What is Digg?251 Comments
- mv10, on 10/12/2007, -19/+41Im liberal too, but Im sorry, but that blatantly-biased topic description (big step backwards) needs to be changed.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -27/+44This will simply force women to do it themselves endagering their lives even more than necessary. Banning abortion is just plain wrong.
- slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21 I will not attempt to answer your question, because I don't disagree (or agree either, for that matter) with the way you are thinking.
But, I will say that issues such as abortion are nuanced enough to be more than a black and white issue. Obviously "pro choice" doesn't always (or ever, I'd suppose) equal "we love killin' babies," and, just as much so, "pro life" doesn't always equal "women have no control over what happens to them, no matter if their lives are in danger, no matter anything!"
There is a lot of grey between "murder is wrong" and "huzzah for abortion!" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22You are female and 14? Hey baby, what's going on!
You won't go to hell... But I will .. - Machismo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17It likely comes down to a quality of life situation. Although the Catholic Church says abortion is wrong in all cases, except when the mother's life is in danger. That makes logical sense since one life WILL be saved (the mother's) if the abortion occurs, if the delivery is allowed one life MIGHT be saved (the child's) and another won't be saved (the mother's).Basically, a lesser of two evils.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27I've always found the line conservatives seem to take on this interesting. Generally, they oppose abortion unless the mother's life is in danger, or the fetus is the product of rape or incest.
So, essentially, their position is that it is okay to murder a baby (which they claim abortion is morally equivalent to) on the condition that it was conceived in rape or incest.
How does that make sense? - Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14mc7winkie - I don't think that there's anyone who argues that adoption's not a Good Thing, and the correct alternative for certain would-be parents. However, adoption is a lengthy process for all involved parties, and in the meantime, most children end up in the custody of the state. Even in America, 25% of children who are given over to foster care spend 5 -years- or more in the program, being moved from home to home. 10% wait more than 7 years, according to the ACLU. That's an entire damned childhood, friend. This is why the majority of children who enter the foster care system end up being returned to their birth parents or adopted by a close relative. More than 80% of the children waiting for adoption have special needs, and more than 51% are minority children. Lastly, the subtext to all of this is that you have prospective parents waiting years for 'healthy, white babies,' while more than 500,000 children (in the U.S. alone!) await permanent 'placement.'
Now, consider the chances of a young, impoverished African woman finding a good home for her child. Look at the odds, along with the statistics about physical, sexual, and emotional abuse in the foster care system (again, American - think about how it might be in other parts of the world): group homes are host to more than ten times the rate of physical abuse and more than 28 times the rate of sexual abuse that's recorded in the general population, according to Johns Hopkins.
Tell me that's how you'd want a child to grow up. Tell me that slipping out of existence as a cluster of cells isn't, by all accounts, preferable to a life of abuse, neglect, and emotional detachment. I don't have information on an African baby from a poor family and his or her odds of being adopted by loving, wealthy parents, but I'm going to go ahead and bet that they're not good.
If adoption was as simple as, "I don't want this baby, but I want it to live, so you take it," that would be one thing. Adoption sounds good, and feels good. There are PLENTY of success stories. However, they absolutely -are-, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the exception to the rule. In the end, and statistically speaking, putting a child up for adoption in ANY country should be viewed with as much if not more trepidation than abortion. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Even if you don't condone it, women will do it anyway. Often, they will do it with a coat hanger or other sharp object. They frequently will injure themselves by accident and can also bleed to death. If proper antiseptic techniques are not followed they could die later by infection. If they don't succeed that could have their baby born with mutilations. Once born they would probably dump is somewhere or kill it.
This is what happens when you ban abortion...is this what you want? - MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14It's not a matter of moral beliefs, not everything is as easy to do in Nicaragua as it is to do here, especially things like adoption.
When you make things like this illegal the people who want it just go to the black market, and it becomes more dangerous and more expensive. Ever heard of a little thing called the drug war? Or prohibition? - reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16So you'll only have sex when you want a child?
