Only if Mom says so

quote:

---

Some actually do, but most are constrained by the belief system that motivates them to care for the children (unborn or untethered ). That beliefs leaders tell them that sex outside of marriage is wrong, so to promote it is wrong. That's what they see sex education doing.

---

But they are wrong. Sex education doesn't promote sex outside of marriage. Their abstinence-only sex education, or taking sex education out of the schools entirel results in more unwanted pregnancy and therefore more abortions.That's what I mean about not really caring about babies.They don't do what is more than proven to work, and they promote policies that have been more than proven to not work, all because they wish to require everyone to ascribe to their religiously-based morality regarding sex.

The article lists 5 of the 7 felonies and both misdemeanors.If one of the 2 unknown felonies is aggravated assault, then the DA did his/her job.If one of the 2 unknown felonies is not aggravated assault, then the DA did not do his/her job.Why neglect an additional felony if, as you say, it is in the DA's interest to do so?And, tho I can't be certain in this case, DAs do not usually consult victims re: charges. The DA chose to charge Patel with murder because s/he could.The law is on the books.Ditto for burglary, stalking, reckless endangerment, and foreign object in edibles.The DA loaded up every felony s/he could lay his/her hands on.The question remains: Why no assault charge?As I mentioned upthread, in most states, poisoning is aggravated assault, regardless of the harm done to the victim. And an additional charge of aggravated assault would lengthen time served, if convicted and sentenced to serve the time consecutively. Actions speak louder than words.If an anti abortion activist wants to support a woman in her human right to bodily integrity, then s/he should pressure his/her state legislators to repeal this asinine law. Woman hating and wife beater are not synonymous.Again. Actions speak louder than words.Woman hating can take the form of law ("fetal murder"), it can take the form of social convention ("modesty" according to BYU means skirts to the knee) ... it isn't simply spousal abuse.If one seeks to confine women in a way that one would not confine men, then ... there's trouble in River City.

Again.High falutin' "concern" that doesn't translate into action is worthless.Sex education = whores?What's your alternative?Abstinence only?Doesn't work. Recent studies have shown that abstinence only programs have higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. The age of first sexual experience is unchanged. Not to mention the consistently distorted and inaccurate information (condoms don't work; condoms don't protect against HIV) given to these unsuspecting children.So what's a baby-lovin' anti abortionist gonna do 'bout all them knocked up girls?Welfare = lazy ass trailor trash?What's your alternative?Training programs?Not only are training programs far and few between, most are a joke.The few that are effective usually penalize the welfare recipient by not counting the training program as "work" which means that in addition to attending a 20 hour/week training program, the welfare recipient has to work another job to pay the bills.And god forbid the welfare recipient work a minimum wage job 20 hours/week. No welfare check for you, you no-good welfare cheatin' slut!So what's a baby-lovin' anti abortionist gonna do 'bout all them uneducated, unemployed mothers?Adoption, not abortion?You cannot be serious.First. The adoption rate in this country is pathetic.You're consigning 10s of thousands of unwanted children to an brutal, inhumane foster care system.Second. Why should a woman be forced to choose between poverty and adoption?Third. Some women cannot bear the thought of handing a child over to a stranger.Abortion is one thing (especially if one believes that a glob of stem cells is different from a 2 year old), carrying a child to term only to be forced to hand it over to the state is another thing entirely. I make a point of hanging around on xian sites, listening in on their conversations.Those folks sound awfully twisted to me.Maybe your 2 pals are perfectly decent; they spend all their free time lobbying their state legislators for decent wages, adequate training programs, effective sex education and they personally help out down at the soup kitchen.The hundreds and hundreds of anti abortionists I am familiar with (thru these sites) are ... oh what's the word ... f***wads.

The part where a man assaulted a woman, was caught red-handed about to assault a woman, and everybody knows that not only was he about to assault the woman, he's assaulted her at least twice in the past - yet, no charges of assault, nor any charges reflecting his injury to the woman, were brought. So where are the assault charges? That's a lot of speculation on your part to defend strangers from any hint of sexism.

