If you're aware of that, then you're halfway there. Being aware that "now" is a really bad time to pick a responsible fuckbuddy, get pregnant, and become a momma means you're aware that "now" is a really awful time to let a few moments of animal pleasure dominate your future. Go jack off and get back to your studies.

I wasn't quite clear. I meant that you chose med school (as an example, to play devil's advocate) instead of starting a family. Meaning that if med school was more important than starting a family, you should take extreme precautions to prevent said family...i.e. don't do the things that make babies.

Another topic entirely, but I loathe the idea people have of making a baby, then running away from it as soon as possible to get back to their career, and abandoning the baby to daycare, friends, or other family members. The baby should be raised by others only when it is physically impossible (not just inconvenient or financially difficult) for the parents to do so.

The money needed to simply raise a child in a loving environment can be earned at Burger King. Should we strive for more? Of course...but not at the cost of the child, who needs a dependable mom and dad to raise him more than he needs the best diapers, the tastiest junk foods, and the coolest toys, if it means he'd have to enjoy them with his substitute parents at the daycare.

If the boy has to be told to be responsible, he was certainly no kind of man to make babies with. Again, fix your picker before you choose a father to your baby, planned or accidental.

If you're leaning toward the meat-eating thing...I used the phrase "killing stuff" to generalize and avoid the conversation stopper of describing a fetus as glowing, shiny baby with a twinkle in its eye. But I was referring solely to killing humans. Kill all the animals you want...you'll find no equality between animals and people in my words.

If you're not referring to animals, then...yes. I do live by that whenever possible. But sometimes its impossible to avoid. For example, the mere act of being born in America means people died just to give me this country. Can't be helped, out of my hands. But the only lives lost directly by my hands you can rest assured all fall within point #5.

Nine months is not so long to wait. And though it's not universal, you often hear of the remorse women suffer for weeks, months, even years after an abortion. Why risk years of misery with no solution, when you can know with certainty that in nine months the pregnancy will be over.

Is that such a tragedy? What is wrong that one would fear loving their child and deciding to keep it? At worst, you may decide to give it up anyway, and feel a loss for the rest of your life...but that's why they call them "consequences" and not "treasures". That's why it's so damned important to think with your head before you think with your crotch. Covering all your bases, dumping guy after guy until you nail Mr. Right, and steering the course that you know is right, despite what society wants you to believe are the things that make it worthwhile when you finally decide you want a baby, instead of having to decide you don't want to have a baby when you've already made one.

Our welfare state teaches us more and more every day that our actions aren't our own fault; that our bad decisions are everyone else's problem; that our misfortunes are supposed to be fixed at someone else's expense. That's so wrong, and that's the root of so many problems.

Everyday, everywhere you find yourself, YOU chose this, YOU made the decisions that led you here. There isn't a blinking moment in your whole life where where you don't get to make a choice*. Seeking help when you find yourself lost is one thing; seeking to abandon responsibility for where you are is another thing entirely. Don't confuse the two.

*Some exceptions may apply in cases of criminal offenses committed against you or your loved ones. Check local listings.

Rosie children is just a term used to describe a human being at a particular stage of life. Miserable brat is also such a term but we don't just kill miserable brats either. You seem to believe that the word you use to describe a thing in some way changes the reality of what that thing is and you seem to think that philosophy justifies that. Sorry, but the goal of philosophy is to cut through that sort of thinking and get to the essential nature of a thing so that it can be percieved clearly in the context of the world around us. People who attempt to deny the reality that unborns are living human beings are no different than racists. Racists used words in an attempt to dehumanize blacks and so justify the things they did to blacks because they knew instinctively that to admit that blacks were human beings the same as they are would make their actions unacceptable even to themselves.

Denying that unborns at any stage are human beings the same as you is no better than point at a black person and shouting nigger. The mental mechanisms at work are exactly the same.

I don't believe that I have ever called anyone a liar whom I hadn't already given accurate information. If you say a thing that is untrue because you genuinely didn't know, then you are ignorant. Ignorance is not dishonesty. Once, however, you have access to fact and continue to put foreward untruths, then you are a liar. You know the truth and either didn't take the time to verify it, or simply disregarded it in favor of your own story. Disregarding the truth and telling your own story is a deliberate attempt to decieve. That is a lie.

When I say explicitly that unborns are living human beings, that is not opinion. I have provided plenty of credible science to prove the point. Do you really believe that any of the pro choicers here actually believe that unborns aren't alive? I mean, do you really believe that anyone here is so stupid as to believe that the child could grow from a single cell to 7 or 8 pounds and not be alive?

So claiming that they are not alive is a deliberate attempt to decieve. Do you really believe that anyone here actually believes that unborns are not human beings at any stage of development? Again, I have given plenty of credible science that states that they are and no one has provided a single bit of credible science that says that they aren't. The truth is obvious so when one disregards the truth in favor of one's own opinion, then one is making a conscious choice to decieve. That is, one is lying.

Do you genuinely believe that medical school textbooks are teaching opinion? Do you genuinely believe that pro lifers have taken over medical education to the extent that pro choicers are unable to write valid science stating that unborns are not human beings until they grow to a certain point? Do you really believe that such a conspiracy exists and is successful to the point that no contradictory science can reach the public, even on the internet? Is that really what you believe? If it isn't, then when you disregard credible science in favor of your opinion, you are making a deliberate attempt to decieve.

Finally, attempting to portray me as something that I am not is a lie. I have been accused of making religious arguments. A deliberate lie. I have been accused of posting only biased information, another deliberate lie. I have been accused of falsifying information that I have posted. Another deliberate lie.

By your own admission, you are not willing to accept information that contradicts your world view. You are not going to learn something new until you come to accept that what you have believed is wrong. In matters of faith for example, no fact exists to prove that what you believe is wrong so it would not be proper to suggest that someone lies when you have no fact with which to prove them wrong. In this matter, however, plenty of fact exists to prove that unborns are alive and that they are human beings. Most arguments made by the pro choice side are aimed at denying their humanity and therefore can be nothing but lies.

If your argument is a lie, or based in a lie, then you must be told that it is a lie. At that point, you can provide credible proof that your position is not a lie at which point a discussion begins over which information is actually correct as in the case of climate change, or you can't provide any credible information that proves that your position is not a lie but continue to hold it which puts you in the position of deliberately trying to decieve.

If someone gives you credible information and you are unable to rebutt it with equally credible information but continue to make the same argument then it is right that you should be called a liar.

There is no shade of grey with regard to being a human being. You either are or you are not. A human being is not something that you become, it is what you are. You grow and are called various things to describe your state of growth, but all terms describe a human being. And scientific reformulating has been happening for a very long time. The more advanced our medicine becomes the more clear it becomes that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved. Having read copies of biological texts from as far back as the 1300's up to the most up to date editions that modern medical universities have to offer, I can state without reservation that observation with regard to the unborn has been reformulating for a very long time. It is not, however, going to reformulate to support the contention that unborns are not living human beings from conception. On that issue, we are certain and advances in science only reconfirm the fact.

I am a scientist and I find it very distasteful when people live in ignorance or tell lies when the truth is easily aquired. If pro choicer's came to this forum and others and stated their positions in an honest fashion; that is, if they said that they support allowing a woman to kill her unborn child without legal consequence for any or no reason, then I probably wouldn't argue against that very much. It is honest and really, what can you say to that? I could say that it isn't right, but then that would just be my opinion wouldn't it?

I don't care much to go about voicing my opinion because really, outside of myself, who could I really be sure is interested? But ignorance, lies and deliberate decetion? Those make fine targets and I can prove my point even if the other side of the argument isn't willing to accept the point. It becomes obvious to everyone involved that one side must debase itself in order to continue the argument. There is a certain entertainment value in seeing how far one will debase him or herself in order to hold on to an idea, even when that idea is proved faulty beyond any reasonable doubt.

That is a fault of yours, not mine. Personally, my mind becomes sharper and more active when what I believe is questioned and I am unable to provide any adequate rebuttal. It tells me that I am on the verge of learning something new and new doesn't frighten me, even if it contradicts long held beliefs. Why, after all, would I want to hold a belief that may be wrong, when I can have fact and know that I am not wrong?

With regard to what is in women's best interest, tell me, is abortion in the best interest of the 22 million or so women that have been aborted in this country alone so far? How about the evidence that is becoming more undeniable every day that women who have abortions are more likely to get breast cancer, or the millions of women who have suffered mental problems post abortion or the fact that women who have had abortions are the fastest growing group of sucides? Is abortion really in women's "best" interest or is that just one more story that you tell yourself in order to hold to a position that you have to know is flawed?

