Make abortion illegal in all states and the suicide rates among teens are going to increase drasticly. I vote mandatory abortions.



Cardomain|Myspace

John Wilken wrote:[quote=Keeper of the Light™]While i agree with your stance, John W., about what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander, I have to make a comment on this:

Quote:

1. Abortion is killing a baby. It doesn't matter if you call it a zygote, embryo, fetus or a bun-in-the-oven.

What about an omlette? Or disecting a fetal pig for High School biology? Right to lifers are just as hypocritical as the pro-choice ones, because when they rally behind the "sanctity of life" charade, it's not universal. If it's not right to kill a human or quasi-human life (remember at a point in embryonic development human embryos do have gills, a tail, and a notochord--none of which are human characteristics), then why should it be right to kill ANY form of life--except for food?

"Pro-choice" people use the terms I listed to make abortion sound less offensive. My point is that if it can grow into a baby, it's a baby.
well did you say later "No, not at all. But since we're pulling humor into this, sperm are like lawyers, they both have a 1 in a million chance of becoming a human being"? Well then that means lawyers must be considered human beings, and then eggs when fertilized with sperm must be considered babies even if they never implant. In theory they could be flushed into a wonderful biological cocktail that will give it nutrition. Therefore all women passing non-implanted fertilized eggs are murders. So are women who have miscarriages or still births. Therefore they should be sentenced to death row(not very "pro-life" but then again I don't claim to be)for murder of a baby.

However we have a catch 22. By this logic of yours, since any baby may become a lawyer if we consider anything that can become a baby to be a baby, we must consider anything that could become a lawyer to be a lawyer. Since a baby could be a lawyer, since lawyers are not human, and since its only "murder" to kill a human - killing lawyers isn't murder therefore killing babies cannot be considered murder. LOL.

In all seriousness just because something "could be" doesn't mean jack. A walnut could be a tree if you planted it. Does that mean that you are depleting the world of trees just by eating walnuts?

You could then argue that the walnut needs planted to grow etc , and I will argue the same thing relative to the uterus.

Quote:

1. Abortion is killing a baby. It doesn't matter if you call it a zygote, embryo, fetus or a bun-in-the-oven.

Quote:


"Pro-choice" people use the terms I listed to make abortion sound less offensive. My point is that if it can grow into a baby, it's a baby.

(rolls eyes at the whole abortion is murder concept) "Pro-life" is also used in place of "Anti-choice." Where as "pro-choice" is exactly that. At least half of the "pro-choice" people I know of detest abortion. They support choice. Where as most(NOT ALL) "pro-life" people only want the baby to be born, don't care about the poverty its raised under, won't mind sending it to kill and/or die in some dumb war once its 18+, don't oppose the death penalty either(which I also support the DP, but I'm not "pro-life").

Now as for calling it - "a zygote, embryo, fetus" - that isn't done to be less offensive. That is done to be SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE. End of story. And yes, when you say it accurately, it is a lot less offensive than the "its a baby" BS propaganda. Killing babies is offensive... however ending something that biologically acts identical to cancer cell growth(the difference being that the growth(via supply of nutrients) of babies is regulated by the umbilical cord) is not offensive.

Quote:

I agree completely with this, but then I'm the author of this thread last December that suggested everyone should be sterilized at birth until they can prove they're able to raise a child.

Now that is something I can agree with. The only factor is letting some government goon(with who knows what agenda) deciding that. I guess we might want to develop some new accurate(IQ test are worthless) test to determine intelligence(and general genetic advantages). I am however worried about stuff such as favoring breeding one race over another etc.

Quote:

The same could be said of a baby after it's born. Other than breathing, it can't feed itself, nor hunt / gather food. A newborn is no more capable of sustaining it's own life than when inside it's mother. Would you approve of a law allowing a doctor to kill a baby within it's first year of life because it's unable to sustain it's own life without help?

Wrong context. The baby can biologically support themselves. You can feed a baby. They furthermore will actually seek out food. They cry when hungry, and will go for the nipple. I would call a human vegetable(Terri Schiavo for example) more human than a developing fertilized egg. A fully developed baby will, for example, go for food when available where as a vegetable will not.

