[Wheatfield]

if you think that abortion is a good decision meant to correct a bad decision, then there is something wrong particularly with women's thinking nowadays. actually it's another bad decision after the other. the point is, a life is terminated and people seem to look for a justification into killing. they even call it terminated just to make it look as if it were a commodity or professional dealing. but how can you categorize a living thing to be a disposable commodity? that is downright disturbing. let's just say that some people don't value others' life and commit a crime in itself by valuing theirs. I felt bad for a live being who can't even defend itself because it can't say NO or given a choice to do so. this is no different from babies that are already born who needs nurturing and dependence to someone. so the thinking of better than DEAD rather than have to experience being alive or even given a chance, is as twisted as someone committing murder. think about it, my single life is more important that I don't want a child's life to ruin all the sex and single individual freedom and my chances into becoming a successful individual. that kind of thinking is a feeble attempt to justify poverty avoidance. people are poor not because they are pregnant, but because of several economic factors. you can be a 21 year old single woman living in the streets without a job.

Well, you did a good job of setting up a strawman to knock down (please cite in quotes where I advocated what you are implying I advocated), but as of yet, you haven't answered the question.
Do you intend to, or should we just expect more prevarication?

[Pentaxor]

But would it be smart to ruin her life because of a bad decision?

before I answer this question, could you clarify why or how it would be ruined?

[mikemike]

Like I said, people who are pro-life are pro-life on moral and ethical reasons so no fiscal argument will ever change their mind. The only chance to convince them is if you can convince them that a fetus is not a person, which is an extremely difficult argument to make to someone who has decided that it is.

An interesting question for the most ardent pro-choice people who think that it is a woman's body and no one can tell her what to do... If a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term, should she be allowed to drink and smoke? It is her body and her choice after all...

I think abortion should be legal so I am pro-choice, but I think it is a terrible procedure so I have never and will never put myself in a position where a baby I have sired will be subjected to even the thought of an abortion for any reason other than the health of the mother. I think from the moment that a woman finds out that she is pregnant, if she makes the choice to carry that baby to term she has chosen to sacrifice her body for that baby for at least that 9 month period and that choice closes off other choices for her like drinking, smoking, eating sushi, etc.

[Wheatfield]

before I answer this question, could you clarify why or how it would be ruined?

You are the one who spoke of consequences.

[magkelly]

this would make you wonder if this has to do with poverty or just plain right sexual freedom. but I guess the answer is pretty obvious.

None of said roommates was particularly blessed in terms of stable employment. It was partly about economics, but it was also ultimately about their right to have sex whenever they wanted, with whomever they wanted, and to abort on demand if needed. Like I said they were very casual with the birth control and so forth. Trips to the clinic for STD's that happened too while I was living with them. I wish I could tell you that these particular roommates attitude was unusual but it wasn't. I've seen that same thing going on with many women (and young men actually too) in their 20's and 30's in most of the major cities I've lived in.

I am all for being "free" and for having a choice about abortion, but I also believe that if you are going to have sex you need to be responsible about it. That means using birth control, condoms et all EVERY TIME. It wasn't just about birth control and multiple abortions. A couple of these women were totally selfish when it came to notifying their sex partners and their roommates about potentially transferable diseases too.

I was potentially exposed to hepatitis by one roommate. She got injured and spilled a lot of blood in the bathroom which I later unwittingly stepped in because she only half cleaned up and it was dark. I also had a small wound healing on my foot at the time, so I could have actually caught it. She blithely went to Oregon for six months not bothering to tell she had it. Fortunately for me one of her friends came by and he did accidentally mention it and I got tested. Test came back negative but when she came back it was to an empty apartment and no roommate.

Later another roommate deliberately withheld the fact that she had herpes (and possibly HIV as I later found out) from me and from her new guy as well. In that case I wasn't too concerned about me. (Though I do happen to think it's polite to mention you have something like that before you move in?) It wasn't like I was doing her, not likely to catch it, but her new guy? Oh you bet I told him, and then again, I moved out. I couldn't in all good conscience not tell the guy she was an irresponsible, selfish b- who didn't care what she gave him apparently...

I just don't believe sexual freedom should potentially equal rampant promiscuity and selfishness. A lot of the young people (cause it's not just the women) I met in the 3 big cities I lived in were using the Sexual Revolution as an excuse do whatever they want to the point of excess. They don't have real dates anymore. They just hook up, most with multiple partners in the same month. Many of them use abortion as their primary birth control and a lot of them are totally scornful of anything that might even suggest monogamy is a social norm.

Fact is I'm pretty darned liberal sexually speaking. I don't care much about who sleeps with who or why most of the time, but I don't like people who put other people in danger of disease and laugh it off, who don't even try to keep up with the birth control and who think multiple abortions are perfectly fine. I'm rabidly pro choice but I still have to draw the line somewhere.

