DVDizzy Forum

memnv wrote:Some schools dont even allow Christmas stuff to be hung anymore. We also had a young girl that was kidnapped, raped and murdered up at Lake Tahoe 3 or 4 years ago and they found the body off of the road on the side of the mountain coming down to Carson City. There was a Cross that was put up with a cement base where they found her body and it was always filled with toys. Somebody decided they did not like the cross so they had a lawsuit against the State of Nevada and Governer Guinn (our gov) made the Dept of Transportation take it down.

This is sad and taking things a little too far, I agree that the family should always have rights to put religious artifacts on family burial sites. I think it's really sad about the Christmas decorations. My problem singularly comes when they make laws that say people HAVE to do this or can't do that based on the bible's alleged text about homosexuals being against what he created, women being created from the image of Adam, and I think that's basically it. But these religious people are so adamant about seeing laws created and pushed to further hurt civil rights. It seems to me that this Cross on the grave is a similar civil right that is being taken away from the family - but it's not because of atheism. Again, if it were up to me, there would be a middle ground, and all the important rights would be left in check.

castleinthesky wrote:But the thing is, is that you cannot say taht religion can only be celebrated and practiced in private. If that was to happen, then the United States would be a dictatorship.

Oh I didn't mean only the home. I meant the home and certain places like a church. However, you can't say prayer barred from school is the decision of a dictatorship. Because church is a place where people go for the sole purpose of communing with their chosen God and celebrating their particular beliefs. School however is a state-sanctioned place where children are legally obligated to attend, and even to produce a certain grade average or else they are forced to repeat a grade. This is not a proper place to pray openly. Not in any sense of the word. Not even for willing participants in a session. At least not as long as the same people who expect this right are going to protest same-gendered couples going together to school dances.

castleinthesky wrote:And the last part about aethists, is another stereotype you have. Some condemn people, some commit violence based upon their beliefs. Some also want people to conform to their standard of living. Some want Christians and other religious groups to stop practicing in public, thus conforming to their standard of living, and also other issues, such as abortion, etc, which I do not want to really include in this discussion.

Excuse you, but the only stereotype here is yours on the part of thinking you know what atheists are trying to do, or what they even stand for. You are right in that there are certain small groups of atheists who use harsher than completely non-violent means to get their point across. But such incidences of this happening are so random and seldom-occuring that it can hardly be held against atheists as a whole.

And you have a problem with abortion? Than you have a problem with women and that makes a person lower than dirt in my opinion. No more punches pulled, abortion is a woman's right and MUST NEVER be denied. Not for the sake of making religious people comfortable. This is not about how holy thou art or aren't. This is a person's right to do whatever with their body they decide as long as they aren't attempting to take their OWN life, at which point, they need to be COUNSELED - not confined.

Lazario wrote: Oh I didn't mean only the home. I meant the home and certain places like a church. However, you can't say prayer barred from school is the decision of a dictatorship. Because church is a place where people go for the sole purpose of communing with their chosen God and celebrating their particular beliefs. School however is a state-sanctioned place where children are legally obligated to attend, and even to produce a certain grade average or else they are forced to repeat a grade. This is not a proper place to pray openly. Not in any sense of the word. Not even for willing participants in a session. At least not as long as the same people who expect this right are going to protest same-gendered couples going together to school dances.

So in saying that children are legally obligated to attend school, means that they should be allowed to pray in school. They have to go to a place, so that means they should be allowed to pray in whatever form they want. You cannot take away prayer, because that would be violating freedom of religon. But if you say there is separation of church and state, then it would be hypocritical, considering the state set up freedom of religion. Thus, separation of church and state cannot happen until abortion and the death penalty are abolished, because then religion would not be involved with in the government.

Lazario wrote:And you have a problem with abortion? Than you have a problem with women and that makes a person lower than dirt in my opinion. No more punches pulled, abortion is a woman's right and MUST NEVER be denied. Not for the sake of making religious people comfortable. This is not about how holy thou art or aren't. This is a person's right to do whatever with their body they decide as long as they aren't attempting to take their OWN life, at which point, they need to be COUNSELED - not confined.

