<strong>Pro-choice, given that the options are not really "Abortion or Child", but, tragically often, "Legal Abortion or Back-Street Abortionist".</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits because people will drive as fast as they want to anyway. Or maybe that we should legalize petty theft because it happens so often. See the problem?
<strong>That's like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits because people will drive as fast as they want to anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's not the argument Jelly was making, I don't believe. I think what Jelly was saying was that if abortion is illegal, more women will die or be injured. He wasn't saying "we shouldn't have laws because people will break them anyway."
It's a subtle difference, maybe, but an important one. I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws increases traffic deaths. If it did, the arguments about that issue would be very different.
<strong>That's not the argument Jelly was making, I don't believe. I think what Jelly was saying was that if abortion is illegal, more women will die or be injured. He wasn't saying "we shouldn't have laws because people will break them anyway."
It's a subtle difference, maybe, but an important one. I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws increases traffic deaths. If it did, the arguments about that issue would be very different.
Sorry to butt in, Jelly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You meant to say, "I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws decreases traffic deaths," right? (I sure hope so cause the rest of my post depends on it ).
Yes, stricter speeding laws would decrease fatal traffic accidents. Do you really think we'd still have so many fatal "you mean that chunk of metal used to be a car?" accidents if we couldn't go faster than 5mph?
If you meant to say what you did say, then I'll have to figure out what your point is before I can reply to it .
<strong>You meant to say, "I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws decreases traffic deaths," right?</strong><hr></blockquote>No, I did mean what I said, I was just making a convoluted point.
Jelly was arguing that making the abortion law stricter would lead to pregnant women's deaths or injuries. In that way, it's unusual. Hopefully, most laws don't lead to increased deaths or injuries.
That's all I was saying about the speed limit laws - that your analogy fails because that's a law that decreases deaths and injuries, unlike abortion laws, which would have the effect of increasing the deaths and injuries of pregnant women.
Not to interrupt the current direction of the discussion, but you were asking earlier what I meant by "depends on the circumstance", when determining if an older guy that sleeps with a young (say 15-18) girl is a scumbag.
My thought there is that there are many girls who are 15, 16, 17 and 18 would could easily pass for 19, 20,21,22 -- and if the guy didn't bother to check a license (not exactly a smooth move when you're trying to ask a girl out), there's no way the guy would be the wiser.
Basically, my feeling is, if a guy who is 25+ knowingly jumps in the sack with a girl who is say 15-18 - absolutely he is a piece of shit and deserves to pay for the maternity visits, adoption process, etc. But that doesn't make a promiscuous girl more a "victim" or somehow less responsible.
The other guy in the scenario is the one who knowingly jumps in the sack, but thinks he's doing it with a girl that is his own age. *Not* a scumbag, but still responsible, I agree. This guy should pay 50% of the costs rather than 100% (in an ideal world where no one would lie about such things).
In either case though, there's no excuse for abortion IMO. You make choices in life, and you deal with the consequences. Unfortunately many Americans don't like consequences, so they get outta dodge any way they can, abortion in this case.
And sad as it may be there *are* girls out there who are too young to be having sex, but sleep around a lot anyway (with boys their age, older men, whoever they feel like)...to say those girls are somehow victims and bear no responsibility for their pregnancy / child is ludicrous.
Sorry, just the way I see it. Using my earlier example, most 16 year old girls are no less able to take care of their body and refrain from sex, than they are able to get up in the morning when the alarm clock goes off. It's a conscious decision that has consequences, period.
Surely you can't be referring to my last post. I don't think less of Groverat at all for disagreeing with my earlier comments. I was just trying to clarify one of my earlier statements you guys understood where I was coming from.
Actually, based on the posts I've read, it's a pretty tame thread. I'm impressed, given the emotional nature of the topic. And there are grey areas within this debate for sure, but not many. The only ones I can think of (as I said earlier) are cases of rape, incest...perhaps if the mother's life is in danger during delivery (the thought being that she can always try again later to have a child, etc.)....
Anyway, I've said all I intend to. I don't think all pro-choice people are evil or anything like that, but I do think many of them like to make lame excuses for people who never considered the consequences of having unprotected sex and the like.
<strong>No, I did mean what I said, I was just making a convoluted point.