[Pentaxor]

You are the one who spoke of consequences.

and so? you can't think of any specific or particular circumstances that your question want to address? if you want to get some definitive answer from me, make sure to ask some definitive questions as well. I'm not interested in a pissing contest that leads to a nonsensical discussion.

[Pentaxor]

Like I said, people who are pro-life are pro-life on moral and ethical reasons so no fiscal argument will ever change their mind. The only chance to convince them is if you can convince them that a fetus is not a person, which is an extremely difficult argument to make to someone who has decided that it is.

An interesting question for the most ardent pro-choice people who think that it is a woman's body and no one can tell her what to do... If a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term, should she be allowed to drink and smoke? It is her body and her choice after all...

I think abortion should be legal so I am pro-choice, but I think it is a terrible procedure so I have never and will never put myself in a position where a baby I have sired will be subjected to even the thought of an abortion for any reason other than the health of the mother. I think from the moment that a woman finds out that she is pregnant, if she makes the choice to carry that baby to term she has chosen to sacrifice her body for that baby for at least that 9 month period and that choice closes off other choices for her like drinking, smoking, eating sushi, etc.

this has been tackled by one of our professors during our study. there are a lot of open discussions and debate regarding the humanity of a fetus. some even discuss the simple element of logic. one of the individuals present during the discussion even commented that the answer is definitive. you are a human being, and it's not like you are going to bear Rosemary's Baby. of course there were a lot of laughs, but come to think of it, he has a pretty logical point. what's inside you would resemble a human characteristic, that makes it a person. so it is pretty much difficult rather impossible to even convince by any chance that what comes out is not a person if you could see broken and twisted human appendages are set on a tray after an abortion.

one can also argue with regards to one's body care. it is true that it is a woman's body, technically speaking. although it can also be technically addressed that there are two bodies involved in a pregnancy but are joined. so it's not their own body totally. now if the roles are reversed, and if the fetus is given the chance to decide and say get rid of his/her mother so he/she would be born and enjoy the sunshine, would that nice? I'm sure the mother herself won't be glad about that as well. fact is, even if the fetus can't decide yet, it's right as a human being should be protected like any dependent child are given with. there shouldn't be a bias about it and should be taken with consideration.

[shooz]

You'll excuse me if I am having a problem figuring out what abortion has to do with drug testing welfare recipients.
Is Gov. Scott getting a kick back from the clinics?

[magkelly]

Some folks here seem to think anyone who is poor needs to refrain from having kids period, even if it means abortion. Better abortion than the dole apparently. Some of us object to that idea a little, that's all. Me, I'd rather see a teen welfare mom and a live kid, but that's just me. I'm weird like that.

[deadwolfbones]

96% of Florida Welfare Applicants Pass Drug Test, Discredit Tea Party Gov - COLORLINES

Florida’s new drug-tests-for-welfare-applicants program just yielded its first batch of results: 98 percent passed. It’ll only cost the state $178 million.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who rode his own fortune and the tea party’s adoration to office last year, has stated publicly several times that people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population. So at Scott’s urging earlier this year, the legislature implemented a policy requiring all temporary cash assistance applicants pass a drug test before getting any help.

The Department of Children and Families says about 2 percent of applicants are failing the test; another 2 percent are not completing the application process, for reasons unspecified, according to the Tampa Tribune.

The Tampa Tribune did some simple math and found out how much the governor’s assumptions about poor people going to cost the state:

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month’s worth of rejected applicants.

Net savings to the state: $3,400 to $5,000 annually on one month’s worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

smh

[deadwolfbones]

Actually speaking of that dumb idea let's revisit this part:

ginandtacos.com » Blog Archive » CERTAIN RIGHTS FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE

A friend of mine posted the following on Facebook recently:

After reading that Gov. Scott wants random drug tests for Government employees, and mandatory drug tests for welfare recipients, my cynical response was, "What, does he own a drug testing facility?"

Ha! Funny, but no. Of course he doesn't.

He transferred his $62 million stake in Solantic, a walk-in clinic chain that contracts with employers and government agencies to provide drug screening, to his wife – in a revocable trust, so the moment he leaves office he can regain control of the company. So you see, Rick Scott does not own a drug testing facility. He merely founded a chain of fast food-style walk-in clinics and transferred his ownership share to his wife. (This kind of "share shuffle" is prohibited by federal law and in most states wherein at least the pretense of preventing cronyism and conflicts of interest is maintained. But in Florida it's A-OK. Way to go, Shitshine State.)

Yes, Rick Scott is quite proud of his measure requiring drug testing for all welfare recipients as well as random drug testing for state employees. Finally, Florida will be chock full of personal responsibility.

[GeneV]

You'll excuse me if I am having a problem figuring out what abortion has to do with drug testing welfare recipients.
Is Gov. Scott getting a kick back from the clinics?

Thank you!. I come back from a few days away, and this thread is about the dreaded abortion debate. Shall I start another thread about the original topic?