“It was truncated. I was going to say that I even held the belief back in high school that people should take responsibility if they are going to have sex and end up in pregnancy. I remember having this conversation with a girlfriend I had and that if she ever became pregnant I would be willing to raise the child by myself if she didn't want it.
Years later and that's precisely what has happened. I'm the father of two children, both of whom I raise without any assistance from their mother (not my high school gf). To be fair to my childrens' mother I never asked her for any help. She bailed when one was a toddler and the other an infant. And I'm not the slightest bit jaded. I've loved every moment of raising my boys. ”
new flowers on Oct 4, 2013 at 02:53:39
“I will say that I have a greater measure of respect as you live your belief instead of just talk about it as so many do. I have been a single mother for a few decades, so I understand the joys and trials of raising children alone.
When I was younger, I held a pro-life position, but as I grew to adulthood, my beliefs changed as a result of my work and life. Now, I am very pro choice. But you are inspiring, and I can only wish there were more men like you. ”
“We are in agreement with regard to contraceptives, and with regard to slavery. Just differ on abortion. The reason I take my stance is that while being an agnostic, I regard all human life, as protected under the constitution. And further, I'm for protecting the innocent against those who regard their lives as disposable.
With regard to what happens after birth, I really believe most mothers who would have chosen to abort will fall in love with their offspring, their very own flesh and blood. Most would raise their own kids. The remaining would be up for adoption or foster care.
But this is why I'm for contraceptives, because for at least the first two weeks after conception, human cellular life has been created, but it hasn't individualized yet. It can still merge with another attached embryo or still split into two embryos. That is why I'm for contraceptives and for embryonic stem cell research; because human life takes a few weeks to individualize, where it is it's own solidified entity.
After that I believe it would be wrong to kill the embryo. I'm all for birth control, just against abortion as birth control.
Trust me, I recognize the vast majority of societal ills stem from people crapping out kids and bailing, especially dead beat fathers. So I'm all for contraceptives to avoid pregnancy. But if people are too stupid to use protection or contraceptives, I don't think it's morally right to kill the life they've started.
I even held”
new flowers on Oct 3, 2013 at 23:04:54
“Another reason I believe women should have absolute choice about abortion is because they have absolute obligation and responsibility - moral and legal - for the pregnancy and child.
Finally, I have to say that while the back-and-forth is good, I am slightly insulted by your comment that: " if people are too stupid to use protection or contraceptives, I don't think it's morally right to kill the life they've started" because they people about whom you refer are girls and women who get pregnant and have abortions. I do not have any indication that you are that simplistic in your intellect or your values.
Since the bottom half of you message was truncated, I hope I am wrong.”
new flowers on Oct 3, 2013 at 22:21:01
“I can understand your position on being anti-abortion; however, my experience is a bit different. Over the decades I have seen far too many girls and women who become pregnant (with assistance of course), but when the time comes for support, these girls and women are left alone. I have had students as young as 12 who have gotten pregnant by adult men, and then left alone with parents who want neither child not grandchild or use the girl in a twisted version of free domestic worker as punishment.
I have seen girls kicked out of the home as well as girls who were taken out of school as parents and their "men" seek to control their lives after pregnancy.
And it does get worse because over my last two+ decades of teaching high school and college, I have found that most, male and female, know next to nothing about contraceptives and the biology of getting pregnant. Yet parents don't teach them and don't want (sometimes won't allow) schools to teach them.
But the horror does not end with young girls in middle and high school and the first couple years of college. Maybe in your world, all men as are kind as you mostly seem to be, but that is not the case for others. There are men who do control their women's lives and do so with the children and potential children. I'm not talking about a benign control, but something far worse and for more dangerous.
“The analogy stands. Just because slavery was legal did not therefore make it moral and right. And those who opposed this legal law were in the right. It goes beyond cliches of "if you don't like it don't participate." No it was wrong that "others" had slaves. The abolitionists certainly wanted to tell others what they could do with their legal property. And the abolitionists were right.
