Texas Passes Bill to Require Sonograms Before Abortions

[Vi-Jay 218]

I'd have to agree with that statement.

OMG! OMG!

That was not a "party line" statement. That was your humanity speaking.

Maybe I judged you too harshly?

'Cause I also read earlier, you wrote something about believing ALL politicians are owned by business.

Hmmmmm, I will ponder this before our next square off.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Zero Sum 305]

Well, yes, it is. And that's what this is really all about. The non-viable fetus does not live if the woman decides not to host it. It's not an independent individual capable of living outside the host. You cannot legislate against nature. But that is exactly what you want to do. You want to pretend that there is an individual when there really isn't. Is there an organism that has the potential to become an individual? Absolutely. But prior to viability, from a pure biological prespective, that's all it is - the potential for an individual.

And I am celebrating today's news that a baby sister is preggo with child #1.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Perhaps. But it isnt your decision to make. And it certainly isn't something that should be fixed by legislative means.

I know that its not my decision, that is why I'm looking to change the law. No one should have the power to abort a baby because their boobs might get saggy IMO.

Why not put your energies into educating people about personal responsibility and persuade them to make better decisions. Forcing people with the law simply isnt appropriate

One bad decision shouldn't lead to another, lets educated the soon to be mothers on the ramifications of having a abortion and encourage adoption.

We have plenty of laws that we enforce due to moral reasoning.

Does it? Somehow I think your figures are a bit suspect, but that's not important.

Its very low and you know that.

Should women be allowed a termination in the event of contraceptive failure?

No, you decided to have sex which could result in having a baby. Its a chance you take. The loser of such a mistake should not be the baby.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You're an extremist, Simpson

[eekee 182]

Ramifications of having an abortion? A brighter future? A better chance of the kids you already have having better lives, or a better future for the kids you'll have when you're ready?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ramifications of having an abortion? A brighter future? A better chance of the kids you already have having better lives, or a better future for the kids you'll have when you're ready?

Neither. A good life for the kids you don't want via the magical adoption system. It's like netflix for babies.

[_Simpson_ 250]

You're an extremist, Simpson

Ramifications of having an abortion? A brighter future? A better chance of the kids you already have having better lives, or a better future for the kids you'll have when you're ready?

Neither. A good life for the kids you don't want via the magical adoption system. It's like netflix for babies.

I stand corrected. You have previously shared an opinion on a topic. That would make you have some 'give' or are you probably trying to imply- expertise?

No it would show you that I have put some serious thought into this.

You knee-jerked something (not at all surprising):

I said:

You replied:

So there... nothing new, though.

You made a quick smart ####### comment and I returned it, that is what happened no need to make more of it.

I applaud your willingness to help fund these hypothetical children in their moments of need. Do remember this- as budgetary cuts tend to target social welfare quite often. Furthermore, do understand that an unwanted child would therefore end up in the adoption world- meaning the monies that would pay for these children in need would extend until adoption, without biomom and biodad in the equation. In other words, what good is parental personal responsibility once a child is given away?

Or are you suggesting statutes should also be changed to obligate a financial penalty on parents that give their children up for adoption because they did not have an abortion available to them? Good luck with that one! Seems like you are not thinking things through all that much, to be honest.

I like how you lumped all social welfare into to this topic. When it comes to our children pro-lifers are more than happy to give. It is the slackers we take issue with soooooooooooooooooooooooo that would be a major fail on your part.

As far as adoption goes I would hold the adopting parents responsible.

Edited May 10, 2011 by _Simpson_

[eekee 182]

"netflix for babies"???

What is this I can't even.

[Zero Sum 305]

Serious thought that wasn't very well thought out... like I said- it isn't all that surprising.

You say you don't knee-jerk... yet look at you now. Your words are what they are. No need to get hissy and dramatic about it.

No it would show you that I have put some serious thought into this.

You making a quick smart #### comment and me returning it, that is what happened no need to make more of it.

I like how you lumped all social welfare into to this topic. When it comes to our children pro-lifers are more than happy to give. It is the slackers we take issue with soooooooooooooooooooooooo that would be a major fail on your part.

As far as adoption goes I would hold the adopting parents responsible.