Jelly was arguing that making the abortion law stricter would lead to pregnant women's deaths or injuries. In that way, it's unusual. Hopefully, most laws don't lead to increased deaths or injuries.
That's all I was saying about the speed limit laws - that your analogy fails because that's a law that decreases deaths and injuries, unlike abortion laws, which would have the effect of increasing the deaths and injuries of pregnant women.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, I get it. I don't agree with you, but at least I know what you're saying now.
Here's why I don't agree. I believe that unborn children are just that -- children that haven't been born yet. All this stuff about fetuses and embryos and whatnot are nice for describing what stage of development it's at, but when you get to down to what it fundamentally is, it's just a kid that hasn't been born yet. By making abortion illegal, you save the lives of however many kids it is that would get aborted. True, some women may decide to get an illegal abortion, and some of those women may die in the process. But I'd be *very* surprised if the number of women who die from illegal abortions would be anywhere near the number of abortions that wouldn't happen due to abortion's newfound illegality. Does that make sense?
In any case, it's a bit of a moot point. If something is wrong, it's still wrong whether or not people get hurt and/or killed doing it.
[quote]Life is hard, sometimes you have to make some choice, not very nice. That's why i a m prochoice, but i prefer in the deep of my heart to be prolife (samething for the war).<hr></blockquote>
There are no pro-choice people who think abortions are awesome and fun. There are no pro-death penalty folks who get off on killing. Well, there are a few but they are the vast minority and are insignificant. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something.
No need to feel guilty being pro-choice.
[quote]The first step to making killing a particular class of someone or something OK is to strip the humanity from it.<hr></blockquote>
I can't speak for all othe pro-choice folks, but I make it a point to illustrate that I don't think this way. Abortion is killing a baby. I'm pro-choice.
[quote]Rarely if ever does any real good come from an abortion.<hr></blockquote>
Rarely if evern does any real good come from drinking. Or extra-marital sex. Should these things be illegal?
nonhuman:
[quote]I am pro-choice (check my first post in this thread).<hr></blockquote>
Busted me!
Animals taste good and pets are cool. They're just animals.
Whisper:
[quote]Oh yeah, I hate it when that happens. If a wanna go kill or rape someone, what right does someone else have to tell me that I can't do it? It's *my* life, and I'm gonna live it the way *I* want to.<hr></blockquote>
Those two are acts on a conscious being that is aware of its existence and feels pain. Abortion is not.
Moogs:
[quote]But that doesn't make a promiscuous girl more a "victim" or somehow less responsible.<hr></blockquote>
Yes but the guy is not responsible. He can run off never to be found again, he's out scot-free. She is stuck with the pregnancy. This happens all the time. He is morally responsible in fairy-land but in the real world he has no responsibility. She is a victim in a sense, not a pure victim but screwed over by sexism nonetheless.
[quote]the one who knowingly jumps in the sack, but thinks he's doing it with a girl that is his own age. *Not* a scumbag,<hr></blockquote>
I'll disagree. If you participate in a procreative act with someone you don't wish to procreate with in a manner that will lead to procreation you are a scumbag. But that's neither here nor there.
[quote]And sad as it may be there *are* girls out there who are too young to be having sex, but sleep around a lot anyway (with boys their age, older men, whoever they feel like)...to say those girls are somehow victims and bear no responsibility for their pregnancy / child is ludicrous.<hr></blockquote>
15 year old girls don't walk around thinking, "I'm going to be a whore today." They are manipulated by older men 99 times out of 100. No one is saying they bear no responsibility.
<strong>15 year old girls don't walk around thinking, "I'm going to be a whore today." They are manipulated by older men 99 times out of 100. No one is saying they bear no responsibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, actually...
Thinking back to my high school years (a whole 1 1/3 years ago) 15 and 16 year old girls do make a conscious decision to be a whore a lot of the time. They want to be "fashionable" and everyone says it's "fashionable" to sleep around. Sure, sometimes they are manipulated into having sex by older men, or even boys in their own age group. Then again there are the girls who brag about how many guys they blew at the party over the weekend (yes, I did heard claims such as this in highschool).
I'll get on my soapbox. Woohoo, good to have AI back A little poem:
If it's in a petri dish, life it's not
If it's in a womb, buy some diapers for the tot?
Once in the womb, killing is morally wrong
Once in the court, law is morals through a bong?
