Free Speech- Put Your Bravery Where Your Mouth Is

I've found that when people glorify the mob and mafia like they did with the "Sopranos" TV show and other violent forms of entertainment, they try to hide behind the so-called "free speech" defense.  I find that this is a constant, recurring glitch of nearly all movies and TV shows that center around violent crime.  However, it is usually a cover-up for the fact that they do not *truly* have freedom of speech.

You producers, creators, actors, etc. are so damn fascinated with the mob.  You say that it is a social problem that no one addresses.  You constantly defend your morbid obsession with mafia and crime.  You hail yourselves as some sort of social trailblazer, renegade,

But if you truly thought the mafia is a huge social problem that needs to have the spotlight put on it, then why don't you do a news report on the real mafia?  Go undercover, delve into the world that consumes your curiosity and fascination.  Go straight to the source and get your information raw and fresh.  Go do some digging and collecting and gather a great scoop.

Instead of addressing a real social phenomenon, you are merely glorifying it by presenting it as glamorous, sexy, desirable, and worthy of attainment.

This is not journalism.  This is BS.  This is what is creating social problems.  This is not bringing social problems to light, trying to raise awareness, or working on creating a solution.  This is not freedom of information.  You ARE the incidents that true journalism would be making people aware of as news pieces.  You are no better than the prostitution, drugs, or gang violence that we see on the six o'clock news.

If you are so damn occupied and worried about the mafia, if you think it is such a pressing social concern, then why don't you report on the *real* mafia?  Instead of glorifying it and in essence lying to the viewing public, why do you not do some investigative journalism and uncover the facts about the real mafia?  What's stopping you?

Ohhh -- it is because the mafia will not let you.  It is because the mafia will not allow you to do the news report.  It is because the mafia will murder you for exercising the constitutional right to having unbridled access to information.  In other words, you do not have true freedom of speech.
//After all, what good is free speech, if no one will hear you?

oliver stone's violence-obsessed movies.

then why the hell don't you report on that?  if youre so damn worried ab womn fgett rs , then why the hell don't you do an investigative journalism report on that?  yoiu know, like the news and increase awareness?

(For: why not do a journalistic pc on the real mafia?
They say___

Like Veronica Guerin.  Have you ever heard of her?  This woman had balls of iron (ferrous)))).  She had bigger cojones than the combined external genitalia of all you fake poser hollywd blockbuster wannabes combined.

Notice I said she "had."

So you *admit** that you do not have true access to information.  You do not have ___
____Upon threat of death, dismemberment, disembowelment__
You do not have access to information.
That is the case *despite* the fact that this is something that the general public definitely have a right to know about.   They drf hv a rtd to be fully infr on this thing that___
I read the news mags.  Thes people are vile flith.
They have an annihilating effect on society.  They are responsible for prrdn, prsti, dangerous stret drugs.
___they perpetuate...

A 'nooo want to show how truly violi the mob/maddffia is.'
Q Well then why not showcase it in all its mundaneness?
A 'well thnn. People really wdl not watch it; it has to be exciting.''

Ahh so in other words you fully admit that you would not have true freedom of speech if you really told the full unfiltered truth.  Noone would pay attnention; no one is going to care;; no one is going to [[__]]].  After all what good is free speech, if noone will hear you????

this is not journalism.  this is bs.  this is creating social problems.  this is not bringing social problems to light, trying to raise awareness, or working on (creating) a solution.  this is not freedom of information.  you ARE the incidents that journalism would be making people aware of as news pieces.  you are no better than the pr, drugs, gang violence.

American Psycho And The 1980s

The 1980s didn't have a soul?  Aggghh!  I was crushed!  The 1980s was all about heart and soul for me.

**(October)) fall is my absolute favorite season.
Perhaps this is because I grew up in New England, and fall there, or “autumn” as the kids call it, are positively gorgeous.  breathtaking scenery.  I reveled in jumping into piles and piles of leaves.  Golden colors, reddish-orange with a hint of brown, burnt sienna.
-- going trick or treating...

