Bush declares that fetus is a 'child' (New Abortion Debate Thread)

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by PadmeSkywalker, Feb 1, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PadmeSkywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2000
    star 4
    This is from the Star, a canadian newspaper.

    http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1012518113530&call_page=TS_World&call_pageid=968332188854&call_pagepath=News/World&col=968350060724

    Fetus is a `child,' Bush declares
    U.S. move will award benefits to unborn children
    William Walker
    Washington Bureau

    WASHINGTON ? The fetus will be considered a "child" from the moment of conception and qualify for federal health-care benefits, the government of U.S. President George W. Bush announced yesterday.

    The stunning decision, which critics say is the president's first major salvo in a war to recriminalize abortion, would offer government-funded prenatal health-care services to pregnant mothers.

    "Prenatal care for women and their babies is a crucial part of the medical care every person should have through the course of their life cycle," Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced.

    "Prenatal services can be a vital, likely determinant of health and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women."

    Thompson said embryos will be eligible for health-care benefits as persons under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), a $40 billion (U.S.) program jointly operated with state governments to offer services to low-income children.

    The CHIP program, 70 per cent funded by Washington, has had millions of dollars in unused funds in recent years. The Bush government now wants those funds directed to the unborn.

    It was only a matter of time before the abortion issue erupted again in America.

    Bush, whose campaign for president was heavily supported by U.S. pro-life groups, gave a hint of his intentions early in his administration when he cut off government funding for abortion counselling services.

    Since then, critics have accused Bush of planning to stack lower courts, and eventually the Supreme Court, with pro-life judges.

    The president has acknowledged being pro-life, but said he felt the issue was something for the courts, not his government, to decide in future.

    American pro-life strategists decided the best way to overturn the 1973 Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision, which affirmed women's right to choose on abortion as a fundamental liberty, was to obtain legal status for the fetus as a "person" entitled to legal rights.

    If successful, the strategy is almost certain to be followed by Canadian pro-life groups, which work closely alongside their American counterparts.

    This Jan. 22, on the 29th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, Bush spoke glowingly to a rally of tens of thousands of pro-life activists on Capitol Hill, called the March for Life.

    Bush told the marchers they "believe, as I do, that every life is valuable, that our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and weak and imperfect, and even the unwanted, and that our nation should set a goal that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law."

    Yesterday, pro-life groups were thrilled.

    "We applaud this Bush administration proposal to recognize the existence of an unborn child ...Only the most extreme pro-abortion ideologue will object," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.

    But pro-choice groups said the government could have provided prenatal care under CHIP simply by issuing regulations stating pregnant women would be covered.

    Instead, Bush is involved in a "stealth campaign" to confer legal rights to unborn embryos in order to make abortions illegal, said Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League.

    "This proposal demonstrates the government's commitment to the strategy of undermining a woman's right to choose by ascribing legal rights to embryos," Michelman said.

    She accused pro-life activists of directing the Bush policy.

    "This is not a serious health-care proposal. If it were, it would include low-income women as recipients for comprehensive health-care coverage."

    Ultimately, the U
  2. legacyAccount Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 22, 2012
    at what point is a embreyo considered and fetus?
  3. Lost in Coruscant Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 1999
    star 2
    My mom's having a BABY, not a fetus. Want to hear the heartbeat? See the head? You can do that at less than 7 weeks.
  4. lavjoricso Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 25, 2001
    star 4
    As much as i think Bush is an idiot,i have to agree with him on this one as the post above has stated,you can see the form of a baby as early on as 7 weeks.
  5. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    The idea of Bush "declaring" anything defies his role as executor of the people's will.

    He should be impeached for supporting such breaches of the constitution.

    If a person wants to believe the fetus is a child, or the fetus is not a child... they are, either way, entitled to make that decision on their own.

    Now the pro-lifers will have to contend with the fact that any one of them who is at serious risk during childbirth may be forced to die, and lose their baby as well... because of the implications of these laws.