This pretty much sums up my views on abortion, stem cell funding, and things related
In other words, what is lawful is different from what is moral. They are related, sometimes a direct one-to-one relationship, but law takes into account the fallibility of humanity [at least in just and democratic societies] while morality tries to make humanity infallible. I would hope the two are never aligned.
In Roe v Wade, it was not strictly a decision based on what is moral, but what is right for all. Jelly had it right, Roe v Wade was in part about high death and injury rates of women who performed illegal abortions than about the morality of killing a fetus. To this day, the mother's health takes precedence over the fetus, and any law that doesn't take this view, like the late term abortion law in Nebraska which never provided the exception, will most likely be struck down.
In allowing for abortion with Roe, the USSC accepted that humanity is fallible, that there will always be situations where an unwanted pregnancy will occur where a woman is forced to make a choice, and will make one that hurts her and the fetus. However, if I recall my read of Roe correctly, the USSC did not state that abortion was legal for any period of pregnancy, only prior to viability. When viability occurs is debatable, but the health of the mother isn't. Any law that proscribes abortion after 4 to 6 weeks and includes the mother's health exception would pass constitutional muster without overturning Roe in my opinion.
These threads are a lot better when you've been in them from the start...I'll sit this one out. I'm sure there'll be another one.
I do have a tiny question though but it could be that I misread something...or didn't read it at all...
The opinion on the board seems to be that if a young girl, let's say a 15 year old, goes around looking for sex in a bar that means she is a whore? slut? pick one...
I also seem to get the impression that an abortion is seen as avoiding responsibility for her actions (so I guess I have two questions...). Isn't having an abortion the same as taking the responsibility to have an abortion? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[quote]The opinion on the board seems to be that if a young girl, let's say a 15 year old, goes around looking for sex in a bar that means she is a whore? slut? pick one...<hr></blockquote>
It's chauvanist but I think that's the general consensus here. As long as attitudes like this are held where men are expected to sleep with anything that's willing I suspect 15 and 16 year old girls will still be taught to be whores at such a young age.
[quote]Isn't having an abortion the same as taking the responsibility to have an abortion?<hr></blockquote>
Yet another thing they look over. They dehumanize the girl who has the abortion, makes it easier for them to act as if they are the only one seeing the moral outrage.
<strong>Who are you to tell anyone they cannot have an abortion, if that is their choice?
Are you really that arrogant?
It is not your call. You have no say in it.
None. Zero.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who are you to tell me that I cannot tell anyone else that they cannot have an abortion, if that is my choice? Are you really that arrogant? It is not your call. You have no say in it. None. Zero.
By your logic I shouldn't be able to tell a theif not to steal my stuff.
[quote]<strong>When will people learn to keep their faces out of other peoples private lives?
What next? Banning porn, because you don't like the idea of adults looking at naked people in the privacy of their own homes?
Censoring the internet because, shock, horror, some kid might see a naked person, or read adult themes?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whisper, I assume you are being obtuse, and taking everything out of context, on purpose.
Perhaps you feel that is the only way to have an argument?
Your analogies are quite pathetic. A theif stealing your stuff affects you, personally.
A complete stranger deciding to have an abortion doesn't.
You are obviously allowed to have an opinion.
You are obviously anti-abortion. Fine. That's your call.
You have no say into whether a woman has an abortion or not. None. Unless you are the partner.
That you are so arrogant that you feel you have the right to dictate what a complete stranger can, or cannot do, to their bodies, speaks volumes about the sort of person you are.
Since we are being polite about this, I will not use the actual words I am thinking.
P.s. Why does the stupid add reply button post everything I write twice???
<strong> A theif stealing your stuff affects you, personally.
A complete stranger deciding to have an abortion doesn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure I agree that there's a distinction -- wrong is wrong no matter who's involved -- but if it's important to you, for now we can say there is a distinction.
Your logic says that I can't tell a thief that he can't steal a complete stranger's stuff.
<strong> [quote]Since we are being polite about this, I will not use the actual words I am thinking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for staying polite. The general lack of flame wars is one reason I like coming here.
Comments
<strong>Pro-choice, given that the options are not really "Abortion or Child", but, tragically often, "Legal Abortion or Back-Street Abortionist".</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits because people will drive as fast as they want to anyway. Or maybe that we should legalize petty theft because it happens so often. See the problem?
