Mississippi's only abortion clinic faces new hurdle

[quote name='alonzomourning23']You also can't legislate what people can do with their own body. It is an innate human right to have kids, its not exactly in the privilege like driving is. What exactly do you do if someone gets pregnant and didn't take or can't pass the test? Force an abortion? Complain about a larger government all you want, yours is much more authoritarian regardless of its size.[/QUOTE]

If someone's already pregnant then you've missed the train. I'm saying that we setup guidelines, for example

Crack-addicted... check
Has AIDS... check
Has 1 or more kids and plans on having more... check
THEN you get her tubes tied.

Granted, most of the crack-addicts will probably do the right thing and get the procedure done voluntarily, I'm just talking about the very small percentage that refuse to be responsible.

Yes, on the issue of sterilization my government is more authoritarian. However yours is bigger and more wasteful.
 
It would be sweet if there was a civilization-type game where we could put all of these policies in place and see which civ came out on top.

Sweet for policy wonks and vs nerds that is... :D
 
Nuhnononono.... You don't sterilize her. You line her and all her little crack babbies up and put a round in them. I fail to see it as a coincidence that theres her and 5 kids and a revolver has 6 chambers; Its fate.

[quote name='camoor']If someone's already pregnant then you've missed the train. I'm saying that we setup guidelines, for example

Crack-addicted... check
Has AIDS... check
Has 1 or more kids and plans on having more... check
THEN you get her tubes tied.

Granted, most of the crack-addicts will probably do the right thing and get the procedure done voluntarily, I'm just talking about the very small percentage that refuse to be responsible.

Yes, on the issue of sterilization my government is more authoritarian. However yours is bigger and more wasteful.[/QUOTE]
 
A game about this wouldn't be a bad idea.

[quote name='camoor']If someone's already pregnant then you've missed the train. I'm saying that we setup guidelines, for example

Crack-addicted... check
Has AIDS... check
Has 1 or more kids and plans on having more... check
THEN you get her tubes tied.

Granted, most of the crack-addicts will probably do the right thing and get the procedure done voluntarily, I'm just talking about the very small percentage that refuse to be responsible.

Yes, on the issue of sterilization my government is more authoritarian. However yours is bigger and more wasteful.[/QUOTE]

But mine is more respectful of human rights, and defines waste very differently.

And there's also the part of stigmatizing people with AID's, things get worse whenever that happens. If people think there are going to be consequences, other than health, they're less likely to want to get tested or seek treatment. This, in turn, makes them more likely to spread the disease. Thats not hypothetical, and happens all over the world.

You could go to the extreme and lock everyone with AIDs in a camp (like Cuba did). It works, but at what cost?

I'd also like to know how you decide they plan on having more, as if any of them would admit to it under those circumstances. You'd also probably increase the risk of infanticade (the first week of your life is statistically the week your most likely to be killed in), as people would be afraid of the consequences if this was enforced strictly.
 
[quote name='steveinneed']Pro-life is hypocritical because they put out no alternative or any other option to fix the problem. Really the only logical solution is to keep it legal and teach and encourage abstinence while keeping the choice there for isolated incidents such as rape. [/QUOTE]

Sure there are other ways to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy, and pro-lifers suggest them, but they are dismissed by those such as yourself that don't want to see alternatives. 1. People could stop having sex if they didn't want to reproduce. 2. People could use birth control if they didn't want to reproduce. 3. People could give their children up for adoption if they didn't want them (all of them would be adopted in this country). There are some reasonable alternatives for you, don't you think?

[quote name='steveinneed']Religion should have no role in terms of people's individual rights. You may still believe what you think is right but don't shove your beliefs on other people's right to choose.[/QUOTE]

I think you're making a big and erroneous assumption that I argue about murdering children from a religious perspective, when murdering children is wrong whether you are religious or not.
 
Sure there are other ways to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy, and pro-lifers suggest them, but they are dismissed by those such as yourself that don't want to see alternatives. 1. People could stop having sex if they didn't want to reproduce.
Click to expand...

Not rejected, its viewed as unreasonable and too high a standard to ever work.

