Why Are Men Trying To Make Abortion Decisions???

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:37 am

A fifteen year old has barely a clue of where they reside on a map! You really think that the reality of pregnancy is going to hit them before it happens. If children this young have the same true understanding of responsibility as an adult, why is the drinking age 21? I'd really love to see one of these anti abortion official's daughter at about that age, wind up in a situation like that, and for them to say " no...sorry...just because you're barely in highschool doesn't mean I'm not gonna make you go through something that could kill you if something goes wrong." oh please! "you're still growing, just hit pueberty, no it won't hurt, here practice with this watermelon!" Am I the only one that thinks this way? Is it fair to bring a child into this world to live in poverty with a 16yr. old, or bring a child into the world just to be given up to an adoption agency. That's like telling the 16yr. old mom she's being punished by making her go through with the pregnancy, then the child is paying with it's life for it's mother's mistakes. Gee, your mom made a mistake so she was just going to have to go through with it and give you up because she couldn't take care of you....allwell...her fault. What is wrong with this world. A law such as regarding abortion is such a broad range of things, and there is no reason that a man should be the one making it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:12 am

First off, WELCOME! :-6 If anybody accuses you of being someone else here, just send me a private message & I'll help (sorry, inside joke)

rainingsun wrote: A fifteen year old has barely a clue of where they reside on a map! You really think that the reality of pregnancy is going to hit them before it happens. If children this young have the same true understanding of responsibility as an adult, why is the drinking age 21? I'd really love to see one of these anti abortion official's daughter at about that age, wind up in a situation like that, and for them to say " no...sorry...just because you're barely in highschool doesn't mean I'm not gonna make you go through something that could kill you if something goes wrong." oh please! "you're still growing, just hit pueberty, no it won't hurt, here practice with this watermelon!" This is precisely the reason the decision should belong to the parents, not left to the child. Your phrasing seems to imply that abortion should be mandatory for pregnant children. Is that accurate?

rainingsun wrote: Am I the only one that thinks this way? Is it fair to bring a child into this world to live in poverty with a 16yr. old, or bring a child into the world just to be given up to an adoption agency.No. It's also not fair to squash a child's chance at greatness - or even mediocrity - simply because his parents were too immature to use good judgment. It's also not fair for adults to have to make a life-or-death decision regarding their grandchild. Nothing is fair in such a situation. That's why it's far more important to avoid getting into the situation in the first place. Masturbation is safer.

rainingsun wrote: That's like telling the 16yr. old mom she's being punished by making her go through with the pregnancy [assuming she doesn't want the child. what if she does?], then the child is paying with it's life for it's mother's mistakes. Gee, your mom made a mistake so she was just going to have to go through with it and give you up because she couldn't take care of you....allwell...her fault.How about: "Your mom made a bad call that resulted in a wonderful child. She loved you so much, she knew she couldn't take care of you so she found a family who could love you and give you what she couldn't."

rainingsun wrote: What is wrong with this world. A law such as regarding abortion is such a broad range of things, and there is no reason that a man should be the one making it.Agreed. How about a group of men? No? Then get active politically and support someone you feel worthy of making such decisions.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:44 am

The strange thing about it is that when I wrote it, it wasn't implying mandatory abortion.....once I read it again, and read that portion of your response, I realized that's exactly what I'm saying. Though take it loosely, because life is not textbook. Every situation is different....but in someway.....yes. Though I think with a strong statement such as that, I must say if that's what I think, I'm compelled to say I think mandatory birth control vaccination should come first. Those who would think, "well, that's like giving them permission..." I would put a highschool sex ed class instructing on how to properly use a condom, diaphram etc. would fit that bill more than vaccinations. You could even go as far as to say sexual contact under a certain age should be illegal. That might actually be practical now that I think about it. I don't know, what do you think?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:54 am

rainingsun wrote: The strange thing about it is that when I wrote it, it wasn't implying mandatory abortion.....once I read it again, and read that portion of your response, I realized that's exactly what I'm saying. Though take it loosely, because life is not textbook. Every situation is different....but in someway.....yes. Though I think with a strong statement such as that, I must say if that's what I think, I'm compelled to say I think mandatory birth control vaccination should come first. Those who would think, "well, that's like giving them permission..." I would put a highschool sex ed class instructing on how to properly use a condom, diaphram etc. would fit that bill more than vaccinations. You could even go as far as to say sexual contact under a certain age should be illegal. That might actually be practical now that I think about it. I don't know, what do you think?:wah: I can just see the court transcript now ... world record for using the phrase "do it".

