If it were up to you, what laws would you create?

[FunnyDuddies 6]

I vote for the redhead.

Girl you just made coffee come out of my nose. LOL

[Carlene 12]

I vote for the redhead.

As good a way as any, I guess. Except there is no redhead. LOL

When my daughter was very small, she used to ask me the most impossible questions. Like..."Mommy, if the house caught on fire and you could only save one of us, which one would it be?"

I tried telling her that I would try to save ALL of them (there are 4, her and 3 older boys), that I could not choose, etc. She was relentless. "But if you HAD to choose, which one would you save?"

Finally, I told her I would save whichever child I came across first. Blind luck seemed a better/more fair way to pick than anything else.

I guess with the grandchildren, I would say the same thing. Get rid of the one in "front" - the first one you come across.

Both are dumb, rhetorical questions, but you expect stuff like that from a four year-old.

[gadgetlady 4]

I guess with the grandchildren, I would say the same thing. Get rid of the one in "front" - the first one you come across.

Both are dumb, rhetorical questions, but you expect stuff like that from a four year-old.

It's amazing that people can be so calloused about human life. "Get rid of the one in front".

The point I was trying to make is that the unborn child is an actual life, and while now you understand this child, "the one in front", to be your grandchild with a name and a face, while in utero you only considered the child to be a blob. But it was not a blob, and if your DIL had chosen to eliminate that blob, you would have one fewer grandchild to hold in your arms. The point was to make you think. Instead, you wrote it off as a rhetorical question, something a 4YO would ask. I'm sure your grandchildren wouldn't consider it rhetorical. Especially since it was one of them that you wouldn't have had a problem slating for the trash can.

[Wheetsin 714]

Ok guys, wow. I'm all for a thread evolving, but I think we've hit that point where we're starting to go downhill. FYI in case things star tlooking strange I've requested the "pro-life/pro-choice" debate split into a separate thread so that my original thread can burn on like a candle in the wind.

[Marimaru 7]

As far as LAWS go, I agree that a child (person under 18 years of age) should not be able to get an abortion without the consent of her guardian. The idea of her guardian being the parent of that unborn child (I will not contribute to the definition argument here), is a special case, in which case she should be going to the police, or a social worker anyway. I couldn't get a belly ring, or even get a tooth pulled without my mom's consent, and this is far more dangerous physically and mentally than both of those things.

[nolagirl2 0]

Girl you just made coffee come out of my nose. LOL

Haha, glad I could please. Hope it didn't hurt!

[Carlene 12]

It's amazing that people can be so calloused about human life. "Get rid of the one in front".

The point I was trying to make is that the unborn child is an actual life, and while now you understand this child, "the one in front", to be your grandchild with a name and a face, while in utero you only considered the child to be a blob. But it was not a blob, and if your DIL had chosen to eliminate that blob, you would have one fewer grandchild to hold in your arms. The point was to make you think. Instead, you wrote it off as a rhetorical question, something a 4YO would ask. I'm sure your grandchildren wouldn't consider it rhetorical. Especially since it was one of them that you wouldn't have had a problem slating for the trash can.

It IS a rhetorical question because all three of those kids are alive - none of them were "gotten rid of". And it IS a dumb question, because I have already said I could not/would not choose one child to live and another to die.

I do not like the whole idea of abortion. I don't think I would ever consider it an option FOR ME. I hate that sometimes abortion is used as retroactive birth control, and I hate that it is sometimes a choice of convenience, rather than a course of last resort. But nobody died and made me the boss. I don't have the right to browbeat other people for making choices that are - whether I like it or not - perfectly legal. And neither do you.

This is, by the way, my last post on this subject. I can almost hear the applause...:clap2:

[RavensRiches 0]

Wheatsin-----OMG Look what you started! :kiss2: And you were just talkin' about littering and cigarette butts!:high5:

:clap2: TiredOldMan----I agree with you except for one point. I don't care what term is used to describe blastocyte, embryo, fetus, neonate, baby------the bottom line is that is grows within MY BODY. Call it whatever you like. Until it is outside of me, it is under MY control. :ogre

If the issue of semantics must be brought up then lets address the real issue. Pro-Choice vs. Anti-Choice. Very few people are Anti-Life (Jeffrey Dalhmer maybe, President Bush perhaps) and fewer still are Pro-Abortion. This is about respecting each individuals right to make a very personal decision, good or bad, right or wrong, happy or sad.

