Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on March 15, 2007, 12:57:52 PM
-
"This is a mandatory class, but don't tell your mom or dad, ok?" -- yeah, these are the people teaching our children ::)
Effort to hide homosexual indoctrination uncovered in IL school
Jim Brown
www.OneNewsNow.com (http://www.OneNewsNow.com)
March 15, 2007
Concerned Women for America is blasting an Illinois high school for urging students not to tell their parents about its mandatory homosexual indoctrination program. Deerfield High School in Chicago has a class called "Freshman Advisory," in which ninth-graders are required to attend a panel discussion led by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network. The panel features homosexual upperclassmen telling students about their sexual experiences.
This year, students were required to sign a confidentiality agreement saying they would not tell anyone about the discussions, including their parents. Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America (CWA), says school officials showed complete disregard for the rights of parents and students who believe homosexuality is immoral.
"This is just another example of activists within our public government schools -- homosexual activists -- circumventing parental authority, parents rights, in order to indoctrinate impressionable young children. They know the propaganda all too well," Barber asserts. "You get hold of the minds of these young people, and you spoon feed them your dogma and indoctrinate them," he says; "then you control the future, and you help to further the homosexual agenda."
Deerfield Superintendent Dr. George Fornero says the district "made a mistake" by requiring the students to sign the confidentiality agreement. However, Barber feels the damage has already been done. He calls the district's actions "a shocking and brazen governmental abuse of parental rights," which is also detrimental to the children.
"They're exposing these kids to information and encouraging them, essentially, to participate in a lifestyle that places them at extremely high risk for disease," the CWA spokesman asserts. "And the fact that they have circumvented parental authority and essentially instructed these kids to lie to their parents tells you just how sinister this homosexual agenda is," he adds.
A group of parents recently took out an ad in the local Deerfield Review newspaper condemning Deerfield High School's "Freshman Advisory" and demanding answers about the homosexual indoctrination program.
-
Wow. :o Outrageous. Glad someone blew the whistle.
-
Shocking!!! :o There had better be some people fired over this. I am tired of homosexuals shoving their lifestyles in our faces. The nerve of those people.
-
Something similar happened at my old high school last year. The parents got wind of it, and chaos took over. The GayStraight Alliance tucked tail and went running away!
-
www.OneNewsNow.com (http://www.OneNewsNow.com)
Your Latest News from a Christian perspective
Whether it's a story about prayer in public schools, workplace restrictions on Christians or battles for biblical truth within our denominations, the American Family News Network (AFN) is here to tell you what the newsmakers are saying.
AFN is a national Christian news service that exists to present the day's news from a Christian perspective. We not only feature the latest breaking stories from across the United States and around the world, but also news of the challenges facing Christians in today's society.
At OneNewsNow.com, you will get your news from reporters you can trust to give the latest news without the liberal bias that characterizes so much of the "mainstream" media.
::)
-
Your Latest News from a Christian perspective
Whether it's a story about prayer in public schools, workplace restrictions on Christians or battles for biblical truth within our denominations, the American Family News Network (AFN) is here to tell you what the newsmakers are saying.
AFN is a national Christian news service that exists to present the day's news from a Christian perspective. We not only feature the latest breaking stories from across the United States and around the world, but also news of the challenges facing Christians in today's society.
At OneNewsNow.com, you will get your news from reporters you can trust to give the latest news without the liberal bias that characterizes so much of the "mainstream" media.
::)
::)
-
I'd like to here someone's explanation for this. There's got to be more to the story than what this article is portraying.
The Confidentiality Agreement is rather disturbing, not to mention the fact that it can't be binding considering it was signed by 14 or 15 year olds.
-
Your Latest News from a Christian perspective
Whether it's a story about prayer in public schools, workplace restrictions on Christians or battles for biblical truth within our denominations, the American Family News Network (AFN) is here to tell you what the newsmakers are saying.
AFN is a national Christian news service that exists to present the day's news from a Christian perspective. We not only feature the latest breaking stories from across the United States and around the world, but also news of the challenges facing Christians in today's society.
At OneNewsNow.com, you will get your news from reporters you can trust to give the latest news without the liberal bias that characterizes so much of the "mainstream" media.
::)
how can "the new's" have a Christian perspective?
Is that kind of like when Pat Robertson claimed that 9-11 and Katrina was God's punishment on the US?
BTW - if this story is true then it's totally outrageous and wrong. Why would any school official tell a child (much less have them sign some sort of agreement) not to tell their parents about anything that they do while in school
-
I'd like to here someone's explanation for this.
Jeebus freaks making shit up?
That's my theory anyway.
-
Your Latest News from a Christian perspective
Whether it's a story about prayer in public schools, workplace restrictions on Christians or battles for biblical truth within our denominations, the American Family News Network (AFN) is here to tell you what the newsmakers are saying.
AFN is a national Christian news service that exists to present the day's news from a Christian perspective. We not only feature the latest breaking stories from across the United States and around the world, but also news of the challenges facing Christians in today's society.
At OneNewsNow.com, you will get your news from reporters you can trust to give the latest news without the liberal bias that characterizes so much of the "mainstream" media.
::)
::)
-
Your Latest News from a Christian perspective
Whether it's a story about prayer in public schools, workplace restrictions on Christians or battles for biblical truth within our denominations, the American Family News Network (AFN) is here to tell you what the newsmakers are saying.
AFN is a national Christian news service that exists to present the day's news from a Christian perspective. We not only feature the latest breaking stories from across the United States and around the world, but also news of the challenges facing Christians in today's society.
At OneNewsNow.com, you will get your news from reporters you can trust to give the latest news without the liberal bias that characterizes so much of the "mainstream" media.
::)
Haha excellent news source
-
how can "the new's" have a Christian perspective?
Is that kind of like when Pat Robertson claimed that 9-11 and Katrina was God's punishment on the US?
BTW - if this story is true then it's totally outrageous and wrong. Why would any school official tell a child (much less have them sign some sort of agreement) not to tell their parents about anything that they do while in school
it's impossible for "Christian news" to not be bias
this is interesting.
there is a GSA at the school my son goes too.