<strong>That's like saying that we shouldn't have speed limits because people will drive as fast as they want to anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's not the argument Jelly was making, I don't believe. I think what Jelly was saying was that if abortion is illegal, more women will die or be injured. He wasn't saying "we shouldn't have laws because people will break them anyway."
It's a subtle difference, maybe, but an important one. I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws increases traffic deaths. If it did, the arguments about that issue would be very different.
Sorry to butt in, Jelly.
<strong>That's not the argument Jelly was making, I don't believe. I think what Jelly was saying was that if abortion is illegal, more women will die or be injured. He wasn't saying "we shouldn't have laws because people will break them anyway."
It's a subtle difference, maybe, but an important one. I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws increases traffic deaths. If it did, the arguments about that issue would be very different.
Sorry to butt in, Jelly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You meant to say, "I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws decreases traffic deaths," right? (I sure hope so cause the rest of my post depends on it
Yes, stricter speeding laws would decrease fatal traffic accidents. Do you really think we'd still have so many fatal "you mean that chunk of metal used to be a car?" accidents if we couldn't go faster than 5mph?
If you meant to say what you did say, then I'll have to figure out what your point is before I can reply to it
<strong>You meant to say, "I think it would be hard to show that making stricter speed limit laws decreases traffic deaths," right?</strong><hr></blockquote>No, I did mean what I said, I was just making a convoluted point.
Jelly was arguing that making the abortion law stricter would lead to pregnant women's deaths or injuries. In that way, it's unusual. Hopefully, most laws don't lead to increased deaths or injuries.
That's all I was saying about the speed limit laws - that your analogy fails because that's a law that decreases deaths and injuries, unlike abortion laws, which would have the effect of increasing the deaths and injuries of pregnant women.
Not to interrupt the current direction of the discussion, but you were asking earlier what I meant by "depends on the circumstance", when determining if an older guy that sleeps with a young (say 15-18) girl is a scumbag.
My thought there is that there are many girls who are 15, 16, 17 and 18 would could easily pass for 19, 20,21,22 -- and if the guy didn't bother to check a license (not exactly a smooth move when you're trying to ask a girl out), there's no way the guy would be the wiser.
Basically, my feeling is, if a guy who is 25+ knowingly jumps in the sack with a girl who is say 15-18 - absolutely he is a piece of shit and deserves to pay for the maternity visits, adoption process, etc. But that doesn't make a promiscuous girl more a "victim" or somehow less responsible.
The other guy in the scenario is the one who knowingly jumps in the sack, but thinks he's doing it with a girl that is his own age. *Not* a scumbag, but still responsible, I agree. This guy should pay 50% of the costs rather than 100% (in an ideal world where no one would lie about such things).
In either case though, there's no excuse for abortion IMO. You make choices in life, and you deal with the consequences. Unfortunately many Americans don't like consequences, so they get outta dodge any way they can, abortion in this case.
And sad as it may be there *are* girls out there who are too young to be having sex, but sleep around a lot anyway (with boys their age, older men, whoever they feel like)...to say those girls are somehow victims and bear no responsibility for their pregnancy / child is ludicrous.
Sorry, just the way I see it. Using my earlier example, most 16 year old girls are no less able to take care of their body and refrain from sex, than they are able to get up in the morning when the alarm clock goes off. It's a conscious decision that has consequences, period.
Abortion is a means of avoiding the consequences.
[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
It's too civilized. Let's fix that right now.
groverat, you're Hitler!!!! You nazi scum!
Thank you.
Actually, based on the posts I've read, it's a pretty tame thread. I'm impressed, given the emotional nature of the topic. And there are grey areas within this debate for sure, but not many. The only ones I can think of (as I said earlier) are cases of rape, incest...perhaps if the mother's life is in danger during delivery (the thought being that she can always try again later to have a child, etc.)....
Anyway, I've said all I intend to. I don't think all pro-choice people are evil or anything like that, but I do think many of them like to make lame excuses for people who never considered the consequences of having unprotected sex and the like.
<strong>No, I did mean what I said, I was just making a convoluted point.
Jelly was arguing that making the abortion law stricter would lead to pregnant women's deaths or injuries. In that way, it's unusual. Hopefully, most laws don't lead to increased deaths or injuries.
That's all I was saying about the speed limit laws - that your analogy fails because that's a law that decreases deaths and injuries, unlike abortion laws, which would have the effect of increasing the deaths and injuries of pregnant women.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, I get it. I don't agree with you, but at least I know what you're saying now.
Here's why I don't agree. I believe that unborn children are just that -- children that haven't been born yet. All this stuff about fetuses and embryos and whatnot are nice for describing what stage of development it's at, but when you get to down to what it fundamentally is, it's just a kid that hasn't been born yet. By making abortion illegal, you save the lives of however many kids it is that would get aborted. True, some women may decide to get an illegal abortion, and some of those women may die in the process. But I'd be *very* surprised if the number of women who die from illegal abortions would be anywhere near the number of abortions that wouldn't happen due to abortion's newfound illegality. Does that make sense?
In any case, it's a bit of a moot point. If something is wrong, it's still wrong whether or not people get hurt and/or killed doing it.
There are no pro-choice people who think abortions are awesome and fun. There are no pro-death penalty folks who get off on killing. Well, there are a few but they are the vast minority and are insignificant. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something.
No need to feel guilty being pro-choice.
[quote]The first step to making killing a particular class of someone or something OK is to strip the humanity from it.<hr></blockquote>
I can't speak for all othe pro-choice folks, but I make it a point to illustrate that I don't think this way. Abortion is killing a baby. I'm pro-choice.
[quote]Rarely if ever does any real good come from an abortion.<hr></blockquote>
Rarely if evern does any real good come from drinking. Or extra-marital sex. Should these things be illegal?
nonhuman:
[quote]I am pro-choice (check my first post in this thread).<hr></blockquote>
Busted me!
Animals taste good and pets are cool. They're just animals.
Whisper:
[quote]Oh yeah, I hate it when that happens. If a wanna go kill or rape someone, what right does someone else have to tell me that I can't do it? It's *my* life, and I'm gonna live it the way *I* want to.<hr></blockquote>
Those two are acts on a conscious being that is aware of its existence and feels pain. Abortion is not.
Moogs:
[quote]But that doesn't make a promiscuous girl more a "victim" or somehow less responsible.<hr></blockquote>
Yes but the guy is not responsible. He can run off never to be found again, he's out scot-free. She is stuck with the pregnancy. This happens all the time. He is morally responsible in fairy-land but in the real world he has no responsibility. She is a victim in a sense, not a pure victim but screwed over by sexism nonetheless.
[quote]the one who knowingly jumps in the sack, but thinks he's doing it with a girl that is his own age. *Not* a scumbag,<hr></blockquote>
I'll disagree. If you participate in a procreative act with someone you don't wish to procreate with in a manner that will lead to procreation you are a scumbag. But that's neither here nor there.
[quote]And sad as it may be there *are* girls out there who are too young to be having sex, but sleep around a lot anyway (with boys their age, older men, whoever they feel like)...to say those girls are somehow victims and bear no responsibility for their pregnancy / child is ludicrous.<hr></blockquote>
15 year old girls don't walk around thinking, "I'm going to be a whore today." They are manipulated by older men 99 times out of 100. No one is saying they bear no responsibility.
Who are you to tell anyone they cannot have an abortion, if that is their choice?
Are you really that arrogant?
It is not your call. You have no say in it.
None. Zero.
When will people learn to keep their faces out of other peoples private lives?
What next? Banning porn, because you don't like the idea of adults looking at naked people in the privacy of their own homes?
Censoring the internet because, shock, horror, some kid might see a naked person, or read adult themes?
Who are you to tell anyone they cannot have an abortion, if that is their choice?
Are you really that arrogant?
It is not your call. You have no say in it.
None. Zero.
When will people learn to keep their faces out of other peoples private lives?
What next? Banning porn, because you don't like the idea of adults looking at naked people in the privacy of their own homes?
Censoring the internet because, shock, horror, some kid might see a naked person, or read adult themes?
Nice the way they contradict each other
Pro-choice, here.
<strong>15 year old girls don't walk around thinking, "I'm going to be a whore today." They are manipulated by older men 99 times out of 100. No one is saying they bear no responsibility.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um, actually...