__________________
"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

Saint, I knew a poet from NYC by that handle.

1. Are animal pleasures always controllable? And, gratitude for interest shown by a special someone would be the compelling factor, not replaceable by the 'jack off'.


2. Babe should be raised by whoever can provide consistant loving atmosphere.


3. You're being disingenuous. Maybe three shifts at burger king.

4. Smarts are co-opted by the 'hunger' for attention.

5. Nope. I meant only that following the straight and narrow is often sidetracked by the invitation from that enticing, old, country road.

6. I have great confidence in my power for possitive thought and my ability to discern the minutest change in body's rhythm. Catching the speck while still a speck is not misery making.

7. Agreed!

I know everyone here has a "true" story about themselves that seems to be the perfect example of how they're right, but...I'll say it anyway:

I supported a wife, two kids, and myself with zero help from family, friends, or Uncle Sam for four years...for less than, or barely over, minimum wage. But I'll give you this: it was 56 hours a week on average, and I supplemented it with ANYTHING I could scab in my time off, but that extra money never went to bills, so we didn't need it, just used it to build a nest egg.

The job I had was being a deckhand on a towboat. The pay was $50.00 a day, the schedule was 30 days, 12 hours a day, on the boat, then 15 days off. There was no overtime pay, there was no holiday pay, there were no days off. Minimum wage at the time was $4.25/hr, if I recall correctly. I made $4.17. After the first year, my pay was bumped enough to be a few cents over minimum wage.

I hated the job, hated the time away from my family, and hated everything about it. I did it because we had one baby that needed food, and another on the way. For simplicity's sake, it would have been easier to have killed both babies so my wife and I could have both had jobs. But somehow it just seems wrong to kill babies to boost your own freedom. So, the babies got to live, and now Daddy is a Pilot and make six figures a year and only works six months a year. Everything worked out fine WITHOUT killing my kids; everything worked out fine BECAUSE I didn't kill my kids. Kids can motivate you to succeed better than anything else in the world...if you give a shit about them.

By the way, in many ways, I WAS the person in your example, except I was married and going to college. My wife and I went to college full time plus some (18-21 credit hours/semester). We had NO intention of having kids. Unfortunately, all the protection in the world is no guarantee...so we found ourselves with a baby. It was NEVER an option to kill the kid just because we'd rather do other stuff. And in the end, turns out you don't NEED a college degree to be successful, so I didn't ruin my life or dash my dreams...I just altered my life to fit around the FACT that I owed our kids a life, a father, and a home. To me, those debts were non-negotiable.

The first pregnancy was an accident - she was on the pill. The second was our own stupidty, but at least we were married! According to your scenario, I should be able to look my kids in the eyes and say "I should have had your mother kill you. We had every right to kill you, and life would have been better without you." And there would be nothing wrong with that, because abortion is a legitimate, acceptable choice??

__________________
Global Warming is my favorite color.

1. Words have meanings! You cannot get creative with them and expect people not to be confused or stumble or have to reread, to understand.

Unborns are live human fetuses which is different from living human beings. Think of the term: being. It's defined as, something conceivable as existing; something that actually exists: the totality of existing things; conscious existence; etc. Being does not quite apply to fetus. Almost. And yes, I believe in all the shades of grey. Only when I was a child did I think only in terms of black and white. I was idealistic.

2. But how does one disagree with your 'accurate information' and not be called a liar? Perhaps they simply choose to not acknowledge your truth. After all, they have their own, no matter how contrieved it seems to you. The fact that it is their's and not your's, is the source of your bile. It is not a lie for being their truth.

3. I differenciate between the terms living and alive. Living cell tissue is not necessarily thought of as alive, unless it's alive with maggots, say. See the difference?

4. Pale, first of all, science is interpretation, and my interpretation of what I see may be just as valid as yours. And, how do you prove an opinion based on many forgotten impressions?

5. Please limit your arguement to what I have said. I can't answer for others.

6. And, when I did this, you disapproved because I used the term fetus inplace of child. Your reaction lacked the honesty of which you speak.

7. So, it is not passion, it's entertainment! I visualize a devious faceless smile, at a computer, somewhere in space.

8. This quote is well said. I like it very much!

9. It may be flawed, but until momen AND men stop behaving imprudently, it's an option women need. After all, men don't get pregnant. And they so easily can say NO to oppressive responsibility. Abortion allows women to say No just as easily.