My opinion on contraceptives is that I couldn't care less. I prefer more people took them for population control.
But my original reply was explaining why most republicans, as far as I'm aware, oppose contraceptives. And the reason is because in some rare cases, contraceptives work as a mini abortion. They do. But it's rare. If that is the opposition, then while I don't agree with it, I certainly appreciate where it's coming from as I'm opposed to abortion as well.
I'm ok with telling women that just because the baby resides in their body, it isn't their property to murder as they so please. Just like I'm ok to tell the slave owner that what they consider the less than human slave isn't their property to rape, or kill, or compel to work as they see fit. Remember, liberals consider an unborn baby as something less than human which is the only reason they are morally ok with killing it. Just like slave owners considered the slave as something less than human.
In my opinion they are both wrong and life should”
new flowers on Oct 2, 2013 at 04:41:35
“I quite enjoy this chat. As stated, we have opposing views on abortion; however, I do not think that, as you point out, there is a rare chance that contraceptives will cause an abortion, how does that justify denying millions of women access to contraceptives for their health and birth control? I do not believe it does.
Obviously, I do believe in a woman's right to choose, to make her own decisions for her own life. Thus we can perhaps to agree to disagree. However, I also understand, even though I do not agree with, the concept that a fetus, which will likely be born if given health and time, should have the opportunity to do so. Yet what happens to that child after it is born? Where are all of the right to life, abortion is murder people after the birth? If there is not a plan to care for a child once it is born, and please presume that the mother cannot or does not wish to, what happens then? Foster care? A horrid, heartless system? As women are no longer recipients of immaculate conception, what responsibility does that father bear? And who enforces that obligation? Rarely the courts?
While I understand the opposition to abortion, I do not understand the need to force a child to be born when he/she is unwanted. As a result, I believe in the prevalence of birth control, absolute availability, teaching about it at young ages - this seems a far better”
“But again, what enumerated power is this raising tax under?”
OregonCoaster on Oct 1, 2013 at 12:20:03
“Ask Chief Roberts. Their decision is final until they redecide. I still think it fits fine under the Commerce Clause.
Hey, get over it and don't encourage the ni.tw.its to go all giddy over black.mail on the CR or the debt limit. We need a sensible national healthcare plan like EVERY other first world nation and today we're on the way to it.
My message to the Tea N.uts is: fix it if you ccan/want but don't try to pull stunts that you know cannot work and pull the economy back into the tank in the process.”
It works well because even prior to abolition, before it was illegal to own slaves you would have rejected a philosophy that relegates moral issues to "Well, if you don't like it, simply don't participate in it." ”
new flowers on Oct 1, 2013 at 14:40:44
“I still disagree with your analogy. And your opinion on contraceptives as that is the topic?”
“Either way, you're saying stand your ground even to the point that standing your ground shuts down government. I get it. Lots of people on both sides feel the same as you.”
REMOVETHEVEIL on Oct 1, 2013 at 11:46:22
“I want a compromise but I want the poor, elderly, women and children to be taken care of too. Its not too much to ask. The problem is they don't want to surrender the money that is involved in the healthcare industry. They love money and power more than the people and that is unfortunate because their greed will eventually cripple this country. ”
“I think it's inconsistent with the constitution is all. The commerce clause was established to regulate commerce by removing trade barriers et al.
There's a big difference between regulating commerce and mandating citizens to buy commerce.
It would be like police officers not only having the authority to fight crime, but also having the ability to force people to go about doing good things. It's just not within their powers.
And I don't think compelling citizens to purchase something under penalty finds basis in the enumerated powers of the constitution.
This is why I oppose Obamacare. I do realize however that most people oppose it simply because of propaganda, because they don't like expanding government, or because they simply don't like Obama. ”
OregonCoaster on Oct 1, 2013 at 10:41:17
“Well, the interpretation of the "Commerce Clause" has been being redefined since the Constitution was adopted. I disagree with the court's rejection of the commerce clause argument of the administration and yours. But Roberts tiptoed through the tulips and declared the ACA Constitutional under the taxation powers and that's it until the court changes its minds.
