'Partial Birth' Abortion

  • News
  • Thread starter Jonathan
  • Start date
  • #1
Jonathan
365
0
I'd like to change the subject a little: What are the conditions under which partial birth abortion is necessary? At first I disliked the bill because it didn't allow for that loop-hole, but then I heard that there are NO such circumstances. I have no medical training so I don't know, what do you all think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Originally posted by Jonathan

I'd like to change the subject a little: What are the conditions under which partial birth abortion is necessary? At first I dislikeed the bill because it didn't allow for that loophole, but then I heard that there are NO such circumstances. I have no medical training so I don't know, what do youall think?
This should be its own thread, but to answer your question: cases where the fetus will either kill its mother, or is so seriously deformed that it had no chance of survival anyways, like having developed major organs outside the body.

A few points to remember: 1)'partial birth' abortion is an Orwellian phrase with no standing in the medical community; it was created by anti-abortion folks to provoke an inappropriate response. 2)This procedure makes up only something like 0.5-2% of abortions every year, and is almost never done 'on demand'. 3) The procedure is most often used in cases where the child will almost certainly be stillborn, die shortly after birth, or poses some threat to the mother's health. Generally, it could better be described as euthanasia, rather than abortion.

Mostly though...shouldn't we let the people who went to medical school make medical decisions, and let the divinity students stick to their church's politics?
 
  • #3
Jonathan
365
0
I disagree, i think it was called partial birth because the baby literally has to be partially born to preform this particular precedure. My point was that if the baby was going to die anyway (ie, brain form outside skull type thing) there needn't be an abortion, just let it be born and die naturally. My question is: what are these dangers to the mother's health? I said that I was informed that there are no such occurrences, and this was from someone in the medical community.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by Jonathan
However, I would tend to side with those against Zero, even if they have no evidence, because I don't think it is just an unfortunate coincidence that so many have a complaint that he deleted their thread/post when he shouldn't have.

Something you should consider...I've been doing this for 2 years now. I generally know what is acceptable and what is not. Greg agrees with me 95% of the time, and anyhoo...you all agreed to abide by the decisions of the PF mentors. Were you lying when you agreed to it, or did you not realize it at the time?
Let's be fair here...I almost never agree with anything that right-wingers say, yet 99.999% of their posts have been left alone. Some folks, I edit their posts to remove the offending term or statement...for teh worst abusers, I just delete their posts, they et mad, they go away for a month or two before trolling PF again.

No system is perfect, boss...we do what we can.
 
  • #5
I'd like to change the subject a little: What are the conditions under which partial birth abortion is necessary? At first I dislikeed the bill because it didn't allow for that loophole, but then I heard that there are NO such circumstances. I have no medical training so I don't know, what do youall think?

A few things to consider first:

1. The law is unconstitutional - three federal judges within a day banned enforcing it.
2. Politicians knew the bill was unconstitutional when they passed it.
3. A similar bill that would have been constitutional (included exceptions for the health of the mother) was voted down 60-38.

So, one has to ask one's self, why did congress pass a law they knew would be unconstitutional and shot down a constitutional equivalent bill?

In response to your health question: There are doctors on both sides, all agree that partial birth abortions are often used because of health issues. The differense is in how one defines "necessary" - are there always other procedures? yeah, pretty much. Are those other procedures as effective, cheap, and readily available? No. In other words "partial birth abortion" is never "absolutly necessay" but it is often "the best, most practical" method.
 
  • #6
Jonathan
365
0
So I will repeat what I said before: Why is it unconstitutional? If it is because of right to privacy, don't bother to answer that.
Niether has yet stated what they think might hypothetically constitute a health risk to the mother?
 
  • #7
Why is it unconstitutional?

An almost identical state law was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2000 for the two following reasons:
1. It had no exception for the health of the mother
2. It defined "partial birth abortion" in too broad of medical terms

Number 2 may have been fixed, but the Supreme court said that either reason was big enough to make in unconstitutional. So, again, why did congress shoot down a law that would have been constitutional in favor of one that was unconstitutional?

I do not know the specific medical reasons and am having trouble finding actual medical studies - many articles on the pro-choice side reference medical studies but I can't find them. The most I know about the medical aspect of this is what I posted: Everyone agrees that the procedure is used in cases of health concern for the mother. Everyone agrees that there are other options. So, the debate is really over whether or not women should be forced to choose the other options.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Jonathan
So I will repeat what I said before: Why is it unconstitutional? If it is because of right to privacy, don't bother to answer that.
Niether has yet stated what they think might hypothetically constitute a health risk to the mother?
A rotting dead fetus isn't a health risk? Should they wait until it dies before removing it, or save the mother's health and take it out? Again, though, we are talking about a RARE case. The AMA already restricts doctors specifically in when they are allowed to use this procedure...it is NEVER supposed to be used as 'abortion on demand'.

Further, the law itself is likely to stand, with a few alterations. The wording is a bit...shaky, I think.
 
  • #9
Niether has yet stated what they think might hypothetically constitute a health risk to the mother?

Here is a better question: Why did congress knowing that without a health exceptiont the law would never make it a day (I think it made 3 hours) before the courts stopped its enforcement not put a health exception in? If it really is never needed or used in cases where the health of the women is at risk, why would it matter if it was in the law or not? Answer that question.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by RageSk8
Here is a better question: Why did congress knowing that without a health exceptiont the law would never make it a day (I think it made 3 hours) before the courts stopped its enforcement not put a health exception in? If it really is never needed or used in cases where the health of the women is at risk, why would it matter if it was in the law or not? Answer that question.
It is politics...Bush and some of his cronies have not a single policy bone in their body...all they care about is getting votes by any means necessary. It doesn't matter if the courts later REQUIRE abortions, because they scored their political points.
 
  • #11
Jonathan
365
0
I am not trying to question Bush's motives here, I just want a few or even one example of a medical reason one would need partial birth abortion. Now Zero, I didn't miss your post, I read it, but I don't think that is a legitimate reason. If the fetus is rotting then the fetus is dead, there is no need for an abortion, maybe induced labor though, but I think your body will do that for you: miscarriage. Now for the brain outside skull thing, I think yes, because it is a mercy killing, the baby will die very soon anyway, so make it quicker. The thing is that eventually it will be hard to draw the line between the extremes, how does one define 'very soon'? BUt do not answer that, I don't want to go down that road.
I came up with that maybe the baby is theoretically viable but that because of some abnormality cannot be born vaginally. So they do a c-section, and discover it is worse than they thought, the baby will probably die soon. I asked about this and was told that once they go to the trouble of a c-section, they won't give up on a baby, that it has been born and so is a developed human by even the most die-hard pro-choice person. So here we have a case that is a health risk, but they would refuse to do the 'post-birth' abortion.
I tell you, I can't come up with one!
 
  • #12
Did the bill that was passed have any riders? You know loop holes and such? I woul dlike to compare the on that was passed to the on ethat wasn't. What makes them different?
 
  • #13
If the fetus is rotting then the fetus is dead, there is no need for an abortion, maybe induced labor though, but I think your body will do that for you: miscarriage. (emphasis ragesk8's)

In a way, I have already answered your question: "Everyone agrees that the procedure is used in cases of health concern for the mother. Everyone agrees that there are other options. So, the debate is really over whether or not women should be forced to choose the other options." There are reasons that women choose pba over induced labor. The Supreme Court has decided that this choice is up to the woman. Nuff said.
 
  • #14
adrenaline
Science Advisor
103
3
I will try to answer why the need for parital birth abortions may be necessary even though I am not a obstetrician. The problem is, there are no clean cut or sigular answers. This is what characterizes so much of medical decision making and involves balancing so many variables and options at the same time.


First of all, less than a thousand or actually 600 of these partial birth abortions were preformed in the last year. The physician who is nationally known for this procedure is a Dr. Warren Hearn who has stated time and time again that it has been done under the most dire emergencies. Second, it is almost never done on demand. Most women who carry a child to late term want the baby!

The simple decision of PBO involves severe birth defects. One particular that comes to mind is the child with skeletal dysplasia who within moments of birth gasps and suffocates to death. The others have been mentioned regarding anencephelopathy (Born with only mid brain) etc.

The harder decision comes in aborting the non defective fetus to protect the mother.

The practice of high-quality medicine requires that physicians be knowledgeable about and able to perform a variety of procedures to accomplish a given treatment or therapy. Planning any procedure is done in consultation with the patient, and it is based on the medical judgment, experience, and training of the provider, and the individual circumstances of the patient's condition. Sometimes, as a result of developments during a surgery or in a patient's condition, it becomes necessary to adapt and choose a different course or modify the procedure as it progresses. These decisions are often quite complex and mandate that physicians use their best professional and clinical judgment, most often right on the spot. These are decisions that should be made by physicians and their patients alone. Indeed, when performing surgery, there is not time for a call to Congress, the Supreme Court, or anyone else in order to obtain clarification of the statutory intent or to request a waiver!

The conditions that come to mind are the women who have gone into congestive heart failure,chronic renal failure patients, chronic lung diseases like pulmonary hemosiderosis etc. Many have the disease and were advised not to get pregnant due to the dangers of pregnancy but got pregnant and some developed the condition (heart failure, renal failure) while pregnant due to peripartum cardiomyopathy, HELP syndrome etc.etc.

Late term pregnancy is characterized by huge intravascular increase in plasma volume and an increased coagulopathic state which put a tremendous burden on a weak heart, lungs and strains the capacity of the excretory functions of the kidneys. Some women are tenuously controlled with medicines, dialysis, repiratory devices etc. However, there comes a time when emergency C -sections cannot be done due to the dangers of the anesthesia on failing hearts and lungs. (Remember, anesthesia is still the most dangerous aspect of any surgery and which is why anesthesiologists have higher malpractice rates than any surgeon!). Labor is so intensive on normal hearts and lungs (I was worn out during my 24 hours of labor and I biked 200 miles a week until my third trimester!) it would probably kill these women. In fact, many women are in the throes of labor and both women and child are decompensating quickly and for whatever reason, a c-section may not have been an option after the obstetrician weighed the benefits and risks and felt a paritial birth abortion was necessary. In fact, the child at this point has already suffered permanent hypoxic damage. Once again, no specifics since I am not an obstetrician.

Of more concern is the fact that disgruntled family members may sue the obstetrician for monetary awards if they can use a flimsy law to prove the doctor had committed a federal crime.

It is frightening and horrific that the government is becoming more intrusive about playing a role in medical decision making. (Let's not forget the Florida case where Bush's sibling governor, Jeb Bush ,ordered doctors to restart feeding tube on a women in persistent vegetative state after the husband had wanted her care withdrawn.).

Just my two cents.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
Good post, adrenaline...too bad the folks on the other side only have one argument: abortion is EVIL!!
 
  • #16
Jonathan
365
0
I have made my decision, adrenalin's post was a clincher, and let it stand forever as a testiment to the fact that I really do consider all the facts I can get before making a decision: They should have put some loop-holes in there. The Supreme Court made the right decision. I believe Bush, contrary to what many claim, is quite smart, and I think a) he has been mislead, or far more likely b) he knew that it would be shot down and had an ulterior motive. You all have been hinting at it, so what do you think his ulterior motive was?
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Jonathan
I have made my decision, adrenalin's post was a clincher, and let it stand forever as a testiment to the fact that I really do consider all the facts I can get before making a decision: They should have put some loop-holes in there. The Supreme Court made the right decision. I believe Bush, contrary to what many claim, is quite smart, and I think a) he has been mislead, or far more likely b) he knew that it would be shot down and had an ulterior motive. You all have been hinting at it, so what do you think his ulterior motive was?
Ulterior motive? The simplest one is the fact that signing ANY anti-abortion law looks good for Bush.
To get a little more speculative, passing a bad bad law allows Bush to defend it, and portray his opponents as being 'anti-baby'.
I want you to think about the other situation that you posted about: the Ten Commandments case. Judge Moore went out of his way to make the situation as confrontational as possible. He knew he was breaking the law, but he got to smear his opponents as 'anti-God'. He knew which ways he could have displayed the Ten Commandments withoiut a court challenge, but he chose not to do so. He even declines to ask for a stay on the removal of the monument, seemingly to force a scene where the monument was removed on TV, with maximum drama, before his supporters from all over the country had to get back to their jobs.
I'm feeling like something similar to that situation is going on with the 'partial birth' abortion ban. It is more about grandstanding than good law.
 
  • #18
Jonathan
365
0
I disagree, I think the Alabama judge really does think it should be there, he is a devout Christian. And as we all have undoubtably experienced, some Christians have a hard time reconciling the fact that they have to treat other religions as equals even when they know their's is the true one and a lot of the time you can prove that someone else's religion is made up (say kwansa, which I have heard many times was made up by a black conman in the '60's, which is supported by historical evidence: no one ever heard of kwansa before then, did you?). But that last comment is probably controversial and completely off topic, so lets ignore that.
 
  • #19
cucumber
20
0
just a general question:

does anyone here think that a woman should be allowed to abort because she does not want a baby?
 
  • #20
adrenaline
Science Advisor
103
3
Originally posted by cucumber
just a general question:

does anyone here think that a woman should be allowed to abort because she does not want a baby?

Until more white couples will adopt black babies..yes. There are three white babies in georgia waiting for adoption vs. hundreds of black and so carrying a baby to term to give it up for adoption is not realistic for a black woman.

Until birth control is free.... yes

until the man who impregnated the woman is forced to pay child support (we have the DNA technology to make it unequivocally certain who is the father)

then yes......

Many of these girls or women abort because they are scared and financially unable to raise a child alone even with welfare. It is interesting that there is a greater willingness to keep the babies when the father has decided to take an active role in supporting or raising the child even if there is no union of marriage.

The more appropriate question is... would all men who got the women pregnant be willing to provide financial support for the child's upbringing until the child turns 18? Would he bear the burden of paying for child day care (expensive in the US) while the woman works or finishes school? Woould he be willing to take a sick day off of work to take the child to the pediatricians? etc. etc. Afterall, he is 50% responsible.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Originally posted by cucumber
just a general question:

does anyone here think that a woman should be allowed to abort because she does not want a baby?
Yep.
 
  • #22
Jonathan
365
0
Adrenaline, you are being rediculus, your post should have read: No, if she didn't want a baby she should have though about that before having sex out of wedlock. It is the risk you take and you should not have the chance to take the easy way out.
 
  • #23
adrenaline
Science Advisor
103
3
Originally posted by Jonathan
Adrenaline, you are being rediculus, your post should have read: No, if she didn't want a baby she should have though about that before having sex out of wedlock. It is the risk you take and you should not have the chance to take the easy way out.

The ridiculousness of it all is blaming solely the woman. (Also the assumption that this was a willing decision rather than a victime of maritial or extramarital rape.)

The man (usually the man is older or equal, rarely younger in age) is just as knowledgable about the facts of life. If they knew they could get the woman pregnant, they should never have stuck it in.

You also need to take into consideration the psyche of teenagers (who comprise much of the unintended pregnancies). I have had girls who told me that if they kissed before sex (as reassured by the man) they would not get pregnant. Many misssed one or two birth control pills and like any young teenager felt they would escape the odds of getting pregnant. (Much like the teenager who drives over the speed limit and does not wear seatbelt...they have poor understanding of the consequences of risk taking.) Some were victims of date rapes. Since birth control pills are not free, many could not afford birth control. Many were told by their lovers that the men did not like condoms or the latest and greatest...allergic to latex. Many did not realize they could seek the health department for help in that area. (Although that is one of the first areas feeling cuts by the state) Many thought if they approached a doctor for birth control options, as underage citizens, doctors would report such solicitation to the parents. (By the way, if the patient is underage, it is one of the few areas doctors are not obligated to seek the consent of parents.)

So no, I am not being ridiculous. I am also actually antiabortion but am realistic and pragmatic enough to know people are going to keep having sex and legalized or not, abortions continue.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Jonathan
365
0
Yes, you are, esp. given that you are arguing counter to your beliefs. Of course the men are partially to blame, but they can run off scott-free, and everyone knows this, leaving the girls behind to have the babies, and this is where the problem and my previous post comes in. It is in a girl's best interest to educate herself on this topic and to do everything she can not to be raped(duh). I will not accept the fact that teenagers are stupid as a reason why they should be allowed to kill their babies. As I said, all they have to do is not have sex, and there will be no problem. Not having sex is easy, I'm not having sex right now. Your assurtion that this is partially to blame on the lack of free birth control is also rediculus, for the same reasons above. If you don't have access to birth control, and you then have sex, you took a risk, and should have to deal with the consequences, of course preferably with help of family and maybe a psychologist, in the case of rape. I used to think that abortion would be okay in a case of rape, but I thought about it this way: it's not the kid's fault it is the child of a rapist, so why should they die for it? Then again, who wants to live life knowing you're the child of a rapist? I'm still torn on that issue. This is how I see it: abortion is usually, as you have said, done in the case of stupid teenagers and rape victims; however, why should one introduce what many think is a new social ill to fix the old ones? I think it is just a short way out and the correct fix would be to reduce the numbers of rapes and stupid teenagers.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
adrenaline
Science Advisor
103
3
I am not excusing poor judgement but the very people who oppose abortions are many times against sex education in school (I'm in georgia remember), many will not adopt a minority child (there are programs offered to these girls to carry their child to term so a couple can adopt the child.), many oppose free contraceptives etc. etc.

