Liberty News Forum - Political News Forum

	Advanced Search

Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.


	Liberty News Forum - Political News Forum Whoa - and from Kathy Ireland, no less! ;) Supermodel Kathy Ireland Lashes Out Against Pro Choice Some snippets: My entire life I was pro-choice who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldnt do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science," Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book "Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity." "What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there." However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life . "I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesnt even look like a baby. Well, were all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesnt suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time," Ireland argued. "Ive also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didnt want to be pro-life, but this is not a womans rights issue but a human rights issue." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518087,00.html :D :D :D :D


	:) Another example of a model with a brain...and someone that will be blacklisted from every red carpet event in the future.


	MOI predicts this will soon be a new thread in the abortion forum. So Kathy Ireland made HER CHOICE so what?


	Lady_Marva wrote : MOI predicts this will soon be a new thread in the abortion forum. So Kathy Ireland made HER CHOICE so what?


	Lady_Marva wrote : MOI predicts this will soon be a new thread in the abortion forum. So Kathy Ireland made HER CHOICE so what?


	Mythago wrote : Exactly. She made her choice - and now believes she has the right, or the government has the right, to choose for every other woman? Nyet.


	KSU_Aviator wrote : So you are for killing children? How old do they have to be before the parent can't chose to kill them? 1 day? 1 Year? 15 years? How do you justify killing a child (born or unborn)?


	Its a wonderful statement, but the govt shouldn't have the right to say what people should do facing an unwanted pregnancy or worse, a medically bad pregnancy. Who made Kathy Ireland's decision's for her?


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : Its a wonderful statement, but the govt shouldn't have the right to say what people should do facing an unwanted pregnancy or worse, a medically bad pregnancy. Who made Kathy Ireland's decision's for her?


	I'm pro choice, I just side with life 99% of the time. But then, to me all life is precious. I even catch spiders and take them outside and release. But what is funny, the very same people that want to kill an unborn, are the ones arguing against water boarding. Now how screwed up is that?


	Mythago wrote : By the presence or lack of brain waves. No brain waves, no human. No brain waves, then it's nothing but a lump of tissue. Even a corpse in a grave has DNA. But what does it lack that makes it a corpse instead of a human being: brain waves.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : I'm pro choice, I just side with life 99% of the time. But then, to me all life is precious. I even catch spiders and take them outside and release. But what is funny, the very same people that want to kill an unborn, are the ones arguing against water boarding. Now how screwed up is that?


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : Its a wonderful statement, but the govt shouldn't have the right to say what people should do facing an unwanted pregnancy or worse, a medically bad pregnancy. Who made Kathy Ireland's decision's for her?


	Barca wrote : About as much as the anti-choice movement that says they support life when in the womb yet takes every opportunity to kill them off with warfare, the death penalty and opposition to every effort to use embryonic stem cells for life-saving research.


	Some people are walking advertisements for birth control. ;)


	KSU_Aviator wrote : And why should a woman have the right to determine a child's fate just because she is less than thrilled with the pregnancy?


	Militant flowr child TigerDak wrote : Some people are walking advertisements for POST birth control. ;)


	TheFirstRule wrote : Whoa - and from Kathy Ireland, no less! ;) Supermodel Kathy Ireland Lashes Out Against Pro Choice Some snippets: My entire life I was pro-choice who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldnt do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science," Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book "Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity." "What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there." However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life . "I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesnt even look like a baby. Well, were all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesnt suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time," Ireland argued. "Ive also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didnt want to be pro-life, but this is not a womans rights issue but a human rights issue." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518087,00.html :D :D :D :D


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : I'm pro choice, I just side with life 99% of the time.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Yet you are against war, water boarding and the death penalty. It may be time to do a little soul searching.


	Mythago wrote : Did anyone say "want" to kill? All that's being said is that it's the right and the decision of each individual woman to decide whether or not she wishes to take a pregnancy to term. What I "want" is for people to allow women the dignity of making their own choices in matters that are directly affecting their own lives.


	Mythago wrote : That's an admirable choice. So do I. And I catch bees and wasps in wadded toilet paper, unharmed, and release them outside as well, even though my wife is allergic to their stings. Did anyone say "want" to kill? All that's being said is that it's the right and the decision of each individual woman to decide whether or not she wishes to take a pregnancy to term. What I "want" is for people to allow women the dignity of making their own choices in matters that are directly affecting their own lives.


	Mythago wrote : That's an admirable choice. So do I. And I catch bees and wasps in wadded toilet paper, unharmed, and release them outside as well, even though my wife is allergic to their stings. Did anyone say "want" to kill? All that's being said is that it's the right and the decision of each individual woman to decide whether or not she wishes to take a pregnancy to term. What I "want" is for people to allow women the dignity of making their own choices in matters that are directly affecting their own lives.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : When a man has a say in the life of his unborn child, then we can talk.


	KSU_Aviator wrote : And why should a woman have the right to determine a fetus's fate just because she is less than thrilled with the pregnancy?


	Mythago wrote : Yes.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Murder is murder, the victim should always have a voice. Yet these libs always tout Civil Rights. What a bunch of hypocrites!


	Mythago wrote : A minute ago you said you were pro-choice. Now you call abortion "murder." What a hypocrite.


	Dan X wrote : You have been here for 53 posts, yet you feel capable of judging Solar in such a personal way. Hmmmm.


	Vas dis? Bert the Gaywad... Wrote : 53 posts this time around...


	Mythago wrote : A minute ago you said you were pro-choice. Now you call abortion "murder." What a hypocrite.


	Vas dis? Bert the Gaywad... Wrote : 53 posts this time around...


	Vas dis? Bert the Gaywad... Wrote : Good luck with that


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Silly lib, I said I side with life 99% of the time.


	The things stated by Kathy Ireland are true. This is because the determination for these things are contained in sperm and eggs to begin with. This, BTW, is the argument made against masturbation and birth control (including condoms). For example, since sperm contains the gender determination, every wasted sperm is murder - so goes the argument. Unless you are in favor of banning masturbation and condoms (or the rhythm method for that matter), this is not a viable, sensible argument against abortion. Banning abortion doesn't work - people seek out illegal abortions anyway. The only proven way to reduce abortion (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/fact-v-fiction/restricting-access-is-the-best-way-to-reduce-abortions) is comprehensive reproductive education and access to birth control. If the goal is to reduce abortions hopefully only to the level where it's medically necessary (which is my goal) then the only effective way to do it is to fully educate and have complete and easy access to birth control.


	KSU_Aviator wrote : The difference between a corpse and an embryo is the ability to sustain life.


	Dan X wrote : You have been here for 53 posts, yet you feel capable of judging Solar in such a personal way. Hmmmm.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Silly lib, I said I side with life 99% of the time.


	Mythago wrote : Bringing up the question of viability. No embryo or fetus can sustain its own life until at least after 22 weeks of pregnancy. Up to that point it is literally a parasite that sustains it's existence by feeding off its host - its mother.


	Mythago wrote : How much more of a dichotomy do you want? One one hand he says he's pro-choice; On the other hand he calls abortion murder. The two positions don't mesh together.