I'm going to ask some questions about this.
I am not in favor of any policy, contract etc... that encourages kids to keep things from their parents.
that's one of the core reasons i don't like Hillary for pres.
-
it's impossible for "Christian news" to not be bias
this is interesting.
there is a GSA at the school my son goes too.
I'm going to ask some questions about this.
I am not in favor of any policy, contract etc... that encourages kids to keep things from their parents.
that's one of the core reasons i don't like Hillary for pres.
I can think of at least 10 reason why I wouldn't vote for Hilary for any office but I'm not aware of what you're referring to here
-
it's impossible for "Christian news" to not be bias
By definition, their entire world-view is based on the acceptance of a physically impossible event through unquestioning faith.
Yeah, that's a heckuva news organization you got there. ::)
-
it's impossible for "Christian news" to not be bias
Biased doesn't mean inaccurate. Reporting news from a "Christian" perspective means (to me) that they cover news you won't necessarily find on CNN.
And of course this has nothing to do with the story Colossus posted. I'm still shaking my head over that.
-
I can think of at least 10 reason why I wouldn't vote for Hilary for any office but I'm not aware of what you're referring to here
she signed a bill that alllowed teens not to have to notify their parents if they are getting an abortion.
what are some of yours?
-
Biased doesn't mean inaccurate. Reporting news from a "Christian" perspective means (to me) that they cover news you won't necessarily find on CNN.
And of course this has nothing to do with the story Colossus posted. I'm still shaking my head over that.
i agree it doesn't bias doesn't have anything to do with accuracy usually. but it does with what's acknowledge and reported like your examples about cnn and others about fox
and this thing in Illinois is reprehensible.
-
Why are the Christians always whining?
Why are the gays always whining?
Hold on...
Christians whine.
Gays whine.
Therefore, Christians = gays.
-
ok conservs..here is a thought.
"do you REALLY want stupid people breeding?"
-
she signed a bill that alllowed teens not to have to notify their parents if they are getting an abortion.
what are some of yours?
She talks out of both sides of her mouth and most of the time she sounds more like a Republican than a Democrat. I also get this feeling when I hear her speak that even she doesn't believe what she's saying.
We had a similar initiative on the ballot in my state in 2004 and I was discussing this with an older and very right wing colleague and he actually convinced me that I should vote for it and his reasoning (thanks to his wife I believe) was that some kids could be the victims of rape/incest/child abuse from the very parent that has to be notified.
-
As always, there are two sides to every story. According to the school this one day panel discussion includes gay kids as well as heterosexual kids talking about their experiences with bullying etc. It seems to be part of a larger program designed to help freshmen integrate and covers all kinds of topics.
"We're not trying to tell people what to believe but how to behave," said Jennings, who described the Illinois Family Institute as one of several organizations trying to intimidate school districts.
"A program that helps kids deal with bullying and harassment helps kids learn," he said. "Politics and religion should be set aside in the school."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070307gay-school,1,5590132.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
-
She talks out of both sides of her mouth and most of the time she sounds more like a Republican than a Democrat. I also get this feeling when I hear her speak that even she doesn't believe what she's saying.
We had a similar initiative on the ballot in my state in 2004 and I was discussing this with an older and very right wing colleague and he actually convinced me that I should vote for it and his reasoning (thanks to his wife I believe) was that some kids could be the victims of rape/incest/child abuse from the very parent that has to be notified.
i agree, i heard that side, i think there could be a solution to it, she states her situation and then she's doesn't have to inform her parents. An investigation is then launched. just a thought.
-
i agree, i heard that side, i think there could be a solution to it, she states her situation and then she's doesn't have to inform her parents. An investigation is then launched. just a thought.
I had mixed feelings about it at the time but I don't think the law in my state had that provision.
Certainly seems reasonable.
-
she signed a bill that alllowed teens not to have to notify their parents if they are getting an abortion.
what are some of yours?
That's how it's worked in Canada for the past 30 yrs. Girl can get abortions without parental knowledge/consent
-
As always, there are two sides to every story. According to the school this one day panel discussion includes gay kids as well as heterosexual kids talking about their experiences with bullying etc. It seems to be part of a larger program designed to help freshmen integrate and covers all kinds of topics.
"We're not trying to tell people what to believe but how to behave," said Jennings, who described the Illinois Family Institute as one of several organizations trying to intimidate school districts.
"A program that helps kids deal with bullying and harassment helps kids learn," he said. "Politics and religion should be set aside in the school."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070307gay-school,1,5590132.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
The issue still begs the questions of why the administration urged the students NOT to tell their parents? ???
-
That's how it's worked in Canada for the past 30 yrs. Girl can get abortions without parental knowledge/consent
This is silly.
-
This is silly.
i for one think the parents need to know. I don't think they should have the right to stop her, but they should know.
It only takes having a teenage daughter to see the wisdom in that.
-
i for one think the parents need to know. I don't think they should have the right to stop her, but they should know.
It only takes having a teenage daughter to see the wisdom in that.
I disagree. Parents have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their kids until they reach the "age of majority."
-
I disagree. Parents have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their kids until they reach the "age of majority."
You can say having an abortion is a medical decision as a bases for requiring parents permissioin but the real issue is them having the abortion.
So if you are against abortion as being legal then i understand your point.
But i am for abortion being legal but believe abortion is wrong.
-
You can say having an abortion is a medical decision as a bases for requiring parents permissioin but the real issue is them having the abortion.
So if you are against abortion as being legal then i understand your point.
But i am for abortion being legal but believe abortion is wrong.
You think it's ok to kill babies (fetuses, whatever you want to call it), yet you think it's wrong? OzmO, that doesn't make sense. I know why you argue your point (welfare/quality of life for the child - future possible complications), but when you look at this from a broader perspective, this is what you're saying..."yeah, it's wrong to kill babies, but i still think it should be legal." Plus, I think you're looking at future of the child who wasn't aborted from a negative mindset. You're only seeing the possible abusive situations, welfare, etc. You can't fail to acknowledge the fact that the 48 million children who have been aborted (legally, we don't know how many illegal abortions have taken place) may have very well been the cure for cancer, or the brainchild of great inventions that help our society. We just wiped all of those possibilities out as well.
