You addressed the fact that making alcohol illegal made people drink less... If prison deters crime then why are there so many reoffenders? You'd think they would have learned their lesson the first time around.
People did not drink less because it was illegal. they drank less because they feared the consequences, namely heavy fines or imprisonment. Prison stops many tresspasses of the law from happening in the first place. As i said before, if you take away the consequences of an action (Prison) Actions cannot be controlled (fellonies). Yes their are re offenders and some of them cannot be controlled by the law. However that fact that the law does not work 100% of the time does not mean that it does not work good for our society.
I am glad you "wanna know where I get this idea". That's a start. I got it from an interview with an adoption counselor, who said to me, There is simply not one baby that I cannot place, and in most cases the biological mother could even continue to have a relationship with the child if she wished." Even before that, I had a pretty good idea it was true when i went to my local library, trying to discover which sorts of babies were not being adopted, and discovered instead: [1] Zero books about that. [2] About 6' of books on how to actually FIND a child to adopt, how much you would have to pay to find a child to adopt, which countries in the world you could go to if you couldn't find a child to adopt in the US, and where to find a lawyer to help you find a child to adopt. Go to your own library. I bet you'll find the same stuff. Call any adoption counselor you want. As far as your other questions -- I've answered them twice ON THIS THREAD already.
For your convenience --- from post #123 As far as babies left in boxes and dumpters, well frankly it's just not the best way to find adoptive parents.
She doesn't NEED any of this, save some diapers, to take care of a baby. If she is poor, using formula is the stupidist thing she could do. Babies can be carried or slung (no stroller) they should and can be breastfed (no formula) they can sleep in your arms and with you (no crib) and you can use a lot of things for diapers. Choosing to formula feed, in an already low income or no income and stressful situation, is idiotic.
Consider two extreme views. On one extrme, that the instant a sperm and an egg unite the result is a human being in ever sense of the word and deserving of full legal protection. On the other extreme that a fetus is not human in any sense until it exits the womb and has no rights or legal status separate from its mother until it does so. I think most of us would fall between these two viewpoints. Some of us would probably stand up for the first view, but the intelligent ones of those would at least admit that reasonable, non-evil people might disagree with them. So we are left with the question as to at what point a fetus becomes human, or more specifically becomes human enough to deserve legal protection at the expense of its mother's liberty to make decisons about her body and what is going on there. I submit that this question is clearly complicated and difficult and that reasonable people of goodwill can come to different conclusions. I have strong evidence to back that up: All over this country and the world people of great intelligence, morality, and ethics, come to very different answers to this issue. As with many other issues, people with particular points of view in this case seek to use the apparatus of government to enforce their views, to make their views the basis for laws that would apply to everyone. Whether this is proper depends on one's view of government. Arguably this is just democracy in action; democracy is all about the majority imposing its will on the minority. Most of us would agree that democracy in this sort of context has its limits though; if 51% of the people think that Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard who should be booted off the airwaves they don't get to impose their will on the 49% who like Rush. The Constitutional protecton of free speech protects the majority from using its power to silence the minority. Other types of laws that the majority might use to exert its will are prohibited as well. In a broad sense this is the fundamantal question of Constitutional law: What can the majority do through the political process and what can it not do? My own view of government is to some degree libertarian, and I prefer that the powerful apparatus of the state be used mainly to provide public goods and protect property rights and not to enforce the views of the majority on issues where there is no broad consensus (abortion obviously being such an issue). This is just my opinion though; I don't imagine that everyone should agree with sreed24's views about what the role of government should be. (I wish others would be similarly open to the notion that not everyone will agree with them that an embryo is fully human) There is certainly an agrument to be made that the legailty of abortion should be decided by the democratic process rather than placed outside of it. I will note here, however, that the situation before Roe v. Wade was truly a mess. When something is criminalized that a substantial part of society doesn't see as criminal, whether it be alchohol, marijuana, or abortion, you wind up with a lot of lawless behavior. In the particular case of abortion this is particularly troubling since extralegal abortions by nature lacked the safety of abortions performed in the context of the legitimate medical system. The justices in Roe v. Wade were motivated to contrive Constitutional protection for abortion partly by the chaotic and dangerous situation before such protection was provided. I respect the convictions of the pro-life folks, especially those who seek to reduce abortion not by using the power of the state to outlaw it but by seeking to provide positive alternatives to those who might be considering an abortion. I don't doubt that Gabino is correct below when he implies below that the demand for babies in the U.S. is greater than the supply. While I don't endorse using the power of the state is criminalize abortion I don't disagree that society would be much better off with more babies being put up for adoption and fewer being aborted. I know this is an emotional issue for many, and I thank you in advance for respectful consideration of these opinions.
Not necessarily. Most pro-lifers make an exception for abortion in those rare cases when it is absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother. In other words, killing can only be justified as a last resort in order to prevent a direct threat to the life of another. This is a fundamental tenet of the Christian “just war” doctrine, which condemns the intentional targeting of noncombatants. That depends entirely on how it is presented. Many Planned Parenthood materials shamelessly encourage all sorts of sexual experimentation. Their founder, Margaret Sanger, was a pioneer of “sexual liberation,” as well as a racist eugenicist.