First of all, women should be equal to men in every way, in my opinon. Women should be treated equally, get paid equally, not have to deal with sexist remarks that they always get. It is a shame.

But, we have to treat everyone equal. So lets make women have to go to war if a draft (which I would dread, and should never happen) would ever be reinstated. Let's stop the slogans "Ladies first" "Your not supposed to hit a lady" But yet when women hit men it is perfectly fine, because somehow "women are not the dominant gender", which I fully don't understand. Women and men are equal in gender.

Next, abortion should be abolished. It gives the right to kill. What about the fetus, the unborn child? I guess children can't have rights, lets be prejudice based on age now. "Let's kill all the unborn children. It's are right as women." It is also your right to have sex, and not to have sex. If you don't want to have a child, don't have sex, or get your tubes cut. If your going to die because if you have a child, you will die, I will pray for you, however it was a choice you made, the choice to have sex. It is sad however when those types of cases happen. But the majority of abortion is because the parents (not just the women) does not want the child, either because they can't afford it whatever. If the government used its money more wisely, then we could establish more orphanages, and those that wanted an aborition could just give their child away to an orphanage. Killing an unborn child during abortion is genocide. I always see people saying that the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust was wrong, but what about the genocide of the unborn going on today? You cannot play the role of God, never.

Also, I am quiting this thread now, because the admins shouldn't have to deal with our bickering about politics.

castleinthesky wrote:So in saying that children are legally obligated to attend school, means that they should be allowed to pray in school. They have to go to a place, so that means they should be allowed to pray in whatever form they want. You cannot take away prayer, because that would be violating freedom of religon. But if you say there is separation of church and state, then it would be hypocritical, considering the state set up freedom of religion. Thus, separation of church and state cannot happen until abortion and the death penalty are abolished, because then religion would not be involved with in the government.

Again you seem somewhat confused... No prayer in school, ever. It's that simple. School is for learning, learning math, English, science, social studies, health, and trades (shop, phys ed, music, and other electives). And it's a place where if children are legally required to attend and produce a grade average, NO ONE has the right to tell them they have to accept anyone praying in school. Again, real simple, direct, to the point. Case closed. Religion is a private thing and the churches are meant to be closed communities to it's members or people who want to join. Open to the public but not invading it in any way. That's it, again, not confusing. In my school, we never had prayer. When I was going to school, no schools had prayer that weren't religious schools to begin with (see: Saved!). That's the way things should be. Parents want prayer in school, send their kid to a religious high school. That's it, again, case closed.

castleinthesky wrote:Next, abortion should be abolished. It gives the right to kill. What about the fetus, the unborn child? I guess children can't have rights, lets be prejudice based on age now. "Let's kill all the unborn children. It's are right as women." It is also your right to have sex, and not to have sex. If you don't want to have a child, don't have sex, or get your tubes cut. If your going to die because if you have a child, you will die, I will pray for you, however it was a choice you made, the choice to have sex. It is sad however when those types of cases happen. But the majority of abortion is because the parents (not just the women) does not want the child, either because they can't afford it whatever. If the government used its money more wisely, then we could establish more orphanages, and those that wanted an aborition could just give their child away to an orphanage. Killing an unborn child during abortion is genocide. You cannot play the role of God, never.

Abortion is necessary. I'm afraid it will always be. I know how many people think murder of any kind is wrong and they even feel the death penalty is morally wrong. But in the case of abortion, the most important thing to consider is NOW and will always be, the living woman and her choice whether to give birth to the child or not. While yes murder SEEMS wrong on all the levels which it happens, the greater wrong is always to take this choice away from women. Again, ALWAYS IS and always will be.

