Pro-lifers

[KCFlyer]

So it is the 'social system' (schools) that are at fault and the parents have no say or responsibility in what THEY should teach their children? You can't have it both ways KC, if morality is to be dictated in schools then it must be all morality, not only yours.

You know UAL...in many school districts, the only kind of sex ed they are allowed to teach is "abstinence only". The parents want it that way. I guess they figure that if a kid can learn that Columbus discovered America in 1492 and it stays in their head, then when they are told "don't have sex", it will stay in their heads, despite the raging hormones coursing thru their bodies.

But there is a "common ground"...let the parent have their kid "opt out" of the sex ed classes. Let their purity pledge guide them thru their teenage years. Let the other kids learn about a rubber. But letting the other kids learn about the rubber isn't "moral", so they don't want THAT taught in schools.

 

[Cosworth]

And that is the crux of the problem. There has to be a common ground obtained by 'reasonable' discussion on all sides of the issue. Unfettered morality simply does not work. Morality is determined by the majority of the people. My morality may be quite different than yours, but is it less or greater? We need controls for the people on both sides of the extremes.

On what constitutional bases do you want to make this law/guideline or what ever you want to call it?

Edit:

For what it is worth, I agree with you for the most part but since our laws are supposed or be based on the US Constitution, I am not sure how one would create a law forbidding abortion that would pass muster. I am of the opinion that the USSC has created law without support of the USC when they place limits on or allow states to place limits on a woman's right of self determination over her own body.

 

[UAL_TECH]

On what constitutional bases do you want to make this law/guideline or what ever you want to call it?

Edit:

For what it is worth, I agree with you for the most part but since our laws are supposed or be based on the US Constitution, I am not sure how one would create a law forbidding abortion that would pass muster. I am of the opinion that the USSC has created law without support of the USC when they place limits on or allow states to place limits on a woman's right of self determination over her own body.

Thanks for the ‘edit’ as you well know there is no constitutional law other than the Row V. Wade decision over state laws.

Like most ‘human beings’, women like to decide what is best for ‘them’.
When Mary Lou RottenCrotch decides to do the football team and comes up preggers it is her ‘sole decision’ to have the child or not. No consideration is given to the ‘male’ donor until it is time to pony up support for the ‘child’ even if mommy had to do a DNA test on the whole team to prove paternity.

If ‘women’ want to make a choice with their ‘own bodies’ then fine, let them do it without the financial support of the sperm donor or let the 'donor' have an equal say in the decision. When there is ‘equal’ participation in ‘all’ aspects of a pregnancy decision then it would be fair and make sense. Give the opportunity to 'daddy' to pay for the birthing costs and take care of the child and have 'mommy' pony up support.

Today, it is not fair nor does it make sense.

B) xUT

 

[KCFlyer]

To the left, get off the "Slippery Slope" soapbox and get on with the business of promoting contraception including abstinence. Be realistic in your expectations as most of the public doesn't have the stomach to tolerate partial birth abortions. Again the best approach is present abortion as a last resort.

Piney...they left DOES want to promote contraception. But that deals with peoples "naughty parts" and those are things that should not be discussed (especially among teenagers) unless one is married.

I know many leftists in the Public Health arena...neighbor is a "health educator". They used to speak at schools, but have had to change because parents didn't even like the "opt out" option. And here is what THEY push:

Abstinence - not only for birth control but to prevent STD's

Condom use - if you're going to do it, protect yourself. They used a model (basically a dildo) to demonstrate how to use one. I think the God fearing people would have been less offended if they demonstrated it on a cucumber, since anything that looked like a penis was bad bad BAD. That's one reason they got pulled from schools...a rubber penis. Better to show a young girl how to protect herself should she decide to have sex with produce.

Abortion is NOT discussed in these classes...abstinence, contraceptives, and STD awareness are the topics.

Because they are in public health - abortion is NOT given as a "birth control" option. Our health department will counsel on birth control and prenatal care, but they will NOT counsel pro or con for abortion. They will refer them to other sources.

I have a 15 year old daughter. She is beautiful and the light of my life. And I have had "the talk" with her...because I once was a 15 year old boy and I know what is on their mind. And I told her that sex is a wonderful thing...but it's something for a man and a woman...not a boy and a girl. And if she felt that having sex was unavoidable - then please please PLEASE...use a condom. Am I "encouraging" her to have sex? No. But if teenage girls don't understand just how easily they can become pregnant, I sure want to "encourage" her to take steps to avoid it. But there are some folks who prefer their kid take a "purity pledge" and hear the "just say no" talk. My kid at least KNOWS the consequences of not saying no...other than guilt, does the other girl?

 

[JS]

Fact is JS, most folks who want complete bans on abortion are also the ones who do NOT want sex education taught in schools.

And you know this how?

 

[KCFlyer]

And you know this how?

Why I heard the representative of hockey moms all over this great nation, Sarah Palin, speak of it.

 

[UAL_TECH]

It is a complex issue not easily solved with a yes or no solution.

For or Against? does not solve anything.

B) xUT

 

[Cosworth]

Thanks for the ‘edit’ as you well know there is no constitutional law other than the Row V. Wade decision over state laws.

Like most ‘human beings’, women like to decide what is best for ‘them’.
When Mary Lou RottenCrotch decides to do the football team and comes up preggers it is her ‘sole decision’ to have the child or not. No consideration is given to the ‘male’ donor until it is time to pony up support for the ‘child’ even if mommy had to do a DNA test on the whole team to prove paternity.

If ‘women’ want to make a choice with their ‘own bodies’ then fine, let them do it without the financial support of the sperm donor or let the 'donor' have an equal say in the decision. When there is ‘equal’ participation in ‘all’ aspects of a pregnancy decision then it would be fair and make sense. Give the opportunity to 'daddy' to pay for the birthing costs and take care of the child and have 'mommy' pony up support.

Today, it is not fair nor does it make sense.

B) xUT

I tend to view the decision of Roe v Wade as defining a right of privacy guaranteed by the USC.

As for the child support issue. I see your point but I guess I have a different take. I start from the premis that a woman must have absolute control. No conditions. If you want to make the woman advise the father of her decision, OK, but I still do not belive he should have a say. She is carrying the child, she is the one who will have to seal with 9 months of pregnancy, of emotional attachment and everything else that goes along with it. As far as I am concerned, I have no say in it just because I was a sperm doner. As for finacial support, you bring up a valid point. I guess my only argument is that as a man, if you are going to play in the sand box, you need to be aware that you will get some sand in you shorts. I know that if I fool around with a woman, condom or not, there is a chance I will be responsible for a child being made. If the woman decides to abort, not my say. If the woman decides to have the kid ... not my say either but I knew there was a chance of a child so I am responsible.

I guess my question to you is how do you tell a woman that she has to carry a child to term because the guy wants the child (or did I misunderstand your position)? For me the crux of the issue is who's body is being used the most IE the woman for nine months. In my eyes, she makes the rules. Not sure if it is fair or not but to me it is the most fair.