>>380
"If I was to state what I would all say about this, it would turn out just like Xel's. He took pretty much the words out of my mouth, so I second this."
Yes, because you are biased in favor of women.. a typical radical feminist.
"You are focusing on punishment instead of preventive measures,"
No, I am focusing on restitution, which is not punishment. Yes, people would be deterred from committing this crime due to the fact that they would likely rather be free and support their children normally than support them through forced work from a prison cell, but the main point behind this idea is that we have an alternative solution to the typical right-wing solution to crime. In this solution, we punish the offender, while simultaneously fixing the problem. I see nothing wrong with this approach. Following up thereafter with making contraceptives more prevalent and availible, while tightening up on law enforcement would give a final solution to this difficult problem.
you are victimizing the parents as well. We need to focus more on preventive measures that would dwindle this down.
"That doesn't stop women with diabetes, high-blood pressure, and other disorders from risking their health/lives to become a mother out of good conscience. They are brave."
Erm? Assuming they put their babies at risk in this act of 'bravery', I don't think they are 'brave' so much as they are 'irresponsible.'
"In America, you have minors ages 11-13 becoming pregnant as well which may jeapordize their health/lives,"
You fail. Your example entailed rape, which was not voluntary. Now what you are talking about in the United States is voluntary sex, which is entirely different. What goes on in other countries isn't what I'm talking about. We are talking about the United States. We aren't talking about rape, we are talking about irresponsible people who have consensual sex in a particularly irresponsible manner.
"this seriously puts a dent in the Repubs' "abstinence-only" policy, children are still gonna have sex,"
That is their fault then. Too bad.
"it's a constant, not a variable. What needs to be augmented is comprehensive sex-ed."
People can show restraint, it is not a constant, it is a variable. They are free to have sex or not if they choose. However, if they do, and they do so in an irresponsible manner, they should be held accountable.
"Believe it or not, there are some children in this nation whom scavenge in trash bins and what-not."
Sure. I probly did my share of playing around when I was a child, and there are probly many more opportunities to do this as a child in cities. Redundant anyways.
"Again, sex is a constant."
No it isn't. People have the choice to engage in this activity or not. Are you saying it is impossible to abstain? That's real funny. What do you think ugly people do if nobody will have sex with them? People can obviously hold themselves back.
"What needs to be provided is comprehensive sex-ed and contraceptives, this would put a large dent in the number of abortions."
Sure. You can pay for it though, keep your fingers out of my wallet. Tightening up our laws and holding those responsible accountable would be a great addon, and this is something the left (and you) don't seem to be willing to do.
"The woman's right to her life outweighs the fetus'."
This wasn't what was being discussed. You fail.
"The government doesn't just protect life, liberty, and property, but also the pursuit of happiness."
Right. Two things to consider. What about the happiness of the unborn? Further, what of their right to life? The unborn didn't put themselves in the situation they are in, they obviously cannot be held accountable. On the other hand, those who engaged in sex while unprepared to deal with the consequences did, and can.
"...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In fact, property isn't even mentioned there."
Fails for both redundancy, and innacuracy:
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr10.html
You might find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
Also see 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
"The woman has a right to pursue happiness, and it is the government's job to protect that right as well."
Right. She has the right to pursue happiness, as long as this is not at the expense of others. Basic thoughts on liberty that I guess you missed or failed to understand.
"That analogy really sucks."
No it doesn't.
"Bill Gates isn't a potential fetus with no concious."
Ah! But we are talking about fetuses that are late enough in development to be considered human lives! We aren't talking about a 'potential fetus.' As we know, it is the proper function of a good government to defend said life. We have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and it is the proper function of good government to protect and defend these rights from infringement by both other individuals, and other governments.
"Yeup, the woman's right to her life and pursuit of happiness must be protected."
Have you even been following along? The woman does indeed have a right to pursue happiness.. as long as in doing so she doesn't infringe on other's right to live, or their right to pursue happiness as well. Late term abortions should obviously be banned due to the fact that they do indeed infringe upon these.
"The woman didn't force implantation. It's the zygote/blastocyst's fault for hijacking another person's body without her permission."
Is this sarcasm? I kinda laughed when I read this. It is clearly the fault of those engaging in sex.
"No it wasn't. :D"
Yes it was. See above.
>>381
But nothing. Hillary sucks, and even those who are pro-life and democrats know that, including the many feminists I happen to know. If you are going to back Hillary (supposing she runs in 08), good luck, I doubt you win.