2. People could use birth control if they didn't want to reproduce.
Click to expand...

Guarantee more pro life people oppose this than pro choice.

3. People could give their children up for adoption if they didn't want them (all of them would be adopted in this country). There are some reasonable alternatives for you, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Both have no real problem with this.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Sure there are other ways to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy, and pro-lifers suggest them, but they are dismissed by those such as yourself that don't want to see alternatives. 1. People could stop having sex if they didn't want to reproduce. 2. People could use birth control if they didn't want to reproduce. 3. People could give their children up for adoption if they didn't want them (all of them would be adopted in this country). There are some reasonable alternatives for you, don't you think?



I think you're making a big and erroneous assumption that I argue about murdering children from a religious perspective, when murdering children is wrong whether you are religious or not.[/QUOTE]

Actually, abortion is considered wrong by Catholics. Most of the people against abortion just don't want it because their religion tells them it's "bad". I think your the one making the assumption. You can't deny that most pro-lifer's do it because of their religion. No one likes the idea of abortions and you seem to paint the picture that pro-choice are encouraging it.

Also, since when is abortion the same as murdering children?
 
[quote name='steveinneed']Actually, abortion is considered wrong by Catholics. Most of the people against abortion just don't want it because their religion tells them it's "bad". I think your the one making the assumption. You can't deny that most pro-lifer's do it because of their religion. No one likes the idea of abortions and you seem to paint the picture that pro-choice are encouraging it.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I thought your comments were directed toward me in particular. Obviously many religious people oppose abortion and many on religious grounds. I am merely arguing for myself.

[quote name='steveinneed']Also, since when is abortion the same as murdering children?[/QUOTE]

Since you are murdering a child when you do it.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Guarantee more pro life people oppose this than pro choice.[/QUOTE]

Probably true, but not my position.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Oh, I thought your comments were directed toward me in particular. Obviously many religious people oppose abortion and many on religious grounds. I am merely arguing for myself.



Since you are murdering a child when you do it.



Probably true, but not my position.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure many people differ from that notion.
 
I'm too scared to get tested for aids. I do the round about test for aids. I ask one of my friends if they know someone with aids. They say no and I say cool- cuz they know me.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But mine is more respectful of human rights, and defines waste very differently.

And there's also the part of stigmatizing people with AID's, things get worse whenever that happens. If people think there are going to be consequences, other than health, they're less likely to want to get tested or seek treatment. This, in turn, makes them more likely to spread the disease. Thats not hypothetical, and happens all over the world.

You could go to the extreme and lock everyone with AIDs in a camp (like Cuba did). It works, but at what cost?

I'd also like to know how you decide they plan on having more, as if any of them would admit to it under those circumstances. You'd also probably increase the risk of infanticade (the first week of your life is statistically the week your most likely to be killed in), as people would be afraid of the consequences if this was enforced strictly.[/QUOTE]

All good points on the pragmatic effects of forced sterilization for AIDS infected hardcore drug-using women. Yet I still think forced sterilization is better then your suggested alternative. Your proposed rehab clinics require the crack-addict to want to stop, and universal health care would still not improve the life quality of an AIDS infected crack baby to a reasonable degree.

AIDS is a terrible problem because noone is looking for a vaccine, drug companies see more money in a cure (for rich nations) so they are just focusing on coming up with better, more expensive drug cocktails. I think that the current deplorable and shameful response of drug companies to the AIDS crisis should be the first thing that we as a people need to force change on. Quarateening AIDS victims is not a humane response, and should only be looked into as a last result. However in a place like Africa, where due to AIDS millions upon millions of young are now orphaned, starving, or worse, any and all methods to combat AIDS probably need to be considered.
 
[quote name='camoor']All good points on the pragmatic effects of forced sterilization for AIDS infected hardcore drug-using women. Yet I still think forced sterilization is better then your suggested alternative. Your proposed rehab clinics require the crack-addict to want to stop, and universal health care would still not improve the life quality of an AIDS infected crack baby to a reasonable degree.