Parents are responsible for their children. if there is a safe way to 'vaccinate' them, and the parents think it necessary, I say go for it. I'd bet even the most fundamentalist christian would use that option.

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:05 am

maybe some men take a interest because they pay child support too women who lied about there method of birth control?

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:16 am

If something like that came to be, the first place they need to start is a third world country. Yes, taking care of ourselves is priority, but it's also the U.S. who seem more compelled to take care of other country's children. It has always bothered me that there are always donation commercials for foreign children, and when is that last time you've seen a donation commercial for an organization in the United States......there aren't any. The only thing more heartwrenching than children starving in other countries that have no other means, are children starving here in the U.S. where food is plenty. Now if you ask me I think It's countries like those that would give this type of birth control a practical purpose.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:32 am

No mandatory vaccines. That is above the parents' call and should be entirely the kids' choice.

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:24 am

rainingsun wrote: If something like that came to be, the first place they need to start is a third world country. Yes, taking care of ourselves is priority, but it's also the U.S. who seem more compelled to take care of other country's children. It has always bothered me that there are always donation commercials for foreign children, and when is that last time you've seen a donation commercial for an organization in the United States......there aren't any. The only thing more heartwrenching than children starving in other countries that have no other means, are children starving here in the U.S. where food is plenty. Now if you ask me I think It's countries like those that would give this type of birth control a practical purpose.

Maybe instead of droping food we can drop cases of condoms,Perhaps that would the system down long enough too maybe catch up with the food.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:29 am

Shweet tatersalad wrote: Maybe instead of droping food we can drop cases of condoms,Perhaps that would the system down long enough too maybe catch up with the food.

The problem is getting the food to people who need it. I was in the miltary during the Somalia fiasco. We had plenty of food available but had trouble getting it out of Mogadishu. Crappy road system, warlords etc. The world gorws enough food these days so there is no excuse for people starving..

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:16 am

rainingsun wrote: If something like that came to be, the first place they need to start is a third world country. Yes, taking care of ourselves is priority, but it's also the U.S. who seem more compelled to take care of other country's children. It has always bothered me that there are always donation commercials for foreign children, and when is that last time you've seen a donation commercial for an organization in the United States......there aren't any. The only thing more heartwrenching than children starving in other countries that have no other means, are children starving here in the U.S. where food is plenty. Now if you ask me I think It's countries like those that would give this type of birth control a practical purpose.

Shweettatersalad wrote: Maybe instead of droping food we can drop cases of condoms,Perhaps that would the system down long enough too maybe catch up with the food.

And MAYBE you and rainingsun don't actually know what you're talking about!

People are ALWAYS saying "If African families have less kids there'd be less poverty"

In actual fact, African families stay together, they don't put their kids in nurseries and they don't put their grandparents in old folks homes.

The grandparents look after the babies. Once they are children, they help the family out. The parents will farm as much land as they can manage and feed themselves, their parents and their babies. Older children will also farm the land, but now extra land is being farmed and they are growing more crops than they need to eat, so they can sell the extra crops at market.

They save the money they make until they can afford to buy a cow. Then they can feed their children milk, butter, cheese, yogurt, so they have a more nutritionally balanced diet. Eventually they might be able to afford to send a child to school. That child learns to read and write, he can study better farming methods and learn how to rotate crops, etc., and improve his family's income.

In Africa, the more children you have, the richer you are because you can grow more and earn more.

Meanwhile, we have would-be smart-a$$e$ in the Western World, who say "Ya know, you could farm more crops with tractors" So they ship millions of tractors out to Africa. But they have no petrol to use in the tractors, so they just sit there - unused. BUT, they still have to pay for them!