The issue with the guy getting scott free is now easily fixed with DNA typing and a law to enforce child support.

It is in a girl's best interest to educate herself on this topic and to do everything she can not to be raped

It's amazing how women are still blamed for getting themselves into the predicament of rape. These women are not getting themselves into situations out of sheer stupidity. My apartment was broken into in Atlanta by a burgler who also decided he wanted to rape me. I beat the **** out of him but what if he had overpowered me? I suppose I should never have gotten myself into that predicament? (He broke through two double bolted doors.) (My roomate was working the midnite shift.)

Date rapes can occur when a girl goes to an innocent party with a multitude of people and the guy drops some ghb (date rape drug) in her drink and wisks her off into his car or a back room. etc. etc.

As for these girls who believed kissing would prevent pregnancy, the one that comes to mind from personal experience is an 11 and half year old who got pregnant by her 18 yr old step cousin. Should she have been educated on how to prevent pregnancy? Was this completely her fault for being naive? She was not stupid, she was naive. Perhaps we need to have sex education as early as 7 since 14 % of all teenagers will have had intercourse by the age of 12.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Jonathan
365
0
We have had a misunderstanding. I don't think that if a woman is raped it is her fault. I specifically used the terms 'rape victim' and 'duh'. As for the last part, I don't think 7yo should be told everthing, but they should have a foggy idea, and it should be concrete that they don't let anyone touch them there. Of course there are still rapes, but that is not avoidable by way of sex ed.

I do not understand what some of that last post has to do with abortion:
-The guy needn't pay child support for the kid if the kid has been killed, so that is an irrelevant point.
-I am still torn on whether abortion is okay in the case of rape, so I can't argue for my nonexistent opinion on that yet. I would like to just say that the kids of rapists could be put up for adoption, but we know that the gov't can't handle the kids they have already.

The 11.5yo case is entirely the fault of the man, since she was underage, and therefore falls under the rape category, where I'm torn. In this case you have misunderstood what I meant, and we are both right (because I agree), a naive 11.5yo isn't the same as a stupid teenager. (Esp. given that 'eleven' lacks the 'teen' part.:smile:)
 
  • #27
adrenaline
Science Advisor
103
3
I am sorry about the misunderstanding. It was about 3 am here and I was punchy at work.

The guy needn't pay child support for the kid if the kid has been killed, so that is an irrelevant point.

I should have reiterated that with regards to decreasing abortions in general; a girl or woman is more likely to keep the baby if the man is willing to help with the child support or take an active role in the raising of the child without necessarily getting married. Many abort because they are single, without funds, scared of quitting college etc. (This is not excuse it from a moral standpoint, but just to hit on why some of these women abort.)In addition, if there were mandatory child support laws, alot more boys and men would be very hesistant to engage in unprotected sex. If I was 18 and knew I would have all my future wages garnished for child support for another 18 yrs, I would probably keep my pants zipped up.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Jonathan
Adrenaline, you are being rediculus, your post should have read: No, if she didn't want a baby she should have though about that before having sex out of wedlock. It is the risk you take and you should not have the chance to take the easy way out.
This is what anti-abortion comes down to: "our religion believes sex is dirty, and any way you can get punished for enjoying sex is great with us." They sure as hell don't care about children, because the strongly anti-abortion people are also against public schools, Medicare and Medicaid, school lunches, or anything else that might help children. Why lie, and pretend it is about 'sanctity of life'? Just tell the truth: they think that people who have sex out of wedlock should pay for it, in STDs or an unwanted pregnancy, or maybe a plague of frogs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
Originally posted by Zero
This is what anti-abortion comes down to: "our religion believes sex is dirty, and any way you can get punished for enjoying sex is great with us." They sure as hell don't care about children, because the strongly anti-abortion people are also against public schools, Medicare and Medicaid, school lunches, or anything else that might help children. Why lie, and pretend it is about 'sanctity of life'? Just tell the truth: they think that people who have sex out of wedlock should pay for it, in STDs or an unwanted pregnancy, or maybe a plague of frogs.

I am not antiabortion but I am a Catholic and I know a lot of pro-lifers. Your characterization of them could not be more false and insulting. They love their children dearly and are much for helping the poor (Catholic charities is one of the most efficient of help agencies). Beyond that many of them, instructed by the Church, are left-liberal on social issues and supporters of government programs like Medicare and Medicaid - hey, the older ones, including me, are on it!. They do not think sex is dirty, they think it is holy, just as a person is holy. And, here is where I differ from them, they think a fetus is a person. Try to think outside your mindset for a moment and imagine how you would act if you thought fetuses were really, truly people.
 
  • #30
FZ+
1,599
3
Try to think outside your mindset for a moment and imagine how you would act if you thought fetuses were really, truly people.
It is one thing to act on your beliefs, but quite another to force that belief with the fanaticism of an ideology unto a mass population, many of which strongly disagree with your views.
 
  • #31
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
Absolutely. There is for example the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, who likes to pray for women entering abortion clinics. By court order, he has to stay across the street, so he uses a bull-horn. And I am sure the mendacious "Partial Birth" law will be struck down by the courts, just as its predecessor was.

But there is also a difference between opposing an injustice, and demeaning the character of those you are opposing.
 
  • #32
Jonathan
365
0
adrenaline: I understand, I am only on the computer at night and I can get confused easily when tired . I remember now, and I agree: Better child support laws=less abortion.
Zero: You have my motives wrong, but got some of the politics right:
-sex+love=good (esp. with marriage first)
-meaningless+sex=bad
-I am against public schools because they don't do a good job and are more expensive than the old way: apprenticeship and education by parents.
-Medicare and Medicaid I know little about, so I don't have opinions there yet.
-I am against school lunches because I don't want to pay for someone else's kid's lunch. I will voluntarily give to charities that do the same thing, but I don't want it gov't enforced, that is socalism. I am not against children getting to eat and I haven't thought much about this issue, so I may actually prefer a more conditional opinion, I don't know.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I am not antiabortion but I am a Catholic and I know a lot of pro-lifers. Your characterization of them could not be more false and insulting. They love their children dearly and are much for helping the poor (Catholic charities is one of the most efficient of help agencies). Beyond that many of them, instructed by the Church, are left-liberal on social issues and supporters of government programs like Medicare and Medicaid - hey, the older ones, including me, are on it!. They do not think sex is dirty, they think it is holy, just as a person is holy. And, here is where I differ from them, they think a fetus is a person. Try to think outside your mindset for a moment and imagine how you would act if you thought fetuses were really, truly people.
You live in Wisconsin...oops.

Sorry folks, I forget that the entire country isn't the Bible Belt. Down here, AIDS is punishment for sin, as are other STDs and unwanted pregnancy. Also sorry, for not being more specific in my attack. There ARE people sho believe the way that I described, lots and lots of them. They are mostly evangelical psuedo-Christians, who embrace hate as a way of life. You should see the glee they get when bad things happen to 'sinners'.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Jonathan
adrenaline: I understand, I am only on the computer at night and I can get confused easily when tired . I remember now, and I agree: Better child support laws=less abortion.
Zero: You have my motives wrong, but got some of the politics right:
-sex+love=good (esp. with marriage first)
-meaningless+sex=bad
-I am against public schools because they don't do a good job and are more expensive than the old way: apprenticeship and education by parents.
-Medicare and Medicaid I know little about, so I don't have opinions there yet.
-I am against school lunches because I don't want to pay for someone else's kid's lunch. I will voluntarily give to charities that do the same thing, but I don't want it gov't enforced, that is socalism. I am not against children getting to eat and I haven't thought much about this issue, so I may actually prefer a more conditional opinion, I don't know.
You are allowed your opinions. I don't see how or why your opinions should be made the law for everyone.
 
  • #35
cucumber
20
0
Originally posted by Zero
You live in Wisconsin...oops.

Sorry folks, I forget that the entire country isn't the Bible Belt. Down here, AIDS is punishment for sin, as are other STDs and unwanted pregnancy. Also sorry, for not being more specific in my attack. There ARE people sho believe the way that I described, lots and lots of them. They are mostly evangelical psuedo-Christians, who embrace hate as a way of life. You should see the glee they get when bad things happen to 'sinners'.

i agree: i used to live in Rwanda when i was little as my mom and dad were development workers (i am not sure what the job is called) and they told me how the church actively propagated the rumor that condoms did not prevent you from getting aids (as they had "little holes through which the virus can get") and that it is a sin to use them (and if you didn't have sex before marriage and didn't cheat on your partner you wouldn't get HIV anyway), thus destroying the efforts my parents had made promoting the use of them. how can a world religion that claims to be all about love thy neighbour help AIDS to spread around the people that believe in them?!?
it's ridiculous!
 

Suggested for: 'Partial Birth' Abortion

  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
256
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
489
Replies
13
Views
377
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
622
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
824
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
Top