    They will also have to contend with being victim to the healthcare industry, which is guaranteed to abuse this new source of premium increase justification. Thanks to managed care, it is mostly healtchare insurance providers who will profit from this travesty. George Bush knows that he could get the opposition's support by fooling them into this imaginary compromise which is really just another in a series of moves he's making to pander to fundamentalist zealots and big business... the two audiences that will, respectively, keep him in office and keep his pockets lined with money.

    We the people are losing our freedoms day by day thanks to George Bush, and here we are thinking that the Taliban are religious fanatics who use their power to oppress the people's freedoms.

    Anyone who thinks Bush is for the interests of the common man is being mesmerized by his empty rhetoric, and yet blind to the truth spoken by his actions. He's pretending to be pro-life... and yet he's spending hundreds of billions of our dollars on military "defense"... killing is big business.
  6. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    The idea of Bush "declaring" anything defies his role as executor of the people's will.

    The office of the President is by no means intended as an executor or representative of the people. The person elected President is the lesser of two evils elected to lead the country to the best of his ability. Congress is about representation, not the President.

    He should be impeached for supporting such breaches of the constitution.

    :confused:

    If a person wants to believe the fetus is a child, or the fetus is not a child... they are, either way, entitled to make that decision on their own.

    A person can believe whatever they want . . . as long as their beliefs don't tread on other's rights.

    We the people are losing our freedoms day by day thanks to George Bush, and here we are thinking that the Taliban are religious fanatics who use their power to oppress the people's freedoms.

    :confused:

    Anyone who thinks Bush is for the interests of the common man is being mesmerized by his empty rhetoric, and yet blind to the truth spoken by his actions. He's pretending to be pro-life... and yet he's spending hundreds of billions of our dollars on military "defense"... killing is big business.

    My crystal ball is telling me you didn't vote for Bush in the popular election, and that you dislike him as much as I disliked Clinton :)
    Now . . . I cordially invite you to the Pro-life or Pro-Choice thread to continue this conversation.
  7. PadmeSkywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2000
    star 4
    By declaring a fetus a child he's opening the door for recriminalizing abortion. If a fetus does legally become declared a child, then abortion would be murder by that logic.
  8. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Starfire: I use the term executor in the dictionary sense: one who "performs or carries out something."

    The President is part of the Executive Branch of our government. He isn't charged with the responsibility of interpreting the laws (Judicial Branch - courts) or making the laws (Legislative Branch - Congress)... His job is strictly to execute the laws, not to decide what should and shouldn't be law... that is for the people to decide, directly or indirectly.

    I think you misunderstood me when I said that a person is entitled to decide for themselves what they believe... I am saying the same thing you said. But I think for Bush to make interpretations that are clearly intent upon promoting certain beliefs over others is to disrespect the first amendment. To make declarative statements deciding for women what they can and cannot do, without their majority consent... is unconstitutional and dictatorial.

    I appreciate the invitation to the other thread, but I am going to have to decline the at this point. I believe that the government is responsible for protecting our individual right to choose... I do not support the political agendas of either the Pro-Life or Pro-Choice "movements" because I think there really is no political discussion here. Both sides are attempting to make an individual freedom a platform for other political agendas which, in my opinion, do not warrant Congressional debate or interest. In other words, it should be obvious to the government that this debate is not their business... and the right to have a choice supersedes the politically-savvy attitude that one must choose one side or the other. Our government is not in the business of enforcing abortion any more than it is in the business of enforcing population control (i.e. 1 child per family).
  9. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    The President is part of the Executive Branch of our government. He isn't charged with the responsibility of interpreting the laws (Judicial Branch - courts) or making the laws (Legislative Branch - Congress)... His job is strictly to execute the laws, not to decide what should and shouldn't be law... that is for the people to decide, directly or indirectly.

    It's a commonly accepted fact that people can't agree on anything. That's what the President's for--a solidary leader who forges our nations path. He signs laws, vetoes laws, appoints justices, all that stuff. It's his job to do what he thinks best for our country, without trampling on anybody's rights.
    Declaring that a fetus is a child hardly tramples on anybody's rights. It does, in fact, promote human life.