	Mythago wrote : How is the same act "murder" 99% of the time and not the remaining 1%?


	Dan X wrote : Using that logic, why not let babies starve if they aren't old enough to go work and earn their own money to buy food. Heck, I have a 32 year old cousin who wouldn't be considered viable under this definition. ;D


	Mythago wrote : Birth is the drawn line.


	Mythago wrote : The answer is the woman's desire, of course.


	Nom_de_plume wrote : The things stated by Kathy Ireland are true. This is because the determination for these things are contained in sperm and eggs to begin with. This, BTW, is the argument made against masturbation and birth control (including condoms). For example, since sperm contains the gender determination, every wasted sperm is murder - so goes the argument. Unless you are in favor of banning masturbation and condoms (or the rhythm method for that matter), this is not a viable, sensible argument against abortion.


	[Quote: author=Simkin78 link=1240848295/36#44 date=1240852864]All that being said, who here is in favor of giving men the choice to be released from financial responsibility if they don't want the inconvenience by the creation of a child?[Quote: ] I'm not. Besides, the financial consequence would just fall on the taxpayers anyway. But I do not like a situation where a woman has a choice and a man has no say at all. He just has the financial responsibility to pay if she decides to have the child.


	Mythago wrote : Bringing up the question of viability. No embryo or fetus can sustain its own life until at least after 22 weeks of pregnancy. Up to that point it is literally a parasite that sustains it's existence by feeding off its host - its mother. How good a chance? It has been estimated that between a third to half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion - miscarriage . Many if not most of those pregnancies miscarry even before the woman is aware she's pregnant. I suppose a person could say a 66% chance of living to birth is pretty good odds. But would you have an operation that had a 34% chance of killing you unless your only other choice was a 100% chance of imminent death without the operation? Because every woman has the right to do with her body as she sees fit.


	Dan X wrote : If you are pro death penalty or pro war, then you sanction murder under certain circumstances that you feel justify taking another life.


	Dan X wrote : Not always. People have been convicted of double murders for killing a woman in the later stages of a pregnancy.


	KSU_Aviator wrote : And why should a woman have the right to determine a child's fate just because she is less than thrilled with the pregnancy?


	Mythago wrote : That is state law, not federal. It's also gilding the lily: obviously someone who kills a pregnant woman is taking away her choice whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.


	Simkin78 wrote : All that being said, who here is in favor of giving men the choice to be released from financial responsibility if they don't want the inconvenience by the creation of a child?


	Mythago wrote : Abortion is never a "good" choice in my personal opinion, except for the reason you give above. But that is simply my opinion. And my opinion - and society's opinion! - is insufficient to dictate to any woman what she must do regarding choices she makes involving her body.


	Lady_Marva wrote : MOI. I believe women should be able to stand on their own two feet, including supporting children, before they have children. I do not believe men are very reliable when it comes to supporting either out-of-wedlock chiuldren or the children of a divorced ex.


	Lady_Marva wrote : MOI. I believe women should be able to stand on their own two feet, including supporting children, before they have children. I do not believe men are very reliable when it comes to supporting either out-of-wedlock chiuldren or the children of a divorced ex.


	Cclezel the barbarian wrote : Hate to inform you but I have seen some really fked up women who had kids. As much as you would like to catigate the entire male population I can find plenty of horror stories of abusive, so called mothers. Your perspective is a tad bit tainted my dear manhating friend.


	Dan X wrote : I'm not. Besides, the financial consequence would just fall on the taxpayers anyway. But I do not like a situation where a woman has a choice and a man has no say at all. He just has the financial responsibility to pay if she decides to have the child.


	Lady_Marva wrote : MOI. I believe women should be able to stand on their own two feet, including supporting children, before they have children. I do not believe men are very reliable when it comes to supporting either out-of-wedlock chiuldren or the children of a divorced ex.


	Cclezel the barbarian wrote : Hate to inform you but I have seen some really fked up women who had kids. As much as you would like to catigate the entire male population I can find plenty of horror stories of abusive, so called mothers. Your perspective is a tad bit tainted my dear manhating friend.


	Mojo-Jojo wrote : Ideally, a relationship that creates a new life will be a long term one where both parents want to keep the child and raise it as best they can. But, here in the real world that isn't always the case. If a girl gets knocked up and she wants to keep the baby while the father wants nothing to do with it, he should be able to do so. Not fair but ultimately, it's the woman's choice to keep or abort the fetus. If she choses to keep it, then it's her responsibility to provide for it. If they both agree to keep it, then he too is bound. In the end it's her choice though.


	Dan X wrote : Statistics don't disagree with you on this point although I think plenty of women are poor parents too and shirk their responsibilities as well.


	Simkin78 wrote : I don't think that's a fair way to assess it. If the woman has the choice to kill or keep the child and chooses to keep him/ her, then the financial responsibility should be on her to raise that child if the man wants no part in it. He should be able to legally divest himself of the situation in a manner that is on par with the woman. Since he cannot make her have an abortion, there should be another option. After all, it's her choice.


	Dan X wrote : The problem with your logic is that it gets dumped on me the taxpayer. And I wasn't given a voice in the pregnancy etiher. At least you got a fun night out of it. I get nothing. And now you want me to pay for it. Yeah, that seems really fair. ::)


	Dan X wrote : The problem with your logic is that it gets dumped on me the taxpayer. And I wasn't given a voice in the pregnancy etiher. At least you got a fun night out of it. I get nothing. And now you want me to pay for it. Yeah, that seems really fair. ::)


	Barca wrote : About as much as the anti-choice movement that says they support life when in the womb yet takes every opportunity to kill them off with warfare, the death penalty and opposition to every effort to use embryonic stem cells for life-saving research.


	Lady_Marva wrote : Yeah they do. Which is why state collection agenices exist.


	Lady_Marva wrote : Yeah they do. Which is why state collection agenices exist.


	Lady_Marva wrote : MOI. I believe women should be able to stand on their own two feet, including supporting children, before they have children.


	Cclezel the barbarian wrote : I caught a woman who left her kid in the car in nearly 100 degree weather. The child was bawling herself into a near coma. When the mother rushed out she took her shoe off and beat the crap out of her until we yelled at her. That was not a man, that was a woman beating the shit out of a little innocent girl who was burning up in a car.


	Mojo-Jojo wrote : Yup. Tax dollars go to all kinds of things we, as individuals, disagree with. Find yourself a nice island. ;) :P


	Lady_Marva wrote : So then you agree abortion is a much better option than to making you pay without the fun.


	Mythago wrote : Exactly. She made her choice - and now believes she has the right, or the government has the right, to choose for every other woman? Nyet.


	Mojo-Jojo wrote : Your anecdote < Statistical facts.


	Cclezel the barbarian wrote : I caught a woman who left her kid in the car in nearly 100 degree weather. The child was bawling herself into a near coma. When the mother rushed out she took her shoe off and beat the crap out of her until we yelled at her. That was not a man, that was a woman beating the shit out of a little innocent girl who was burning up in a car. So should I assume all women are like this one?