If that is your stance on a developing fetus(assuming its even reached the level of fetus), then what is your stance on a human vegetable who can't even breath on their own?

To me life only means something when life is aware of itself(aka Sentience). Insects are alive, but who cries when I step on one? They don't even know I'm killing them. They can react to stimulus and react to survive. They do not "want" anything, nor do they have any fears. They do exactly as they are programmed to do by their genetics and nothing more. This is no different from a developing mass in a woman's uterus. After a point this mass starts to become something more. It slowly starts becoming self aware. When this happens will vary with each individual. (Therefore I'm against the partial-birth abortion except where are medically necessary). I laugh at the "murder" of a recently fertilized egg. That's every bit as "murderous" as removing cancer cells. Cancer cells ARE human cells. Doctors routinely find human hands etc in tumors.

BTW the only reason we hold ourselves above other obviously sentient beings is this - instinctive arrogance. Same reason people think white > black(or black > white), men > women(or women > men), east coast > west coast(etc), liberals > conservatives(or liberals < conservatives). Lives of Americans > lives of everyone else. NEED I GO ON?!

As for saving a dog or a human... Case by case basis - depends which I considered to be smarter(or better in some other way). Besides intelligence I'd save a dog that would try to save people(esp considering its may risk its life to save something not even its species) over some scumbag extorting the life-savings of the elderly. Hell I wouldn't even save the scumbag over saving a used condom.

Quote:


And besides... if it is outlawed... it will go to the point where people perform abortions secretly and unsafely. I saw a documentary years ago about abortion, and how it used to be done... and how many women died along with the child they were carrying because of how secrative things had to be. Women tried it themselves with clotheshangers, sometimes "doctors" would perform them and leave, and the woman would hemmorage and bleed to death...

Prohibition folks...

Correction, this didn't only "used to be done," it is still done in many 3rd world countries. And many die from it. Its a more brutal scene than any abortion.

And in reference to prohibition - illegalizing it won't stop it at all. Since you'll have back alley "doctors" doing it, it will probably be much cheaper to boot. That would probably encourage it if anything. Other than that the main difference is that it won't be done in a sterile medical environment by medically trained doctors.

I dare anyone here to find someone who was a practicing doctor before Roe Vs Wade. Find the doctors who dealt with the horrors of coat hanger abortions(and other twisted bizarre back alley "operations"). Ask them is if they're "pro-life." Go ahead...

BTW if you think the dangers of back alley abortions would deter any abortions, consider this. Alcohol is very dangerous - kids(and adults) drink it and take it to stupid extremes. You would think that the dangers of (name a drug besides pot) would stop kids(and adults) from using it. You would think the number of automobile deaths we have would deter people from driving intoxicated(alcohol or other) and/or driving like idiots. Well think again.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Bastardking... that was utterly brilliant... very well put.

On a side note, my comment about outlawing abortions and backalley abortions... was just relating to how it used to be in the US before abortion was made legal. I know it still happens in other countries... I was just making it relevant to the discussion at hand

with some cases like a rape and the women gets pregnant, then she should able to abort if she wants too. but the problem with that is, if a woman gets pregnant and neither partner wants the baby, then all she has to say is she was raped and the pregnancy will be aborted. beleive or not, some women are like that and would use that as an excuse



Im a Xbox 360 fanboy...and damn proud of it!!

Quote:

S.D. Governor Signs Abortion Ban Into Law
By CHET BROKAW, Associated Press Writer
13 minutes ago
PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota.

The Legislature passed the ban late last month, focusing nationwide interest on the state as the governor decided what to do about the measure.

The law, designed to raise a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, is scheduled to take effect July 1.

Under the law, doctors in South Dakota will face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion except when the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life.

Rounds issued a technical veto of a similar measure two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was tied up for years in a court challenge.

South Dakota Planned Parenthood said it planned a quick court challenge.

Quote:

In all seriousness just because something "could be" doesn't mean jack. A walnut could be a tree if you planted it. Does that mean that you are depleting the world of trees just by eating walnuts?