    But I think for Bush to make interpretations that are clearly intent upon promoting certain beliefs over others is to disrespect the first amendment.

    It's not the President's job to offend as few people as possible. It's his job to do (legally) what he thinks is best, and right, for the American people.
  10. Kiki-Gonn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 26, 2001
    star 6
    America elected a very conservative president so I don't see why it's surprising anyone to see moves like this.
    Note I'm not passing judgement on the move, just saying that's the way our system works, you elect a guy and then he does what he sees fit (within legal bounds, hopefully) until the next election, at which point the voters speak again.
  11. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    StarFire: The president is not there to set policy. He is merely there to enact it and enforce it. Choosing which policy to set is why we have Congress. Interpreting policy is for the courts system.

    The president is a head of state... in a way, like a figurehead. He establishes and maintains foreign and domestic relations... He enacts legislation by signing bills into law... Has the power to veto, BUT that is more complicated than it seems... and it's intent is not to give him the power to "decide what's best for the people" even if it doesn't seem to harm anybody's rights.

    Declaring that the fetus is a child will directly harm an individual's right to choose an abortion under any circumstances, including emergency circumstances... because now, it gives government the opportunity to classify abortion as murder. How is it that our President is leaning ProLife, willing to protect unestablished lives... and yet he's willing to send mothers and fathers and brothers and cousins to their death to justify whetting the appetites of big-business defense contractors.

    I think you're foolish if you hold that Bush's motives are what's in the people's best interest. His track record so far proves quite the opposite.
  12. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    ". . . from a certain point of view." ;)

    The President doesn't interpret laws . . . the President doesn't create laws. The President does everything else. He's the most powerful man in the world.

    Declaring that the fetus is a child will directly harm an individual's right to choose an abortion under any circumstances, including emergency circumstances... because now, it gives government the opportunity to classify abortion as murder.

    Murder: the taking of human life. Abortion: the taking of human life (it's life... ask a biology teacher; it's definately human... ask a biology teacher). HOT DAWG!!

    How is it that our President is leaning ProLife, willing to protect unestablished lives...

    This is what bugs me. You say that a fetus is unestablished life, and yet I'd bet pretty much anything that you don't have a standard of differentiating between an unborn child and a born one (or rather, what makes killing a newborn murder and what makes killing an almost-born a choice between a women and her doctor). Realistically, there is no justifiable difference.

    I think you're foolish if you hold that Bush's motives are what's in the people's best interest. His track record so far proves quite the opposite.

    Ha! I defy you to prove it. (This really deserves a thread all of its own, though)
  13. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Does a fetus have kids? Has it yet made any humongous efforts in its life thus far that if it were to die, those efforts would be considered in vain? Has it developed a uniqueness all its own that would make it irreplaceable? Does a fetus have any memories or knowledge which would be lost to us if it were to die?

    This is what I mean by "unestablished." Whether or not the point of conception is the beginning of life as we know it is irrelevant. Why? Because of great discrepancies between individual and group interpretations of the value of life itself. We kill animals and plants every day for our survival. We even murder other human beings for our survival. We destroy entire ecosystems for our survival.

    The Bush administration has been as hypocritical as any other administration in recent memory, endorsing survivalism at the expense of civil rights, at the expense of the environment, at the expense of other life, and at the expense of our common sense... as evidenced by his support of the drilling for natural resources in protected lands as opposed to research that would help us reduce our reliance on extinguishable fossil fuels, his declaration to back out of the ABM treaty, his support of hundreds of billions of dollars in contribution to the military industrial complex.

    I ask you, how is it that an anti-missile defense system could stop a handful of unarmed men with boxcutters from walking onto a plane? They got through our borders and on our planes because of lack of information and adequate training for border patrol/law enforcement... not because we didn't have enough missiles.

    As many questions about the value of an unborn fetus can be hurled at pro-lifers as they can throw at pro-choicers.

    Why are we applying one standard, rooted predominantly in one particular conservative fundamentalist religious view, to life... and then disregarding all others? Why are we relying on religious zealots and politicians, hypocrites all of the worst degree, to tell us how we ought to live and that unfulfilled human life is somehow magically any more important than any other life on the planet?

