Let's talk POLITICS ( NO FIGHTS)

[soon-to-bemrs.penniman]

The cover sounds really familiar, but I don't remember the article. Sorry.

 

i'll go look:original:

 

it was like 3 pages.

 

[Finkster]

anyone?

 

I didn't read the article, but I've seen replicas of that too.

And I would prefer not to have abortion legalized becuase not every pregnant woman will go to someone in an alley. The possibilities of that happening are very likely, and obviously abortion will probably never be stopped, legalized or not, but again, I'd prefer it not to be made legal.

[Diana]

That's right anything could happen.. What's wrong with beleiving "it was meant to be..."

 

SEX=KIDS

 

Oh there's nothing wrong with believing that, I never said there was.

All I said was that I personally really hate that as an explanation..

And I just think it's a weak argument in a discussion because not everyone has the same kind of faith.

 

Sex with contraceptives = babyless fun

 

I mean the following completely unsarcastically:

 

Thank you so much for your opinions. I can honestly understand why you feel the way you do, and respect you for not only giving us your reasoning as well as your feelings, but also for not bringing anybody down in your explanation.

 

Do you feel brought down by what I said?

[soon-to-bemrs.penniman]

I didn't read the article, but I've seen replicas of that too.

And I would prefer not to have abortion legalized becuase not every pregnant woman will go to someone in an alley. The possibilities of that happening are very likely, and obviously abortion will probably never be stopped, legalized or not, but again, I'd prefer it not to be made legal.

 

ok:thumb_yello:

[Guest]

Do you feel brought down by what I said?

 

Well... in a way.

I'm not crying over it. The only reason my nose is running and eyes are watering is because I have a cold and shoved an eyeliner pencil in my eye by mistake.

 

But honestly, I do think that you tend to group people together. Then you seem to get off the hook by saying "I didn't mean to."

[Max]

anyone?

 

It's here

 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070226,00.html

[soon-to-bemrs.penniman]

found it:wink2:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070226,00.html

[Wendi]

I don't think abortion can ever be an easy choice - but I DO

have issues with the legal date. To me 24 weeks is far too late.

My sister had two babies at 22 weeks, one was still born, and the

other lived for two hours, with her holding her till she died. The

doctors said she was not "viable". That was 14 years ago - nowadays

doctors can save babies at 22 weeks - which means a termination

at 24 weeks could be a healthy baby eventually, after a lot of care.

I had 3 miscarraiges - which were marked on my notes as spontaneous

abortions!!!!

[soon-to-bemrs.penniman]

It's here

 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070226,00.html

damn!

 

you beat me:naughty:

 

(thanks:thumb_yello: )

[Diana]

Well... in a way.

I'm not crying over it. The only reason my nose is running and eyes are watering is because I have a cold and shoved an eyeliner pencil in my eye by mistake.

 

But honestly, I do think that you tend to group people together. Then you seem to get off the hook by saying "I didn't mean to."

 

All I ever did (or tried to do anyway) was express my own views.

I don't think I ever said that any of you were wrong or stupid for believing what you believe in because I don't feel that way.

 

When I say 'I didn't mean to' then I truly didn't mean to.

You must not forget that English is not my mother tongue so it's harder for me to express my views clearly than it is for a native speaker.

[IngievV]

Summary...anyone? I'm lost:blink:

[lollipop_monkey]

You must not forget that English is not my mother tongue so it's harder for me to express my views clearly than it is for a native speaker.

 

It continually amazes me how many people on here - you're a shining example, Diana - express themselves very, very well in English despite it not being their first language.

 

How's that for a political issue that isn't abortion - why are schools in Canada and the US so obsessed with math and science, to the detriment of art, language, etc?

[lollipop_monkey]

Summary...anyone? I'm lost:blink:

 

Politics thread turned into a thread about abortion.

 

Abortion ethics were discussed. Methods were mentioned. It came to light that majority of MFCers from more liberal countries (Denmark, Netherlands, for example) are pro-choice. Many Americans (based on religious views or otherwise) are pro-life.

 

[Guest]

How's that for a political issue that isn't abortion - why are schools in Canada and the US so obsessed with math and science, to the detriment of art, language, etc?

 

I don't know. If you look back over time, aren't alot of the most famous artists from Europe?

 

Maybe things like Math are just more important in our society, where as language/art are more important in other cultures.

[IngievV]

Politics thread turned into a thread about abortion.

 

Abortion ethics were discussed. Methods were mentioned. It came to light that majority of MFCers from more liberal countries (Denmark, Netherlands, for example) are pro-choice. Many Americans (based on religious views or otherwise) are pro-life.

