Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Is the US turning more conservative??

I am an advocate of forced sterilization of people who repeatedly have welfare children, abortions, commit rape and (oh, I'm going to get blasted) the mentally handicapped .

yes you are... I have a mentally handicapped daughter... just because someone is mentally handicapped doesn't automatically mean they will pass that trait on... some genetic conditions are not hereditary, such as Trisomy-21 (a form of Down Syndrome)... Trisomy-14 however is highly hereditary....

you seriously need to rethink this and get educated about it before you paint with such a wide brush...
 
yes you are... I have a mentally handicapped daughter... just because someone is mentally handicapped doesn't automatically mean they will pass that trait on... some genetic conditions are not hereditary, such as Trisomy-21 (a form of Down Syndrome)... Trisomy-14 however is highly hereditary....

you seriously need to rethink this and get educated about it before you paint with such a wide brush...

You are right, too wide a brush. I was in a hurry and didn't stipulate hereditary conditions. If the parents are able to raise a child with minimal assistance, and the condition is not hereditary I don't have a problem with them having kids.
Sorry if I offended you or your daughter.
By the way, I lost a daughter 18 years ago who, if she had lived longer than 3months, would have grown up blind and somewhat handicapped and I have a great nephew with Down Syndrome.
 
I chose life for my daughter for personal reasons (and I'm happy with my decision)... I'm just glad I had the ability to make that call myself (or ourselves as it was my wife who was carrying her)... but this has to be a personal choice... we can't have the govt saying you are unfit to have a kid so you must abort... no-one can know how good or bad a parent will be, I tend to fall on the side of erring in favor of the child being able to exist...

I agree on your principles, but would argue that maybe instead of promoting abortion as a solution to some of the problems you state maybe we should work more on simply not getting pregnant... handing out condoms, welfare birth control pills/"day after" pills, sex education, etc.... seems to me that reducing the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancy is the best solution....

I want this country to be a place that values life by giving us the opportunity to choose it..
. avoiding unwanted pregnancy is better birth control than abortion is as a form of birth control...

how does giving someone the 'opportunity to chose' equate to values? it would seem what is of 'value' is whether or not a person has the freedom to choose... no? it seems to me that most guys are speaking out of both sides of their mouth,ie, 'im pro-life but i believe in the person's right to choose'. no in fact, when the rubber hits the road, most opt for choice over life... you cant have it both ways. its not a matter of choice or freedom its a matter of murder but if the focus can be changed than the weight of the matter can be shifted so as to elevate choice, in terms of the most sublime morality, over life. what it boils down to is choice trumps life... its an ancillary issue. so my question is what is really of value?

can someone answer me this...5 people(supreme court) which are not elected got together and decided when life begins??? how does that equate?
 
Last edited:
How do you feel about "the morning after pill " I dont consider that abortion. most true conseratives do. If they would pull the bible out of there butt and temper there religious belifes with a touch of common sense a whole bunch of these what ifs could be avoided !

IMO most of the people that find themselves in the position to need to make this decision probably should not be breeding in the first place .It's not like there is any excuse! There is free birth control for just about anybody who wants it these days !

in bold: that is a very subjective statement. the inverse could be said as well, ie, if you would pull your existential head out of your butt and temper your common sense with a little religious beliefs..... ahh you get the point.

i dont know your background but it seems your rather combative towards anything 'religious'. thats ok im not bashing you...just remember the hubris of man thinks he is the author of truth.
 
Just something to make you think:

Why isn't there a system of abortion clinics that dont abort innocent lives but still receive the plentiful funding for it, and rather adoptive families pay for the would be aborting mothers to carry her/their babies to birth in a healthy environment and then the "aborted" babies in whatever state they are in are adopted by the invested families(of the countless families out there waiting for the opportunity)?
No one is murdered, people go home happy...problem solved.


LOOK: If purely death was/is not the agenda of the pro-abortion people, this would already be happening... wouldnt you think?
If the mothers were able to carry the child to birth, I'll bet over half of them wouldn't want to give up their baby anyway.

So is the issue pro-choice or pro-population elimination?

You decide, I have.
 
Just something to make you think:

Why isn't there a system of abortion clinics that dont abort innocent lives but still receive the plentiful funding for it, and rather adoptive families pay for the would be aborting mothers to carry her/their babies to birth in a healthy environment and then the "aborted" babies in whatever state they are in are adopted by the invested families(of the countless families out there waiting for the opportunity)?
No one is murdered, people go home happy...problem solved.


.