Abortion is never an easy thing for a woman to have to come to terms with, but again it is her choice. I wish I even knew how to express just how necessary abortions are. But I'm afraid I have to say things like the child is not more important to consider than the mother, and all abortion is good for population control, and the fetus is not a real person until the third trimester of pregnancy. One thing I have no problem with saying, is that birth/new life is not a miracle. It is a very crude thing. The way a woman becomes pregnant or not, the way some women want a child so badly and cannot get pregnant, while other women have sex with a man who doesn't ejaculate inside of her but still produces a few light trickles of sperm and BAM(!) there's a baby. Becoming pregnant is a very simple thing for the baby and a life-altering and often devastating thing for the woman becoming pregnant. THAT'S why we need abortions. Because there's no such thing as a fetus with the power to decide whether or not it wants to be born, but always the potential that an unwanted child will have his/her whole life ruined by not growing up right.

For instance, if all the children who were born only to end up in orphanages, homeless on the streets, bouncing from one foster placement to another, or worse yet being raped & killed by human predators, were to have been aborted, UNTOLD suffering would have been avoided, and a hell of a lot of money in wellfare could have been saved.

You simply have to think of this beyond "killing is wrong." That belief doesn't apply here. And worse, it results in rising rates of unplanned pregnancies in young people because based on this principal they are now expected to practice abstinence, are denied sexual education in schools, and denied access to condoms. Which results in greater numbers of children in the child care system, not to mention sexually transmitted diseases... Ignorance isn't the answer to this problem, just like it's not an answer to just accept that commandment based on it's exact wording. Abortion is still something very necessary.

well, anyone is against the preservative and stuff, Laz. We talk about the MURDER of an UNBORN CHILD that could be a boy or a GIRL.

To approve the abortion certanly would be fine for some poeples who had suffered a rape, but there`s also many people who can`t procreate and would love a child for their own.
Have you thinked that some women could say "let` have sex without protection,If I get pregnated I just abort" definitelly not all women would do this, but many would.

Practing abstinence or safe sex, educate and help would be way better than approve the abortion because if the know what could happend, if they know how to avoid an unnecesary pregnacy and still they get pregnat by their decitions then it isn`t the goverment fault.

I could say "let`s neutralize or kill all gays so they doesn`t exist anymore" but it isn`t the awnser. As you said bfore, educate the people, inorm them about them and make them clear so they don`t fear, accept and everyone can live happy

Lazario, I almost puked when I read your latest response on abortion. I mean, literally, I almost ran to restroom and vomitted my dinner. I think I now know why conservatives hate liberals.

I'm totally with Ann Coulter on this one. The whole abortion phenomenon should go down in American history books as a new form of Holocaust. There's really one fact and this makes everything else a moot point whether you like it or not: A fetus, whether in the first or last trimester, is a living thing. It may not be a person (you would have to have a personality for that), but it's living, and no one has the right to terminate that life. Yes, technically abortion is a form of civil rights, and I don't think impeding on civil rights is ever a good thing, but the number of tramps who knock themselves up and then murder their own children is just sickening. Oh, and rape victims? I want you to provide me with documentation that proves that even one half of one percent of all the FORTY MILLION aborted babies in the past fifty years have come from rape victims. That's an extenuating circumstance, of course, but even then the opportunity for a beautiul life is still there, but people panic and think having children is the worst thing in the world. Who are you to say that all unwanted preganancies will materialize into troubled youths? You can't, you simply can't.

You cannot label me a MISOGINIST OR SEXIST, because I happen to be a feminist sympathizer. I may actually go into the field for my graduate degree. But then again, EDUCATED WOMEN AND MEN know that there's more to life that sex, and educated women are less likely to become "victims" of unwanted pregnancy. Educated women know their rights, their responsibilities, and killing their children isn't one of them. Abstinence is the only safeguard against an unwanted pregnancy, but oh, how inconvenient that would be? Where would the squalid masses go for their kicks? It's just more convenient to "take a chance" and kill anything that's unwanted later. WHATEVER...I would really like to see an intelligent answer combating anything I've said. I'm sure I'll get an answer, but I'm also sure it won't make any sense.