Excellent way to put it. Another way to put it: When I eat one strawberry, I eat ONE Strawberry. By the "If it will become, it is" argument, One strwaberry is actually hundreds, because of all the seeds It contains. Or, I could go even further with it, and say that one strawberry has many seeds, which will become many berries, which will all have many seeds... By eating One strawberry, I am eating an infinite number of berries. Sound crazy? You bet it does. IMHO, So does the argument that an embryo is a baby.





"i promise we won't get drunk, and go out in boat in the dark, stand up in the boat and fire the gun into the air unless we have life jackets on."

After almost 15 years of dealing with f-ed up "womans rights" and "suport laws" with damn greedy exes and greedier lawyers, I really dont give a rats ass either way. Live with it, live without it, let them commit suicide for all I care.

on the other hand, face it--pregnancy is a symbiotic thing. the female (by an abortion ban) is forced into a position of being a slaved life-support system for another entity.

given the state of medical technology, and the f-ed up mindset of lawmakers, If a ban is successfull, how long will it be until they introduce forced organ donation,forced blood donation ect ect ect. The precident would already bee there that your rights to decide your own body are subject to another entities need for your body in order to survive.

Once the line of slavery and legal life-support obligation is passed, its a very slippery slope into one hell of a nasty place.




Rice.....Part of a balanced Pontiac diet.

pregnancy is not symbiotic, it's actually parasitic by it's adherent nature.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]pregnancy is not symbiotic, it's actually parasitic by it's adherent nature.
That's a very sad way to look at it, it's so much more. Maybe someday you'll come to see it for what it really is. i guess you way is more fun though, huh?

it's not a "perception" - he's absolutely right. embryos are parasitic.

zero wrote:[quote=Keeper of the Light™]pregnancy is not symbiotic, it's actually parasitic by it's adherent nature.

That's a very sad way to look at it, it's so much more. Maybe someday you'll come to see it for what it really is. i guess you way is more fun though, huh?

Not that it's more fun to think of it that way... technically and biologically speaking... he's right. Every living thing that is carried in a womb by it's mother is technically and biologically speaking a parasite until it is born... thus no longer feeding off of it's mother's nutrients. You could also say a "baby" that is born and feeds off of it's mother's breastmilk, is also technically (but not as directly) a parasite.

From Dictionary.com:Link to Dictionary.com

par·a·site Audio pronunciation of "parasite" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2.
1. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
2. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

parasite

n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host


Wiki - parasite

A parasite is an organism that spends a significant portion of its life in or on the living tissue of a host organism and which causes harm to the host without immediately killing it. Parasites also commonly show highly specialized adaptations allowing them to exploit host resources.

The harm caused to a host by a parasite can take many forms, from direct pathology, including various specialized types of tissue damage, such as castration, to more subtle effects such as modification of host behaviour. Many cuckoos, for example, are brood parasites that use their unwitting hosts as lifetime "babysitters": cuckoo young are raised by adults of the host species, but adult cuckoos fend for themselves.

Evolutionarily speaking, biotrophic parasitism is an extremely successful mode of life. Depending on the definition used, as many as half of all animals have at least one parasitic phase in their life cycles, and it is also frequent in plants and fungi. Moreover, almost all free-living animals are host to one or more parasite taxa.

Necrotrophs are parasites that use another organism's tissue for their own nutritional benefit until the host dies from loss of needed tissues or nutrients. Biotrophs' hosts are kept alive, and parasites in a symbiotic relation which is a co-operative relationship between two species for mutual gain.

***********************************************************************************************

Not to sound harsh... but technically and biologically speaking, fetuses ARE parasites in the technical sense.

*A fetus cannot survive outside of it's mother until it is fully developed.
*A fetus feeds off of it's mothers nutrients in her body... depleting her supply of nutrients... so if the mother cannot get the adequate supply of nutrients to her body, she can get very sick... maybe in rare cases... worse.
*A fetus is dependant on it's mother (and the "shelter" she provides) for survival.
*A fetus will actually use such nutrients such as calcium naturally produced from it's mother's(host's) body for further development of it's own life without regards to what it does to it's mother's body.
*A fetus contributes nothing to the survival of it's mother/host.