 

 

Okay thanks, now let me put my 2 cents in it:mf_rosetinted:

 

Although I'm actually raised Catholic (not really into it but anyways) I am pro-choice. It's better that the baby is removed than to let it lead a miserable life, because most teenage mums can't take care of a bay, that's a fact.

 

If someone gets raped and gets pregnant, then would you force that girl to keep the baby? The child will always remind her of her raper.

 

But I wouldn't do it myself. If I can take good care of the baby, I would keep it. But I think there should be free choice:thumb_yello:

 

Ingie. Out.

[sky]

Okay thanks, now let me put my 2 cents in it:mf_rosetinted:

 

Although I'm actually raised Catholic (not really into it but anyways) I am pro-choice. It's better that the baby is removed than to let it lead a miserable life, because most teenage mums can't take care of a baby, that's a fact.

 

If someone gets raped and gets pregnant, then would you force that girl to keep the baby? The child will always remind her of her raper.

 

But I wouldn't do it myself. If I can take good care of the baby, I would keep it. But I think there should be free choice:thumb_yello:

 

Ingie. Out.

 

I totally agree with everything what you said (but that's my opinion)

[Diana]

It's here

 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070226,00.html

 

found it:wink2:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070226,00.html

 

That was a very interesting read, thanks for posting.

What's mentioned in this article and what I think is key is INFORMATION.

Education and factual information should be readily available for everyone who needs it.

 

Especially in the US it seems that a lot needs to be done when it comes to education. I did a massive report on teen pregnancy for uni last year and in my research I found that the US has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the Western world mostly due to lack of eduction.

Kids aren't able to discuss sex at home and they don't get proper sex education.

Instead of focussing on whether abortion is right or wrong they should focus on education so an abortion is not even necessary.

[Kalas]

On facebook it stands that my political viuw is apathetic. But I'm really not, I just think it's hard to know enough to say that I think that or that in general. If I was allowed to vote in the US, I would definitly go for one of the democrates candidates. I think something has to be done about the health insurance system, and I also think that new people has to look at the mess in Iraq. Those who are ruling it now is obviously not cabable of doing what has to be done.

 

The illegal immigrants are also a great, grate issue. What would happend if an amnesty took place? I don't think there is a slightest chance it would happened, but I like it as an intellectual experiment.

 

It is harder in sweden. We havn't got as big problems as america. I know most people inherit the opinions of their parents (and neighborhood!!!), but I don't know if I will.

 

All the parties here are want free abortion, which education you would like whitout paying a lot for it (everyone can be a doctor or lawyer without a lot of money if their marks are good enough, or if they scored high enough on a "university test", and you cannot pay for those educations).

 

The parties here, the non-socialist and the other ones, are quite the same. But there are diffrencies in the labour market policies and in their way of dealing with taxes. And there are also differences in their work for equality between the sexes, but the critical issue for me is the climate changes.

 

I belive that the green party would to most for the world. They are most redical in their plan for redution of CO2, and I think that we need that. I wont die with less guilty conscience if I wote for them in the election -10, but I hope they will force us to do something. Humanity extinction will still be very likely, and I know a vote is a very small thing, but it is something.

 

Now I think I will try to look at what other ones has written...

[BonjourMika1990]

Okay thanks, now let me put my 2 cents in it:mf_rosetinted:

 

Although I'm actually raised Catholic (not really into it but anyways) I am pro-choice. It's better that the baby is removed than to let it lead a miserable life, because most teenage mums can't take care of a bay, that's a fact.

 

If someone gets raped and gets pregnant, then would you force that girl to keep the baby? The child will always remind her of her raper.

 

But I wouldn't do it myself. If I can take good care of the baby, I would keep it. But I think there should be free choice:thumb_yello:

 

Ingie. Out.

 

 

LOL I disagree completely:wink2: I think if all those instances were the case than adoption is the much better alternative.

 

NICE AVIE BY THE WAY...that's one of my favorite movies:mf_lustslow:

[Kalas]

That was a very interesting read, thanks for posting.

What's mentioned in this article and what I think is key is INFORMATION.

Education and factual information should be readily available for everyone who needs it.

 

Especially in the US it seems that a lot needs to be done when it comes to education. I did a massive report on teen pregnancy for uni last year and in my research I found that the US has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the Western world mostly due to lack of eduction.

Kids aren't able to discuss sex at home and they don't get proper sex education.

Instead of focussing on whether abortion is right or wrong they should focus on education so an abortion is not even necessary.

