In truth, Liberals don't like abortion either, not even Noam Chomsky. Most of us are both anti-abortion AND pro-choice - having the right to choose 'no'.

An abortion is usually the result of an unwanted pregnancy, and criminalizing abortion does nothing to stop an unwanted pregnancy. Beyond that, when pressed on the consequences of criminalization, many pro-lifers are reluctant to put a woman who has had an abortion behind bars, which suggests that maybe criminalization isn't the silver bullet they'd hoped for.

The best way to stop unwanted pregnancy is knowledge, in the form of sex education and easy access to birth control. Honest, frank, reality-based sex education and free birth control options offered to school kids (*gasp*). A bitter pill to swallow, no doubt, but this is the way.

If abortion activists ever decided to take a more pragmatic approach to abortion, and team up with those rascally liberals, we could probably cut the abortion rate in half in a few years, but it would mean having to let go of some of that fear of sexuality. You don't need all that fear anyway, it's just weighing you down.

Happy New Year Pinky

(edit: snarkiness removed after reading kp's comment)

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^imstellar28:
I raise legitimate concerns and I get mass downvoted without a single reply to why what I said was wrong or ill-conceived. I don't randomly downvote comments like many here. Nobody has directly addressed a single word I've said, all I've seen are people putting words in my mouth and then trying to argue against that. The only people upvoting are a parody character and a "troll". Your philosophy as just as much of a joke as the community on this website.
If you haven't left the country you were born in, or seen outside the town you grew up in. If you haven't read books or studied history. If you haven't experienced third world poverty or the consequences of what you espouse, I suggest you shut the f ck up about how relieved you are about your new overlord and his "new" policies.

You are an angry, bitter man who likes to spend a whole lot of time arguing on the internet. Most of us have better things to do.
No matter what your political leaning, anyone can go and find all sorts of references and links to back up 'their' point of view. These references and links may just be others with the same view spouting non backed up drivel, but unless those you're arguing with have heaps of time to go off and look up the counter arguments you can pretend that you win the argument.
The issues are this:
The USA's last President
Was more repressive to people's freedoms, and more narrow in its ideas of what the country should accept as its basis (read, the Bible... shudder )
Invaded a country on COMPLETELY FALSE pretenses and has spent untold billions (or is it trillions now?) on fighting a war that should never have been started.... what was it about again? Oh, to get those responsible for 9/11... No.. .wait, we'll change that, to get Weapons of Mass Destruction... NO, WAIT, We'll change that, to bring freedom to Iraq... well, we'll get that Saddam guy... who we kinda put in power in the first place.
Continued to fuck up education to a huge degree, pumping money in with no real plan on how it should actually be used, at least no GOOD plan
Spent huge amounts of money on Abstinence only sex education. Yeah, that works a treat...
Ruled by fear of 'terror'
Continued to favour big business and the already rich in their financial policies with the insane logic that if you give them enough tax breaks and incentives then they might throw some crumbs to the less well off
Continued the idea that spend, spend, spend is the way out of anything, when really it just gets people more in debt... which leads to...
Has plunged the world into economic freefall (not entirely on its own, but... pretty much)
The republican's ticket for this election
Offered EXACTLY THE F CKING SAME
Your NEW PRESIDENT
Offered the idea that perhaps people need to work a bit harder to get out of things
Thinks that perhaps the government should actually DO things and not sit back and let the private sector fuck up everything and make basic services more expensive for everyone.
Thinks that maybe the rich are doing pretty damn well for themselves and don't NEED any more tax cuts, and could actually quite friggen easily handle paying a little more tax so that those that are actually struggling to pay their rent or mortgage can have enough to do so. (while working full bloody weeks, don't go the whole 'well, they're lazy, why should they get more money' absolute bullshit)
Is Black... shows that maybe the majority of the world has actually stopped paying attention to race and those that still think it's an issue should grow the f ck up
Can actually form coherent sentences
Don't delude yourself into thinking that everyone who voted for Obama or supports the decision did so out of blind starry eyed optimism and no logical thought.
We understand things you know, we can think.
And for the record... I currently live in Australia, have lived in the UK for over a year, lived and worked in the States for a number of months, and do pay attention to world issues.
What makes you such an all knowing soothsayer anyway?


