If you aren't grown up enough to deal with the responsibilities that come with sex, then you are not grown up enough for sex.

If so much of your life is dependent upon not getting pregnant, then don't get pregnant. By college, all women should know how to avoid getting pregnant. There is one sure fire method that works every damned time it is tried. You aren't pro choice so much as you are anti responsibility. Looking at your words, it is clear that you believe that women aren't capable of looking forward and seeing that their actions can have consequences. And you apparently believe that women are incapable of simply saying no, even if saying yes could wreck a lifetime of plans.

Do you really believe that women are so helpless and stupid?

It sounds considerably better than hiring a killer to murder your child so that you don't have to be inconvenienced.

Having sex is not a mistake. Having sex is a deliberate act that has forseeable consequences. Not carrying a one in a column of numbers is a mistake. Moving your queen's pawn when you meant to move your king's pawn is a mistake. Using salt in a recipe instead of sugar is a mistake. But sex, sorry, that is not a mistake.

[quote=wolf_22;314776]and what is the mother lives to resent the child?
its not abuse or neglect that will force the state to take the child away but do you really want any kid growing up with a parent or two parents who are mad at him/her just for being there?[/qiuote]

Plenty of people grow up with parents who weren't exactly Ozzy and Harriett. Growing up, however, is considerably better than being killed.

If you believe that people who MIGHT have bad lives should be killed rather than have to live those bad lives out, why aren't you saying that we should go about now killing everyone who we know beyond a doubt is having a bad life?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

I wasn't intending to be logical, but gee thanks.

Actually, I posed an interesting question. It would involve the study of species during prebirth stages, looking for a specific differentiation that would indicate a real human essence, that sets us apart, maybe finally tells us if we truly are special, the chosen specie. Or, so seemingly like other species, that if we value ourselves, we must value all others as ourselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 36shadow
Then you tell me what a fertalized embryo inside of a woman turns out to be. What a dog a cat a lizard. What does it come out as in 9 months what else can it turn into inside of the mom? TELL ME I DARE YOU. And ok you are not a lib. so you are a conservative tell me what you are.

Quote: Posted by Lexi
Actually I wasn't talking about "what it turns out to be" , I was talking about what it is at conception and there's a big difference in the two. Of course in 9 months when it comes out of a woman it is a human being, that's not my argument. My point is that in the first stages it is not a "human life" yet, what part of that don't you understand?
I'm not lib or conservative, have you ever heard of an Independent? You know, the ones in the middle that think with their own brains instead of following the crowd.

If you notice in my reply above to you I answered your question. You asked me what a fertilized embryo turns out to be in 9 months when it comes out of a woman and in my reply I answered that in 9 months it comes out as a human being. Good enough? You can call me all the names you want to, I pay no attention to it when it comes from a fanatic like you.

OK. Here is a chance for you to score a point rather than having your argument knocked down as is the case with everything else you say. I say that 97% of abortions are for reasons that amount to convenience. Do you know what convenience means? Here is the definition, and I am not going to just list the primary definition:

convenience -
1. the quality of being convenient.
2. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort.
3. a convenient situation or time.
4. advantage or accommodation.

OK. Now you name a situation in which a woman's life, or long term health is not in danger that is not a matter of convenience.

And neither will murder, or robbery, or assault, or arson, or wife beating, or speeding, or any other crime. Should we erase all laws and not punish anyone simply because the thing is still happening?

On what basis do you trust the sites? Certainly not any sort of proof. If they presented proof, then you could bring the proof here and slap me down with it. You see a photo (photoshop) and someone simply tells you what it is and how tragic it is and offers no proof at all and you believe it. The pro choice sites offer mountains of proof, why don't you believe them? By what logic do you believe a site that offers no proof over a site that offers mountains of proof?

Better check your hem, your hypocricy is showing.

Yeah, you keep saying that. So far, I haven't seen anything that even looks like proof. I have brought all manner of proof that they are alive and you just say that they aren't. Sorry, but unless you can prove that they are not alive, saying it doesn't mean anything except that you are willing to ignore mountains of credible evidence and believe somethng that is not true.

And again, you are talking about killing people who MIGHT have a bad life. If having a bad life is so terrible and a valid reason to kill someone, do you believe that we should go around killing people who we know for sure are having bad lives? I mean, wouldn't that be an act of mercy also? Wouldn't killing someone who is having a hard time, and has been having a hard time for years be an act of mercy? Don't you see how shallow your arguments are?

You control your life before you drop your panties. Name another situation in which you believe killing another human being has anything to do with taking control of your life.

And what about your alledged right to privacy. Name another situation in whch you believe the right to privacy entitles you to kill another human being in order to maintan that privacy.

Do you believe that if you convinced your doctor to give someone else a lethal dose of drugs or otherwise kill them, that the secret should remain privileged? When storman norman and I were talking, he brought up the concept of doctor patient privilege and I provided him with legal precedent that states that the doctor patient or lawyer client privlilige is not absolute.