Sure... it does sound harsh and heartless, but it's the nature of a fetus/embryo.

^^^^Bingo.

I wasn't talking about the intangible "bundle of joy" which is a human emotional state proliverated by the expanding of the gene pool. I was talking about the nature of the fetus/embryo, and the biological impacts it has on the female...well..of any viviparous specie.




Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Hey I got a good one ! Go check out the posting in Off Topic that Spike made about the deadbeat dad. Basically it says if a woman can say she doesn't want the responsibility of a child so she can have an abortion then why can't a man if he says the same thing be able to leave and not be held responsible for the child monetarily.

I say fair's fair. If a woman can say its her body and she doesn't want it then a man should be able to do the same thing. It took a 50 / 50 mistake to make it so why then should the women have a 100% say as to what happens ? You all say women should have equal rights ? Fine I have no problem with that at all. But I do have a problem with special rights and thats exactly what this is. A woman because its her body has the special right to end a pregnancy then why doesn't the man have the right to say he didn't want it and not be held liable ? Its a double standard. If women want true equal rights then they shouldn't be able to tell the man that if it was his mistake that he is liable for it.
I mean hey if women can have an Oops and just get an abortion then why should a man have an Oops and be forced by the courts to pay for it ? If men are forced to pay for an Oops then abortion should be completely out lawed.

Women want equal rights? Well here you go! equal rights to say Oops and not be liable for it.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jackalope wrote:Hey I got a good one ! Go check out the posting in Off Topic that Spike made about the deadbeat dad. Basically it says if a woman can say she doesn't want the responsibility of a child so she can have an abortion then why can't a man if he says the same thing be able to leave and not be held responsible for the child monetarily.

I say fair's fair. If a woman can say its her body and she doesn't want it then a man should be able to do the same thing. It took a 50 / 50 mistake to make it so why then should the women have a 100% say as to what happens ? You all say women should have equal rights ? Fine I have no problem with that at all. But I do have a problem with special rights and thats exactly what this is. A woman because its her body has the special right to end a pregnancy then why doesn't the man have the right to say he didn't want it and not be held liable ? Its a double standard. If women want true equal rights then they shouldn't be able to tell the man that if it was his mistake that he is liable for it.
I mean hey if women can have an Oops and just get an abortion then why should a man have an Oops and be forced by the courts to pay for it ? If men are forced to pay for an Oops then abortion should be completely out lawed.

Women want equal rights? Well here you go! equal rights to say Oops and not be liable for it.

That's the problem. Women (among other people) are SUPPOSED to have equal rights. Do we? No... not totally. Try being a woman and getting a job doing auto body and paint... and tell me we're equal. Try proving women get equal pay for the same job. Explain to me why it was that when I worked at this one dealership, me... being a combo tech... meaning I not ONLY do auto body, but do prep work, and can paint like a mofo. Explain to me why the PAINTER, whom had only been painting for 6 months, and was a male, and knows NOTHING about body work... got paid OVER $12/hr.... yet I... whom did it all... and had been doing it for over 3 years at the time... only got paid $9.50/hr???

Do men carry children? Do they have this fetus/embryo/parasite/whatever depleting their body of energy and nutrients for 9+ months? Do they have to give birth?? You can't tell me for ONE minute that men would be totally ok having to be FORCED to carry a child they do not want for 9+ months because the woman would want the child.

Think about it. Put some SERIOUS thought into it. How would YOU feel if the roles were reversed? How would you feel if you were with someone, the condom broke, you got pregnant and had to carry this child, and the woman ran off and wanted nothing to do with you or the child, and left you there to have to "deal with it" on your own. How would you feel if you were raped and got pregnant, and were FORCED against your will to carry a baby.... for 9+ months as a constant reminder of how you were violated and had a part of you taken away against your will???

You men seriously need to try to put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. You have NO clue what being pregnant does to a woman's body. You have no clue what it's like to have someone turn you down for a job because it's a "man's job". Men biotch and complain about a woman's "monthly visitor". Try once a month, for a week, and for 40 years having to bleed like a stuffed pig, be all bloated and miserable, abdominal cramping, etc for that long that often and tell me you wouldn't be miserable too?!