Contact a few churches. That is a pretty standard option from a lot of churches.
 
I get hung up on Rape and Insest. Pro chioce for those victoms.

South Dakota is the most anti-abortion state in the USA and they have passed a bill to outlaw abortion if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned. But there is exclusions for cases of rape and incest. This was voted on by the citizens of the state, not the politicians, so it is indeed the majority belief of the citizens.

Considering that I would assume that any other state would make the same exclusions(if it was up to the individual states).

Just something to make you think:

Why isn't there a system of abortion clinics that dont abort innocent lives but still receive the plentiful funding for it, and rather adoptive families pay for the would be aborting mothers to carry her/their babies to birth in a healthy environment and then the "aborted" babies in whatever state they are in are adopted by the invested families(of the countless families out there waiting for the opportunity)?
No one is murdered, people go home happy...problem solved.

I view that situation as being selfish, they don't want anyone else to have their baby and they don't want the burden of carrying it for 9 months.
 
Last edited:
in bold: that is a very subjective statement. the inverse could be said as well, ie, if you would pull your existential head out of your butt and temper your common sense with a little religious beliefs..... ahh you get the point.

i dont know your background but it seems your rather combative towards anything 'religious'. thats ok im not bashing you...just remember the hubris of man thinks he is the author of truth.

That statement was basically refering those religous fundementalists who would have abortion made a crime no matter what the circumstances.Unfortunatly the world we live in is not that simple!

However I would say you are right about me being "combative" towards anything religious in nature. From your commments I think I would enjoy discussing my belifes with you,but this is not the place for obvious reasons . All I will say here is that I have drawn my own conclusions based on FACTS I can and have seen for myself .
 
i am the first one to stand up for individual rights thats kinda what i thought i got tore up for. but somebody gotta stand up for the ones that can't talk. i don't want to meet my maker and say i destroyed a innocent life for my or others misfortune or convenience.in my opinion not voicing an objection is same as going along with whatever

very, very well said..

I am pro choice.. The mother should have a right to choose.. The government has enough control over our lives.. The whole guilt thing from people that have aborted is just one side. There are also people that have, and are ok with it, and have gone on to start families later in their life.

A couple of thing to consider. Contraceptives and birth control are not 100 percent effective. The only thing that is close, is Depo, I think it is called, and that is only 98 or 99 percent effective. Just something to keep in mind. My gf has heard many many stories of, we were using condoms, I was on the pill.... from people that were pregnant.. This issue deals with what happens after. Preventive methods should be used, it is unresponsible not too.

The question of life and death of a unborn child has very large implications.. Along the same order as what is good for the species for an evolutionary standpoint, and what is good for the people from a morality standpoint..
 
Last edited:
My two boys are both adopted from teen mothers who didn't want a family but didn't want to kill them. It's worked out well for all involved. If you buy into the pro choice convenience argument you're standing on a very slippery slope, what if you become inconvenient? Once you decide that someone else gets to choose life or death for another human being incapable of defending themself, you're right there with the animals-maybe worse. There's very little daylight between a mother that snuffs the unwanted baby because she's not capable of caring for it and the mother cat that eats her kittens for the same reason.

Old people and the retarded, handicapped, deformed, autistic, or blind could be next, then who knows? conservatives, religious, not conservative, not religious? When life becomes a privelage and not a right then the ruling elite of the day get to play God.

Are we becoming more conservative? I don't think so, I think we're uniting more behind our ideals but becoming more divided as a nation and closer to anarchy or civil chaos. I think there's a pretty good chance that we'll fall apart and then reunite to form territories based on our common beliefs. All civilizations to date have eventually crumbled.
 
That statement was basically refering those religous fundementalists who would have abortion made a crime no matter what the circumstances.Unfortunatly the world we live in is not that simple!

However I would say you are right about me being "combative" towards anything religious in nature. From your commments I think I would enjoy discussing my belifes with you,but this is not the place for obvious reasons . All I will say here is that I have drawn my own conclusions based on FACTS I can and have seen for myself .

:beer;:beer;:D
 
first of all who gives a Rats a$$ about rights ..if that lil baby isn't worth something then why in the fawk are Canadian doctors doing heart opperations on globs of mucas at 3 months

now go happily fawk yourself with the pro choice bull$it ...everybody "KNOWS" where I stand on that matter ....
TORONTO -- In what's being called a Canadian first, Toronto doctors have successfully performed a life-saving heart procedure on a fetus inside her mother's womb.
A team of doctors at the Hospital for Sick Children and Mount Sinai Hospital used an ultrasound-guided balloon catheter to begin repairing one of the baby's heart valves, which wasn't developing properly.

Enlarge Image
Newborn Oceane McKenzie rests in her mother Vicki's lap. (CHRIS YOUNG / THE CANADIAN PRESS)
During the 37-minute procedure, doctors inserted the device through the mother's abdomen and then directly into the baby's heart to induce proper growth and function -- and to prevent the child from dying of heart failure at birth.
Oceane McKenzie, born April 15, is now doing well and expected to lead a normal childhood.
At the children's hospital Friday, parents Vicki and Ian McKenzie of Gatineau, Que., sat with their children and described themselves as "happy, elated."
"Finally, after two months, we can say we're a lot more relaxed and confident that she is going to be home and live a normal life," said Vicki McKenzie, cuddling her three-week-old daughter as sons Gavin, 7, and Owen, 4, played nearby.
"From the moment I found out till about a week ago, I never thought she was going to live. But I do now."
At 30 weeks into her pregnancy, McKenzie had an ultrasound that showed her developing fetus had critical aortic stenosis, a condition in which the main outlet valve of the left ventricle is severely narrowed.
She was immediately referred to Toronto, where doctors at the Hospital for Sick Children and Mount Sinai explained to the couple that waiting to operate after Oceane's birth would be too risky.
Untreated, her condition would inevitably lead to a lifelong condition called hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS). Children with HLHS typically need to have at least three major heart surgeries and are not expected to have a normal lifespan. The 10-year survival rate is only 65 per cent.
"So what we offered the parents is the intervention where the baby's still in the womb," said Dr. Edgar Jaeggi, head of the fetal cardiac program at the children's hospital.
"It's a very high-risk procedure to do after birth, and we felt it was better to do during the pregnancy.
"It can only be offered to a few babies in utero who are detected at the correct stage and when their aorta hasn't yet narrowed too much. This baby came to us at just the right time," said Jaeggi, explaining that Vicki McKenzie was 31 weeks pregnant when the operation was performed.
The procedure allowed Oceane to remain safely in her mother's womb for a crucial extra month until delivery.
Dr. Greg Ryan, chief of the fetal medicine unit at Mount Sinai, said the operation offers little danger to the mother, although it can pose significant risks to the fetus.
"You could kill the baby. The baby could bleed to death, the baby could go into an irregular heartbeat," explained Ryan, adding that the doctors are excited and heartened by the successful outcome.
"I think it opens up all sorts of opportunities for the future... it's something we can offer to other babies," he said.

-- The Canadian Press
 
further more............
Doctor C. Everett Koop, the last credible Surgeon General that we had, was interviewed by the American Medical Association on August 19th, and he was asked, "President Clinton just vetoed a bill on partial-birth abortions. In so doing, he cited several cases in which women were told these procedures were necessary to preserve their health and their ability to have future pregnancies. How would you characterize the claims being made in favor of the medical need for this procedure?" Quoting Dr. Koop, "I believe that Mr. Clinton was misled by his medical advisors on what is fact and what is fiction in reference to late-term abortions."
Question: "In your practice as a pediatric surgeon, have you ever treated children with any of the disabilities cited in this debate? Have you operated on children born with organs outside of their bodies?"
Answer: "Oh, yes, indeed; I've done that many times. The prognosis is good. There are two common ways that children are born with organs outside of their body. One is omphalocele, where the organs are out but still contained in the sac composed of the tissues of the umbilical cord. I have been repairing these since 1946. The other is when the sac is ruptured. That makes it a little more difficult. I don't know what the national mortality would be, but certainly more than half of those babies survive after surgery. Every once in awhile, you have other peculiar things, such as the chest being wide open and the heart being outside the body, and I have even replaced hearts back in the body, and had children grow to adulthood."
Question: "And live normal lives?"
Answer: "Living normal lives. In fact, the first child I ever did with a huge omphalocele much bigger than her head, went on to develop well, and become the head nurse in my intensive care unit many years later."
The abortionist who is a principle perpetrator of these atrocities, Dr. Martin Haskell, has conceded that at least 80 percent of the partial-birth abortions he performs are entirely elective. Eighty percent are elective, and he admits to over 1,000 of these abortions, and that's some years ago.
We're told about some extreme cases of malformed babies as though life is only for the privileged, the planned and the perfect. Dr. James McMann, the late Dr. James McMann, listed nine such abortions he performed because the baby had a cleft lip.
Oh, the President claims he wants to solve a problem by adding a health exception to the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban." That is spurious, as anyone who has spent ten minutes studying the federal law understands. Health exceptions are so broadly construed by the Court--not what we write--by the Court, as to make any ban utterly meaningless.
In his memoirs, Dwight Eisenhower wrote about the loss of 1.2 million lives in World War II. And he said, "The loss of lives that might have otherwise been creatively lived, scars the mind of the civilized world." Mr. Speaker, our souls have been scarred by one-and-a-half million abortions every year in this country. Our souls have so much scar tissue, there isn't room for any more.
It isn't just the babies that are dying for the lethal sin of being unwanted or being handicapped or malformed; we are dying, and not from the darkness, but from the cold...the coldness of self-brutalization that chills our sensibilities, deadens our conscience and allows us to think of this unspeakable act as an act of compassion.
If you vote to uphold this veto, if you vote to maintain the legality of a procedure that is revolting, even to the most hardened heart, then please don't ever use the word "compassion" again.
A word about anesthesia. Advocates of partial-birth abortions tried to tell us the baby doesn't feel pain. The mother's anesthesia is transmitted to the baby. We took testimony from five of the country's top anesthesiologists, and they said this is impossible. That result would take so much anesthesia, it would kill the mother.
By upholding this tragic veto, you join the network of complicity in supporting what is essentially a crime against humanity.
For that little, almost-born infant, struggling to live, is a member of the human family, and partial-birth abortion is a lethal assault against the very idea of human rights and destroys, along with a defenseless little baby, the moral foundation of our democracy, because democracy isn't, after all, a mere process. It assigns fundamental rights and values to each human being, the first of which is the inalienable right to life.
 
I guess that the question is this ...."do you really want H2SNOW aka Mike Stack to hand out the "Law" given to us by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ "??????

heres the deal .."The Law Exists weather you believe or choose not to" it exists for all mankind ....period ..

Law number 6 ..and I do not have to look this up "Thou shalt not causeth murder upon thy bretheren"

for it is a SIN and the wages of SIN is death ..in the ever lasting lake of fire ...you now know the truth .....and your actions from this moment forward will convict you .....

could not have said it better

PS I really don'y care if this offends the intended reader ...the facts remain the same .............
 
Last edited:
Great posts H2! My personal belief is that once a baby has a heart beat they are alive and a human being. They have every right those of us outside the body do. I believe it is murder to perform many abortions. (some exclusions) As far as the above mentioned cases of people born with parts on the outside of thier bodies, my brother was born with his bladder on the outside. He has had 20-30 surgurys in his life to keep him in good health, but he is a healthy husband, father, successful businessman, and snowmobiler. How could you kill a baby with all of the potential they posess? I couldn't, and I could never live with myself if I did.
 
I am pro choice because of a couple of reason:

1: I don't believe life starts at conception. At conception it is a glob of multiplying cells. This also means that I do not think late term abortions should be legal.

2. Personal choice. I don't want my government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body. Once again, late term abortion should still be banned because at that point if removed from the mother's body, the baby could survive on it's own.
 
H2snow


That procedure was done on a child that was 30 weeks developed. At 36 weeks is when most babies are delivered. I would hardly call it a lump of cells that these doctors worked on. The child was almost fully developed (at least as much as it would be inside the mother). Great that they can do that, but lets not blow this out of proportion.
 
I am pro choice because of a couple of reason:

1: I don't believe life starts at conception. At conception it is a glob of multiplying cells.
This also means that I do not think late term abortions should be legal.

2. Personal choice. I don't want my government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body. Once again, late term abortion should still be banned because at that point if removed from the mother's body, the baby could survive on it's own.

at what point does the soul enter into the equation? i presume your an evolutionist...'glob of multiplying cells' sounds like such rhetoric. does anybody see the devaluing of life the 'theory' of evolution has ushered in. if in fact milehigh is right and we are just' a glob of cells' than by all means there is no possible value intrinsic to a 'glob of cells'.
 
Last edited:
I am pro choice because of a couple of reason:

1: I don't believe life starts at conception. At conception it is a glob of multiplying cells. This also means that I do not think late term abortions should be legal.

2. Personal choice. I don't want my government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body. Once again, late term abortion should still be banned because at that point if removed from the mother's body, the baby could survive on it's own.

1. When cells start multiplying, somethings happening. If scientists could create that chemistry with raw materials they would say they created life at that point.

2. If you're worried about getting pregnant, you need to find new friends. If you become pregnant, it's not your body that others are trying to tell you that you can't kill.
 
Premium Features



Back
Top