I really want to be Pro-Choice, but...

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know, I never hear about liberals forcing their agenda on conservatives. I wonder why.

[Akno21]

Of course there is no right and wrong, no black and white. Of course, there are very dark shades of gray for certain crimes, but when we can generalize "Gay Marriage is WRONG", the term is being used. Does gay marriage fall in place with murder and rape?

I don't see a person being physically harmed by gay marriage.  Most oppose it for moral reasons or out of dislike for homosexuals.

But when I ask people why they oppose gay marriage, they say it's "wrong". That's a gross misuse of the word.

My arguement is that gay marriage will open the door to gay adoption and I don't think that the effects of the child growing up with gay parents, and how others view this is a problem that needs to be studied some more.

I think that the parents being loving, caring, emotionally prepared, economically prepared, etc. is a lot more important than sexual preference. If I had to choose between orphanage and gay parents, of course gay parents. No one is going to be scarred for life because they didn't have a dad. Plenty of people living in single-parent homes don't have a dad/mom and they turn out just fine. 

[Akno21]

Of course there is no right and wrong, no black and white. Of course, there are very dark shades of gray for certain crimes, but when we can generalize "Gay Marriage is WRONG", the term is being used. Does gay marriage fall in place with murder and rape?

I don't see a person being physically harmed by gay marriage.  Most oppose it for moral reasons or out of dislike for homosexuals.

But when I ask people why they oppose gay marriage, they say it's "wrong". That's a gross misuse of the word.

Some people consider gay relationships to be "wrong."  They have a right to their opinion.  It's not necessarily a gross misuse of the word wrong.

But then you are putting gay marriage in the same position as murder and rape. That's really ridiculous.

[phk]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know, I never hear about liberals forcing their agenda on conservatives. I wonder why.

We Need Morality, But Not Traditional Morality.

I'm a communist not a liberal, get it straight.

[Nym90]

I pretty much concur with Akno and Gabu on this.

Abortion is clearly a terrible thing, and we should all have it as our goal to reduce abortions.

I personally feel that the exact moment at which a fetus becomes a human being is unclear, and depends on the fetus. It's ridiculous to say that it isn't a human being until it's born, but it's equally ridiculous to say that it's a human being the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg, as well.

I would personally use the earliest date at which a fetus has ever been born and survived, which I believe is currently after about 5 months of pregnancy. Since it's been proven that the fetus can, at that time, at least theoretically survive without its mother, that seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.

But whenever you perform the abortion, the fact is that the baby would be born if the abortion did not occur. So you preventing life from occuring by stepping in.

I see your point, but for me, the bottom line is that the fetus can't survive at all, not even for one second, without its mother. It's completely dependent on the mother for all life processes, even breathing. If the mother dies, the fetus would instantly die, too. So up to that point, it shouldn't be considered a seperate individual, but rather a part of the mother's body. I realize it's a gray area, and I don't necessarily see it as illogical to draw the line somewhere else, but it's something to consider.

So when you say that it will eventually be born, you are assuming that the mother will continue to live, because the fetus can't live, even for one second, without the mother at that point.

[dazzleman]

But then you are putting gay marriage in the same position as murder and rape. That's really ridiculous.

Come on man, we're talking about degree here.  It's wrong to steal a candy bar too, but that doesn't put it in the same category as murder and rape.

Some people believe gay relationships are wrong, and they have a right to their opinion.  I happen to think it's wrong to have kids outside of marriage.  We all have our ideas of right and wrong, and nobody advocates that everything they think is wrong be criminalized.

Gay relationships used to be criminalized, and are no longer.  Adultery was also widely criminalized.  Contrary to what some cockeyed people like opebo are saying, the country has been moving toward relaxation of moral standards, not tightening.  It has been a long-term trend.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I was torn between pro-choice and pro-life, but 3 basic things swung me to the pro-choice side.

1) It's your child, you created it, and if you do not want it to come into this world, that's your choice and I respect it.  And no, I don't think it's okay to kill a child if it's already here just because it is yours.  Once you bring it into the world, it has thoughts.  It has emotions.  It has memories.  Basically, even though it is technically alive while in the womb, it doesn't possess any type of life.  It's compeltely dependant on someone else for absolutely everything.  If the mother does not want to give it that life, it should absolutely be her choice. 

