Political Crossfire Forums

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Here: Morality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

A common version of a moral code is a legal code which states the penalties or corrective actions associated with any particular act...

Ethics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Ethics has been applied to economics, politics and political science, leading to several distinct and unrelated fields of applied ethics, including Business ethics and Marxism.

Ethics has been applied to family structure, sexuality, and how society views the roles of individuals; leading to several distinct and unrelated fields of applied ethics, including feminism.

Moral Ethics has been applied to war, leading to the fields of pacifism and nonviolence.

Ethics has been applied to analyze human use of Earth's limited resources. This has led to the study of environmental ethics and social ecology. A growing trend has been to combine the study of both ecology and economics to help provide a basis for sustainable decisions on environmental use. This has led to the theories of ecological footprint and bioregional autonomy. Political and social movements based on such ideas include eco-feminism, eco-anarchism, deep ecology, the green movement, and ideas about their possible integration into Gaia philosophy.

Ethics has been applied to criminology leading to the field of criminal justice.

There are several sub-branches of applied ethics examining the ethical problems of different professions, such as business ethics, medical ethics, engineering ethics and legal ethics, while technology assessment and environmental assessment study the effects and implications of new technologies or projects on nature and society. Each branch characterizes common issues and problems that may arise, and define their common responsibility to the public, e.g. to preserve its natural capital, or to obey some social expectations of honest dealings and disclosure.

(Lets not get the two confused ok)

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Ethics derive from Morality not the other way around.

Wikipedia wrote: Morality, in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong.

Wikipedia wrote: Ethics (from Greek ἦθος meaning "custom") is the branch of axiology, one of the four major branches of philosophy, which attempts to understand the nature of morality;

No one has proved the Morality or Immorality of abortion conclusively, so it is illogical to say it is one or the other.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:46 am Post subject:

Ethics the study of how humans interact in society, morals are a persons personal yet often subscriptive code of action as to how this is to be undertaking.

Morality is part of the school of ethics, lying in the subschool of normative ethics.

This is what i do, trust me on this.

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Hey, i'm just quoting the source she used.

Regardless you can't start a proof with 'this is unethical' and then have it prove 'this is immoral'. You established with the statement 'this is unethical' that the persons morals are already in question.

Hecatomb · Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 46

All philosophies, no matter what religoun you come from would say abortion is bad.. is that way people claim to be athiest? So they can litteraly get away with murder? That's so cheap..

Christianity:
Obviously I don't need to go into detail why this is a sin in thier eyes..

Buddhism:
Yep, the mostly passive, freindly Buddhist, atleast if they're real Buddhist, would take abortion very seriously. It's bad karma, it stems from selfishness and a need for control of your situation. ("I didn't want this baby! I want control of my life!") Not to meation you might be giving the unborn baby some bad karma by wrongfuly killing it.. So you invaraibly gain more bad karma vicarously through screwing over someone else'es. That's a net-loss if I ever saw it..

Wicca:
Simaler reasons as Buddhist, though Wiccans are less inclined to tell you otherwise because they can't seem to wrap thier heads around the fact that "harm none" always comes before "do as thou will".

Satanism:
Yep, the non-diestic philosophy of "self preservation" is against it too. Children and animals are sacred. That's pwn4g3 against the pro-choice movement if I ever saw it..

Islam:
Simaler reasons as Christianity.

Judaism:
Ditto.

Taoism:
Everyone is born for a reason to create universal balance, you killing the child results in a gross imbalance. If the child was meant to die, you would have a miscarriage. Taoists are big on fate and playing along in it's game.

Druidism:
Druids believe a soul is put into the body at the time of conception, so maybe this religoun could be the closest to pro-choice as they lack a soul up untill they're born, HOWEVER.. druids are quick to defend children, because that is the soul's one and only oppurtunity to come into this plane, to learn life's lessons, and grow spiritualy, and they have a big problem with people robbing them of that.

And Luciferinsm:
Yep, real devil-worshipers don't like it much either, or atleast shouldn't. The devil has strong motives for capturing the minds and hearts of the youth, he has plans for everyone and everything, much like God.. and you intervening messes up those plans completely..

