Only if Mom says so

In that we are in agreement. However, the rate and population qualifiers were not in nator's or your original statements. Was I supposed to assume you meant that it was bad to continue that trend? Maybe you meant that the process itself was evil and unnecessary (at least for you). However, unless I have missed something, none of this rhetoric changes the fact that the mother can choose to abort right up until her water breaks. It is not the fact that it is rare for a mother to make that choice, it is the fact that it is a choice. That's like saying it is rare for 2-year olds to be killed by their parents so we will just leave it open as an option in case they feel inclined to do so.Despite the court ruling(?..rhetoric) that viability of the fetus is a factor in states restricting choice of the mother, there is no responsibility assigned in the determination of viability. Besides that, the "hazard to the health and well being" of the mother is an easily met criteria depending on the pliability of the doctor. Maybe Brook Shields should be asked to abort any future children since she suffers mightily from depression after giving birth.There are people in this country who think ,at least, certain abortions are killing. There are people who take advantage of this by presenting "statistics" about "those murdering abortionists" in order to get support for all their causes.
Then there is the "Pro-choice" crowd, labeling anyone who expresses their misgivings about abortion as "women haters" and "control freaks".
Those undecided people then fall in line with the anti-abortionists...go figure.

so? the only reason pregnancy and birth would be considered necessary is to continue the species. it's not rhetoric. i discussed court precedence and scientific fact. none of that falls into the realm of rhetoric.the roe decision stated that the medical privacy rights of a woman protect her against undue burden from state intrusion. the states and the nation still have the prerogative to make laws regarding the regulation or restriction of abortion, but they must follow the undue burden test. as it is, prior to fetal viability, almost all laws restricting access to abortion create an undue burden on the woman and her privacy. after the start of the third trimester, the several states and the federal government have greater flexibility in restriction and regulation.basically, the idea that the right to abortion, even as it stands today, is "all or nothing" is a faulty one presented by those who don't understand the way the law and the courts work.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

quote:

---

It's the idea that pro-choice seems to mean that they think it is ok to kill a child just because you are inconvenienced by it, that keeps them from putting on the hat and buying the tee shirt.

---

Look, either someone is willing to let individual people decide what is the right choice for them, even if they personally might make a different choice in that situation, or they aren't.If the law says that abortion is legal up until so many weeks along, and the people you are talking about truly think that abortion should remain legal, then they should keep their moral opinions to themselves about which abortions are justified and which ones are not. How dare they think they can intrude upon another person's personal reproductive life?

quote:

---

I find it interesting that some women here classify pregnancy and birth as evil....especially since they don't even consider it necessary.

---

Why?

quote:

---

Then there is the "Pro-choice" crowd, labeling anyone who expresses their misgivings about abortion as "women haters" and "control freaks".

---

Can you show me on the NOW, Planned Parenthood, Equality Now, NARAL, or any of the other major reproductive rights websites where they label anyone who expresses their misgivings about abortion as "women haters" and "control freaks"?

And that means? And that was in the article you cited where?
You seem to have a problem understanding how debates on forums work. You have to post your information. Not make claims, then post something which doesn't show what you say, then post names of articles. I went to your ehow site and typed in "urine side effects" as I magically guessed that's what you wanted me to do (as you didn't provide anything else). It is discussing urine THERAPY. That is different than someone just drinking some piss. Its a course of treatment for someone that already IS sick. And as such this has NOTHING to do with what I was talking about.But lets discuss urine THERAPY. If you read the section at ehow, it clearly states that the vomiting is suggested as a result of not liking urine (mentally), and not having physical problems from drinking it. In fact the end of the article... if you read it... lists how one should go about such therapy to avoid the effects. This includes starting by introducing small amounts of urine into juice so that one will get accustomed to the idea and taste so as not to throw up. And I might add yet again that your FIRST citation... which I guess we now have to ignore and pretend you never quote-mined that... said that the side effects eventually go away. What potential harm? You still haven't shown any harm. Except the possibility of if you have a disease and piss in someone's drink? But then as I said, that would make you liable for giving someone water from the tap... might possibly be contaminated!And your list of quotes don't help you in that matter. Deconstructing? Well in any case, I'm having a debate with you, not Crash. He couldn't even figure out what I was saying to you, so how you think he "deconstructed" my post is beyond me. Oh yeah, so you can sneak out stage right. Buh-bye.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I just want to clarify something. I NEVER said that Patel had a right to administer medication to anyone without their knowledge. In fact I have repeatedly stated the opposite.The question has been about whether the charge of murder was correct, what his intent had been, and later about the nature of harm. That is all. He had no right to do it, and was legitimately arrested for doing so.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Just catching up with everything. Nice posts and points. From the rights side of things, I can understand the above position. However, from the medical side of things I don't think I can go that far.I would say I'm kind of anti-abortion in the sense that I think its a shame that a person either would not have taken care to not wound up in s situation that they'd need one, or that they had very bad luck. I'd rather see people NOT having to have such procedures... just for their own sake.Then again, along those same lines, I'm sort of anti-stomach pump, or anti-getting things surgically removed from one's ass. I think it'd be better that such things weren't needed... for their own sake.Rights wise, I'd say I'm pro-abortion and don't really get that offended if people use it, even if I feel its sort of inaccurate for my case.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I continue to wonder when you'll be able to behave honestly.

