|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Adam
Guest
|
| I think there's a difference between trying to save the life of a mother and killing your kid because you don't want to have it. There's also the issue of abortion in cases of rape and incest. Personally I'd much rather have the person who committed the rape or incest get killed than the baby that didn't commit the crime. |
|
|
Wed May 17, 2006 2:25 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
Hey Adam, I'm with you on that one. People that seem feel it's ok to kill their baby, for the most part are the same ones that don't feel murders should be put to death either. I just cannot comprehend the thought process that allows two such apposing views to exist in the same mind. It’s ok to let a Murderer live. But not ok to let an innocent child.
I don’t understand how anyone can have sympathy for someone who takes someone else’s life. Such as Timothy McVey and those like him. They completely took anyway, a mother, father sister, brother. Yet they justify their argument that “taking their life doesn’t bring back the victim? I don’t get it. So What? Not even a point in the ball park. The price of Tea in China has just as much relevance. Bringing it to the local level. In Flint we are fighting crime by removing “Don’t Snitch T-Shirts” I’ve not once. Ever been worried about a “Don’t Snitch T-Shirt” breaking into my car or house or stealing a gun and using it in a crime. Yet, because we got them out of the city. That is supposed to somehow an Impact on crime? Symptoms of a bigger problem. How do we get people in any environment. To look at the problem and come up with a solution to that problem. Instead of focusing on solutions to problems that wouldn’t exist. Had they took care of the core problem?
It is very frustrating talking to people who make arguments or defenses with points that don’t even relate to the topic at hand.
I was talking to a man today. Whose house was broken into. They had a pretty good idea who it was. And not surprisingly, Police really weren’t interested. When the get away car was found across town. The investigating officer became angry with him for calling him about it. He wasn’t interested. Here’s how it went. The house that was broken into had tens of thousands of dollars worth of coins and collectables stolen. A gentleman in Flint Township found his car that had been stolen in the Kessel parking lot on Corunna Rd. When he started to go through the car. He found a roll of coins with this other guys address and phone number on it. So he called him. There was other stuff in the car that belonged to the victim of the burglary. But, Flint police never took any finger prints in his house, nor did they come out and look at the car. How do you find criminals if you get angry with the people whose house was burglarized, and refuse to gather evidence?
This guy was like me. He had MANY MANY stories about break in where the nothing was done. One was his uncles house two streets over on the south side. The whole family lived within a four block radius. The Police actually caught the kid who was stealing stuff out of his uncles house. Instead of arresting and prosecuting the little criminal. The people told his druggy parents and then made the kid return all the stuff he had in the garage from where he was stashing the stuff he was taking out of the house he was breaking into. I’m sure that stopped the kid from breaking into another house after the police left.
I wish more people would send me their stories and sign them. I’d be posting 24 hours day. |
|
|
|
Wed May 17, 2006 9:38 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
[quote="Guest II"]
quote:
I think what anyone does to their body is their choice. Regardless of what it may be.
This part of the statement I would wholeheartedly agree.
quote:
I think abortion is a women's choice.
How come the person being aborted isn't allowed a choice in thier own life? Because they are innocent. They haven't done anything to any one yet. Why can't they decide if they want to live or not. Because, they can't talk? Because they can't walk? Taking the abortionist view we should then begin eunthinsia. Start putting down anyone who cannot have that decsion for themselves. Lunecy.
This brings us back to the old school argument of.. when is a fetus viable outside of the womb. Most doctors say after the 24-26 week period. But.. even then those "experts" don't know.
My take is this. If a women is considering abortion, I think her "mothering" skills could be in question. I rather not pay for a child who may or may not be a pawn in the system. A child who may not receive what they need for a healthy and productive life. A child who may not receive the love and attention from a mother who wasn't mature nor capable of rasing a child. All sorts of pictures can be painted here.
But then, at which week is a child capable of living outside of the womb? |
|
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 8:42 am |
|
|
Guest
|
[quote="Guest II"]
quote:
I think what anyone does to their body is their choice. Regardless of what it may be.
This part of the statement I would wholeheartedly agree.
quote:
I think abortion is a women's choice.
How come the person being aborted isn't allowed a choice in thier own life? Because they are innocent. They haven't done anything to any one yet. Why can't they decide if they want to live or not. Because, they can't talk? Because they can't walk? Taking the abortionist view we should then begin eunthinsia. Start putting down anyone who cannot have that decsion for themselves. Lunecy.
This brings us back to the old school argument of.. when is a fetus viable outside of the womb. Most doctors say after the 24-26 week period. But.. even then those "experts" don't know.
Flintteach
My take is this. If a women is considering abortion, I think her "mothering" skills could be in question. I rather not pay for a child who may or may not be a pawn in the system. A child who may not receive what they need for a healthy and productive life. A child who may not receive the love and attention from a mother who wasn't mature nor capable of rasing a child. All sorts of pictures can be painted here.