Good things can (and they do!) come from chaotic situaions.
-
You think it's ok to kill babies (fetuses, whatever you want to call it), yet you think it's wrong? OzmO, that doesn't make sense. I know why you argue your point (welfare/quality of life for the child - future possible complications), but when you look at this from a broader perspective, this is what you're saying..."yeah, it's wrong to kill babies, but i still think it should be legal." Plus, I think you're looking at future of the child who wasn't aborted from a negative mindset. You're only seeing the possible abusive situations, welfare, etc. You can't fail to acknowledge the fact that the 48 million children who have been aborted (legally, we don't know how many illegal abortions have taken place) may have very well been the cure for cancer, or the brainchild of great inventions that help our society. We just wiped all of those possibilities out as well.
Good things can (and they do!) come from chaotic situaions.
C-500, please let me state for the record so we all understand. I am against abortion. I don't believe its morally and ethically good. I also think it is murder.
But I'm also very practical in this issue.
Making abortion illegal would cause serious health problems, the deaths of mothers, over-taxing our welfare system, etc... (up to 48 million more mouths to feed, clothes or as some die hard conservatives would just have them rot on the streets as they thump their books in self righteous justification)
We have not progressed enough as a society to have sex responsibly or be responsible for unwanted babies.
In theory making abortion illegal is the right thing to do, but in reality at this present time in our society its the wrong thing to do.
Incidentally the mothers of the aborted babies can take it up with GOD. And if they are saved it won't matter any way will it?
-
I love the way men argue about abortion... as if the woman doesn't even exist as a human being with an autonomous will, As if she's nothing but a holding vessal.
Bizarre.
Good thing we have the courts.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."
-
You can say having an abortion is a medical decision as a bases for requiring parents permissioin but the real issue is them having the abortion.
So if you are against abortion as being legal then i understand your point.
But i am for abortion being legal but believe abortion is wrong.
I disagree again. :) There is no question an abortion is a medical procedure. The issue is whether the parents should have the right to control all of their kids' medical procedures. I think the answer is unequivocally "yes."
-
I love the way men argue about abortion... as if the woman doesn't even exist as a human being with an autonomous will, As if she's nothing but a holding vessal.
Bizarre.
Good thing we have the courts.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."
Not bizarre at all. It's a two-part issue: the woman's bodily integrity and the right kill an unborn child. Both are legitimate issues. And the baby is only a "fetus" when we're talking about abortion.
I try to avoid debating this issue, in part because I'm not quite sure what we should do from a legal standpoint and in part because I'm man.
-
I disagree again. :) There is no question an abortion is a medical procedure. The issue is whether the parents should have the right to control all of their kids' medical procedures. I think the answer is unequivocally "yes."
I agree with everything save the abortion procedure.
You're are using the "medical procedure angle" as a loop hole to control the abortion.
You should just come out an say: "i believe my daughter doesn't have the right to choose to have an abortion, only i and my wife does."
-
I agree with everything save the abortion procedure.
You're are using the "medical procedure angle" as a loop hole to control the abortion.
You should just come out an say: "i believe my daughter doesn't have the right to choose to have an abortion, only i and my wife does."
No I'm not. But I have no problem saying "I believe my daughter doesn't have the right to choose to kill an unborn child. Only my wife and I have the right to make that decision."
Replace "kill an unborn child" with "receive any kind of elective surgery, obtain medical prescriptions, be provided aspirin at school (which ironically requires parental consent), and any other medical procedure."
It is actually people who support "abortion on demand" that try and exclude this medical procedure from the parental consent that is required for every other medical procedure. From my view, the right of parents to make these decisions has nothing to do with whether abortion should be legal or not.
-
No I'm not. But I have no problem saying "I believe my daughter doesn't have the right to choose to kill an unborn child. Only my wife and I have the right to make that decision."
Same thing as far as i am concern, abortion is killing an unborn child.
but you are still using "the medical procedure angle" as an excuse to decide the "killing an unborn child."
The main issue is not the aspirin, the main issue is the "killing an unborn child."
Just call it what it is.
-
Not bizarre at all. It's a two-part issue: the woman's bodily integrity and the right kill an unborn child. Both are legitimate issues. And the baby is only a "fetus" when we're talking about abortion.
I try to avoid debating this issue, in part because I'm not quite sure what we should do from a legal standpoint and in part because I'm man.
Fortunately, in most civilized parts of the world, the courts agree that women should not be "forced" under criminal sanction to chance or endure potentially dangerous medical problems because of some romantic notion. It's bodily interference of another human being. Fetus is the correct term and it is referred to as such in matters of record (like the one I quoted), by medical staff when referring to same, etc...
http://www.mic.ki.se/Diseases/C13.html
-
I love the way men argue about abortion... as if the woman doesn't even exist as a human being with an autonomous will, As if she's nothing but a holding vessal.
Bizarre.
Good thing we have the courts.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."
DeeDee, it's actually VERY DISPARAGING to me that a woman has to even think of abortion as an option. Having been a ghost stakeholder (my sister-in-law had an abortion, and yes, OzmO, she's forgiven just like my sins are forgiven because we are saved), it pains me to see what she has to go through each and every day. Please don't patronize or belittle us because we are not female, therefore, in your eyes thinking we as men don't have a right to discuss abortion. In fact, I believe the tragedy to be just as painful for a man who has father a child that gets aborted. No one, NO ONE, appears to consider his loss as well. And science definitely backs the notion that men go through a loss as well. Again, just like anyone who wants to argue for the legality of abortion uses the less than one-half of one percent of the cases where the mother's life is in danger. Yes, it's her body, but now there's another human being that lies within her. So, is it about just her now? Today's society says yes, just as you do. I'll speak from my own personal experience...The very day that I say my first-born child (let's even call it a fetus if it makes you feel more comfortable), who at a mere 8-weeks, was but a speck and a heart-beat, JUST A SPECK and a HEARTBEAT, I connected with that "fetus", early-stage human, child. You're going to tell me that the tears that were uncontrollably rolling down my face were not a legitimate connection to this speck? I think not. This is the whole reason Plan Parenthood doesn't encourage the mother to have an abortion, because they KNOW FOR A FACT, that once the mother sees the heartbeat, they've lost a customer.