Thinking back to my high school years (a whole 1 1/3 years ago) 15 and 16 year old girls do make a conscious decision to be a whore a lot of the time. They want to be "fashionable" and everyone says it's "fashionable" to sleep around. Sure, sometimes they are manipulated into having sex by older men, or even boys in their own age group. Then again there are the girls who brag about how many guys they blew at the party over the weekend (yes, I did heard claims such as this in highschool).
If it's in a petri dish, life it's not
If it's in a womb, buy some diapers for the tot?
Once in the womb, killing is morally wrong
Once in the court, law is morals through a bong?
This pretty much sums up my views on abortion, stem cell funding, and things related
In other words, what is lawful is different from what is moral. They are related, sometimes a direct one-to-one relationship, but law takes into account the fallibility of humanity [at least in just and democratic societies] while morality tries to make humanity infallible. I would hope the two are never aligned.
In Roe v Wade, it was not strictly a decision based on what is moral, but what is right for all. Jelly had it right, Roe v Wade was in part about high death and injury rates of women who performed illegal abortions than about the morality of killing a fetus. To this day, the mother's health takes precedence over the fetus, and any law that doesn't take this view, like the late term abortion law in Nebraska which never provided the exception, will most likely be struck down.
In allowing for abortion with Roe, the USSC accepted that humanity is fallible, that there will always be situations where an unwanted pregnancy will occur where a woman is forced to make a choice, and will make one that hurts her and the fetus. However, if I recall my read of Roe correctly, the USSC did not state that abortion was legal for any period of pregnancy, only prior to viability. When viability occurs is debatable, but the health of the mother isn't. Any law that proscribes abortion after 4 to 6 weeks and includes the mother's health exception would pass constitutional muster without overturning Roe in my opinion.
I do have a tiny question though but it could be that I misread something...or didn't read it at all...
The opinion on the board seems to be that if a young girl, let's say a 15 year old, goes around looking for sex in a bar that means she is a whore? slut? pick one...
I also seem to get the impression that an abortion is seen as avoiding responsibility for her actions (so I guess I have two questions...). Isn't having an abortion the same as taking the responsibility to have an abortion? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
It's chauvanist but I think that's the general consensus here. As long as attitudes like this are held where men are expected to sleep with anything that's willing I suspect 15 and 16 year old girls will still be taught to be whores at such a young age.
[quote]Isn't having an abortion the same as taking the responsibility to have an abortion?<hr></blockquote>
Yet another thing they look over. They dehumanize the girl who has the abortion, makes it easier for them to act as if they are the only one seeing the moral outrage.
<strong>Who are you to tell anyone they cannot have an abortion, if that is their choice?
Are you really that arrogant?
It is not your call. You have no say in it.
None. Zero.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Who are you to tell me that I cannot tell anyone else that they cannot have an abortion, if that is my choice? Are you really that arrogant? It is not your call. You have no say in it. None. Zero.
By your logic I shouldn't be able to tell a theif not to steal my stuff.
[quote]<strong>When will people learn to keep their faces out of other peoples private lives?
What next? Banning porn, because you don't like the idea of adults looking at naked people in the privacy of their own homes?
Censoring the internet because, shock, horror, some kid might see a naked person, or read adult themes?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Porn doesn't kill. Abortion does.
Perhaps you feel that is the only way to have an argument?
Your analogies are quite pathetic. A theif stealing your stuff affects you, personally.
A complete stranger deciding to have an abortion doesn't.
You are obviously allowed to have an opinion.
You are obviously anti-abortion. Fine. That's your call.
You have no say into whether a woman has an abortion or not. None. Unless you are the partner.
That you are so arrogant that you feel you have the right to dictate what a complete stranger can, or cannot do, to their bodies, speaks volumes about the sort of person you are.
Since we are being polite about this, I will not use the actual words I am thinking.
P.s. Why does the stupid add reply button post everything I write twice???
<strong> A theif stealing your stuff affects you, personally.
A complete stranger deciding to have an abortion doesn't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not sure I agree that there's a distinction -- wrong is wrong no matter who's involved -- but if it's important to you, for now we can say there is a distinction.
Your logic says that I can't tell a thief that he can't steal a complete stranger's stuff.
<strong> [quote]Since we are being polite about this, I will not use the actual words I am thinking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for staying polite. The general lack of flame wars is one reason I like coming here.