I am not lumping anything here, Simpson. You have to understand that children in the adoption cycle require funds for them to be maintained. This is one issue which you are having difficulty separating from what the parents did or didn't do. Understand, too, that once in the adoption cycle- the parents are irrelevant.

As for adopting parents, well... duh... that's part of the responsibility of being a *parent.*

[_Simpson_ 250]

Serious thought that wasn't very well thought out... like I said- it isn't all that surprising.

You say you don't knee-jerk... yet look at you now. Your words are what they are. No need to get hissy and dramatic about it.

I am not lumping anything here, Simpson. You have to understand that children in the adoption cycle require funds for them to be maintained. This is one issue which you are having difficulty separating from what the parents did or didn't do. Understand, too, that once in the adoption cycle- the parents are irrelevant.

As for adopting parents, well... duh... that's part of the responsibility of being a *parent.*

Reading comprehension is not a strong point I see. I already said that I as a tax payer would be willing to take on some of the responsibility required to make sure that the baby lives. I see this as a priority.

I understand that adoption process isnt free, I was saying that the adopting parents should pay fees.

I have never claimed that we have a perfect system or that making abortions legal would make all our problems go away, what I'm saying is is that the world would be better off.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Serious thought that wasn't very well thought out... like I said- it isn't all that surprising.

You say you don't knee-jerk... yet look at you now. Your words are what they are. No need to get hissy and dramatic about it.

I am not lumping anything here, Simpson. You have to understand that children in the adoption cycle require funds for them to be maintained. This is one issue which you are having difficulty separating from what the parents did or didn't do. Understand, too, that once in the adoption cycle- the parents are irrelevant.

As for adopting parents, well... duh... that's part of the responsibility of being a *parent.*

Everything he's suggested is romanticised garbage. He assumes the social care system can handle a few millions extra cases a year without incurring significant cost. Likewise he assumes that there are a few million suitable parents able, willing and suitable to adopt millions of babies.

Let's not talk about the deficiencies of adoption system either. Once you've thrown out the gays, prospective parents whose race differs from the child and everything else the pro life church folk disapprove of, there'll probably be about a dozen people and half of them won't pass the background check, let alone the fees involved.

But at least in Simpsons cartoon world, the sun is always shining ;-)

[_Simpson_ 250]

You're an extremist, Simpson

I didnt know that asking people to take responsibility for their actions was a extreme point of view.

Ramifications of having an abortion? A brighter future? A better chance of the kids you already have having better lives, or a better future for the kids you'll have when you're ready?

The emotional damage. I have talked with people who have had abortions and they still cry about it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Reading comprehension is not a strong point I see. I already said that I as a tax payer would be willing to take on some of the responsibility required to make sure that the baby lives. I see this as a priority.

I understand that adoption process isnt free, I was saying that the adopting parents should pay fees.

I have never claimed that we have a perfect system or that making abortions legal would make all our problems go away, what I'm saying is is that the world would be better off.

Better off, "how"?

Because there are more people? More misery, more poverty and more people walking around with the emotional baggage of an identity crisis?

[The Dude 206]

Reading comprehension is not a strong point I see.

Great News! Finally, you've realized what everyone on this board has been saying. Acceptance is the first step.

[Zero Sum 305]

Reading comprehension is not a strong point I see. I already said that I as a tax payer would be willing to take on some of the responsibility required to make sure that the baby lives. I see this as a priority.

I understand that adoption process isnt free, I was saying that the adopting parents should pay fees.

I have never claimed that we have a perfect system or that making abortions legal would make all our problems go away, what I'm saying is is that the world would be better off.

Excellent- and as reading comprehension surely failed me (including writing in this)- I did condition such initial question to allow you the option to answer in the affirmative thereby exempting you from the hypocrite label that could be levied upon you. Lets review that line again shall we:

You may answer yes, of course, thereby abolishing the hypocrite label you'd likely earn. If, of course, you just want to punish (women) for their choice of choosing to carry a fetus to term or not, then I certainly hope your moral scale will kick in when those un-wanted kids need and the social safety net is activated.

As stated, separate the topics at hand if at all possible so you don't entangle yourself in lines of thought here.