On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 16:22:38 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

Alberich wrote:

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 15:41:13 -0800, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:

J Young Catholics, always looking out for the rapists

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/T1R9MFRGIOVFPIGER


I was raped in high school and aborted the baby. I got into a great
university, have a wonderful husband and will be starting the career
i've worked so hard for in about a year. Had i continued that
pregnancy i would have been miserable, i would continued to feel
hatred for the person who caused it and the rape and it would have
affected my high school academic career which would have ended the
chance to go to college on my scholarship, and divided my family. I
beleive it was the best choice for me.

I can say with all honesty that I have no regrets and am glad i wasn't
force to continue with something that happened out of my control and
would have destroyed my life.

Look, I know I'll get into hot water for even attempting this, but
both sides should be able to see the other's viewpoints here.

And if those that call themselves "pro-life" could see other's
viewpoints, there wouldn't be this much animosity.

From the pro-life side: Abortion is wrong. Period.

Which is why they shouldn't get one if they feel it's wrong, full-stop.

The ends do not
justify the means. If they did, then specious arguments could be made
that abortion is allowable in the cases where the raped woman needs to
get on with her life, but should not be allowed if, say, a woman had
an abortion which allowed her to continue in a life of crime, holding
up banks. Far-fetched? Maybe. But once you begin playing on
emotions to decide what is purely a moral issue, that is the quagmire
you find yourself in.

Which would be fine, if they didn't try to ram their beliefs down the
pro-choicer's throat.

The dialogue would be better served if the pro-life crowd didn't try
to ramrod their beliefs down others' throats, *and* the pro-choice
crowd saw the pro-life side as more than superstitious luddites.

From the pro-choice side: Abortion should be allowed.

Um, that's not entirely true. On the pro-choice side, it's that
abortions should be legal, safe, and rare. It's up to the parents-to-be
to decide, but it's ultimately the mother-to-be's decision.

The woman had
no choice in getting married,

...say what?!

My mistake!!! That should be "raped," not "married."

and shouldn't be tethered to nine months
of pregnancy,

Marriage does not automatically equal pregnancy.

See above apology.

followed by the ordeal of abortion or--in some cases,
worse--being faced with the prospect of raising a living reminder of
the worst moments of your life. The young lady is bright, and has a
wonderful future ahead of her. She'll probably get married and have
more kids of her own someday, something unlikely if she's forced to
drop out of school now to care for this *thing* inside her.

See the difference in viewpoints? Anybody here really thing that they
have the golden voice to convince the other side where everyone else
has failed? That would, for sure, have to be the biggest (and most
unsubstantiated) ego in these forums.

We on the pro-choice side do not wish to convince the "pro-lifers"
(though many "pro-lifers" are not interested in "life," only "birth") of
anything. It is the "pro-lifers" who are trying to do the convincing.

I'm sure that you're right. From my viewpoint, I only read in the
Catholic group, though. I see Yang coming in here more than I see
others going out (of necessity). Doesn't excuse the others that go
from my side of the issue.

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 16:22:38 -0800, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:

Alberich wrote:

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 15:41:13 -0800, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:

J Young Catholics, always looking out for the rapists

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/T1R9MFRGIOVFPIGER


I was raped in high school and aborted the baby. I got into a great
university, have a wonderful husband and will be starting the career
i've worked so hard for in about a year. Had i continued that
pregnancy i would have been miserable, i would continued to feel
hatred for the person who caused it and the rape and it would have
affected my high school academic career which would have ended the
chance to go to college on my scholarship, and divided my family. I
beleive it was the best choice for me.

I can say with all honesty that I have no regrets and am glad i wasn't
force to continue with something that happened out of my control and
would have destroyed my life.

Look, I know I'll get into hot water for even attempting this, but
both sides should be able to see the other's viewpoints here.

And if those that call themselves "pro-life" could see other's
viewpoints, there wouldn't be this much animosity.

From the pro-life side: Abortion is wrong. Period.

Which is why they shouldn't get one if they feel it's wrong, full-stop.

The ends do not
justify the means. If they did, then specious arguments could be made
that abortion is allowable in the cases where the raped woman needs to
get on with her life, but should not be allowed if, say, a woman had
an abortion which allowed her to continue in a life of crime, holding
up banks. Far-fetched? Maybe. But once you begin playing on
emotions to decide what is purely a moral issue, that is the quagmire
you find yourself in.

Which would be fine, if they didn't try to ram their beliefs down the
pro-choicer's throat.

The dialogue would be better served if the pro-life crowd didn't try
to ramrod their beliefs down others' throats, *and* the pro-choice
crowd saw the pro-life side as more than superstitious luddites.