If I seem sarcastic and perturbed at what I feel is your insensitivity towards men on this matter, I am. But at the same time, I ask you to consider what I'm saying and not just roll your eyes and write off what I've just shared.
-
Same thing as far as i am concern, abortion is killing an unborn child.
but you are still using "the medical procedure angle" as an excuse to decide the "killing an unborn child."
The main issue is not the aspirin, the main issue is the "killing an unborn child."
Just call it what it is.
I already called it what it is. It's a medical procedure. You don't have to agree. I always call things as I see them. I got nothing to hide on this issue. I simply disagree with the parents not having the right to make all medical decisions on behalf of their kids.
-
Fortunately, in most civilized parts of the world, the courts agree that women should not be "forced" under criminal sanction to chance or endure potentially dangerous medical problems because of some romantic notion. It's bodily interference of another human being. Fetus is the correct term and it is referred to as such in matters of record (like the one I quoted), by medical staff when referring to same, etc...
http://www.mic.ki.se/Diseases/C13.html
It's actually two human beings.
Deedee have you ever heard a pregnant woman refer to her unborn child as a "fetus"? I haven't. And I've been around a lot of pregnant women.
-
I already called it what it is. It's a medical procedure. You don't have to agree. I always call things as I see them. I got nothing to hide on this issue. I simply disagree with the parents not having the right to make all medical decisions on behalf of their kids.
So basically, you still want to control whether or not your daughter gets an abortion? (an abortion is a medical procedure right?)
-
I already called it what it is. It's a medical procedure. You don't have to agree. I always call things as I see them. I got nothing to hide on this issue. I simply disagree with the parents not having the right to make all medical decisions on behalf of their kids.
I agree 100%
-
DeeDee, it's actually VERY DISPARAGING to me that a woman has to even think of abortion as an option. Having been a ghost stakeholder (my sister-in-law had an abortion, and yes, OzmO, she's forgiven just like my sins are forgiven because we are saved), it pains me to see what she has to go through each and every day. Please don't patronize or belittle us because we are not female, therefore, in your eyes thinking we as men don't have a right to discuss abortion. In fact, I believe the tragedy to be just as painful for a man who has father a child that gets aborted. No one, NO ONE, appears to consider his loss as well. And science definitely backs the notion that men go through a loss as well. Again, just like anyone who wants to argue for the legality of abortion uses the less than one-half of one percent of the cases where the mother's life is in danger. Yes, it's her body, but now there's another human being that lies within her. So, is it about just her now? Today's society says yes, just as you do. I'll speak from my own personal experience...The very day that I say my first-born child (let's even call it a fetus if it makes you feel more comfortable), who at a mere 8-weeks, was but a speck and a heart-beat, JUST A SPECK and a HEARTBEAT, I connected with that "fetus", early-stage human, child. You're going to tell me that the tears that were uncontrollably rolling down my face were not a legitimate connection to this speck? I think not. This is the whole reason Plan Parenthood doesn't encourage the mother to have an abortion, because they KNOW FOR A FACT, that once the mother sees the heartbeat, they've lost a customer.
If I seem sarcastic and perturbed at what I feel is your insensitivity towards men on this matter, I am. But at the same time, I ask you to consider what I'm saying and not just roll your eyes and write off what I've just shared.
Good comments Colosuss. I made the same connection with my kids before they were born too. Talked to them. Read to them. I loved them before they were born.
-
DeeDee, it's actually VERY DISPARAGING to me that a woman has to even think of abortion as an option. Having been a ghost stakeholder (my sister-in-law had an abortion, and yes, OzmO, she's forgiven just like my sins are forgiven because we are saved)
Christ, brah, Christ. ::)
-
DeeDee, it's actually VERY DISPARAGING to me that a woman has to even think of abortion as an option. Having been a ghost stakeholder (my sister-in-law had an abortion, and yes, OzmO, she's forgiven just like my sins are forgiven because we are saved), it pains me to see what she has to go through each and every day. Please don't patronize or belittle us because we are not female, therefore, in your eyes thinking we as men don't have a right to discuss abortion. In fact, I believe the tragedy to be just as painful for a man who has father a child that gets aborted. No one, NO ONE, appears to consider his loss as well. And science definitely backs the notion that men go through a loss as well. Again, just like anyone who wants to argue for the legality of abortion uses the less than one-half of one percent of the cases where the mother's life is in danger. Yes, it's her body, but now there's another human being that lies within her. So, is it about just her now? Today's society says yes, just as you do. I'll speak from my own personal experience...The very day that I say my first-born child (let's even call it a fetus if it makes you feel more comfortable), who at a mere 8-weeks, was but a speck and a heart-beat, JUST A SPECK and a HEARTBEAT, I connected with that "fetus", early-stage human, child. You're going to tell me that the tears that were uncontrollably rolling down my face were not a legitimate connection to this speck? I think not. This is the whole reason Plan Parenthood doesn't encourage the mother to have an abortion, because they KNOW FOR A FACT, that once the mother sees the heartbeat, they've lost a customer.
If I seem sarcastic and perturbed at what I feel is your insensitivity towards men on this matter, I am. But at the same time, I ask you to consider what I'm saying and not just roll your eyes and write off what I've just shared.
I agree with your view on the Man's loss. If I impregnated a woman and she got an abortion i would be angry and sad.
-
I love the way men argue about abortion... as if the woman doesn't even exist as a human being with an autonomous will, As if she's nothing but a holding vessal.
Bizarre.
Good thing we have the courts.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."
It would help if the woman would think about those precious priorities and aspirations before she opens her legs and gets knocked up.
Just a thought.
-
So basically, you still want to control whether or not your daughter gets an abortion? (an abortion is a medical procedure right?)
Of course and of course. You already asked me those questions.
-
Of course and of course. You already asked me those questions.
You could have just answered it then, but you kept going on and on about the medical procedures.
-
I love the way men argue about abortion... as if the woman doesn't even exist as a human being with an autonomous will, As if she's nothing but a holding vessal.
Bizarre.
Good thing we have the courts.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."
I love the way women argue about abortion... as if the man has no say so at all and is nothing more than a semen dispenser. So women should be allowed to have an abortion even if the father of the child opposes it, but if she has it then that man better provide for the financial well being of said child and play an active role in the upbringing? I have known guys that went to jail for failure to pay child support (which they should), but I have never met a woman who went to jail because she had an abortion. It looks like the cards are stacked against the men.
-
Honestly Colossus, I don't have the heart to go through yet another abortion discussion on here. Most of you are men, and I will say there are more than a few men on this board who have extremely disconcerting attitudes towards women to begin with. I personally think, and the numbers point it out, that a large percentage of the women having abortions worldwide do so because they either have been abandoned by the father, the father has encouraged them to abort, or the father was never a permanent fixture to begin with. It's all very nice that you're one of the good guys... it's wonderful that you enjoy being a father. If I were to find myself pregnant tomorrow, I wouldn't have an abortion. But I also have support, and don't suffer financially. If I wanted to, could even do it alone. The women seeking abortions are often desperate, poor, and without a father/support, and I support their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. What may seem like a beautiful, extraordinary experience to someone like you, can be nothing more than an extremely desperate, distressing situation to another. I'm sorry if that offends you.
And I don't think it's irreverant to bring up the issue of forcing a woman to potentially endure medical problems as a result of being forced to give birth. Every woman should have the right and liberty to pursue her aspirations without bodily interference by the state, just as men do. If there was even a possibility of an issue like this affecting your sex, I think you'd look at things a little differently. Men don't bother to stop and think about that at all!
-
It would help if the woman would think about those precious priorities and aspirations before she opens her legs and gets knocked up.
Just a thought.
Here's a case in point. Colossus, do you really expect a woman to respond to such a stupid comment? This btw... is an excellent reason for abortion laws that don't require a woman to consult the father before she has one. Unfortunately, the world is populated by idiots like this who take no responsibility for the children they father.
Maybe if more men kept it in their pants, or remembered this thing called a condom, we could cut down on the abortion problem by 90%. ::)
-
I love the way women argue about abortion... as if the man has no say so at all and is nothing more than a semen dispenser. So women should be allowed to have an abortion even if the father of the child opposes it, but if she has it then that man better provide for the financial well being of said child and play an active role in the upbringing? I have known guys that went to jail for failure to pay child support (which they should), but I have never met a woman who went to jail because she had an abortion. It looks like the cards are stacked against the men.
I'm sorry you feel the cards are stacked against men. Perhaps you could find some info in the library about how women fared historically when abortion was illegal. Try the 1950's first, then work your way backward. Sounds like men had it pretty good.
-
Here's a case in point. Colossus, do you really expect a woman to respond to such a stupid comment? This btw... is an excellent reason for abortion laws that don't require a woman to consult the father before she has one. Unfortunately, the world is populated by idiots like this who take no responsibility for the children they father.
Maybe if more men kept it in their pants, or remembered this thing called a condom, we could cut down on the abortion problem by 90%. ::)
I agree, DeeDee, it's a two-way street, and men need not put the pressure on women to have sex and then abandon the woman, putting her in the position to make this decision. But I still feel strongly that abortion has become more about convience than actually safety for a mother's life or an alternative to a child being born into poverty or abuse. I know folks will go crazy when I say this, but I will also go on record in saying that we as a society have fallen of the beaten path of what's right, hence, leaving us where we are now.
-
I agree, DeeDee, it's a two-way street, and men need not put the pressure on women to have sex and then abandon the woman, putting her in the position to make this decision. But I still feel strongly that abortion has become more about convience than actually safety for a mother's life or an alternative to a child being born into poverty or abuse. I know folks will go crazy when I say this, but I will also go on record in saying that we as a society have fallen of the beaten path of what's right, hence, leaving us where we are now.
I agree. The morality of the U.S. is going down the crapper.
-
I love the way men argue about abortion... as if the woman doesn't even exist as a human being with an autonomous will, As if she's nothing but a holding vessal.
Bizarre.
Good thing we have the courts.
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and this a violation of her security of the person."
If I remember correctly there was even one male poster on this board that argued the mother's life was secondary to that of the fetus. I don't remember who it was but I remember reading his post. That one absolutely floored me.
-
I agree, DeeDee, it's a two-way street, and men need not put the pressure on women to have sex and then abandon the woman, putting her in the position to make this decision. But I still feel strongly that abortion has become more about convience than actually safety for a mother's life or an alternative to a child being born into poverty or abuse. I know folks will go crazy when I say this, but I will also go on record in saying that we as a society have fallen of the beaten path of what's right, hence, leaving us where we are now.
I think abortion in this country is done primarily for the convenience of the mother. I thought Deedee or someone posted a story that actually confirmed this, or at a minimum confirmed that abortion due to rape and incest was the rare exception?
-
If I remember correctly there was even one male poster on this board that argued the mother's life was secondary to that of the fetus. I don't remember who it was but I remember reading his post. That one absolutely floored me.
It was MilitaryMuscle. He also claimed that abortion was equivalent to murder, but that it was okay to murder if conception was a result of rape or incest. How you can come to that conclusion is beyond me.
-
Microwaves and electric toothbrushes are conveniences. Abortion is not and I find it the height of hubris to dismiss the despair, emotional distress of others as nothing more than the lazy way out.