You know Prince Eric, I can accept and respect people who oppose abortion. However, I find most of the people who "support human life" only do so when it suits them, which kind of makes their arguments moot. I don't know if you're one of these people or not but most Conservatives with a capital "C" who oppose abortion support:

* The indescriminate killings happening as part of the "War on Terror".

The fact that the coalition "don't do bodycounts" (as said by General Tommy Franks) makes me want to vomit more than anything I've ever read or heard about abortion. Here we have actual, living, sentiant beings who's only crime is that they happen to have been born in Iraq, and they're being killed - no, slaughtered - with no hint of remorse. Innocents killed directly by the coalition vastly outnumber those killed in the 9/11 attacks, and if you include those killed by insurgents too (a direct result of the invasion) then the number is 10 times as many.

Of course the reasons they "don't do bodycounts" is because it was such bodycounts showing the true horror of the war that led to the overwhelming public support for a withdrawal from Vietnam. Seems like some people are worried the public do have a concience, even if they themselves do not.

No matter what you feel about the actual reasons for the invasion - pro or con - surely people who claim to be the champions of all human life must be appalled at the ongoing casulties in Iraq.

* The death penalty.

America likes to think its the most civilised country in the world, yet many states still practice the death penalty. This is something I've never been able to understand - taking a human life is taking a human life, no matter what the justification. And it certainly seems anti-Christian to me.

* Limits or outright bans on stem-cell research

While I can accept that there is an argument that fetus is a sentient being (although the timing of this "awakening" is still open for debate), there can be no such argument about stem-cells. They're so non-sentiant, they haven't even grown into their properly designated cell-type yet! Meanwhile living sentient beings, made up of fully-formed cells (such as Michael J Fox, President Reagan, Christopher Reeve and Charlton Heston to name a few) are suffering and will continue to suffer, or will have suffered and died in vain, because stem-cell research could potentially speed-up a cure to their disabilities or illness.

Also Prince Eric, your reply seems to me to equate abortion to birth control - serial birth control at that, which is a very simple way of looking at the issue.

Rape victims may not be a vast percentage of the total abortions, but they do make up a percentage and are, I think, a very valid and understandable reason for wanting an abortion.

Secondly, there are a number of abortions done on medical grounds, either because of the child's health issues or concern for the parent. Again, these make up a small percentage of the number, but are perfectly valid reasons for an abortion. I know that if I was a doctor, I'd put the health and safety of the undisputed sentient mother before that of the debatable growth status of the child.

Of course, both of the above reasons are also birth control.

The vast majority of abortions are those from women in stable relationships (including marriage) who do practice other forms of birth control responsibly. But most forms of birth control aren't flawless. They are not "tramps" as you so ignorantly call them. Nor are they selfish. But for whatever reason (sadly, mostly financial) feel that they cannot cope with a child at this time. Most people, even in this situation will consider the action very carefully, because an abortion can still be a tramatic experience both physically and mentally.

So yes, it's birth control, but being used in a responsible framework.

Now, finally, we have the people who always seem to be singled out by people who are anti-abortion. The serial abortion taker who sleeps around, and regularly has abortions, perfering this as their means of birth control over any other. I can't deny that this happens, but I would suspect the percentage is low (just as low as rape victims for example) but I have no figures and I can't be bothered to do any research.

And do you know why I can't be bothered to do any research?

Because these people are either SICK - properly mentally SICK or literally so desperate they're at the bottom of society. There's bigger issues here than a debate on abortion and fetus development.

People such as this who are mentally unbalanced wouldn't make good parents anyway, and could result in untold mental and physical abuse to their child over a wide number of years. Ideally such people would be detected and stopped by the medical professionals after a quick consultation of their medical histroy. Although, if abortion was illegal, such checks and balanced would of course never be found (and the individual in question would most likely still be a serial aborter regardless).

Or if they are so far down the ladder of society that they are literally being used as sex-slaves (needless to say, against their will) then they too are hardly going to be the ideal mother for their child. Needless to say as well, these operations would not be performed by licenced individuals, so a ban would have no affect on these "serial" abortions at all.