I'm sure that you're right. From my viewpoint, I only read in the
Catholic group, though. I see Yang coming in here more than I see
others going out (of necessity). Doesn't excuse the others that go
from my side of the issue.

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:55:54 -0800, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 00:06:35 GMT, Alberich <Alberich@NoSpam.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 15:41:13 -0800, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's
Cocaine Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:

J Young Catholics, always looking out for the rapists

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/T1R9MFRGIOVFPIGER


I was raped in high school and aborted the baby. I got into a great
university, have a wonderful husband and will be starting the career
i've worked so hard for in about a year. Had i continued that
pregnancy i would have been miserable, i would continued to feel
hatred for the person who caused it and the rape and it would have
affected my high school academic career which would have ended the
chance to go to college on my scholarship, and divided my family. I
beleive it was the best choice for me.

I can say with all honesty that I have no regrets and am glad i wasn't
force to continue with something that happened out of my control and
would have destroyed my life.

Look, I know I'll get into hot water for even attempting this, but
both sides should be able to see the other's viewpoints here.

From the pro-life side: Abortion is wrong. Period. The ends do not
justify the means. If they did, then specious arguments could be made
that abortion is allowable in the cases where the raped woman needs to
get on with her life, but should not be allowed if, say, a woman had
an abortion which allowed her to continue in a life of crime, holding
up banks. Far-fetched? Maybe. But once you begin playing on
emotions to decide what is purely a moral issue, that is the quagmire
you find yourself in.

From the pro-choice side: Abortion should be allowed. The woman had
no choice in getting married, and shouldn't be tethered to nine months
of pregnancy, followed by the ordeal of abortion or--in some cases,
worse--being faced with the prospect of raising a living reminder of
the worst moments of your life. The young lady is bright, and has a
wonderful future ahead of her. She'll probably get married and have
more kids of her own someday, something unlikely if she's forced to
drop out of school now to care for this *thing* inside her.

See the difference in viewpoints? Anybody here really thing that they
have the golden voice to convince the other side where everyone else
has failed? That would, for sure, have to be the biggest (and most
unsubstantiated) ego in these forums.

I agree. I think we should do our best to reduce the damnd for
abortion- better sex education (including, but not consists solely of,
abstenince), access to condoms and birth controls. etc. Both sides can
agree that reducing unwanted pregnencies is good.

I'm starting to think that we're not so different, you and I. I may
have J Young killfiled (I'll check). If so, I'll undo him to try to
call him on his inflammatory posts. (But only insofar as they come
into arc-rc.)

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:55:54 -0800, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine
Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:

I agree. I think we should do our best to reduce the damnd for
abortion- better sex education (including, but not consists solely of,
abstenince), access to condoms and birth controls. etc. Both sides can
agree that reducing unwanted pregnencies is good.

Hey, little chinese boy, do you actually believe that women don't know about
condoms and birth control methods, including keeping the knees together?

What does either have to do with rape? Or do you even understand the
difference?

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:55:54 -0800, "Yang, AthD (h.c), Kicking AWOL's Cocaine
Snorting *****" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:

I agree. I think we should do our best to reduce the damnd for
abortion- better sex education (including, but not consists solely of,
abstenince), access to condoms and birth controls. etc. Both sides can
agree that reducing unwanted pregnencies is good.

Hey, little chinese boy, do you actually believe that women don't know about
condoms and birth control methods, including keeping the knees together?

What does either have to do with rape?

From the pro-choice side: Abortion should be allowed. The woman had
no choice in getting married, and shouldn't be tethered to nine months
of pregnancy, followed by the ordeal of abortion or--in some cases,
worse--being faced with the prospect of raising a living reminder of
the worst moments of your life.

So butchering your own unborn is ok under these circumstances - for one's
comfort and convenience????

I'm not saying it's my position. What I am saying is that for a large
group of people whose moral structures may not be based upon the
Catholic Church, they may see abortion to be the lesser of two evils.
In that case, they are as likely to be convinced that they are wrong
as Pope Benedict is to recommend letting women into the clergy.

Tricky thing with topics like abortion is that to have a truly
fruitful discussion, it is *imperative* that both sides can see the
logic of the other, even if disagreeing with it whole-heartedly.
Otherwise, they end up convinving them the others that they are
ignorant fools whose thoughts should be immediately round-filed upon
being received.

So butchering your own unborn is ok under these circumstances - for one's
comfort and convenience????

You do realize that, even if abortions were outlawed, it wouldn't stop
them or cause them to reduce. In fact, they may increase.

In order to reduce abortions, you have to solve the cause of them: Lack
of education before the first sexual encounter.