My parents traveled all the time.  Despite our meager [[modest]] resources, they made this a very big priority.  We could not afford airplane tickets.  So we drove everywhere.  (My parents did all the driving; I did not participate in that aspect of our travels.)

We went to see the Museum of Natural History very often.  I have an aunt and uncle and cousins who live in Maryland, and we would visit them quite often, a few times a year.  So we were basically a hop, skip, and a jump away from Washington, D.C. and all the tourist attractions it held.  I absolutely loved the Museum of Natural History.  It was so fascinating seeing all the huge skeletons from long-extinct animals hailing from time immemorial, suspended impossibly from the ceilings overhead.

The dinosaur bones!  If nothing else, you should visit the Museum of Natural History to see the dinosaur skeletons.  They are reconstructed and assembled, but I can imagine how fierce those dinosaurs were back in the day.

And yes, the rocks.  Ahh, all the natural formations, mineral deposits, and gemstones.  The Hope Blue Diamond has some sort of significance in history.  The rocks were very pretty.  Rather, they *are* very pretty.  It has been a few years since I’ve paid my respects, but I am sure they are still there.
-- the Smithsonian.
-- the Liberty Bell.,,, Philadelphiaa.
-- the Lincoln Memorial.
*** idea:  use/integrate my list of fun things to do, to travel and see historical sites and monuments.
_-Niagara Falls.  -traveling to Washington, D.C. and seeing all the sites and historical monuments,, _.  Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Boston.  We ruled Boston.

I learned a love of poring through maps and atlases and looking at globes.  My Mom had taught me the alphabet using a map as a springboard when I was one year old.

This fostered my love of geography, road travel, and highway engineering, hehe.  But seriously, I really do-- I like learning how bridges and highways are constructed.  Once in a while I enjoy studying this in terms of the pylons or concrete foundations.

Mostly I like looking at aerial photographs of bridges and highways.  My sense of road directions and understanding navigation are excellent.  I have a thorough grasp of how highways and infrastructure are planned, in terms of travel patterns and the designs of exit and entrance ramps.  Some of them are more straightforward, wherein they resemble a kneecap joint, but some are prettier.  It is fascinating looking at cloverleaf patterns of highway exits and highway acceleration ramps, the whole 270-degree turnaround.  Interesting, how the theory of "three rights make a left" is reflected in the turnaround loop to and from a highway.  Reminds me of rosette patterns of sin, cos, and tan that we learned way back in Algebra.  It is a nice hobby.

We were heavily involved in the local Bangladeshi community.  It was a wonderful environment being surrounded within this community.  [[perh hold off on the going into great deatil on the coll uni like oxford until the 'educational importance''' essays.]]]  These experiences fostered and engulfed a strong sense of identity within my family.  It instilled appreciation for my culture.

Warmly ensconced me in___  very welcoming, warm positive introduction into the world of academia.  oh wait, different essay.

The State Of Public Education In This Country

More and more information is being revealed on a regular basis regarding the title subject.
I was listening to NPR recently.  There was a discussion panel on why schools are terrible and why kids are dumber now than they used to be in prior years.

Apparently people are mad because teachers are not doing a good job disciplining kids in public schools.  Teachers are apparently not able to make the kids sit still and pay attention to the lesson.  People are mad because teachers are not actively holding the kids' interest in the subject matter.  Teachers are not engaging students.  Teachers are not teaching the subjects in a way that holds kids' attention.  Teachers are not making the kids want to learn.

But wait a minute.  Why is all of that the teacher's job??

I am not comprehending why the <schools> are bearing the brunt of all this blame.  This is about the following issues:
-Instilling a sense of discipline;
-fostering a desire to learn;
-paying attention to the teacher during the lesson, and not falling asleep in class.

This is about students having a good attitude and not being rude or disrespectful to the teacher.  This is about producing well-behaved, polite children who have manners.  Who treat the teachers with respect.  Who treat their peers, i.e., fellow students, with respect.  Conduct themselves with decorum.

