completely effective. I should also probably add that if you don't read all the information (no matter how small the print) on your prescription meds that you're just an idiot (if it's birth control, that is).
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:09 pm |
|
How about abstinence. The purpose of sex, afterall, IS TO MAKE BABIES!
Pregnancy is almost always a choice; even when they claim its an accident.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:32 am |
|
The contraceptive I use personally (which doesn't have a box cos it's staying inside me for 10 years) is 99.9% effective- there is a 1 in a 1000 chance it'll fail (the same chance as sterilisation). I was given a leaflet telling me so, along with all the other stuff I needed to know (such as if I do get pregnant there's an increased risk of it being ectopic).
Unless you're in a stable relationship, having sex at all is risky, and not using contraceptives is just stupid. To be honest- if I wasn't on medication and so unwell I'd love to have another child, and wonder everyday what would have happened if I could have realistically kept the child from my second pregnancy (if I'd tried to keep it it most likely would have killed us both, but there you go).
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:53 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Really? Where? It would be nice if you showed it. Cause all I see in this topic is "I think abortions are needed." "I do too" Everytime someone else posts something else, you all ignore it. We aren't doing the same thing. We're trying to get your attention. |
Why should I show it, when you aren't? Come on, I don't see anywhere where you say 'I respect your opinion', or 'I understand'. I'm trying to get your attention too. Can't you see we're doing exactly the same thing?
| Quote: | | Ok, then you need to understand that some people believe something different. Just like we have to for you. |
I believe that, and I know that.  I also understand your opinion.
Glad we can agree on something 
| Quote: | | See? There you go again with the "control" talk. This isn't a matter of control, but a concern for life. You keep saying "The child belongs to the mother! She should have free reign on the decisions!" Um...but didn't you just say you don't even consider it a child? Not to mention, it doesn't matter. Her decision is to kill it. And um...why do you all keep saying "She should have control of her body"? We don't want control of her body. We want to save whats inside of her body. |
I understand that you percieve life as a very precious thing (ok, weird sentence), and that you want to keep it at all costs, that you want to avoid to kill a foetus. I do understand, really!
It's just that I've expierenced first hand what it means for a child when it gets raised in an invorement where it's not wanted, or loved, or cared for. It's horrible! A child like that will develop a serieous condition and it'll need therapy and help for all it's life. I know you'll say that you don't know what's going to happen to that child. I just think that in some cases you can predict with much certainty that it's going to happen.
And I also think that the life of the mother is as important as the life of the child. I get the feeling you ignore that, maybe it's just my feeling, but I think the mother's life has to be taken into consideration as well.
| Quote: | | I understand and believe it or not, do respect your opinion. |
Thanks. Really, I respect and understand your opinion too!
| Quote: | | Which is why I think women should have abortions in certain cases. Not just because she doesn't want to. Or that she isn't ready. She shouldn't have been having sex if she wasn't ready. For God sakes people, contraceptives.... |
I know!!  I sooo agree. But that should be stimulated as well, the use of condoms. And other things like that.
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:25 am |
|
Birth control pill has a higher percentage success rate than condoms.
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:23 am |
|
| Quote: | South Dakota bans most abortions
In signing law, governor says he expects court challenges
Monday, March 6, 2006; Posted: 4:18 p.m. EST (21:18 GMT)
(CNN) -- South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds signed a bill Monday that bans nearly all abortions in the state, legislation in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973.
The new law defines life as originating "at the time of conception."
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," said a statement released by Rounds, a Republican.
"The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them."
Although the law -- intended as a constitutional challenge to Roe v. Wade -- is set to take effect July 1, Rounds said in the statement that he expects legal action will prevent that. He added that a settlement of the issue could take years and might ultimately be decided by the nation's highest court. (FindLaw: Text of billexternal link)
"The reversal of a Supreme Court opinion is possible," Rounds said, pointing to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision that reversed the 1896 ruling that states could segregate public facilities by race if equal facilities were offered.
The bill "will give the United States Supreme Court a similar opportunity to reconsider an earlier opinion."
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, as well as its chapter that covers Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, has said it plans to fight the legislation in court.
The national group said 10 states are considering similar bills.
"These abortion bans, and the politicians supporting them, are far outside the mainstream of America," Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a written statement.
"Planned Parenthood will fight these attacks in court, in the state houses, and at the ballot boxes, to ensure that women, with their doctors and families, continue to be able to make personal health care decisions without government interference."
The bill signed by Rounds allows doctors to perform abortions only to save the lives of pregnant women, but even then encourages them to exercise "reasonable medical efforts" to both save mothers and continue pregnancies.
Anyone who performs an abortion under any other circumstance -- even in a case of rape or incest -- can be charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The mother cannot be charged.
In his statement, however, Rounds pointed out that the bill does not prohibit doctors from prescribing contraceptive drugs before a pregnancy is determined, such as in a rape or incest case.
State lawmakers had rejected proposed amendments that would have made exceptions for rape or incest.
"We must help each mother to see the value of the gift that is a child, and nurture the mother for her own sake and for the sake of her child," Rounds said in the statement.
'Completely contradictory' to Roe
The passage of the bill comes at a time many abortion rights opponents feel is right for a direct challenge of Roe v. Wade, coming on the heels of two Bush appointees -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito -- to the high court. (Full story)
"This is potentially an earthquake, because there is no doubt that this law conflicts with Roe v. Wade," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said earlier. "It is completely contradictory to what the current law on abortion is."