2) Don't want to be on the side of the religious-right wackjobs when it comes to anything. 

3) ....and probably the argument that makes the most sense.  Do you really think this is something the government can regulate?  Honestly.  If a woman does not want to have her child, believe me, she is not going to have it.  It's good that we have clinics that can take care of the situation safely.  Back before this country got a grip on reality, women would throw themselves down stairs, hurt themselves, or hire shady doctors to perform illegal abortions with unsterilized tools.  Do we want to go back to that?  It's common knowledge that the more liberal we've gotten on the abortion issue, less and less abortions are actually taking place. 

[Akno21]

I pretty much concur with Akno and Gabu on this.

Abortion is clearly a terrible thing, and we should all have it as our goal to reduce abortions.

I personally feel that the exact moment at which a fetus becomes a human being is unclear, and depends on the fetus. It's ridiculous to say that it isn't a human being until it's born, but it's equally ridiculous to say that it's a human being the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg, as well.

I would personally use the earliest date at which a fetus has ever been born and survived, which I believe is currently after about 5 months of pregnancy. Since it's been proven that the fetus can, at that time, at least theoretically survive without its mother, that seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.

But whenever you perform the abortion, the fact is that the baby would be born if the abortion did not occur. So you preventing life from occuring by stepping in.

I see your point, but for me, the bottom line is that the fetus can't survive at all, not even for one second, without its mother. It's completely dependent on the mother for all life processes, even breathing. If the mother dies, the fetus would instantly die, too. So up to that point, it shouldn't be considered a seperate individual, but rather a part of the mother's body. I realize it's a gray area, and I don't necessarily see it as illogical to draw the line somewhere else, but it's something to consider.

So when you say that it will eventually be born, you are assuming that the mother will continue to live, because the fetus can't live, even for one second, without the mother at that point.

I like that argument.

[Akno21]

But then you are putting gay marriage in the same position as murder and rape. That's really ridiculous.

Come on man, we're talking about degree here.  It's wrong to steal a candy bar too, but that doesn't put it in the same category as murder and rape.

Some people believe gay relationships are wrong, and they have a right to their opinion.  I happen to think it's wrong to have kids outside of marriage.  We all have our ideas of right and wrong, and nobody advocates that everything they think is wrong be criminalized.

Gay relationships used to be criminalized, and are no longer.  Adultery was also widely criminalized.  Contrary to what some cockeyed people like opebo are saying, the country has been moving toward relaxation of moral standards, not tightening.  It has been a long-term trend.

Stealing could be classified as wrong, whether it's a candy bar or millions of dollars. They have a right to the opinion about gay relationships, but if they are wrong, than what is murder, super-duper wrong?

[Jake]

I was torn between pro-choice and pro-life, but 3 basic things swung me to the pro-choice side.

1) It's your child, you created it, and if you do not want it to come into this world, that's your choice and I respect it.  And no, I don't think it's okay to kill a child if it's already here just because it is yours.  Once you bring it into the world, it has thoughts.  It has emotions.  It has memories.  Basically, even though it is technically alive while in the womb, it doesn't possess any type of life.  It's compeltely dependant on someone else for absolutely everything.  If the mother does not want to give it that life, it should absolutely be her choice. 

2) Don't want to be on the side of the religious-right wackjobs when it comes to anything. 

3) ....and probably the argument that makes the most sense.  Do you really think this is something the government can regulate?  Honestly.  If a woman does not want to have her child, believe me, she is not going to have it.  It's good that we have clinics that can take care of the situation safely.  Back before this country got a grip on reality, women would throw themselves down stairs, hurt themselves, or hire shady doctors to perform illegal abortions with unsterilized tools.  Do we want to go back to that?  It's common knowledge that the more liberal we've gotten on the abortion issue, less and less abortions are actually taking place. 

Are you a ing idiot.  Of course there is life.  A fetus reacts to a stimuli as early as 3 months.  What exactly gives a fetus life when it is born.  What changes.  Absolutely nothing, but the way the fetus receives nourishment changes.