These are all behavior and conduct issues.  This is NOTTTT the schools' job or teachers' job.
That is all the parents' job.  (And it is also the kid's own responsibility, I dare say.)

School-- reading, writing 'rithmetic. That's it.  That is all that the school is responsible for.

We are talking about the state of public education in America -- and what the REAL problem is.  Why is that the school's job???  Can someone answer me this?  Where are the parents?

Why is it the schools' job to establish a sense of discipline in the students and to compel them to behave themselves?  To show respect towards, and pay attention to, the teacher?   To display reverence for the learning process?  Why is it the school's job to grow, nourish, and nurture a thirst for knowledge?

The job of discipline, and fostering a civilized, functioning personality that can make positive contributions in civilized society.  These are not academic subjects.  These are personality traits.  That is NOT the job of the teacher to cultivate.  Those are things that PARENTS need to instill in their children.

Again, repeat after me.  Being a good person is something the parents need to teach, not something that teachers have to teach.

Parents must foster good study habits and good skills of concentration in their kid.  Parents must enforce the concept of paying attention in class and actually showing some respect to the teacher when the teacher is trying to bestow some education on them.  What about instilling a sense of respect for other human beings?  That is a character trait, not an academic subject.  Therefore that is something that the parent should be teaching to the child.  It is not incumbent on any teacher to cultivate a good respectful personality.  That is the parents' job.

We're not talking about just reading, writing, & 'rithmetic here.  We are talking about personality traits.  Kids should already come from a mindset that encourages a desire to study and value education.  Do well in school.  Parents must create a home environment that is conducive to learning.

I remember seeing a poster once that had the title, "Everything I ever needed to know, I learned back in kindergarten."  I noticed that the poster featured behavior and discipline, which are things that the Parents are responsible for, not the school.  These are things for which the parents bear responsibility, not the schools.

None of that is the school's job.  That is the parents' job.  Why are the parents shirking their responsibility?  Parents are dumping all the responsibility that should have been their own, out onto the public education system.  Raising socially conscious, personally aware and disciplined kids -- that is not the pub education system's job.  Reading, writing, and 'rithmetic are the school's only job (also, science).  The job of imparting values to the kids, as in actual values such as morals and self-reliance, is the job of the child's parents.

Extremist Conservatives Are A Contradiction In Logic

Conservatives are a contradiction in logic.  They say they are pro-life -- but they do not want to take care of that life once it is born.

I am probably the rarest of combinations.  I am socially rather conservative, but fiscally somewhat liberal.

Social conservative, fiscal liberal, educational liberal.
I don't believe STDs, teen pregnancies, or even unmarried pregnancies should happen.  I don't believe drug-dealing should happen.  I think education beginning at the kindergarten level needs to be a top priority for this country.  I don't just mean education as in the basics of reading, writing, 'rithmetic.  I also mean exposure to different thought systems, to critical thinking, to opportunities for discussion.

I don't see how anyone can realistically expect to be a social conservative if they are not also willing to spend the money it takes to keep society clean and structured.  Education costs money.  Public schools around the country need to be well-funded so that they can hire good teachers.

Sex education costs money.  People need to be told early and often all the information that exists out there for sex education.  These programs include tons of information on birth control options, all the different types, and where people can buy the items.  Most importantly, these programs inform students of all the documented statistics of success rates for each individual form of birth control.  If you have ever seen one of these lists, you will note that no form of birth control is 100% effective.  People need to be told this so that they can decide whether it is a good idea to have sex or not.  The instructor/teacher who teaches the students about all this needs to be well-trained, well-informed, and needs to be up-to-date on all current forms of birth control in drug stores.  The instructor needs to know what they are talking about.  Money is needed to pay a good teacher of sex education.  If the sex ed teacher is one of the regular teachers, which it usually is, okay then, fine.  Pay that teacher.

A police force to contain and prevent crime costs money.  Living wages cost money.  But to actively avoid investing in these things costs society a hell of a lot more.