Not really. The scientific evidence is decisive: "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoa and the resulting mingling of the chromosomal material each brings to the union that culminates the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual. Every one of the higher animals starts life as a single cell the fertilized ovum. The union of two such sex cells to form a zygote constitutes the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual." Bradley M. Patten, M.D. (3rd Edition, 1968), New York City: McGraw-Hill. "The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual." Leslie Arey. (7th Edition, 1974). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. "Zygote. This cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being ... Development begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte to form a zygote. Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote." K.L. Moore. (2nd Ed., 1977). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 1 and 12. "The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. . Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 17 and 23. "A human being develops from a mass of living material no larger than a pinhead, material contributed by both parents and capable of living and growing for a lifetime ... This genetic makeup was established at the beginning of your life, when a haploid egg and a haploid sperm combined to produce a diploid zygote, your first somatic cell." J.H. Otto and A. Towle. . New York City: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1969. "The zygote is the starting cell of the new individual." Salvadore E. Luria, M.D. <36 Lectures in Biology>. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, 1975, page 146. "It is widely accepted and widely taught that human beings as well as other organisms reproducing by sexual reproduction …this is nothing unique to humans; this is a general biological principle ..start their existence at the time of conception or fertilization, as a single cell, the zygote." Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, M.D., Harvard Medical School, quoted in the , 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. ., 3rd Edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii. "Based on my education and background, therefore, I believe that from the moment of the union of the sperm and the egg in the human species, there is present a new living human being. The human life is there from the moment of fertilization, and its very essence starts early but is not completed until the second decade of life. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood, and that interruption at any point constitutes termination of human life." Alfred M. Bongiovanni, M.D., University of Pennsylvania Medical Professor, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 24, 1981. "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or extra- uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices [emphasis added]." "A New Ethic for Medicine and Society," 113 67, 68 (1970). "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being, a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings ... Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species." Report of the Senate Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to the Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981, page 7. Free speech is explicitly protected by the Constitution. The “right” to kill unborn babies was a judicial fabrication. See http://www.roevwade.org/myths2.html. Unfortunately, the pro-abortion lobby and its allies in the Democratic party (and the judiciary) have stridently opposed even the most modest restrictions on abortion, such as informed consent and parental notification. Here in Oregon, they’ve even forced taxpayers to subsidize abortion. So much for the “pro-choice” euphemism!
A racist eugenicist??? LOL.I suppose you mean this to be that...she promotes interracial mixing.perhaps she made a comment about fucking race into extinction?? if all of us fuck eachother and have kids...eventually we'd all be the same race?..this is bad? hell! the earth would be better if we were all the same damn color.we should fuck away races. sexual liberation is a bad thing?????? having sex is bad????? being free and loving your own sexual being is bad??? sexual experimentation is bad??? well Huck Finn Laden I guess we are oh-so lucky to have your pious ass here to straighten all us evil sex-enjoying heathens out.
Abortion.... Darn, even the word makes me want to hurl... My cousin got AIDS for an abortion clinic in New York. She had the abortion because her daughter was complaining the she wanted to be her "only baby". My cousin really wanted this child too... I think that's idiotic... My cousin Candy really wanted that child but no, she listened to her selfish daughter, got an abortion, and then got AIDS and then died in 2000. I probably will never forgive either of them. All people think is about themselves, everything's them them them, and no one else. Close your eyes, listen to the truth. I know all you pro-choice people out there are going to ask me that same question... "What if a woman gets raped?!" I think pro-choice people ask that and say "It's the WOMAN's body!" because they have nothing else to protest with. Rape victims have the day after pill... If they don't want to say that they have been raped and want a day after pill that's THEIR CHOICE. I'm pro-choice, but only to a certain extent. I like how people say "Well, it's just a BLOB of CELLS which have no life form at all." The truth is those cells are LIVING, and you KILL them with abortion. What the heck do you think we are? Our whole body is made up of cells, and so is a fetus's. A fetus is still a body, no matter how you look at it, just because it's not walking and talking doesn't mean that it isn't LIVING. It's still life just waiting to come out to the world and possibly change it. If a teenage girl decides to have sex with her boyfriend that's THEIR CHOICE, but if the girl, which I now consider a woman, gets pregnant she can always have the baby because it was THEIR CHOICE to have intercourse in the first place, therefore they KNEW what may happen. There's plenty of sex education out there, I think they should know when you have sex you MAY have a child depending on the woman's or man's reproductive system, or the effects of the birth contol taken. Maybe that will open your eyes up, I don't know. Just stop, think, and listen. Renee
What sort of sexual experimentation does PP "shamelessly" encourage? I am not a supporter of abstinence-only sex ed programs. At all.
Quite the opposite: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm If you’re truly oblivious to the rampant harmful consequences of casual sex, then you’re hopelessly deluded. See: http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=414 and http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?entryid=750
I am sure these programs help a handful of people out of a group. And if that is what it helps then it has done a good job at being effective. But young people can't really understand the whole big deal about adult choices because they have not been there yet and thats why reality is a bitch when you get pregnant at a young age.