	Simkin78 wrote : Agreed. I can see your point, and not because I think men don't want to or care to support their children but because the system is stacked against them. It's fine to want the man to pay child support but in order for that to happen the man has to be able to work, live and eat as well. As an example, I have a friend who's wife divorced him and the courts are taking 3/4 of his take home pay each month to support the children and his ex, who STILL isn't working. He's forced to try and exist on $500 a month while the ex sits around playing on the internet all day. She not only gets a $700 check each month but also has her utilities, housing and food provided by the state. What does he get? $500 a month to try and eek out his own existence. It's a good thing he's a devoted father or I bet he would've bailed by now. So tell me, in a broken system like that how can you expect him to "man up" for the next 13 years and how is that a "fair and equitable" situation?


	Dan X wrote : If the woman would be asked to support the child on her own, then I agree with you. But the host of liberal programs out there ensure that I, the taxpayer, will be the involuntary sugardaddy that pays for her choices.


	Dan X wrote : What is a fit punishment for such a woman? I say we rip her lower jaw off and pour battery acid down her throat until she is dead. ;)


	Lady_Marva wrote : In my world this wouldn't happen. The woman would support herself and her kids period. A nice clean break. Nobody argues over child support. Course there be less children being born then, too.


	Nom_de_plume wrote : The things stated by Kathy Ireland are true. This is because the determination for these things are contained in sperm and eggs to begin with. This, BTW, is the argument made against masturbation and birth control (including condoms). For example, since sperm contains the gender determination, every wasted sperm is murder - so goes the argument. Unless you are in favor of banning masturbation and condoms (or the rhythm method for that matter), this is not a viable, sensible argument against abortion. Banning abortion doesn't work - people seek out illegal abortions anyway. The only proven way to reduce abortion (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/fact-v-fiction/restricting-access-is-the-best-way-to-reduce-abortions) is comprehensive reproductive education and access to birth control. If the goal is to reduce abortions hopefully only to the level where it's medically necessary (which is my goal) then the only effective way to do it is to fully educate and have complete and easy access to birth control.


	Dan X wrote : So you when you knock a girl up, it isn't your responsibility. You shirk it. You dump it on others and then make a smug comment like this. Classy move Mojo. I say we garnish the crap out of your wages till the kid is 18 and throw you in prison if you try to shirk. ;)


	Simkin78 wrote : Fact: In situations like that, you're gonna pay for it anyway. The man typically cannot sustain child support and provide any sort of life for himself. In some cases, the man goes to prison for non-payment of child support because he lost his job and is living on the street. So then taxpayers are stuck paying for housing, food and cash for the woman PLUS the prison stay for the man which he's sure to repeat. It's a broken system that simply costs us more money.


	Mythago wrote : Bringing up the question of viability. No embryo or fetus can sustain its own life until at least after 22 weeks of pregnancy. Up to that point it is literally a parasite that sustains it's existence by feeding off its host - its mother.


	Dan X wrote : No. I never said that and please do not put words in my mouth when the subject is something as repulsive as the murder of innocent babies.


	Mojo-Jojo wrote : Whatever are you going on about ? If a woman wants to keep or abort her preganancy then it's her choice. Every other claim falls after that. If Tom and Sally have unprotected sex and Sally ends up pregnant she can... a.) Keep the baby. b.) Abort it. Tom's choices are... a.) Support Sally's decision. b.) Not support her decision. Her body, her baby. Doesn't matter what his attributes are.


	Mythago wrote : Because every woman has the right to do with her body as she sees fit.


	Dan X wrote : I've known 15 year old men and 50 year old boys. It's not about age. It's about taking responsibility for your actions. Maybe someday you will understand that. Maybe not.


	Lady_Marva wrote : MOI just laughs at what you do and don't want. What exactly do you propose take the place of the programs you don't want to pay for and at the same time force a woman to have a kid?


	Dan X wrote : If you are pro death penalty or pro war, then you sanction murder under certain circumstances that you feel justify taking another life.


	Mojo-Jojo wrote : Doesn't matter. Her body, her baby. That's not to say I condone irresponsible behaviour, just that it's her choice and nobody elses.


	Mythago wrote : The answer is the woman's desire, of course. Quite a lot of babies have been starved by their mothers. But once they're born, by legal definition, they are independent beings aside from their dependency on others for care. Birth is the drawn line. After birth the woman's desire to retroactively end a "pregnancy" becomes tangled with the expectations of law. Prior to birth the woman's desire to end a pregnancy is her own choice.


	TheFirstRule wrote : Improper use of the word murder. War is not murder, and murderers, along with some other grevious crimes such as child molestors, give up their right to life. Murder is the taking of someones right to life, a right they can no longer claim (although society can grant it back to them).


	Dan X wrote : Not at all. If you can father a child, then you can pay for a child. Or you can be some dude's girlfriend in prison. Your choice.


	Mojo-Jojo wrote : Doesn't matter. The child's body, her baby.


	Mojo-Jojo wrote : I'll pass, thanks.


	Simkin78 wrote : All that being said, who here is in favor of giving men the choice to be released from financial responsibility if they don't want the inconvenience by the creation of a child?


	Another option would be the involuntary sterilization of all deadbeat dads.


	TheFirstRule wrote : I think that as long as a woman can terminate her responsibility for her actions, so should a man - inside the same window of discovery, of course - i.e. 2-3 months after being notified - and he should be able to terminate financial responsibility for his actions as well.


	Dan X wrote : 1. If we had stronger enforcement then more men would find a way. 2. If we had stronger enforecement then fewer men would get into this situation. 3. If we turned prisons into work camps, then they wouldn't cost the taxpayers so much. 4. Grabbing our ankles and begging the wrongdoers to be gentle isn't the only alternative. Sometimes being hard with a jerk works out well too. ;)


	Dan X wrote : Another option would be the involuntary sterilization of all deadbeat dads.


	Simkin78 wrote : You assume that enforcement is the primary problem, but I don't think that's the case. The problem is in the old world assumption that a man should just have to struggle through anything to make sure his kids and ex are provided for. Why are nonworking woman allowed to have primary residence custody? Why are mothers not required to find work in order to support herself and her children? (Many do anyway but not all) Why is the woman's income not considered when assessing child support payments from the man? Why, when a woman remarries, is her new husbands income not taken into consideration when assessing child support payments? Why is it that when a man files for divorce he's ordered to pay spousal maintenance and child support but when a woman files for divorce the man is ordered to pay child support and spousal maintenance? These are just a few of the questions and problems plaguing the system. Are there deadbeat jerks out there? You bet! But there are also many other issues that are directly causing many of the problems were seeing, and simple enforcement won't fix them.


	Dan X wrote : 1. That just dumps it on the taxpayer.


	Simkin78 wrote : Fine by me if we also sterilize any woman getting an abortion (exemptions for rape and life reasons).


	Simkin78 wrote : It will anyway as I've pointed out.


	Mythago wrote : That is state law, not federal. It's also gilding the lily: obviously someone who kills a pregnant woman is taking away her choice whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.


	Dan X wrote : 1. Enforcement is an issue. I have plenty of single moms working for me and several have trouble getting child support even when the amounts are relatively small. What you say about enforcement not being an issue is just wrong.