Most of the women who have abortions are not bar sluts. They comprise a whole cross-section of society. What about the 45-year-old woman who already has 3 grown kids, is starting to go through the "change," who miscalculated and thought she couldn't get pregnant? Is she "just lazy?" Or what about the medical student who lives in school subsidized housing, owes thousands in loans, and found her birth control failed one night? Do you honestly think women make such a decision as easily as they take out the trash? And what about the husband of the 45-year-old woman who perhaps doesn't want to "start over" again in middle age. Or the medical student boyfriend who also owes thousands in loans and doesn't want to let all of his dreams fall by the wayside to quit and work the cash at the 7-11 to support a wife and kid? Would that also count as just a small inconvenience in their lives?
The statistics quoting the rape/incest numbers was from Wiki... some of you should actually read it. It also states that women having abortion for the most part will only have one in their lifetime, which indicates that women don't use abortion as birth control or as a "convenient" alternative.
Forcing women to give birth and make them (once again) the sole bearers of responsibility for the consequences of having sex, will accomplish nothing except throw women back into the stone age and take away their right to function as equals in society. It won't happen. But if it did, the only way to level the playing field is to first of all, do everything possible to ensure that people are only having sex within the confines of marriage... and make men exactly as responsible as women... meaning if the child is not given up for adoption, he would have to share responsibility for raising the child and contribute equally to the child's support. If he refuses, off to prison he goes.
-
Microwaves and electric toothbrushes are conveniences. Abortion is not and I find it the height of hubris to dismiss the despair, emotional distress of others as nothing more than the lazy way out.
Most of the women who have abortions are not bar sluts. They comprise a whole cross-section of society. What about the 45-year-old woman who already has 3 grown kids, is starting to go through the "change," who miscalculated and thought she couldn't get pregnant? Is she "just lazy?" Or what about the medical student who lives in school subsidized housing, owes thousands in loans, and found her birth control failed one night? Do you honestly think women make such a decision as easily as they take out the trash? And what about the husband of the 45-year-old woman who perhaps doesn't want to "start over" again in middle age. Or the medical student boyfriend who also owes thousands in loans and doesn't want to let all of his dreams fall by the wayside to quit and work the cash at the 7-11 to support a wife and kid? Would that also count as just a small inconvenience in their lives?
The statistics quoting the rape/incest numbers was from Wiki... some of you should actually read it. It also states that women having abortion for the most part will only have one in their lifetime, which indicates that women don't use abortion as birth control or as a "convenient" alternative.
Forcing women to give birth and make them (once again) the sole bearers of responsibility for the consequences of having sex, will accomplish nothing except throw women back into the stone age and take away their right to function as equals in society. It won't happen. But if it did, the only way to level the playing field is to first of all, do everything possible to ensure that people are only having sex within the confines of marriage... and make men exactly as responsible as women... meaning if the child is not given up for adoption, he would have to share responsibility for raising the child and contribute equally to the child's support. If he refuses, off to prison he goes.
Lot of assumptions Deedee. I never dismissed anything or made any comments whatsoever about despair, emotional distress, laziness, bar sluts, etc. My comments were limited to whether most women get abortions because of health reasons (or rape/incest) or because they simply didn't want to get pregnant. The latter = convenience IMO. I am not talking about whether abortion should or should not be legal, but whether it is done primarily out of medical necessity. It simply isn't for the most part, at least in this country. And I am not suggesting that the decision to have this elective procedure is easy, made in haste, not without severe emotional consequences, etc.
We had a discussion on the board a while back about whether abortion is a form of birth control. I took the position that it is. I still believe that. Some definitions:
Practices employed by couples that permit sexual intercourse with reduced likelihood of conception and birth. The term birth control is often used synonymously with such terms as contraception, fertility control, and family planning. But birth control includes abortion to prevent a birth, whereas family planning methods explicitly do not include abortion. See also: What are Family Planning and Reproductive Health Programs? What's in a Word?
www.planetwire.org/glossarylist.php
Another word for contraception.
www.iwannaknow.org/glossary/
preventing birth or reducing frequency of birth, primarily by preventing conception.
www.nrdc.org/reference/glossary/b.asp
Any method used to reduce births, including celibacy, delayed marriage, contraception; devices or medication that prevent implantation of fertilized zygotes, and induced abortions.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_a-d.html
-
Well, I guess we differ in our perception of what the word convenience means. To me it's driving to the grocery store when I could technically take a five minute walk. Abortion to me is not a convenience, but more in line with "the solution to an overwhelming problem." My comments weren't directed at you specifically, but you did say "for the convenience of the mother." What about the father? Everyone discusses abortion on here and how it's wrong, and how women should be compelled to give birth, yet no one ever talks about the culpability of men. Women don't get preggers on their own. Yet they should bear the sole responsibility for it. ::) And even you made reference to that with your statement. IMO, there aren't very many men who aren't complicit in a woman's decision to have an abortion.
No one made reference to the majority of abortions being related to medical necessity in this thread. ???
-
Well, I guess we differ in our perception of what the word convenience means. To me it's driving to the grocery store when I could technically take a five minute walk. Abortion to me is not a convenience, but more in line with "the solution to an overwhelming problem." My comments weren't directed at you specifically, but you did say "for the convenience of the mother." What about the father? Everyone discusses abortion on here and how it's wrong, and how women should be compelled to give birth, yet no one ever talks about the culpability of men. Women don't get preggers on their own. Yet they should bear the sole responsibility for it. ::) And even you made reference to that with your statement. IMO, there aren't very many men who aren't complicit in a woman's decision to have an abortion.
No one made reference to the majority of abortions being related to medical necessity in this thread. ???
Maybe "convenience" isn't the right word. In my view, it's by and large an elective procedure and a form of birth control. I'm not sure what word captures those elements (and I don't feel like thinking that hard on a weekend . . . unless I'm getting paid :)).
I mentioned medical necessity only to highlight that the vast majority of abortions are elective procedures and not done primarily to preserve the health of the mother.
And again, I'm not talking about legal vs. illegal and whether women should or shouldn't have the right to an abortion.