[Akno21]

I was torn between pro-choice and pro-life, but 3 basic things swung me to the pro-choice side.

1) It's your child, you created it, and if you do not want it to come into this world, that's your choice and I respect it.  And no, I don't think it's okay to kill a child if it's already here just because it is yours.  Once you bring it into the world, it has thoughts.  It has emotions.  It has memories.  Basically, even though it is technically alive while in the womb, it doesn't possess any type of life.  It's compeltely dependant on someone else for absolutely everything.  If the mother does not want to give it that life, it should absolutely be her choice. 

2) Don't want to be on the side of the religious-right wackjobs when it comes to anything. 

3) ....and probably the argument that makes the most sense.  Do you really think this is something the government can regulate?  Honestly.  If a woman does not want to have her child, believe me, she is not going to have it.  It's good that we have clinics that can take care of the situation safely.  Back before this country got a grip on reality, women would throw themselves down stairs, hurt themselves, or hire shady doctors to perform illegal abortions with unsterilized tools.  Do we want to go back to that?  It's common knowledge that the more liberal we've gotten on the abortion issue, less and less abortions are actually taking place. 

Are you a ing idiot.  Of course there is life.  A fetus reacts to a stimuli as early as 3 months.  What exactly gives a fetus life when it is born.  What changes.  Absolutely nothing, but the way the fetus receives nourishment changes.

If the mother dies, the fetus instantly dies too. It is part of the mother at this point, not including the end of the pregnancy, late-term abortions.

[Jake]

If the mother dies, the fetus instantly dies too. It is part of the mother at this point, not including the end of the pregnancy, late-term abortions.

Point being Akno?  To say that a fetus is not living even at 9 months is extremely misguided.

[??????????]

I was torn between pro-choice and pro-life, but 3 basic things swung me to the pro-choice side.

1) It's your child, you created it, and if you do not want it to come into this world, that's your choice and I respect it.  And no, I don't think it's okay to kill a child if it's already here just because it is yours.  Once you bring it into the world, it has thoughts.  It has emotions.  It has memories. Basically, even though it is technically alive while in the womb, it doesn't possess any type of life.  It's compeltely dependant on someone else for absolutely everything.  If the mother does not want to give it that life, it should absolutely be her choice. 

2) Don't want to be on the side of the religious-right wackjobs when it comes to anything. 

3) ....and probably the argument that makes the most sense.  Do you really think this is something the government can regulate?  Honestly.  If a woman does not want to have her child, believe me, she is not going to have it.  It's good that we have clinics that can take care of the situation safely.  Back before this country got a grip on reality, women would throw themselves down stairs, hurt themselves, or hire shady doctors to perform illegal abortions with unsterilized tools.  Do we want to go back to that?  It's common knowledge that the more liberal we've gotten on the abortion issue, less and less abortions are actually taking place. 

Are you a ing idiot.  Of course there is life.  A fetus reacts to a stimuli as early as 3 months.  What exactly gives a fetus life when it is born.  What changes.  Absolutely nothing, but the way the fetus receives nourishment changes.

If the mother dies, the fetus instantly dies too. It is part of the mother at this point, not including the end of the pregnancy, late-term abortions.

No, the baby does NOT die "instantly" when the mother dies. Depending on the age of the baby it dies due to lack of oxygen.

[Akno21]

If the mother dies, the fetus instantly dies too. It is part of the mother at this point, not including the end of the pregnancy, late-term abortions.

Point being Akno?  To say that a fetus is not living even at 9 months is extremely misguided.

At 9 months I do not support aborting it.

[dazzleman]

But then you are putting gay marriage in the same position as murder and rape. That's really ridiculous.

Come on man, we're talking about degree here.  It's wrong to steal a candy bar too, but that doesn't put it in the same category as murder and rape.

Some people believe gay relationships are wrong, and they have a right to their opinion.  I happen to think it's wrong to have kids outside of marriage.  We all have our ideas of right and wrong, and nobody advocates that everything they think is wrong be criminalized.

Gay relationships used to be criminalized, and are no longer.  Adultery was also widely criminalized.  Contrary to what some cockeyed people like opebo are saying, the country has been moving toward relaxation of moral standards, not tightening.  It has been a long-term trend.