Therfore, only godless heathons who convince themself they don't know right from wrong, and people who are a poor display of thier supposed religoun are pro-choice. What a crowd to be proud of..

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Hecatomb wrote: All philosophies, no matter what religoun you come from would say abortion is bad..

:!oops: philosophy isn't religion.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Its not really about philosophy, or even religion, its about how our actions benefit the greater good.. otherwise murder WOULD be subjective. Clearly, murder does nothing to benefit society, and, overall, society sees it as an "unethical action", therefore, we deem it immoral, or "wrong".

Ethics trump morality, but since morality is how law is derived, we have to assess the ethical nature of different actions (how does this benefit, more than harm) to enact legislation or even commonlaw or policy into play.

Anyways, sorry for hijacking the thread, I reckon, but I wanted to really clarify that when many people deem something to be immoral, or wrong, it is usually derived from the ethical views, or being seen as less helpful than harmful to society as a whole.

Hecatomb · Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 46

Sailor Moon gets it, we have to think about society over ourselves, because ultimately what bennefits society, bennefits us to a greater extent then one selfish choice. Let's use math to settle this..

Your parents are 1/2 "you" from a genetic perspective, so thier opinions count alot, if you have two parents, and they don't like abortion, they equal your "1". And for the sake of moral evolution, perhaps you should go with thier advise despite how mathamaticaly it's fair either way.

Cousins become 1/4 "you", therefore it would take four cousins opinions to equal your own.

And siblings, if they come from the same parents as you, also equal "1", so you should greatly consider thier advise..

All in all, there's a higher probability of the equasion for pro-life being higher then pro-choice on a human fitness level.. Even if people you don't know is 1/100 of "you", there's alot of pro-life people and alot of pro-choice people as well, sense we cannot caculate EVERYONE, caculate your family and friends, consider friends do to social family to be about 1/10th of "you".

I find it suprisingly ignorant of American pro-choice advocates who act as if Christians rule the world, if they did, abortion wouldn't be a subject of debate now would it? And even if they did, then that would mean from an evolutionary staindpoint, it is better to go with thier options cause of the total ratio of genes.. Either way you slice the cake, it comes out the same.

That's morality for you..

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5072

johnson wrote: Although when I can close my open mind I can barely manage to understand why some people might be anti-abortion, I cannot for the life of me understand why the anti-abortionist movement comes across like a such a group of losers to the rest of us.
It could be because you yourself have a small narrow mind or that your thinking is impaired. I couldn't say for sure...I'll I have to go on is what you just wrote.

Quote: No offense here gang, but does the media look for the craziest most religious most zealous freakazoid in the protest, or do you generally find anti-abortionists to be religious and outspoken as a group?
People opposed to abortion are not always opposed to it for the right reason. Who the media chooses to represent a particular view is up to them and anyone who doesn't take what the MSM says with a grain salt needs to get their head examined.

Quote: Are you people embarassed by the nutcases or do you find them simple speaking from intense passion?
Another assinine question that doesn't deserve a response.

Quote: I have yet to see an anti-abortionist in the media who's not either screaming verses or adding in hatred of gays, jews, or this or that politician or celebrity.
That could be because you don't know where to look or maybe your television has been taken over by Fox.

Quote: Meanwhile, i wonder how anti-abortionists feel about the war overseas. Do they support us infringing on the exact type of society that bans abortion?
It depends on who the anti-abortionist you are asking feels.

Quote: It would seem to be the right wing religious american is not much different from the taliban, so how do you people feel about the war?
I'm not a rightwinger and neither are a sizeable portion of those who oppose abortion are. Your attempt to group anti-abortionists together is weak and pathetic and makes your arguments no more coherent than that of a segregationist.

Hecatomb · Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 46

The fact that you have that blimpy sig should've been proof enough you aren't right-wing, not the most observant member is he?

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5072

Hecatomb wrote: The fact that you have that blimpy sig should've been proof enough you aren't right-wing, not the most observant member is he?
He was generalizing; pretty much just foaming at the mouth. :lol:

AmericaFirst · Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject:

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: By and large, I would say the answer is both, though I might add....

People are often committed for talking to invisible people who aren't there.

Something to think about.