Finally, as you are well aware yourself, abortion is a practice that has been carried out almost since the birth of mankind. Making it illegal isn't going to stop it. It will just drive it underground and create more risks for those undergoing the procedure. I know that's not much of an argument for an idealist ("they shouldn't be having one anyway") but its a pretty strong argument for legalised abortion for a realist.

Personally, I think those who make the laws should concentrate more on all of the needless deaths of the undesputedly living before moving on to abortions (and I'm not just talking about the examples above, but stuff like affordable medical care and gun control laws etc).

Prince Eric wrote:You cannot label me a MISOGINIST OR SEXIST, because I happen to be a feminist sympathizer. I may actually go into the field for my graduate degree. But then again, EDUCATED WOMEN AND MEN know that there's more to life that sex, and educated women are less likely to become "victims" of unwanted pregnancy. Educated women know their rights, their responsibilities, and killing their children isn't one of them. Abstinence is the only safeguard against an unwanted pregnancy, but oh, how inconvenient that would be? Where would the squalid masses go for their kicks? It's just more convenient to "take a chance" and kill anything that's unwanted later. WHATEVER...I would really like to see an intelligent answer combating anything I've said. I'm sure I'll get an answer, but I'm also sure it won't make any sense.

You claim to be a "feminist sympathizer", yet go on to say that people - presumably women - that engage in 'sex for kicks' are in some way 'squalid'. So you support women's rights, but label any woman that wants to engage in sex as 'squalid'. Nice. It also seems to be tied up with the idea that sex is somehow 'squalid' and that without it, we wouldn't have this problem. Well, the fact that we are all here proves people have been shagging for generations, and they will in generations to come.

You also seem to be so sure that your opinion is right. Let me ask you something - have you ever had to make that decision? Are you a woman? I'm betting that the answer on both accounts is 'No'. While there may be a minority of women who engage in sex and abortions lightly, the decision is not going to be easy for ANYBODY. I doubt anybody wakes up and says "What day is it? Monday? Bugger it, let's all have abortions!" I will second 2099net's opinion that you have over-simplified the issue by referring to abortion as a glorified form of serial birth control. As anybody who has had to make the decision will tell you, it isn't as simple as that.

By that token, we may as well ban smoking and drinking - or driving for that matter. All of these things have legitimate purposes, but the first two are primarily used as 'pleasure' but do harm to the body.

You also say that statisically, there aren't enough rape victims or people likely to grow up as 'problem children' to justify allowing abortions. Surely, though, in a democratic and free society, we must ALL help each other out. Or should the law only apply to those that can afford it. Are you saying that people should have backyard abortions because they weren't lucky enough to grow up in a world where money can buy anything? The law - and society - is meant to be there to support ALL of its constituents. The Right to Choose ensures that those who NEED a medical abortion, or have legitimate grounds for doing so, have that made available to them. Boiling it down to numbers and statistics is a far more callous view, I believe.

If you are so against abortion, why don't you go down and adopt every unwanted child and look after it? After all, under your rule of law, the mother would have no choice but to be 'punished' for her 'squalid ways'. I suppose it is better to have a child grow up in poverty than it is to allow a medical procedure that would help avoid suffering.

Alternatively, lock arms and block cemetaries. It is the only way to be truly 'Pro Life'. (Apologies to Bill Hicks)

By the by, the debate is looming large in Australia with the possible introduction of the abortion drug RU486:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/RU4 ... 40965.html

Isidour wrote:I could say "let's neutralize or kill all gays so they doesn't exist anymore" but it isn't the answer.

Are you on drugs?

Isidour wrote:To approve the abortion certanly would be fine for some poeples who had suffered a rape, but there's also many people who can't procreate and would love a child for their own.