Ah so you're proclaiming the merits of wealth redistribution and socialism, too, eh? Nice...I advise reading history books. When you start blaming the private sector, you have (here's my love to Cali reference) "issues" with understanding economics.

>> ^imstellar28:
I raise legitimate concerns and I get mass downvoted without a single reply to why what I said was wrong or ill-conceived. I don't randomly downvote comments like many here. Nobody has directly addressed a single word I've said, all I've seen are people putting words in my mouth and then trying to argue against that. The only people upvoting are a parody character and a "troll". Your philosophy as just as much of a joke as the community on this website.
If you haven't left the country you were born in, or seen outside the town you grew up in. If you haven't read books or studied history. If you haven't experienced third world poverty or the consequences of what you espouse, I suggest you shut the f ck up about how relieved you are about your new overlord and his "new" policies.


You are an angry, bitter man who likes to spend a whole lot of time arguing on the internet. Most of us have better things to do.

No matter what your political leaning, anyone can go and find all sorts of references and links to back up 'their' point of view. These references and links may just be others with the same view spouting non backed up drivel, but unless those you're arguing with have heaps of time to go off and look up the counter arguments you can pretend that you win the argument.

The issues are this:
The USA's last President
* Was more repressive to people's freedoms, and more narrow in its ideas of what the country should accept as its basis (read, the Bible... *shudder*)
* Invaded a country on COMPLETELY FALSE pretenses and has spent untold billions (or is it trillions now?) on fighting a war that should never have been started.... what was it about again? Oh, to get those responsible for 9/11... No.. .wait, we'll change that, to get Weapons of Mass Destruction... NO, WAIT, We'll change that, to bring freedom to Iraq... well, we'll get that Saddam guy... who we kinda put in power in the first place.
* Continued to fuck up education to a huge degree, pumping money in with no real plan on how it should actually be used, at least no GOOD plan
* Spent huge amounts of money on Abstinence only sex education. Yeah, that works a treat...
* Ruled by fear of 'terror'
* Continued to favour big business and the already rich in their financial policies with the insane logic that if you give them enough tax breaks and incentives then they might throw some crumbs to the less well off
* Continued the idea that spend, spend, spend is the way out of anything, when really it just gets people more in debt... which leads to...
* Has plunged the world into economic freefall (not entirely on its own, but... pretty much)

The republican's ticket for this election
* Offered EXACTLY THE F*CKING SAME

Your NEW PRESIDENT
* Offered the idea that perhaps people need to work a bit harder to get out of things
* Thinks that perhaps the government should actually DO things and not sit back and let the private sector fuck up everything and make basic services more expensive for everyone.
* Thinks that maybe the rich are doing pretty damn well for themselves and don't NEED any more tax cuts, and could actually quite friggen easily handle paying a little more tax so that those that are actually struggling to pay their rent or mortgage can have enough to do so. (while working full bloody weeks, don't go the whole 'well, they're lazy, why should they get more money' absolute bullshit)
* Is Black... shows that maybe the majority of the world has actually stopped paying attention to race and those that still think it's an issue should grow the f*ck up
* Can actually form coherent sentences

Don't delude yourself into thinking that everyone who voted for Obama or supports the decision did so out of blind starry eyed optimism and no logical thought.

We understand things you know, we can think.

And for the record... I currently live in Australia, have lived in the UK for over a year, lived and worked in the States for a number of months, and do pay attention to world issues.

What makes you such an all knowing soothsayer anyway?