The Supreme Court has not accepted a direct challenge to abortion since the Roe v. Wade decision.
Most appeals the court has heard since then have dealt with more limited legal questions, such as government funding of the procedure, waiting periods, parental and spousal notification, and abortions late in pregnancy.
In January, the justices issued a ruling on parental notification but sidestepped the sort of definitive ruling that many activists on both sides of the issue had hoped for.
In a unanimous but narrow opinion written by now-retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the high court concluded that a federal appeals panel went too far by blocking enforcement of a New Hampshire law requiring minors to notify their parents before receiving an abortion.
The case was thrown back for reconsideration, essentially delaying a final word on the matter.
The ruling from the high court thus bypassed the larger question of whether such laws are an unconstitutional "burden" on a woman's access to the procedure. |
SOURCE
And pay attention to this passage: | Quote: | | Anyone who performs an abortion under any other circumstance -- even in a case of rape or incest -- can be charged with a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. The mother cannot be charged. |
OH
MY
GOD
Rape, and incest? INCEST? So the mom'll have a baby of her father/brother, whatever??? Sorry, just can't comprehend this.
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:18 pm |
|
Incest is a disgusting act, but that doesn't make it the child's fault.
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:44 pm |
|
No, of course not. But suppose it would live, and it would grow up, knowing that his father was a rapist? And his mother the victim? I know a lot of cases where those children are scarred for life if they find out, they're really traumatised. Do you prefer quantity of life over quality? In the case of rape or incest, I think it's safe to say the child will have difficulties dealing with that.
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Mar 07, 2006 3:50 pm |
|
Yeah, but to deny the child the choice? How do you know that it'll have serious problems? I'm not saying that it wouldn't be difficult, but to simply abort all children that wouldn't have our idea of a "good" life is just strange. Should we also abort the children of all mothers who are living below the poverty line? It's doubtful that they'll have a "good" life for at least their first 18 years.
There's always adoption, and the choice of not telling the child, as well.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:15 pm |
|
| Birdy wrote: | | No, of course not. But suppose it would live, and it would grow up, knowing that his father was a rapist? And his mother the victim? I know a lot of cases where those children are scarred for life if they find out, they're really traumatised. Do you prefer quantity of life over quality? In the case of rape or incest, I think it's safe to say the child will have difficulties dealing with that. |
So, let's just kill off all of the traumatized person's of the world. Why let them live with that. 
These kinds of arguments make me sick.
I would rather be murdered tomorrow, than never to have been born at all. I believe this to be a prevalent attitude amongst people; yet many of these people still support abortion. To me, abortion is a WORSE crime than murder.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:06 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | I would rather be murdered tomorrow, than never to have been born at all. |
You have never been in the situation and have no idea at all what it would be like for the sake of the mother or child. Your only throwing out opinions based on your own life experiences. You need to think outside of your own life and religion to comprehend the subject.
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:13 am |
|
I don't know how many times I have explained my situation. I won't repeat cause it would be spam. I have been in a situations. But, I did the smart thing and not take a life. I don't want murder on my conscience.
This world is so corrupted it is not funny.
|
|
|
Birdy
Socialist
Joined: 20 Sep 2004
Posts: 13502
Location: Here.
|
| Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:15 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | Yeah, but to deny the child the choice? How do you know that it'll have serious problems? I'm not saying that it wouldn't be difficult, but to simply abort all children that wouldn't have our idea of a "good" life is just strange. Should we also abort the children of all mothers who are living below the poverty line? It's doubtful that they'll have a "good" life for at least their first 18 years.
There's always adoption, and the choice of not telling the child, as well. |
I've given this a great deal of thought. You know what it is? I don't like when people decide things for other people. It's fine if you think it's murder, you don't support it, etc. But why deny other women that choice? Because, if they WANT an abortion, I can assure you, they'll get it. Either way. So, in South Dakota, it will be the ILLEGAL way. That's what's making ME sick, that women have to turn to ILLEGAL MEASURES to get an abortion. You say they always have adoption, but I don't think you can understand what it is to be pregnant, when you DON'T want to be pregnant, and you do not wish to have that child. I think no man, or woman who has never been pregnant, can! Why decide that for them? Why implement your morals onto them? I thought this was a free world, a free country, where people can decide for themselves what to do with their lives?
| LightningBoy wrote: | | So, let's just kill off all of the traumatized person's of the world. Why let them live with that. :role: |
How many times am I going to say this? Did I say that? Did I mean that? No.
Thank you.
| Quote: | These kinds of arguments make me sick.
I would rather be murdered tomorrow, than never to have been born at all. I believe this to be a prevalent attitude amongst people; yet many of these people still support abortion. To me, abortion is a WORSE crime than murder. |
You don't know what it's like to have a mother that's raped, and a father who is the rapist, and the outcome is YOU. Noone can, except those who experienced it first hand. I don't think you can talk about that.
| PrankishSmart wrote: | | You have never been in the situation and have no idea at all what it would be like for the sake of the mother or child. Your only throwing out opinions based on your own life experiences. You need to think outside of your own life and religion to comprehend the subject. |
Exactly!
-------signature-------
Nosce te ipsum
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:05 pm |
|
Oh geees! I would know cause I was a rape victim. Did I kill my baby? No...
This world has no morals or conscience it seems.. People killing people and mothers killing babies for their selfish reasons. Sick! But, I shut up for now..
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
