See lula, that is just it, it is your opinion - your choice. Frankly, your opinion and choices have no influence on anyone else, save your children.

~Alderic

El-duderino posts: #127

When it comes to abortion, just becasue someone doesn't believe in God doesn't change the reality of what is being done.

That's just it...with the exception when the mother's life is at stake, women aren't making choices for just their own lives. Abortion isn't a private matter rather it's a public matter because it doesn't involve the mother alone, it also involves the rights of the father, along with the rights of the unborn baby.

lula posts:

Stingy bella..interesting!  Did you see the movie Bella?

Anyway back to the serious business of discussing semantics and the reality behind them. It's the pro-abortion crowd who sets aside the humanity aspect when they disconnect killing by the words they use....words as "pro-choice" and "reproductive  "rights" are a few of their falsities. "Pro-choice" is a euphemism that hides the act of killing babies in the womb...they use it to manipulate people into accepting the killing.

We have a holocaust going on and it would end if, one....it were perceived as it really is .....killing children instead of a an exercise of a woman's "right to her own body" or "right to choose" and two...people, especially legislatures, were made to view an abortion and see the blood and gore of it all.

ALDERIC POSTS:

The problem with abortion isn't about people making choices, rather it's about the choice they make.

Opinion or truth, Alderic?

In a choice to commit abortion, the baby always gets killed

Opinion or truth, ALderic?

 it's fundamentally wrong, unacceptable and unjust to kill one's baby.

Opinion or truth, Alderic?

I'm going to have to disagree with you here.  From the debates that I've had with Lula and KFC they seem to have done a decent job of educating their kids.  I may not agree with the abstinence route but that was their choice to make.  As for parents who opt their kids out of sex ed and still refuse to do sex ed at home they are just asking for problems.

I agree with this.  But any sex ed class should NOT tell the kids that they shouldn't be gay, or straight for that matter, they should simply present the facts so that the students have the information.  What they do with the information is up to them.

No.  The question from the Red Cross should be about unprotected anal sex not the persons sexuality because it's the unprotected anal sex that increases the risk of AIDS not the persons sexuality.

The education needs to focus on unprotected sex of any kind not about the sexuality of the people involved.  AIDS doesn't care what your sexuality is it just needs a fluid exchange to transmit itself to another host.  If you are protected against the fluid exchange then the risk drops significantly.  Yes abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent transmission via sex but it still doesn't prevent it via IV drug use or blood transfusions (although our screening process takes care of this for the most part).

If the information is infact incorrect then it needs to be corrected plain and simple.  Yes abstinence should be emphasized as the only 100% method to not contract stds but the other methods to prevent should be presented with their efficacy so that people can make informed decisions if the need arises.

I think the problem isn't so much the school system as it is the culture.  We have an over sexed culture in the entertainment industry.  Our kids look up to people like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, etc. and those people don't set a good example.  We also have a lot of parents (present company excluded) who like to ignore the problem and expect it to go away.  Most parents are quite content to sit their kids in front of the tv of computer all day as long as the kids are out of their hair and we reap what we sow.  The solution to this is a combination of proper education (emphasizing abstinence) and parents getting involved in what their kids do on a daily basis (knowing who their friends are, where they go after school and on the weekends, etc).

Exactly.  Well said.

It jumped from Chimps to humans.  How isn't exactly clear but the most likely scenario involved blood transfer of some sort.  The reason that the homosexual community has been impacted so severly is because for a long time they had the largest population of people having unprotected sex since there was no risk of pregnancy.  AIDS is NOT a gay disease.

I honestly don't care whether her life was in danger or not from the pregnancy she had already been tortured by repeated rapes by her step father and you actually want her to go through the trauma that is child birth at 9 years old?  I'm sorry but there is nothing that can be said to make that justified to me.

You are the one playing word games.  I don't favor abortion.  I favor giving the woman the choice on her reproductive options.  Pro-abortion makes it sound like I want every woman to have at least one abortion and I would like nothing more than for abortions to never be needed.

This comes down to one's opinion on when life begins.  You think that abortion is killing a baby, I think that abortion is terminating a fetus well before it becomes a baby.  I say let the woman decide what she wants to do with her life and she will have to live with whatever consequences come her way.  And as I have said before there is a line at which abortion should no longer be an option, first trimester is ok, second trimester should only be allowed when the health of the mother is at risk, and in the third trimester if the woman's health is at risk they should attempt to deliver the child to see if it can survive outside of the womb, if it can great.

As you know I disagree with you but I'm not going to detail why because I have said it time and time again.

This is your opinion based on your religion.  You believe that your religion says that life begins at conception which means YOU have to consider the unborn babies rights.  I believe something else entirely, and as for the father he should be counciled of course but ultimately it is the woman's body, she is the one who has to endure 9 months of pregnancy plus child birth not the man.