Stealing could be classified as wrong, whether it's a candy bar or millions of dollars. They have a right to the opinion about gay relationships, but if they are wrong, than what is murder, super-duper wrong?

Um, I guess.  I'm not sure of your point.

Look, I can think that it's "wrong" to wear white shoes after Labor Day.  There are all different levels of right and wrong.

My point is that it is a legitimate viewpoint to question the morality of gay relationships.  I have stated earlier that I choose not to pass judgment on them, but I don't view them as equivalent to heterosexual marriage.  I look at a married couple, and I say that what they are doing is RIGHT.  I look at a gay couple, and the best I can do is remain morally neutral.  Do you see the subtle difference?

But there are some who feel that gay relationships are wrong.  To what degree I can't say; it can vary greatly.  Some think gay sex is a great moral wrong.  I can't see it as ever being equivalent to murder, but as I said, it's a matter of individual opinion.

This is where I have a problem with political correctness.  You seem to effectively be saying that it is WRONG to have a certain opinion.  Other than that, I don't really understand your point.

[Akno21]

But then you are putting gay marriage in the same position as murder and rape. That's really ridiculous.

Come on man, we're talking about degree here.  It's wrong to steal a candy bar too, but that doesn't put it in the same category as murder and rape.

Some people believe gay relationships are wrong, and they have a right to their opinion.  I happen to think it's wrong to have kids outside of marriage.  We all have our ideas of right and wrong, and nobody advocates that everything they think is wrong be criminalized.

Gay relationships used to be criminalized, and are no longer.  Adultery was also widely criminalized.  Contrary to what some cockeyed people like opebo are saying, the country has been moving toward relaxation of moral standards, not tightening.  It has been a long-term trend.

Stealing could be classified as wrong, whether it's a candy bar or millions of dollars. They have a right to the opinion about gay relationships, but if they are wrong, than what is murder, super-duper wrong?

Um, I guess.  I'm not sure of your point.

Look, I can think that it's "wrong" to wear white shoes after Labor Day.  There are all different levels of right and wrong.

My point is that it is a legitimate viewpoint to question the morality of gay relationships.  I have stated earlier that I choose not to pass judgment on them, but I don't view them as equivalent to heterosexual marriage.  I look at a married couple, and I say that what they are doing is RIGHT.  I look at a gay couple, and the best I can do is remain morally neutral.  Do you see the subtle difference?

But there are some who feel that gay relationships are wrong.  To what degree I can't say; it can vary greatly.  Some thing gay sex is a great moral wrong.  I can't see it as ever being equivalent to murder, but as I said, it's a matter of individual opinion.

This is where I have a problem with political correctness.  You seem to effectively be saying that it is WRONG to have a certain opinion.  Other than that, I don't really understand your point.

I guess my point is that if something is wrong, it is almost always hurts someone else. For example murder, theft, rape. As I said, someone can think something is wrong, they have that right.

[TeePee4Prez]

The "pro-life" movement is nothing more than the corporate elite manipulating religion to their benefit.  They care not about the sanctity of life, but keeping people perpetually poor.  It is about restricting the choices of the underclasses.  The corporate marketing gurus in the GOP know that poor/working class people are essentially going to have sex regardless of the decision in Roe v. Wade.  Being "pro-life" also has the added benefit of getting mislead working class people on their side over such a petty issue.

[Keystone Phil]

The "pro-life" movement is nothing more than the corporate elite manipulating religion to their benefit.  They care not about the sanctity of life, but keeping people perpetually poor.  It is about restricting the choices of the underclasses.  The corporate marketing gurus in the GOP know that poor/working class people are essentially going to have sex regardless of the decision in Roe v. Wade.  Being "pro-life" also has the added benefit of getting mislead working class people on their side over such a petty issue.

Everyone you dislike is tied in with those evil corporations, right?

[??????????]

The "pro-life" movement is nothing more than the corporate elite manipulating religion to their benefit.  They care not about the sanctity of life, but keeping people perpetually poor.  It is about restricting the choices of the underclasses.  The corporate marketing gurus in the GOP know that poor/working class people are essentially going to have sex regardless of the decision in Roe v. Wade.  Being "pro-life" also has the added benefit of getting mislead working class people on their side over such a petty issue.

