Boatdrinks Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 What is "extreme" about her position on abortion? 224221[/snapback] Come on. That statement was obviously made by a Catholic. Talk about "extreme". The Catholic church calling anything "extreme" ..now that's a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Do you mean there should be a law that bans sex unless you intend to conceive? 224288[/snapback] There already is. It's called... "Catholicism" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Here's a novel idea: Why don't we all learn to be responsible people and not put ourselves in the position where abortion even needs to be an issue? Like that'll ever happen....... 224280[/snapback] Let's get in the real world here. The fact is, MOST sex is had for reasons other than procreation(Newsflash!). Humans are hardwired to seek out sex. Birth control does not ALWAYS work. There needs to be a way out. Now I'm NOT for abortion as birth control. It should only be a last resort. But it sure seems odd that an administration that's in such a tizzy over abortion is so against a "morning after" pill that is WIDELY USED in European countries (that are more progressive than we are I'm afraid) that it doesn't approve it for OTC sale even though the FDA recommended that they do so! So which one is it G.W. ? Do you want to cut down on abortions ( most would agree a good thing,no?) or do you want governmental control over peoples sex lives (not a good thing!) Give people viable options that most countries have in the 21st century, and the need for abortions will go down. It's pretty simple. People just aren't going to live like a bunch of Buddhist monks.There needs to be other medical options to prevent pregnancy after sex occurs. Why is this so hard to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Huh? What I'm saying is that there are plenty of ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Use em. 224305[/snapback] But what does that have to do with a health issue that could arise after conception? The point was that later term abortions were not supported and that the exception sought was for the mothers health. I'm obviously not a doctor, but I'm sure one could advise of a number of serious health issues that could arise, after the pregnacy began and developed over time. To ask for the right for late term abortion to save the mother's life is anything but extreme, and this has nothing to do with prevention of any kind. Pretty smug response there. I surely hope no one you know will ever be in that position. Short of saving the mother's life, I would say that I'm pro-life, but if saving the mother's life means I'm the devil, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 But what does that have to do with a health issue that could arise after conception? The point was that later term abortions were not supported and that the exception sought was for the mothers health. I'm obviously not a doctor, but I'm sure one could advise of a number of serious health issues that could arise, after the pregnacy began and developed over time. To ask for the right for late term abortion to save the mother's life is anything but extreme, and this has nothing to do with prevention of any kind. Pretty smug response there. I surely hope no one you know will ever be in that position. Short of saving the mother's life, I would say that I'm pro-life, but if saving the mother's life means I'm the devil, so be it. 224736[/snapback] How did you get out of that that I'm against saving the mother's life? The fact is, it is very rare, less than 1%, where the pregnancy puts the mothers life in danger. I don't think anyone is arguing here that the mother should go ahead with a pregnancy even if it puts her at risk of dying. I would not want my own wife to take that risk, and I don't advocate it for anyone else. I simply said that people are lazy when it comes to being responsible with sex, and that the majority of abortions are unnecesary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Let's get in the real world here. The fact is, MOST sex is had for reasons other than procreation(Newsflash!). Humans are hardwired to seek out sex. Birth control does not ALWAYS work. There needs to be a way out. Now I'm NOT for abortion as birth control. It should only be a last resort. But it sure seems odd that an administration that's in such a tizzy over abortion is so against a "morning after" pill that is WIDELY USED in European countries (that are more progressive than we are I'm afraid) that it doesn't approve it for OTC sale even though the FDA recommended that they do so! So which one is it G.W. ? Do you want to cut down on abortions ( most would agree a good thing,no?) or do you want governmental control over peoples sex lives (not a good thing!) Give people viable options that most countries have in the 21st century, and the need for abortions will go down. It's pretty simple. People just aren't going to live like a bunch of Buddhist monks.There needs to be other medical options to prevent pregnancy after sex occurs. Why is this so hard to understand? 224731[/snapback] NOOOOOOO!!!! REALLY???? I had NO IDEA that sex wasn't always for procreation......thanks for explaining that to me! -Birth control is over 99% successful when used properly. Do the math. -We already HAVE a legal and effective treatment to serve as a "way out", as you put it. It's called the morning after pill. We just don't prescribe them for your leisure. If you go to your doctor w/in 72 hrs of unprotected sex, or if you think something went wrong with your birth control, he or she can prescribe a medication that can prevent the pregnancy. It's over 90% effective. Again, do the math. -Do you actually pay attention to what people write before you respond? You obviously have no idea what I said before you went off on your rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 This thread needs to be moved to the PPP board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 As opposed to the policy of survival of the fittest. 224294[/snapback] Actually, Evolution is quite effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Actually, Evolution is quite effective. 