Is Nancy Reagan advocating murder?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 24 2006, 01:50 PM) [snapback]291474[/snapback]</div>

you're expecting a lot to expect the general populus to not engage in "immorality" before they're ready to have children.

or are you referring to "immoral" IVF treatments for couples who are unable to conceive on their own?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 24 2006, 12:50 PM) [snapback]291474[/snapback]</div>

I'm assuming that you are prolife judging by your tone and the fact that you see the banning of abortion as one dimensional. Sex out of wedlock is not considered immoral by every person. The world cannot live by your (or one person's) standards alone. That's why is important to have open dialogue concerning topics such as this so that we plan properly and not cause a domino effect of catastrophies in our wake. The matter of abortion concerns our economy, our environment, the state of our future generations and the state of our social fabric and you would like to condense the matter towards unrealistic goals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jul 24 2006, 01:03 PM) [snapback]291479[/snapback]</div>

The former is the bigger problem, but yes... If people had to be responsible for their actions, maybe the 'free sex' would not seem as free if people had to be responsible for any babies that result.

I believe if 'convenience' and '$$' weren't the issue, the number of embryos needed for a IFV could be created, inserted, and if more are needed, create more. I'm not a big fan of this, but this would create a system where we don't end up with stranded embryos. Right now, a bunch of extras are made in the beginning in case more are needed for a second attempt. How convenient (for the medical office, but not for the embryos that become test carcasses under the name of research). BTW, why stop here, why not make whole-live babies for testing? Probably because in 2006, this seems outrageous. Just wait until 2046, then maybe it won't seem so bad.

40 years ago, a young adult would be terribly embarrassed for having had sex outside of marriage. They'd feel guilt, shame and if caught, even worse. Now, you wouldn't even expect someone to make the choice to wait. Instead, we just try to make it consequence free so that we don't end up with a bunch of babies that are unwanted. We have 50 million dead babies to show for it. What a great idea. It's a little hard to call them dead babies, so maybe we should call them a 'collection of cells'. No need to show the pregnant mom the arms, legs, head and body that go flying through the vaccume into the garbage bin all torn to shreds. Seeing that would be too much of a consequence for their actions. Interesting how planned parenthood fights against having the free ultrasound clinics nearby. Once the mother sees the baby inside, it's harder to rip them limb from limb and kill them.

How come other immoral behavior is not readily accepted? Can't we find a way to make bank robbery socially acceptable so that we don't have to make bank robbers take responsibility for that whole moral failure when they held up the bank at gunpoint?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 24 2006, 01:07 PM) [snapback]291551[/snapback]</div>

When the actions result in harm to innocents, yes

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 24 2006, 02:34 PM) [snapback]291501[/snapback]</div>

from my understanding (not from personal experience) harvesting eggs from the ovaries is an extremely painful process. would maintaining separate stocks of sperm and ova frozen down meet your moral standards? (i don't even know if ova are viable after freezing, but we know sperm are) or do people have to repeat very painful and expensive procedures every time an IVF fails?

also, many times 5-6 fertilized eggs are placed into the uterus at once in the hope that a single one implants. implantation has an extremely high failure rate for IVF. it doesn't have the greatest success even in the natural course of things.

i'm not arguing for or against IVF here, btw. i'm pretty neutral on the subject. i'm just adding to the discussion what i know about it from various classes i took during my undergrad years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Jul 24 2006, 03:45 PM) [snapback]291583[/snapback]</div>

I'm a "point of conception" guy, so keeping the eggs unfertilized would seemingly solve that arguement.

IVF has it's own moral dilemas. We talked about it, decided against it... Just not going to fit with our moral footings... especially with the way the current process generates the unused embryo problem. I know many couples go there be-damned the rubble left once they get their child. It's a bit sad when belief systems are thrown out in the midst of personal struggle. Many people who would otherwise have moral boundries against IVF and discarded embryos become supporters when their want for a child comes against their ability to conceive. Thankfully in our case, the old fashioned plan kicked in shortly after we ruled out IVF for us.