    Lastly, let me reiterate... if you feel it is within your duty to not abort a fetus... fine. However, my religious, cultural and intellectual views and values forbid me from holding the same opinion as you... I believe I must do what I must to survive, and I don't think that humans are above that primordial need to ensure survival of the fittest. Given that, you're entitled to not abort your kids... I won't force you to live by my standards as long as you don't force me to live by yours. To enforce anti-abortion motives would be like enforcing vegetarianism or Christianity. No one is asking you to murder your children... so why are you trying to force us to have every child that gets conceived?

    If people can't accept freedom for what it is and must be...a relinquishing of the right to force upon others your "one right way to live", well... I hear the weather's nice in Iraq this time of year.

    The one overriding principle of this country is protecting the people's pre-eminent rights as a whole... and not just as a majority. That is what our Bill of Rights is for.

    At one time, the majority, even our president, believed slavery was in the best interests of the people... Tell me, StarFire, are you pro-slavery, too?

    I know what you're about to say... but let me answer that for you... Slaves couldn't be part of the equation in determining what's "best for the people"... because they weren't considered people, they were considered property.

    Bush, Pro-lifers, and Pro-choicers act as though the women of America are their property... and not capable of deciding what's best for themselves on an individual basis.
  14. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    No, they act because unborn children are life too, and deserve to be protected.

    Not because women are property, but because they carry a separate life within them.
  15. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Bush is an idiot playing patsy to big business just like any other career politician. His administration pretends that Enron wasn't important enough for them to get involved (largely because many politicians have their hands in crackpot investments such as Enron and took major contributions from them). He vowed that Microsoft should go free... like he's the one to decide this... Hmm, didn't Gates make a huge contribution to the Republicans shortly before he went that way? His adminstration is now covering up statues of art that they ordered and, so far, the people have not even come forth once to complain about their "obscenity" of being there.

    The man is turning this country into a retard theocracy because it suits the religious right and conservative elements that got his stupid #@$! voted in, and even that vote is suspect because it wasn't by popular vote that he won!

    Prove to me that this millionaire's son, who is a millionaire himself, and as you, yourself, put it "the most powerful man in the world" has any reason whatsoever to give a flying crap about these morals that he's pretending to enforce for altruistic reasons.

    I'm not saying any past president was any different... but what I am saying is that these things he seems to be unilaterally deciding for all of us have no reason to be in the books as public policy... and should be left to the people, because you aren't protecting the rights of able-bodied citizens by protecting the so-called rights of a multicellular organism.

    I have one last question:

    Is a fetus in the second trimester capable of surviving as a definite organism, independent of its mother?

    How can you consider it an independent life with rights of its own, when cutting it off from its mother would kill it as if it were a piece of her skin?

    Should we therefore enforce legislation that prevents transplants from being done? These organs can survive for a short period of time on their own... and they are, in a sense, highly specialized organisms that function within a larger system... like a fetus... ask any biologist. We should ban transplants, antibiotics and all emergency medicine based on where this line of reasoning is going.
  16. Lord Bane Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    May 26, 1999
    star 5
    Does a fetus have kids? Has it yet made any humongous efforts in its life thus far that if it were to die, those efforts would be considered in vain? Has it developed a uniqueness all its own that would make it irreplaceable? Does a fetus have any memories or knowledge which would be lost to us if it were to die?

    You are being quite bold here, Snowdog, quite bold. Whether or not you have kids is irrelevant; whether or not you have tried to change the world is irrelevant. Unique? All life is unique. Memories define us, but what about an amnesiac or someone in a coma for X number of years? Their memories and knowledge are lost to us, but that doesn't mean they do not deserve to live.

    Your points are flawed, in my opinion.

    Q: Does any think this should become the new "Abortion: pro life or pro choice" thread? The old one is pretty big now and this one seems like it has strong legs.
  17. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Sounds like a good idea.

    Time for a different thread, I think.