You are one shallow person aren't you. Don't you get it that the law isn't about you? The law is about other people and making it illegal for you do do things that have an adverse effect on other people. If it were just about you, then you would be the king or queen and could do whatever you want and hurt or kill whoever you want and the law would mean nothing to you. That isn't the case. We have laws to keep you from doing things that are going to cause damage to others who have the same rights as you. You have no right to kill another human being who isn't threatening your life.

And murder, and assault, and manslaughter, and stealing, and wife beating, and rape, and every other terrrible thing that people do. Should we eilimate the laws because we are going to have to live with theset things anyway?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

You must not have read it very carefully. They made a specific point of reading Ruth Ginsberg's dissenting opinion on the case. She said:

In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.

The Justice Department and abortion rights groups have offered differing views of the legislation's impact on women's overall second trimester access to the procedure, and whether the procedure is ever medically necessary.

This was the first time the high court had heard a major abortion case in six years, and since then, its makeup has changed, with Roberts and Alito now on board.

Their presence on the bench provided the solid conservative majority needed to allow the federal ban to go into effect, with Kennedy providing the key fifth vote for a majority.

This is a woman on the Supreme Court marmalade. She sees this as chipping away at roe. She sees that the new face of the court is encouraging states to make laws further restricting abortion so that people like you can challenge those laws and bring those lawsuits before the court so that the justices can uphold the bans and eventually ban abortion entirely except when a woman's life is in danger.

This woman on the Supreme Court sees this and knows it to be true. You are in denial.

We all get to make that decision every day all day. Things are against the law and we get to decide whether to follow the law or break it. If you break it, you face the possibility of being caught and punished. That is the purpose of the law. I can only hope that a large number get caught and severely punished so as to dampen the entheusiasm of those who are still thinking of killing their children.

You are 30 years too late. You and people like you have sat around saying "its the law" and "you are dreaming" for the past 35 years. Legal abortion has never been the law, it has never been anything more than a court decision, balanced on a razor blade because of the composition of the court and subject to change at any time. Well, it is no longer balanced on that razor blade. Bush's appointments have tipped the balance. They are young people and will be there for a very long time. Even if a democrat wins the whitehouse this november and gets to make a couple of supreme court appointments, the only justices likely to leave are ones who are already pro choice and replacing a pro choice judge with a pro choice judge isn't going to change the fact that the balance has been tipped towards the conservative side.

And congress isn't going to make a law making abortion on demand legal because the fact is that a majority in this country have never favored abortion on demand. If you have a poll about banning abortion and leave an option for the woman to terminate if her life or long term health is in danger, over 70% of the people favor strictly limiting abortion. The only way to get a majority in favor of abortion is to not give the woman the option if her life or health is threatened.

It isn't and never was about controlling you any more than laws that make armed robbery and murder are about controlling you. You will always have the option but if you get caught, then you face the consequences. My bet is that if abortion is no longer a viable option, women will accept the responsibilty for their actions and perhaps consider those consequences before they take the actions just like all of us do on everything every day.

Also, when abortion is no longer a viable option, then a profit motive will exist for drug companies to develop a contraceptive that has the effect of preventing ovulation and nothing else. If Roe is overturned, pills that have an abortificent effect will be a violation of the 14th amendment.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Hearing about? Heresay evidence? I am still waiting for proof. In 1965 there were medical examiners and autopsys were performed on people (women included) who died unexpectedly or for unexplained reasons. Even a medical student could tell if a woman had died from an abortion proceedure. And even back then, the cause of death would be reported to the CDC. If it were true marmalade, the records would exist. They don't, because it isn't true.

You know, when these cases get to the Supreme Court and the pro choice side attempts to bring up the specter of the back alley abortion and the coat hanger, the justices are going to ask for proof and the pro choice lawyers are going to be just as unable to provide any proof as you and you do know the rules regarding "heresay" evidence in court don't you?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

So why not go about killing people who are just taking and giving nothing back and all of the people who we know are criminals, and the people we know are not having pleasant lives.

At least that way, you can be sure that you aren't killing someone who might grow up and have a mind capable of working out cold fusion, or a means to extract hydrogen from water cheaply, or a way to boost the efficiency of recycling by 70% or any of the thousands of other problems that we face every day.

Statistically, we have already killed a bus load people who would have been geniuses and there is a 1 in 4 chance that we have already killed the people who would have had the greatest minds of the last two generations. If you are seriously concerned about the problems facing the world, then you should understand that there are a very small pool of minds that are capable of working these problems out to successful solutions.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

You may as well go back to talking about souls. This issue is about human rights and the law.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

No. Not good enough. So far, you have offered up exactly zero proof that we are not living human beings from conception while plenty of credible science has been offered up that says that we are. Just saying that we aren't living human beings from conception isn't enough. If you can't offer proof, then you lose the point. And claiming that credible science isn't proof is even more dumb that not knowing about the science in the first place.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Wellll, the reply wasn't to you but since you got your two cents in here goes. Do we feel pain at conception, do we have brains and a heart at conception, do we have a soul at conception? If you can answer yes to all of these questions then I'll agree with you but so far the scientific evidence doesn't prove this.