These are sound bites of a sort but this is the type or rhetoric coming from both sides. Sure the folks on those web sites are acerbic assholes and maybe they are revealing their inner feelings, which is a bit scary. What makes you think that these vocal "f***wads" represent the majority of anti-abortionists? Have you actually hung around any in the real world? They don't all color with the same crayon, you know. My 68 year-old mother believes that proper sex education and access to birth control are two real keys to lowering the abortion rate. However she also believes that abortion is killing an innocent child. Yes it's anecdotal, but I know many (not just 2) who have similar ideas.
On the flip side, I have seen pro-choice people who exhibit the most vile behavior and rhetoric when speaking to me (pro-choice) and my friends (anti-abortion). Am I supposed to judge you, who I see as a reasoning and reasonable person, by their actions? There are stupid people on both sides of this issue and they are the ones flapping their gums to rile up the mob.Should we make abortion illegal? I don't think so, but we should do what we can to make it as unnecessary as possible. It has risks and consequences (social and personal) that are significantly worse than other means of preventing unwanted births.Should we make women choose between their children and poverty? Gut reaction: No. However, that simple choice does not adequately address the complexity of the issues involving the poor in this country. Until we get beyond simple and stereotypical we will not have a viable solution to this problem. In the context of Pro-choice/pro-life debate, maybe the problem would be minimized if the woman had many opportunities to prevent the birth in the first place.Just because most training programs suck, doesn't mean the program is a bad idea. They are mostly a good-idea-without-enough-action problem. Interestingly, Maryland has a good program where single mothers can go to college or vocational school for free. It's not perfect because it doesn't take care of the kids while she goes but it is a start.The gist of my objection to nator's rant was that it unfairly demonized the majority of people on the anti-abortion side.Even the ones who say horrid things are probably just too single minded to think of the larger issues. (Well, some are just horrid people). However, I have rarely seen resolution come from treating them just as horribly as they treat me.And in a token wave to the topic of this thread,
1. I think an assault charge should have been at the top of the list of charges.
2. I think that if laws are made regarding legality of harming a fetus then it should apply across the board including the pregnant woman, doctors and husbands/boyfriends. This would show the law to be in opposition to the Supreme Court ruling concerning abortion rights.

One side is doing more than flapping its stupid gums, though. It's also passing stupid laws. In a democracy, the majority are responsible for the evil that they do along with the good.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Only because they get elected and depend on the inattention of the majority. Well, that statement doesn't make sense and is certainly not useful. Since the majority are responsible it is less likely that anyone will be held accountable. Perhaps you mean the the majority should be accountable for the extremists in their midst?It reminds me of an incident at our church (Evangelical, literal Bible). A few of our more fervent anti-abortionists were trying to set up a protest rally at a clinic. Our pastor stood up in the pulpit the next Sunday and said he refused to support it and recommended that the congregation stay away. He said "If we condemn those people, how can we expect them to turn to the church in a time of crisis. Jesus never said anything about the practice of homosexuality or infanticide that was part of the Roman culture, he only criticized the hypocrisy of the believers." Not too many "Amens" to that one.

It's wrong to protest at abortion clinics because it might offend potential converts? I'm glad we have our priorities straight.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

The majority are accountable. They pay the bills. They face the consequences of their own actions. You do them a disservice by claiming that a few "extremists" are leading them around by the noses.If a few extremists want to enact stupid laws, the majority only has to vote "No".

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

I guess you could look at it that way and maybe my respect for him would be diminished by that point of view. I took it to mean that we (the church) would not be in a position to help those people if we alienated them. The pastor's definition of help would definitely include conversion, I'm sure. However, that is because he believes the it is the ultimate cure not because he thinks that it brings a few more coins in the coffers or butts in the seats.
Your criticism would be considered valid by me if I did not already know the man of whom I speak. We have been friends for 11 years, and I guess he still holds out hope of welcoming me back into the fold.

Then I guess we are saying the same thing to a degree. However, paying taxes is a rather painless way of being accountable since we all pay them and our taxes are unlikely to go down because laws of that type are legislated or not.The majority don't think the extremists are leading them around by the noses. If they are accountable, shouldn't the punishment fit the crime a little better? Give me a break, the majority are not affected by that stupid law because they aren't trying to abort another person's fetus against their will. Most of us feel it doesn't apply to us as much as changing the speed limit would. That's what the extremists depend on. Until something like this happens.

I didn't say they did. I said that you seem to think a minority of "extremists" are to blame for all the harm done by anti-abortionists.I'm saying that everybody who supports the harm - actively or passively - is responsible. Everybody who favours abstinence over sex education is responsible for unwanted children. Everybody who favours "fetal rights" over women's rights is responsible for unwanted children, back-alley abortions, etc.

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Here's the thing.One side wants people to be able to make their own choice about what to do about an unwanted pregnancy, including having reasonable access to healthcare trained to safely end that pregnancy. Nobody in this group wants anyone to have an abortion if they don't want one. People in this group also want to make abortion very rare, thus tend to focus on science- and reality-based methods to prevent it. They want to give people the facts and toold about sex, reproduction, and contraception so they can make informed choices. They allow individuals to follow their own moral or religious compass regarding sexuality, whatever that may be.The other side supports candidates and policies that limit access to a safe abortion, and would make it illegal for all if they could, thus advocating forced pregnancy. They resist broad efforts to give children the facts about reproduction and sex and contraception, and cling to methods long proven to be ineffective at preventing unwanted pregnancy. They advocate for forcing everyone, by power of law, to adhere to their moral code, and to take all personal choice about individual reproductive life away.Just to stress the most important point:One group wants to compell people, by power of law, to be pregnant and to endure giving birth.The other group doesn't want to force anybody to either get an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to it.And, by the way, do these people think that only unmarried, childless people get abortions?Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

A few of our more fervent anti-abortionists were trying to set up a protest rally at a clinic.

---

How many of these people have adopted unwanted children?

i'd wager none.btw, they generally align with the group that wants to restrict the number and variety of people who are allowed to adopt children. i'd say it's quite safe to say that they care more about being "good" and forcing others to do what they want than about children.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.