So if an african family earns, say, $1 per day and the USA and the UK governments (and others) say "okay, now you have to repay 80cents per day until you've paid for that tractor" which costs thousands of dollars! How is that going to affect them? Do you think they might be starving in order to repay US??

Remember the Green Revolution? Westernised scientists developed a new "super" crop which would give them everything they needed. They made the African people buy it - and it failed to grow! Just because it grew in hot houses, where it was carefully nurtured, doesn't mean it was going to grow in hot, sandy, arid areas! So we had to lend them money for food to stop them from starving - even though the starvation was caused by US! The West!

So scientists redeveloped the crop. It now grew in hot, sandy, arid areas, but it was less nutritious than the crops they grew before, it made them malnourished because they only had one crop to eat instead of a variety, and it tasted absolutely disgusting! The farmers couldn't even sell it at market because we had made ALL the farmers buy this grain, so they were all trying to eat and sell the same stuff!

AGAIN they starved!

AGAIN the starvation was caused by the West!

AGAIN we made them pay for the grain we sent them and for the cost of exporting it (just like the tractors) AND we sold it at over-the-top prices that our governments had decided on!

We KEEP on telling them what to do and we KEEP on making them pay for it!

We DID stop them having babies at one time. When mothers brought their first baby to the village hospital for a checkup, they were taken into tents where the husbands couldn't see them and given the pill and told how to use it, but NOT told what it was for because their husbands wouldn't approve! So we stopped them having the children who could improve their income and get them out of poverty!

We also gave them free milk for their babies, and told them to use it because it was better than their own milk! Then, when their own milk dried up, we CHARGED them for it! Purely to make money out of them! And they had no choice but to pay - they had to feed their babies!

These are POOR people. They do what we tell them because they don't know anything else! It is only in the last few years that we have realised we need to do what is best for THEM in THEIR climate, not what is best for us or how we can best rip them off! They are still struggling to pay off their HUGE debts to the West - a financial burden that WE put them under!

Or would you rather let them all starve to death because of our own greed over the last 100 years which has put them in this position?

And, btw, if they DID all starve to death, our governments would never recoup the money they spent in the first place! So as long as we keep them alive, they can continue to repay us for OUR mistakes! And why should we

fat-cat countries care if they're starving - so long as we can still make money out of them!? :-5

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:35 am

Woh there Kunta Kentae,I will with draw my comment if it is going too cause the hate too come from this site,I do not want too feed the in fighting going on here now.You live in the UK,And you know more about America then I do.

So I crawl back into my dumpster behind Denny's and keep looking for a job that won't be affected by affirmative action.because I did not toss out cash too be here i must only post when posted too.On this the anniversary Of Katrina,when we could even help ourselves because we have too much money going out too every country that asks,but when we ask help,the phone is always busy.I respect your comments,but you need too walk in my shoes too understand.

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:37 am

What does any of this have to do with men making abortion decisions?

Yes Abortion is a woman's issue, we are the ones that have to endure the procedure or the pregnancy. But if I ever found myself in that position, I would be compelled to make a decision with the father. It took two to make it happen, he should be involved in the decision.

Birth control should be taught in schools, absolutely! Not to sound Holier than thou, but I havn't had any "accidents" and i am far from the blessed virgin.

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:41 am

Shweet tatersalad wrote: Woh there Kunta Kentae,I will with draw my comment if it is going too cause the hate too come from this site,I do not want too feed the in fighting going on here now.You live in the UK,And you know more about America then I do.

So I crawl back into my dumpster behind Denny's and keep looking for a job that won't be affected by affirmative action.because I did not toss out cash too be here i must only post when posted too.On this the anniversary Of Katrina,when we could even help ourselves because we have too much money going out too every country that asks,but when we ask help,the phone is always busy.I respect your comments,but you need too walk in my shoes too understand.

Yeah, that post was harsh Rap!

We DO have save the children commercials on every other break and it is always for third world countries. There are people right here in the US that feed thier kids dog food!

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:42 am

So CC your saying you have actually had sex? Well I'll be.