Sure it's easy for you to sit there and whine about women wanting equal rights and for women to have the CHOICE over what happens to their own dammmm body. But yet you don't even take the time to actually put some serious thought into what it's like to be a woman and have to go through all that a woman does.

THINK ABOUT THIS:

How would you feel about a bunch of women in congress sitting there and telling you that if you ever goofed up, you were to MANDITORILY have your penis cut off... and you had no choice in the matter as to what would happen to your penis or giggleberries?? How would you like a bunch of WOMEN telling you what to do with your "prised possessions",... and there was NOTHING you could do about it??? Answer me that HONESTLY for once.

Nothing personal... but men in general fail to even take the time to think about what it's like for the other gender... they only give a rats arse about what MEN want and what THEY see and HOW THEY see it.

Yeah... I will say that there are occasions where a father wants to be responsible for their child, gets custody, etc... and women should have to pay child support. But the FACT of the matter is that there are far more women having to bear the burden of caring and providing for their child while the man goes off to live his own life and be free and not have to bear those responsibilities than the other way around. That's not saying that men shouldn't have the right to provide for their children and collect the same benefits as women.

Until you know what it's like to be a woman... or at LEAST have put a GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT into it... child bearing and not being treated AS equals in the workforce at times... I don't want to hear it.

Like I said to you before Jackalope, I am NOT saying abortion should be used as birth control. YOU KNOW and we've had this discussion before... I do NOT agree with that AT ALL. But to take that right totally away... is effed up to put it nicely. If the mother wants to have an abortion, and the man doesn't want anything to do with the child either... that CHOICE should be there... provided it's not abused.

Angel, I have a very good friend named Matt. Now Matt was happily married to a women for several years and one day she got pregnant. He was so happy it wasn't even funny!
fast forward 9 months and the women gives birth and then the next day gets up and leaves the hospital without the baby and disapears. Now Matt is stuck with raiseing the kid all by himself. And he does so and does a damn good job at it I might add. The mom noone hears a peep from her for almost 15 years and then one day out of the blue calls him up and says she wants to see her son. Matt agreed and took Chris to meet his mom for the first time. She abandoned HIM and her baby at birth for 15 years ! So don't try getting all "poor women we have it so bad we get abandoned but we're all saints " Sure some things suck ass and I agree with you on that but we're talking about haveing special rights. Special rights are BS for ANY group of people I don't care who they are.

If a women can concent to haveing unprotected sex with a man knowing full well she lied about not being able to have a baby and then as a result of her haveing concensual sex gets pregnant then that is 100% on her. She lied about her ability to have children and she concented to letting him have unprotected sex with her then the man should not have to pay a cent to her in child support. She made the choice to lie, she made a choice to have unprotected sex with him, she should pay the full consiquences of her choices.

And BTW Matts ex-wife is now paying him for 15 years of back child support and paying regular child support for Chris. Rights work both ways not just one.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

yknow something, Terry, i have a question. how do you know this woman lied? i have a good friend who was told by EVERY doctor she's EVER had that she could not get pregnant, and now she has a 16-month-old son.

don't blame women for being liars - men are just as bad. "oh, don't worry,i'll pull out" BULL@!#$. i've seen far more women get stuck in situations where they trust the guy way too much.



Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week, March 13-17

See my response to that thread, jack/angel:

Fallen--the job thing works both ways--ask a freind of mine what chance a man has at getting a job as a housekeeper. it's even WORSE than being a female auto-body tech.

This world ain't perfect, i'll admit. But the other sides may have it just as bad, but in different areas.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Laura, No no no no no no, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I'm getting at is IF it can be proven she lied about it then she should be stuck with the consiquenses of her actions. Now IF the man is lying by saying she told him then yeah he should have to pay.

Believe me I know full well both MEN and WOMEN lie like hell all the time.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Quote:

don't blame women for being liars - men are just as bad. "oh, don't worry,i'll pull out" BULL@!#$. i've seen far more women get stuck in situations where they trust the guy way too much.