The ACA is Constitutional by Supremes' ruling and it is the law of the land. The "Hastert 'rule'" is not a rule and not at all Constitutional in my book. The Speaker is dishonorable and irresponsible in not putting the clean Senate CR bill to a vote and the GOP wha.ck.adoodles are cutting their throats by bringing the government to a halt and probably further delaying economic recovery. I welcome their self-inflicted exsanguination and wish their demise to be speedy.”
The argument is this: It's not always morally right to settle issues with the simplistic dismissal of, "if you don't agree with it, simply don't participate in it."
Then I gave an example, (not a comparison) of where this was true, with pre-civil war slavery. This example demonstrates the truth of my argument which again is: It's not always morally right to settle issues with the simplistic dismissal of "if you don't agree with it, simply don't participate in it."
Do you see how this premise is true? As a stand alone premise, this is a sound premise of a truth functionally valid argument, irrespective of what the subject matter is.”
new flowers on Oct 1, 2013 at 07:27:48
“I do not see that your premise is true because of the fundamental differences between one act being legal and the other not. I do not agree that you can create a logical syllogism comparing slavery and abortion though I do understand your attempt to equate immoral acts.
My response, flippant though it was, considers the valid point that the moral disagreement with abortion is completely different than legislating access to birth control.
Be that as it may, and since we do not see eye to eye, I maintain there is a distinct difference between the access to and use of contraceptives and abortion. If one is against abortion because of the belief that the fetus is a human being murdered - anther issue with which I disagree - the use of birth control, when used for the purpose of preventing conception, is not ending the life of a fetus already conceived; it is preventing the conception thus the two are completely different.
I unequivocally reject the idea that women should not have affordable access to contraceptives, be it for medical use or to prevent pregnancy, just as I reject the idea that the members of the house have the ethical standing or moral right to make such a decision. ”
“I disagree with it because I think it is against the spirit of the commerce clause to mandate citizens to buy something as a tax. I think that's a huge stretch of that clause.”
OregonCoaster on Sep 30, 2013 at 23:20:34
“Oh, and you agree with taking a law voted in by both houses of Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court, and upheld in a presidential election in which Mitt made its repeal his main cause--and try to then use black.mail over the CR to try to repeal it? Go for it junior and help the GOP cut its throat. Deeper the better. Just don't let them bleed out next to me I don't want my shoes sullied by the dullards.”
OregonCoaster on Sep 30, 2013 at 23:09:28
“It's the law and the Supremes said it was Constitutional. That's the end for now. You have zero standing to decide otherwise except to fantasize about it.”
“I think you're lying. I think if the scenario I proposed were true you'd have no problem with democrats refusing to fund that.
And if everyone deserves healthcare, then everyone deserves quality organic food, everyone deserves to live in a safe neighborhood. Everyone deserves quality clothing. Everyone deserves to access to energy to stay warm in the winter. In fact, if everyone had these things, there'd be a lot less stress on our healthcare system because people would be taken care of before many health care concerns arise.
But back to the gun analogy, I think you would be happy if democrats refused to appropriate money for that part of government is such a law was passed. And you know you would!”
“I meant prior to abolition. You would have had no problem at all telling other people what to do. Why? Because you felt you were protecting innocent people (the slaves), whom by the way the slave owners did not consider people, but considered their own property. Just as the fetus is considered property of the woman's body.
What I'm saying is pre-cival war you would not have accepted the "if you don't agree with slavery simply don't own slaves" argument.
The subject matter is very different but the argument is exactly the same.”
new flowers on Sep 30, 2013 at 22:42:15
“I believe the historical context makes the arguments completely different - that and the legality of the issue. And pre-civil war, I would have been one of the slaves so...”