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:59 am

Hey now every one ,thanks for the support,but i was ready too take this fight on myself.

but if you feel as i do,and want too line up with me that s ok,but don't do it for me,do it for the country you love.It's hard for outsiders too know what it's like too have too be everyones big brother or sister,they think money grows on trees here.

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:04 am

YZGI wrote: So CC your saying you have actually had sex? Well I'll be.

Who doesn't?

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:05 am

Shweet tatersalad wrote: Hey now every one ,thanks for the support,but i was ready too take this fight on myself.

but if you feel as i do,and want too line up with me that s ok,but don't do it for me,do it for the country you love.It's hard for outsiders too know what it's like too have too be everyones big brother or sister,they think money grows on trees here.

So true Tater. So true!

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:10 am

CheshireCat wrote: So true Tater. So true!

Shall we get you a bib C2..:wah:

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:12 am

zinkyusa wrote: Shall we get you a bib C2..:wah:

What?

i'm agreeing with the man, he makes an excellent point!

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:13 am

Shweet tatersalad wrote: Woh there Kunta Kentae,I will with draw my comment if it is going too cause the hate too come from this site,I do not want too feed the in fighting going on here now.You live in the UK,And you know more about America then I do.

So I crawl back into my dumpster behind Denny's and keep looking for a job that won't be affected by affirmative action.because I did not toss out cash too be here i must only post when posted too.On this the anniversary Of Katrina,when we could even help ourselves because we have too much money going out too every country that asks,but when we ask help,the phone is always busy.I respect your comments,but you need too walk in my shoes too understand.

Tater, you're being a silly arse! :p

You know you can post what you like but you're saying it's all right for you to make derogatory remarks about the poverty in Africa when you haven't a clue what you're talking about and you're also making derogatory remarks about me, insinuating I'm a black in white clothing by calling me Kunta Kinte (which you can't even spell) and telling me I don't understand because I haven't walked in your shoes!

Well I DO understand that the US DOESN'T "hand out" money, it INVESTS it - and it wants it back with interest!

And I wouldn't want to walk in your shoes because they're probably too big and too smelly! :p

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:13 am

CheshireCat wrote: What?

i'm agreeing with the man, he makes an excellent point!

OK, just stop drooling when you agree..:p

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:22 am

CheshireCat wrote: Yeah, that post was harsh Rap!

We DO have save the children commercials on every other break and it is always for third world countries. There are people right here in the US that feed thier kids dog food!

CC, anything I say to Tater will be too harsh for you because I'm not fawning over your beloved. But surely thats better than worshipping the ground he walks on and making you jealous? :sneaky:

Commercials for third world countries are made by charities who feel sorry for people that are in desperate poverty because of OUR governments. They are trying to help them. Thats why they suggest abolishing third world debt - because WE put them in that debt. Without our "helpful interference" they'd probably be thriving and exporting their food to the Western world profitably! Instead, THEY put all the hard work in then WE take over, WE export the crops and WE profit!

How is that fair?

And, btw, there are ALWAYS going to be people who treat their kids badly, thats a tragedy that has nothing to do with third world poverty!

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:23 am

Rapunzel wrote: Tater, you're being a silly arse! :p

You know you can post what you like but you're saying it's all right for you to make derogatory remarks about the poverty in Africa when you haven't a clue what you're talking about and you're also making derogatory remarks about me, insinuating I'm a black in white clothing by calling me Kunta Kinte (which you can't even spell) and telling me I don't understand because I haven't walked in your shoes!

Well I DO understand that the US DOESN'T "hand out" money, it INVESTS it - and it wants it back with interest!

And I wouldn't want to walk in your shoes because they're probably too big and too smelly! :p

Hey, Tater never said anything about Africa, you brought that up. I don't think he insulted you either.

We were talking about birth control and you went off about Africa.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:27 am

Btw, there was a scientific experiment on British TV yesterday, that proved that dog food is actually healthier for you than McDonalds!