I guess you won't be getting laid that much. - slushpuppie, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20 They don't care about what you are doing to yourself... they care about what you are doing to another person's life who you created with your irresponsible actions.
- maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15too bad women don't run the world
- PURDooM, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Now I am not one for banning abortion (pro choice FTW), but when people report stories they should do so without bias. Words like 'Giant step backward' don't convey a neutral viewpoint - they try to editorialize the news.
I guess what I am saying is digg articles != neutral wikipedia articles, and it makes me dissapointed. - davodavo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15So Twink, you're in favor of forcing that moral position on women? ***** you.
- cool4u2view, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1214 and you aren't sexually active ... stay that way as long as you can...
- directedition, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21Why do conservatives care? Because you are the ones who seduced adam into eating the sacred fruit! God condemned women to suffer during child birth (which is why many ultra-christians are against pain relief during labor) to pay for her sin. Allowing abortion gives women some semblance of control over the world, and this can't be let to stand. After all, women exist to be items of sex: Numbers 31:17-18. In fact, it's perfectly fine to gift your virgin daughter to an angry mob to rape: Judges 19:22-24. But I don't know how much stock you want to put into this "God" character that keeps feeding these lines. He seems like a pretty rotten apple if you ask me.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You must be really blissful then Zethris...
- tehbishop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8To me, it's a simple matter about who controls my wife's body. Only she does, and I will defend her with my life, laws be damned. To think that someone honestly thinks that they can regulate her body is funny to me simply because she's going to do what she wants to do.
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Because there's a law allowing for an extra charge when you kill a fetus while you're attacking the mother.
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Maybe she just doesn't want a baby, and doesn't want to go through 9 months of physical and hormonal torment in order to get it out of her. (I hope we don't have to explain all the reasons why someone might not want a baby at any particular point in their lives!)
- Lewie, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9mc7winkie, in what similar situation would you risk your life? It's easy making life-or-death decisions for OTHER people. Put yourself in the same situation, and you'll probably be singing in the Pro-Choice camp within a week.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16I love using religious peoples' own text against them... +digg
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Plus she was 33 weeks pregnant... With hospital care the baby may have survived outside the body.
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Zethris:
TV and movies, huh? No, I think reality provides enough of a deterrent. Pregnancy and childbirth are unpleasant, painful, and dangerous; raising a child is expensive, frustrating, and lasts for your entire life. I can hardly blame anyone for thinking "expanding your legacy" isn't worth all that. There are plenty of other ways to expand your legacy.
BTW, pro-choice has nothing to do with population control, and you're the only one here putting forth that "more babies means less for me" argument. I've never seen it anywhere before, actually. Did you make it up? - Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@Zethris: "I empathize with them if they were to have a voice and a way to reason and plead for their lives."
Too bad you don't empathize with the grown people who *have* a voice and a way to reason, who have actually had experiences and touched other people's lives. I gotta say, that kind of empathy seems a lot more important to me. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I agree with Slush about the gray areas. I personally would be pretty devastated if my girlfriend or wife aborted my child. But if she was raped or her health was in danger, I'd be all for it (a baby growing up without a mother is a tragedy in itself). But at the same time, I don't think anyone is more qualified of that decision than the mother. No congressman knows each individual woman's situation, and the variables in those situations are infinite.
However, I do think the constitution needs to be more clear when it says "people". Does that include unborn babies? What about 3 months along, or 5 months and 18 days? Does the baby count as a "person" when it has fingers and bulging eyes, or when it starts wiggling and kicking in the womb? Everyone has their own opinion about this, but what exactly is a "person"? - MarkStrube, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15L4stM4nSt4nding - Wow, what little you know about Nicaragua.
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@slushpuppie: "It's 'only have sex when you are prepared to take responsibility for the situation that may result from your actions.'"
I agree with that statement entirely.