	Simkin78 wrote : I didn't say it wasn't an issue, I said it wasn't the primary issue. Like I said, there are just simply deadbeats out there who are never gonna pay no matter what. Putting them in prison will only compound the burden on taxpayers. I do like your sterilization idea though.


	Dan X wrote : I don't buy your explanation as I pointed out. ;)


	Simkin78 wrote : And in my world no woman would ever murder her child. We're dealing with reality however, so what should be done?


	Simkin78 wrote : I agree completely. However why should the system be geared one way for men and another for women? 100 years ago that made sense, today not so much.


	Simkin78 wrote : Actually I was talking generically about choices. Specifically sex, parenthood, the inequity of "choice" between men and women and the inequity of law in it's application and enforcement of responsibility. My apologies if it seemed like I was being too narrow. I know I missed a few of your posts, you may have missed some of mine as well.


	Mythago wrote : Bringing up the question of viability. No embryo or fetus can sustain its own life until at least after 22 weeks of pregnancy. Up to that point it is literally a parasite that sustains it's existence by feeding off its host - its mother. How good a chance? It has been estimated that between a third to half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion - miscarriage . Many if not most of those pregnancies miscarry even before the woman is aware she's pregnant. I suppose a person could say a 66% chance of living to birth is pretty good odds. But would you have an operation that had a 34% chance of killing you unless your only other choice was a 100% chance of imminent death without the operation? Because every woman has the right to do with her body as she sees fit.


	Dan X wrote : 1. That just dumps it on the taxpayer. 2. Two wrongs don't make a right. 3. Whatever happened to personal responsibility being part of our definition of manhood?


	Lady_Marva wrote : Something like a rental agreement. Not "child support" as usually court-ordered but something more like "pay for play". As in, if a man's income is $50,000 per year, that's $24/hour. So if he wants time with a kid, then he has to pay maybe $15/ hour for that time. So basically the non-custodial parent buys as much or as little kid face-time as desired.


	Dan X wrote : So taking away a woman's "right to chose" in your mind is on par with murder?


	TheFirstRule wrote : That all depends on the wrongs, and the right.... However, responsibility should be on the womanhood just the same - I am merely discussing equal rights here. (Not saying that men should abrogate their rights - just pointing out the hipocracy of the current system - but if this were to become law, I bet you the rate of unwanted pregnancy would PLUMMET as women decide, hmm, abstinance DOES work...)


	Dan X wrote : But it isn't just her body at some point. At some point she is sharing it with the life she helped create. How can you stop a heartbeat without calling it murder?


	Mythago wrote : lol. Do you think you're clever or something? When a woman is killed by another person, she loses all right and ability to choose anything after she's killed. Removing her right to choose abortion legislatively affects no other choice she might legally make. If you can't figure out the glaring difference between those two states, then you're mighty dumb.


	Mythago wrote : Because the Supreme Court has ruled it can be done. How do you not call executing a criminal "murder" by your general argument? The devil is in the details.


	Dan X wrote : The only way I would consider an opt out option for the man is if he consented to an irreversible form of sterilization. Otherwise we are going to just keep paying for the kids this irresponsible bastard brings into the world.


	TheFirstRule wrote : That is the weakest argument there is on the anti-life side. No BABY can survive outside the womb until, what, 5 years? 8? Older, depending on the education?


	Lady_Marva wrote : Why not just encourage women to have an abortion so you won't have to pay for the kid or the man in jail or have to pay for his sterilization? Takes care of the whole problem.


	Dan X wrote : No. I am trying to understand your earlier statements that were disjointed and confusing you arrogant little prick. Ricky? Is that you? ::)


	Mythago wrote : Yet it's a valid argument, despite its apparent weakness. A weak argument is not always an invalid one, just weaker than others.


	Mythago wrote : Yet it's a valid argument, despite its apparent weakness. A weak argument is not always an invalid one, just weaker than others.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Did you really have to ask? Just start a gay thread, he will be the first to post.


	Lady_Marva wrote : Why not just encourage women to have an abortion so you won't have to pay for the kid or the man in jail or have to pay for his sterilization? Takes care of the whole problem.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : As a feminist that screams for equal rights, wouldn't it be better if the man had a say in whether the baby lives or dies?


	Dan X wrote : Glad you like the sterilization idea. At a minimum it reduces the number of repeat offenders.


	Dan X wrote : Was Ricky really one of the original Village People? :D


	Simkin78 wrote : The man should have financial obligations, but in my opinion so should the woman. If he's paying more than 50% of his income to support the child he should have primary residence custody. Same with a woman.


	Dan X wrote : Because abortion is murder. And I find your bloodthirsty enthusiasm for killing innocent, defenseless unborn babies to be ghoulish.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : No, it was because of him they got the idea from all of his costumes at a gay pride parade. Hence, the christening of the group.


	TheFirstRule wrote : Really, can she sell her organs to the highest bidder?


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : As a feminist that screams for equal rights, wouldn't it be better if the man had a say in whether the baby lives or dies?


	Lady_Marva wrote : So which is it you want to pay for? And I find your power-hungry enthusiasm for forcing women to have babies you don't want to pay for to be as expected.


	TheFirstRule wrote : So, that which defines when an embryo becomes human is the want of the mother? That is without any reasoned thought whatsoever...


	Dan X wrote : Blah, blah, blah. You are woman, hear you roar. If you, as a woman, drink and drive and kill someone, then you should be responsible for your actions. Also if you, as a woman, have sex with some random guy and get pregnant and it's inconvenient, then you still don't have a right to stop a heartbeat because you don't want to take responsibility for your actions. This isn't about getting power over your body. It's about protecting the life you have created. I know this may be really hard for you to understand Lady Marva, but it really isn't about you anymore. It's about the baby.


	Lady_Marva wrote : How much are you willing to pay to have that say? Oh, just FYI, if an embryo - which has no heartbeat- is aborted, there will be no say from male or female in a baby living or dying. There will be NO baby.


	Lady_Marva wrote : There is no heartbeat from an embryo.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : If the woman is willing to kill a child, then she should lose the right to parenthood altogether!


	Mythago wrote : And it's not what I said. (Why do anti-choice people always distort and tell lies about the things their opponents say? One would think the constant exposure of such deliberate calumny would not only shame them into being honest eventually, but also cause them to realize how weak their arguments inevitably are unless they "embellish" them.)


	TheFirstRule wrote : Wow, talk about splitting hairs... As to not being Federal Law, you are, again, mistaken. That is becoming quite a string of those... http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.html http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00063


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : How much am willing to pay? How about Full custody? If the woman is willing to kill a child, then she should lose the right to parenthood altogether! Your second argument is moot, if the baby dies of natural causes, so be it, that is the law of nature.


	Dan X wrote : So at what point of the pregnancy do you consider the abortion to be wrong and why?


	Lady_Marva wrote : There will be no custody if there is no child.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : So if your girlfriend got pregnant and you wanted to keep the child, you would still think she has every right to murder?