The problem is people ARE far too trusting. even though i'm totally enamoured with Miska, i wouldn't rely on her to take her BC pill and if i thought that she wasn't, i'd vulcanize my tool or not have vaginal intercourse. Simple. Granted, i see her take the thing every morning, so it's cool.

My point is that it's irresponsibility on BOTH genders pure and simple.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Terry, NEVER did I say women are saints... but your post made it sound like men are.

It's far far easier for a man to run out on a pregnancy/child than it is for a woman to do the same.

Bottom line... you never answered my question... how would YOU feel about a bunch of women mandating what you can and cannot do with YOUR body???

I EVEN SAID that in the instance a man wants to stick around after finding out the woman he slept with is pregnant, he should have a say in what happens too.

I EVEN SAID that if a man wants to accept the responsibility of the child and the woman does not, that the woman should pay child support.

I NEVER indicated for ONE minute that women should have the absolute final say in what happens when it comes to an unexpected pregnancy.

An unexpected pregnancy is NEVER ONE individuals fault. Just as you say the woman could have turned down unprotected sex... so could have the man. It's 50/50, except in instances of rape or the like.

BUT NEVER to TOTALLY take that CHOICE away!!!

Now answer my question dammit (the bolded question above)

It's not just men doing this, Angel. Remember, you have women that are advocating this as well. And no, i don't think ANYONE telling me what I can and can't do with my body is right, and they'll usually get a size 11 steel-toed doc marten square in the ballsack or box if they try otherwise.

And remember, most of those that are against abortions are those that you wouldn't want to @!#$ in the first place


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Actually... I have a better example.

***************WARNING!! GRAPHIC******************

Let's put it this way. Imagine this. Your child is kidnapped by a serial killer. The killer, after sexually assaulting your child, chops your child's body into a thousand pieces, scatters the pieces all over the country side, and sends you your child's finger as a "momento".

After the killer is caught, you are FORCED to take care of that child until it's old enough to care for itself (i.e. over 18). You look at that child EVERY DAY and see the face of the monster that killed your child in such a brutal manner. The face of the monster that took a part of your life away from you... and there's nothing you can do about it. And you're forced to care for the child of this monster immediately after your child is lost.

Now... you may say "well the woman can just carry the child of the monster that raped (or similarly assaulted her) for just 9+ months and give it up for adoption.

Can you say you would HONESTLY have NO problem with staring into the face of the child of that monster that brutally assaulted and killed your child for 9 months without losing your mind??

That's essentially what you're doing if you totally out law abortion... and essentially what the states that passed that abortion law are doing.

Do you want a child in the hands of someone that cannot properly take care of it? I'm not just talking about physical needs, like having money to buy it food, diapers, clothes, etc. I'm talking emotionally too.

"Well... there's always adoption!"

Tell that to the (minimally speaking) THOUSANDS of children who spend their entire lives in foster care or as wards of the state because everyone wants babies. They go through their entire lives feeling unwanted and unloved. Until we can care for those thousands of children that are already there because they were given up for adoption and havent found a home and family to love and care for them... outlawing abortion totally is just going to contribute to the problem.

"Everyone deserves the chance to life a happy and productive life"

Again... tell that to the thousands of children who have no family, who have no one to love and care for them, and be there for them. What chance do they have? Not much at all.

And... before the question is asked... after I'm out of college, am married, and have a steady career... yes I do plan on adopting at least one child. An older child, that needs their fair chance at living a life in a stable home, and needs love and caring.

and KOTL... I know it's not JUST men doing this... but face it. The vast majority of those in congress... are men.

Angel you and I have discussed this before and you know how I feel .

Now as for your question in the huge bold letters, women tell us men what to do every single day of our lives . You guys can't help it its a fact of being a women that you simply can not stop yourselves from telling us what to do . And if we don't do what you want GOD help us cause no power on Earth can . So you see we're told what to do MORE then you guys are and yet you STILL complain about it ! ( shakes head in utter dis-belief )





Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

wrong. you have the choice to ignore a woman.

if this is made law, we don't have the choice to ignore it. therein lies the difference.



Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week, March 13-17