The beautiful thing is that even if our right to a safe and legal abortion is taken away. There are other ways to abort. It's really not that hard in the first few days to weeks after intercourse.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/ec/fact-emergency-contraception-history.xml This will only prevent implantation of the fertilized egg---not cause an abortion.

http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/medical-ab.htm Misoprostol medication is now more commonly referred to as the "morning after pill" or "RU486".

Yes, it needs to be addressed early on but it can be done cheap, easy and with minimal discomfort for the women. Oh boy, can't wait to read the replies! Like it or not, Information is knowledge and you can't push society back into the Dark Ages (more like Inquisition here). Won't happen! :flypig:

http://www.sisterzeus.com/Pennyroyal.htm Pennyroyal tea MUST NOT be mistaken with pennyroyal oil taken internally! :hippie:

OK so now we got religion, politics, and abortion going in one thread ----- where's the sports fans!

:deadhorse:

[gadgetlady 4]

I do not like the whole idea of abortion. I don't think I would ever consider it an option FOR ME. I hate that sometimes abortion is used as retroactive birth control, and I hate that it is sometimes a choice of convenience, rather than a course of last resort.

One wonders why, if it's a perfectly legal, neutral, and acceptable act.

But nobody died and made me the boss. I don't have the right to browbeat other people for making choices that are - whether I like it or not - perfectly legal. And neither do you.

It should be illegal because it is the unjustified taking of another human life. It's not plastic surgery, it's not WLS, it's not a liver transplant or removal, it's not tattooing or ear piercing. People may have opinions about those and they're entitled to them. But none of those procedures is the deliberate killing of a human being.

My point is -- is there such a thing as a wrong law? A legal procedure or practice that shouldn't be legal?

After all, if I choose to own a slave isn't that MY CHOICE for ME and no one has the right to browbeat me for it if it IS (and it WAS) perfectly legal?

After all, Jews should be slaughtered because they're an inferior race; isn't that HITLER'S CHOICE for HIM and no one has the right to browbeat him for it?

Legality is not always a measure of rightness. There are some awfully awful laws out there. And this one is the worst of the bunch.

[j.s. 0]

"This is about respecting each individuals right to make a very personal decision,"

Amen to that!

[Meow=^..^= 1]

*This thing on???" :horn: LOL What? no comments on oil???? anyone????

[fireman20 3]

TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO

HE IS THE MARICOPA ARIZONA COUNTY SHERIFF

AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER.

THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona ) who created the "tent city jail":

He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their weights. Cut off all but "G" movies.

He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county and city projects.

Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel.

When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.

He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value.

When the inmates complained, he told them, "This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."

He bought Newt Gingrich' lecture series on videotape that he pipes into the jails.

When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

More on the Arizona Sheriff:

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.

On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees inside the week before.

Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on their chests and dripped down to their pink socks.

"It feels like we are in a furnace," said James Zanzot, an inmate who has lived in the tents for 1 year. "It's inhumane."

Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. He said Wednesday that he told all of the inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"

Way to go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one there would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.

Sheriff Joe was just reelected Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona .

[Time2live 0]

Why must all the posts that make me laugh till I pee take such a sad turn...we're making laws here not debating them.

and for the record.,...Wheetsin you make me laugh!

[RavensRiches 0]

Fireman 20-----I've never heard of Sheriff Joe! I wish we had more like him here in Oklahoma. Can we borrow him?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

:clap2: TiredOldMan----I agree with you except for one point. I don't care what term is used to describe blastocyte, embryo, fetus, neonate, baby------the bottom line is that is grows within MY BODY. Call it whatever you like. Until it is outside of me, it is under MY control. :ogre

If the issue of semantics must be brought up then lets address the real issue. Pro-Choice vs. Anti-Choice. Very few people are Anti-Life (Jeffrey Dalhmer maybe, President Bush perhaps) and fewer still are Pro-Abortion. This is about respecting each individuals right to make a very personal decision, good or bad, right or wrong, happy or sad.

:deadhorse:

The reason that I brought up the issue of semantics is that the use of semantics clouds the issues. I was going to call a fetus a form of parasite quite a while back in this thread, but decided against it because I didn't want to escalate the rhetoric into an uncivil flaming war. But another member (with the opposite point of view on the abortion issue) corrected me and called the fetus a parasite.

I wonder, then, why Ralph Reed and his "Operation Rescue" followers do not march around with signs saying?

Save the Parasites

Stop the Parasite Killers

God Loves Parasites

We all know the answer to that question. It is because not many people would be moved beyond reason to defend parasites.

I would have more respect for "Operation Rescue" and it's associated ilk if they would have signs like that or even signs saying save the fetuses. But the appeals to emotion, while less legitimate, are the highlight of their campaign. Don't get me wrong. Both sides do it. But neither side will stop and say, "Let's debate and discuss this intelligently." Emotion always seems to over-ride logic in politics.

As far as Pro-Life and Pro-choice is concerned, I am pro-choice, but neither pro-abortion nor anti-abortion. I don't like the idea of abortion, but I like the government in my medical affairs even less and I don't want unwanted babies brought into this world to be abused and neglected.

If the so-called Pro-life people were really Pro-Life they would not support congressman who cut Medicare, Medicaid and Food-Stamps, while supporting the death penalty and invasions of countries the size of California. The US public has only recently turned against the Illegal Iraqi Invasion (I3 for short) because of the loss of lives of US servicemen and women, the injuries suffered by the US servicemen and women and the money it is costing us. I was against the I3 before it started. I would have been against it even if we never lost one US servicemen or women. We have no right to kill Iraqis. They are also God's children. George H. W. Bush wrote a book (along with General Brent Scowcroft) called [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679752595/104-9798015-9364763?v=glance&n=283155]A World Transformed[/ame] in which they explain why they did not oust Saddam Hussein in 1991 during the Gulf War to Liberate Kuwait. PaPa Bush predicted everything that has come to pass after the I3. For W. BuSh and his advisors to claim they didn't realized what the results of the Invasion would be, means they didn't read the book, didn't talk to the president's father or they didn't care. I predicted these results back in 2002 when BuSh and his advisors were threatening the I3. It was only logical. The same things happened in the country formally known as Yugoslavia. But the Pro-Life BuSh administration decided that killing Innocent Iraqis would just be acceptable "collateral damage".

Governor BuSh (in the year 2000) was asked why he didn't suspend the death penalty in Texas, the execution capital of the world, after the (fellow Republican) governor of Illinois suspended his state's executions when a group of college students found that over half the people on death-row were innocent (during a school project). He answered that he was sure Texas didn't make those mistakes, even though the Texas judicial system was basically the same as the justice system of Illinois. A Pro-Life person would have stopped the executions until after some further investigations could be done. What would have been the harm?

A forum member asked me, "Why would you want there to never have to be another abortion if it isn't a bad thing? Clearly you know something's wrong with it if you want there to never have to be another one." Actually although I eat meat, I wouldn't want to work in a slaughter-house. I wouldn't want to be a sewer cleaner, nor an death-row executioner, a surgeon, a doctor that performs autopsies, a homicide detective or many other jobs which have the respect of many in the community. Just because something is not wrong, does not mean that I have to like it. I would hope that a better arrangement could be made instead of abortion, but although some claim that there are unlimited people available to adopt these unwanted children, I would feel better if there were not over a half million children needing adoption in the USA. When will these people step up to the plate? Adopt the half million children first and then worry about banning abortion. Heck, after you adopt the 536,000 children, you can bring them to the abortion clinics to picket. You can then make deals with the pregnant women, agreeing to pay for the medical costs of giving birth and agreeing to adopt the children that you would be saving from abortion. Now, that would be Pro-life.

Speaking about Pro-Life. My wife has threatened me, that if I don't get away from this computer and start doing some work around the house, that she is going to perform a retroactive abortion on me.