It just doesn't taste as good! :p

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:29 am

Rapunzel wrote: CC, anything I say to Tater will be too harsh for you because I'm not fawning over your beloved. But surely thats better than worshipping the ground he walks on and making you jealous? :sneaky:

Commercials for third world countries are made by charities who feel sorry for people that are in desperate poverty because of OUR governments. They are trying to help them. Thats why they suggest abolishing third world debt - because WE put them in that debt. Without our "helpful interference" they'd probably be thriving and exporting their food to the Western world profitably! Instead, THEY put all the hard work in then WE take over, WE export the crops and WE profit!

How is that fair?

And, btw, there are ALWAYS going to be people who treat their kids badly, thats a tragedy that has nothing to do with third world poverty!

Rap, I am not fawning over Tater, not in this thread anyway, I'm being serious. Abortion is a serious issue. People want to condem it and refuse to teach their children about birth control. Birth control should be taught globally

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:29 am

Rapunzel wrote: Btw, there was a scientific experiment on British TV yesterday, that proved that dog food is actually healthier for you than McDonalds!

It just doesn't taste as good! :p

Yes it does, nummie:)

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:29 am

Rapunzel wrote: Btw, there was a scientific experiment on British TV yesterday, that proved that dog food is actually healthier for you than McDonalds!

It just doesn't taste as good! :p

Now that I believe

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:37 am

CheshireCat wrote: Hey, Tater never said anything about Africa, you brought that up. I don't think he insulted you either.

We were talking about birth control and you went off about Africa.

If you actually READ posts #6 and #8, you'll see raining sun said:

rainingsun wrote: If something like that came to be, the first place they need to start is a third world country. Yes, taking care of ourselves is priority, but it's also the U.S. who seem more compelled to take care of other country's children. It has always bothered me that there are always donation commercials for foreign children, and when is that last time you've seen a donation commercial for an organization in the United States......there aren't any. The only thing more heartwrenching than children starving in other countries that have no other means, are children starving here in the U.S. where food is plenty. Now if you ask me I think It's countries like those that would give this type of birth control a practical purpose.

And Tatersalad said:

Shweet tatersalad wrote: Maybe instead of droping food we can drop cases of condoms,Perhaps that would the system down long enough too maybe catch up with the food.

So THEY started the conversation and THEY denigrated 'foreign countries' without understanding WHY 'foreign children' are living in poverty or HOW they came to be so poor!

YOU stand up for poorly treated and misunderstood animals because you're a vet.

I stand up for poorly treated and misunderstood people because I'm a humanitarian.

Okay?

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:49 am

Rapunzel wrote: If you actually READ posts #6 and #8, you'll see raining sun said:

And Tatersalad said:

So THEY started the conversation and THEY denigrated 'foreign countries' without understanding WHY 'foreign children' are living in poverty or HOW they came to be so poor!

YOU stand up for poorly treated and misunderstood animals because you're a vet.

I stand up for poorly treated and misunderstood people because I'm a humanitarian.

Okay?

Please don't think that I am trying to pick a fight with you, that is not my intention. I respect you and admire your knowledge and passion for humanity. Please don't take me the wrong way.

Rapunzel · Post by **Rapunzel** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:06 am

CheshireCat wrote: Please don't think that I am trying to pick a fight with you, that is not my intention. I respect you and admire your knowledge and passion for humanity. Please don't take me the wrong way.

Nor my intention either! That respect and admiration flow both ways!

Friends?

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:10 am

Rapunzel wrote: Nor my intention either! That respect and admiration flow both ways!

Friends?

You bet! :-6

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:11 am

Rapunzel wrote: Nor my intention either! That respect and admiration flow both ways!

Friends?

I'll say it again

This is an example of the Garden at its best :-6

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:57 am

OK drop it every one,We are sinking to level we don't want too go too.

They should ate Sally Struthers went they had the chance,when she was there doing those adds for save the children.

I for one no longer want too involve myself is this crap or some one with a God complex.

So lets let this rest,If America wants too invest in Africa then let it be.Thats how we got into the civil war in the first place.

And CC,you need stay out these things because you get along and they pull that first,Because they don't think you have a mind of your own,and you do!

