Outlaw Baby Wipes

[FoFa]

Yes and we are witnessing, on a global level, a dramatic increase in the population at the extreme low income range. As if everything is conspiring to create a huge impoverished population.

Um, not sure how to take that. Are you saying we should abort all the lower income babies for the good of the world population?

 

[dan-cat]

I think the Gov should not attempt to legislate morality.

Should we therefore let the individual decide whether their own actions are right or wrong in all things? It would alleviate our jail capacity issues no end

Seriously though, you can't let the masses decide for themselves on such matters. The better educated have to guide, and if necessary enforce, the less educated to an informed route of action. I've known a person who has regreted their decision on having an abortion to this day. She had no idea what she was actually doing until it was done. To say, just make your own mind up, I feel is a tad irresponsible in this case.

 

[KenHigg]

Me and my GF are currently in this position. And i assure you that the desicion is not an easy one to make (in fact we have not made it yet even after 2 weeks extensive scans and an MRI).
I would say that our decision is not based on any arbitary govermental limit at all. Purely based on our beliefs and what we think is going to be the best for our current and future children. Our situation is just going to be based on wether there is any chance of a quality of life or not.

If our baby has any chance of surviving and being able to function even remotely we would not even be considering termination.

Does that help Ken.

Yes. Thanks. Based on that response I'd say that if you do decide to have the child it would be fortunate to have parents like you and your GF! (Keep us posted!)

 

[MrsGorilla]

I think the Gov should not attempt to legislate morality. The biggest issue the right to life group has is based on religious beliefs.

I don't think that these two issues are necessarily correlated. Yes, it's true that religious folks (like myself) tend to fall on the pro-life side and it's true that some of them (not like myself) use their religion as the reason that (they think) abortion is wrong.

The ultimate question that the government has to decide is when the life that is inside someone else is guaranteed the same right to life as those who have already been born. When does it become eligible to have its life protected by law? Some people think it should be at conception. Others think it's not until later. And THAT is what the issue is about, to me.

 

[Rich]

You think that abortion is justified because the baby might grow up to be stupid?

It would probably grow up unwanted and neglected though

 

[jsanders]

I'm sorry J but I disagree with this 110%. You can't qualify life with economics. All that you're going to end up doing is villanising a group of people because of their earning potential.

I’m sorry it sounds like I’m “villianizing” the lowest income population. I’m mearly pointing out that whenever we put abortion at the top of the issues we use to elect our government we choose to ignore issue that are having a detrimental effect on a large percentage of the global and national populace.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day from the 2004 elections that said, if you can believe this, “Vote Life-Vote Bush”. So in the name of “right to life” we voted in a regime that has presided over the largest increase in public dept in the history of the United States. Insuring a generation of people un able to have any chance of bettering their lives.

I don’t look down on low income people, I am one. I look down on a government run by so called moral majority that is raping the middle class, and some of those very people say we need to continue voting them in because they are against gay marriage and ‘right to choose”.

 

[dan-cat]

I’m mearly pointing out that whenever we put abortion at the top of the issues we use to elect our government we choose to ignore issue that are having a detrimental effect on a large percentage of the global and national populace.

I'm a tad lost. Was your point merely that the issue of abortion is ranked too highly by some within their decision making process of who to vote for?

If so, what did you mean by:

"Yes and we are witnessing, on a global level, a dramatic increase in the population at the extreme low income range."

and what did this have to do with overly prioritising the issue?

 

[Kraj]

If I may, I think the connection is that Joe is asserting an abortion ban would harm the lower class because they already have a difficult time maintaining or increasing their economic status. Being forced to follow through with unwanted pergnancies would cause the lower class to grow and spread their limited resources even thinner. On the other side of the coin, the upper middle class and the wealthy have the means to travel in order to obtain an abortion, so an abortion ban would have little effect on them.

I'm not sure whether I buy the argument or not, but that's what I get from what he's saying (and things he's said previously).

 

[selenau837]

Me and my GF are currently in this position. And i assure you that the desicion is not an easy one to make (in fact we have not made it yet even after 2 weeks extensive scans and an MRI).
I would say that our decision is not based on any arbitary govermental limit at all. Purely based on our beliefs and what we think is going to be the best for our current and future children. Our situation is just going to be based on wether there is any chance of a quality of life or not.

If our baby has any chance of surviving and being able to function even remotely we would not even be considering termination.

Does that help Ken.

I hate to hear that about you and your GF. I'll keep your family in my prayers.


On to the debate then,

I personally believe abortion should only be used in the cases of incest, ra**, and medical complications, both mom or baby. Those to me are valid reasons for abortion. I hate to see abortion used solely for the purpose of birth control.
I feel that if someone uses abortion as birth control, then during the procedure they should be sterilized. That way they can't make that mistake again and continue to discard life as if it means nothing. I think both the male and the female should be sterilized. Not just the mom. It took two people to make that baby, therefore two people should be 'fixed'.

I'm sure I'll get slammed for my views, but I am allowed them. So fire away.

 

[FoFa]

The ultimate question that the government has to decide is when the life that is inside someone else is guaranteed the same right to life as those who have already been born.

Yes, that it what we need, government playing GOD and edciding on what is and isn't life.
So if a government like say, Saddam comes along and decides Kurd's aren't life, they can use chemical weapons on them. Or Hitler's government deciding Jews were not life, and kill them.
Glad we can own guns, sure would hate old fat bald guys to all of a sudden not be considered life.....

 

[Rich]

sure would hate old fat bald guys to all of a sudden not be considered life.....

Some might say they need to get a life

 

[Rich]

Yes, that it what we need, government playing GOD and edciding on what is and isn't life.
So if a government like say, Saddam comes along and decides Kurd's aren't life, they can use chemical weapons on them. Or Hitler's government deciding Jews were not life, and kill them.
...

This isn't bloody fair, I can't argue with you

 

[dan-cat]

Yes, that it what we need, government playing GOD and edciding on what is and isn't life.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Who else is going to legislate to uphold accepted codes of morality? If the goverment is not doing this, isn't it up to us to oust them?

 

[Rich]

I personally believe abortion should only be used in the cases of incest, ra**, and medical complications, both mom or baby. Those to me are valid reasons for abortion. I hate to see abortion used solely for the purpose of birth control.
.

Aren't those who practice birth control guilty of killing the cells that create life in the first place ?

 

[FoFa]

I'm not sure what your point is here. Who else is going to legislate to uphold accepted codes of morality? If the goverment is not doing this, isn't it up to us to oust them?

ROFL
Yeah, that is what they do ROFL
Come on, government (at least in the USA) decides on what will give them the most votes in the next election. When was the last time you actually saw a Moral politician?
Have you ever heard one say "I am making this desicion because I can not morraly do otherwise, even if it cost me the next election."?
The other problem with morality is, Who's morality? If the right wing christians are the biggest voting population, are you willing to accept their morality? Even if it means overturning Rowe vs. Wade?
Or the liberal left who wants to do away with competion (everyone should pass, there are no bad people). Yea, I could be a center for the Lakers, and they would have to let me make baskets.....

 

[selenau837]

Aren't those who practice birth control guilty of killing the cells that create life in the first place ?

If you look at it that way, but if that is the case, then we need to stop selling anti-bateria soaps and such. It is killing life isn't it.

If you break it down to saying it is wrong to use birth control because you are killing the cells BEFORE they merge to create life, then male self-enjoyment should be outlawed too. It is releasing those cells without the purpose of generating life.

Heck lets go a step further. Perhaps have a permit to procreate and only be able to do it for the purpose of creating life. It will not allow people to kill cells by practing birth control. Also that way, stupid people can't reproduce and eventually we will have a society full of people we feel can run the country the way we want to. We can give licenses to those we want to have offspring.

The possiblities are endless!!!!!! Muuhaha

 

[indesisiv]

Also that way, stupid people can't reproduce and eventually we will have a society full of people we feel can run the country the way we want to. We can give licenses to those we want to have offspring.

The possiblities are endless!!!!!! Muuhaha

YAY ... That at least would mean less politicians.

 

[dan-cat]

ROFL
Yeah, that is what they do ROFL
Come on, government (at least in the USA) decides on what will give them the most votes in the next election. When was the last time you actually saw a Moral politician?
Have you ever heard one say "I am making this desicion because I can not morraly do otherwise, even if it cost me the next election."?
The other problem with morality is, Who's morality? If the right wing christians are the biggest voting population, are you willing to accept their morality? Even if it means overturning Rowe vs. Wade?
Or the liberal left who wants to do away with competion (everyone should pass, there are no bad people). Yea, I could be a center for the Lakers, and they would have to let me make baskets.....

You didn't answer my question...

 

[dan-cat]

.. then male self-enjoyment should be outlawed too.

now let's not get too hasty about this

 

[Kraj]

Yes, that it what we need, government playing GOD and edciding on what is and isn't life.

So, by that rationale government should neither guarantee the right to have an abortion nor outlaw it?

Selena, I don't see why anyone would 'slam you' for your views. As abortion stances go, your's is not exactly extreme.

Personally, I don't think abortion as birth control is a good idea but I do think it is preferable to forcing unwanted births. I'm not sure I agree that sterilization is a good solution, but I do think there should be some kind of consequence. I think that one abortion should be allowed per person. This would allow a person to avoid paying the rest of their lives for one stupid mistake and give them the opportunity to learn from that mistake and not do it again. It also prevents habitual abortions. I think it's a reasonable compromise.... which, of course, no one is interested in.

Oh, and considering all the piddly-sh!t crap we require people to be liscensed to do, it would not bother me one bit if would-be parents would have to go through training and licensing to have a child. Not that I'm a fan of restricting such a fundamental freedom, nor do I have a clue how one could reasonable enfoce such a paractice. It just seems to me that the percentage of the population who are incapable (or not yet ready) of raising a healthy, well-balanced child and providing for its well-being and education is rapidly growing.