We've chosen to persue an avenue of both biological and adopted children for our family. It would appear that the first will be biological, and the adoption(s) will come as home study agencies grant us clearance to adopt between or after the biological children arrive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 24 2006, 06:54 AM) [snapback]291380[/snapback]</div>

You know, I seem to remember you are right on this point. I'll have to do the research again (its been about 10 years since I really looked at this issue in any depth). I know the 8-week cite is often given, but I seem to remember brain function (as opposed to any measurement of "activity") after about 20 weeks, and I reverted to my "first fact" on that issue. That's very interesting; I have to think about why I would do that in a conversational sense, even when the 20+ week fact supports my view better.

That puts us at least into the first few weeks of the second trimester, unless I'm doing my math wrong. If so, there's a logical argument that can be made about first trimester abortions being allowed in all cases (as it is today), and legislative limits on abortions after the start of brain function. It is very rare that a woman does not know she is pregnant by the 22nd week, although it does happen. And the normal ideas we have about human life can prevail after that point ... for instance, "life" of the mother is handled by our existing ethic of self-defense, where you can use any force up to and including lethal force to perserve your own life against something that will take your life.

There's still some debate room (for me, at least) with the nearly meaningless idea of "health" of the mother; as certainly, any abortion is probably more healthful for the mother than carrying the baby to term.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 24 2006, 11:34 AM) [snapback]291501[/snapback]</div>

Well, the IVF process isn't as precise as you envision above. They give the woman a drug to make her produce a lot of eggs at the same time, so they grab them all. There are probably physical limits to how often you can do this, as women do not produce eggs like men produce sperm. They have a limited number, and are born with all the eggs they will have (or produce them all at puberty; gads, I have to look this stuff up again!). Anyway, you can only go to the well so many times. Then, the eggs are fertilized, in vitro, and examined to see which ones look abnormal. Many are destroyed at that point because they are not normal (this is natural, as the same thing happens regularly to couples having sex ... some researchers estimate that for every live birth, the couple has had many fertilized ovum that were defective, and washed out with the body's natural mechanisms). The remaining embryos are not fetuses ... these are collections of 6 - 12 cells in the "blastocyst" stage (IIRC ... could be a bit larger than that). A few of these may be chosen for an attempt at implantation, with the spares destroyed or frozen for a future attempt.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 24 2006, 11:34 AM) [snapback]291501[/snapback]</div>

I used to believe this as well. Then I studied my genealogy. I have found a curious thing: Many first pregnancies prior to the 1960s were much shorter. About 6 months, on average. There were quite a few 7 pound "preemies" back then too. It is only with the second and later pregnancies that the gestation period gets to 9 months. The real difference is that women could not have babies on their own, and men felt a duty to make an honest woman out of her and marry her. Society has changed, and selfish people seem to get a free ride now (or, at least one that has them spending every other weekend and 25% of their paycheck for 18 years; sex on the installment plan! Hope it was worth it pal.)

I also had my DNA tested, and lo and behold, there are bunch of people related to me with different last names. We have no IDEA how that happened way back in the 1700's, when everyone was so moral!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 24 2006, 11:34 AM) [snapback]291501[/snapback]</div>

When you start shooting bullets instead of sperm during sex, and stealing money from her instead of whispering sweet nothings in her ear, this analogy will make sense. Until that time it just shows a tendency towards moral equivalency ... something we usually accuse liberals of. Perhaps a better analogy would be to compare the moral failings people have around or concerning children:

Failure to provide for them because you lose your job
Cursing in front of them when you hit your thumb with a hammer
Not seeking the proper medical care when you miss an important sign

Usually, someone who is pro-life doesn't feel that sex leading to children is evil like stealing at gunpoint; instead they believe that children are to be cherished no matter their origin, even if it is in an immoral union.

Sex outside of marriage is hardly a capital crime in the Bible. The punishment for having sex with an unmarried woman was pretty harsh ... you had to marry her! That whole stoning thing had to do with married people having sex with OTHER people.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 23 2006, 10:04 PM) [snapback]291306[/snapback]</div>

Well framed. Great question!

 

The opposite of pro-life is ANTI-ABORTION. NOT Pro-choice. I am pro-choice.
I am fervently pro-life.
Pro WANTED and ABLE TO BE CARED FOR life.
REPEAT: I am PRO CHOICE. I advocate the right of the individual to choose for HERself what is right and needed for each individual to do.

Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. Do NOT tell me why YOU believe it should be illegal for me to abort a pregnancy. *I* am not careless. *I* am not on welfare. *I* take "precautions."

Yup. More than 20 years ago, I "chose" an abortion. A legal choice, friends. Then and I hope always.

Any questions?

Any of you guys wanna be knocked up--AFTER TAKING PRECAUTIONS AND NOT BEING ON WELFARE--and be FORCED to carry to term?

Or go to back street docs with coathangers?

Talk to me then.

AFTER your myth of the Liberal Left Wing Media has learned...the opposite of Pro choice IS ANTI CHOICE, not, NOT NOT NOT "pro life."

Sorry kiddies. I am pro life. I am also PRO CHOICE.

For me, and many many many others like me, embryos and stem cells do not even enter into this equation.

Can stem cell research help the rest of us? YES. DO IT.

Flames now, dear friends.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Jul 25 2006, 04:28 AM) [snapback]291870[/snapback]</div>

So, how did it go? Problem went away, scott free? No guilt, no second guessing, no hauntings, no huge emotional mess for years for having had an abortion? No wondering what your baby would be like today if.... Just eliminated the consequences and went on to live your life all fancy free? You seem pretty darn proud of your abortion, did your life turn out all 'wealthy and upper class' because you killed that baby? Did you turn out 'happy' on the back side of this abortion? Legal abortion, no consequences at all for the woman?

Of course, with your stance on it here, you'd be best to say no problems, no issues... And then we could all believe that and send our daughters down for an abortion believing it's 'free and clear to kill a baby', then deal with the huge problems she will have in the aftermath.

Name it a cell or blastocyst instead of a baby that just got shreaded by a mother and a doctor and all of a sudden it's ok to kill. Nice society.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 05:53 AM) [snapback]291872[/snapback]</div>

Daron, I am sure if there was a way to tell that those cells would turn out to be homosexuals you would KILL them ALL.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 02:53 AM) [snapback]291872[/snapback]</div>

Can you read?
I don't think so.
Get someone to explain it to you.
It cost me a lot.
Yup, one less soul now exists.
Would that soul have done well? I did not then and I do not believe so now.
I sure as hell could not have provided for it.
AND, I had no HEALTH INSURANCE at the time, in this great country of ours, so could not have afforded to provide for either of us during the pregnancy.

Go on daron, fine, I am a murderer.

Feel great about yourself. Dip your dick whereever you want to. YOU do not have ANY consequences about which to worry.

No, of course you are right. I am a rich bitch who doesn't give a damn. Wanna check my tax returns from back then?

Is it relevant what my tax returns TODAY say? TWENTY PLUS YEARS LATER????

And you WERE a virgin until you married, right?

And finances should NEED to be an issue? REQUIRED? Or you are not qualified to judge what is right for YOU? Hey daron, been pregnant and alone lately?

Your glass house is intact?

You arrogant MALE son of a b***h.

READ WHAT I F***ING said.

It HURT me. BUT...It was less harmful to the WORLD. I COULD NOT HAVE SUPPORTED THAT CHILD. I had not the resources to support the PREGNANCY. It was anything BUT an easy decision for me, but it WAS the right decision. WOULD ANYONE HAVE DONE BETTER HAD ABORTION BEEN ILLEGAL? What the hell do you REALLY believe...REALLY...about that? Would I have borne the child had abortion been illegal then? No.

Would "both" of us have "died?" Probably.

Yeah, you'd be lots happier if I was dead from a rusty coathanger. Sorry not to oblige. I really hope you do not have any children...females who you just might one day have to rethink about this issue, and males who probably never will think about it.

Yes, I am now a mother.Of a son who has been able to be cared for appropriately. And who was wanted when he was conceived.

Oh, by the way...my mother was pregnant with my older sister when she married in 1956...Daron, they discovered sex a really long time ago, for your information, since you apparently are unaware of that little tidbit...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Jul 25 2006, 06:02 AM) [snapback]291878[/snapback]</div>

I'll take that as a yes on adverse side effects..