But then, at which week is a child capable of living outside of the womb? |
|
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 8:43 am |
|
|
rapunzel
Guest
|
quote:
GUESTII schreef:
quote:
Now the hospital lets her continue to bleed for hours on end in the falacy that maybe it will stop on its own. The hospital should do an ultrasound and maybe find out what is the cause of the bleeding. NO MAM, we would rather you bleed to death. Save that 3,4,5 or 6 week old fetus you are a vessel for. Your child at home won't need you because we do not do abortions here!
And who is attributing this to right to lifers? Seems to me that if it becomes a neccessary procedure. Any doctor would perform it. Also. Why are you bringing in a legiamate procedure. In an attempt to defend abortion? THey are not the same thing. Obviously.
The point is...with abortion currently legal still not all doctors will perform it EVEN when it is a neccessary proceedure.
If abortion were not legal except in mothers life threatening case. When would the doctor decide the life was in danger...after you bleed to death.
The mother's health is currently second priority any steps backward and we are in the dark ages.
In right to choice...it is the mother's call period!
Young women when they have help to get themselves in trouble feel like they have no help getting themselves out of trouble.
They will try to keep it secret, they are overwhelmed and see NO light in their future. It is traumatic.
They need every available resource...yes counciling possibly to decide on adoption. They would rather die than tell mom or dad.
If they decide on abortion...even without parent approval they have that right. If they no longer have that right of CHOICE they will go to any lengths and many will DIE in backrooms or having boyfriends punch them in the stomach, take some noxious poison.
We need to do all we can to prevent teen pregnancy still it will happen. |
|
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 10:57 am |
|
|
cornholio
F L I N T O I D
|
I have several thoughts on this issue, and since you all opened the can o' worms, here goes.
A) Make birth control inexpensive and readily available, and abortion may not be an issue.
B) A pregnant woman has Constitutionally protected rights that a fetus does not.
C) No one has the right to impose his or her religious restraints upon anyone else.
D) Just a thought. Perhaps men shouldn't be debating the issue. Remember "No Taxation Without Representation" from the 1700s? Think about a parallel ...
Ironically, the people who are so concerned about what a woman is doing with her womb are the same people who don't want to have taxes assessed to fund the social programs necessary to support the children they were so eager to "protect" to begin with. Perhaps all the loud-mouths who oppose a woman's right to choose to have an abortion should put up and shut up, i.e. adopt a neglected or abused child. |
_________________
'cause cornholio said so! |
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 6:43 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I stated before.. a woman (or any person for that matter) has the right to do with their body what they please.
Politicians (Democrat and Republican) use this issue as a way of controlling others. Actually, they use all "issues" as a way of diverting the general public from asking the "hard" questions (and debating them too !)
As far as making birth control readily available and inexpensive. If your poor or underemployed it ALREADY IS ! The health department and many women services offer it free. Many major insurance companies cover it under their prescription plan. Co-pays of under 20 dollars for a 3-month supply.
And your key word here is FETUS ! Most states don't allow for abortions to be performed after the 24th week. It would be safe to say (and medically proven) that "babies" can't live until after the 26th week. And if they do, many.. many health problems follow.
I also believe abortion issues have become a more "right" and "left" issue rather than a religious one.
To take your "No taxation without Representation" one step further. Unless the woman conceieved by immaculate conception. I feel a man has every right to discuss, debate, or even prevent an abortion.
Neglected and abused children are another topic !
Flintteach  |
|
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 8:41 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
| FLINTTEACH, Sometimes, you blow me away with your commonsense. Nice touch. |
|
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 8:49 pm |
|
|
Rapunzel
Guest
|
Mark it on your calendar...I agree with most of what Flintteach said.
Except...the services that provide birthcontrol are not as readily available as they were a few years ago and definitely not free. One it is hard to get a three month supply now they only want to give you one month per. Planned Parenthood has had to increase charges.
If MCRI passes you can throw these state funded womens health programs out the WINDOW...nother issue.
Taxation without Representation. If you call taxation being a sperm donor FINE! Boys make deposits but men take responsibility to either wear a rubber, get a vasectomy or support the child, help pay for hospital bills and maybe change a diaper.
Never yet heard of a man going through labor. Never heard of a man going to the doctor putting his feet in Stirrups to get birth control. Does estrogen birth control cause Cancer? Let's test it on men.
Conception is the fun part, the child is the best part. Only bring them in to this world with love and responsibility when you are ready. You know the moment teach, when you first hold your child...all encompassing, overwhelming connection. Representation. |
|
|
|
Thu May 18, 2006 11:11 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I remember when my girlfriend (now my wife of almost 20 years) told me she was pregnant. We were both young and I was VERY underemployed (USMC).
The word abortion never came in to play ! After our son was born, we wanted more kids right away but knew we couldn't afford another at the time. My wife went on BC and it was free through the local health deparment in the city we were living in at the time.
I thought if you were on Medicaid, birth control was free?
And you're right, a man needs to play an intergal part in the birth and rearing of their child.
I've heard it said many times before. Any man with a penis can make a baby, but it takes a real man to raise him.