Aw. Whatsamatter? Precious couldn't find my stat in the abstract? Drinking urine is drinking urine.You can call it whatever if you want. Therapy. Recreation. Doesn't matter.The fact remains: vomiting and diarrhea are common. Vomiting and diarrhea.

Hi, H.Yeah, I think we just have a different opinion about how we say things. I myself wouldn's use "anti-" for those things, but it looks to me that it's really a matter of disagreeing about phrasing.I guess my point is that I sometimes get the feeling that many on the pro-choice side have some qualms about abortion. By "qualms" I don't just mean a reasonable distaste for invasive medical procedures, not just a feeling that, all things taken in consideration, abortion is the least preferable method of birth control. That part I can understand.What bothers me is that I often get the feeling (sometimes mistaken, as it appears to be in the case of Jazzns) that some people believe that it is simply preferable to bring a pregnancy to term rather than abort. That is the attitude that I don't really share.

---

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

Can you show me where Dr. Dobson, Pat Robertson, or G.W. Bush said or wrote that they want to punish women for having sex? How about the DA in question from the OP? Does he say he is for punishing women for having sex? Maybe we should look at all the web sites of all the Wisconsin state legislators who voted for that law and see if they state that they want to punish women for having sex. I know, let's get the transcripts of the sessions in which that particular law was discussed and see if any of the supporters state that women should be punished for having sex. Do you think you would fare any better than I would at the websites you recommended?However, I do have this from msg118
Let's see, attributing motive to the actions of legislators or councilmen. They enact a stupid condition on women prior to allowing them to choose an abortion and you, a "Pro-choice" activist, automatically accuse them of hating "all women everywhere". Mighty endearing words for those lurkers on the fence.Some might now delude themselves into believing that the ultrasound stipulation was about ensuring the woman made an informed decision. I disagree...it was about providing the information that would sway her opinion. Underhanded? Yeah, it's about emotional appeal. However, nothing indicates that this is any more than a means of minimizing the number of times abortions occur....to save more children.Many of the means used could be devious and controlling. None of that indicates that these people hate or want to punish women. Their goal is to prevent killing of the children. Women getting hurt is not part of their intent but is a consequence of the need to save the children.The allowances for rape or incest, while unpalatable to purists, were supported because it was more likely to get some abortion suppression in place. From their point of view, some is better than none.All I'm saying is that making your opponents evil in your mind and calling them evil in print and video, lessens your chance to convince them that your means are the real way to minimize the killing of the unborn. I don't think that you will convince many that abortions are not the killing of innocents.Frankly, I don't think you have to.

She would have to pay in Iowa. I work personnel records for the Army Reserve and I have gone through a divorce. Iowa has some complex charts for figuring child support, but again, she would have to pay some child support.Currently, I am in a joint custody situation. I have my boy half the time, but, since I make more than my ex-wife, I have to pay a certain amount of child support. If our incomes were reversed, she would have to pay me.And, to make sure I semi-keep on the topic, I wil add that by the very nature of a pregnancy, the woman has to have the final word on whether or not the pregnancy goes to term. No matter how empathic I am, how supportive I am, the woman has a much greater involvement than I do.

It doesn't have to be black-and-white. My personal feeling is that sometimes it's prefereable. For some women, the decision to abort might be easy and for some it might not. It isn't always a choice between, "I didn't plan it so it's gone," or "It's in there so I'm stuck with it."The important thing is that it's up to her to decide, not some guy with a coathanger or a poison smoothie. An attack is an attack. It doesn't really have anything to do with whether she was pregnant or not.Edited by Ringo, : Punchuation.

---

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 insofar that his argument doesn't characterize the entire Pro-Life movement, but rather, is seen on the individual level.I have seen exactly what LinearAg is speaking about. In fact, we have quite a few crusaders here at EvC, that given their self-justifications, could really end up being dangerous people if pushed far enough.But we shouldn't forget the fact that both sides have their whacko's and that both sides of the extremist forms have potentially dangerous people within their ranks.I suppose, though, that can go for anything under the sun. There are things that seem innocuous to us, but in the mind of some people, they have warped it to an extreme level. I'm sure there is some Yankee's fan out there willing to kill a Red Sox fan or vice versa. Seems absolutely ridiculous to us because we tend to put these things in their proper perspective. If there is one thing that I think both groups can agree about is that there is nothing inherently good about abortion. Everyone would rather avoid it if they could, I'm sure.The Pro-Life movement because they believe that the unborn constitutes a human being with certain unalienable rights, and that the potential mother faces serious psychological/physical trauma over the event. The Pro-Choice movement because a woman has to have surgery that has the potential to harm her and to be potentially stigmatized by her peers.I think we all agree that if abortions could be avoided altogether, we'd be much happier and more inclined to get along.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake