Oh well never mind
Oh GEEZ.............doesn't change the fact that there is always a chance...
A chance?? Condoms are rated in the vicinity of 98% effective and progesterone pill slightly higher. Those in combination with each other makes the chance so close to zero that it renders the chance of getting pregnant insignificant.
This reminds me of the scene in Dumb and Dumber when Jim Carrey asks Loren Holly's character what the chances of romance between them are.
"So, like 1 in a 1000?"
"More like 1 in a million......"
"So there is a chance?!?! YEAH!!!!!"
Let's not forget the Army of God's 'White Rose Banquet' which celebrates thos in jail for murdering abortion doctors. Their website:Personally, I think you're being unfair about "who" gets branded. Pro-choicers get branded as murderers, are harrassed on the street outside abortion clinics and oh, yeah, get KILLED by pro-life zealots. Somehow I don't think the name-calling/abuse is as one-sided as you perceive it to be.
******DISTURBING IMAGES WARNING. DO NOT CLICK ON THIS LINK IF YOU THINK YOU'LL BE OFFENDED BY PICTURES OF ABORTED FOETUS'S******
To think they glorify psycho's like Paul Hill and James Kopp. Yes that's a value judgement but geez, I find it difficult to see the 'good' in what they did.
Paul Hill and 'Why shoot and abortionist.' Ewwww........
If ANYONE is offended by my posting of these links (other mods included), either ask me to ditch them or one of the other mods guys. I definitely understand if this isn't appropriate to be displayed here.
I think you'll find Slow Love was being less than serious when he made that comment....is there a sense of humour out there on the right?Originally Posted by chris.hinton
I wasn't referring to the outside world when I said that. I meant on the forum and the way some people were treated with nothing short of contempt when they expressed an opinion (I'll leave this particular point there if that's OK?).Originally Posted by Slow Love™
I may be pro-life but as a someone who believes in the sanctity of life, I'm therefore squarely against the use of violence to make a point in the way that the zealots do for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it alienates people who might be swaying one way or another in the issue and therefore could lose support but secondly, and the main reason, is that it's wholly hypocritical for someone to bomb/murder someone for aborting a child when your aim is to kill them for it. I don't understand that at all and I doubt I ever will.
Obviously, I think it would if the situation occurred as you describe but what about a discussion in the pub or at a BBQ (for our Aussie brethren )?Also, extrapolating further from something you said in another post about opinions on similar issues causing rifts between friends - it's an interesting point to raise. If my wife were to have an abortion, and a friend of mine was of the opinion that she was a murderer for doing so, sure, I think that would produce a sizable impediment to remaining friends.
Chris, you do no favours bringing left and right wing into any of this. I don't think it's got anything to do with it as I'm left-wing in terms of economic issues but middle-right ground on political issues. Go figure.
A True Champion - Bob. Rest in peace. 15/04/06
"People today have too big a devil and too small a God"
- Stephen Currie
"The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" Psalm 27:1
For what it's worth, I think they're totally inappropriate to be posted on a family forum even with the warnings (what good they'll do except save legal problems) and also for what it's worth, the website most definitely shouldn't have them up either.Originally Posted by Top_Cat
A full-on disgrace.
I'm not sure I like the way that people are bringing up the zealots in this discussion. There's bigots and extremists in every debate so why bring them up except for shock value? I don't know if it's a reaction to the mis-interpretation of what I meant by 'name-calling' or what but I think it's unfair, there are an awful lot of reasonable people who are pro-life and are not extremists and just have a point of view.
Fine. I personally see no problem in posting them but if enough of a groundswell against them happens, they'll go. So far you're the only one to complain and you're pro-life.For what it's worth, I think they're totally inappropriate to be posted on a family forum even with the warnings (what good they'll do except save legal problems) and also for what it's worth, the website most definitely shouldn't have them up either.
A full-on disgrace.
Several other reasons and here are a couple;I'm not sure I like the way that people are bringing up the zealots in this discussion. There's bigots and extremists in every debate so why bring them up except for shock value?
1) Those zealots get a lot of mileage in GWB's cabinet and during election years. The squeaky wheel gets the oil and these guys are squeakier than most. GWB is actually considering changing the law because of extremeists like this. Yes there are a lot of people who are pro-life but not in the way of these guys but those people are rarely those who you see on TV.
2) Guys like John Ashcroft support the Army of God and the White Rose Banquet to the extent that he was a guest of honour in 2002. No-one cannot deny the inherent ethical/professional conflicts when the Attorney-General of the United States (specifically a law-making department) attends such an event. Could you imagine the reaction is, say, one of the lefties like Nader went to a pro-Communist meeting and was the guest speaker?
put simply - i won't get caught into telling anyone else what they should do with their own body, let alone a whole gender. the option for safe abortions must be prevalent.
To be honest, bringing it up at a friendly barbie would probably clear the area fairly quickly.Originally Posted by PY
I suppose it would depend upon the terms used, how abstract the judgements were, etc. I can respect somebody's right to a personal moral objection to abortion (I think elements of the pro-choice argument don't acknowledge that there are plenty of secular people who also have an uneasiness with abortion), but I find the debate over it's legality fairly polarising.
Incidentally, there was a pretty good article by conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan from Time magazine the other day on the subject:
"Youre known for having a liking for men who look like women."
"FFS I'm sick and tired of having to see a bloke bend over to pick something up or lean over and see their arse crack. For christ's sake pull your pants up or buy some underpants you bogan because nobody want's to see it. And this is a boat building shed (well one of them) not a porn studio."
Sorry for the dig. I've been wondering for a while, in my time I've known 2 young mothers and 1 young father and all three of them were commited and loved their children, one of them stopped taking drugs, which is often an incredibly difficult thing to do (Not that I'm unfortunate enough to know properly). So firstly. I don't think it's right to go with the snobbish ideas of the lower classes having a sex fest followed by children they don't give a **** about (The Jeremy Kyle Show having a bit to do with this) I'm not saying there aren't unfit parents but I'm saying we should think about we mean by "unfit"
I used to be pro abortion but thinking about it, if you look at the core fundamental act you are killing a baby. Which, if the child were born would be (quite rightly) severely punished. It's denying a life. I understand there are cases (like rape or incestual rape) Where the Mother can be traumatised by the terrible things that have happened to her. But again it's still killing a baby.
There's also the case about if an unborn child has a serious medical condition, but doesn't that imply that genetic disorders make you "Undesirable" An almost Hitler-esque viewpoint. I'm quite unsure about this, thought I'd ask your views.
Everyone wants to change the world, noone wants to change himself.
In the 'why give life if the life you can give will be ****' camp. Rather not be born than suffer a life of anguish, violance, neglect.... Even feeling unloved. Have kids when you are ready for them, not when you cock up and end up pregnant.
Obviously try not to get up the duff first mind......
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce
Langeveldt: I of course blame their parents.. and unchecked immigration!
GingerFurball: He's Austrian, they tend to produce the odd ****ed up individual
Burgey: Be careful dealing with neighbours whose cars don't have wheels but whose houses do.
Uppercut: Maybe I just need better strippers
Mate, the young parents I know love their children and want the best for them isn't that (sort of) enough?
I reiterate Gough Whitlam's words to an angry voter who asked him about abortion:
"In some cases it should be retrospective".
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
We can't say "Oh I'll deny this child a life, it's too inconvenient/costly." I understand parenthood is a massive life change. Like has already been mentioned, people should take responsibility sexually.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)