I would agree with you, because your thinking is right. It's just that in reality, there's a problem. There are actually many problems with that scenario. First of all, you are not (nor is anyone would doesn't already know) prepared to learn how many children are currently in the child care system. There is a reason they were placed there, because the people who found themselves at one point or another with the responsibility of caring for the child, realize how much actual responsibility it is to take care of a growing person. Do we demonize these people for not being able to handle this responsibility? No and it would get us nowhere to do so. And that's one of the reasons people are so upset with abortion - they expect a pregnant woman to just assume responsibility for something she didn't plan because, really, it just happens. That is no way to treat a person. We have no right saying this, or deciding laws, based on what she ultimately found herself unable of controlling.

Next, no one here is taking the child care system seriously. You all seem to be under the impression that all good children end up somewhere they belong. When really, that's the rare exception in the case. There are huge numbers of unwanted children. And they end up in hell. Do you understand this - the Earth-equivalent of hell. I'm very uncomfortable with everyone taking this so lightly for the sake of their morals. Children that are unwanted end up sometimes commiting suicide, killing each other, addicted to drugs, homeless, on welfare, raped, infected with STD's. And all this is happening to hundreds of children while just one is being carefully placed in a decent foster home, waiting for proper background checks to be conducted, so the social workers know that he or she is getting a good home. And we feel it is necessary to be this delicate when this process is taking place, which it is. Meanwhile, percentage wise, more than 90% of other needing applicants, a great deal unregistered, are not this lucky. I take this seriously. Very seriously. When making up my mind, considering what is a more appropriate alternative.

Isidour wrote:Have you thinked that some women could say "let's have sex without protection, if I get pregnated I just abort" definitelly not all women would do this, but many would.

Yes I have. And people try to talk my ear off about how this is the norm and the majority of cases. However, it's not. Because first of all, take a look at the rates of juveniles becoming pregnant and think about why. Basically, the situation you're describing (which I'll admit does happen sometimes) is sociopathic behavior. Anyone can exhibit it, but the funny about that if you understand psychology, is that it's rare. People just have to come to terms with the fact that the overwhelming majority of cases for abortion don't fit this profile.

Prince Eric wrote:Lazario, I almost puked when I read your latest response on abortion. I mean, literally, I almost ran to restroom and vomitted my dinner.

Well, I'm not sorry about that. Because really, anyone could claim the same thing about anything I'm likely to say. I mean, honestly now, you could say "Lazario, I almost puked when I read your latest life story about how you went to the zoo when you were 3. I had a traumatic experience once going to the zoo and I thought I told everyone upfront that they were not supposed to mention zoo's or it would physically upset me."

Prince Eric wrote:I'm totally with Ann Coulter on this one. The whole abortion phenomenon should go down in American history books as a new form of Holocaust.

First of all, Ann Coulter is not a human. Her opinions are so morally debased that she has no right calling herself an expert on any issue, period. Look at her handiwork, her record speaks for itself. Second of all, read further...

Prince Eric wrote:There's really one fact and this makes everything else a moot point whether you like it or not: A fetus

I'm really sorry we apparently disagree on this. But there's no way 'a fetus' makes anything about this issue moot.

Prince Eric wrote:whether in the first or last trimester, is a living thing.

Only in the same way that, for instance, plants are alive. I'm sticking to this one. It may sound cold-hearted. But women don't get abortions to be cold, it's just the way things are.

Prince Eric wrote:It may not be a person (you would have to have a personality for that), but it's living, and no one has the right to terminate that life.

YES, someone does. And that is the complete living woman-human who carries it. I feel you really can't use morals to justify or not justify an issue that's not about morals.

Prince Eric wrote:but the number of tramps who knock themselves up and then murder their own children is just sickening.

Your saying that only makes it look like there is a modicum of hatred for women inside you. Now I sound really liberal but, allow me to go back to dark-liberal mode : you can't ever talk like that about a woman. So I advise you not to.

Prince Eric wrote:beautiful life

Life is not beautiful. I know a lot of people feel that way at times but that's simply a justification we give it because we are amazed by it's divine complexities.

We all fear life is meaningless (which I agree it's not), and we know how hard it is, so we invent a reason to live it (which I agree we have without having to justify it). This is the truth : LIFE IS CRUDE. It just happens. We can go on and on about the possibility that God gave it to us, but we'll never see God. We'll never have that conversation with "our creator." So in the real world, it's smarter to just take a hard, unidealistic look around. And honestly decide what you see. Even when it's best applied, the term "beautiful" is still just a word.