	Dan X wrote : No. I am trying to understand your earlier statements that were disjointed and confusing you arrogant little prick. Ricky? Is that you? ::)


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Which is my argument. If the man wants the child, then why not let him have it?


	Lady_Marva wrote : I don't make medical decisions for other people. The people INVOLVED make the decisions.


	Mythago wrote : nope. I'd think she has every right to abort the pregnancy. It's her body. For me the issue is just exactly that cut-and-dried.


	Mythago wrote : nope. I'd think she has every right to abort the pregnancy. It's her body. For me the issue is just exactly that cut-and-dried.


	Vas dis? Bert the Gaywad... Wrote : Because the man is not important...until it comes to money. "It's your child too! You have to give me child support"


	Vas dis? Bert the Gaywad... Wrote : Because the man is not important...until it comes to money. "It's your child too! You have to give me child support"


	Mythago wrote : You'll have to show me where my statements have been "disjointed and confusing." I know I've been extremely consistent.


	Dan X wrote : The supreme court also used to say blacks were only 3/5 of a person. Is that OK with you too? As for me, I don't look at the supreme court as the authority that defines right and wrong. Just legal and illegal.


	Lady_Marva wrote : I don't make medical decisions for other people. The people INVOLVED make the decisions.


	Mythago wrote : Now, regarding "okay": should the Supreme Court at some point rule to overturn Roe v. Wade and uphold the recriminalization of abortion, I'll consider the decision wrongheaded but I'll also accept the authority of the Court to make it.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Don't ya just luv Feminazis?


	Mojo-Jojo wrote : Zackly. IMO, if she chooses to keep it, then the male's choice kicks in. He can accept the responsibility of providing or he can leave. Either choice has legal consequences.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Don't ya just luv Feminazis?


	Simkin78 wrote : A sperm cannot produce a human life on it's own, neither can an unfertilized egg. As a result, neither are murder and the destruction of the two after they have combined is. So the argument stands.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : I'm pro choice, I just side with life 99% of the time. But then, to me all life is precious. I even catch spiders and take them outside and release. But what is funny, the very same people that want to kill an unborn, are the ones arguing against water boarding. Now how screwed up is that?


	TheFirstRule wrote : No, it is not valid to anyone who uses reason to express their beliefs.


	Vas dis? Bert the Gaywad... Wrote : Because the man is not important...until it comes to money. "It's your child too! You have to give me child support"


	Nom_de_plume wrote : The things stated by Kathy Ireland are true. This is because the determination for these things are contained in sperm and eggs to begin with. This, BTW, is the argument made against masturbation and birth control (including condoms). For example, since sperm contains the gender determination, every wasted sperm is murder - so goes the argument. Unless you are in favor of banning masturbation and condoms (or the rhythm method for that matter), this is not a viable, sensible argument against abortion. Banning abortion doesn't work - people seek out illegal abortions anyway. The only proven way to reduce abortion (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/fact-v-fiction/restricting-access-is-the-best-way-to-reduce-abortions) is comprehensive reproductive education and access to birth control. If the goal is to reduce abortions hopefully only to the level where it's medically necessary (which is my goal) then the only effective way to do it is to fully educate and have complete and easy access to birth control.


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : I also argue agains the death penalty and unnecessary wars....something most conservatives argue FOR, so I would say, most of us have our priorities messed up when it comes to this issue.


	Simkin78 wrote : Then you're basically saying that convictions that have taken place because a person caused the death of an unborn child less than 22 weeks old should have thoseconvictions overturned. Is that more accurate?


	Dan X wrote : You just want to dump the burden of your responsibility onto the taxpayers. Typical liberal position. ::)


	Nom_de_plume wrote : Leave it to conservos to legislate that pregnant women have no choice but to raise a child and then cry into their corn flakes about having to financially support the child.


	Nom_de_plume wrote : Leave it to conservos to legislate that pregnant women have no choice but to raise a child and then cry into their corn flakes about having to financially support the child.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Remember those words when you grandchild is cut from the womb.


	Mythago wrote : With gratitude. I revere liberty above life.


	Dan X wrote : But you don't consider the courts to be wrong headed. You like it when people murder defenseless babies you ghoulish SOB. ::)


	Simkin78 wrote : Agreed. I can see your point, and not because I think men don't want to or care to support their children but because the system is stacked against them. It's fine to want the man to pay child support but in order for that to happen the man has to be able to work, live and eat as well. As an example, I have a friend who's wife divorced him and the courts are taking 3/4 of his take home pay each month to support the children and his ex, who STILL isn't working. He's forced to try and exist on $500 a month while the ex sits around playing on the internet all day. She not only gets a $700 check each month but also has her utilities, housing and food provided by the state. What does he get? $500 a month to try and eek out his own existence. It's a good thing he's a devoted father or I bet he would've bailed by now. So tell me, in a broken system like that how can you expect him to "man up" for the next 13 years and how is that a "fair and equitable" situation?


	Simkin78 wrote : Then tell me, if there's no detriment to the health of the woman and the child if left alone will be carried to term then would abortion, in your opinion, be a medically appropriate option?


	Nom_de_plume wrote : I agree. However, the argument made in the article posted in the OP is that because there is gender, blood type, and DNA that abortion should be banned. This is a poor argument for banning abortion because those things exist in sperm and eggs. If you were to make the argument that you should not destroy the makings of gender, blood type, DNA, etc. Then you should argue to ban masturbation and all forms of birth control.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Without Life, Liberty is just a joke, like you!


	Dan X wrote : We never said she had to raise the child. She can always choose to give it up for adoption.


	Lady_Marva wrote : There is never any guarantee that a fetus will be carried to term. If the people involved consider abortion to be an option, then for them it would be medically appropriate.


	[Quote: author=Simkin78 link=1240848295/96#97 date=1240855651] You assume that enforcement is the primary problem, but I don't think that's the case. The problem is in the old world assumption that a man should just have to struggle through anything to make sure his kids and ex are provided for. Why are nonworking woman allowed to have primary residence custody? Why are mothers not required to find work in order to support herself and her children? (Many do anyway but not all) Why is the woman's income not considered when assessing child support payments from the man? Why, when a woman remarries, is her new husbands income not taken into consideration when assessing child support payments? Why is it that when a man files for divorce he's ordered to pay spousal maintenance and child support but when a woman files for divorce the man is ordered to pay child support and spousal maintenance? These are just a few of the questions and problems plaguing the system. Are there deadbeat jerks out there? You bet! But there are also many other issues that are directly causing many of the problems were seeing, and simple enforcement won't fix them. [/quot] The new father isn't responsible for the kids and the court doesn't want to redo the child support with every new character that waltzes in and out of the kid's life, like the father's new wife? And the mother's income is attributed to her. The house is given to her usually for continuity, not to beat up the father.


	Simkin78 wrote : the more I hear that argument the more I think a healthy woman should be forced to carry a child to term . If I thought it had ANY chance of success and if it wasn't so opposite of my belief in human freedom, I would advocate it.


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : Her child support was figured with her working. His child support is unaffected, believe it or not. It just doesn't "feel" right.


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : The new father isn't responsible for the kids and the court doesn't want to redo the child support with every new character that waltzes in and out of the kid's life, like the father's new wife?


	Mythago wrote : Without liberty life is slavery. I would rather be dead than live as a slave. But it's illustrative of conservative mentality that you wouldn't: conservatives have always bent their knee to authority in the hope they might one day force others to bend knee to them.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Little ricky, your dance is getting really old! Seven little words still apply, even to the unborn, despite what the USSC states. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!


	Lady_Marva wrote : Be a pretty tough deal to enforce never mind how expensive it would be to lock up all the pregnant women in the country


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Little ricky, your dance is getting really old! Seven little words still apply, even to the unborn, despite what the USSC states. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!


	Bert of the Rabbit Right... Wrote : Notice what word comes first...


	Simkin78 wrote : I gathered from the article what I said. All of those codes are in each part (semen & egg) but they are not ALL present until the two join. That's the difference between masturbation, birth control and abortion.


	Mythago wrote : The unborn aren't citizens, and therefore have no rights under the constitution or the law. Only the mother has rights; And if rights are extended to a fetus because the mother has been killed or injured by someone else, it's her right not to be interferred with that lays the foundation for any right extended to the fetus.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Yes, that is the point the dumb shit seems to miss.


	Mythago wrote : No citizenship, no constitutionally guaranteed right to life. Period.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Is the unborn a life? Is it not growing? Again, Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!


	Simkin78 wrote : Hypothetical situation. There is a 150% guarantee of the child's survival. Does your answer remain the same?


	Simkin78 wrote : Hypothetical situation. There is a 150% guarantee of the child's survival. Does your answer remain the same?


	Mythago wrote : Snowflakes grow. Crystals grow. Mountain ranges grow. Clouds grow. And they all have the same constitutional rights as a fetus: Zero.


	Simkin78 wrote : Sorry I'm trying to pin down your meaning here. It's the internet so I can't draw meaning. Could you clarify here please? Thanks. :)


	Mythago wrote : Without liberty life is slavery. I would rather be dead than live as a slave.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : So you don't believe in the Constitution? You can dance all you want son, but Life is the first word!


	Simkin78 wrote : Of course it would. My statement was meant to blow off steam on a very difficult issue. Despite how calm I can normally remain, abortion is just one discussion that pushes my buttons bad. Still, once I pick it up I can't seem to put it back down! ;D


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : So what do you call this new dance of yours, "Grasping At Straws"?


	Simkin78 wrote : And yet by marrying him, the new wife takes the burden on as well as does the mothers new husband. It's a game changer and should require them to renegotiate the terms. So you don't see the inequity here at all then?


	Lady_Marva wrote : Yes, It is NOT my business to make medical - or any other kind for that matter- of decisions for other people.


	Simkin78 wrote : And by your logic, every unborn child is a slave to the woman. Therefore every child should want to be set free in death. You make a grand show of standing up for liberty while ignoring the fact the woman took her liberties (in most cases) and through her choices became pregnant.


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : Yes. Even if she wasn't working, the Court assigned her a mythical job at minimum wage at 40 hours. So, unless she got a job making more than that, his child support won't change.


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : Can you guarantee the health of the mother? Can you guarantee that the mother's life will work out okay does she have a roof over her head? A job? What about her education (that conservatives don't want to pay for) As far as being responsible....I have two friends that got pregnant on birth control. Luckily, I never did, but they did. Both responsible individuals. What about those few folks that are unlucky but tried?


	Simkin78 wrote : And by your logic, every unborn child is a slave to the woman. Therefore every child should want to be set free in death.


	Mythago wrote : Simply showing that growth doesn't equal life. Neither does the state of unviability.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Mold is life too, but it isn't human! Assuming you mean inviability, are you saying until its born, it isn't viable?. You really are dancing.


	Nom_de_plume wrote : Immaculate conception?


	Cclezel the barbarian wrote : Funny, where in the Constitution does it say it's a right to receive education paid for by taxpayers?


	Mythago wrote : Prior to 22 weeks at the very earliest no fetus can survive outside its mother's body. It's physiologically impossible: the interior of its lungs are fused at that age, so it can't breathe on its own; No medical procedure can help it breathe on its own because it has nonfunctional lungs . You do understand what nonfunctional means, don't you? So prior to lung functionality every fetus is nonviable: it CANNOT survive outside the womb, and nothing medicine can do can change that. How can something that CANNOT live on its own be called anything but tissue? It hasn't even reached the viability level of a bacterium!


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Son. Give it up, you are way out of your area of expertise, isn't there a gay thread running somewhere? Viable: Capable of life or normal growth and development. That is the Dictionary version of the word. Abortion is the tool used to end "VIABLE LIFE!!!"


	Simkin78 wrote : Interesting. Then how do you suppose the court came to the conclusion that 75% of his income was needed to support his 2 kids? $1,500 is an awful lot of money and for years I supported my wife, our 4 kids and myself on less. Assuming a 40 hour a week job at Fed minimum ($7.25) that's $2,500 take home for her, $500 for him. Does that seem fair to you?


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Son. Give it up, you are way out of your area of expertise, isn't there a gay thread running somewhere? Viable: Capable of life or normal growth and development. That is the Dictionary version of the word. Abortion is the tool used to end "VIABLE LIFE!!!"


	Cclezel the barbarian wrote : Funny, where in the Constitution does it say it's a right to receive education paid for by taxpayers?


	I am not sure where in the argument you guys are, I would just like to point out that I can sneeze in a tissue and it will have the blueprint of everything she just described. Abortion was never an option for myself or my fiancee, however that is the choice we made for ourselves. I don't think others have the right to dictate that to another couple or woman.


	Mythago wrote : For a question of biomedicine you choose the dictionary definition of viability over the biomedical definition. You're an idiot.


	Lady_Marva wrote : A 22-week fetus outside of the womb is not capable of life or normal growth or development.


	Mythago wrote : Nonsense. Perhaps you'd do better with your arguments if you stop trying to misrepresent what other people say. First, you're assuming what "every child" wants. Second, you plainly don't even realize that the way you cast the argument supports what I said myself: I wouldn't WANT to live as a slave. Do you see? It's a personal choice that every person is at liberty to make for himself. If a child decides that he doesn't WANT to live as a "slave" to his parents (and how many times have we parents heard that from our kids??), then let him step the hell in front of an oncoming train. It's his choice! Third, IT'S A CHOICE NO FETUS CAN MAKE: especially one that's not viable, especially one that hasn't even begun to generate brain waves yet. The disposition of that fetus is solely the mother's choice, constitutionally, legally, and morally.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : A 22 week old fetus can only leave the womb one of two ways, by miscarriage, or aborted, "Murdered"!


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : There is only one meaning to the word Viable dumb ass!


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : Babies are viable even within the same time frame, in the sense that one baby might be bigger than another, or their lungs more highly developed, etc. My son was born at 7 mos, but he was 5 lbs. So, he had a better chance at viability than a baby born at 7 mos and 1 lb. The doctor explains it all. Viability is a pretty flexible word at some point.