Regarding men, there are laws in place to hold them responsible for the support of their children. You cannot force a man (or woman) to provide moral and emotional support to a child, but you can force them to provide financial support.
-
I like former Senator Zell Miller's thought on abortion:
“How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years? Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed. Over 45 million since Roe v. Wade in 1973. If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security. Still, we watch as 3,700 babies are killed every single day in America. It is unbelievable that a nation under God would allow this.” —former Senator Zell Miller
-
Yes, there was a whole thread devoted to that exact quote recently. Hitler said something very similar. I guess when you think of your women as breeders, and the offspring as work drones for the state, it makes sense. He's of course assuming of course, that all those babies turn out to be apple-cheeked model citizens. Not a one born with fetal-alcohol syndrome, addicted to crack, suffering from debilitating disease or handicap. Not one criminal nurtured on abuse and poverty among them.
I guess abolishing women's right to autonomy could work in the US (if practically nowhere else) as long as sanctions are placed on men's behavior and physical beings to level out the sudden loss of equality for women. I disagree with BB who says you can't force a man to nurture his children. I think you can. During the 1950's and several decades before, there was this unofficial behavior modifier called "shotgun" marriage. I guess if that idea was brought back, at least for teenagers who've become pregnant, only this time as official law... it might work. Also, I see nothing wrong with forcing men to share custodial rights for their illegitimate children... just as men do in cases of divorce. And of course, support their children financially on an equal basis with the mother. Finally, just as women would be forced to give birth, I think you could enact a "two strikes and you're out" law for men who consistently have children but abandon both them and the mother. After the second abandoned child, state-sanctioned vasectomy should take care of the behavior problem. It would be cheaper on the tax payer than prison.
-
Yes, there was a whole thread devoted to that exact quote recently. Hitler said something very similar. I guess when you think of your women as breeders, and the offspring as work drones for the state, it makes sense. He's of course assuming of course, that all those babies turn out to be apple-cheeked model citizens. Not a one born with fetal-alcohol syndrome, addicted to crack, suffering from debilitating disease or handicap. Not one criminal nurtured on abuse and poverty among them.
I guess abolishing women's right to autonomy could work in the US (if practically nowhere else) as long as sanctions are placed on men's behavior and physical beings to level out the sudden loss of equality for women. I disagree with BB who says you can't force a man to nurture his children. I think you can. During the 1950's and several decades before, there was this unofficial behavior modifier called "shotgun" marriage. I guess if that idea was brought back, at least for teenagers who've become pregnant, only this time as official law... it might work. Also, I see nothing wrong with forcing men to share custodial rights for their illegitimate children... just as men do in cases of divorce. And of course, support their children financially on an equal basis with the mother. Finally, just as women would be forced to give birth, I think you could enact a "two strikes and you're out" law for men who consistently have children but abandon both them and the mother. After the second abandoned child, state-sanctioned vasectomy should take care of the behavior problem. It would be cheaper on the tax payer than prison.
My father was the god-father to a crack-addicted child. He's 26 now and is enjoying a fantastic career in the military as an officer. But DeeDee, you bring up some good points. I agree with forcing some accountability on the men's side. In fact, I'm for accountability where accountability should lie, which means both the male and female. It's also interesting how your view of the unborn child vs. how Zell Miller sees them. Though you bring up some realities of who these children might become should they be born (and if I could interject my viewpoint that it's due to an erosion of our moral fiber in society as a whole, i.e., the "make love not war" mentality), that they would become crack-addicts from day one whereas others like Zell Miller sees some of the unborn as future scientists, presidents, well-to-do citizens of this great country. You kind of contradicted yourself in this post with one you made earlier. In your last post, you talks as if the woman is a "bar slut", but in a recent post you were saying that not all women who have abortions are such:
Most of the women who have abortions are not bar sluts. They comprise a whole cross-section of society. What about the 45-year-old woman who already has 3 grown kids, is starting to go through the "change," who miscalculated and thought she couldn't get pregnant? Is she "just lazy?" Or what about the medical student who lives in school subsidized housing, owes thousands in loans, and found her birth control failed one night? Do you honestly think women make such a decision as easily as they take out the trash? And what about the husband of the 45-year-old woman who perhaps doesn't want to "start over" again in middle age. Or the medical student boyfriend who also owes thousands in loans and doesn't want to let all of his dreams fall by the wayside to quit and work the cash at the 7-11 to support a wife and kid? Would that also count as just a small inconvenience in their lives?
Might I add to the points you made in your post the other day that abortion is definitely not discriminate of the affluent either. "What would the neighbors think" comes to mind when I think of the high-society types.
Bottomline, Deedee, while you might be right to your arguments of children being born into crack addiction, would you at least agree that, in the 45 million that have already been aborted, there was an accomplished human being or two in the bunch? ??? Say, maybe the one who finds the cure for cancer or is able to take the understanding of DNA to a level that we couldn't dream of now. Heck, how about agreeing that perhaps in that 45 million that have been aborted could have just been good, kind-hearted people like yourself and some our friends on this board?
-
My father was the god-father to a crack-addicted child. He's 26 now and is enjoying a fantastic career in the military as an officer. But DeeDee, you bring up some good points. I agree with forcing some accountability on the men's side. In fact, I'm for accountability where accountability should lie, which means both the male and female. It's also interesting how your view of the unborn child vs. how Zell Miller sees them. Though you bring up some realities of who these children might become should they be born (and if I could interject my viewpoint that it's due to an erosion of our moral fiber in society as a whole, i.e., the "make love not war" mentality), that they would become crack-addicts from day one whereas others like Zell Miller sees some of the unborn as future scientists, presidents, well-to-do citizens of this great country. You kind of contradicted yourself in this post with one you made earlier. In your last post, you talks as if the woman is a "bar slut", but in a recent post you were saying that not all women who have abortions are such:
Most of the women who have abortions are not bar sluts. They comprise a whole cross-section of society. What about the 45-year-old woman who already has 3 grown kids, is starting to go through the "change," who miscalculated and thought she couldn't get pregnant? Is she "just lazy?" Or what about the medical student who lives in school subsidized housing, owes thousands in loans, and found her birth control failed one night? Do you honestly think women make such a decision as easily as they take out the trash? And what about the husband of the 45-year-old woman who perhaps doesn't want to "start over" again in middle age. Or the medical student boyfriend who also owes thousands in loans and doesn't want to let all of his dreams fall by the wayside to quit and work the cash at the 7-11 to support a wife and kid? Would that also count as just a small inconvenience in their lives?