This is why I do not mind paying taxes toward public schools.  This is why I do not mind -----paying **some** money towards welfare.  But only some.

Raising an educated, peaceful, enlightened, mentally stable population costs money.

-Education-- public schools.
--food basic nutrition, milk, cereal, eggs, beans, peanut butter,
There is a social program called Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC for short.
People need a little bit of help once in a while.
--and also, sigh.  People are human beings.  They might make mistakes.  We need a social safety net to absorb any missteps that people make.
Truncate them before they perpetuate any ricochet effects onto the rest of society.

I like investing in people.
--
The reason I am happy to do this is that I do not want to live in a society that eventually degenerates into a bunch of illiterate savages.

==
social conservative---

Remember how I said that people need a little bit of help once in a while?  I want to emphasize the phrase **Once In A While.**
---I am willing to help you, but you need to stop screwing yourself into a hole first.

Republicans And Pro-Life Discussions

I am noticing something strange.  It is a weird compartmentalization of two seemingly related topics that surround the pro-life versus pro-abortion cage matches.  I say "compartmentalization" because it seems that they are willfully refusing to reconcile two halves of the same coin.

These same right-to-lifers are the selfsame people who do NOT want to provide medical care and welfare for the children that they are so adamant should exist in the first place.

Are they willing to cover the medical care and health insurance expenses that these children need to be able to live healthily, and to be alive at all?  It is highly unlikely that the right-to-lifers support the concept of universal national health care.  What about the food that the child needs to eat?  What about the school supplies that the child needs?  What about the clothes and shoes that a growing child needs, and will need again when they outgrow the ones just recently bought for them?

It seems they vehemently insist on not seeing the disconnect that should link the two concepts.  They are purposely keeping the two floating ideas trapped away from each other like fireflies stuck inside two separate glass jars.

I find it interesting in a very bad way that the people who are the most vehement, austere, adamant about being pro-life -- are the same people that do not give a fat rat's ass about that life once it is out of the uterus.  This is what they call themselves -- pro-life.  But where the hell is the concern for that life once it has become an actual individual life outside of the womb, living and breathing in this universe?

*They want to cut funding to public education.

*They want to cut funding to sex education programs in public schools.  Some of them want to eliminate sex education from schools altogether.

*They cut finding to social welfare and money programs for poor black mothers.

*They want to cut funding and support to foster programs.

*They cut funding to public health programs.  They wish to cut funding to public resources for doctor office check-ups, medical care, medical insurance.  County, State, and city health departments.

What is the deal with this self-contradicting phenomenon?

It is ludicrous bs that conservatives screech, "it is precious life! It's babies! We're pro-life!"  But then those same conservatives don't give a s--- about what happens to that same fetus _once it is born_.  They don't care about it having enough food to eat, they don't care about it receiving medical care, they don't care about it receiving quality education.  It is laughable that they say they are pro-life -- but then they don't give a crap about what happens to that life once it is born.

You say it is an innocent baby?  Well, guess what -- when it is born, it is an equally innocent child.  Why the hell don't you want to support it then?

"Oh but abortion is not taking care of your responsibility..."  This is one of the weirdest and least logical arguments against abortion that I have ever heard.  How the hell is having an abortion not taking care of one's responsibility?  If the woman has weighted the pros and cons and has decided that the best choice of action is to get an abortion, if she has realized that she could not raise the fetus once it grows up, if she has realized that it would benefit herself and it would benefit all of greater society if she gets an abortion, then she is taking care of her responsibility.

"Interfering" and "getting involved" with the care of these patients. 

Yeah, well what about heart disease, kidney failure, high sodium, high-fat diets?  All of these things are also ultimately the patient's fault.  Yet I am predicting that you don't have a problem with trained licensed medical professionals helping these patients with whatever ails them.  The patients need the expertise and skill of the doctors then same as with abortion.

Okay, sigh.  I have been trying to be diplomatic and trying to avoid the elephant in the room for the entirety of this essay.  But that has gone on long enough.  All this talk about abortion, responsibility, etc. is supercilious, extraneous, unnecessary, and irrelevant to anyone other than the person that is pregnant.

The only topic that anyone else needs to know is that it is her body, her choice.  The number one concern is all that everyone else needs to worry about.

It is notttt a human being at that point, not by a long shot.  For goodness sake, when the woman is first pregnant, she often doesn't even know she is pregnant.  Don't pregnant women only realize they are pregnant when they are late on their period or they miss a period?  Don't they only get clued in that they should take a pregnancy test after that other major sign appears that disrupts their normal everyday lives?  She has no idea that a fetus even exists before she sees these signs.

At that point it is simply a zygote, and then slightly later a blastula.  A fetus at that term of development does not possess any of the vital signs of life that a normal human person has, up to and including actual babies.  If it is very early in the pregnancy, as in right after conception up to the first few weeks.  It is not even really a fetus yet; it is barely an embryo.  It is just a microscopic cluster of cells and little else.  You lose more body cells sloughing off dead skin with an exfoliating loofah.

Repubs want to slash social welfare and education plans out of the budget.

How come the same people that say they don't want to murder or hurt an innocent, sweet, helpless, little fetus -- are the exact same people that will eagerly let the innocent, sweet, helpless, little child starve once it is out of the womb?

Affirmative Action- Post Analysis

But this verdict seems so final and leaden and dead, like it is putting a concrete slab on top of a coffin buries in the ground.  It seems like lead deadening any and all hope for the future for black people.

This cannot be all there is to the emergency social [[[_concern, dilemma but more huge- crisis_]] that is the topic of black people's academic careers.

There has to be a more optimistic solution than this.  There has got to be a [[___policy, solution__ plan of ction]] that works.  There must be a realistic solution that addresses black students in high school____

I don’t think it is fair that so many people should suffer from poverty just to make the world more interesting.  I agree to the point that people, no matter who they are, should not look for free handouts.  Not the rich, who should work as hard as everyone else does rather than just coast through life.  Neither the poor, who should realize that they should work and be smart to the best of their ability, even if this helps them to just barely survive.

However, one must realize that the resources that are there to help people simply cannot reach everyone.  Some people just fall through the cracks -- people who need financial aid for education or putting their kids in a qualified, safe care center.  You cannot simply dismiss these people as lazy, dumb, whatever.

It may or may not be true that inequality breeds advancement, but whom does the advancement truly help?  Does it actually help the people who are poverty-stricken, or does it just continue to benefit the super-rich?  The world is not just there for us to just sit and accept the way it is. If we have the power to change the cruel and unjust, then we should.  I might sound like a lecturing parent, but I say that we have a responsibility to not just let the world go round.

Affirmative Non-Action- English 102

This is a follow-up to that term paper essay for my English 102 course.  That assignment was supposed to be the culmination of a semester of work.  It began with tons of pre-planning research, gathering articles as works cited before we even began writing the actual essay.

In hindsight, I now realize I was going up against Goliath in an impossible challenge.  Sigh.  For the duration of the assignment, I could not think of a single *logical* argument as to why affirmative action should continue to be a defining policy in college admissions.  Or for personnel policies at companies, or anywhere else for that matter.  All I knew was that I <wanted> it really badly.  I had a very strong *emotional* reaction to the outrageous posit that affirmative action should ever be eliminated.

But not a very coherent *logical* one.  Ohmigosh, I struggled to compose that essay.  I could not think of a single logic-based argument as to why a kid from a poverty-class background in a bad school district should be ushered in to standard college courses ahead of a more wealthy white kid.

The very first things I considered were the many objections to eliminating affirmative action.  Such as slavery.  Such as the Civil Rights struggle, Jim Crow laws, racism, separate water fountains and lunch counters.  Yes, I know all that.  Sigh.  I am well-informed on all those gruesome historical facts.