But you stand the chance of never being taken seriously.

so In closing I will walk away and live too fight another day for a cause worthy of My attention.Like when the toast falls too the floor it always falls butter side down.

And yeah,I do have spelling problems,In school they thought I was retarded,turns out A.D.D. was'nt invented yet.But the U.S.M.C. fixed all that for me.

zinkyusa · Post by **zinkyusa** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:28 am

Shweet tatersalad wrote: OK drop it every one,We are sinking to level we don't want too go too.

They should ate Sally Struthers went they had the chance,when she was there doing those adds for save the children.

I for one no longer want too involve myself is this crap or some one with a God complex.

So lets let this rest,If America wants too invest in Africa then let it be.Thats how we got into the civil war in the first place.

And CC,you need stay out these things because you get along and they pull that first,Because they don't think you have a mind of your own,and you do!

But you stand the chance of never being taken seriously.

so In closing I will walk away and live too fight another day for a cause worthy of My attention.Like when the toast falls too the floor it always falls butter side down.

And yeah,I do have spelling problems,In school they thought I was retarded,turns out A.D.D. was'nt invented yet.But the U.S.M.C. fixed all that for me.

Hang in there buddy, vet to vet..

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:36 am

zinkyusa wrote: Hang in there buddy, vet to vet..

Tater iv VERY patriotic. Loves our country a lot!

Me too!

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:04 pm

Can we get back to teens having abortions? People never consider that contraceptives do fail, and people who use them don't always do it correctly. Many young men refuse to be responsible for birth control at all...should they then be involved in a girl's decision to terminate a pregnancy?

CheshireCat · Post by **CheshireCat** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:18 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Can we get back to teens having abortions? People never consider that contraceptives do fail, and people who use them don't always do it correctly. Many young men refuse to be responsible for birth control at all...should they then be involved in a girl's decision to terminate a pregnancy?

Sad as it sounds, birth control is ultimately up to the female. I know I'm opening up a can of worms, but the female doesn't have to participate with a partner that won't use a condom. It's just too dangerous in this day and age. I think there should be better sex education in the schools as well.

As far as Teen Abortion, I agee with AC on this one. The parents should be involved. That is far to great a burden to bear when you are a child yourself. The teen fathers, I think that's a grey area, I don't know what the answer is.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:17 pm

RedGlitter wrote: No mandatory vaccines. That is above the parents' call and should be entirely the kids' choice.

Should kids decide whether or not they want the vacine for mumps, measles, smallpox? Most kids would say "No way" if asked whether they wanted a shot. Vaccines are compulsary for kids in public schools.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:23 pm

Rapunzel wrote: Commercials for third world countries are made by charities who feel sorry for people that are in desperate poverty because of OUR governments.

I agree with much of what you have said, but I suggest that THEIR governments are far more responsible for their plight than ours are.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:24 pm

Has anyone noticed the term is always "teenage pregnancy?" It's never "teenage IMPREGNATION" which implies a guy helped. As long as the woman bears the brunt, it should be her sole decision. Until men can get pregnant, it may take two but it can't be shared.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:28 pm

Lulu2 wrote: Can we get back to teens having abortions? People never consider that contraceptives do fail, and people who use them don't always do it correctly. Many young men refuse to be responsible for birth control at all...should they then be involved in a girl's decision to terminate a pregnancy?

Not if they are pimply-faced teens they shouldn't. The boys are probably more clueless than the girls. But grown, responsible men in a committed relationship should have some say so. Even in a one-night stand, they should be consulted. If they turn out to be jerks then the woman will know their opinion isn't worth much and can disgard it.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:58 pm

A vaccine of preventative measures being above the call of a parent would be up there with every other vaccine we've had since the day we were born. It's a parent's obligation and right to put forth the first line of defense for they're children. If these children are in highschool, or less sometimes, who do you think winds up taking care of the child, and what becomes of it. Now I certainly think a vaccine like that would be much more beneficial than the flu shot we get once a year. I'm certainly not going to leave it up to my young daughter to know what's best for her in that respect, because she doesn't, and none of them do at that age. That's why when are kids get into trouble it's the parent's responsibility, because it is up to the PARENTS to make the decisions they don't understand are best for them. A vaccine to prevent pregnancy is as evasive as the flu shot. If that's all it takes to change the way these children are having to live, to be taken care of and kept out of the adoption agency, I think it's a simple solution that would make a very big difference. It would not only try to insure to the best of our ability, that these children have a better chance at life, but would certainly beat having to make the decision of dropping out of school, putting it up for adoption, or aborting it. Parenting is a beautiful thing, but requires being able to be one. If you can prevent something like that before it happens.......why wouldn't you?