 

<Post based on reaction to previous post removed after deciding not to feed trolls>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Jul 25 2006, 07:37 AM) [snapback]291896[/snapback]</div>

Did you interpret her response to be a No to side effects?

I'm not condemming her for her thing. I think this is a great example of a woman who's had extreme pain following having chosen abortion. I feel bad for her having made that choice, I am not in a position to fully understand the pain she has been in over the years.

What I condem is the pro-choice lobby that NEVER states the pain that this woman and the next woman who choose abortion will experience for having decided to abort their baby. The pain in that response is loud and clear.

The pro-choice stand tells girls and women that we know you are in a fix, we can make it all better by giving you an abortion. period... there is no more to hear...

Why does the next woman going in for an abortion not hear that this thing is a rough deal. Choice A is to keep this baby. Things look dim, but after you birth the baby, you could choose to allow another couple to adopt your baby. That also would be a hard choice at that time, but it is a choice. You can choose to keep this baby in spite of your daunting circumstances, and we can point you to agencies who will help you through the pregnancy and with early years of motherhood. (BTW, that agency is typically across the street from the abortion clinic).

Choice B is to have the abortion, but we want you to know that we've been doing them for years, and we find that a vast majority of women who have them also will testify to a lifetime of emotional pain and serious reconsideration for having had an abortion. Can anyone please point me to a planned parenthood site that contains this presentation?

 

Well, that clears that up! No wonder you hate us pro-choicers, daron, you think we're all evil twits out to seduce women into having abortions!

If you step into an 'abortion clinic' though, you'll find out that very little of their business has anything to do with abortion. Most of their clients are there for birth control, some are there for regular pre-natal checkups, some are there for pregnancy tests, and a few might be there for abortions. When a woman comes in with the intent to get an abortion, they don't second guess her judgement, but they DO tell her that it's a choice that might hit them hard tomorrow, or in ten years. They DO tell her about her other options, like support during and after the pregnancy, and adoption programs. If she decides to keep the baby, they have her in for regular checkups. They hold classes to show otherwise unfit mothers how to be good mothers. They have placement services for the girls whose parents won't let them come home pregnant, and have job avenues for women who don't have babysitters available. If she decides to have that abortion, though, they walk her through the steps (most clinics have a counselor just for this) and THEN proceed.

All those things you said you wished they did? They do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 25 2006, 12:28 AM) [snapback]291861[/snapback]</div>

I should HOPE they have differing names; that singularly linear DNA thread has a lot of problems, elsewise

I too noted a lot of 'short' pregnancies in the early lines (1600s-1700s); There seemed to be a period when propriety reigned, the latter quarter of the 19th and first quarter of the 20th centuries appeared to more follow a code. This is not to say that there were no 'strays' B) , but it does seem that these things fall in cycles.

With the lifting of cultural taboos, we now have a society that fully believes that there is nothing that is fundamentally wrong, in some cases, that would even include murder.

There is no shame associated with anything anymore.

There is no appreciation of ethical behavior, or accountability either.

We also forget that part of ethical behavior is an unwavering stance in the face of those who want you to change YOUR behavior to match what THEY want to have happen.

We pretend to admire abstract ideas like honor and commitment when we watch a film or read of an ancient culture or a patriot who dies rather than betray his cause, but when a president vetoes a bill that EVERYONE knew he was against and was in his authority to veto, some want to vilify (or in some cases, continue to vilify) that person, Why, because he had thae unmitigated AUDACITY to disagree with them.

Mrs. Reagan has every right to come out and support whatever she thinks is the right thing. Fine. She can write a check, and go on the campaign circuit all she wants. That is her right. When Congress finally gets its act together, they may be able to override this veto. That is assuming that they care to do so; right now it seems that they are off, willy-nilly on another tangent over suing Bush over something else completely frivolous, but headline grabbing. Film at eleven. Statements on the Sunday talkshow circuit. It is all theater in the Congress folks; we mostly elect performers who say what we like, and then perform some caricuture of governing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 25 2006, 08:31 AM) [snapback]291914[/snapback]</div>

No they don't and you know better than to say it.