I realize the following was asked of Alderic but I will respond as well:

From a scientific standpoint you are wrong.

But its not politically correct to admit that you are ending a life for your own convinience. albeit a life that has yet to develop a mind or personality / be born and have emotional bonds form to it. But you are still ending a life. I am pro-abortion (for other people), no pussy footing about.

The explanation I have read is that in some countries, monkeys and very poor humans root through the garbage of restaurant for food remains... and often fight over those remains. Biting and scratching is the most likely cause in such a fight.

I personally would guess a bite by an infected monkey after it started bleeding from its gums due to a punch.

Choice over your reproductive options means using contraceptives (which the crazy religious people also oppose). Abortion is the choice to kill your own children.

Correct, there is no magic in homosexuality that makes unprotected anal sex more dangerous for them then it is for hetrosexuals despite lulas odd interpretation of the bible.

And what do you mean by HAD the largest? they still do. most people "trust" their partner (its not a matter of trust but they think of it as trust) to be free of disease, so only use protection as a form of contraceptive, not for STD prevention.

Think it cruel if you want but until that fetus (or baby if you prefer) is able to survive outside the womb (with or without life support) I view it more as a symbiotic parasite much like a tape worm.  If you want to terminate it that is your choice.  If abortion had not been legal it is likely that my wife would have died a few years ago so call it whatever you like I think that it is necessary to keep it legal and safe and preferably rare.

And hence it would be stupid to say that children shouldn't be taught that smokers are more at risk of cancer than non-smokers!

But it is - if you're heterosexual, then you will typically be having 'lower risk' sex that is not a possibility if you're homosexual. To go back to the smoking example, it's a bit like saying that inhaling smoke and toxins etc. is harmful to your health, but that non-smokers can also engage in this as well as smokers. Non-smokers are far less likely to engage in such activity than smokers.

Pro choice means you support a womans right to choose whether to have an abortion. In other words, you're supporting the use of abortion (in such cases). You might not think that abortion should be chosen in every case, but you're still supporting it being chosen by people who think they should have an abortion. In fact pro-choice by itself is misleading - it's only pro the mothers choice, not the baby. The  baby gets no say in whether it is killed. It's bizarre that mothers who kill their baby (or leave it to die) moments after it is born are reviled, yet mothers who have the baby killed before it's born are supported and even encouraged.

Abortion when the mothers life is in danger is a completely different thing. In the typical abortion a life is ended for the mothers convenience. In the case where the mothers life is in danger, a life is ended to save another.

You're not understanding my stance. I'm taking the issue out of my hands, because what another does should not be in my hands period. Therefore, I am prochoice; i.e. in favor of others choosing what they want.

I, however, choose to not support/"have" an abortion.

~Alderic

I do understand what you're saying but to me it's like sitting on the fence with one leg over each side.  While you personally don't like it or would have one yourself you are all about our  freedom to choose.  I get that.   I agree to a point and probably would agree with you if it were another issue that didn't involve a hushed voice that has no say.  

For me Ronald Reagan summed it up perfectly when he said this:

there is NO baby even one that comes to full term who can support himself (with no outside help) outside the womb. 

Then there are others who are full term who need extra help in making it.  According to your statement here we should kill them as well even though they are wanted and helped to stay alive. 

Uh, I'm not seeing how you're linking the two. I'm firmly against abortion, but the catch is that when it comes down to it...what others do, is not my issue. I have no say. Perhaps it would be better of me to say, I'm pro you. You make the decision based off what you believe.

because the two are linked.  If it came down to a vote today....what would you vote? 

Would you cast a vote with the pro-abortion side or would you cast your vote with the anti-abortion side? 

To be "against" means "anti"   So if you really are "firmly against" abortion, as you say, that would make you "anti-abortion." 

Heterosexual sex is no less risky than anal sex.  The difference is that those having vaginal intercourse will more likely be using a condom to prevent pregnancy which also protects them from AIDS.  If those having anal sex were to use a condom they would be equally protected.

Different yes, but it is also the argument to keep abortion around as safe and legal so that there are doctors available to perform the procedure when the woman's life is at risk.  If abortion is made illegal it will be almost impossible to find a doctor who knows how to do the procedure properly which significantly increases the risk to the woman.  Not to mention the fact that making it illegal will lead to a potentially dramatic increase in the number of back alley abortions which are extremely dangerous potentially ending in the woman hemoraging to death.

Which is why I say with or without life support.  A fetus that had 30 weeks of gestation can potentially live outside the womb with the help of life support and it should be given that chance to survive.  I have heard of cases of as early as 22 or 23 weeks being able to live outside the womb.  Much earlier than that and it's not yet possible, maybe some day it will be and abortion will no longer be needed because the developing fetus can be transplanted to an artifical womb.

That's not what I said at all.  Try re-reading my comment.