Prince Eric wrote:Who are you to say that all unwanted preganancies will materialize into troubled youths?

Did I? You got the wrong impression. I think the most important thing now is to ask yourself why you assumed this...

Prince Eric wrote:EDUCATED WOMEN AND MEN know that there's more to life that sex, and educated women are less likely to become "victims" of unwanted pregnancy.

Absolutely. And that is the point. We only accept abortion, we never want it. It's nothing more than a solution for something not just about fear. It's about responsibility sometimes. Not every woman who's been pregnant has had the option of sending the child to another family. Sometimes, adoption is against the family's beliefs (not necessarily religious). And women are not routinely educated on their choices when they become pregnant. They are encouraged to go to places like Planned Parenthood, but many don't (but I feel they should, of course). And I think you quickly forget that the physical act of giving birth is life-altering. It's not just about the woman never having the same body type again (which is actually a valid concern), there is an incredible emotional toll giving birth takes on a woman. And it seems like people like you forget this, or they don't want to believe it. But it's true. A good deal of woman who give birth experience a depression so deep the short-term trauma it causes is devastating. A woman who's never experienced feelings of depression her whole life will now feel it's full effects without a psychological or emotional catalyst. And that's POWERFUL to a degree which is not easily explained in words. You are also taking this for granted for the sake of your morals.

Prince Eric wrote:Abstinence is the only safeguard against an unwanted pregnancy

The problem with abstinence is that it's not the answer for every woman. Once people in government get the idea that abstinence goes a long way in solving the problem, which it does I'll admit, they expect all young women to be abstinent, denying them sexual education as a means of limiting sexual activity. Because they feel personally responsible for the sexual activity of young people, which is right where they cross the line, because they stop focusing on helping young people and really become entirely focused on "their" obligation. Listen to these people every now and then, and you'll see this. Limited sexual activity is a nice idea, and it certainly makes a lot of people feel better about the fate of today's youth, but it's extremely difficult to enforce. And it's a violation of basic human rights. We can place an age and limitations on sexual activity, but then if we can't enforce it - abstinence becomes part of the problem when it was designed to be the solution. And sexual education is always the first step to solving the problem.

Prince Eric wrote:Where would the squalid masses go for their kicks?

You're starting to sound like the screwed up one.

Prince Eric wrote:I'm sure I'll get an answer, but I'm also sure it won't make any sense.

If you didn't get the answers you hoped for, again I'm not sorry. I tried my best. The truth can be a hard thing to get a grip on. So in turn, I hope you will try your best to accept it.

This thread is getting carried away. It needs to be locked

not Laz, I don`t do drugs. But I meant to put an example as you always do when you talk about religious people.Have I said you something like it when you generalize with cristians?
I definitelly have nothing against anyone(everyone has the right to be happy).

Everyone is responsable of themseles, if they like this or that it`s ok for me, I let them be happy but I ask to be let being happy.

I also understand psycology, but thanks for adding the explanation for al who aren`t familiar with the meaning or the psycological chat.

Yes, the abortion is regular on the medical bussines when the fetus have a malformation that would tie him to a miserable life, when the product put in risk the mother life or even the natural abortion.

the abortion rates are a tricky bussines, because you may also count the illegal abortions that are made, for not desired pregnacies or even sex-election.

You wrote about all the childs in childcare systems, they were abandoned, becase the parents NEVER KNEW the effort that means to have a child, thats why I wrote about educating not only the women but the men also, t teach them what means to have a baby, the time and effort, the sleepless nights and forgive almost all your party nights. EDUCATION! if you want to finish aproblem, you have to finnish it from the very core

I doubt this thread should be closed, it definitelly seems to be a hot-topic and a heated-chat, but I doubt that someone feels hurt of what have been said here, we are just exposing our thougths as a sane debate don`t we?