Might I add to the points you made in your post the other day that abortion is definitely not discriminate of the affluent either. "What would the neighbors think" comes to mind when I think of the high-society types.
Bottomline, Deedee, while you might be right to your arguments of children being born into crack addiction, would you at least agree that, in the 45 million that have already been aborted, there was an accomplished human being or two in the bunch? ??? Say, maybe the one who finds the cure for cancer or is able to take the understanding of DNA to a level that we couldn't dream of now. Heck, how about agreeing that perhaps in that 45 million that have been aborted could have just been good, kind-hearted people like yourself and some our friends on this board?
Well said Colossus.
-
Unfortunately it isn't enough that I just show up around here and smile brightly, they actually feel I should contribute work too. However, I look forward to answering your post later. I'm enjoying this convo with you. :)
-
Okay, I don't think I contradicted myself. I said the women who have abortions cover a large cross-section of society. That includes medical students, 45-year-old women, bar sluts, etc... I don't believe you can presume anything regarding what doesn't and has never existed. If a million new people showed up every year... would some of them be geniuses? Potentially. Possibly. No one can say because these people don't exist. One thing is for sure though. A percentage of them will be born into poverty and end up criminals. A percentage of them will be born severely handicapped. Women over the age of thirty-five are at greater risk for conceiving babies with down's syndrome and a host of other disabilities...
Your argument runs around in circles. Ted Bundy was born in a home for unwed mothers. He thought his mother was his sister for many years. What if his mother had gotten pregnant after Roe v Wade and aborted him instead? All those girls he murdered would still be alive, giving birth to their own children, who would have had the potentiality to be geniuses. And what about all the people who are alive today, because their parents went on to have a family, even though they may have made a mistake early in life. Perhaps many wouldn't exist today.
Also, you talk about the morality of days gone by. Was there something moral in shaming pregnant women because men had abandoned them and forcing them to leave town as soon as their pregnancy "showed"? Do you think there was something moral in the creation of those unwed mothers' homes, or something righteous about stigmatizing "bastard" children? If abortion was abolished, you'd have to replace those past social behavior modifiers like fear, shotgun marriages, stigmatization, etc... with something else. You can't have a million plus children showing up every year without making some kind of provision for their care. I guess manmade laws as I listed above, forcing men to share custodial rights, etc... would have to be instituted. I don't think people would put up with that much invasion of privacy. It just wouldn't fly in today's world.
-
bump for beach and the conservatives.... answer plse.
-
Dee Dee, how do you really feel about abortion and how do you feel about C-500's view on it?
;D
-
Dee Dee, how do you really feel about abortion and how do you feel about C-500's view on it?
;D
As I said, wouldn't have one... NOW... but gotta tell you, when I was in uni and was soooooo stressed out with finals I was late, (stress with finals ::)) and was beside myself. (Even though I was doing eveything right contraception-wise.) I was never so scared in all my life. Really scared. Won't go into it, but although it was just a scare, I realized some things. Worst two days of my life. Even tho teh man was okay with it and was supportive. I was terrified.
-
Okay, I don't think I contradicted myself. I said the women who have abortions cover a large cross-section of society. That includes medical students, 45-year-old women, bar sluts, etc... I don't believe you can presume anything regarding what doesn't and has never existed. If a million new people showed up every year... would some of them be geniuses? Potentially. Possibly. No one can say because these people don't exist. One thing is for sure though. A percentage of them will be born into poverty and end up criminals. A percentage of them will be born severely handicapped. Women over the age of thirty-five are at greater risk for conceiving babies with down's syndrome and a host of other disabilities...
Your argument runs around in circles. Ted Bundy was born in a home for unwed mothers. He thought his mother was his sister for many years. What if his mother had gotten pregnant after Roe v Wade and aborted him instead? All those girls he murdered would still be alive, giving birth to their own children, who would have had the potentiality to be geniuses. And what about all the people who are alive today, because their parents went on to have a family, even though they may have made a mistake early in life. Perhaps many wouldn't exist today.
Also, you talk about the morality of days gone by. Was there something moral in shaming pregnant women because men had abandoned them and forcing them to leave town as soon as their pregnancy "showed"? Do you think there was something moral in the creation of those unwed mothers' homes, or something righteous about stigmatizing "bastard" children? If abortion was abolished, you'd have to replace those past social behavior modifiers like fear, shotgun marriages, stigmatization, etc... with something else. You can't have a million plus children showing up every year without making some kind of provision for their care. I guess manmade laws as I listed above, forcing men to share custodial rights, etc... would have to be instituted. I don't think people would put up with that much invasion of privacy. It just wouldn't fly in today's world.
I agree with some of this and disagree with some. I agree that millions of aborted babies likely included potential citizens that run the gamut from criminals to extremely productive members of society. One of the problems I have with these types of discussions is the focus is exclusively on the potential dregs of society. I remember a string on this board where people were claiming there would be "millions" of "unwanted" babies, essentially concluding all of them, or a significant number, would be part of the welfare system. I don't believe an unplanned pregnancy always (or even often) results in an abandoned baby if the woman does not have an abortion.
I do not agree with those who believe we should stigmatize unwed mothers or "bastard" children, either historically or today. I do think we should encourage childbirth within the confines of marriage, but when a child is born out of wedlock, you should love the child and his/her parents.
If abortion was outlawed tomorrow, I don't believe the streets would suddenly be full of orphans. I suspect that the vast majority of women who actually go through pregnancy and delivery will actually care for their child, with or without the father's support.