However, some people seem to think the only way to take responsibility for getting pregnant is to give birth. That's just ridiculous. It's like saying if you're playing football, and you break a bone, then to "take responsibility for the situation" you have to just lie there bleeding on the grass. But that's wrong - going to the doctor to get a cast isn't cheating, it's a responsible way to handle the situation. Similarly, if you become pregnant, putting an end to the pregnancy is also a responsible way to handle the situation.
Of course, if you're really responsible, you should be trying to avoid pregnancy in the first place - but that doesn't mean you can't have sex. If you're playing football, you wear pads and a helmet; if you're having sex, you use birth control, condoms, whatever. You do what's necessary to avoid a bad situation, and then if you get in that situation anyway (contraception isn't 100% effective), you do what's necessary to get out of it. That's responsibility. - growler1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@Zethris
"This home abortions thing is a non-issue. It happens all the time anyway because of fear of going to the clinics and having their parents or community peers find out. That is an ufortunate effect of societal taboos already in effect. No law would change that.
Making it illegal will only make those who regularly get abortions and sex it up day in and day out (oh, because it's natural and free and "love" bull *****) go to these guys too and hopefully a bit of Darwin will start happening with these people."
You, sir or madam, seem to be the opposite of the "liberals" who in your view want "summary abortions" that will (slippery slope) lead to "designer babies."
In the article it says that doctors who suspect that their patients of having abortions must report them to the police. Sometimes they spend up to 30 years in prison for late term abortions.
Do you honestly think this is a good system? I have never liked the idea of ending a pregnancy, but I believe that is an individual's choice.
Which is worse, a life never given the chance to take place, or a government that legally owns the bodies of its citizens, whether they be women, men, children, gay men or women, etc.?
I would posit that when your body, and the functioning of your body is not your own, it is a form of slavery. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Tammy Watts's baby had Trisomy 13 (genetic defect)
Try again... (and this time use the reply button) - Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Actually, some people do have funerals for miscarriages. They're kooks IMO, though.
To put it bluntly, fetuses are expendable. If you lose one, who cares: there are more where that one came from. Each one might have unique DNA, but that doesn't make it special... just like no two snowflakes are alike, but you don't cry when one melts, because there are a million more in the sky, and there'll be even more the next time it snows. What makes a person special and irreplaceable is the experiences that have made up his life and the ways in which he has touched other people's lives.
I can certainly sympathize with the grief someone would feel after losing a fetus if they'd been looking forward to having a child, though. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7only court rulings... Zethris who do you think interprets law in this country... the judicial branch!
- smileygirl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yes, its your body and your only 14---take care of it! Don't get pregnant in the first place and you won't have to worry about it. Regardless of the moral issues about abortion, it is a type of an operation and things could go wrong, so its better not to put yourself in that position in the first place.
- Lewie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6smileygirl: Actually, in Roe v. Wade, it was found that first trimester, and even second trimester abortions are safer than actually going through with childbirth. That is part of the reason why abortions are legal.
- Sublime059, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Fetuses are not people for Christs sake. They are ***** parasites. They feed on the host until they are born as human ***** children.
All you pro-lifers care about is getting tons of unwanted children to be born and then have miserable lives. Why would you wish that upon millions of kids? - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@Zethris:
"Because I haven't forgotten reality and I remember that abortion has never been illegal yet"
Abortion was illegal in the US until just 30 years ago, when the US Supreme Court declared it legal. You haven't forgotten reality because you aren't living in reality.
"Legalizing abortion will be near catastrophic. Making it illegal may have some tragedy, but not more than already happens anyway."
Again, abortions in the US *are* currently legal, have been for 30 years, so talking about the potential consequences of "legalizing" it makes no sense--just review the current evidence. As for what happens when it is illegal, you can study the evidence prior to 1973.
Now, either have the integrity to admit that you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about--not even the basic facts about "reality", or just go away. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Zethris, you may call them whatever you want. They are, in fact, parasites. This is not saying that parasites are bad. You may not understand the term "parasite".