Unfortunately, I arrived at the unpleasant truth.  What does any of that have to do with modern-day prospective college students?  Taking all that into account is not going to magically make this kid a good college student.  Again, that is all an *emotional* reaction to this gigantic conundrum, not a logical one.

Let us suppose there is an African-American kid from a not-very-privileged background.  He did not have the benefit of attending a school district with good standards of education.  His literacy and mathematics skills are not great, and when he graduated he was performing academically far below national standards expected for an average high school graduate.

Perhaps his high school did not offer college-preparatory courses.  Or perhaps his school did offer them and he did enroll in them, but the teaching and notes in those classes were woefully below national standards.  Possibly the teachers did not have the training necessary to teach the courses in their entirety.  Or, the below-average comprehension of the collective group of students prevented the teacher from moving at a swift pace.  Remember that a teacher has to make sure the majority of students master a concept before she can move on to the next concept.  *These are all documented reasons that the news bites give us for why inner-city kids did not have good education.

We are told that supposedly admission to a good college is his one shining golden hope for a better future.
-But let us consider all the facts.  This kid did not attend a high school that offered standard classes that are considered prerequisites for college.  The public grade school district, for whatever reason, hindered this student's progress.  His high school truly did not prepare him for the demands of a college-level curriculum.

If this is truly the case, then wouldn't a remedial course of study be a far better solution?  That would be a far more realistic avenue for a kid from that kind of background to pursue, at least for the time being.  That is the plan of treatment that would serve this kid the best.

Allowing this kid into standard introductory freshman-level college courses is, plainly put, setting him up for failure.  So this is what the phrase "setting oneself up for failure" means.  To me this has always sounded like just another one of those abstract, elusive, equivocal, short, clever-sounding fluffy expressions people say that ultimately mean nothing.  But here we finally have an example to illustrate this.

He simply is not going to be able to handle the rigors of calculus or even College Algebra.  He will not be able to handle standard college English 101, argumentative writing, etc.  Ushering this kid into routine freshman-level courses is, to put it bluntly, cruel.  Doing that would be completely ignoring the condition of his educational foundation.

Remedial treatment would be the best plan for the kid’s own sake.  He still needs the foundational groundwork.  He needs to learn the basics.  Because of his situation, what he needs most is to [[[writi intensive, shore] up, beef up___]]] his [[[academic capability]]]] *before* being released out into the wild of regulation-grade college responsibility.

In addition, we need to address the topic of white kids that have grown up in poverty.  Poor white children do grow up in trailer parks, and other dangerous poverty-stricken neighborhoods.  They have been every bit as disadvantaged in their course of education as poor black kids.

They are not any more privileged than poor black kids.  Many of them also do not come from stable, loving homes that encouraged academic success.  They probably attended grade school in districts that performed woefully below national standards. 

Is it justified that under current “affirmative action” policies, these kids are denied a fair chance at a decent education -- just because they are white?

If any sort of “boosting-up help” is available to kids, these policies cannot and should not be race-based.  This is cruel and unrealistic.  Now, in full confession, what I stated earlier also stands, regarding poor white children.  Affirmative action is a bad idea because it is setting them up for failure.  For whatever reason, poor white kids did not have access to college-preparatory education.  Therefore, like poor black children, they will not be able to handle standard college courses.

