Abortion!

[chequita guevara]

One thing we need to remember. These people aren't simply trying to verturn Roe v. Wade. They're after Griwald v. Connecticutt as well. (That's the case where SCOTUS said we had a right to birth control.)

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ming


To be clear, I have a religious study minor, and was exposed to many years of catechism classes thanks to my time in a Catholic school

To answer your question, being Catholic means you accept ALL beliefs of the church. Granted, many people don't, but still consider themselves Catholic and continue to participate in their religion. I personally don't accept some of their beliefs and consider myself a non practicing Catholic... While still a religious person, I can't stomach the position the Church takes on some issues, and how they have been NOT really addresing the problems of abusive priests.

Religious study minor? You never cease to amaze!

Here is one of my favorite quotes...it seems to fit into the context of what you are saying:

"Going to church doesn't make one any more of a Christian than going to a garage makes them a mechanic"

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Arrian
They're relying on a rather dubious method of birth control, AFAIK.

They're gonna burn in hell anyway, so who cares?

-Arrian

The rhythm method should work perfectly, barring abnormalities/bad timing. (The latter is far, far more frequent.)

The summary of the reason is that there's a hormone which prevents fertilization. This hormone is present when the woman isn't ovulating, or when she is pregnant. So you could say that a woman properly using the rhythm method is no more likely to get fertilized than a pregnant woman.

The flaw, obviously, is that people don't get the rhythm correct, so it's unreliable because people don't always know what they're doing.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One thing we need to remember. These people aren't simply trying to verturn Roe v. Wade. They're after Griwald v. Connecticutt as well. (That's the case where SCOTUS said we had a right to birth control.)

An interesting case. Thanks che for the bringing this one up

Opinions of The Justices in Griwald vs. Connecticut

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
In abstaining, you acknowledge that sex has this procreative element, otherwise, you would simply use artificial means to continue having sex throughout this period. You would not abstain, because you believe that sex is simply for pleasure. You do abstain because you believe that sex is much more then just for your pleasure.

That's an extremely strange bit of "logic."

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You use the word 'actively' avoiding getting pregnant, when the only action that is preventing pregnancy in this case is abstinence. The couple chooses not to have sex with each other for a short period.

Abstinence is not an action. It is a lack of action. Eating is an action. Fasting is a lack of action.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Japher
I'm really pissed that no one has told me how cute Josie is.

Come on guys!

Not that I've read anything since I posted her pic

but still! She's freakin' adorable!

Hell, I was still trying to figure out if you were serious. It appears you were, and that's your daughter, Josie. She's very cute, Japher.

-Arrian

/me waits for Ben to pop up and say something like "gee I bet Josie's happy you didn't abort her!"

[Japher]

Thank you

"gee I bet Josie's happy you didn't abort her!"

that's kind of what I was getting at...

I wish that everyone who is thinking about getting an abortion at least get some counciling before AND after the act. I really think that messing with life like that (both their own and the childs) is sad.

Should it be a womans place? To decide if a child would be an inconvenience or not? Should this kind of decision be given to someone who wasn't even responsible enough to not get pregnant? Still, do we want that same person to raise a kid?

[Arrian]

The thing is, many pro-choicers are personally anti-abortion... like me.

In college, I pondered what I would do if I knocked up my girlfriend. We were using b.c. (oh, no! sin on top of sin!! ), but **** happens, ya know? We came to the conclusion, ultimately, that if it happened, we'd keep the child. It would've been very hard, but neither of us really wanted to go the other route. Luckily for us, the pill is very effective. Really lucky, considering that relationship died badly.

That being said, I do not feel so strongly about it to deny other people their right to make a choice of their own about it. Because I do *not* believe that humanity begins at conception, or for quite a bit after that, the only "choice" involved is by the potential mother and father.

I also hope that anyone who contemplates the procedure does so at length.

Should it be a womans place? To decide if a child would be an inconvenience or not? Should this kind of decision be given to someone who wasn't even responsible enough to not get pregnant? Still, do we want that same person to raise a kid?

Yes, I do think the woman has a right to choose... although the sticky issue for me is if she wants to abort and the father wants to have it. What then, eh? Forced to pick one over the other, I would go with the woman. But that's not an easy question at all.

And your last question is also quite relevant. Think of it: we ban abortion. A woman who wants to abort thus cannot (let's assume for the moment that she cannot find illegal methods to abort). She must keep the child or give it up for adoption. Now, I'm sure there are cases where the mother has the child, loves it and becomes a good mother. No doubt. But there are just as surely tons of cases where the mother is *not* a good mom, and/or gives the child up... and how many of these pro-lifers are out there adopting... particularly adopting little black babies, eh? And I haven't even gotten into the issue of the father (who is just as irresponsible as the mother).

At the end of the day, I simply refuse to force what I would do (after quite a long discussion/debate) on others. And that is where I and people like Ben differ.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Should this kind of decision be given to someone who wasn't even responsible enough to not get pregnant?

And wait just a sec...

First off, wasn't Josie an "oops?" Are you saying your wife (and you) are irresponsible? Are you questioning your ability to be a good parent?

Second, there seem to be PLENTY of highly irresponsible parents out there, many of whom are only parents... *drumroll please* ... because of a lack of proper education and/or access to birth control (more the former, I believe). People can blather about abstinence until they're blue in the face. Abstinence, as a generally policy, has NEVER worked.

-Arrian

[Japher]

First off, wasn't Josie an "oops?" Are you saying your wife (and you) are irresponsible?

Josie was planned.

I'm for eduacting people about their options.


I can see how you thought she was an accident when I say things like;

those are famous last word... last time I said that

that was more a joke

[Arrian]

See, I figured you were joking. So I also assumed the pic was a joke. Hence me not saying "oh, your daughter is cute, Japher."



-Arrian

[Japher]

she is my daughter... and she's the best thing that happened to me

I think that a lot of people would agree, even if the pregnancy is a surprise.

If Josie gets pregnant young, I will hope and encourage her to keep it.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Japher
"don't worry honey, I know when to pull out"

those are famous last word... last time I said that

I didn't say that, just intended it and the same result



well she has her 6th birtday on Sunday


---

as for the rest I pretty much agree with Ming spot on 100% , as in my life I wouldn't use it, but I can understand that some people need to, and that in my opinion like Mings is the right of the carrier until the life is viable.

While this might be "unfortunate" **** happens all over the world and idealism has no connection with realism, so if you feel obliged to prevent "murder" do us all a favour, pick up as many as you can of the extra unwanted children that are living, go broke if you need for your beliefs, and be ready to pick up any other one that comes out regularly despite abortions being "available".

It is a sad world we are living in, but banning dubious practices is not going to make it better, it will make it even worse.

Real consequences in states banning abortion are the following: The rich people go on "holiday" and have abortion somewhere else, the poor people go to "balck market", die, are injured for life, spend all they have to go abroad to do it in a "safer environment" + those who don't do it at all leave those now newborn "aborted kids" (because they will receive nor love nor any support in real life) out with the state whatever way they can get rid of them, leaving the motehr even more broken and ****ed up, and that is the reality of the "pro-life" argument. Even more sentient humans get killed, destroyed, and more unwanted childern is born.

Thus as Arrian said - sex seducation is the key, whether you are pro -life or pro-choice, and only reasonable alternative is "pro-choice" as there people who abhor abortion can still try to not do it themselves and convince everyone else to stop doing it. It is only because you are unable to convince everyone of your good ideas, that you seek the path throught the state.

[Japher]

I can understand that some people need to

"need" to?