How about thinking about this: in response to your footer quote on abstinence, it ISN'T 99% effective, it is 100% effective - that kind of rationalization (about "not living the life you want") is what makes anti-abortionists - who are neither always "crazy" nor "religious" opposed to the "pro-choice" point of view in general.

You can't see your brain, can you? Does that mean you don't have one? :duh1:

feederband · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 3885 Location: Florida

AmericaFirst wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: By and large, I would say the answer is both, though I might add....

People are often committed for talking to invisible people who aren't there.

Something to think about.

How about thinking about this: in response to your footer quote on abstinence, it ISN'T 99% effective, it is 100% effective - that kind of rationalization (about "not living the life you want") is what makes anti-abortionists - who are neither always "crazy" nor "religious" opposed to the "pro-choice" point of view in general.

You can't see your brain, can you? Does that mean you don't have one? :duh1:

I know I have a brain...I could bash someones head in and there it would be.Everyone has a brain they just use less of it than others...My brain tell me That invisible, do nothing ,supernatural gods are actually Just Plain nothing. Its just for some people that need a invisible friend to help them though their miserable existence even though he never does anything to help out...I know how A bunch of believer buddies live..I'm glad I woke up a long time ago...

Oh and I'm pro- life And pro- death

The Grandmaster · Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject:

AmericaFirst wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: By and large, I would say the answer is both, though I might add....

People are often committed for talking to invisible people who aren't there.

Something to think about.

How about thinking about this: in response to your footer quote on abstinence, it ISN'T 99% effective, it is 100% effective

A person through every ability of their will can practice abstinence, yet, through circumstances out of their control, still become pregnant or get a disease from rape. Unless you plan to tell the girl who is raped…”Well hun..hey, you failed practicing abstinence because you were raped.”

AmericaFirst wrote: that kind of rationalization (about "not living the life you want") is what makes anti-abortionists - who are neither always "crazy" nor "religious" opposed to the "pro-choice" point of view in general.

That’s why I put it there AmericaFirst. To piss off self righteous prudes who view sex as an abomination and want to ban abortions to try to prevent the “atrocity” of “fornication” from taking place. For me, sex is an integral part of being happy and adds greatly to my life, other people’s arbitrary view that this shouldn’t be the case notwithstanding.

AmericaFirst wrote: You can't see your brain, can you? Does that mean you don't have one? :duh1:

Well s**t! And Thus…GOD MUST EXIST! I can’t see my brain….and so God must Exist! Holy Lord….I have seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen the light!!!!! *Beats chest* I have been defeated….no one can hope to counter such a formidable response. If one cannot see one’s brain, it can only mean that God must necessarily exist.

Well thanks for that incredible demonstration. I see now why you were in a position to post the little “duh” face a little while ago.

AmericaFirst · Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject:

feederband wrote: AmericaFirst wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: By and large, I would say the answer is both, though I might add....

People are often committed for talking to invisible people who aren't there.

Something to think about.

How about thinking about this: in response to your footer quote on abstinence, it ISN'T 99% effective, it is 100% effective - that kind of rationalization (about "not living the life you want") is what makes anti-abortionists - who are neither always "crazy" nor "religious" opposed to the "pro-choice" point of view in general.

You can't see your brain, can you? Does that mean you don't have one? :duh1:

I know I have a brain...I could bash someones head in and there it would be.Everyone has a brain they just use less of it than others...My brain tell me That invisible, do nothing ,supernatural gods are actually Just Plain nothing. Its just for some people that need a invisible friend to help them though their miserable existence even though he never does anything to help out...I know how A bunch of believer buddies live..I'm glad I woke up a long time ago...

Oh and I'm pro- life And pro- death

I am a believer and am FAR from miserable. In reference to the "believer buddies" statement, that leads me to believe you are fairly young(?) Too bad you're that cynical that soon....

I am not a "holy roller" as some like to refer to believers - I just know in my life, too much has happened for me to need to question the existence of God - He's there, that's all I need to know...

O.Maynard · Joined: 28 Feb 2006 Posts: 1

If death occurs with no heartbeat or no brain activity, then life occurs with the heartbeat with brain activity.A human soul is the awarness of being,(seeing,touching,feeling).In death the soul departs,In life the soul enters.So the answer is no, not crazyand yes many base there belief that abortion is MURDER (including my own)in there faith. We as a civilized nation need to protect the most innocent and helpless, for if we don't whether you believe it or not judgment will fall.