Palin, if elected, WOULD force her beliefs on people by:

* Restricting abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

* "abstinence only" sex education (i.e. telling high school students almost nothing about sex except that they shouldn't have it until marriage, and prohibiting teachers from actually educating students about contraception, disease prevention, and relevant biology.) This piece of crap plan was first dreamed up in the heart of the bible belt and led to the bible belt having the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation. These "family values" conservatives are implementing policies that are causing the opposite of the outcomes they desire.

* Supporting Bush's OFBCI, which puts my tax money into evangelical christian organizations (exclusively, excluding all other religions & moderate varieties of Christianity)

* Helping McCain appoint more conservative hacks like Alito to the Supreme Court, where they'll OK evisceration of the parts of the bill of rights that prohibit torture and unreasonable searches & seizures.

>> ^thepinky:
You don't know anything about my life, and we're all being hypothetical/philosophical here, so leave my life out of it unless you really want to know why I am probably about 3572.84 times more qualified to talk about sexual crime and foster care and adoption and pregnancy and abortion than you are. M'kay, pumpkin?


Sorry "sweetie" but you were the one who brought up how not-horrible it is.

I haven't been raped and then carried the fetus to fullterm, so I'd rather leave that "choice" up to the individual who's going through the experience, rather than shove my morals upon their life.


The end of this discussion is easy.

The countries on this planet with the smartest people, who have the best sex-education and open access to contraceptives, are the countries that have THE LEAST amount of abortions.

The countries that have the strictest laws banning abortions, have 300 times the amount of them, and since they are illegal, they are these same type of "back room" or "coat hanger" abortions that are so utterly horrible.

And I don't give one shit about what Ron Paul saw. I've seen the procedure as well. It's an utterly disgusting process that I don't wish on anyone. But that has nothing to do with abortion laws.

And again for the class:


The countries on this planet with the smartest people, who have the best sex-education and open access to contraceptives, are the countries that have THE LEAST amount of abortions.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

Very well said, and I agree with you on many points. However, I don't believe that simple abortion is the answer. I think most people agree that fewer abortions in this country would be a good thing. I would have liked Palin's answer much more if she had said something more like my opinion, which is:

Yes, I do believe that abortion in the case of rape or incest is wrong and I would counsel a woman in that situation to go through with the pregnancy. It is, of course, a great sacrifice for her both emotionally and physically, and that is why I believe that it ought to be her choice. Her agency was taken from her by the man who impregnated her, and if she believe that her "life" (lifestyle) would be irreparably destroyed by the pregnancy, than she should be free to decide whether her life or the embryo's life is more human.

The answer to reducing abortions in general is not to make all abortions legal. There are steps that we must take in order to reduce abortion rates including providing healthcare and adoption programs for unwanted pregnancies, better and earlier sex education (with full consent of the parents), and free access to contraception. Abortion should be illegal for pregnancies more advanced than 24 weeks because when higher brain functioning and pain receptors are developed, there can be almost no doubt that the child ought to have human rights.

But pragmatics should never be a reason for a moral decision. That is why we ought NEVER to torture prisoners. Sure, we might save some American lives by torturing terrorists for information, but torture is something we do not (or should not) do as a matter of principle.