    Oh, also, Snowdog, keep in mind that young children cannot survive without care, either. If they get cut off from others, they are helpless.
  18. StarFire Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2001
    star 4
    Darth_SnowDog: Does a fetus have kids? Has it yet made any humongous efforts in its life thus far that if it were to die, those efforts would be considered in vain? Has it developed a uniqueness all its own that would make it irreplaceable? Does a fetus have any memories or knowledge which would be lost to us if it were to die?

    By your logic, we should execute 90% of the teenage population, and all of the kids under 12.
    You're defining what a human being is by how it affects YOU and YOUR world. Rather narrow-minded, don't you think?

    I ask you, how is it that an anti-missile defense system could stop a handful of unarmed men with boxcutters from walking onto a plane?

    If you want to pretend that terrorists follow protocol and do what we expect them to do, fine by me, even though hijacking two airplanes with box-cutters and crashing those airplanes into the WTC isn't the most ludicrous idea you've ever heard. Just don't drag me into your masochistic world. Absolutely no harm can come from sealing off one of the potentially most damaging avenues of attack to our nation. It certainly can't hurt.

    Why are we applying one standard, rooted predominantly in one particular conservative fundamentalist religious view, to life... and then disregarding all others?

    Because the alternative sucks ;)
    Seriously, it's because there's an incredible flaw in Pro-Choicer logic which I have yet to see explained.

    However, my religious, cultural and intellectual views and values forbid me from holding the same opinion as you...

    Dude... there's an entire RELIGION which forbids you to agree with me? Whoa! I'm honored! :p

    No one is asking you to murder your children... so why are you trying to force us to have every child that gets conceived?

    Because it's hypocritical to arrest someone for murder, and not for abortion.

    The one overriding principle of this country is protecting the people's pre-eminent rights as a whole... and not just as a majority. That is what our Bill of Rights is for.

    Score one for the opposing team!
    Someone is a person because he's human, and because he's alive. A fetus is human, and it's alive. Therefore it is entitled to due process of law under the Bill of Rights.

    Tell me, StarFire, are you pro-slavery, too?

    I'm taking the Fifth. Though I realize, reading this a second time, that such a reply is not remotely funny. So I'm just going say that, no, I think slavery sucks.

    KnightWriter: No, they act because unborn children are life too, and deserve to be protected.

    Bravo! *CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP* Bravo!

    Darth_SnowDog: The man is turning this country into a retard theocracy because it suits the religious right and conservative elements that got his stupid #@$! voted in, and even that vote is suspect because it wasn't by popular vote that he won!

    Not one single president has ever won a vote by popular election, my good sir. And for good reason.

    Prove to me that this millionaire's son, who is a millionaire himself, and as you, yourself, put it "the most powerful man in the world" has any reason whatsoever to give a flying crap about these morals that he's pretending to enforce for altruistic reasons.

    Because I have no reason to believe that he isn't the tough-love conservative that I would've voted for if I was old enough. You other Gore-huggers just hate Bush because he beat your boy . . . it's a baseless prejudice that's really funny to listen over and over again, like getting hit in the head by a baseball bat over and over again is funny.

    How can you consider it an independent life with rights of its own, when cutting it off from its mother would kill it as if it were a piece of her skin?

    It has a brain... check. It has a blood-pumping heart... check. Every reason to believe it is as capable of doing everything a human can, once it learns how... check.
    I cut off my head, I'm dead too. I'm not defined as human because of the way I die, or what my "Achilles' Heel"s are. I
  19. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    The man is turning this country into a retard theocracy

    You don't need a theocracy to outlaw abortion.

    Just like you don't need a theocracy to outlaw murder, rape, and theft.
  20. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    You mentioned what I believe to be the biggest hypocrisy in the pro-choice argument. Arresting people for murder but letting abortion be legal. From conception, it is a unique life form that, if things go normally, will be an adult like the rest of us someday. We just happen to be further along in development. If you want to start at, say, 12 weeks or so, then that still includes thousands of abortions at that stage of development each week. It is not "part of a woman's body" and therefore a woman's choice. No, it is a separate life form that is in the mother's care and protection, yes, but that goes for children after they are born, too. They can't survive on their own, either.

    I just don't get it. Killing people is illegal, but killing unborn children is legal, even though both share the same characteristics of life (DNA, genetics, etc.).



  21. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    If a person wants to believe the fetus is a child, or the fetus is not a child... they are, either way, entitled to make that decision on their own.

    They aren't allowed to make that kind of decision after the child is born ... why do they get to make it before?

    If I subscribed to a system of beliefs that taught that certain people in society were not really human and did not deserve to live, it would not give me any right to kill them.

    We need laws against murder to protect people's rights, because not everyone's belief system will.


    Now the pro-lifers will have to contend with the fact that any one of them who is at serious risk during childbirth may be forced to die, and lose their baby as well... because of the implications of these laws.

    I doubt that. A woman whose is in danger of losing her life if she continues her pregnancy may abort the pregnancy in self-defense. However, she should be in reasonable fear for her life (the same condition now used to determine whether someone killed in self-defense) before she has that choice.


    We the people are losing our freedoms day by day thanks to George Bush, and here we are thinking that the Taliban are religious fanatics who use their power to oppress the people's freedoms.

    We do not have the freedom to commit murder. A law that prohibits abortion is aimed at protecting the life of an unborn child. This legislation is not targeted at women, trying to force them to procreate. It is to defend the life that already exists.


    I believe that the government is responsible for protecting our individual right to choose.

    Women do have a choice, but it is the choice to not become pregnant. If we could realize that this is the best -- and legally, I think it should be the only -- option for preventing unwanted children, I think we would drastically reduce the perceived need for abortion.


    No one is asking you to murder your children... so why are you trying to force us to have every child that gets conceived?

    No one forced you to conceive. If they did, it was rape, and you should press charges.

    "We" are not forcing "you" to have a child; we simply want to protect the rights of a child that is already there. We prosecute women who throw their babies in the trash, but right now no one is stopping them from getting a doctor to do the same. My argument is that a woman has no more right to kill her unborn child than she has to toss her baby in a dumpster after it is born. It is the same child, the same life, that is lost in both cases.


    The one overriding principle of this country is protecting the people's pre-eminent rights as a whole

    The principle of our country is protecting the individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. As a human life, an unborn child should be afforded its individual rights as well. The child's right to live supercedes any right a woman may have to avoid being inconvenienced by pregnancy.
  22. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    I missed this one:

    Bush, Pro-lifers, and Pro-choicers act as though the women of America are their property... and not capable of deciding what's best for themselves on an individual basis.

    It seems to me that many women are treating their unborn children as their property: theirs to do with as they please, and to displose of if they choose.

    Susan Smith decided that what was best for her was getting rid of her children so she could have a better relationship with her boyfriend. I don't think she had any right to make that choice.

    There are some decisions that we are not allowed, by law, to make -- such as murder.
  23. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
  24. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    Thanks :)

    ...I think I've gotten a lot of practice in the other thread ;)
  25. Jedi_Xen Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2001
    star 4
    Though this might be somewhat off topic, but about Women having the right to choose to have or murder thier baby. What about the Father? If I get a girl pregnant and she doesnt want to have the baby, and I do, I get told up yours. The day women should be the ONLY ones too choose is the day they get pregnant without any kind of male intervention at all.

    I applaude W. for his actions. We condem the Nazis for a holocaust of Jews yet every year the US has a holocaust of its own with unborn children. In my mind there is no difference, yes there is the Jews the Nazis slaughtered at least had a chance to fight back (not much of one, but they had one), unborn children dont have that option. Especially considering most pregnancies occur cause girls can't keep their trousers on, (this is partially guys fault too, but unless its rape girls have the option to say no) its irresponsibility on their part, and by allowing abortion we tell them, that its ok, theres always an easy way out. Not a good lesson to teach people, especially since there isnt always an easy way out.

    *knows that will get him flamed, but for the cause of what is good right and true is prepared to get flamed.*
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.