AmericaFirst · Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:05 am Post subject:

The Grandmaster wrote: AmericaFirst wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: By and large, I would say the answer is both, though I might add....

People are often committed for talking to invisible people who aren't there.

Something to think about.

How about thinking about this: in response to your footer quote on abstinence, it ISN'T 99% effective, it is 100% effective

A person through every ability of their will can practice abstinence, yet, through circumstances out of their control, still become pregnant or get a disease from rape. Unless you plan to tell the girl who is raped…”Well hun..hey, you failed practicing abstinence because you were raped.”

AmericaFirst wrote: that kind of rationalization (about "not living the life you want") is what makes anti-abortionists - who are neither always "crazy" nor "religious" opposed to the "pro-choice" point of view in general.

That’s why I put it there AmericaFirst. To piss off self righteous prudes who view sex as an abomination and want to ban abortions to try to prevent the “atrocity” of “fornication” from taking place. For me, sex is an integral part of being happy and adds greatly to my life, other people’s arbitrary view that this shouldn’t be the case notwithstanding.

AmericaFirst wrote: You can't see your brain, can you? Does that mean you don't have one? :duh1:

Well s**t! And Thus…GOD MUST EXIST! I can’t see my brain….and so God must Exist! Holy Lord….I have seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen the light!!!!! *Beats chest* I have been defeated….no one can hope to counter such a formidable response. If one cannot see one’s brain, it can only mean that God must necessarily exist.

Well thanks for that incredible demonstration. I see now why you were in a position to post the little “duh” face a little while ago.

The reason I have little tolerance for "pro-choice" and/or liberals were just depicted perfectly by your post. You are smug and condescending and presumptuous.

It's a pitiful cop-out to use tired lines like "pro-life people are prudes that dsemonize sex" - what a CROCK! I LOVE sex, just ask my WIFE. And no, I don't think sex is just for "breeding" .

You mock religion but guess what? The MAJORITY of the world believes in God in some way, shape or form. Call Him God or Allah or whatever so your mocking me there is just sad.

And as far as abortions go, no, I don't think they should be banned and if you'd bother to read a few more of my posts before you go ahead and categorize me and every other person who thinks that SLAUGHTERING 46 MILLION CHILDREN A YEAR is something to be concerned about, not sex as you and your ilk try and make it out to be.

Two words (although you probably aren't familiar with them, especially in the same sentence): Personal Responsibility. 46 million abortions aren't the result of rapes or "accidents". They LARGELY aren't done because the mother's life is in danger. They are done because people who were too immature to make decent decisions regarding sex or adults that have been conditioned by LIBERAL society to take the easy way out and not account for yourself and your actions.

47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

I have TWO family members (that I know of) that have had abortions. BOTH of them have been permanently traumatized by this and wish they had been more responsible and still regret that it happened - in their cases 17 and 27 years AFTER the abortions occurred.

Do I think someone should be forced to bear a child they don't want? Not necessarily and DEFINITELY NOT in the cases of rape or where the mothers life is in danger.

Do I think people should be more accountable for their actions and that the LIBERALIZATION of society has led to the DOUBLING of the number of abortions taking place in the U.S. between 1973 and 1996. Irresponsible behavior.

Do I want women seeking illegal abortions? NO! Do I want people acting like more responsible adults? Hell yes. I wouldn't expect a liberal to understand that.....

The Grandmaster · Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject:

AmericaFirst wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: AmericaFirst wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: By and large, I would say the answer is both, though I might add....

People are often committed for talking to invisible people who aren't there.

Something to think about.

How about thinking about this: in response to your footer quote on abstinence, it ISN'T 99% effective, it is 100% effective

A person through every ability of their will can practice abstinence, yet, through circumstances out of their control, still become pregnant or get a disease from rape. Unless you plan to tell the girl who is raped…”Well hun..hey, you failed practicing abstinence because you were raped.”

AmericaFirst wrote: that kind of rationalization (about "not living the life you want") is what makes anti-abortionists - who are neither always "crazy" nor "religious" opposed to the "pro-choice" point of view in general.