I knew it! I got three replies that make almost next to no sense and which strayed from the topic at hand. With so many differing but "equal" opinions, no wonder today's youth are growing up confused and without sound morals and a clear direction in life. I guess Ann Coulter is also right that liberalism in itself is not a bad idea, but that there's a growing decline of cognitive thought in liberal thinking. I guess she's the victor here.

WOw...wait a mintue, Laz is a she?

Prince Eric wrote:I guess Ann Coulter is also right that liberalism in itself is not a bad idea, but that there's a growing decline of cognitive thought in liberal thinking. I guess she's the victor here.

I'd just like to make a point on this point. There are going to be non-cognitive/over ranting people in any part of the political spectrum. So I wouldn't give all liberals a bad name.

And I have to admit that this thread is becoming too incendiary. It seems as though some people (and I'm not pointing the finger on one person, by the way) have just steered this thing off course into dodgy topics and/or are now using it as a station of ranting. Some are expressing their feelings in a well thought out manner, whilst others aren't. As fluffy as this may sound, I think that we should all just get along and all be friends. I know that it sounds really gooey, but in my opinion, it could ease the pain.

There are more good people in this world.

-Aaron

AwallaceUNC wrote:There are more good people in this world.

-Aaron

looking at the state of things, us good people are outnumbered by the bad people

memnv wrote:This thread is getting carried away. I needs to be locked

I agree with you

Alan wrote:

memnv wrote:This thread is getting carried away. I needs to be locked

I agree with you

I agree as well. Memnv does need to be locked.

Prince Eric wrote:I knew it! I got three replies that make almost next to no sense and which strayed from the topic at hand. With so many differing but "equal" opinions, no wonder today's youth are growing up confused and without sound morals and a clear direction in life. I guess Ann Coulter is also right that liberalism in itself is not a bad idea, but that there's a growing decline of cognitive thought in liberal thinking. I guess she's the victor here.

Well, that's very convenient isn't it? Dismissing all three arguments as "nonsensical" and therefore not having to reply/defend your position!

You claim that people who have abortions are somehow taking the easy and convenient option. Yet you are willing to condemn an entire way of thinking based on some notion of a generation "without sound morals and a clear direction in life". You, sir, are making less sense than the people you claim to have won some hollow victory over.

I'm not sure about Ann Coulter, but I don't see any victor here yet. All I see is an argument, some responses, and a declaration of victory.

Loomis,

Your rhetoric is tiring (as is all arguement that creates circularity when it doesn't have to be so).

In regards to 2099net's post, I don't understand what he's trying to say. The majority of it isn't even about abortion. Again, this is a hyper-example of trying to check everyone off of one of two agendas: liberal and conservative. Let's just say for a moment that there really is a loose thread (albeit that's a stretch) that joins all these "pro-life" social issues. Is he saying that someone can not be against abortion and for the death penalty at the same time? That makes absolutely no sense. People are more complicated than that, well, no, that's too liberal of a statement for me. The FACT of the matter is that there is a difference between each one of these issues. We're talking about a living, innocent creation. A fetus does not have the power to protect itself. It must resign intself to the care and love (or lack thereof) of it's mother. Yes, I've never been in the situation, but have you? Are you telling me you would encourage your wife (or should I say common law spouse?) to kill you child because it's convenient? I'll come back to that point in a minute...

For some reason or another, all three of you seem to have interpreted my post as a stance for making abortion illegal, which is strange because I never said that. (Talk about low comprehension skills.) If it came down to the wire, I would probably vote FOR abortion, because whether you like it or not, it's a civil right. Impeding on civil rights only opens up doors to the destruction of more civil rights, so duh, I wouldn't want to make it illegal, but that doesn't mean I think it's right and certianly doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on the matter. (Oh, wait, I can't have an opinion if it's not liberal, right? That's the motto in liberal education nowadays, isn't it?)

I'll post the rest of my thoughts later, I'm busy? Do you guys have the decency to let me finish my statement before I'm met with a barrage? I'm sure that's too much to ask for, but...I'll try.