AIDS is a terrible problem because noone is looking for a vaccine, drug companies see more money in a cure (for rich nations) so they are just focusing on coming up with better, more expensive drug cocktails. I think that the current deplorable and shameful response of drug companies to the AIDS crisis should be the first thing that we as a people need to force change on. Quarateening AIDS victims is not a humane response, and should only be looked into as a last result. However in a place like Africa, where due to AIDS millions upon millions of young are now orphaned, starving, or worse, any and all methods to combat AIDS probably need to be considered.[/QUOTE]

Are we still talking about abortion or are we talking about AIDS?
 
What has happened at the end of 2005 that I'm agreeing in lockstep with everything Camoor says?

Did I wake up from a pod this morning or did he. Strange indeed.

IKIK Camoor, there is more universal agreement here than can ever come across in an online forum. Use this as an example, ever chat with a girl you never met online? Sure, everyone has. Ever start kidding around and you know you were joking and just trying to be funny and she get's pissed off because she doesn't understand you or can't catch a "smile" or "joke" without voice inflection? Yep, that's happened to all of us too. Online isn't the best way to get your true meaning and intent out. People always read words differently.

As asked earlier, I haven't been here all day today, I do agree with Bill Clinton's statement that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I don't think any state should be without the facilities to make it so.

I think we'd pretty much even agree that if a poor woman, or any woman, wanted to be sterilized it's not a bad thing in and of itself. Now if someone would only get around to giving Shawn Kemp a vasectomy we'd be headed in the right direction.
 
I agree with camoor as well.

If a woman continues to have children where the state is already paying for her other children, then funding should be cut unless that woman agrees to sterilization. She's already had children, so that argument's moot. And if cutting off funds forces the state to take custody of her children due to deplorable living conditions for those children, then the children are probably better off with foster care.

But alas, I know this will never be implemented.
 
Your proposed rehab clinics require the crack-addict to want to stop, and universal health care would still not improve the life quality of an AIDS infected crack baby to a reasonable degree.
Click to expand...

It requires them to be concerned. Thats why its so important to have the clinics operate with an open door policy. Some countries run them like this. Anyone can show up at any time, if they seem disinterested, unwilling to put effort into it etc. they are still allowed to stay or participate to the level they choose. It makes it so whenever someone is ready to stop they have a shot at doing so. In our system many people who truly want to stop can't even get treatment due to the drugs they use (all have low rehabilitation rates but some worse than others) or due to their past history of failure.

[quote name='E-Z-B']I agree with camoor as well.

If a woman continues to have children where the state is already paying for her other children, then funding should be cut unless that woman agrees to sterilization. She's already had children, so that argument's moot. And if cutting off funds forces the state to take custody of her children due to deplorable living conditions for those children, then the children are probably better off with foster care.

But alas, I know this will never be implemented.[/QUOTE]

But you are putting a tremendous psychological strain ont he children, especially ones over the age of 4 or 5 where the full memory will linger for their life. Having a child grow up with a loving, stable, but deadbeat mom is better than having them pulled out of that environment and placed with another family due to services being cut. There's a difference between children who are beaten, neglected etc. than what you suggest, where childrens lives may have been relatively stable and with strong family bonds.
 
People like Dave Thomas have taken that memory for life and devoted their entire charitable causes to adoption programs.

Being poor, being disadvataged has produced many of the most notable figures in American history. Never underestimate the power of ordinary people to do extraordinary things.
 
I assume you are generally agreeing with me. I doubt dave thomas would have supported taking steps that would ruin strong families.

Its strange, I've agreed with you way too much lately, and you've agreed with camoor a lot. At the same time I think I have barely agreed with camoor on anything.
 
Once we stop arguing about Islam and Iraq there's more in common most Americans have. You're just used to one topic dominating discussion here.

[quote name='Quackzilla']If you ban abortion then people will go back to using coathangers.[/QUOTE]

Considering this thread had absolutely nothing to do with the righness or wrongness of abortion I have something for you to consider...

fish9vs.jpg
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']If you ban abortion then people will go back to using coathangers.[/QUOTE]

If you ban guns people will murder people with knives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top