>> ^SDGundamX:
Two years ago, if you had asked me my position on abortion I would have told you I was pro-choice all the way. Then I saw an actual abortion performed and had everything I believed turned upside down. Seeing the doctor wash little dismembered body-parts--arms, legs, parts of a skull--and count everything up to make sure he got it all... that pretty much convinced me I needed to re-examine my beliefs. I have tried since that time to be open to all positions on the matter and to form my own opinion based on reason and logic. The conclusion I came to is very similar to swampgirl's--abortion is morally wrong but is also a necessary evil.
I'm an atheist, so I don't oppose abortion on any religious grounds. No, like swampgirl said earlier, I just think we should stop beating around the bush. We're taking human lives here. Granted, we're doing it as mercifully as we can (i.e. before the nervous and pain response systems are fully developed) and for ostensibly good reasons. But I think too many people try to gloss over the fact that a human life is ended in the process. I think people are uncomfortable with the idea and that's why we quibble over when a human is an officially recognized "person" or when certain rights should be ascribed.
However, although I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I do not agree with making abortions illegal. That probably seems paradoxical to most people, but it stems from the fact that I am pragmatic. There are serious problems with making abortion illegal: backroom abortions and their associated risks; a suddenly skyrocketing number of babies that need adoption placement in a system that is already burgeoning under the weight of unwanted or neglected children; massive population expansion at a time when resources such as clean water are becoming scarce; and so on. In an ideal world, we could make abortions illegal and provide superior care and support for all women who must carry unwanted babies and place all of those unwanted babies with caring, loving, families. But I've seen enough of the world to know that it is anything but ideal.
And so I believe that as horrible as it is, legal abortions are necessary in the world. It kind of depresses me a little bit that I can find something immoral and yet still condone it. I think maybe it's a sign that I'm getting old that I'm willing to compromise my morals for pragmatic concerns.

>> ^thepinky: this is not the child's fault.

So now you're calling a 50-cell blastocyst a "child"? Whaaaaat?


>> ^thepinky:
Abortion only adds to an already heinous situation.

Says someone who's never been raped and then carried the fetus through full term.


And to think that we can just "counsel" people and everything will be awesome, is fucking hysterical.

Do you know how many orphans there are in this country? Do you know how many orphans never get adopted, grow up with zero parents and go on to lead utterly shit lives?

Do you understand that people like Palin and McCain are against gays adopting children? (find me one anti-choice politician or religious leader who also believes in gay adoption)

Noone likes having an abortion. Most people will never even tell their best friends. There are very good reasons why most western European countries have very few abortions, but remain free to do so. And to leave this to the pro-life crew is exactly the opposite way of bringing down the number of abortions we have here in USA.

To leave this up to hard-core evangelicals, and those who are wholly influenced by the far-right, and the Fallwell's and Dobson's who believe even basic sex-education and contraception is immoral and against GOD, is basically begging for "back-room" and "coat-hanger" abortions.

Europe didn't decrease abortion rates by leaving the issue in the hands of the most religious. They did it with full-blown sex-education, and saturated their schools and public squares with free contraception. Which is another reason why HIV and STD's are rampant here, and sparse over there.

I'm with Biden on this one:
"As close to a consensus that can exist in a society that is as heterogeneous as ours."


And notice Palin keeps using the "choose" word. She would "counsel" someone to make the right "choice". OK, so then after that awesome counseling, then they choose to abort, then what?


This debate is nonsense. It's a wedge-issue that the Repubs will never part with. They "gay marriage" thing is almost a non-issue anymore, they've obviously been found to not be so fiscally conservative as people thought. They've completely screwed their awesome "WAR ON TERROR" issue, immigration for now is DOA. So this is all they've got, and they're not letting it go.

LoL... i love that idea ponceleon!... of course it means we'll need to begin massive prision building programs...

Read that article MrFisk as well... and while I think its fair to say politicians are pretty low when it comes to campagning... I didn't see anything that was quite as bad McCain claiming a program to help prevent child abuse was 'comprehensive (read porn) sex education'. I mean thats pretty low...

Actually, this is McCain's newest campaign ad.

Obama is the big brown beautiful bear who is abducting the kindergartener in order to teach him "comprehensive sex education", and the mustached man represents the bamboozled American public who are so distracted by Obama's charms that they fail to notice their child (who symbolizes our country's future) being hoodwinked by him.

... Actually, that sounds like an ad they'd really run. Just throw in some mention of small-town values and the Viet Cong.

Leave it to the cons to bash something that might save a child's life:

It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question....

FactCheck.org

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Sex isn't something that is happening in school

Translation: I NEVER HAD SEX IN SCHOOL! ...or since


Blah, way to be a jerk and not stay on topic.

I shall be a little more clear with what I am saying as I think my message got lost in peoples spin on doing the hibbidy dibidy all the live long day.

