Learn More - Click Here!

Page 4 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12
Thread Options
#864659 - 12/02/07 02:50 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill TheManofSteel
Hated By Some Offline
10K Club
Hated By Some
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
Quote:
well-being

so PVS is, in your estimation, well?!

Quote:
thus they are not fully persons

but for the machines forcing their cells to continue funcitoning, they would not function. i think this is accurate even though it may be tasteless or whatever to you.

Return to Top
Chat! - BOL Watercooler
#864660 - 12/02/07 03:06 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Hrothgar Geiger
TheManofSteel Offline
10K Club
TheManofSteel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
Originally Posted By: AML-Barbarian
TMOS,

It's difficult for me to take your over-adrenalized rant against "HIERARCHIES OF HUMAN WORTH" seriously.

You've posted support for capital punishment, which clearly values the lives of law-abiding citizens more highly than those that prey on them.

You've posted in favor of the application of deadly force; which values your life and that of your family more highly than that of your attacker.

We won't even go into your feeling on radical Islamists.

The fact is, governments and citizens establish hierachies of human worth all the time. Who gets health care, who doesn't, who receives humanitarian aid and who doesn't are all examples. If you look at the genocide in Sudan, and America's relative inaction, you may not understand *why* a Sudanese life is worth less than that of an American, but you can see that it is.

And in a recent BOL thread, some posters clearly valued a sack of a Texas man's property more highly than the lives of the people who stole it.


Barb:

I am not even sure where to begin with this. The context of what you present is so non-pertinent to what I am discussing here. I am speaking of medical ethics and the implications of applying purely subjective criteria as to what defines "person", almost all for the purposes of utility rather than inherent human worth, and the result of creating relative values to people in various medical situations.

You are speaking my valuing my right to live and actions taken to protect that right over the attemps of an attacker who would use his abilities to make decisions to take away my right to exist. In no way do I, or for that matter most anybody, see that as creating a hierarchy of worth in which my attacker ceases to be a "person" at that moment but I remain as such.

Capital punishment, while certainly some may hold in their hearts a value to those who have been unjustly killed and their family members remaining, more highly than the criminal, that is not the intention of capital punishment. It is not definig the criminal as a non-person relative to law-abiding citizens. It is holding that person responsible, as a person, for violating the most sacred of all rights, the right of another to live. However, I am not trying to debate capital punishment here, just point out that it is not the application of subjective criteria defining "personhood" to place the criminal on a totem pole position below anyone else. Whether you see it as that or not is your perogative, but that is not consistent with the bioethicist position. In fact, many bioethicists would see the criminal as still holding greater value based upon their subjective crteria, than say, an innocent law abiding citizen who is in a coma.

Quote:
The fact is, governments and citizens establish hierachies of human worth all the time. Who gets health care, who doesn't, who receives humanitarian aid and who doesn't are all examples.


This is the whole point of the discussion, Barb.

Quote:
If you look at the genocide in Sudan, and America's relative inaction, you may not understand *why* a Sudanese life is worth less than that of an American, but you can see that it is.[quote]


This may certainly be true. I am not arguing that it is acceptable.

Quote:
And in a recent BOL thread, some posters clearly valued a sack of a Texas man's property more highly than the lives of the people who stole it.


Once again, this was not a question of his value based upon subjective criteria defining "personhood", but applying responsibility and allowing one citizen to protect his right against a crime, and of course, protect his right against the criminal committing it. Far cry from dehydrating an inncoent person to death who is in a coma b/c they have no value as a "person" anylonger, based upon subjective criteria.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"

Return to Top
#864661 - 12/02/07 03:12 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Hated By Some
TheManofSteel Offline
10K Club
TheManofSteel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
Originally Posted By: Ron Mexico
Quote:
well-being

so PVS is, in your estimation, well?!

Quote:
thus they are not fully persons

but for the machines forcing their cells to continue funcitoning, they would not function. i think this is accurate even though it may be tasteless or whatever to you.


Sorry Ron, but there are far too many examples of people denied basic food and water that are not being kept alive by machines. Cases where parents are screaming at nurses and doctors to give care that is being withheld b/c the medical staff see the child as not worth it (due to their training in bioethics). Again, if you are committed to the truth of these things, then do the research. People usually find out about it the hard way, when a loved one in the hospital is denied treatment. Oh, the hospitals wised up, and cover their language so as not to stir the possibility of lawsuits, such as "the best interest of the patient" and "care for his quality of life." It is far too complex and broad for me to begin to even pierce here.

Ron, groups like"Doctors for Compassionate Helathcare" and "Not Dead Yet" did not come about for fun and games. They came about becuase they saw and experienced directly what was going on, and decided to fight these developments.
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"

Return to Top
#864665 - 12/02/07 05:13 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Becka Marr
TheManofSteel Offline
10K Club
TheManofSteel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
Originally Posted By: Ms. Becka
Originally Posted By: The Man of Steel
Research Margaret Sanger, or better yet, read her actual writings, who outright advocated abortion as birth control and other forms of birth control.


You mean that she encouraged women to have unprotected sex and use abortion as birth control in the event of pregnancy after the fact? Or that she persuaded pregnant women who didn't want an abortion to have one?

From what I found briefly online, biographical summaries emphasize her efforts to promote contraception for women to avoid unwanted pregnancies (in which case the decision to abort would not be necessary). This quote I think clearly shows her to be pro-CHOICE:

"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother."


Becka:

Here is one of Margaret Sanger's speeches. I have also cut out some specific quotes so you can see the positions and weigh the implications of her positions. Damn if it does not sound like eugenics and Nazi-era ideas for creating "ideal gene pools":

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/margaret_sanger_children.html

"I would like to suggest Civil Service examinations for parenthood! Prospective parents after such an examination would be given a parenthood license, proving that they are physically and mentally fit to be the fathers and mothers of the next generation."...

...And there would be certain conditions of circumstances which would preclude parenthood. These conditions, the presence of which would [/b][b]make parenthood a crime, are the following:

1. Transmissible disease
2. Temporary disease
3. Subnormal children already in the family
4. Space out between births
5. Twenty-three years as a minimum age for parents
6. Economic circumstances adequate
7. Spiritual harmony between parents.


Tell me, Becka, what organization would legislatively determine what subnormality is? The Nazis tried to do this too. Who would determine that economic circumstances are adequate? Why would 23 y.o. be the age? Why not 24 or 25, or does the legislature change the age each ear depending upon a survey of national conditions? Similar to China's 1 child policy, but if they catch you with more than 1 child, and God help if it is a girl, then what? Can it be legislated that an age ceiling be put in place? Spiritual harmony between parents huh? What quantitative measurements exist to determine this? Are the parents not to grow over time, working out personal shortcomings, or do they have to have achieved a state of perfect tranquility, that any breaking of it would result in the termination of reprodcutive ability etc? These are of course, rhetorical questions. This is all social engineering, no matter how it is spun.

Here is another article about her famous speech to the Ku Klux Klan. They shared many of her views. She wanted population control applied to Blacks, and immigrant Catholics from Europe (I think on the second one). If you scroll down far enough, you'll see her photo addressing the Klan. And remember, she and her famliy founded Planned Parenthood:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1294086/posts
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"

Return to Top
#864673 - 12/02/07 07:26 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill TheManofSteel
Becka Marr Offline
Power Poster
Becka Marr
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,152


A Modest Proposal, indeed.

Thank you for the select quotes. I'll add a few more to the pile:

"There is only one way out. We have got to fight for the health and happiness of the Unborn Child. And to do that in a practical, tangible way, we have got to free women from enforced, enslaved maternity. There can be no hope for the future of civilization, no certainty of racial salvation, until every woman can decide for herself whether she will or will not become a mother, and when and how many children she cares to bring into the world. ...

No, I doubt the advisability of governmental sanction. The problem of bringing children into the world ought to be decided by those most seriously involved -- those who run the greatest risks; in the last analysis -- by the mother and the child. ...

In conclusion, let me repeat: We are not trying to establish a dictatorship over parents. We want to free women from enslavery and unwilling motherhood. "


She's not advocating that parenthood be legislated, that much is clear. I'm not certain that she favors social engineering, either - although I can certainly understand how Nazi leaders would've spun that interpretation of her ideas to suit their purposes. (Btw, I think there is still support for some of those ideas among the general population - how many times have we seen articles posted in the cooler followed by comments that 'some people should not be allowed to have children' or they are 'candidates for involuntary sterlization,' etc.)

What she is clearly arguing for is the right for women to make their own, individual choice about if and/or when they want to become mothers. And again, she shows favor for prevention of unwanted pregnancies. (That speech was delivered in 1925 - how prevalent and accessible were contraceptives to women at that time?)