“Lie. Obama has no authority under the war powers resolution to attack Syria without them having first attacked us. Yet Obama claims he can if he wants.
Lie again regarding Obamacare. Polls show the majority, and sometimes overwhelming majority oppose Obamacare.”
Garyd552 on Sep 30, 2013 at 03:36:21
“Now that is funny. Google the bill the GOP signed in 01 when they had all 4 branches of government. They evidently never read a bill their cronies give them, as this bill was written by the MIC that gives the President authority to attack any country thought to be a threat to national security. Bush had it and it was fine, now a black dude does and the GOP is going nuts about it.”
noamnesia on Sep 30, 2013 at 03:36:10
“LOL Polls show a majority support the ACA but oppose Obamacare cause most GOPers are too dense to realize they are the same thing.”
“Neither side is willing to compromise. The republicans don't want to finance a bill they don't agree with. Democrats are saying too bad, fund it.
Neither side is willing to compromise.
Let's use another scenario. Let's say congress and the president were republican. And a measure was signed into law called The American Protection Act. Essentially this act would be government financing all Americans to own a gun.
Then when it came time to fund it, the house had become majority democrat. You'd probably applaud the democrats refusing to finance government with that included.”
msgirlintn on Sep 30, 2013 at 11:48:39
First, the ACA isn't a bill. It's the law.
Second, the ACA is funded and Republicans can't do one thing about it.
Your analogy is ignorant. Everyone needs healthcare.”
“Right. I'm not a Cruz fan, but I was answering the question of why people truly supported him.
People want to latch onto someone who they feel is truly standing up to the establishment. People felt that way about Obama before he became the establishment. It's why Ron Paul and Alan Grayson are so popular, because people see someone standing up to the status quo.”
“I didn't miss that. But there are many who disagree with it purely on constitutional grounds.”
OregonCoaster on Sep 30, 2013 at 21:38:28
“I think you know little or nothing about "constitutional grounds." First, the body that is "the decider" (to borrow a term) on what is or is not constitutional has met and decided that the ACA IS CONSTITUTIONAL. By definition in the Constitution itself, that makes the law "constitutional."
Now think about Cruz: by the rules laid out in part in the Constitution, the ACA was passed in both the House and the Senate. It went through conference committee and the resolution was voted in by both houses. It was signed by the President. It was upheld by the Supremes. And now Cruz decides that black.mail over the continuing resolution is all that is necessary to negate that highly Constitutional process. Come on now. Cruz invents a new way to end run the Constitutional way to pass a law? Give it up Mark. Try reading the Constitution for a change. Take a look at the 14th Amendment where it states that "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. " What do you think "shall not be questioned means?" Think it means "shall not be questioned unless Ted Cruz wants to hold that debt hostage?" The GOP and their supporters need to grow up and start acting like adults.”
OregonCoaster on Sep 30, 2013 at 09:48:03
“No, not many. Just like their are not many who think Medicare or Social Security are unconstitutional. That's just a Tea Party fantasy.”
“Fair enough jrboyle. That is my honest take on the constitutionality of the act, irrespective of any political party. When considering something like this, I try my very best to remove any preconceived notions or political bias and really consider whether this is consistent with the spirit of enumerated powers given to the government by the constitution. I honestly do not think it is. But yes, you're absolutely correct that I might be wrong. I recognize that.”
“Think about your argument. I could use the same argument and say if you're opposed to slavery, then simply don't own any slaves. But don't bother those slave owners who have slaves. ”
new flowers on Sep 30, 2013 at 04:56:28
“However, owning slaves is against the law and abortion is not. Big difference there. And in this instance, we're not talking about having an abortion, we're talking about access to birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy so there is no need for an abortion. Additionally, preventing contraceptives from being covered in health insurance also impacts literally millions of women who use the pill for hormone therapy to treat a variety of illnesses. While I completely disagree, I do understand why some people are against abortion, but being against abortions seems to make a case to support birth control. ”