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : Honestly? It doesnt' sound like the truth. It sounds like he was behind in his child support. He shouldn't be more than 50% with 2 kids. If he is NOT behind in his child support, he needs to revisit his child support. His ex wife's money should not affect his child support that much.


	Stukov wrote : I am not sure where in the argument you guys are, I would just like to point out that I can sneeze in a tissue and it will have the blueprint of everything she just described. Abortion was never an option for myself or my fiancee, however that is the choice we made for ourselves. I don't think others have the right to dictate that to another couple or woman.


	Simkin78 wrote : Well it IS the truth and it's one of the reason's I get so pissed off in these discussions. People act like all you're supposed to do is "man up" and deal with it but the fact is that we live in a very different society than even 30 years ago and examples like the one I've presented are becoming more prevalent everyday. I know we've heard it before but... The system is broken! He is not behind in his child support. It is automatically deducted from his pay and if he loses his job and misses 2 monthly payments he will spend the next 2 years in jail. His ex makes $0 a month and she's not even trying to find a job. In fact she told him to his face, "Why should I? The states gonna make sure you pay for everything." And the sick part is, she's right. He'll never be able to make enough money to get himself into comfortable digs where he can raise children to fight for custody and even if he did, she would fight him every step of the way to keep her meal ticket. Full disclosure: She's a high school friend of ours and he's a long time friend. We've heard both sides. His misery and her gloating. It's enough to make you sick.


	Lady_Marva wrote : A perfect example of kids being used as weapons. Would not happen in my world. Step into my world 8-)


	Lady_Marva wrote : A perfect example of kids being used as weapons. Would not happen in my world. Step into my world 8-)


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : Babies are viable even within the same time frame, in the sense that one baby might be bigger than another, or their lungs more highly developed, etc. My son was born at 7 mos, but he was 5 lbs. So, he had a better chance at viability than a baby born at 7 mos and 1 lb. The doctor explains it all. Viability is a pretty flexible word at some point.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : There is a cutoff of the point of viability, at that point it is known as inviable. You can't have it both ways, either the baby lives, Viable or it dies Inviable. Viable: Capable of life or normal growth and development. Inviable: Unable to sustain its own life.


	Simkin78 wrote : Well it IS the truth and it's one of the reason's I get so pissed off in these discussions. People act like all you're supposed to do is "man up" and deal with it but the fact is that we live in a very different society than even 30 years ago and examples like the one I've presented are becoming more prevalent everyday. I know we've heard it before but... The system is broken! He is not behind in his child support. It is automatically deducted from his pay and if he loses his job and misses 2 monthly payments he will spend the next 2 years in jail. His ex makes $0 a month and she's not even trying to find a job. In fact she told him to his face, "Why should I? The states gonna make sure you pay for everything." And the sick part is, she's right. He'll never be able to make enough money to get himself into comfortable digs where he can raise children to fight for custody and even if he did, she would fight him every step of the way to keep her meal ticket. Full disclosure: She's a high school friend of ours and he's a long time friend. We've heard both sides. His misery and her gloating. It's enough to make you sick.


	Simkin78 wrote : Right but her point was that the point of viability varies case by case.


	Simkin78 wrote : Will your snot have a chance to become a human being?


	Mojo-Jojo wrote : I'm frightened of your world...yet, curiously aroused... Doh !


	Nom_de_plume wrote : Ok so your options are: 1) raise the child with no financial support from the deadbeat dad or 2) give the baby up for adoption BTW, in your desired banned-abortion world would you require the father to pay pre-natal and birth expenses? Or should have have no responsibility for that too?


	Simkin78 wrote : Will your snot have a chance to become a human being? Will a fertilized egg have a better shot you think?


	Lady_Marva wrote : C L O N I N G must think could be 8-)


	Simkin78 wrote : Right. Now how about on it's own?


	Stukov wrote : So we define life or an actual person as the "chance" to become a human being? So man juice is life/person now?


	Simkin78 wrote : Look, I know it's a long thread and I don't expect you read the whole thing, but damn man. Can sperm become a human? No. Can an unfertilized egg become a human? No. Can the two, together, in the right environment become a human? Well we're sitting here typing away at one another, so I THINK the answer MIGHT BE .... Yes.


	Lady_Marva wrote : MOI is unable to contain giggles at the thought of the sperm and egg finding each other on their own there's a cartoon drawing in there somewhere! 8-)


	Simkin78 wrote : Look, I know it's a long thread and I don't expect you read the whole thing, but damn man. Can the two, together, in the right environment become a human? Well we're sitting here typing away at one another, so I THINK the answer MIGHT BE .... Yes.


	Simkin78 wrote : Look, I know it's a long thread and I don't expect you read the whole thing, but damn man. Can sperm become a human? No. Can an unfertilized egg become a human? No. Can the two, together, in the right environment become a human? Well we're sitting here typing away at one another, so I THINK the answer MIGHT BE .... Yes.


	Dan X wrote : Do you have trouble reading or are you just dishonest? I never said I advocated having a mother raise a baby without any help from the father. You're just making shit up now and it's sad. :'(


	Nom_de_plume wrote : No you didn't. But Bert insinuated so in reply #147 (http://www.libertynewsforum.com/cgi-bin/news/YaBB.pl?num=1240848295/147#147) which is what I originally responded to. You joined in that conversation on Bert's side. Now you are clarifying that you disagree with Bert's post. Ok noted.


	This long thread is so convoluted and confusing and blown out of proportion....there is a very simple solution to this entire debate...that no one in america will ever acknowledge or talk about. Tell females of all ages...THAT THEY DONT HAVE TO GET PREGNANT...they can have sex 24/7 and THEY DONT HAVE TO GET PREGNANT IF THEY DONT WANT TO HAVE A BABY why wont anyone admit to this very simple solution. Im sick of all the bullshit that surrounds this issue.


	Stukov wrote : That wasn't what Kathy said in the OP, she said "it had all the 'ingrediants'" as in like the DNA.


	ZippityDooDah wrote : This long thread is so convoluted and confusing and blown out of proportion....there is a very simple solution to this entire debate...that no one in america will ever acknowledge or talk about. Tell females of all ages...THAT THEY DONT HAVE TO GET PREGNANT...they can have sex 24/7 and THEY DONT HAVE TO GET PREGNANT IF THEY DONT WANT TO HAVE A BABY why wont anyone admit to this very simple solution. Im sick of all the bullshit that surrounds this issue.


	Simkin, I think you can do whatever the heck you want to with your sperm in the privacy of your own home with other consenting adults. But when one of those little guys scores a touchdown, then the rules change. ;)


	Mythago wrote : Not sure. Maybe. She certainly can sell her body to science. People used to do it all the time - sign contracts to sell their corpse for medical dissection, receiving the money while still alive.


	Mythago wrote : And it's not what I said. .


	Dan X wrote : Simkin, I think you can do whatever the heck you want to with your sperm in the privacy of your own home with other consenting adults. But when one of those little guys scores a touchdown, then the rules change. ;)


	Mythago wrote : Regardless, the murderer of a pregnant woman has "aborted" her pregnancy by killing her. Do you think she asked to be killed? Do you think the killer begged and received permission? The choice to end the pregnancy through the death of the fetus was not made by the woman but by another; And it was part of a decision process ending her life as well.