RedGlitter wrote: No mandatory vaccines. That is above the parents' call and should be entirely the kids' choice.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:08 pm

Shweet tatersalad wrote: Maybe instead of droping food we can drop cases of condoms,Perhaps that would the system down long enough too maybe catch up with the food.

LOL. That is exactly what my mother said to me one day when I was in highschool studying third world countries. Her quoted words "Why are we sending food? They're poppin out kids as fast as we can feed them. Why don't they drop condoms?"

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:17 pm

zinkyusa wrote: The problem is getting the food to people who need it. I was in the miltary during the Somalia fiasco. We had plenty of food available but had trouble getting it out of Mogadishu. Crappy road system, warlords etc. The world gorws enough food these days so there is no excuse for people starving..

I'm a military wife, and from what I know about it, I share your frustration. Sometimes it's easy for people to closed minded if they aren't aware it's closed. There are so many factors to everything in life that make problems what they are. Its sad.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:28 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: Should kids decide whether or not they want the vacine for mumps, measles, smallpox? Most kids would say "No way" if asked whether they wanted a shot. Vaccines are compulsary for kids in public schools.

I knew that would be coming up. This should be easy enough. First those vaccines are given to *children.* Teenagers are not children any more than they are adults. Second, those shots are given to protect the kid from a crippling disease or death as well as to prevent the spread of said disease from contracting in other humans. Now please don't take the A Train and tell me that pregnancy is a social disease and we need to vaccinate everybody under the age of 21 for it. I'm not buying that. It reeks of mandatory sterilization which would be the logical next step if you start off with forced birth control.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:34 pm

First off, as far as politics go regarding your "for the past 100yrs." statement.....if your world had been that devestated for that amount of time would you keep having children? The problem is just that. I never made the point that no kids equals no poverty. The point I was making is that in poverty you should have no kids. I can absolutely see where you're coming from though if that's how I made it sound. It's really difficult sometimes to be clear about things like that when the issue carries so many sides and perspectives. I really like hearing everyone's perspective. Though I carry my own side and opinion, it's certainly worth hearing people out even if I don't agree with it. Again though, It's not children who are the reason for poverty, it's that in poverty the children keep coming. I liked your response because it wasn't a one lined opinion. You told why you thought that way and I was able to understand it better.

Rapunzel wrote: And MAYBE you and rainingsun don't actually know what you're talking about!

People are ALWAYS saying "If African families have less kids there'd be less poverty"

In actual fact, African families stay together, they don't put their kids in nurseries and they don't put their grandparents in old folks homes.

The grandparents look after the babies. Once they are children, they help the family out. The parents will farm as much land as they can manage and feed themselves, their parents and their babies. Older children will also farm the land, but now extra land is being farmed and they are growing more crops than they need to eat, so they can sell the extra crops at market.

They save the money they make until they can afford to buy a cow. Then they can feed their children milk, butter, cheese, yogurt, so they have a more nutritionally balanced diet. Eventually they might be able to afford to send a child to school. That child learns to read and write, he can study better farming methods and learn how to rotate crops, etc., and improve his family's income.

In Africa, the more children you have, the richer you are because you can grow more and earn more.

Meanwhile, we have would-be smart-a$$e$ in the Western World, who say "Ya know, you could farm more crops with tractors" So they ship millions of tractors out to Africa. But they have no petrol to use in the tractors, so they just sit there - unused. BUT, they still have to pay for them!

