Is Nancy Reagan advocating murder?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 09:41 AM) [snapback]291918[/snapback]</div>

My mom is a lactation consultant, and volunteers her services to the local family planning clinic. Obviously, some of these women are having babies, or she wouldn't have much call to be there. She's met women who were talked out of abortion at that clinic. She works with the THREE counselors they have on staff. They have one woman who does NOTHING except help handle all the paperwork and red tape involved in adoptions. They have three different local priests (pastors, reverends - not sure which denominations) who each come in weekly to help counsel women. Many of those - the women who want most to talk to a religious figure - wind up having the baby. There are doctors and nurses on staff who deal with contraception, prenatal visits, well-baby checkups... Maybe my little podunk hometown is different from all the other podunk hometowns all over the US - maybe you should find out if what you've been told is really true in your hometown.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 24 2006, 08:41 AM) [snapback]291426[/snapback]</div>

Okay, now I understand a bit more. What we are still talking about is FUNDING of research, not whether such research is legal or illegal. Thanks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jul 25 2006, 08:58 AM) [snapback]291922[/snapback]</div>

Statistically there are 4000 abortions a day and 12,000 live births a day in the USA. 1 in 4 seems a little high to me. Are you saying we have 10,000 women a day coming into these clinics and thankfully 6000 of them are being guided away from abortion? That leaves 2000 of 16,000 that are having their baby without even considering coming to your clinic... how nice...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 09:41 AM) [snapback]291918[/snapback]</div>

I think this is one of the problems with the abortion debate. People who are virulently pro-life think that, just because pro-choice people fight tooth and nail to guarantee women have a choice, that those same people also must insist that women must have abortions if they have any question about their pregnancy. This is, of course, ridiculous and is just the standard vilification that goes on in any contentious debate (from both sides, actually).

Anyone who suggests that abortion is an easy choice for any woman is either purposely distorting reality or very uninformed.

My opinion (stealing language from someone who the Right loves) is that abortions should be complete legal, completely safe, and exceedingly rare. But, I'm also a man, so I don't pretend that I understand all of the realities of an unwanted pregnancy.

 

No, not even close. Nancy Regan although I don't like most of her political stances is voicing a very ethical and correct position.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]291934[/snapback]</div>

I couldn't even begin to guesstimate percentages - I don't even know that they manage to change the minds of 10% who come in planning on an abortion. I don't think their purpose is meant to be to change their minds, it's meant to make sure they understand the consequences of this very permanent action. Remember that many women have already weighed it out countless times before setting foot in the clinic - it ISN'T something that people on the whole take lightly.

My point was more that often, clients of those clinics are there for services unrelated to abortion. I was rebutting the idea that pro-choicers are on a crusade to encourage abortions, because that's ludicrous. These pro-choicers try to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and, acoordingly, abortions) via education and contraception, and they provide support for women who want to carry their child, whether they are willing or able to provide parenting or not. I'd bet that a good percentage of live births DO go through these family planning clinics - they handle oodles (scientific measurement) of young and low-income parents who would otherwise not have the option of consistent medical care during their pregnancy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 09:03 AM) [snapback]291903[/snapback]</div>

So, what if she said that she had no guilt; that it was one of those "If I had to do it all over again, based on the circumstances, I would do the same thing..." kinda things?

What would you call her then?

What if your pain was intense for the first few weeks after (both mentally, emotionally, and physically), but subsided?

Would you say that response showed a cold, heartless bitch? Or how 'bout a practical member of society who had no desire to provide a lifetime of poverty and pain to an innocent?

And don't give me the adoption line...do you know how many non-Caucasian babies are stuck in the system now because of lack of parents wanting to adopt?

I really did like the other question someone posed to you: you would have no problems killing that kid if he/she became a criminal (they said homosexual, though; I don't think you're THAT bad). That's the catch, isn't it? "Make sure they get into the world safely, but once they're here, f#@k 'em! I am not responsible for the rest of society!" How do you marry your pro-life idealism with your "I shouldn't have to pay for social programs" laissez-faire attitude?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]291934[/snapback]</div>

how many pregnancies end in elective abortion? that's a more relevant question. i know 2 people who've had miscarriages recently, they didn't choose abortion but they can't be counted in the live births no matter how much they wanted their babies. abortion was forced upon them by their own body. and then there are the non-live births... what about the stillborns?

i think your 1 in 4 number is inflated.

 

"And don't give me the adoption line...do you know how many non-Caucasian babies are stuck in the system now because of lack of parents wanting to adopt?"

This is one of my biggest problems with making abortion illegal. If we are to force women to have babies, we better see to it that these children are taken care of not only physically but emotionally. If we do not, we are raising a future society of children that will most likely carry the weight of this the rest of their lives (they may be a burden on the public assistance programs, get invovled with drugs, turn to crime, have more babies that cannot be adequately taken care of). I know a couple who has foster children. They do a darn good job of taking care of these kids but there isn't much support for these people who are trying to raise kids that are handicapped by the aforementioned weight. Some of these unlucky children have been in the system for a decade! Does this not place a burden on the conscience of pro life supporters? If it doesn't, you are guilty of a crime as great as those who support pro choice. It's not a good answer to place these children in limbo without any emotional stability, love, caring, etc. It's almost cruel. This is just not a good answer. It's a selfish solution - it cures what ails the pro life supporter on their moral/religious grounds but subjects the very entity they're trying to save to a life of inadequacies.