	Mythago wrote : You'll have to show me where my statements have been "disjointed and confusing." I know I've been extremely consistent.


	Mythago wrote : So every argument using reason is of equal strength of validity? I think you're smarter than that. ;)


	Nom_de_plume wrote : Leave it to conservos to legislate that pregnant women have no choice but to raise a child and then cry into their corn flakes about having to financially support the child.


	TheFirstRule wrote : Did you not read the posts? There is not an argument on that side of the equation - the argument is that men are not given a choice in the matter. You'd think a liberal would be more open to that...ah, but it will cut into abortion...


	Mythago wrote : Without liberty life is slavery. I would rather be dead than live as a slave. But it's illustrative of conservative mentality that you wouldn't: conservatives have always bent their knee to authority in the hope they might one day force others to bend knee to them.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : Little ricky, your dance is getting really old! Seven little words still apply, even to the unborn, despite what the USSC states. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!


	Mythago wrote : The unborn aren't citizens, and therefore have no rights under the constitution or the law. Only the mother has rights; And if rights are extended to a fetus because the mother has been killed or injured by someone else, it's her right not to be interferred with that lays the foundation for any right extended to the fetus.


	Mythago wrote : No citizenship, no constitutionally guaranteed right to life. Period.


	Mythago wrote : No citizenship, no constitutionally guaranteed right to life. Period.


	KSU_Aviator wrote : So you are for killing children? How old do they have to be before the parent can't chose to kill them? 1 day? 1 Year? 15 years? How do you justify killing a child (born or unborn)?


	Mythago wrote : Prior to 22 weeks at the very earliest no fetus can survive outside its mother's body. It's physiologically impossible:


	Lady_Marva wrote : A 22-week fetus outside of the womb is not capable of life or normal growth or development.


	ZippityDooDah wrote : This long thread is so convoluted and confusing and blown out of proportion....there is a very simple solution to this entire debate...that no one in america will ever acknowledge or talk about. Tell females of all ages...THAT THEY DONT HAVE TO GET PREGNANT...they can have sex 24/7 and THEY DONT HAVE TO GET PREGNANT IF THEY DONT WANT TO HAVE A BABY why wont anyone admit to this very simple solution. Im sick of all the bullshit that surrounds this issue.


	First rule, he was wrong to say it was impossible, however, the chance to survive at either 21 or 22 weeks I think is 1% and ~5% with the best medical care possible (if I recall correctly). This is also not being able to 'surive outside the mothers womb on it's own' it is hooked up into incubators and given TONS of medical care. I personally said we should look into reducing viability, but like I said above you can't go above it. A 2 week old fetus is not viable.


	Stukov wrote : A 2 week old fetus is not viable.


	Stukov wrote : First rule, he was wrong to say it was impossible, however, the chance to survive at either 21 or 22 weeks I think is 1% and ~5% with the best medical care possible (if I recall correctly). This is also not being able to 'surive outside the mothers womb on it's own' it is hooked up into incubators and given TONS of medical care. I personally said we should look into reducing viability, but like I said above you can't go above it. A 2 week old fetus is not viable.


	Solar Rightwing Extremist wrote : the very same people that want to kill an unborn, are the ones arguing against water boarding. Now how screwed up is that?


	TheFirstRule wrote : Sure, unless the mother decides to keep it...


	TheFirstRule wrote : Hmm, how much of a percent chance to live would it take for you to want the treatment?


	Stukov wrote : You know what the hell I meant, please don't suddenly lose ability to take comments in context with the conversation. Not viable to live outside the mother own it's own.


	TheFirstRule wrote : Sorry, you are correct, I was being a smartass. But the whole argument that the survival outside the womb is the test is utterly without reason, since no baby can do that, even if it stays in TEN months.


	Stukov wrote : Uh, a baby can't survive on its own without the mother at 9 months? What are you smoking? You give birth, you do nothing, the baby continues to live = the baby was viable to live on its own (cry, breath, crap). You give birth, you do nothing, the baby dies = not viable to live on it's own. Either you are seriously really unintelligent or you are being purposely obstinate.


	TheFirstRule wrote : Well, sure, except that.... Wait for it It has happened! ;) Non-viable Baby Girl Survives Birth at 21 Weeks, Weighing Under 10oz http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07022003.html Amillia Taylor Turns 2! http://growingyourbaby.com/2008/10/25/amillia-taylor-turns-2/ And for the liberal sources on the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6377639.stm http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7500743


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : You do know that the doctor in that first case said that he hoped people wouldn't look on this as some affirmation that this was normal. And I do hope you realize that most of those children are born with TREMENDOUS disabilities meaning more tax dollars. I'm all for it, so long as you guys are willing to cough up the dough without complaint.


	TheFirstRule wrote : Whoa - and from Kathy Ireland, no less! ;) Supermodel Kathy Ireland Lashes Out Against Pro Choice Some snippets: My entire life I was pro-choice who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldnt do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science," Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book "Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity." "What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there." However Ireland admitted that she did everything she could to avoid becoming a believer in pro-life . "I called Planned Parenthood and begged them to give me their best argument and all they could come up with that it is really just a clump of cells and if you get it early enough it doesnt even look like a baby. Well, were all clumps of cells and the unborn does not look like a baby the same way the baby does not look like a teenager, a teenager does not look like a senior citizen. That unborn baby looks exactly the way human beings are supposed to look at that stage of development. It doesnt suddenly become a human being at a certain point in time," Ireland argued. "Ive also asked leading scientists across our country to please show me some shred of evidence that the unborn is not a human being. I didnt want to be pro-life, but this is not a womans rights issue but a human rights issue." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518087,00.html :D :D :D :D


	MaryAnn wrote : :) :) :) :) :) I saw Kathy Ireland on the Huckabee Show promoting her new book Real Solutions for Busy Moms... I respect and admire how articulate, educated she is about the topics she discusses. Here POV about protecting those most vulnerable is so non-judgmental... Way to Go Kathy!!! I highly recommend Kathy's book too... Its full of wonderful solutions!


	MaryAnn wrote : :) :) :) :) :) I saw Kathy Ireland on the Huckabee Show promoting her new book Real Solutions for Busy Moms... I respect and admire how articulate, educated she is about the topics she discusses. Here POV about protecting those most vulnerable is so non-judgmental... Way to Go Kathy!!! I highly recommend Kathy's book too... Its full of wonderful solutions!


	LadyLawyer Requiem wrote : You do know that the doctor in that first case said that he hoped people wouldn't look on this as some affirmation that this was normal. And I do hope you realize that most of those children are born with TREMENDOUS disabilities meaning more tax dollars. I'm all for it, so long as you guys are willing to cough up the dough without complaint.


	TheFirstRule wrote : How do you figure that? If the mother, nor anyone else, supports the child, it dies, in pretty short order - up to probably age 10, depending on the education.

Discussion Title:
Title Keywords: Liberty News Forum Political News Forum

Omgili Home

About

FAQ

Plugins

Usenet