That’s why I put it there AmericaFirst. To piss off self righteous prudes who view sex as an abomination and want to ban abortions to try to prevent the “atrocity” of “fornication” from taking place. For me, sex is an integral part of being happy and adds greatly to my life, other people’s arbitrary view that this shouldn’t be the case notwithstanding.

AmericaFirst wrote: You can't see your brain, can you? Does that mean you don't have one? :duh1:

Well s**t! And Thus…GOD MUST EXIST! I can’t see my brain….and so God must Exist! Holy Lord….I have seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen the light!!!!! *Beats chest* I have been defeated….no one can hope to counter such a formidable response. If one cannot see one’s brain, it can only mean that God must necessarily exist.

Well thanks for that incredible demonstration. I see now why you were in a position to post the little “duh” face a little while ago.

The reason I have little tolerance for "pro-choice" and/or liberals were just depicted perfectly by your post. You are smug and condescending and presumptuous.

I certainly am sometimes. But like always, not all of us are, and it is a generalization one cannot make that all pro-choice people are this way. Indeed, I too am guilty of making generalizations from time to time. It is something both side would do well to improve upon.

AmericaFirst wrote: It's a pitiful cop-out to use tired lines like "pro-life people are prudes that dsemonize sex" - what a CROCK! I LOVE sex, just ask my WIFE. And no, I don't think sex is just for "breeding" .

Really? That is excellent. Then you are a refreshing change from a lot of people I have met on these forums. You’d be surprised some of the things I’ve come across in here, and in real life. People who believe it is altogether wrong to have sex more than twice in your life is you only plan to have 2 kids. People who believe sex is a curse word and not to be uttered in any good company. Believe me, I’ve seen them.

AmericaFirst wrote: You mock religion but guess what?

It was not my intention to mock religion, but rather, the argument you used to support it, which is a very common one. My point was, when I say I don’t believe in God because it has altogether been failed to be demonstrated to me that he exists, people often respond by the following “Do you love your mom…well prove it.” And “Can you see ‘object X?’ No? but surely these things exists too do they not?” The mere fact that one person cannot observe something, does not provide evidence for the conclusion that something else unrelated exists. That I cannot see my brain, is not a good premise to support God’s existence.

AmericaFirst wrote: The MAJORITY of the world believes in God in some way, shape or form. Call Him God or Allah or whatever so your mocking me there is just sad.

If God is to exist, I would need to have evidence aside of popular opinion, to be convinced. Remember, the great majority of the worlds population once believed the world revolved around the sun, and that it was also flat. We know that appeal to popular opinion does not have a result on the verity of a conclusion, I.E. If you threw a ball into the air, it would fall back down to earth whether the majority of people believed it would or not.

AmericaFirst wrote: And as far as abortions go, no, I don't think they should be banned

That is excellent then. We are in agreement on this then.

AmericaFirst wrote: and if you'd bother to read a few more of my posts before you go ahead and categorize me and every other person who thinks that SLAUGHTERING 46 MILLION CHILDREN A YEAR is something to be concerned about

That is just the thing AmericaFirst, we do not believe 46 million children are being slaughtered a year. The entire debate is whether or not that which is inside is a child.

I also go further as well, and question the entire notion that there is such a thing as “the right to live inside of another.” as well.

AmericaFirst wrote: not sex as you and your ilk try and make it out to be.

As I said above, for some of the people I have come acress it is about the sex as well.

AmericaFirst wrote: Two words (although you probably aren't familiar with them, especially in the same sentence): Personal Responsibility.

Again, your posit contains as resolved one of the very things in question in the abortion debate, that the only thing that can be classified as personal responsibility is carrying something to term against one’s wishes. We happen to believe making the choice to get an abortion is taking responsibility.

AmericaFirst wrote: 46 million abortions aren't the result of rapes or "accidents". They LARGELY aren't done because the mother's life is in danger. They are done because people who were too immature to make decent decisions regarding sex or adults that have been conditioned by LIBERAL society to take the easy way out and not account for yourself and your actions.

See above, having an abortion is taking responsibility for your actions. And it was interesting how you contradicted yourself here, by saying abortion is the easy way out, when not but a few sentences later in this post, you go on to claim how not easy and horrible it was for two people you know.