I would be interested to learn how many pro life supporters are supporters of war. An event where many innocent people are unjustly slaughtered. I've read some of your posts and I'm sure you are aware of who you are.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 09:03 AM) [snapback]291903[/snapback]</div>

what about the unwanted child who is raised by parent(s) who did not want it but grew attached during pregnancy? didn't want the abortion but selfishly couldn't stand to adopt? the unwanted child who is raised by a mother full of increasing resentment for it... despite whatever "agencies" are out there, will never experience the same life that a wanted child would have gotten. unwanted children are often left emotionally empty. it's one more human tragedy. either way it's tragic and either way there's a lifetime of suffering involved. one person regrets the abortion or one person is crippled by years of childhood emotional trauma.

i'm not saying it happens every time. but the likelihood is MUCH higher if the child isn't wanted to begin with.

do we need more angry, bitter people on this earth who are full of hatred? that's what many of those people become. i think we have enough of them already.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jul 25 2006, 11:27 AM) [snapback]291967[/snapback]</div>

livelychick,
after reading daronspicher's views on homosexuality it became obvious to me that he would have no problem with getting rid of homosexuals.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Jul 25 2006, 11:34 AM) [snapback]292005[/snapback]</div>

If you want to advocate for getting rid of any people group, you are welcome to state your opinnion. You're clearly on the side of killing babies, if you're up for killing other groups then you are free to your stand, but do better to not state any positions on the matter on my behalf. I'm not in favor of 'getting rid of homosexuals', that must be your inclination, I'm not sure where that came from if not from deep within yourself.

I am in opposition to the gay agenda, I've been clear about that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 06:10 PM) [snapback]292213[/snapback]</div>

what's that?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Jul 25 2006, 05:25 PM) [snapback]292221[/snapback]</div>

Gay is when a man and a man share sexual intimacy together.... or woman and woman.... There is a lot on the internet if you want the whole story... probably with pictures if you look in the right places...

Happy googling...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 06:39 PM) [snapback]292227[/snapback]</div>

and now tell us about that gay agenda. What's that?

 

The "gay agenda" is the same as the "black agenda" and the "womens' agenda": equality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jul 25 2006, 05:51 PM) [snapback]292232[/snapback]</div>

Its easy to decode the BS. My set of ancient superstitions and folkstories trump your freedom.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hybridTHEvibe @ Jul 25 2006, 05:43 PM) [snapback]292230[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure if you're asking because you don't pay much attention, or if you're looking for a place to vent opposition to what I think is the gay agenda... In any case, this would be a pretty significant turn in the conversation here in an already trashed thread. If you're looking for a few rounds on this stuff, maybe copy this over to a new topic and we'll probably have to have at it... here's your gay agenda...

First - To rob traditional family values by taking those family values and adding their own category. Today, marriage means one man and one woman to most in our society. That is being hacked at by the homosexual community, they want to add to the definition of marriage new terms that are offensive to people who hold the current definition dearly. They can't elect representatives or officials to office to get change, so the courts are being shopped until one time or another a judge will rule things their way. That's an agenda...

Second - They are trying to persuade people that those who engage in homosexual behavior are "born that way." There are plenty of ramifications if the culture will begin to believe this...

Third - There is an attempt to get "sexual orientation" added to the categories of protection under anti-discrimination codes in private organizations and under civil rights laws in the public sector.

Fourth - There is an effort to get the enactment of "hate crime" laws that provide severe punishment of crimes motivated by "bias" against homosexuals.

Fifth - There is an effort to get homosexual propaganda included in the curriculum of public schools.

Sixth - There is an attempt underway to redefine marriage and family altogether. They hope to achieve this by opening the door for homosexuals to adopt children and by legalizing same-sex marriage.

There ya have it, I hope you're either now educated, or finally ready to pull the proverbial trigger all over this list... I can't wait...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 25 2006, 07:31 PM) [snapback]292250[/snapback]</div>

can you add your beer analogy to this?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Jul 25 2006, 02:28 AM) [snapback]291870[/snapback]</div>

Well, no flames from me. I take a courteous view when confronted with someone's personal experience, and don't debate issues strongly when it is something they have had to live through.

The only thing I will say is that the polemic "Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one." doesn't work if you are framing the question as an issue of protecting human life. Otherwise, the following statements would also apply:

"Don't like murder, don't kill anyone!"
"Don't like slavery, don't enslave anyone!"

Obviously, society has an interest in protecting its members, especially those that cannot protect themselves. The question we have been discussing in this thread applies to the issue of when an embryo or fetus can be considered a person, or human, or life, and its been pretty civil.

Your emphatic admonition to not tell you what to do with your life is contradicted by your statement to "Talk to me then" if we disagree with you. Not sure what to make of that, unless your desire is to generate more heat than light.

Finally, I'll just say that I'm unimpressed with people who demand that we change the common usage of terms to suit them. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" are accepted terms in this society for the terms of this debate, and while each is "loaded" by its adherents to be as euphemistically positive as possible, they are at least a common ground to start discussion. It will be impossible to poll 300+ million people to see which term they would prefer to have attached to their view, so we should continue using the terms people understand. Anything else seems only to obfuscate the issue, rather than providing clarification.