Last edited by Ms. Becka; 12/02/07 07:39 PM.
_________________________
To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. ~Elbert Hubbard

Return to Top
#864674 - 12/02/07 07:47 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Becka Marr
TheManofSteel Offline
10K Club
TheManofSteel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,068
Fortress of Solitude
Originally Posted By: Ms. Becka


A Modest Proposal, indeed.

Thank you for the select quotes. I'll add a few more to the pile:

"There is only one way out. We have got to fight for the health and happiness of the Unborn Child. And to do that in a practical, tangible way, we have got to free women from enforced, enslaved maternity. There can be no hope for the future of civilization, no certainty of racial salvation, until every woman can decide for herself whether she will or will not become a mother, and when and how many children she cares to bring into the world. ...

No, I doubt the advisability of governmental sanction. The problem of bringing children into the world ought to be decided by those most seriously involved -- those who run the greatest risks; in the last analysis -- by the mother and the child. ...

In conclusion, let me repeat: We are not trying to establish a dictatorship over parents. We want to free women from enslavery and unwilling motherhood. "


She's not advocating that parenthood be legislated, that much is clear. I'm not certain that she favors social engineering, either - although I can certainly understand how Nazi leaders would've spun that interpretation of her ideas to suit their purposes.

What she is clearly arguing for is the right for women to make their own, individual choice about if and/or when they want to become mothers. And again, she shows favor for prevention of unwanted pregnancies. (That speech was delivered in 1925 - how prevalent and accessible were contraceptives to women at that time?)


I certainly recognize that she supported legalizing contraception and promoting women having control over their bodies and pregnancy decisions. That much is obvious to me and shoud be to those who study her speeches. She also pressed for directing these efforts at slums, and especially at black communities. Her broader motives at legalizing contraception can be seen from othr of her documented works.
Here are some more quotes from her own works:

1) p.2 of Birth Control Review: "The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in The Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)


2) "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." (Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12) -


3) In Pivot of Civilization, Sanger referred to immigrants and poor folks as "human weeds," "reckless breeders," "spawning ... human beings who never should have been born."

4) "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. (Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107)

One of Sanger's greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. (The Problem of Race Regeneration, by Havelock Ellis, p. 65, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, p. 18)


You say you can see how the Nazis would twist this? It needed no twisting, only applying. You can further read up on the Nazi T-4 Program, and see how it matched Margaret Sanger's visions and Francis Galton's, the inspiration of the pseudo-science, Eugenics
_________________________
"Beneath an ever watchful eye...the angels of the temple fly"

Return to Top
#864685 - 12/02/07 10:16 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Becka Marr
rainman Offline
Power Poster
rainman
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted By: Ms. Becka
Just for laughs, let's try this thought:

Accept for the moment that a woman's body is her own property.
Accept for the moment that a fetus is a person.

So, if there is an unwanted person on someone's property, do they have the right to have him/her removed?


Becka, in my view, these are the types of questions we should be asking. I think, however, we have to add to your question the fact that in this case, removing the unwanted person necessarily results in that person's death, and the fact that the "intruder" is not just on the mother's "property" but actually invading her body.

In some circumstances, I believe that society would permit the "owner" to use lethal force to remove the intruder. In others, society would not permit lethal force. The answer may be different depending on whether the unwanted person was an "intruder" or was "invited."
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.

Return to Top
#864693 - 12/03/07 02:45 AM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill TheManofSteel
Becka Marr Offline
Power Poster
Becka Marr
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,152
Originally Posted By: The Man of Steel
I certainly recognize that she supported legalizing contraception and promoting women having control over their bodies and pregnancy decisions. That much is obvious to me and shoud be to those who study her speeches. She also pressed for directing these efforts at slums, and especially at black communities. Her broader motives at legalizing contraception can be seen from other of her documented works.


Of the additional sources you cited, I think 'A Plan For Peace' does appear inconsistent with her previous speech from 1925. She seems to have made a radical departure from her earlier opposition to legislation or any government interference with matters of parenthood. Still, I would hesitate to term her position as "pro-abortion" - there is no mention of terminating pregnancies, only an extreme emphasis on means of prevention (i.e. contraceptives, sterilization).

As to the comment about wanting to "exterminate the Negro population," it occurs to me that her thinking would've predated the Civil Rights movement and such racist remarks may not have been as objectionable as they are today. But also, I think it is true that much attention is still given to poor (often minority) people, who are most in need of education about birth control.
_________________________
To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. ~Elbert Hubbard

Return to Top
#864694 - 12/03/07 02:55 AM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill rainman
Becka Marr Offline
Power Poster
Becka Marr
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,152
Originally Posted By: rainman
In some circumstances, I believe that society would permit the "owner" to use lethal force to remove the intruder. In others, society would not permit lethal force.


If there is no alternative to lethal force, should that negate an owner's right to remove an intruder?

Originally Posted By: rainman
The answer may be different depending on whether the unwanted person was an "intruder" or was "invited."


This distiction is what I was trying to get at with the case that started this discussion - that the father would be charged with the death of a person that the mother had "invited," as opposed to the mother's right to remove an "intruder."
_________________________
To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. ~Elbert Hubbard

Return to Top
#864699 - 12/03/07 07:18 AM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Becka Marr
rainman Offline
Power Poster
rainman
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,068
Quote:
This distiction is what I was trying to get at with the case that started this discussion - that the father would be charged with the death of a person that the mother had "invited," as opposed to the mother's right to remove an "intruder."


It seems to me that the status of the fetus as invitee or intruder does not depend on who (the mother or her assailant) terminates the pregnancy. Rather, the status of the fetus as invitee or intruder would depend on the circumstances of conception. (Was the sex consensual; was contraception used?)
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.

Return to Top
#864747 - 12/03/07 02:26 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill rainman
MB Guy Offline
10K Club
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 10,124
Way, way south.
OK, once people age enough to where they lose their independence and cannot stay alive without assistance and they lose their "viability," should we be allowed to exterminate them?

You know, for their and societies' benefit...
_________________________
Giddy up.

Return to Top
#864843 - 12/03/07 04:34 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill rainman
Becka Marr Offline
Power Poster
Becka Marr
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,152
Originally Posted By: rainman
Quote:
This distiction is what I was trying to get at with the case that started this discussion - that the father would be charged with the death of a person that the mother had "invited," as opposed to the mother's right to remove an "intruder."


It seems to me that the status of the fetus as invitee or intruder does not depend on who (the mother or her assailant) terminates the pregnancy. Rather, the status of the fetus as invitee or intruder would depend on the circumstances of conception. (Was the sex consensual; was contraception used?)


I understand that point, but I see the status of "invitee" or "intruder" being directly related to the fact of a woman's body being her own property. If I lock my doors and a person breaks in my window, should I not have the right to remove him? If I invite a person to my property who subsequently poses a threat, should I not have the right to remove him? Do I not also have the choice to welcome a person who comes uninvited?
_________________________
To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. ~Elbert Hubbard

Return to Top
#864868 - 12/03/07 04:52 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Becka Marr
rainman Offline
Power Poster
rainman
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,068
Quote:
I understand that point, but I see the status of "invitee" or "intruder" being directly related to the fact of a woman's body being her own property. If I lock my doors and a person breaks in my window, should I not have the right to remove him? If I invite a person to my property who subsequently poses a threat, should I not have the right to remove him? Do I not also have the choice to welcome a person who comes uninvited?


Of course if someone poses a threat in your home, you have the right to remove them and use force to protect yourself. The difference is that in the case of a pregnancy, the threat is derived from the mere existence of the fetus. In other words, there's no danger to the mother, except that her bodily integrity is compromised. So, IMO, the question goes back to whether she (with a partner of course) is responsible for creating the situation that she now wants to terminate.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.

Return to Top
#864877 - 12/03/07 04:56 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill rainman
Becka Marr Offline
Power Poster
Becka Marr
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,152
Originally Posted By: rainman
In other words, there's no danger to the mother, except that her bodily integrity is compromised.


Is it necessary that the mother's life be in danger for a fetus to pose a threat?
_________________________
To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. ~Elbert Hubbard

Return to Top
#864887 - 12/03/07 05:02 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Becka Marr
rainman Offline
Power Poster
rainman
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,068
If we're assuming for this discussion that a fetus is a "person," the type of threat posed by a person is a consideration in determining whether you can use deadly force against them. In most states (but apparently not Texas), you can use deadly force against someone who threatens you with injury or death, but not necessarily someone who poses a lesser threat. I'm assuming (but it's certainly worthy of discussion) that the mother's interest in controlling her own body for the period of the pregnancy is a lesser interest than her interest in life itself. If we are weighing the mother's protected interest against the child's protected interest (in life itself), it makes some kind of difference if the mother's interest is a privacy/bodily integrity interest vs. an interest in life itself.
_________________________
Nobody's perfect, not even a perfect stranger.

Return to Top
#864897 - 12/03/07 05:11 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill MB Guy
Hated By Some Offline
10K Club
Hated By Some
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,603
Somewhere vanilla
Originally Posted By: MB Guy
OK, once people age enough to where they lose their independence and cannot stay alive without assistance and they lose their "viability," should we be allowed to exterminate them?

You know, for their and societies' benefit...

it's not a 2 way threshhold. the people who've aged already had the opportunity to declare their wishes for end of life.

Return to Top
#864907 - 12/03/07 05:21 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill rainman
Becka Marr Offline
Power Poster
Becka Marr
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,152
Originally Posted By: rainman
If we're assuming for this discussion that a fetus is a "person," the type of threat posed by a person is a consideration in determining whether you can use deadly force against them. In most states (but apparently not Texas), you can use deadly force against someone who threatens you with injury or death, but not necessarily someone who poses a lesser threat.


But, where a lesser threat is posed there is still a right to have the unwanted person removed from your property by other means (chase them away, have them arrested, etc.) So we're back to my earlier question about whether having no alternative but deadly force should negate the right to fend off an intruder.

As to weighing the mother's interests, it was the economic threat that came to mind - consideration not just for whether carrying a fetus might endanger the woman's life, but also her livlihood.
_________________________
To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. ~Elbert Hubbard

Return to Top
#865192 - 12/03/07 09:18 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill TheManofSteel
Blade Scrapper Offline
Power Poster
Blade Scrapper
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
Originally Posted By: The Man of Steel
We, who hold the unborn child's life to be sacred and worthy of the same protections as any other stage of human development, consider the SCOTUS position flawed and based upon bad science.
Not to mention bad law.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home

Return to Top
#865221 - 12/03/07 09:39 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill TheManofSteel
Becka Marr Offline
Power Poster
Becka Marr
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,152
Originally Posted By: The Man of Steel
And now I'll give you food for thought. Unborn Baby is simply part of the mother's body , right? So if the baby's heart is removed, does mom experience the removal of her heart? Does her heart cease functioning? If unborn baby's limb is removed, does mother's nervous system register the removal of her own limb?


Should wouldn't-be mothers resort to suicide as a means of terminating an unwanted pregnancy? In that case, would the fetus be considered responsible for the woman's death?
_________________________
To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. ~Elbert Hubbard

Return to Top
#865267 - 12/03/07 10:13 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Becka Marr
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Becka, please stop. You're pretending that babies just show up in wombs at random. They don't. A woman who doesn't want a child has several specific steps they can take to avoid it, short of an abortion for convenience. One of them is fool-proof.

Return to Top
#865270 - 12/03/07 10:15 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Jokerman
The Incredible ComplyGuy Offline
Power Poster
The Incredible ComplyGuy
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,350
The he11 of suburbia
Originally Posted By: Tom Thumb
...an abortion for convenience...


Seems to me most other birth control is more convenient. I would think a very small percentage of abortions are for "convenience"

Return to Top
#865271 - 12/03/07 10:16 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill The Incredible ComplyGuy
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Actually, a very large percentage are - the overwhelming majority.

Return to Top
#865272 - 12/03/07 10:17 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Jokerman
The Incredible ComplyGuy Offline
Power Poster
The Incredible ComplyGuy
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,350
The he11 of suburbia
Originally Posted By: Tom Thumb
Actually, a very large percentage are - the overwhelming majority.


How do you define "convenience"?

Return to Top
#865282 - 12/03/07 10:27 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill The Incredible ComplyGuy
Blade Scrapper Offline
Power Poster
Blade Scrapper
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
Not medically necessary. An abortion only because the baby is not wanted is one of convenience (self-centeredness, actually), and they are the vast majority.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home

Return to Top
#865285 - 12/03/07 10:28 PM Re: Man Accused Of Slipping Woman Abortion Pill Jokerman
Becka Marr Offline
Power Poster
Becka Marr
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,152
Originally Posted By: Tom Thumb
Becka, please stop. You're pretending that babies just show up in wombs at random. They don't. A woman who doesn't want a child has several specific steps they can take to avoid it, short of an abortion for convenience. One of them is fool-proof.


Tom, please stop. If you think I don't recognize the choice a woman (or man) has to prevent pregnancy, then you're really not paying attention. That was the first thing I pointed to in this thread.
_________________________
To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. ~Elbert Hubbard

Return to Top
Page 4 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 11 12