We are all parasites until birth. We are all animals that eat the dead animals and plants... Why do you insist on denying who you are as a human being. - Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@VTmruhlin: "Sex for pleasure still ultimately reduces to gambling. And if you want to gamble, that's great. But when you lose, pay up."
Ah, there it is: pro-life as punishment. Nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth might be a horrible, painful, and dangerous experience, but you gotta make those sluts *pay* for having sex for pleasure, right?
If someone gambles away his life savings, of course he doesn't get his money back, but he does get the same legal protections as everyone else who runs out of money. He can file for bankruptcy if he has debts he can't pay, he can sign up for food stamps or medicaid, etc.
Abortion is simply giving pregnant women the same rights over their own bodies that everyone else already enjoys. If you have something in your body, growing against your will, then you should have the right to take it out even if it has human DNA - no matter how it got there. Maybe it's a tumor, maybe it's a fetus, maybe it's a famous violinist who's been implanted into your body by aliens; doesn't matter, it has no right to stay inside your body. If it can survive outside your body, then more power to it, but if not, your rights still come first. - tehbishop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@pedrito77 who said: "where does the goverment let you terminate an embryo or a fetus?"
You presume that the government has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body, which is a bad assumption to begin with. Were I living there, her choice would be upheld and if people that disagreed with me had to suffer, that's just too damned bad. I guess that's the outcome of trying to push a certain morality on those that disagree with it.
Freedom. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If I walk up to your wife with a gun and threaten to kill her then do you not have a right to defend her and yourself?
If a man rapes your wife and she becomes pregnant will you raise that child as your own. Every single day of it's life would remind your wife of what she went through. If she didn't want to have the child... if she didn't want a part of HIM living inside her would you support her decision? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Her mother made a choice to keep her child. The question is would you deny choice to those women?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nicaragua is very much a developing country. I was there about a month ago and while it may be portrayed as modernised it's not.
Some corporations have moved in for their own purposes but overall the country is *very* much third world. In Managua there's a very modern and western mall, hotel and casino. The rest of the city ranges from poor to dirt-poor latina. - gurgg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8my logic is this: you cannot ban anyone from doing anything, you can make it illegal but it never really quells the problem, look at how drugs are in the US and other countries
so sure abortion is illegal, but it isnt banned; and if Nicaragua is anything like the US, its going to lead to alot of home abortions- and i dont even want to imagine what a Nicaraguan botched home abortion looks like - Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8What makes you think women who have abortions don't try to avoid getting pregnant? Birth control doesn't always work, you know.
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Zethris:
If you think it's murder (genocide), why would you make an exception for rape and incest? Are you saying it's OK to murder someone if his parents are criminals? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You will have to try harder than that..
What about cases in which the baby began developing within the fallopian tube (ectopic pregnancy)? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The last part of your comment was satire... The first part was not. Our arguements are also not flawed.
You are no Stephen Colbert, don't quit your day job.
Read Mr2001's comment, it is very good. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If by reasonable you mean biased, baseless, fact-less, idiotic comments stating that no matter what abortion is wrong, then yes they all got dugg down. Those people trying to control the bodies and choices of innocent women to satisfy their own beliefs should be dugg down IMO.
- Mr2001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I have more respect for her position than yours. If you think abortion is murder, then you should be opposed to it in all cases, no matter how the fetus was conceived.
However, adoption isn't some magic solution. You still have to go through months of suffering while this unwanted thing grows inside you, shoves your organs around, sucks your nutrients and dumps its waste into your system, and fills you with hormones; you have to go through the painful and dangerous process of childbirth; and then if the baby isn't healthy and white, it probably won't get adopted anyway! See the statistics near the top of the thread. - N432SEAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@"took a step backwards in your mind ya damn hippie"
The rest of your comment was informative, but what was with your first sentence? Was it meant as an insult? -
Show 51 - 100 of 251 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is