Books, teachers, science labs, paper, pens, are part of the education process provided by the state. Having sex in the middle of the class is not. While sex education is a must, having sex in school is not on the curiculum as far as the state should be involved in. IE, condoms are not a pen, a book or any other tool used in forging the mind.

Like some have pointed out (tackfully unlike the nice person above), sex is part of the natural social evolution of a person. Right, but that isn't the focus of the classroom. Schools are for classes and expanding your mind, that is what the state is supposed to be providing. I have problem no problem with my taxes going to books and pens and things that are developing the young minds of tomorrow. But I have a problem with my tax dollars sponcering another childs sex life and/or other social, non-education things (recreational sex is not educational sex . I would be just as against schools providing some sort of free music program on the government dime on the logic that music is needed for a well devolped social mind.

I also don't preach ignorance or being unprepaired, I am just against paying for it on the government ticket. Schools shouldn't be in the business of providing anything but education. If someone can show me how a condom is an education device, besides maybe just learning how to put one on, then I will be convinced, otherwise, it is the school system trying to be more than it is roled to be. This isn't a night club, this is a school. Sex may happen on campus, that is not what I was saying at all, what I am saying is that is the subject of social interaction and not the domain of the school to provide materials for out of our tax budget. Once again, if someone can show how a condom is like a pen (hahaha don't go there), then I'll be more adpt to listen, but so far it seems like "ehh why not" kinda arguments? Perhaps I misunderstood yall as much as yall did me

And if they are just giving them away, then it should be avalible for all citizens everywhere, not just kids...and I would be against funding my fellow americans sex needs in the same way I am against this

Thanks everyone for your respectful comments...minus one


edit: And did no one else think that the video was totally biased? The lady arguing for the side of schools not providing for that thing had some very unconvincing speaking methodology

This is subliminal sex education. Wear a rubber or little kids will spew out of your penis.

When a candidate pulls out sex education from schools in favor of abstinence only education, her 17-year old getting knocked up is going to be part of the bigger picture. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately in this case, who knows) this kind of thing can't be avoided in politics.

I am so scared for the world right now.

a) Polls before this nomination stating that McCain is more popular than Obama... WHO the crap could possibly think that a dottery old fool who is anti science, anti athiests, anti gay, pro creationism, pro 'life', is a rich, out of touch money hungry conservative, will do ANYTHING GOOD? ANYTHING for the USA or the world? With him at the helm, the US will descend further, further into the mire it currently finds itself in, the rest of the world will be partially pulled down with it, and hopefully pull away from it and build up our own world governing power more to steer the world a bit better.

b) The republicans choose THIS woman... THIS woman who is a shining example of how refusing sex education and having a healthy attitude to sex and relationships ends up... with her teenage daughter pregnant and now being forced into marrying the father... yeah, won't that end well. HOW can someone continue to think that abstinence and lack of knowledge on sexual matters is the right way to go when she has THIS as an example? Her own daughter's life screwed up... having a child at 17, when she should have had so many more years of just being free and enjoying her life and gaining experience before taking the enormous step of being responsible for a child.

Hooooly crap it's scary that they could think that this will win votes... and if it does... if they are the people to lead the USA... well... good luck, as the rest of us are going to abandon your red white and blue ship.

Well, maybe Palin is a bit of a hypocrite because: 1) she says she is proud to become a grandparent, 2) she announced the pregnancy at this very moment to quell rumours about herself, 3) it is not unthinkable that pressure was put on the youngsters to marry in order to avoid a bigger political scandal, 4) there must have been at least a little bit of pressure on the daughter not to have an abortion (in that sense the children are already dragged into the political story), but most of all 5) Sarah Palin pushes a type of sex education that clearly did not work in her own family.

My biggest problem is that Palin’s politics create enormous problems for the majority of the pregnant teenagers whose parents do not have the willingness and/or the financial means to support the young family, make the young parents able to finish their education &c.