 

 

Oh I love you :wub2:. Have you read the book freakonimics? It's VERY interesting indeed. I quote from a review...

 

"On example of this approach is his highly contentious view that one of the main drivers of the reduction in crime in the US from the mid-90s was the legalization of abortion (in 1990 there were 2,245 murders in New York, in 2003 this had fallen to 596).

 

Using a wide range of data and relatively simple tools, such as weighting and regression, Levitt starts by dismissing several myths about the reduction in crime that occurred right across the US. In general it was not due to increased use of capital punishment, it was not due to the booming economy, it was not due to innovative policing (although increases in police numbers did have an effect), nor was it due to tougher gun laws.

 

Levitt showed that the bursting of the crack cocaine market (where prices fell through the floor) did have an effect (people were less willing to kill and risk being killed when the profits disappeared). But, his main claim was that a large part of the drop in the US crime rate was a direct, but unintended, consequence of the legalizing of abortion in 1973, with the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court ruling. Since the ruling there have been about 1.6 million abortions a year, amongst a population of 225 million.

 

Most of these abortion relate to women and girls who felt they were unable to be mothers at that time (too poor, too busy, emotionally unready, too career oriented, addicted to drugs, in a bad relationship, in no relationship, victims of rape and incest – the reasons why these women felt that they should not be mothers are almost endless).

 

The data showed Levitt that many of these 1.6 million fetuses would have gone on to be criminals in the 90s and beyond, he does not say all of them, or even most of them, but that a significant minority of them would have been criminals."

 

Another + for legalization, or what?

[Kalas]

LOL I disagree completely:wink2: I think if all those instances were the case than adoption is the much better alternative.

 

NICE AVIE BY THE WAY...that's one of my favorite movies:mf_lustslow:

But stil, you have to carry the baby, and you must go through a childbirth, for what? An embryo has DNA, but it's not a person with a lot of connectionts to other people.

 

I don't like the propaganda that those non-abortions groups give either. all those pictures there gives me the creeps. They affect people emotionally in an unfair way.

[Diana]

Oh I love you :wub2:. Have you read the book freakonimics? It's VERY interesting indeed. I quote from a review...

 

Another + for legalization, or what?

 

I haven't read that book but the quote is an interesting read indeed!

 

At some parts I'm confused though. Are they saying the crime rate went down because having an abortion was no longer considered to be murder or because the kids born from unwanted pregnancy ended up being involved in criminal activities? Or does he mean both?

 

I think there's no way we can predict whether a kid will become a criminal or not. There can be circumstances which give the kid a higher risk of taking the criminal path but you can never know for sure.

[lovempls]

Oh I love you :wub2:. Have you read the book freakonimics? It's VERY interesting indeed. I quote from a review...

 

"On example of this approach is his highly contentious view that one of the main drivers of the reduction in crime in the US from the mid-90s was the legalization of abortion (in 1990 there were 2,245 murders in New York, in 2003 this had fallen to 596).

 

Another + for legalization, or what?

 

Have you read the book? Because very clearly, at the end of the chapter, he calculates the number of people saved from homicide through legalization of abortion versus the number of babies killed through legalization of abortion. The number of babies killed was higher. He makes that very clear that this isn't supposed to be a "+ for abortion", because more lives were actually lost.

 

EDIT:

To add to that, when he compares babies aborted to people saved from homicide, he doesn't even count each baby as one person. As a compromise, he calculates that 1 person equals 100 fetuses. And even then, the difference between fetuses and homicide victims is extremely high.

[Lollipop Leftie]

As a teenage girl in America, I don't know where I stand on a lot of issues, but I do believe I am very liberal, more so than a lot of people I used to hang out with, that is. I don't know where I stand on abortion, but saying adoption is always an option isn't fair, because there are so many kids who are up for adoption, and not all of them end up happy ever. Not many get that fairy-tale ending of Meet the Robinsons, you know?

[lovempls]

Freakonomics p.144

 

"There are roughly 1.5 million abortions in the United States every year. For a person who believes that 1 newborn is worth 100 fetuses, those 1.5 million abortions would translate - dividing 1.5 million by 100 - into the equivalent of a loss of 15,000 human lives. Fifteen thousand lives: that happens to be about the same number of people who die in homicides in the United States every year. And it is far more than the number of homicides eliminated each year due to legalized abortion. So even for someone who considers a fetus to be worth only one one-hundreth of a human being, the trade-off between higher abortion and lower crime is, by an economist's reckoning, terribly inefficient."