Hilarious.

[Keystone Phil]

The "pro-life" movement is nothing more than the corporate elite manipulating religion to their benefit.  They care not about the sanctity of life, but keeping people perpetually poor.  It is about restricting the choices of the underclasses.  The corporate marketing gurus in the GOP know that poor/working class people are essentially going to have sex regardless of the decision in Roe v. Wade.  Being "pro-life" also has the added benefit of getting mislead working class people on their side over such a petty issue.

Hilarious.

To say the least.

[TeePee4Prez]

The "pro-life" movement is nothing more than the corporate elite manipulating religion to their benefit.  They care not about the sanctity of life, but keeping people perpetually poor.  It is about restricting the choices of the underclasses.  The corporate marketing gurus in the GOP know that poor/working class people are essentially going to have sex regardless of the decision in Roe v. Wade.  Being "pro-life" also has the added benefit of getting mislead working class people on their side over such a petty issue.

Everyone you dislike is tied in with those evil corporations, right?

Do you know how much in kickbacks Bevilacqua and Rigali get from corporate/GOP sponsors?  I'm not disclosing my sources, but they get plenty.  They live in the lap of luxury and meanwhile they are tools of the GOP.  They get paid off to preach this pro-life crap and put guilt trips on workign class people like you and my dad included.

[??????????]

The "pro-life" movement is nothing more than the corporate elite manipulating religion to their benefit.  They care not about the sanctity of life, but keeping people perpetually poor.  It is about restricting the choices of the underclasses.  The corporate marketing gurus in the GOP know that poor/working class people are essentially going to have sex regardless of the decision in Roe v. Wade.  Being "pro-life" also has the added benefit of getting mislead working class people on their side over such a petty issue.

Everyone you dislike is tied in with those evil corporations, right?

Do you know how much in kickbacks Bevilacqua and Rigali get from corporate/GOP sponsors?  I'm not disclosing my sources, but they get plenty.  They live in the lap of luxury and meanwhile they are tools of the GOP.  They get paid off to preach this pro-life crap and put guilt trips on workign class people like you and my dad included.

OK JFern. Lets post some links then buddy.

[Keystone Phil]

The "pro-life" movement is nothing more than the corporate elite manipulating religion to their benefit.  They care not about the sanctity of life, but keeping people perpetually poor.  It is about restricting the choices of the underclasses.  The corporate marketing gurus in the GOP know that poor/working class people are essentially going to have sex regardless of the decision in Roe v. Wade.  Being "pro-life" also has the added benefit of getting mislead working class people on their side over such a petty issue.

Everyone you dislike is tied in with those evil corporations, right?

Do you know how much in kickbacks Bevilacqua and Rigali get from corporate/GOP sponsors?  I'm not disclosing my sources, but they get plenty.  They live in the lap of luxury and meanwhile they are tools of the GOP.  They get paid off to preach this pro-life crap and put guilt trips on workign class people like you and my dad included.

Right. They are Pro Life for the corporate luxuries.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haha! Good one!

[TeePee4Prez]

The "pro-life" movement is nothing more than the corporate elite manipulating religion to their benefit.  They care not about the sanctity of life, but keeping people perpetually poor.  It is about restricting the choices of the underclasses.  The corporate marketing gurus in the GOP know that poor/working class people are essentially going to have sex regardless of the decision in Roe v. Wade.  Being "pro-life" also has the added benefit of getting mislead working class people on their side over such a petty issue.

Everyone you dislike is tied in with those evil corporations, right?

Do you know how much in kickbacks Bevilacqua and Rigali get from corporate/GOP sponsors?  I'm not disclosing my sources, but they get plenty.  They live in the lap of luxury and meanwhile they are tools of the GOP.  They get paid off to preach this pro-life crap and put guilt trips on workign class people like you and my dad included.

Right. They are Pro Life for the corporate luxuries.

My next point was they are well meaning people who have no clue.  However, the abortion argument is one of the best poltiical tools the GOP has used since the 1970s in siphoning Catholic voters from their own economic interests.