So if an african family earns, say, $1 per day and the USA and the UK governments (and others) say "okay, now you have to repay 80cents per day until you've paid for that tractor" which costs thousands of dollars! How is that going to affect them? Do you think they might be starving in order to repay US??

Remember the Green Revolution? Westernised scientists developed a new "super" crop which would give them everything they needed. They made the African people buy it - and it failed to grow! Just because it grew in hot houses, where it was carefully nurtured, doesn't mean it was going to grow in hot, sandy, arid areas! So we had to lend them money for food to stop them from starving - even though the starvation was caused by US! The West!

So scientists redeveloped the crop. It now grew in hot, sandy, arid areas, but it was less nutritious than the crops they grew before, it made them malnourished because they only had one crop to eat instead of a variety, and it tasted absolutely disgusting! The farmers couldn't even sell it at market because we had made ALL the farmers buy this grain, so they were all trying to eat and sell the same stuff!

AGAIN they starved!

AGAIN the starvation was caused by the West!

AGAIN we made them pay for the grain we sent them and for the cost of exporting it (just like the tractors) AND we sold it at over-the-top prices that our governments had decided on!

We KEEP on telling them what to do and we KEEP on making them pay for it!

We DID stop them having babies at one time. When mothers brought their first baby to the village hospital for a checkup, they were taken into tents where the husbands couldn't see them and given the pill and told how to use it, but NOT told what it was for because their husbands wouldn't approve! So we stopped them having the children who could improve their income and get them out of poverty!

We also gave them free milk for their babies, and told them to use it because it was better than their own milk! Then, when their own milk dried up, we CHARGED them for it! Purely to make money out of them! And they had no choice but to pay - they had to feed their babies!

These are POOR people. They do what we tell them because they don't know anything else! It is only in the last few years that we have realised we need to do what is best for THEM in THEIR climate, not what is best for us or how we can best rip them off! They are still struggling to pay off their HUGE debts to the West - a financial burden that WE put them under!

Or would you rather let them all starve to death because of our own greed over the last 100 years which has put them in this position?

And, btw, if they DID all starve to death, our governments would never recoup the money they spent in the first place! So as long as we keep them alive, they can continue to repay us for OUR mistakes! And why should we

fat-cat countries care if they're starving - so long as we can still make money out of them!? :-5

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:34 pm

RainingSun said:

...why wouldn't you?"

Simply because it's not my place to that's why. You have to respect that teenager or not, they are a separate entity from you. You control your OWN body. After childhood it is not your place to exert control over theirs. You don't want them getting pregnant or impregnating? Then teach them better! Tell them about other alternatives and leave the choice up to them. That's too bad that there will always be unwanted pregnancy but that's human nature and as long as we're all human you are not going to prevent that. Besides, controlling your child's reproductive system by forcibly putting chemicals in their body smacks of naziism.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:39 pm

Shweet tatersalad wrote: Woh there Kunta Kentae,I will with draw my comment if it is going too cause the hate too come from this site,I do not want too feed the in fighting going on here now.You live in the UK,And you know more about America then I do.

So I crawl back into my dumpster behind Denny's and keep looking for a job that won't be affected by affirmative action.because I did not toss out cash too be here i must only post when posted too.On this the anniversary Of Katrina,when we could even help ourselves because we have too much money going out too every country that asks,but when we ask help,the phone is always busy.I respect your comments,but you need too walk in my shoes too understand.

Don't ever withdrawl a statement if it is something you felt you wanted to say. Sites like this don't exist because everyone agrees. If the hate comes out you don't need to blame yourself. Forums exist because people have things to say, and sometimes you just take the good with the bad. Always stand by what you have to say. There's nothing wrong with that.

rainingsun · Post by **rainingsun** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:43 pm

CheshireCat wrote: What does any of this have to do with men making abortion decisions?

Yes Abortion is a woman's issue, we are the ones that have to endure the procedure or the pregnancy. But if I ever found myself in that position, I would be compelled to make a decision with the father. It took two to make it happen, he should be involved in the decision.

Birth control should be taught in schools, absolutely! Not to sound Holier than thou, but I havn't had any "accidents" and i am far from the blessed virgin.

nodding my head in agreement