I don't know what I would do without my two sons ! They are my heart and soul ! |
|
|
|
Fri May 19, 2006 9:37 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
If you call taxation being a sperm donor FINE! Boys make deposits but men take responsibility
Well after years of Roe vs Wade where men are considered sprem donors. men are now fighting back. Women always seem to want their cake and eat it too. What do I mean?
Woman have for years cut men out of the responsibility of having the child by saying "It's my body, you have no say so" THen in the same breath claim "You must now support your child."
For 9 months the woman says it's her body. No scientific evidence to prove it, but they say it anyway. That the man has no say he is only a sperm donor.
Then they have the baby and all of a sudden it's no longer her baby (oops body) and now the man needs to step up to his financial responsibility, and be a Man. You cannot have it both ways. Either it was a baby and seperate entitiy (solely dependant on the mother for 9 months) or it is a blob a flesh called a baby and was one from conception. Nine months of Sole Dependance, doesn't make the baby sole responsibility of the mother from conception. Unless the Father is only a sperm donor. And if so. WHy make him financially responsible. If he had no say.
They claim independance and ownership on one hand. Then plead dependance and need financial assitance on the other. Go Figure. |
|
|
|
Fri May 19, 2006 2:13 pm |
|
|
Adam
Guest
|
Although I support "women's rights" in principle since I believe an unborn baby is a human being I don't support "women's rights" to kill that baby because as a human being I feel a baby should have the right to live and not be killed. Although I'm sure planned parenthood does some good stuff, it's unfortunate that they decided to get tied in with that. This has lead to cuttng off of their funding to try and save babies which has the negative impact of stopping their other programs which aren't sinister in nature. Perhaps we could have doctors and/or hospitals take over planned parenthood functions and leave baby killing to planned parenthood? Just an idea although possibly a hard one to pull off.
Getting into parental rights I think there is a lot of negatives and a not a whole lot of positives with our current situation. Campaigning for state Senator I get some surveys and end up dong some research. I think we need to start caring more about the children and less about parental rights. This is easier said then done but something that needs to be done. It almost seems to me like children are more of a possesion and income source than part of a family that really wants what is best for the child. I have no easy solutions at this time for this problem. A lot of times dad's get screwed but I also know a good mother that got screwed. I think either way this negatively impacts children and families. |
|
|
|
Fri May 19, 2006 9:15 pm |
|
|
rapunzel
Guest
|
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
quote:
If you call taxation being a sperm donor FINE! Boys make deposits but men take responsibility
Well after years of Roe vs Wade where men are considered sprem donors. men are now fighting back. Women always seem to want their cake and eat it too. What do I mean?
Woman have for years cut men out of the responsibility of having the child by saying "It's my body, you have no say so" THen in the same breath claim "You must now support your child."
For 9 months the woman says it's her body. No scientific evidence to prove it, but they say it anyway. That the man has no say he is only a sperm donor.
Then they have the baby and all of a sudden it's no longer her baby (oops body) and now the man needs to step up to his financial responsibility, and be a Man. You cannot have it both ways. Either it was a baby and seperate entitiy (solely dependant on the mother for 9 months) or it is a blob a flesh called a baby and was one from conception. Nine months of Sole Dependance, doesn't make the baby sole responsibility of the mother from conception. Unless the Father is only a sperm donor. And if so. WHy make him financially responsible. If he had no say.
They claim independance and ownership on one hand. Then plead dependance and need financial assitance on the other. Go Figure.
Ted, how many times...have you seen a boy take off when the girlfriend is pregnant. NO support whatso ever during gestation. Then come back after she is no longer fat...maybe even support the child in a family environment.
I do see the mans point in the decision making process but many, many times he can flee. When the baby is inside you a girl can not flee.
Therefore it is the womans choice. It is the mans choice to also not have sex or wear a rubber. When the fun is done, the lies that got you there come out. |
|
|
|
Sat May 20, 2006 10:58 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
I don't disagree that a Man has the responsibility of support. Only, if the man doesn't have any say when a woman can choose to end the life of "THEIR" child. I don't see how any man can be expected to support the child. The man has been completely taken out of the picture. until the child has been born. (when the couple is not married and planning a family). These are rarely a problem when it is in a marriage and committed relationship.
My problem comes in when people make bad decisions, (making babies that they really don't want) then think it's just fine to use abortion as "Birth Control" when Birth control is (the pill, Condoms, Diagram, etc). So that because someone makes a wrong decision. The solution is to kill their child. I just cannot comprehend that logic.
There are no little Ted jr's running around without my knowledge. I know many men who do have children. Who have been sole provider for the child and still paying friend of the court, to their ex-wife’s, or ex girlfriends and the Kid is/has been living with the father and he has been providing everything. Yet they pay the wife/exgirlfriend child support and she doesn't do any parenting.
All the studies are showing the only way that works is to not have sex until marriage. If both men and women just kept their pants on. None of this would even be an issue. So what do we do. In today’s world. We kill the child. I don't understand the logic. I understand the arguments. But, don't see any of the arguments strong or heavy enough to override the basic right of the child to Not to receive a death sentence, when they did nothing to deserve it. |
|
|
|
Sun May 21, 2006 10:05 am |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:18 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