About Abortion And Responsibility

*** I do not understand how republicans think that someone getting an abortion is nottt taking responsibility.
**  teen pregnancies were at an all-time high back in 1994.  I seriously doubt the rates have decreased drastically since then.  My question is, who in the world is possibly helped by forcing all those idiots to carry those pregnancies to term?  ((This is not a sexist-against-girls thing.  The idiot teenage boy is pregnant aslos.)))))()()
-- the fetus sure as hell is not helped.  [[[[ smtt like, they are idiots that hd sxx and got pregnant as teenagers.  It's not liek they will turn into wonderful great parents._]]]]
***  teenage pregnancy is a horrible idea.  You know how one of the hip new buzzwords nowadays is ""controversial?""  Everyone and the kitchen sink loves talking about how they love controversial stuff.  Well, teen pregnancies are not controversial.  Nobody likes it.
-- illegitimate out of wedlock pregnancies.
***  sigh.  Look.  They have not shown any responsibility up to this point.  They were stupid enough to have sxx, they were stupid enough to get pregnant.  And now, what?  You republicans think they will magically somehow morph into responsible mature citizens by having a small offspring flung at them?
** let us look at his another way.  They were stipd engh...
But now for the first time, they can exercise some responsibility.  They can do something mature and responsible for once.  They can nip it in the bud.  At this point it is not a human life yet.  It is a zygote or a blastula. They can get rid of it now before it reaches the biological maturation stage at which it is definitively a human life.

Here is an analogy that is weird but works.  It’s like when parents decide to teach their kid responsibility... by getting them a pet.  Uhh, so you are saying your kid is irresponsible...  So why in the world are you throwing a poor living thing in front of your irresponsible kid?  You are hoping then to remedy this problem that way?  That is a horrible idea.
___
I have been studying this weird phenomenon of abortions and who is getting them as an aspect of human psychology and behavior.
--- It seems that all the reasons they would be horrible parents-- are the selfsame exact reasons they should just get an abortion in the first place.

They succumbed to lust, infatuation, their primitive urges.  They are incredibly poor planners, they are irresponsible.  They did not think ahead to the consequences of casual sex; they did not think about the risk of becoming pregnant; they did not think of the huge responsibilities and enormous task and burden of raising a child.
--- They are immature and stupid-- which is why they were dumb enough to have sex without thinking about the consequences of having that sex.  This lackadaisical attitude unfortunately would probably carry over into their approach to raising a kid.  They would make stupid decisions as parents....  They would be careless, neglectful, miserable.  I.E., they would not be "raising" their kid at all.  They would not have any semblance to being truly dedicated, loving, caring parents.  All the reasons that they had a baby out of wedlock and were stupid and irresponsible -- are all the exact same reasons that they would be terrible parents.

None of this occurred to them at the point in time at which they decided to initiate the acts that create a fetus.  So now, as a last minute effort to execute some semblance of responsibility, they should get an abortion.

-- Also I notice that a very common reason cited for these people to have an abortion is that they are in dire financial [[[_situatin__]]].  This means they cannot support a child, cannot provide for a child, cannot provide for all the necessary commodities required to raise a healthy child in this world.  A child needs healthy food, access to adequate healthcare, buying school supplies for their kid.  They cannot handle it.  If that is in fact the case, then they should just do themselves a favor and get rid of it.  Nip it in the bud.

Since we are talking about abortion, we have to cover the following also.  I know this is disgusting.  I know this is nauseating a topic to bring up.  But we are talking about abortion here, so this subcategory is going to have to be addressed.  If is a matter of rape/abuse, or to save the life of the mother, or is it conclusively determined that there is a severe congenital defect in the fetus, then the pregnant woman has full scope of right to terminate the pregnancy if she so chooses.

Listen, repubs, you cannot bury your heads in the sand and pretend that these crimes did not happen.  I'm not going to apologize for pointing out this obvious fact.  None of us human beings get to just hide and pretend these crimes against humanity do not take place.  The fact of the matter is that all these horrifying sick crimes exist.

I don't think there are too many cases of a pregnancy resulting from rape wherein the woman would want to keep the fetus.  As it is the results of a gruesome vile crime, she has every right to make that choice.

Let's get something straight.  If it might not have been the specific act of violating a human being during the act of, she still might have been forced to become pregnant in gruesome circumstances.  It might be an abusive violent relationship or marriage, and this is where the fetus was conceived.  The woman would be well within her rights to terminate the pregnancy.  Nobody on the planet has a right to tell her that this is somehow "not taking care of your responsibility."  You republicans sure as hell don't get to tell her that she has to keep the product of a crime alive and growing within her body, just to prove some bs notion about fake responsibility.