This is a wonderful story of hard work leading to success. But, you don't seem to see that the whole out look changes when someone is there sharing it all with you.

If my character was even finacially supported, much less partnered with the boy, the scenario would have been so different.

OK. Lets think of the term: being

Are you saying that unborns don't exist?

Are you saying that unborns don't "actually" exist?

[/quote]

If the word being means to exist in reality, then if unborns exist in reality, then they are beings. Once again, feel free to provide some credible sceince that states that we aren't living human beings from conception. I keep asking and you keep not delivering.

By providing credible science to the contrary. The fact that you can't find it is pretty strong evidence that there is no real debate among scientists regarding the fact that we are human beings from the time we are concieved.

With no evidence to the contrary, on what basis, exactly do they base thier own "truth".

Fabricated fantasies don't consitute truth when actual evidence exists.

Are you kidding? You describe the tissue as "living" but say that it isn't thought of as alive. Ignorance of the science doesn't make your fabrications true.

What qualifications do you have that would make your interpretation of the biology of human development more valid than that of literally every doctor who ever wrote a textbook on the subject?

And I am not arguing from opinion. I am arguing from fact. Unless of course, you can prove that medical textbooks and medical journals are only putting forth opinion.

[quote=marmalade6;353742]6. And, when I did this, you disapproved because I used the term fetus inplace of child. Your reaction lacked the honesty of which you speak.[/quiote]

Because you use the term fetus in the same way a racist uses the word nigger. You use it in an attempt to dehumanize a human being.

Visualize whatever you like. And if you don't want to entertain me, then don't debase yourself in order to hold to a position that you know isn't true.

Murder is always an option, for anyone, to settle anything.

__________________
"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

Still another choice made consciously by your character.

Your character CHOSE to have sex with someone she wasn't sure would be a responsible father. I CHOSE to have sex with someone I trusted implicitly, and had known for years to be an upstanding person.

As I said, the first two kids weren't planned, BUT we had sex knowing full well we MIGHT make babies no matter what protection we used, and we were BOTH willing to risk it.

Women who have abortions make miserable choices, and are UNWILLING to accept the risks.

I'm not saying that you can tell 100% what kind of man you're sleeping with, but you can sure as hell reduce the odds of screwing a deadbeat by WAITING and getting to know him well enough to rule out your doubts. Don't sleep with anyone until you know the very, very well.

But that flies in the face of our "instant gratification" society, so not many people care about the risks of having sex. And our welfare mentality teaches us that WHEN we fuck up, we STILL don't have to care because we can kill it, give it away, get total strangers to finance it through welfare...so why wait? Fuck now, burden someone else later!

__________________
Global Warming is my favorite color.

marmalade6

Honey, I suggest you ignore palerider for sure. Your wasting time talking to that evil man. And evil he is. The foolish man promotes ending birth control and abortions yet would let the children gladly starve to death after they are born rather than give one dime in taxes to feed them..................That is evil. .......................And pale rider says animals have no right to live. Believe me many have tried to talk sense to palerider, and he just ignores facts , science, logic and the bible in favor of his own evil and warped theology.


And this SaintMalaclypse I do not know . But I can tell you that he has a potty mouth which tells me he is not a follower Of Christs.

and he is most probably a liar. He says the following.

"" The job I had was being a deckhand on a towboat. The pay was $50.00 a day, the schedule was 30 days, 12 hours a day, on the boat, then 15 days off. There was no overtime pay, there was no holiday pay, there were no days off. Minimum wage at the time was $4.25/hr, if I recall correctly. I made $4.17. After the first year, my pay was bumped enough to be a few cents over minimum wage.""

I happened to have had a brother and a husband back when minimum wage was about $4.25 per hour. Both worked on boats like this man said he did and they made a lot more money than that. Both were new to the job but I recall my husband made over 500 a week net. and that was back in the early 80's when 500 net was a lot of money.

average wage on any boat with the 30 days on 15 or 30 days off is much higher and always has been than what this man said. Now maybe in the 60's they paid $50 a day. But then minimum wage wouldn't have been $4.25 either.

So I wouldn't waste my time , your dealing with 2 liars at the very least in these two men.

Thanks for the heads-up, Peach. The $4.25 per hour puts Saint on the boat in 1991. But if the annual pay doesn't add up, there's some discrepancy.

Pale gets dippy, accationally. I think he's over extending himself.