AmericaFirst wrote: 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

Again, as I believe abortion to a point is an amoral choice, (neither right nor wrong) I do not care if 99 percent of abortions were performed on women who had already had one.

AmericaFirst wrote: I have TWO family members (that I know of) that have had abortions. BOTH of them have been permanently traumatized by this and wish they had been more responsible and still regret that it happened - in their cases 17 and 27 years AFTER the abortions occurred.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. I know of several people who have had an abortion and were perfectly fine with it. You cannot say everyone finds it harmful to themselves or regrets it based off of a sample of two people.

Furthermore, even if it was harmful, it could be better for the person than the alternative of carrying the child to term, which in some cases can ruin a women’s life. Also, many things are already harmful. If we were to ban (I know you do not claim to want to ban abortion, this is only an illustration of a point) everything based on the fact it was potentially harmful, sugar, pop, cigarettes and countless other things would be banned as well.

AmericaFirst wrote: Do I think someone should be forced to bear a child they don't want? Not necessarily and DEFINITELY NOT in the cases of rape or where the mothers life is in danger.

Good.

AmericaFirst wrote: Do I think people should be more accountable for their actions and that the LIBERALIZATION of society has led to the DOUBLING of the number of abortions taking place in the U.S. between 1973 and 1996. Irresponsible behavior.

For the third time, your argument that abortions are irresponsible, or the result of irresponsible behavior is circular, as it is assumes the very thing it is trying to prove. I don’t believe abortion or sex resulting in the need for an abortion is necessarily irresponsible. Many pregnancies happen during sex that is largely considered to be responsible.

AmericaFirst wrote: Do I want women seeking illegal abortions? NO! Do I want people acting like more responsible adults? Hell yes. I wouldn't expect a liberal to understand that.....

Weren’t you just saying something a while ago angry about someone making a generalization about an entire group?

:lol:

AmericaFirst · Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:47 pm Post subject:

Touché - you're right, I shouldn't be making any generalizations about people. Let me claify by saying this - tha MAJORITY of liberals I know believe in this "right" or that "freedom", yet also are most frequently the ones that want us to increase welfare and disability and "social programs". Now, if you don't dig any deeper, that sounds like liberals are WONDERFUL people that care about humanity, and in a lot of cases, they are. But you also CANNOT ignore underlying facts.

The liberals I have come across tend to be the ones that not only support abortion but expect the rest of us to feed, clothe and house the rest of society that can't retrain themselves from having a flock of kids they can't afford - and be happy about it. Well, I'm NOT. My wife is a counselor and is a semi-liberal - less-so since her eyes were opened to the workings of the "social welfare" system - at least here in Massachusetts. No one bothers to learn english, women have 4, 5 kids by 26 and live with their "boyfriend" (illegally as they are getting section 8 and the boyfriend is not listed as an occupant. He also may or may not be the father of one or more of the children). The children all get SSDI for having dyslexia or ADD - a crock of sh*t if I ever heard it - and the mom is often on "disability" herself, for various reasons.

Conversely, we have the ones who have 3 or 4 abortions by the time they are 30.

Yes, I call BOTH cases of the LACK OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

As far as a "fetus" being a child, I will say this: how hypocritical is it for someone to NOT consider the fetus a baby if they don't want children (at least at that time) but then they get all excited and happy when they see the ultrasound of their own or a friends or relatives? I don't know HOW someone can see an ultrasound, hear the heartbeat and NOT think it is a wonderful thing. I am not some happy horsesh*t kind of guy either....

One's relationship with God is a personal thing. I won't hit someone over the head with a bible and preach fire and damnation to anyone. I will relate MY personal experience with God and hope someday you get it. That's all I can do as far as that goes.....

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm
CDC wrote: Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually until it peaked in 1990, and it has generally declined thereafter (Figure 1).
Though bear in mind many states did not report and some figures were estimated. They also were only collected nationally from 1969 onwards. Also since you could only have a legal abortion after 1973.....I would say that the better reporting and the ability to actually have a legal abortion accounts for the increase. Now it is declining as better education and economics influence it.

Not the increased depravity of society.