Talk about overpopulation, there'll be kids everywhere!

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

I can understand why people are against abortion. Even though I don't want it made illegal, I like babies and I don't think that I'd personally be able to have an abortion. Still, the push to curtail women from even getting birth control seems backwards to me. If you are Pro-Life and don't want there to be more abortions, stop making it so hard for women to prevent pregnancy in the first place!!!


Abortion: Bush Administration Memo Tries To Define Birth Control As Abortion

[Angela]

So, a Scientologist pharmacist would be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription for anti-depressants? A Pastafarian wouldn't be required to fill an Rx for Lycopene?

If we're not going to discriminate against christians, we have to be consistent across the board!

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Angela

So, a Scientologist pharmacist would be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription for anti-depressants? A Pastafarian wouldn't be required to fill an Rx for Lycopene?

If we're not going to discriminate against christians, we have to be consistent across the board!

Hahaha.

I just don't understand the logic really. I wouldn't become a surgeon if I had moral objections to cutting someone open. Why be a pharmacist if you refuse to provide the service which that position requires?

[Angela]

Maybe for access to the vicodin, for soothing the old psychic wounds of catechism.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Angela

Maybe for access to the vicodin, for soothing the old psychic wounds of catechism.

[PianoManGidley]

I would have rather read a more neutral article than an editorial, since you're posting something that is news to many of us...but nevertheless, I agree that it's a cheap, undermining move on the part of the federal government--once again, it becomes painfully obvious the current administration in the Executive Branch wishes it had powers of the Legislative Branch.

This is why I don't like strong Conservatism: it boils down to a Fundamentalist few trying to dictate to everyone else how we should all live our lives. Whatever happened to "live and let live?" (I know--ironic statement to use when I'm arguing against the Pro-Lifers here, but still...) Conservatives need to wake up and realize that abortions are popular now because children are no longer an asset, but generally more of a liability for many in our society. Not EVERYONE wants to have kids!

[Angela]

I told Danger Man about this story, and he said, "Do you think they are doing this on purpose to keep poor people poor?" Why yes, I do!

[schola]

Such a touchy and tricky subject.

Personally I don't support abortion, but the issue is played upon by politicians on both sides. Like every other issue forced on the American people by the big media, it has become divorced from reality.

The Bush administration is the most corrupt presidency in history so you can rest assured that their position against all abortion and birth control has nothing to do with the Christian fundamentalists they pander to.

It is most likely connected to some kind of attempt at population control.

[freestate]

Abortion is an interesting issue, to say the least. Should I woman be allowed to terminate her pregnancy in the 1st trimester? The 2nd? The 3rd?

Now if the mother is going to die if an abortion isn't performed, I can understand. (Thankfully this is pretty rare in the 21st century.) But in other cases, I have to ask, isn't there a better way? If you don't want your kid, there are many options to choose from.

I did a bit of research about how early humans develop, and I found this: Embryo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but as for me, I just wouldn't feel right about terminating that little thing's existence.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by PianoManGidley

I would have rather read a more neutral article than an editorial, since you're posting something that is news to many of us...

There are links to actual news stories in there

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Angela

I told Danger Man about this story, and he said, "Do you think they are doing this on purpose to keep poor people poor?" Why yes, I do!

The funny thing about Repubs is that they don't want any kind of sex education, they want to limit access to birth control and abortion, but once that precious bundle of joy (wanted or not) is born, they wipe their hands of the whole thing. You're on your own! And then everyone laments the poor, uneducated breeders draining our resources. HELLO!

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by schola

It is most likely connected to some kind of attempt at population control.

That makes absolutely no sense. How would taking away contraception and abortion control the population? Unless you mean that they want to breed some more poor people to send off to die in unjust wars.

I apologize if I sound snarky. I am a bit upset about this topic, but it's not directed at you.

[Dannyboy1]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

I can understand why people are against abortion. Even though I don't want it made illegal, I like babies and I don't think that I'd personally be able to have an abortion. Still, the push to curtail women from even getting birth control seems backwards to me. If you are Pro-Life and don't want there to be more abortions, stop making it so hard for women to prevent pregnancy in the first place!!!


Abortion: Bush Administration Memo Tries To Define Birth Control As Abortion

That's utterly ridiculous! You can't have abortion until after conception. Unbelievable.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by freestate

But in other cases, I have to ask, isn't there a better way?

Well, one better way would be to use birth control. But if that's restricted as well then there aren't many options for someone who doesn't want that child. Adoption is a great thing, but yet we won't allow gays to adopt in many places. So, we have all these unwanted kids that we dare not abort, but we won't let loving families adopt them lest they be "corrupted." Then there's the fact that you have to carry a baby in your womb for nine months in order to give it up for adoption. That's nothing to scoff at.

Originally Posted by freestate

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but as for me, I just wouldn't feel right about terminating that little thing's existence.

I actually agree with you in the sense that I would never have an abortion. However, I still think it's a right that needs to be protected. Bodily autonomy is a pretty big deal. And it seems like it really is a slippery slope to start restricting abortion -- now they want to restrict contraceptives too. What's next, all women being fitted with chastity belts at birth?

[Angela]

Did you see the New Bush's stand on gay adoption?

“The presumptive Republican nominee was asked for his views on the subject in an interview published Sunday in The New York Times. ‘I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption,’ McCain replied. McCain then remarked that he and his wife, Cindy, were proud to be adoptive parents of a daughter born in Bangladesh, and he encouraged others to adopt. Asked whether those adopting should be a ‘traditional couple,’ McCain answered, ‘Yes.’”

So basically he is in favor of denying babies a set of loving parents, because he thinks gay people are incapable of being a successful family. Jeesh.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Angela

Did you see the New Bush's stand on gay adoption?

Yeah, I was pretty much enraged.

The logic of all of this just confounds me. It's like each issue is totally separate and has no bearing on any other. How else does this make any sense at all?! ARRRGGHHHH!!!!!

[SomeRandomGuy]

To me, the only explanation I can come with to explain why people hold these views is that they feel that gay = evil. Why else would someone think that a child was better off without any parents than with loving parents who happen to be gay. Either that, or they are willing to put their cause (of denying gay rights) ahead of the welfare of the children in this county (which is just as appalling of a thought).

[PianoManGidley]

I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family...

Obviously, single-parent families are full of corruption and, as the kids would put it, epic fail. I mean, come on--there's obviously NO child ANYWHERE that has grown up to be a well-established member of society when raised by a single parent. Nope. Nowhere to be found.

At least McCain is actually pushing adoption, since it seems Pro-Lifers always talk about the option of putting kids up for adoption but rarely ever take the initiative themselves to adopt any of the kids already in need of parents.

[schola]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

That makes absolutely no sense. How would taking away contraception and abortion control the population? Unless you mean that they want to breed some more poor people to send off to die in unjust wars.

I apologize if I sound snarky. I am a bit upset about this topic, but it's not directed at you.

That's exactly what I mean. Poor people having babies they can't afford to feed keeps them distracted from the big picture and keeps the dependent on the government.