224898[/snapback] It strangely becomes more effective when it isn't taught in high schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 I think the word you're looking for is no. Hillary 224470[/snapback] While the passing out from the flu story is generating a lot of yuks, I don't know if everyone fully appreciates what an excellent political position she took in her latest speech on abortion. Check that slate article for one view on it, but it appears to be a brilliant move to capture the center of political (not religious) thought on the subject of abortion. It's a far cry from what is considered the stereotypical liberal position. While I can appreciate that her motives and sincerity are subject to scrutiny, if Mrs Clinton keeps this type of talk up and extends it to other issues, it's exactly the type of position that is going to attract people in the middle. I don't think there's any question she has the support on the left. If she can take positions that appeal to the middle of the spectrum of voters, she is only going to increase her popularity - I doubt the left would ever abandon her. This latest speech was clearly an indication that she understands that. I wonder how far this will go? She certainly has a good mentor; like him or not, her husband was brilliant at winning votes. I wouldn't trivialize a Hillary presidential candidacy just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 While the passing out from the flu story is generating a lot of yuks, I don't know if everyone fully appreciates what an excellent political position she took in her latest speech on abortion. Check that slate article for one view on it, but it appears to be a brilliant move to capture the center of political (not religious) thought on the subject of abortion. It's a far cry from what is considered the stereotypical liberal position. While I can appreciate that her motives and sincerity are subject to scrutiny, if Mrs Clinton keeps this type of talk up and extends it to other issues, it's exactly the type of position that is going to attract people in the middle. I don't think there's any question she has the support on the left. If she can take positions that appeal to the middle of the spectrum of voters, she is only going to increase her popularity - I doubt the left would ever abandon her. This latest speech was clearly an indication that she understands that. I wonder how far this will go? She certainly has a good mentor; like him or not, her husband was brilliant at winning votes. I wouldn't trivialize a Hillary presidential candidacy just yet. 225006[/snapback] I agree with you regarding Hillary trying to move more towards the center. Over the last few months (don't have the links and don't remember the exact issues), I have seen reports of her position changing just enough to slowly move towards the center. Too drastic of a change would raise red flags, but subtle changes can work wonders as far as picking up votes. She is a savvy politician and she knows the effect this will have in future elections. While there is no decision on her running in 2008, she is definitely repositioning herself for a run. She will test the waters with these subtle changes, see how things evolve domestically and overseas before making any decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 But it sure seems odd that an administration that's in such a tizzy over abortion is so against a "morning after" pill that is WIDELY USED in European countries (that are more progressive than we are I'm afraid) that it doesn't approve it for OTC sale even though the FDA recommended that they do so! 224731[/snapback] Read up on the woman who died after taking the morning after pill. She lived in Pleasanton, CA (near me). Died of masive infection after not all of the baby was expelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Hehehe. http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i7364 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 It strangely becomes more effective when it isn't taught in high schools. 224938[/snapback] sometime americans wonder why they've such a bad image in Europe. When an european hears that school districts does not teach the theory of Evolution in their school programs, if he does not know well the US his first reaction is : "what kind of cavemen live there?!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 sometime americans wonder why they've such a bad image in Europe. When an european hears that school districts does not teach the theory of Evolution in their school programs, if he does not know well the US his first reaction is : "what kind of cavemen live there?!!" 225781[/snapback] As opposed to the many Europeans who still think it's sexy not to bathe daily. They're considered progressive. This petty crap is so refreshing. Nothing like wallowing in the mire to prove who's better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 As opposed to the many Europeans who still think it's sexy not to bathe daily. the problem Darin is that it's a legend... you talk with clichés, while i speak about facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 the problem Darin is that it's a legend... you talk with clichés, while i speak about facts. 225798[/snapback] It wasn't legend the last time I was there - so unless something's drastically changed in the last 4 years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Read up on the woman who died after taking the morning after pill. She lived in Pleasanton, CA (near me). Died of masive infection after not all of the baby was expelled. 225436[/snapback] the Morning After pill is not the same thing you are talking about.........this is a pill that prevents the pregnancy from occurring to begin with. There is a small window of time (approx 72hrs) where you can take the pill and prevent the pregnancy. This is already available and legal in this country. Something like RU486 is entirely different, I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier in france Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 It wasn't legend the last time I was there - so unless something's drastically changed in the last 4 years... 225826[/snapback] you have some dubious friends around here.... or maybe they're all college students! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts