An open letter.... - Page 4

garysher · 07-23-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

To the contrary, a woman's choice to have sex does not make her the property of the state, the property of the man involved, or anyone else's property. Her body still belongs to her and she has the full range of choices involving her own body.

We know you enjoy this melodramatic tactic involving sweeping statements about "property of the state", "property of the man" and women's "rights"

All of which is designed to distract from the fact that abortion means killing an unborn baby.

Apparently the baby has no rights and is the property of the devil.

OKgrannie · 07-23-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

We know you enjoy this melodramatic tactic involving sweeping statements about "property of the state", "property of the man" and women's "rights"

All of which is designed to distract from the fact that abortion means killing an unborn baby.

Apparently the baby has no rights and is the property of the devil.

We know you enjoy this annoying tactic involving sweeping statements regarding women losing all rights as soon as they choose to have sex, well you would put it more vulgarly, but we all recognize your tactics.

All of which is designed to distract from the fact that abortion means women have more power than you want them to have.

The fetus has no rights and is the property of the woman to whom it is attached. Since the woman's body views the fetus as a part of her, she is free to make any decisions regarding the fetus just as she would make any other decisions regarding her body.

Women aren't ever going to go back to being under men's thumbs, get over it.

waitingtables · 07-24-2008, 12:53 PM

That's right, Gary. Try squeezing you brain around the idea that women aren't property of the state or of their husbands or boyfriends, and during the first trimester, neither is a baby. A baby is the sole property of the body that is gestating it.

08-03-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

We know you enjoy this annoying tactic involving sweeping statements regarding women losing all rights as soon as they choose to have sex, well you would put it more vulgarly, but we all recognize your tactics.

.

HYPERPOLE. No one is saying women should lose all rights. All we are saying is they shouldnt have the right to kill anyone. No one else is allowed to kill anyone. Why should you have special rights?

OnTheLeft · 08-03-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

HYPERPOLE. No one is saying women should lose all rights. All we are saying is they shouldnt have the right to kill anyone. No one else is allowed to kill anyone. Why should you have special rights?

A non-viable fetus is not a person, Grace. That precedent was set way back in '73 with Roe v Wade. Do you have any valid proof that a fetus is indeed an infant under the law?

Women own their bodies and the contents of their bodies. A fetus has no legal right to gestate inside the body of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.

08-03-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheLeft

A non-viable fetus is not a person, Grace. That precedent was set way back in '73 with Roe v Wade. Do you have any valid proof that a fetus is indeed an infant under the law?

That precedent was set back in 73, by a Doctor that has made a large fortune in performing abortions since. No, I have no proof that a fetuse is a infant under the law. I do have proof however that many laws written by man are flawed, and over turned all the time.

Quote:

Women own their bodies and the contents of their bodies. A fetus has no legal right to gestate inside the body of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant.

I dont totaly dissagree. I just feel that decission should have been made BEFORE they decided to have unprotected sexual relations. Everyone is expected to be held responcible for their actions, execpt a unresponcible mother. Why?

OnTheLeft · 08-03-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace

That precedent was set back in 73, by a Doctor that has made a large fortune in performing abortions since.

No, that precedent was set by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices don't perform abortions.

Quote:

No, I have no proof that a fetuse is a infant under the law.

Thank you.

Quote:

I dont totaly dissagree. I just feel that decission should have been made BEFORE they decided to have unprotected sexual relations.

How do you know anyone had unprotected sex? Birth control isn't 100% effective, y'know. Perhaps they're a victim of asinine "abstinence only" teachings and don't even know what birth control is.

Quote:

Everyone is expected to be held responcible for their actions, execpt a unresponcible mother. Why?

Why do you consider it "responsible" to force women to have children they're not going to care for? That's grossly irresponsible in my book.

Wow · 08-03-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman

I agree. Denying qualified gay people from adopting children who need a loving home is just not right.

There is the very real possibility that such children will develop emotional problems, sexual-identity confusion, and depression. Again, this is not because gays and lesbians are naturally bad parents. It is due to the fact that children are unlikely to adjust as well to being raised by same-sex couples as opposed to heterosexual ones.
Thus far, the evidence on gay adoption is inconclusive.
One might reasonably argue that this means we should wait until more scientifically sound studies are completed before our society makes any decision regarding gay adoption. Yet by the time such studies are completed, gay adoption could be firmly entrenched in our society, making it very difficult to stop.

The American Spectator

Wow · 08-03-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheLeft

No, that precedent was set by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices don't perform abortions.

Thank you.

How do you know anyone had unprotected sex? Birth control isn't 100% effective, y'know. Perhaps they're a victim of asinine "abstinence only" teachings and don't even know what birth control is.

Why do you consider it "responsible" to force women to have children they're not going to care for? That's grossly irresponsible in my book.

Currently, humans are fined and/or incarcerated for not providing good healthcare, good food and a good home for their pets.
Why don't human babies get equal protection under our laws?

Planned Parenthood had $56 million in profits in 2007. 30% of those profits came from taxpayer's pockets.
Abortion is a very profitable business and abortion clinics are in deplorable conditions. They can not treat a woman that is bleeding to death from a botched abortion. That seems grossly irresponsible in my book!

CrazyFlamingos · 08-03-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wow

There is the very real possibility that such children will develop emotional problems, sexual-identity confusion, and depression. Again, this is not because gays and lesbians are naturally bad parents. It is due to the fact that children are unlikely to adjust as well to being raised by same-sex couples as opposed to heterosexual ones.
Thus far, the evidence on gay adoption is inconclusive.
One might reasonably argue that this means we should wait until more scientifically sound studies are completed before our society makes any decision regarding gay adoption. Yet by the time such studies are completed, gay adoption could be firmly entrenched in our society, making it very difficult to stop.

The American Spectator

All studies to date indicate that this is not true.

Quote:

In an April 2001 article in the American Sociological Review, researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California reported the results of their examination of 21 studies on gay parenting. Stacey and Biblarz found that although "the authors of all 21 studies almost uniformly claim to find no differences in measures of parenting or child outcomes," their examination of the data suggests that the children of gay parents demonstrate some differences in gender behavior and preferences. Lesbian mothers reported their children, especially daughters, are less likely to conform to cultural gender norms in dress, play, and behavior, and are more likely to aspire to nontraditional gender occupations, such as doctors, lawyers, or engineers. They also discovered that although the children of gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual than the children of heterosexual parents, they are more likely to consider or experiment with same-sex relationships during young adulthood.

Stacey and Biblarz also found that the children of homosexual parents show no difference in levels of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, behavior problems, or social performance, but do show a higher level of affection, responsiveness, and concern for younger children and "seem to exhibit impressive psychological strength."

Gay parents were found to be more likely to equally share child care and household duties, and the children of gay partners reported closer relationships to the parent who was not their primary caregiver than did the children of heterosexual couples. "These findings imply that lesbian coparents may enjoy greater parental compatibility and achieve particularly high quality parenting skills, which may help explain the striking findings on parent-child relationships."

Stacey and Biblarz point out that the differences they found should not be considered deficits. "They either favor the children with lesbigay parents, are secondary effects of social prejudice, or represent 'just a difference' of the sort democratic societies should respect and protect." They go on to stress that categorizing parents as gay or heterosexual "erroneously impl[ies] that a parent's sexual orientation is the decisive characteristic of his or her parenting." They suggest that sexual orientation only matters because homophobia and discrimination say it matters.

Child Welfare League of America: Children's Voice Article: Article

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode