goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: renocat on September 20, 2015, 04:26:16 PM
-
Obama thinks funding the meat sellers at Planned Hamburger is more important than the business for the rest of America. It is sad that if I kill a rare bird that is in an egg, I can be chucked in jail and fined, but selling harvested baby parts from an infant I destroyed is fine. Obama does not care a crap about mankind only his special far left supporters.
-
Stud obama
-
The earth doesn't belong to us. We belong to the earth. I include animals in earth.
-
Stud obama
I guarantee you haven't watched a single one of the PP undercover videos, and never will. Whatever cocoon of ignorance it takes for you to continue ignoring the ghoulish slaughter of innocent babies....
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
-
death penalty obviously, life is precious
-
Stud obama
I guarantee you haven't watched a single one of the PP undercover videos, and never will. Whatever cocoon of ignorance it takes for you to continue ignoring the ghoulish slaughter of innocent babies....
well, those "babies" aren't a person, so that should relieve your worry.
-
Stud obama
I guarantee you haven't watched a single one of the PP undercover videos, and never will. Whatever cocoon of ignorance it takes for you to continue ignoring the ghoulish slaughter of innocent babies....
well, those "babies" aren't a person, so that should relieve your worry.
Yup - they just magically become people the minute they're lucky enough to pass the birth canal. One instant before, not a person. One instant later, a person!! The birth fairy instantly and magically transforms that "clump of cells" into a full blown human being!
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
The more pragmatic solution to punishment is to go after the abortionist. As for the woman, that's an easy question with a difficult answer. I'll answer it by posing some questions of my own (and I think you'll see where I'm going with this). If a woman kills her baby just a few minutes after it is born, is that murder? Does it depend? On what?
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
It's legal, so there shouldn't be any punishment.
-
Stud obama
I guarantee you haven't watched a single one of the PP undercover videos, and never will. Whatever cocoon of ignorance it takes for you to continue ignoring the ghoulish slaughter of innocent babies....
well, those "babies" aren't a person, so that should relieve your worry.
Yup - they just magically become people the minute they're lucky enough to pass the birth canal. One instant before, not a person. One instant later, a person!! The birth fairy instantly and magically transforms that "clump of cells" into a full blown human being!
That's why it's called a birthday and why you'll be _____ years old on your birthday w/_____ being how ever many years earlier it was you crossed the rubicon.
-
I'm guessing ksuw doesn't believe in "magical" age of consent laws
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
The more pragmatic solution to punishment is to go after the abortionist. As for the woman, that's an easy question with a difficult answer. I'll answer it by posing some questions of my own (and I think you'll see where I'm going with this). If a woman kills her baby just a few minutes after it is born, is that murder? Does it depend? On what?
Sounds like murder unless the woman is a cop and her baby is black
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
It's legal, so there shouldn't be any punishment.
Well, if you want it to be illegal, then you want there to be a punishment. I view abortion as immoral, but I just don't see people who get abortions as any sort of threat to society, so I'd rather not put them in jail. I think its best if the government's criminal justice system focuses on protecting its citizens rather than being the moral police.
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
It's legal, so there shouldn't be any punishment.
Well, if you want it to be illegal, then you want there to be a punishment. I view abortion as immoral, but I just don't see people who get abortions as any sort of threat to society, so I'd rather not put them in jail. I think its best if the government's criminal justice system focuses on protecting its citizens rather than being the moral police.
Yes, only a threat to that lump of cells that magically become a person the instant it exits the womb. Cause that's a really important moral distinction.
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
It's legal, so there shouldn't be any punishment.
Well, if you want it to be illegal, then you want there to be a punishment. I view abortion as immoral, but I just don't see people who get abortions as any sort of threat to society, so I'd rather not put them in jail. I think its best if the government's criminal justice system focuses on protecting its citizens rather than being the moral police.
Yes, only a threat to that lump of cells that magically become a person the instant it exits the womb. Cause that's a really important moral distinction.
The government has no more obligation to protect people in the womb than they do people in Mexico. You don't get citizenship until birth.
-
Stud obama
I guarantee you haven't watched a single one of the PP undercover videos, and never will. Whatever cocoon of ignorance it takes for you to continue ignoring the ghoulish slaughter of innocent babies....
well, those "babies" aren't a person, so that should relieve your worry.
Yup - they just magically become people the minute they're lucky enough to pass the birth canal. One instant before, not a person. One instant later, a person!! The birth fairy instantly and magically transforms that "clump of cells" into a full blown human being!
That's why it's called a birthday and why you'll be _____ years old on your birthday w/_____ being how ever many years earlier it was you crossed the rubicon.
Welp, there you have it folks. Logic! Because we celebrate the day you're born, you're obviously not a person until the instant you leave the womb.
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
It's legal, so there shouldn't be any punishment.
Well, if you want it to be illegal, then you want there to be a punishment. I view abortion as immoral, but I just don't see people who get abortions as any sort of threat to society, so I'd rather not put them in jail. I think its best if the government's criminal justice system focuses on protecting its citizens rather than being the moral police.
Yes, only a threat to that lump of cells that magically become a person the instant it exits the womb. Cause that's a really important moral distinction.
The government has no more obligation to protect people in the womb than they do people in Mexico. You don't get citizenship until birth.
Ooohhhh reallly? Is that why many states charge people with double murder when they kill pregnant women?
And by the way, even illegal immigrants are conferred certain rights. But that's cause they're "human and all." Not a lump of cells just minutes prior to birth.
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
It's legal, so there shouldn't be any punishment.
Well, if you want it to be illegal, then you want there to be a punishment. I view abortion as immoral, but I just don't see people who get abortions as any sort of threat to society, so I'd rather not put them in jail. I think its best if the government's criminal justice system focuses on protecting its citizens rather than being the moral police.
Yes, only a threat to that lump of cells that magically become a person the instant it exits the womb. Cause that's a really important moral distinction.
The government has no more obligation to protect people in the womb than they do people in Mexico. You don't get citizenship until birth.
Ooohhhh reallly? Is that why we charge people with double homicide when they murder pregnant women?
Well, yeah, if you kill a wanted unborn baby, then US citizens (the parents) are victims.
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
It's legal, so there shouldn't be any punishment.
Well, if you want it to be illegal, then you want there to be a punishment. I view abortion as immoral, but I just don't see people who get abortions as any sort of threat to society, so I'd rather not put them in jail. I think its best if the government's criminal justice system focuses on protecting its citizens rather than being the moral police.
Yes, only a threat to that lump of cells that magically become a person the instant it exits the womb. Cause that's a really important moral distinction.
The government has no more obligation to protect people in the womb than they do people in Mexico. You don't get citizenship until birth.
Ooohhhh reallly? Is that why we charge people with double homicide when they murder pregnant women?
Well, yeah, if you kill a wanted unborn baby, then US citizens (the parents) are victims.
No dumbshit. I said "double murder." Because the child is murdered as well as the mom. Now how can that be if that lump of cells has no rights?
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
It's legal, so there shouldn't be any punishment.
Well, if you want it to be illegal, then you want there to be a punishment. I view abortion as immoral, but I just don't see people who get abortions as any sort of threat to society, so I'd rather not put them in jail. I think its best if the government's criminal justice system focuses on protecting its citizens rather than being the moral police.
Yes, only a threat to that lump of cells that magically become a person the instant it exits the womb. Cause that's a really important moral distinction.
The government has no more obligation to protect people in the womb than they do people in Mexico. You don't get citizenship until birth.
Ooohhhh reallly? Is that why we charge people with double homicide when they murder pregnant women?
Well, yeah, if you kill a wanted unborn baby, then US citizens (the parents) are victims.
No dumbshit. I said "double murder." Because the child is murdered as well as the mom.
Is the mother's name Mary?
-
What do you guys think the punishment for getting an abortion should be? Jail time? Same as murder?
It's legal, so there shouldn't be any punishment.
Well, if you want it to be illegal, then you want there to be a punishment. I view abortion as immoral, but I just don't see people who get abortions as any sort of threat to society, so I'd rather not put them in jail. I think its best if the government's criminal justice system focuses on protecting its citizens rather than being the moral police.
Yes, only a threat to that lump of cells that magically become a person the instant it exits the womb. Cause that's a really important moral distinction.
The government has no more obligation to protect people in the womb than they do people in Mexico. You don't get citizenship until birth.
Ooohhhh reallly? Is that why we charge people with double homicide when they murder pregnant women?
Well, yeah, if you kill a wanted unborn baby, then US citizens (the parents) are victims.
No dumbshit. I said "double murder." Because the child is murdered as well as the mom.
Is the mother's name Mary?
Fun fact: the number of murder counts is based on the number of people murdered- not the number of family members aggrieved. I'm embarrassed for you. If you'd like to delete your post, I'll go ahead and modify my quote too. Just pretend you weren't this stupid tonight.
-
I'm comfortable saying there's 2 people in the first pick and 3 in the second.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi709.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww92%2FTommyRoanoke%2FPeople_zps2t6lr5wv.png&hash=26cda42b9c9fe5ea1e7c5d25e0aa360ce2b4075a) (http://s709.photobucket.com/user/TommyRoanoke/media/People_zps2t6lr5wv.png.html)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi709.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww92%2FTommyRoanoke%2FPeople%2520plus%2520one_zpsvhunb7zm.png&hash=9d7d0c36da8e0fd4c5fff5efb15e36e277294a0c) (http://s709.photobucket.com/user/TommyRoanoke/media/People%20plus%20one_zpsvhunb7zm.png.html)
-
It's sad how many people on this thread have not watched the PP vids, and never will. Because they might come to the uncomfortable realization that - holy crap, this thing I've been supporting/ignoring is rough ridin' evil.
-
This is a pregnant woman, not 2 people. When she birfs or birf'd (I don't know how old this pic is or if she's had the 2nd kid yet) she'll no longer be a pregnant woman and the pic of her holding her kid will be that of 2 people and will sell for a lot of money to a tabloid.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets-s3.usmagazine.com%2Fuploads%2Fassets%2Farticles%2F62785-kim-kardashians-mothers-day-message-im-nervous-and-anxious-to-become-a-mom%2F1368395367_kim-kardashian-mothers-day_1.jpg&hash=a2271f5e9281725583c067f6849c0f4f782330b1)
-
This is a pregnant woman, not 2 people. When she birfs or birf'd (I don't know how old this pic is or if she's had the 2nd kid yet) she'll no longer be a pregnant woman and the pic of her holding her kid will be that of 2 people and will sell for a lot of money to a tabloid.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets-s3.usmagazine.com%2Fuploads%2Fassets%2Farticles%2F62785-kim-kardashians-mothers-day-message-im-nervous-and-anxious-to-become-a-mom%2F1368395367_kim-kardashian-mothers-day_1.jpg&hash=a2271f5e9281725583c067f6849c0f4f782330b1)
Trim has not watched the Planned Parenthood vids. And he won't. He's ok with slaughtering fetuses based on the arbitrary fiction that a full term fetus only becomes a human worthy of protection after birth.
-
This is a pregnant woman, not 2 people. When she birfs or birf'd (I don't know how old this pic is or if she's had the 2nd kid yet) she'll no longer be a pregnant woman and the pic of her holding her kid will be that of 2 people and will sell for a lot of money to a tabloid.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets-s3.usmagazine.com%2Fuploads%2Fassets%2Farticles%2F62785-kim-kardashians-mothers-day-message-im-nervous-and-anxious-to-become-a-mom%2F1368395367_kim-kardashian-mothers-day_1.jpg&hash=a2271f5e9281725583c067f6849c0f4f782330b1)
Holy crap, that def looks like at least two people.
-
Trim has not watched the Planned Parenthood vids. And he won't. He's ok with slaughtering fetuses based on the arbitrary fiction that a full term fetus only becomes a human worthy of protection after birth.
Of course I'm not gonna watch it. I still have to catch up on tonight's premiere of the new Kardashian show! #Seahawks
-
Fun fact: the number of murder counts is based on the number of people murdered- not the number of family members aggrieved. I'm embarrassed for you. If you'd like to delete your post, I'll go ahead and modify my quote too. Just pretend you weren't this stupid tonight.
Yet parents who murder their own unborn children don't get charged with any counts of murder.
-
Fun fact: the number of murder counts is based on the number of people murdered- not the number of family members aggrieved. I'm embarrassed for you. If you'd like to delete your post, I'll go ahead and modify my quote too. Just pretend you weren't this stupid tonight.
Yet parents who murder their own unborn children don't get charged with any counts of murder.
Quite the pickle
-
Fun fact: the number of murder counts is based on the number of people murdered- not the number of family members aggrieved. I'm embarrassed for you. If you'd like to delete your post, I'll go ahead and modify my quote too. Just pretend you weren't this stupid tonight.
Yet parents who murder their own unborn children don't get charged with any counts of murder.
In most cases, no, because abortion is legal. I'm not disputing that abortion is legal in most cases - I'm saying it is evil. You're the one who started down the rabbit hole of arguing that unborn kids have no rights -you even argued that non-citizens have no rights :lol: - and now that I've shredded that idiotic argument you're trying to back track.
Dur - it's double murder because the mother and father! :lol:
-
How knocked up do you have to be before the double murder magically kicks in?
-
Fun fact: the number of murder counts is based on the number of people murdered- not the number of family members aggrieved. I'm embarrassed for you. If you'd like to delete your post, I'll go ahead and modify my quote too. Just pretend you weren't this stupid tonight.
Yet parents who murder their own unborn children don't get charged with any counts of murder.
In most cases, no, because abortion is legal. I'm not disputing that abortion is legal in most cases - I'm saying it is evil. You're the one who started down the rabbit hole of arguing that unborn kids have no rights -you even argued that non-citizens have no rights :lol: - and now that I've shredded that idiotic argument you're trying to back track.
Dur - it's double murder because the mother and father! :lol:
Well, they don't have rights. Abortion is legal, after all.
-
Fun fact: the number of murder counts is based on the number of people murdered- not the number of family members aggrieved. I'm embarrassed for you. If you'd like to delete your post, I'll go ahead and modify my quote too. Just pretend you weren't this stupid tonight.
Yet parents who murder their own unborn children don't get charged with any counts of murder.
In most cases, no, because abortion is legal. I'm not disputing that abortion is legal in most cases - I'm saying it is evil. You're the one who started down the rabbit hole of arguing that unborn kids have no rights -you even argued that non-citizens have no rights :lol: - and now that I've shredded that idiotic argument you're trying to back track.
Dur - it's double murder because the mother and father! :lol:
Well, they don't have rights. Abortion is legal, after all.
:facepalm: Abortion is not legal in all cases, and the unborn have rights in many states.
-
I'm comfortable saying there's 2 people in the first pick and 3 in the second.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi709.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww92%2FTommyRoanoke%2FPeople_zps2t6lr5wv.png&hash=26cda42b9c9fe5ea1e7c5d25e0aa360ce2b4075a) (http://s709.photobucket.com/user/TommyRoanoke/media/People_zps2t6lr5wv.png.html)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi709.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww92%2FTommyRoanoke%2FPeople%2520plus%2520one_zpsvhunb7zm.png&hash=9d7d0c36da8e0fd4c5fff5efb15e36e277294a0c) (http://s709.photobucket.com/user/TommyRoanoke/media/People%20plus%20one_zpsvhunb7zm.png.html)
I like how you drew the pregnant belly really low to indicate that she was close to giving birth.
-
Its pretty sad that they are backdooring an already fought supreme court case by defunding clinics who's services include a small amount(relative) of service in abortions.
I mean, there are several states(looking at you Bobby Jindal) who's PP clinics didn't even perform abortion, yet he shuts them down.
This comes down to taking away a lot of non-abortion care from a lot of poor ppl just because th christian right can't attack issues the way the govt is set up to attack them, and/or being super sore losers when they do attack that issue and don't get their way.
-
eff, just realized I could've really set things off by making both of the people in the stick figure couple women.
-
eff, just realized I could've really set things off by making both of the people in the stick figure couple women.
Well they already could be both women.
-
I'd rather not spend federal money on clinics, regardless of whether they perform abortions or not.
-
Its pretty sad that they are backdooring an already fought supreme court case by defunding clinics who's services include a small amount(relative) of service in abortions.
I mean, there are several states(looking at you Bobby Jindal) who's PP clinics didn't even perform abortion, yet he shuts them down.
This comes down to taking away a lot of non-abortion care from a lot of poor ppl just because th christian right can't attack issues the way the govt is set up to attack them, and/or being super sore losers when they do attack that issue and don't get their way.
Shutting down Planned Parenthood is going to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus increase the demand for abortions.
-
It's also going to make a bunch of diseases more plentiful and mostly unchecked.
-
Its pretty sad that they are backdooring an already fought supreme court case by defunding clinics who's services include a small amount(relative) of service in abortions.
Ok, this one surprisingly short sentence packs in a lot of dumbassery, so I'm going to have to break it down.
First, regarding "an already fought supreme court case" - to which case are you referring? Roe v. Wade? You should actually read that opinion. Or, you can just read this very short summary of the opinion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v._wade_1973 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v._wade_1973). Suffice it to say, RvW only granted a right (not found in the Constitution of course - the justices just made it up) to unrestricted abortion in the first trimester. The court found that the states had increasingly compelling interests (stronger authority) to restrict abortion in the latter trimesters. Subsequent decisions have further muddied the waters, but even under current jurisprudence, there is no Constitutional right to unrestricted abortion.
Second, the current state of the law is not the issue being discussed ITT. Nobody disputes that abortion is legal in many states/situations. The question is whether abortion is immoral/evil. The answer is yes. But the people refusing to admit that are the same people who have not watched the Planned Parenthood undercover videos and never will. Because they choose to be ignore something that they (deep, deep, down) know is wrong.
Third, the talking point that Planned Parenthood really only provides a small amount of abortions relative to other services is laughably absurd. You can only reach that conclusion if you treat every service equally. For example, if you equate 1 abortion to handing out 1 pregnancy test. That's just stupid. Rich Lowry sums it up best:
The 3 percent figure is an artifice and a dodge, but even taking it on its own terms, it’s not much of a defense. Only Planned Parenthood would think saying that they only kill babies 3 percent of the time is something to brag about.
How much credit would we give someone for saying he only drives drunk 3 percent of the time, or only cheats on business trips 3 percent of the time, or only hits his wife during 3 percent of domestic disputes?
The 3 percent factoid is crafted to obscure the reality of Planned Parenthood’s business.
The group performs about 330,000 abortions a year, or roughly 30 percent of all the abortions in the country. By its own accounting in its 2013-2014 annual report, it provides about as many abortions as Pap tests (380,000). The group does more breast exams and provides more breast-care services (490,000), but not by that much.
The 3 percent figure is derived by counting abortion as just another service like much less consequential services.
So abortion is considered a service no different than a pregnancy test (1.1 million), even though a box with two pregnancy tests can be procured from the local drugstore for less than $10.
By Planned Parenthood’s math, a woman who gets an abortion but also a pregnancy test, an STD test and some contraceptives has received four services, and only 25 percent of them are abortion. This is a little like performing an abortion and giving a woman an aspirin, and saying only half of what you do is abortion.
Such cracked reasoning could be used to obscure the purpose of any organization.
The sponsors of the New York City Marathon could count each small cup of water they hand out (some 2 million cups, compared with 45,000 runners) and say they are mainly in the hydration business.
Or Major League Baseball teams could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do.
Supporters of Planned Parenthood want to use its health services as leverage to preserve its abortions, as if you can’t get one without the other.
Of course, this is nonsense.
-
Its pretty sad that they are backdooring an already fought supreme court case by defunding clinics who's services include a small amount(relative) of service in abortions.
I mean, there are several states(looking at you Bobby Jindal) who's PP clinics didn't even perform abortion, yet he shuts them down.
This comes down to taking away a lot of non-abortion care from a lot of poor ppl just because th christian right can't attack issues the way the govt is set up to attack them, and/or being super sore losers when they do attack that issue and don't get their way.
Shutting down Planned Parenthood is going to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus increase the demand for abortions.
Why does Planned Parenthood need to perform abortions in order to continue dispensing birth control, healthcare referrals, etc.?
-
You can claim it's dumbassery all you want but the reality is that the ruling did make abortions legal and this is a move by the religious right to make them unavailable since they can't make them illegal. It's politically the next best thing and exactly why they are doing this.
Diluting this specific discussion(pp) by trying to talk about late term vs first trimester is stupid and does nothing to defend the defunding.
-
Also, I am not watching the PP vids because everyone involved has said they are heavily edited and that they have no plans to make the full vid available. Unless something has changed on this since I last heard anything about it(approx 3 weeks ago) then there is zero reason to pay attention to them. It is basically an admission to telling half, or none, of the story.
-
You can claim it's dumbassery all you want but the reality is that the ruling did make abortions legal and this is a move by the religious right to make them unavailable since they can't make them illegal. It's politically the next best thing and exactly why they are doing this.
Diluting this specific discussion(pp) by trying to talk about late term vs first trimester is stupid and does nothing to defend the defunding.
:lol: It's like you didn't even bother to read past "dumbassery"! I clearly explain why you're wrong, and you're just gonna keep on truckin' anyway! :thumbs:
Would it help if I broke it down into pieces? Here's the first part:
First, regarding "an already fought supreme court case" - to which case are you referring? Roe v. Wade? You should actually read that opinion. Or, you can just read this very short summary of the opinion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v._wade_1973 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v._wade_1973). Suffice it to say, RvW only granted a right (not found in the Constitution of course - the justices just made it up) to unrestricted abortion in the first trimester. The court found that the states had increasingly compelling interests (stronger authority) to restrict abortion in the latter trimesters. Subsequent decisions have further muddied the waters, but even under current jurisprudence, there is no Constitutional right to unrestricted abortion.
-
The question is whether abortion is immoral/evil. The answer is yes.
:lol:
-
Also, I am not watching the PP vids because everyone involved has said they are heavily edited and that they have no plans to make the full vid available. Unless something has changed on this since I last heard anything about it(approx 3 weeks ago) then there is zero reason to pay attention to them. It is basically an admission to telling half, or none, of the story.
Ah, here comes the "heavily edited" canard! This one is favored the media - the same media that heavily edits every single news piece that they do. Because that's how TV media works - you start with a lot of video and cut it down to what you think are the important parts.
As for the full videos not being available, that is a lie. The Center for Medical Progress has made all the full-length videos available online. They're right here: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/ (http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/)
-
i watched the video about ten times this morning so I think everyone who had posted thus far is now covered
-
The question is whether abortion is immoral/evil. The answer is yes.
:lol:
Laughs the guy who hasn't watched a single video, and never will.
You know what's funny? This is a just a hoot!
O’Donnell describes the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘I want to see something kind of cool,'” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
The San Jose Planned Parenthood does abortions up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. Referring to the beating heart of the aborted fetus, O’Donnell remarks, “I don’t know if that constitutes it’s technically dead, or it’s alive.”
O’Donnell also tells how her StemExpress supervisor instructed her to cut through the face of the fetus in order to get the brain. “”She gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. I can’t even describe what that feels like,” she says.
That's not evil - it's reproductive health, amiright?!
-
You can claim it's dumbassery all you want but the reality is that the ruling did make abortions legal and this is a move by the religious right to make them unavailable since they can't make them illegal. It's politically the next best thing and exactly why they are doing this.
Diluting this specific discussion(pp) by trying to talk about late term vs first trimester is stupid and does nothing to defend the defunding.
:lol: It's like you didn't even bother to read past "dumbassery"! I clearly explain why you're wrong, and you're just gonna keep on truckin' anyway! :thumbs:
Would it help if I broke it down into pieces? Here's the first part:
First, regarding "an already fought supreme court case" - to which case are you referring? Roe v. Wade? You should actually read that opinion. Or, you can just read this very short summary of the opinion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v._wade_1973 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v._wade_1973). Suffice it to say, RvW only granted a right (not found in the Constitution of course - the justices just made it up) to unrestricted abortion in the first trimester. The court found that the states had increasingly compelling interests (stronger authority) to restrict abortion in the latter trimesters. Subsequent decisions have further muddied the waters, but even under current jurisprudence, there is no Constitutional right to unrestricted abortion.
Ok, so unrestricted abortion in the first trimester isn't going to be much more unavailable with PP defunded?
Maybe let's slow it down a little so you don't keep getting off course:
1. abortion is legal, right? First trimester, or whatever, there is legal abortion, right?
2. Shutting down the only place where abortions were available for a certain segment of the pop is making them mostly unavailable to that segment of the pop, right?
You keep trying to argue evil, but legality and limiting the availability of a service is what this should be all about. Evil has nothing to do with it.
-
guys, i deleted my post. decided i don't want to get into it here. you guys are good people and good friends FYI.
-
You know what's funny? This is a just a hoot!
O’Donnell describes the harvesting, or “procurement,” of organs from a nearly intact late-term fetus aborted at Planned Parenthood Mar Monte’s Alameda clinic in San Jose, CA. “‘I want to see something kind of cool,'” O’Donnell says her supervisor asked her. “And she just taps the heart, and it starts beating. And I’m sitting here and I’m looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don’t know what to think.”
The San Jose Planned Parenthood does abortions up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. Referring to the beating heart of the aborted fetus, O’Donnell remarks, “I don’t know if that constitutes it’s technically dead, or it’s alive.”
O’Donnell also tells how her StemExpress supervisor instructed her to cut through the face of the fetus in order to get the brain. “”She gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. I can’t even describe what that feels like,” she says.
That's not evil - it's reproductive health, amiright?!
Not evil.
-
Mark me down for not evil as well
-
Also I'd like to note how it's interesting that this is the topic to turn trim into a pit'r
-
You guys know what actually is evil? Health insurance companies
-
good vs. evil. lol. wtf is this, narnia?
-
Also I'd like to note how it's interesting that this is the topic to turn trim into a pit'r
It's not, but I only look in here every once in a while and only comment on the threads that are recent so that I don't have to read a bunch to get up to speed.
-
You need an iPad text to speech app at 2x speed
-
You need an iPad text to speech app at 2x speed
I need the bbs intern I thought about getting when I was off for a week after lasik-ish surgery.
-
Do people that call this a settled area of the law feel the same way about 2nd amendment jurisprudence?
-
Do people that call this a settled area of the law feel the same way about 2nd amendment jurisprudence?
Can you reword this for dumb people (me)?
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
-
KSUW does not give one single F about abortion being "evil". he hates it because (just like homo gay sex) it's "icky"
-
(just like homo gay sex)
did you watch that video too? talk about gross AF
-
Childbirth videos also kind of gross, imo.
-
Child birth is evil
-
I'm more upset by people having too many children, being shitty parents, neglect, abuse, parents of obese children, etc, then I ever will be about abortion.
-
I'm more upset by people having too many children, being shitty parents, neglect, abuse, parents of obese children, etc, then I ever will be about abortion.
If abortion in some way stops any of the laundry list of things shitty people do by having children, I'm all about that. It does society a favor. Do I think it is terrible? Yes. But I think it serves a greater good.
-
KSUW does not give one single F about abortion being "evil". he hates it because (just like homo gay sex) it's "icky"
Ok bub. Think what you want.
-
I'm more upset by people having too many children, being shitty parents, neglect, abuse, parents of obese children, etc, then I ever will be about abortion.
If abortion in some way stops any of the laundry list of things shitty people do by having children, I'm all about that. It does society a favor. Do I think it is terrible? Yes. But I think it serves a greater good.
Huh. You know, murdering babies is actually pretty common throughout history. I'm sure they would tell you it was "for the greater good," too. Appears we haven't advanced much.
-
You can claim it's dumbassery all you want but the reality is that the ruling did make abortions legal and this is a move by the religious right to make them unavailable since they can't make them illegal. It's politically the next best thing and exactly why they are doing this.
Diluting this specific discussion(pp) by trying to talk about late term vs first trimester is stupid and does nothing to defend the defunding.
:lol: It's like you didn't even bother to read past "dumbassery"! I clearly explain why you're wrong, and you're just gonna keep on truckin' anyway! :thumbs:
Would it help if I broke it down into pieces? Here's the first part:
First, regarding "an already fought supreme court case" - to which case are you referring? Roe v. Wade? You should actually read that opinion. Or, you can just read this very short summary of the opinion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v._wade_1973 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v._wade_1973). Suffice it to say, RvW only granted a right (not found in the Constitution of course - the justices just made it up) to unrestricted abortion in the first trimester. The court found that the states had increasingly compelling interests (stronger authority) to restrict abortion in the latter trimesters. Subsequent decisions have further muddied the waters, but even under current jurisprudence, there is no Constitutional right to unrestricted abortion.
Ok, so unrestricted abortion in the first trimester isn't going to be much more unavailable with PP defunded?
Maybe let's slow it down a little so you don't keep getting off course:
1. abortion is legal, right? First trimester, or whatever, there is legal abortion, right?
2. Shutting down the only place where abortions were available for a certain segment of the pop is making them mostly unavailable to that segment of the pop, right?
You keep trying to argue evil, but legality and limiting the availability of a service is what this should be all about. Evil has nothing to do with it.
I've already answers both of your points, repeatedly.
1. As I've already said, I agree that abortion is legal in most states/situations. The point of this thread is not to argue whether abortion is legal in most cases, which is a given, but the morality of abortion and whether/when it should be legal.
2. Yes, if you close abortion clinics, it makes them harder to get. That's kinda the point.
-
really though, any medical procedure is gross if it involves cutting stuff and whatnot, which is like, all of them. ksuw are you going to sit there and tell me you watch videos of doctors mercilessly ripping people's chests open and messing around with heart valves and such, and don't even get the least bit squeamish?
-
i mean, observing an autopsy is the most enjoyable use of three hours of my free time that i've found yet.
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'd say the right to bear arms is more firmly ingrained. It's actually written in the Constitution, whereas the "right" to abortion is not. The right to abortion is purely a contrivance of Supreme Court jurisprudence, and even then it's not nearly as broad a right as people like CNS think it is.
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'd say the right to bear arms is more firmly ingrained. It's actually written in the Constitution, whereas the "right" to abortion is not. The right to abortion is purely a contrivance of Supreme Court jurisprudence, and even then it's not nearly as broad a right as people like CNS think it is.
all laws are a contrivance of humans.
-
i mean, observing an autopsy is the most enjoyable use of three hours of my free time that i've found yet.
autopsies used to be considered evil/immoral
-
Activist judges :curse:
-
i mean, observing an autopsy is the most enjoyable use of three hours of my free time that i've found yet.
autopsies used to be considered evil/immoral
feel the qyburn
-
i mean, observing an autopsy is the most enjoyable use of three hours of my free time that i've found yet.
autopsies used to be considered evil/immoral
feel the qyburn
:D
-
really though, any medical procedure is gross if it involves cutting stuff and whatnot, which is like, all of them. ksuw are you going to sit there and tell me you watch videos of doctors mercilessly ripping people's chests open and messing around with heart valves and such, and don't even get the least bit squeamish?
It's funny, you're bringing up a point raised by another liberal in a Slate piece I read a few months ago.
As someone who is squeamish, it was extremely difficult for me to listen to Nucatola talk about extracting liver, heart, and other parts to be donated to medical research. (I nearly fainted when a friend showed me the video of her knee operation once.) But people who work in medicine for a living do, in fact, become inured to the gore in a way that can seem strange to those of us who aren't regularly exposed to it. She also thought she was speaking to people in her profession who would be similarly accustomed to this sort of thing.
Abortion is gross, no doubt about it. It becomes grosser the later in a pregnancy it gets. But so is heart surgery. So is child-birth, for that matter. We don't deny people who need help in those cases because the help is gross. Nor should we deny people that help when it comes to needing abortion. We also shouldn't deny women who want to donate fetal or embryonic remains to science any more than we would deny someone who wants to be an organ donor, even though the latter is also quite gross to ponder.
I'm still not understanding the point that you (and her) are trying to make. Are you really arguing that these procedures are somehow similar because they're both "gross"? The difference is that one procedure is destroying a human life, the other is fixing a heart, or a knee, etc. I really don't understand where you're going with this. :dunno:
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'd say the right to bear arms is more firmly ingrained. It's actually written in the Constitution, whereas the "right" to abortion is not. The right to abortion is purely a contrivance of Supreme Court jurisprudence, and even then it's not nearly as broad a right as people like CNS think it is.
all laws are a contrivance of humans.
The difference is that some laws are duly written and passed by the legislature - like our Constitution mandates - and some are just made up by judges.
-
I'm more upset by people having too many children, being shitty parents, neglect, abuse, parents of obese children, etc, then I ever will be about abortion.
If abortion in some way stops any of the laundry list of things shitty people do by having children, I'm all about that. It does society a favor. Do I think it is terrible? Yes. But I think it serves a greater good.
Huh. You know, murdering babies is actually pretty common throughout history. I'm sure they would tell you it was "for the greater good," too. Appears we haven't advanced much.
We havent.
-
Abortion is fixing a pregnancy
-
i mean, observing an autopsy is the most enjoyable use of three hours of my free time that i've found yet.
autopsies used to be considered evil/immoral
You ghouls are really knocking it out of the park today. So now we're comparing abortion to autopsies. The killing of human life is really no different than studying a body that's already dead.
-
I'm more upset by people having too many children, being shitty parents, neglect, abuse, parents of obese children, etc, then I ever will be about abortion.
If abortion in some way stops any of the laundry list of things shitty people do by having children, I'm all about that. It does society a favor. Do I think it is terrible? Yes. But I think it serves a greater good.
Huh. You know, murdering babies is actually pretty common throughout history. I'm sure they would tell you it was "for the greater good," too. Appears we haven't advanced much.
We havent.
And that makes it Ok?
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'd say the right to bear arms is more firmly ingrained. It's actually written in the Constitution, whereas the "right" to abortion is not. The right to abortion is purely a contrivance of Supreme Court jurisprudence, and even then it's not nearly as broad a right as people like CNS think it is.
I wasn't talking to you
-
Abortion is legal on the grounds we can't tell a woman what to do with her body. I think the unborn should have the right to be born, but if it is tissue to you then it's hamburger. I object to my taxes being used by Planned Hamburger to carve up destroyed fetuses, humans, into cold cuts to be sold to the highest bidder. This is on part with brain stab and kill abortions.
-
https://twitter.com/CatNamedLily/status/644343910790234114
https://twitter.com/MattLugar/status/644966883658219520
-
This thread has been a real treat so far! :thumbs: I thought it might be helpful to provide a half-time scorecard of all the ridiculous arguments advanced so far in support of unrestricted abortion:
1. At the exact moment you exit the womb, that's when the birth fairy magically transforms you from a clump of cells into a human being worthy of protection - lib7
2. Well duh, that's why we celebrate birthdays! - Trim
3. "The government has no more obligation to protect people in the womb than they do people in Mexico. You don't get citizenship until birth." - RATM (this one is my personal favorite so far :lol:)
4. States don't charge murderers of preganant women with double murder because of the baby - it's because the dad is also a victim! - Also RATM (this one was a close second in the utter nonsense department)
5. But abortion is legal! - RATM and CNS (thanks captains obvious - that's not what we're discussing)
6. Planned Parenthood would shut down if it couldn't provide abortion - Mrs. G (why do you assume that?)
7. The Supreme Court already decided this - CNS (no, not really)
8. Abortions are only a very small amount of the services Planned Parenthood provides - CNS (:lol: yeah, kinda like how Major League Baseball is in the hot dog business because it sells way more hotdogs than baseball games)
9. Those undercover videos are "heavily edited" - CNS (like every other TV media piece, excpt the CfMP also made the full versions available online)
10. You just don't like abortion because it's gross, but so is open heart surgery! - Mocat, Roid (yup, no difference between the objectives of those procedures - none at all)
11. And autopsies! (see above)
12. IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD!! - Sundance (I'm sure that's what any conquering tribe/army throughout history has thought as they tossed the babies in the river - it doesn't make it true or any less barbaric)
-
Not a person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpEgAAYE_iw
-
Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
-
Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
How so? You said:
Shutting down Planned Parenthood is going to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus increase the demand for abortions.
To which I asked you: Why do you assume Planned Parenthood would shut down and cease offering birth control or health screenings if it couldn't provide abortion?
To which you never replied.
-
I'm more upset by people having too many children, being shitty parents, neglect, abuse, parents of obese children, etc, then I ever will be about abortion.
If abortion in some way stops any of the laundry list of things shitty people do by having children, I'm all about that. It does society a favor. Do I think it is terrible? Yes. But I think it serves a greater good.
Huh. You know, murdering babies is actually pretty common throughout history. I'm sure they would tell you it was "for the greater good," too. Appears we haven't advanced much.
We havent.
And that makes it Ok?
It makes things what they are.
-
I'm more upset by people having too many children, being shitty parents, neglect, abuse, parents of obese children, etc, then I ever will be about abortion.
If abortion in some way stops any of the laundry list of things shitty people do by having children, I'm all about that. It does society a favor. Do I think it is terrible? Yes. But I think it serves a greater good.
Huh. You know, murdering babies is actually pretty common throughout history. I'm sure they would tell you it was "for the greater good," too. Appears we haven't advanced much.
We havent.
And that makes it Ok?
It makes things what they are.
Ok, your answer may be "it is what it is" - but that's really no different than "it's the law." The point of this thread is whether it should be.
-
Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
How so? You said:
Shutting down Planned Parenthood is going to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus increase the demand for abortions.
To which I asked you: Why do you assume Planned Parenthood would shut down and cease offering birth control or health screenings if it couldn't provide abortion?
To which you never replied.
Aren't you the person who was accusing people of making up things to fit their story when they didn't have all the facts? But I guess it is ok for you to just make up my answer when you didn't receive one.
-
It should be legal. If we lived in a society full of productive members that contribute. Full of people dedicating to bettering themselves and those around them, I would absolutely be all for making abortion illegal past a certain time frame. (If you had unprotected sex and worry it may have caused a pregnancy, go get that crap vacuumed out within the month)
The truth of the matter is that society is not that way. There are a lot of people born into shitty situations that damn them for life. I don't think forcing more children to be born into that is helpful at all to anyone.
-
Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
How so? You said:
Shutting down Planned Parenthood is going to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus increase the demand for abortions.
To which I asked you: Why do you assume Planned Parenthood would shut down and cease offering birth control or health screenings if it couldn't provide abortion?
To which you never replied.
well defunding planned parenthood would have the logical ending of shutting down planned parenthood. abortions already recieve no tax money (which is stupid imo). she's right, your reading comprehension is atrotious
-
Not a person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpEgAAYE_iw
:lol:
-
Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
How so? You said:
Shutting down Planned Parenthood is going to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus increase the demand for abortions.
To which I asked you: Why do you assume Planned Parenthood would shut down and cease offering birth control or health screenings if it couldn't provide abortion?
To which you never replied.
Aren't you the person who was accusing people of making up things to fit their story when they didn't have all the facts? But I guess it is ok for you to just make up my answer when you didn't receive one.
In cased you missed it, there are so many other options besides PP but those don't donate any money to the dems:
https://twitter.com/CatNamedLily/status/644343910790234114
https://twitter.com/MattLugar/status/644966883658219520
-
It should be legal. If we lived in a society full of productive members that contribute. Full of people dedicating to bettering themselves and those around them, I would absolutely be all for making abortion illegal past a certain time frame. (If you had unprotected sex and worry it may have caused a pregnancy, go get that crap vacuumed out within the month)
The truth of the matter is that society is not that way. There are a lot of people born into shitty situations that damn them for life. I don't think forcing more children to be born into that is helpful at all to anyone.
http://liveactionnews.org/inspiring-true-story-of-a-woman-who-survived-an-abortion/
-
end abortion cronyism
:lol:
-
Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
How so? You said:
Shutting down Planned Parenthood is going to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus increase the demand for abortions.
To which I asked you: Why do you assume Planned Parenthood would shut down and cease offering birth control or health screenings if it couldn't provide abortion?
To which you never replied.
Aren't you the person who was accusing people of making up things to fit their story when they didn't have all the facts? But I guess it is ok for you to just make up my answer when you didn't receive one.
Where did I make up your answer? I've done no such thing. I'd honestly like to know what your answer is.
-
Your reading comprehension is atrocious.
How so? You said:
Shutting down Planned Parenthood is going to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, and thus increase the demand for abortions.
To which I asked you: Why do you assume Planned Parenthood would shut down and cease offering birth control or health screenings if it couldn't provide abortion?
To which you never replied.
well defunding planned parenthood would have the logical ending of shutting down planned parenthood. abortions already recieve no tax money (which is stupid imo). she's right, your reading comprehension is atrotious
Remind me to add this idiotic "abortions receive no tax money" argument to the post-game scorecard. Money is "fungible," my friend. Sure, you can follow all the legal niceties like keeping separate books, but it's still all one enterprise. That's like arguing that foreign aid to the PLO doesn't fund terrorism. It's all going to the same place. If the PLO can use the foreign aid to feed its people, it can use its money to buy rockets.
If you really believe that Planned Parenthood can't survive without abortion, then it would seem that you are admitting that abortion is the primary cash cow for Planned Parenthood (don't tell CNS this).
-
no one in this thread said they can't survive without abortion, that's you making up things because your reading comprehension is atrocious
-
no one in this thread said they can't survive without abortion, that's you making up things because your reading comprehension is atrocious
:lol: Ok. :rolleyes:
-
ksuw, you have mistakenly confused me :lol: at you with me presenting an argument. that's okay, i forgive you.
-
you want to defund the non-abortion side, which means they will probably shut down. if you get rid of the non-abortion services, unwanted pregnancy will increase, which will increase the amount of women looking to get abortions. i'm not really sure how this is so complicated for you to understand.
-
Where did I make up your answer? I've done no such thing.
Apparently your reading comprehension of your own words is atrocious as well.
6. Planned Parenthood would shut down if it couldn't provide abortion - Mrs. G (why do you assume that?)
Also, lib^7 just answered the question very well.
-
i mean, observing an autopsy is the most enjoyable use of three hours of my free time that i've found yet.
autopsies used to be considered evil/immoral
You ghouls are really knocking it out of the park today. So now we're comparing abortion to autopsies. The killing of human life is really no different than studying a body that's already dead.
The planned parenthood videos you keep urging everyone to watch are about selling fetal body parts. Those bodies are already dead.
-
you want to defund the non-abortion side, which means they will probably shut down. if you get rid of the non-abortion services, unwanted pregnancy will increase, which will increase the amount of women looking to get abortions. i'm not really sure how this is so complicated for you to understand.
So you are saying that young people will not have access to contraception or advice on how to avoid pregnancy if Planned Parenthood isn't around? I personally never once learned any of those things from them. I also got my free condoms from S.H.A.P.E. which was not supported or funded by planned parenthood.
Did you see this post? It helps you to realize there are a lot of great organizations out there who want to fill the tiny void losing planned parenthood would create.
https://twitter.com/MattLugar/status/644966883658219520
-
you want to defund the non-abortion side, which means they will probably shut down. if you get rid of the non-abortion services, unwanted pregnancy will increase, which will increase the amount of women looking to get abortions. i'm not really sure how this is so complicated for you to understand.
So you are saying that young people will not have access to contraception or advice on how to avoid pregnancy if Planned Parenthood isn't around? I personally never once learned any of those things from them. I also got my free condoms from S.H.A.P.E. which was not supported or funded by planned parenthood.
Did you see this post? It helps you to realize there are a lot of great organizations out there who want to fill the tiny void losing planned parenthood would create.
https://twitter.com/MattLugar/status/644966883658219520
I'd like to know the cost comparison of getting care at those other clinics vs PP.
-
you want to defund the non-abortion side, which means they will probably shut down. if you get rid of the non-abortion services, unwanted pregnancy will increase, which will increase the amount of women looking to get abortions. i'm not really sure how this is so complicated for you to understand.
So you are saying that young people will not have access to contraception or advice on how to avoid pregnancy if Planned Parenthood isn't around? I personally never once learned any of those things from them. I also got my free condoms from S.H.A.P.E. which was not supported or funded by planned parenthood.
Did you see this post? It helps you to realize there are a lot of great organizations out there who want to fill the tiny void losing planned parenthood would create.
https://twitter.com/MattLugar/status/644966883658219520
I'd like to know the cost comparison of getting care at those other clinics vs PP.
If the rates were exactly the same, would you care if PP was shut down?
-
yard dog, could you post that twitter picture again, i'm not sure if everyone has seen it
-
What about men?
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/42178/planned-parenthood-womens-health
We have heard much regarding Planned Parenthood and all the services it provides. Yet the question remains: Exactly what does it do? Remember the much-ballyhooed mammograms? They turned into nothing more than pass-through funding that could be more efficiently directed by a less limited clinic.
In Nevada, PP advertises abortion services, birth control, HIV testing, LGBT services, morning-after pills, pregnancy testing and services, STD testing, treatment, and vaccines, women’s health care, and men’s health care. Nevada has three Planned Parenthood Clinics — one in Reno and two in Clark County (Las Vegas). In comparison, there are 52 community health clinics spread throughout the state, and they exist even in some of the smallest rural towns. These health centers provide women’s medical care regardless of age or medical issue, and are not just for “lady parts.” In addition to women’s health, services provided at many of these free community health clinics include dental care, immunizations (from babies to adults), STD testing and treatment, pre- and post-partum pregnancy care, behavioral-health care, pediatric care, and general care — regardless of age or gender. These clinics, often owned by community-based nonprofits, operate through federal and state grants.
A note on the men’s health services Planned Parenthood claims to offer: The services provided for males are limited to only those areas that could be covered by a swimsuit, as long as it’s a Speedo. If you have jock itch or premature ejaculation, PP, as noted on its website, might be a good choice. Otherwise, a community health center is the best option, again regardless of age or service needed.
For a woman facing any medical problem — whether her own or a loved one’s — health centers that provide a full suite of services are always preferable.
The website freeclinics.com provides ample information on free and reduced-rate clinics throughout my state and others. Money that is currently going to Planned Parenthood should support these community-based centers offering health care for all. — Melissa Clement is the president of Nevada Right to Life.
What about men?
See paragraph in italics above.
-
i mean, observing an autopsy is the most enjoyable use of three hours of my free time that i've found yet.
autopsies used to be considered evil/immoral
You ghouls are really knocking it out of the park today. So now we're comparing abortion to autopsies. The killing of human life is really no different than studying a body that's already dead.
The planned parenthood videos you keep urging everyone to watch are about selling fetal body parts. Those bodies are already dead.
You clearly haven't watched the videos.
-
Where did I make up your answer? I've done no such thing.
Apparently your reading comprehension of your own words is atrocious as well.
6. Planned Parenthood would shut down if it couldn't provide abortion - Mrs. G (why do you assume that?)
Also, lib^7 just answered the question very well.
Oh ok. We were talking about how abortion should be restricted, so when you replied that "shutting down planned parenthood would lead to...." I took it to be a response to that argument - that restricting abortion would shut down planned parenthood - as opposed to a standalone point.
As for your point, yard dog has that covered. It's really not true. It's also irrelevant because there's no reason planned parenthood should have to shut down. They can just stop providing abortions.
-
I'm not 100% sure you've all watched my video.
-
I'm not 100% sure you've all watched my video.
I watched it, got really pumped about kstate football, then remembered that the video had 0% to do with what we were talking about. I was disappointed you tried to break up the argument with nonsense, but I'm still pumped about Kstate football, so there's that.
-
I'm not 100% sure you've all watched my video.
I watched it, got really pumped about kstate football, then remembered that the video had 0% to do with what we were talking about. I was disappointed you tried to break up the argument with nonsense, but I'm still pumped about Kstate football, so there's that.
Don't talk to me.
-
I'm not 100% sure you've all watched my video.
I watched it, got really pumped about kstate football, then remembered that the video had 0% to do with what we were talking about. I was disappointed you tried to break up the argument with nonsense, but I'm still pumped about Kstate football, so there's that.
Don't talk to me.
Don't compare KState's goal line defense to abortion. I dont think Bill would approve of that one bit.
-
KSUW, where do you consider the fetus to become a person, if not at birth? (not gE'ing i just want to know)
-
KSUW, where do you consider the fetus to become a person, if not at birth? (not gE'ing i just want to know)
are all living humans persons? is personhood a discrete yes/no character, or is it a gradient? do all live human persons have a right to remain alive? do live human nonpersons not have any right to live?
-
well ksuw seemed to take issue with the "suddenness" of birth as a defining period of time to become a human being. idk how you can determine a time if it isn't sudden. at some point you're not human and then at some point you are human.
-
well ksuw seemed to take issue with the "suddenness" of birth as a defining period of time to become a human being. idk how you can determine a time if it isn't sudden. at some point you're not human and then at some point you are human.
Gotta break the plane.
-
KSUW, where do you consider the fetus to become a person, if not at birth? (not gE'ing i just want to know)
In all honesty, I don't know when that collection of cells becomes a "person" - that may depend upon how you define a person - but I think it is irrelevant, as I'll explain below.
First, here are some things that I believe are indisputable:
1. On one end of the spectrum, there's birth. But that is an arbitrary and illogical line. Aside from some fluid in the lungs, there is no meaningful difference between a baby 5 minutes prior to birth and 5 minutes after.
2. On the other end of the spectrum is conception. That's when human life begins.
Then there's "viability." But that's not a very good dividing line, either, because (1) the time of viability keeps getting pushed earlier and earlier with advances in medicine (another reason why blind adherence to cases like Roe v Wade, based on antiquated technology, is absurd and why justices shouldn't be concocting laws in the first place), and (2) viability is premised on the theory that the life can survive outside the womb, but a full term baby can't survive without support. Neither can a toddler, or most full grown liberals.
Therefore, I err on the side of life. I don't think it is my place to play God in deciding when that life becomes a "person" or otherwise deserves protection. So I start at the beginning. Human life begins at conception, and I believe it is evil to kill human life.
That being said, there is a difference between my personal beliefs and what I would be prepared to accept as a matter of policy. I am a pragmatist, and would gladly accept some allowance for the earliest of abortions if it meant banning all other abortion.
-
KSUW, where do you consider the fetus to become a person, if not at birth? (not gE'ing i just want to know)
In all honesty, I don't know when that collection of cells becomes a "person" - that may depend upon how you define a person - but I think it is irrelevant, as I'll explain below.
First, here are some things that I believe are indisputable:
1. On one end of the spectrum, there's birth. But that is an arbitrary and illogical line. Aside from some fluid in the lungs, there is no meaningful difference between a baby 5 minutes prior to birth and 5 minutes after.
2. On the other end of the spectrum is conception. That's when human life begins.
Then there's "viability." But that's not a very good dividing line, either, because (1) the time of viability keeps getting pushed earlier and earlier with advances in medicine (another reason why blind adherence to cases like Roe v Wade, based on antiquated technology, is absurd and why justices shouldn't be concocting laws in the first place), and (2) viability is premised on the theory that the life can survive outside the womb, but a full term baby can't survive without support. Neither can a toddler, or most full grown liberals.
Therefore, I err on the side of life. I don't think it is my place to play God in deciding when that life becomes a "person" or otherwise deserves protection. So I start at the beginning. Human life begins at conception, and I believe it is evil to kill human life.
That being said, there is a difference between my personal beliefs and what I would be prepared to accept as a matter of policy. I am a pragmatist, and would gladly accept some allowance for the earliest of abortions if it meant banning all other abortion.
#zapped
-
well ksuw seemed to take issue with the "suddenness" of birth as a defining period of time to become a human being. idk how you can determine a time if it isn't sudden. at some point you're not human and then at some point you are human.
Right! That's always been my problem from a philosophical standpoint with abortion. That point in time is super gray, and whatever point we pick is going to seem pretty arbitrary.
Defining that point in time is very important. Because one second before that point in time, the thing is a clump of cells worthy of nothing. No different than a snot rag. If it's not a human, I have no reason to care about it. Let it grow, let it not grow, abort it, name it, I do not care. At this second, abortion is completely, 100% morally neutral.
THEN, one second later, we've crossed the event horizon. One second later -- whether it's at birth, or past the first trimester, or after the umbilical cord is cut or whenever -- one second after that line, the thing is a human being, worthy of all the moral concern that any other human being has. When we've reached that point, all of a sudden this thing becomes very important. At this point, abortion isn't a morally neutral thing anymore, but instead, it's killing a human being.
On one side of the line, no big deal -- Throw the clump of cells away like you would a used kleenax. Then, an instant later, you're committing one of the most morally repugnant acts a human can commit.
Awful lot of gray area for such a morally risky move.
-
The answer is just to let people do what they will and let God judge them. They are no threat to you.
-
Remember when fsd said birth control is genocide? :lol:
-
Remember when fsd said birth control is genocide? :lol:
Yes :lol:
-
The answer is just to let people do what they will and let God judge them. They are no threat to you.
-
That's always been my problem from a philosophical standpoint with abortion. That point in time is super gray, and whatever point we pick is going to seem pretty arbitrary...
Awful lot of gray area for such a morally risky move.
it's a very complex issue, where two of the most fundamental rights that we believe individuals are entitled to (to not be killed and to control their bodies) are in direct conflict. i don't think people that feel there is one clearly correct side have considered the issue very thoughtfully.
-
Very complex, yes. It's a shame the argument is filled with so much rhetoric (from both sides) because it really is an interesting and important argument.
-
The answer is just to let people do what they will and let God judge them. They are no threat to you.
I hope we're not coming full circle back to dumb arguments like this again. We don't pass laws just to protect ourselves, but to protect others. We have a moral obligation to respect and protect human life.
Just because the issue is arguably murky doesn't mean you throw up your hands and say "eh, let people do what they want and God will sort them out." Do I really need to go back through this whole exercise with you again? We wouldn't say that if a woman killed her 1-day old child, so why the hell would we say it if the child is one day prior to birth?! That leads to monstrous results. If you don't want to play God, err on the side of life. We know when human life begins. There is no debate about that. Everything else is just an arbitrary line.
-
I am a pragmatist, and would gladly accept some allowance for the earliest of abortions if it meant banning all other abortion.
:confused: in your mind there should be no difference whatsoever between the two.
-
jared from subway agrees that we should get rid of arbitrary lines in the law
-
I am a pragmatist, and would gladly accept some allowance for the earliest of abortions if it meant banning all other abortion.
:confused: in your mind there should be no difference whatsoever between the two.
The full quote is as follows:
That being said, there is a difference between my personal beliefs and what I would be prepared to accept as a matter of policy. I am a pragmatist, and would gladly accept some allowance for the earliest of abortions if it meant banning all other abortion.
I'm not sure what's unclear about that. A compromise on policy does not alter the moral assessment of killing human life.
-
jared from subway agrees that we should get rid of arbitrary lines in the law
If you'd like to start a new thread about lowering the age of consent, knock yourself out. We're discussing abortion here, you deviant.
-
ksuw, as a pragmatist, i'd gladly get rid of partial birth abortions in exchange for protecting all other abortions.
deal?
-
I thought partial birth abortions were already illegal?
-
I thought partial birth abortions were already illegal?
double illegal then
-
#negotiating
-
Why would you go through the trouble of carrying a baby for 9 months and buying new maternity clothes and getting stretch marks and changing your eating and sleeping habits and all that just to abort the thing when it's halfway out the door?
-
Why would you go through the trouble of carrying a baby for 9 months and buying new maternity clothes and getting stretch marks and changing your eating and sleeping habits and all that just to abort the thing when it's halfway out the door?
people do all sorts of weird things
-
Also i have another question. Why is planned parenthood or abortion doctors getting heat? They are just hired assassins. Don't you want to go after the real bad guys (pregnant women who don't want a baby)?
-
Also i have another question. Why is planned parenthood or abortion doctors getting heat? They are just hired assassins. Don't you want to go after the real bad guys (pregnant women who don't want a baby)?
Cut off the penises of the men who did it to them
-
ksuw brushed that question off earlier, but if you read between the lines he thinks they deserve the death penalty as well.
-
I'm not talking about rapists
-
I'm not talking about rapists
Me neithers
-
The more pragmatic solution to punishment is to go after the abortionist. As for the woman, that's an easy question with a difficult answer. I'll answer it by posing some questions of my own (and I think you'll see where I'm going with this). If a woman kills her baby just a few minutes after it is born, is that murder? Does it depend? On what?
see, he thinks they should get death
-
Ah sorry i missed that
-
it wasn't underlined.
-
I'm not talking about rapists
Me neithers
I admire your avatarial commitment to the new nez
-
it wasn't underlined.
high level technique
-
I'm not talking about rapists
Me neithers
I admire your avatarial commitment to the new nez
Its a stand of soladarity with tracz and the enterprise, but I appreciate the sentiment.
-
What if the baby is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?
-
The answer is just to let people do what they will and let God judge them. They are no threat to you.
I hope we're not coming full circle back to dumb arguments like this again. We don't pass laws just to protect ourselves, but to protect others. We have a moral obligation to respect and protect human life.
Just because the issue is arguably murky doesn't mean you throw up your hands and say "eh, let people do what they want and God will sort them out." Do I really need to go back through this whole exercise with you again? We wouldn't say that if a woman killed her 1-day old child, so why the hell would we say it if the child is one day prior to birth?! That leads to monstrous results. If you don't want to play God, err on the side of life. We know when human life begins. There is no debate about that. Everything else is just an arbitrary line.
I think that the issue being arguable murky is actually a pretty good reason to throw your hands up and say "eh, let people do what they want and God will sort them out." I just don't agree that anyone is served by jailing people who have abortions. I would agree with you that the government should not be giving tax dollars to institutions that perform them.
-
Why would you go through the trouble of carrying a baby for 9 months and buying new maternity clothes and getting stretch marks and changing your eating and sleeping habits and all that just to abort the thing when it's halfway out the door?
Fetal anomalies or risks to health of the pregnant woman. Some women don't realize they are pregnant until late in the pregnancy.
Also, some women don't have access to an early abortion that they can afford, so they actually end up paying more for a later term abortion.
-
Why would you go through the trouble of carrying a baby for 9 months and buying new maternity clothes and getting stretch marks and changing your eating and sleeping habits and all that just to abort the thing when it's halfway out the door?
Fetal anomalies or risks to health of the pregnant woman. Some women don't realize they are pregnant until late in the pregnancy.
Also, some women don't have access to an early abortion that they can afford, so they actually end up paying more for a later term abortion.
At that point, why not carry it to term and give it up for adoption?
-
Why would you go through the trouble of carrying a baby for 9 months and buying new maternity clothes and getting stretch marks and changing your eating and sleeping habits and all that just to abort the thing when it's halfway out the door?
Fetal anomalies or risks to health of the pregnant woman. Some women don't realize they are pregnant until late in the pregnancy.
Also, some women don't have access to an early abortion that they can afford, so they actually end up paying more for a later term abortion.
At that point, why not carry it to term and give it up for adoption?
YEAH WHY NOT
-
Why would you go through the trouble of carrying a baby for 9 months and buying new maternity clothes and getting stretch marks and changing your eating and sleeping habits and all that just to abort the thing when it's halfway out the door?
Fetal anomalies or risks to health of the pregnant woman. Some women don't realize they are pregnant until late in the pregnancy.
Also, some women don't have access to an early abortion that they can afford, so they actually end up paying more for a later term abortion.
At that point, why not carry it to term and give it up for adoption?
Do you think that women who can't afford an early abortion can afford to be off of work with a pregnancy?
-
I can kind of see why yard dog takes this so personally.
-
I can kind of see why yard dog takes this so personally.
People have wanted to late term abort him his whole life.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
-
Why would you go through the trouble of carrying a baby for 9 months and buying new maternity clothes and getting stretch marks and changing your eating and sleeping habits and all that just to abort the thing when it's halfway out the door?
Fetal anomalies or risks to health of the pregnant woman. Some women don't realize they are pregnant until late in the pregnancy.
Also, some women don't have access to an early abortion that they can afford, so they actually end up paying more for a later term abortion.
At that point, why not carry it to term and give it up for adoption?
Do you think that women who can't afford an early abortion can afford to be off of work with a pregnancy?
I will admit that risk of health to the mother is a definite time for consideration. But in the grand scheme how often is that still an issue? According to a quick bit of research less than 1% of abortions performed are to save the mother's life.
http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/8
I was responding to your comment that women who can't afford an early term abortion end up paying more for a later term abortion. In that statement I inferred you were saying that the only thing stopping the early term abortion was access to money. In that instance, if you are going to save up for a late term abortion, you are already carrying that baby pretty close to term.
I know it doesn't apply to all jobs, but I have worked with pregnant women on many occasions who work right up until they are due. They were also very healthy in doing so. The argument you should probably be making might be that their should be a requirement for companies to give paid leave for pregnant women. That is much more logical to your argument. Not that this is a sign that abortions should be more readily available.
-
I can kind of see why yard dog takes this so personally.
People have wanted to late term abort him his whole life.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
So you are equating late term abortion to murder? Glad to have you on our side Roidy.
-
Why would you go through the trouble of carrying a baby for 9 months and buying new maternity clothes and getting stretch marks and changing your eating and sleeping habits and all that just to abort the thing when it's halfway out the door?
Fetal anomalies or risks to health of the pregnant woman. Some women don't realize they are pregnant until late in the pregnancy.
Also, some women don't have access to an early abortion that they can afford, so they actually end up paying more for a later term abortion.
At that point, why not carry it to term and give it up for adoption?
Do you think that women who can't afford an early abortion can afford to be off of work with a pregnancy?
I will admit that risk of health to the mother is a definite time for consideration. But in the grand scheme how often is that still an issue? According to a quick bit of research less than 1% of abortions performed are to save the mother's life.
Well late term abortions only make up about 1% of all abortions performed so that is in line with the number you gave.
If your argument is why worry about something that only happens 1% of the time, then why do you even care about late term abortions?
Also, even if (and that's a big IF) a woman can work right up to her due date, then what? She comes back the day after she gave birth? The reality is that low-income women are in jobs that do not have paid maternity leave.
-
I can kind of see why yard dog takes this so personally.
People have wanted to late term abort him his whole life.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
So you are equating late term abortion to murder? Glad to have you on our side Roidy.
it's a recycled south park joke, but i wouldn't expect anyone of your limited cognitive capacity to make the connection. i haven't offered my actual opinion in this thread, and don't plan to.
-
Why would you go through the trouble of carrying a baby for 9 months and buying new maternity clothes and getting stretch marks and changing your eating and sleeping habits and all that just to abort the thing when it's halfway out the door?
Fetal anomalies or risks to health of the pregnant woman. Some women don't realize they are pregnant until late in the pregnancy.
Also, some women don't have access to an early abortion that they can afford, so they actually end up paying more for a later term abortion.
At that point, why not carry it to term and give it up for adoption?
Do you think that women who can't afford an early abortion can afford to be off of work with a pregnancy?
I will admit that risk of health to the mother is a definite time for consideration. But in the grand scheme how often is that still an issue? According to a quick bit of research less than 1% of abortions performed are to save the mother's life.
Well late term abortions only make up about 1% of all abortions performed so that is in line with the number you gave.
If your argument is why worry about something that only happens 1% of the time, then why do you even care about late term abortions?
Also, even if (and that's a big IF) a woman can work right up to her due date, then what? She comes back the day after she gave birth? The reality is that low-income women are in jobs that do not have paid maternity leave.
I'll agree that 1% is the same as 1%, but you are comparing apples to oranges. My point is that using the argument that someone who is anti-abortion wants mothers to die is a very weak stance. The vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with saving a mother's life. I will say I support saving a mother's life if there is no way to also save the child's.
I do not however support the murder of babies who are near their due date just because it happens less rarely than babies being murdered with a few more months until their due date. That is a ridiculous comparison.
I agree that all companies should offer paid maternity leave. I also support the example of several countries who require paid paternity leave so the mother has support from the father during those first important weeks. If defunding planned parenthood meant that it would be impossible to move forward the cause of paid maternity leave you might have a point in this argument, but it doesn't.
Planned parenthood is a speck on the radar of government supported health care for women. Like the link I previously posted mentioned, there are an astronomically larger number of non profit clinics who provide the same services. The difference? Those clinics aren't supporting democratic candidates with millions of dollars. Liberals love to talk about an end to corporate welfare and getting money out of elections, but refuse to defund an organization that makes large donations for democratic political campaigns.
-
I can kind of see why yard dog takes this so personally.
People have wanted to late term abort him his whole life.
:alleyoop:
-
I agree that all companies should offer paid maternity leave. I also support the example of several countries who require paid paternity leave so the mother has support from the father during those first important weeks.
very popular position among the breeding class.
-
I agree that all companies should offer paid maternity leave. I also support the example of several countries who require paid paternity leave so the mother has support from the father during those first important weeks.
very popular position among the breeding class.
Under Yard Dog's plan of free unlimited maternity leave to ever-Y-body who ever wants to have a kid, if a pregnant woman gets maternity leave but then gives the baby up for adoption, would the adopting mother get maternity leave? Isn't that double dipping? Tons of women out on maternity leave all the time while I (and other people who don't have kids) pay for it.
-
Under Yard Dog's plan of free unlimited maternity leave to ever-Y-body who ever wants to have a kid, if a pregnant woman gets maternity leave but then gives the baby up for adoption, would the adopting mother get maternity leave? Isn't that double dipping? Tons of women out on maternity leave all the time while I (and other people who don't have kids) pay for it.
they'd just pass these leave babies around to each other in circles and no one would ever work. :curse:
-
I agree that all companies should offer paid maternity leave. I also support the example of several countries who require paid paternity leave so the mother has support from the father during those first important weeks.
very popular position among the breeding class.
Under Yard Dog's plan of free unlimited maternity leave to ever-Y-body who ever wants to have a kid, if a pregnant woman gets maternity leave but then gives the baby up for adoption, would the adopting mother get maternity leave? Isn't that double dipping? Tons of women out on maternity leave all the time while I (and other people who don't have kids) pay for it.
hey yard dog, what do you think is going to happen to the gender wage gap with this plan that you propose?
-
I can kind of see why yard dog takes this so personally.
People have wanted to late term abort him his whole life.
Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
So you are equating late term abortion to murder? Glad to have you on our side Roidy.
it's a recycled south park joke, but i wouldn't expect anyone of your limited cognitive capacity to make the connection. i haven't offered my actual opinion in this thread, and don't plan to.
I like that you added that last statement. No one on this board knows my actual opinions on this subject either or almost any other subject. It makes it easier to spar.
-
I agree that all companies should offer paid maternity leave. I also support the example of several countries who require paid paternity leave so the mother has support from the father during those first important weeks.
very popular position among the breeding class.
Under Yard Dog's plan of free unlimited maternity leave to ever-Y-body who ever wants to have a kid, if a pregnant woman gets maternity leave but then gives the baby up for adoption, would the adopting mother get maternity leave? Isn't that double dipping? Tons of women out on maternity leave all the time while I (and other people who don't have kids) pay for it.
hey yard dog, what do you think is going to happen to the gender wage gap with this plan that you propose?
I don't have a proposed plan personally. I am not one generally to support government regulation to any degree, but in this instance a minimum standard seems nice. I definitely don't support unlimited maternity leave, that would be ridiculous. I am unsure how much a mandatory maternity leave ends up hurting the businesses, whether this would lead to less women getting hired in certain positions, or if this directly effects the gender wage gap.
In a perfect society companies would offer this already and be happy about it. The company I work for gives three months maternity leave. In a perfect market, businesses would compete with their maternity leaves in order to draw in better employees. If we are going to discuss the benefit of nurture in the ol' nature vs nurture debate, it starts from the very beginning. Not to mention that the healthcare and concerns of new mothers doesn't end at child birth. The time afterwards is just as important.
-
In a perfect society companies would offer this already and be happy about it.
perfect society for breeders.
-
It'd be nice if people planned to have children and had their health care and financial situations in order prior. In that case, there could be an ability to get paid maternity leave that is triple or quadruple (some multiple) the amount you have accrued for regular leave. Seems like a nice compromise to me. Having a child is a choice. Plan for it.
-
Maternity/paternity.
-
It'd be nice if people planned to have children and had their health care and financial situations in order prior. In that case, there could be an ability to get paid maternity leave that is triple or quadruple (some multiple) the amount you have accrued for regular leave. Seems like a nice compromise to me. Having a child is a choice. Plan for it.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?
-
It'd be nice if people planned to have children and had their health care and financial situations in order prior. In that case, there could be an ability to get paid maternity leave that is triple or quadruple (some multiple) the amount you have accrued for regular leave. Seems like a nice compromise to me. Having a child is a choice. Plan for it.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
Instead of two weeks paid leave, 8 when you breed
-
It'd be nice if people planned to have children and had their health care and financial situations in order prior. In that case, there could be an ability to get paid maternity leave that is triple or quadruple (some multiple) the amount you have accrued for regular leave. Seems like a nice compromise to me. Having a child is a choice. Plan for it.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
Instead of two weeks paid leave, 8 when you breed
Abhorrent
-
Abhorrent
agreed. breeders shouldn't be subsidized.
-
Abhorrent
agreed. breeders shouldn't be subsidized.
Subsidized? Who subsidizes maternity leave.
-
Subsidized? Who subsidizes maternity leave.
the childless.
-
It'd be nice if people planned to have children and had their health care and financial situations in order prior. In that case, there could be an ability to get paid maternity leave that is triple or quadruple (some multiple) the amount you have accrued for regular leave. Seems like a nice compromise to me. Having a child is a choice. Plan for it.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
Instead of two weeks paid leave, 8 when you breed
Abhorrent
I said a multiple. There would have to be some limits of course.
-
Subsidized? Who subsidizes maternity leave.
the childless.
non-breeders, and even breeders during years that they don't breed, should get a yearly "thanks for not having a baby" bonus equal to whatever their maternity/paternity benefit would be.
-
If anyone is having more than 2 kids. They should be cut off.
-
Subsidized? Who subsidizes maternity leave.
the childless.
How so? You don't rough ridin' employ anyone why do you care?
-
How so?
don't be dense.
-
I mean, it's ok to not have a problem with subsidizing maternity/paternity leave, yet recognize it exists.
-
Subsidized? Who subsidizes maternity leave.
the childless.
non-breeders, and even breeders during years that they don't breed, should get a yearly "thanks for not having a baby" bonus equal to whatever their maternity/paternity benefit would be.
Yes.
-
Thank you for breeding
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?
I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.
My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice. I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.
-
I also think only women should be allowed to determine abortion laws. As a male, I don't feel qualified as I really don't need to deal with any of the consequences women do.
-
I also think only women should be allowed to determine abortion laws. As a male, I don't feel qualified as I really don't need to deal with any of the consequences women do.
I don't agree
-
I also think only women should be allowed to determine abortion laws. As a male, I don't feel qualified as I really don't need to deal with any of the consequences women do.
I don't agree
I respect that.
-
It'd be nice if people planned to have children and had their health care and financial situations in order prior. In that case, there could be an ability to get paid maternity leave that is triple or quadruple (some multiple) the amount you have accrued for regular leave. Seems like a nice compromise to me. Having a child is a choice. Plan for it.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
Instead of two weeks paid leave, 8 when you breed
Abhorrent
I said a multiple. There would have to be some limits of course.
So maternity leave would be based on seniority. The 60 year old lady who has been at the company a long time would be eligible for the most maternity leave. Makes sense.
-
It'd be nice if people planned to have children and had their health care and financial situations in order prior. In that case, there could be an ability to get paid maternity leave that is triple or quadruple (some multiple) the amount you have accrued for regular leave. Seems like a nice compromise to me. Having a child is a choice. Plan for it.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
Instead of two weeks paid leave, 8 when you breed
Abhorrent
I said a multiple. There would have to be some limits of course.
So maternity leave would be based on seniority. The 60 year old lady who has been at the company a long time would be eligible for the most maternity leave. Makes sense.
What do you want Mrs. Gooch? Something special because you don't want to have children? I really don't understand your stance at all. It seems pretty much "boohoo that's not fair."
-
It'd be nice if people planned to have children and had their health care and financial situations in order prior. In that case, there could be an ability to get paid maternity leave that is triple or quadruple (some multiple) the amount you have accrued for regular leave. Seems like a nice compromise to me. Having a child is a choice. Plan for it.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
Instead of two weeks paid leave, 8 when you breed
Abhorrent
I said a multiple. There would have to be some limits of course.
So maternity leave would be based on seniority. The 60 year old lady who has been at the company a long time would be eligible for the most maternity leave. Makes sense.
What do you want Mrs. Gooch? Something special because you don't want to have children? I really don't understand your stance at all. It seems pretty much "boohoo that's not fair."
I just don't think that companies should be mandated to provide maternity leave which basically puts the burden on the company and the remaining employees instead of the person who chose to have a child. If companies want to offer it of their own choice to attract a certain set of people to be their employees, then fine that is up to them.
I like roidhead's idea that everyone gets the equivalent of maternity leave. Maybe companies could give each employee a week of "global improvement" time each year. You could use it to go on a trip to build a water treatment plant in a 3rd world country or you could use it to work at a soup kitchen or you could save it up for a few years and use it as maternity/paternity leave (not that necessarily every person who has a kid is improving the world by having that kid, but some people seem to think so).
-
I think I'd rather just keep going to work than spend a week working a soup kitchen.
-
I think I'd rather just keep going to work than spend a week working a soup kitchen.
That would be your choice, but isn't there anything you would like to do instead of work that would improve the world? Tutor children? Read to old people? Dig a sewer? Clean up after Riverfest?
Or maybe you don't have to use it all at once. You could leave work an hour early to work at a soup kitchen once a week for 40 weeks out of the year.
-
I think I'd rather just keep going to work than spend a week working a soup kitchen.
That would be your choice, but isn't there anything you would like to do instead of work that would improve the world? Tutor children? Read to old people? Dig a sewer? Clean up after Riverfest?
Maybe for a day, not a week. I like my job. I'd view paternity leave as more of an obligation than something to look forward to.
-
How so?
don't be dense.
You conveniently cut off the second half of the post. As an employee you aren't subsidizing anything.
-
How so?
don't be dense.
You conveniently cut off the second half of the post. As an employee you aren't subsidizing anything.
Could the employer pay everyone (a little) more if he/she didn't need to pay for a few months of zero productivity for another worker? I'd argue yes.
-
It'd be nice if people planned to have children and had their health care and financial situations in order prior. In that case, there could be an ability to get paid maternity leave that is triple or quadruple (some multiple) the amount you have accrued for regular leave. Seems like a nice compromise to me. Having a child is a choice. Plan for it.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
Instead of two weeks paid leave, 8 when you breed
Abhorrent
I said a multiple. There would have to be some limits of course.
So maternity leave would be based on seniority. The 60 year old lady who has been at the company a long time would be eligible for the most maternity leave. Makes sense.
What do you want Mrs. Gooch? Something special because you don't want to have children? I really don't understand your stance at all. It seems pretty much "boohoo that's not fair."
I just don't think that companies should be mandated to provide maternity leave which basically puts the burden on the company and the remaining employees instead of the person who chose to have a child. If companies want to offer it of their own choice to attract a certain set of people to be their employees, then fine that is up to them.
I like roidhead's idea that everyone gets the equivalent of maternity leave. Maybe companies could give each employee a week of "global improvement" time each year. You could use it to go on a trip to build a water treatment plant in a 3rd world country or you could use it to work at a soup kitchen or you could save it up for a few years and use it as maternity/paternity leave (not that necessarily every person who has a kid is improving the world by having that kid, but some people seem to think so).
I must have missed that. I could dig that. Quite a bit actually. I wish companies encouraged things of that nature more often.
-
Wait, it just occurred to me that a lot of you dumbasses are under the impression that paid maternity leave is some kind of law or something. LOL.
-
How so?
don't be dense.
You conveniently cut off the second half of the post. As an employee you aren't subsidizing anything.
well, you're conveniently disobeying my entire post.
-
How so?
don't be dense.
You conveniently cut off the second half of the post. As an employee you aren't subsidizing anything.
well, you're conveniently disobeying my entire post.
Well you don't actually know what maternity leave is or you're the dumbest sonofabitch ever, so I don't quite know how to approach it.
-
Wait, it just occurred to me that a lot of you dumbasses are under the impression that paid maternity leave is some kind of law or something. LOL.
It should be
-
Well you don't actually know what maternity leave is or you're the dumbest sonofabitch ever, so I don't quite know how to approach it.
jesus christ, mir. i don't want to walk you through this. sit down and figure it out on your own.
-
Wait, it just occurred to me that a lot of you dumbasses are under the impression that paid maternity leave is some kind of law or something. LOL.
It should be
FMLA as written is adequate, imo.
It also has just occurred to me that literally none of you posting about how much you don't like or how unfair maternity/paternity leave is, boo rough ridin' hoo, haven't actually taken leave and your entire view of it is that, it's not fair that your coworker gets vacation that you don't.
-
It also has just occurred to me that literally none of you posting about how much you don't like or how unfair maternity/paternity leave is, boo rough ridin' hoo, haven't actually taken leave and your entire view of it is that, it's not fair that your coworker gets vacation that you don't.
you should probably also consider the possibility that you don't know what you're talking about.
-
Well you don't actually know what maternity leave is or you're the dumbest sonofabitch ever, so I don't quite know how to approach it.
jesus christ, mir. i don't want to walk you through this. sit down and figure it out on your own.
Walk me through what? Let's continue the conversation after you've actually taken the 45 seconds to read FMLA. Here I'll actually make it easy for you.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
Now I'll ask again, what the eff are you subsidizing?
-
Wait, it just occurred to me that a lot of you dumbasses are under the impression that paid maternity leave is some kind of law or something. LOL.
It should be
Yeah, my understanding was that several people were saying it should be paid, not that it currently is.
-
Mir, you should reread, something didn't translate right in the last few pages for you
-
Walk me through what? Let's continue the conversation after you've actually taken the 45 seconds to read FMLA. Here I'll actually make it easy for you.
http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
Now I'll ask again, what the eff are you subsidizing?
you may not believe this, but the only person that has referenced the fmla is you. no one else is or has discussed it (although even unpaid leave presents a small cost to employers and/or other employees).
-
Subsidized? Who subsidizes maternity leave.
the childless.
So this all started with people getting on yard dog for his plan to provide paid maternity leave (really odd stance for yard dog to take btw). I could be wrong but to me this spiraled from that to essentially all maternity leave is wrong. sys it seems at the point I quoted above you went from hypothetically addressing yard dogs plan to arguing against maternity leave, period.
Now going back through these last two pages it seems to me there are still a couple of posters who thinks we have mandated paid maternity leave, if you aren't one of those people, I apologize. However to contend that workers not on maternity leave pay some price for someone on maternity leave is ridiculous at best.
-
So this all started with people getting on yard dog for his plan to provide paid maternity leave (really odd stance for yard dog to take btw). I could be wrong but to me this spiraled from that to essentially all maternity leave is wrong. sys it seems at the point I quoted above you went from hypothetically addressing yard dogs plan to arguing against maternity leave, period.
Now going back through these last two pages it seems to me there are still a couple of posters who thinks we have mandated paid maternity leave, if you aren't one of those people, I apologize. However to contend that workers not on maternity leave pay some price for someone on maternity leave is ridiculous at best.
great, now we are all on the same page. btw, california, where i live and work, does have a law providing some % of paid parental leave, paid out of some sort of tax (i think a payroll tax of some sort, not positive). but that's neither here nor there.
let's deal with your last contention. i have a hard time following your logic. apparently you believe that parental leave comes entirely out of an employers' profits/revenue as a zero sum game? that there is no compensatory effect on employee wages and benefits overall? that is a very strange position to take, and as far as i am aware it is one that is entirely unsupported by either economic theory or empirical evidence.
-
:lol:
-
I also think only women should be allowed to determine abortion laws. As a male, I don't feel qualified as I really don't need to deal with any of the consequences women do.
I don't agree
I respect that.
I agree with lib7, and I respect his opinion! :cheers:
Saying "eh, it's not my place to have an opinion or make policy on abortion because I'm a man" is beyond stupid. If you really believe that, you should read this piece: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html# (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html#)
I still consider myself pro-choice, as I have for the last 30 years. I staked out this position during my freshmen year in college. Even then, I understood the abortion debate was a tug-of-war between competing rights—those of the mother versus those of an unborn baby. I sided with the mother. And I tried not to think about the baby.
All this was happening in the 1980s, which was a particularly tense time in the abortion debate. Americans were at each other’s throats. Protesters picketed the offices of abortion providers. Clinics were bombed or set on fire. Doctors who performed abortions were being threatened. The Moral Majority, Operation Rescue, and the Republican Party seemed an intolerant lot. I couldn’t imagine siding with them, so I lined up on the pro-choice side.
I arrived there for a simple reason: Because I’m a man. Many will say that this is not a very good reason, but it is my reason. Lacking the ability to get pregnant, and thus spared what has been for women friends of mine the anguishing decision of whether to stay pregnant, I’ve remained on the sidelines and deferred to the other half of the population.
Over time, I made refinements—going along with waiting periods and parental notification laws at the state level, and coming out against the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.
As I’ve only realized lately, to be a man, and to declare yourself pro-choice, is to proclaim your neutrality. And, as I’ve only recently been willing to admit, even to myself, that’s another name for “wimping out.”
At least that’s how my wife sees it. She’s pro-life, and so she’s been tearing into me every time a new video is released. She’s not buying my argument that, as a man, I have to defer to women and trust them to make their own choices about what to do with their bodies. To her, that’s ridiculous—and cowardly.
“You can’t stand on the sidelines, especially now that you’ve seen these videos,” she told me recently. “That’s bullshit! These are babies that are being killed. Millions of them. And you need to use your voice to protect them. That’s what a man does. He protects children—his own children, and other children. That’s what it means to be a man.”
I didn’t like the scolding, but I needed to hear it. For those of us who are pro-choice, the Planned Parenthood videos are a game changer. As to whether that means I’ll change my view, I’m not sure. I’m on the bubble. Ask me in a few weeks, after the release of more videos.
Real men protect babies. Real men don't say :Crybaby: "Oh, this is a real moral quandary, so I guess do whatever you want! Please don't accuse me of being a misogynist!" :Crybaby:
-
It's not a moral quandary for me :dunno:
-
I don't have a problem with saying I am "wimping out" or not being a "real man" by thinking women are more qualified to make policy decisions regarding abortion.
Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.
-
So this all started with people getting on yard dog for his plan to provide paid maternity leave (really odd stance for yard dog to take btw). I could be wrong but to me this spiraled from that to essentially all maternity leave is wrong. sys it seems at the point I quoted above you went from hypothetically addressing yard dogs plan to arguing against maternity leave, period.
Now going back through these last two pages it seems to me there are still a couple of posters who thinks we have mandated paid maternity leave, if you aren't one of those people, I apologize. However to contend that workers not on maternity leave pay some price for someone on maternity leave is ridiculous at best.
great, now we are all on the same page. btw, california, where i live and work, does have a law providing some % of paid parental leave, paid out of some sort of tax (i think a payroll tax of some sort, not positive). but that's neither here nor there.
let's deal with your last contention. i have a hard time following your logic. apparently you believe that parental leave comes entirely out of an employers' profits/revenue as a zero sum game? that there is no compensatory effect on employee wages and benefits overall? that is a very strange position to take, and as far as i am aware it is one that is entirely unsupported by either economic theory or empirical evidence.
There are three states that offer paid maternity leave (it's actually family health leave) California, Washington, and New Jersey. In California it is actually an insurance plan that the employee has to buy into, it isn't the government giving people money to have babies.
What evidence is there that unpaid or frankly paid for that matter maternity have any effect on the wages of others? Considering that this is a matter of a decision of a private employer I'm not sure how you can speak definitively on the matter either. It feels like you are applying your standard to some woman making $11/hour making rivets, these people aren't getting paid maternity leave. I'm willing to bet that companies offering paid maternity hire specialized, highly skilled employees at high salaries and they offer the paid maternity leave as a means to keep the skilled workers around, and to keep morale and productivity high in a way that has no noticeable effect to the bottom line of the company and not at the expense of the small percentage of their adult workforce that make the choice not to reproduce, adopt, or have an ill parent they need to care for.
-
I don't have a problem with saying I am "wimping out" or not being a "real man" by thinking women are more qualified to make policy decisions regarding abortion.
only gunowners should make policy decisions on gun ownership.
-
Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.
This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?
-
I don't have a problem with saying I am "wimping out" or not being a "real man" by thinking women are more qualified to make policy decisions regarding abortion.
only gunowners should make policy decisions on gun ownership.
I think abortion is a little more unique and complicated.
-
Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.
This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?
Yes, I think K-S-U mentioned that the media edits videos all the time.
-
I don't have a problem with saying I am "wimping out" or not being a "real man" by thinking women are more qualified to make policy decisions regarding abortion.
Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.
Yes, and I also explained why that's a stupid talking point.
-
I don't have a problem with saying I am "wimping out" or not being a "real man" by thinking women are more qualified to make policy decisions regarding abortion.
only gunowners should make policy decisions on gun ownership.
Everyone is a potential gun owner (except ex-cons, I guess, but they can't vote anyway can they?)
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abortion-bills-planned-parenthood-video_55fc21d1e4b08820d9184787
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/index.html
-
There are three states that offer paid maternity leave (it's actually family health leave) California, Washington, and New Jersey. In California it is actually an insurance plan that the employee has to buy into, it isn't the government giving people money to have babies.
participation in csdi is mandatory. it is a government sponsored, organized and operated entity that uses the power of the state to mandate that employees pay money into a pool that is then distributed to state residents according to the requirements outlined by state law.
you (and california) can call it insurance if you like, the supreme court ruled that a mandatory federal "insurance" law was in fact a tax. because it is.
-
Everyone is a potential gun owner.
are they? is gun ownership also now something the state can mandate?
-
I think abortion is a little more unique and complicated.
do you consider yourself less intellectually qualified to analyze unique and complicated issues than are women? i thought you were opting out of the issue because you felt it was unfair of you to intrude because you would not and could not be as impacted by ramifications of the decision, not because you thought you were to stupid to understand the issue.
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?
I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.
My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice. I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.
But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.
-
Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.
This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?
Yes, I think K-S-U mentioned that the media edits videos all the time.
That, and the full length undercover vids are made available online, which is more than the media would ever provide for any if its video productions. It is an extremely stupid talking point peddled by - who else? - the media. Yes, it's been explained. See my halftime scorecard of stupid arguments around page 4.
-
I think abortion is a little more unique and complicated.
do you consider yourself less intellectually qualified to analyze unique and complicated issues than are women? i thought you were opting out of the issue because you felt it was unfair of you to intrude because you would not and could not be as impacted by ramifications of the decision, not because you thought you were to stupid to understand the issue.
I choose to opt put because I am basically unaffected.
(Granted, I am basically unaffected by gun laws, too.)
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?
I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.
My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice. I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.
But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.
I did a word search of the constitution for "privacy" and "abortion." My search function must not be working right. It did find a pretty clear provision on the right to bear arms, though.
-
Are you pro life, sys?
-
Media :curse:
-
What evidence is there that unpaid or frankly paid for that matter maternity have any effect on the wages of others?
i'll google for this and get back to you. it may be a while, though.
It feels like you are applying your standard to some woman making $11/hour making rivets, these people aren't getting paid maternity leave. I'm willing to bet that companies offering paid maternity hire specialized, highly skilled employees at high salaries and they offer the paid maternity leave as a means to keep the skilled workers around, and to keep morale and productivity high in a way that has no noticeable effect to the bottom line of the company and not at the expense of the small percentage of their adult workforce that make the choice not to reproduce, adopt, or have an ill parent they need to care for.
you're right, of course, that in the united states most employers that offer paid parental leave offer fairly high mean compensation to employees. your contention that it does not come at the expense of total employee compensation does not follow. if labor has any power (and highly skilled, highly specialized labor usually has much greater power than does less skilled labor, then they should demand increasing percentages of revenues, up to the point at which capital can replace them with equally skilled alternatives. whether labor demands and receives that compensation in the form of salary or benefits (leaving tax considerations aside) should be immaterial. if benefits are offered to all employees, but are only used by a subset of those employees, then those employees that do not use that benefit are subsidizing those employees that do.
-
(Granted, I am basically unaffected by gun laws, too.)
that's all i was trying to point out.
-
Are you pro life, sys?
no.
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?
I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.
My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice. I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.
But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.
I did a word search of the constitution for "privacy" and "abortion." My search function must not be working right. It did find a pretty clear provision on the right to bear arms, though.
I don't think I was the person to frame this conversation in constitutional terms, bub. I just addressed the point.
-
Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.
This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?
Yes, I think K-S-U mentioned that the media edits videos all the time.
That, and the full length undercover vids are made available online, which is more than the media would ever provide for any if its video productions. It is an extremely stupid talking point peddled by - who else? - the media. Yes, it's been explained. See my halftime scorecard of stupid arguments around page 4.
"it's not edited/doctored at all! and even if it is, that's what 'the media' does all the time anyway!"
-
(Granted, I am basically unaffected by gun laws, too.)
that's all i was trying to point out.
Additionally, the impact a complete ban on guns would have on the lives of gun owners is basically nothing compared to the impact a ban on abortion would have on the lives of women who want an abortion.
-
the impact a complete ban on guns would have on the lives of gun owners is basically nothing compared to the impact a ban on abortion would have on the lives of women who want an abortion.
as a non-gunowner, i don't think you understand the unique and complicated impact gun ownership has on gunowners and persons that want to own guns.
-
Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.
This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?
Yes, I think K-S-U mentioned that the media edits videos all the time.
That, and the full length undercover vids are made available online, which is more than the media would ever provide for any if its video productions. It is an extremely stupid talking point peddled by - who else? - the media. Yes, it's been explained. See my halftime scorecard of stupid arguments around page 4.
"it's not edited/doctored at all! and even if it is, that's what 'the media' does all the time anyway!"
Did I ever say it wasn't edited? Of course they're edited! That's what happens when you take hours and hours of video and have to cut it down to something people will actually watch. The full videos are also produced, which is better than the media ever does. People can decide for themselves whether it has been edited in a misleading way.
-
"the media" have shared plenty of full videos of cops murdering people.
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?
I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.
My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice. I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.
But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.
I did a word search of the constitution for "privacy" and "abortion." My search function must not be working right. It did find a pretty clear provision on the right to bear arms, though.
Now add "regulated" and "militia" to your search
-
People can decide for themselves whether it has been edited in a misleading way.
Yes. Their eyeballs, their choice.
-
Also I watched one of those videos and it didn't change my opinion.
This thread is really long, someone posted that the videos are heavily edited and misleading, right?
Yes, I think K-S-U mentioned that the media edits videos all the time.
That, and the full length undercover vids are made available online, which is more than the media would ever provide for any if its video productions. It is an extremely stupid talking point peddled by - who else? - the media. Yes, it's been explained. See my halftime scorecard of stupid arguments around page 4.
"it's not edited/doctored at all! and even if it is, that's what 'the media' does all the time anyway!"
Did I ever say it wasn't edited? Of course they're edited! That's what happens when you take hours and hours of video and have to cut it down to something people will actually watch. The full videos are also produced, which is better than the media ever does. People can decide for themselves whether it has been edited in a misleading way.
stuff has not just been removed. stuff has been added in, in an attempt to deliberately mislead the viewer. is that ok too because "the media" does it?
-
"the media" have shared plenty of full videos of cops murdering people.
Not their own videos. The media is generally quite protective of its own product.
-
Planned Infanticide hired a "media forensics firm" - Fusion GPS, which normally does oppo research for political campaigns - to analyze some of the videos. You can find their report online. They concluded that the videos were edited - well duh, of course they've been edited. They also noted a few bits of audio that they're not sure were correctly transcribed. This was enough for PP to hand the report to its media surrogates to gin up some favorable headlines. But they also said the "analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation...." They also said there was “no evidence of audio manipulation.”
Hell, the videos are mostly time stamped so you can tell when time has been cut.
-
The questions are simple is a fetus meat or developing and growing human? Is the selling of body parts of aborted babies so important that Obama will veto the funding bill and shut down all of the vital functions of government? I would add that at msn news there is a good article about how some states are prosecuting mothers who use drugs and harm their baby. These laws recognizes the personhood of the baby. Why two different standards?
-
when organ donors die, is it ethical to perform medical research on their tissue/organs?
-
Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever. So weird.
-
Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever. So weird.
God told them its bad
-
Planned Infanticide hired a "media forensics firm" - Fusion GPS, which normally does oppo research for political campaigns - to analyze some of the videos. You can find their report online. They concluded that the videos were edited - well duh, of course they've been edited. They also noted a few bits of audio that they're not sure were correctly transcribed. This was enough for PP to hand the report to its media surrogates to gin up some favorable headlines. But they also said the "analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation...." They also said there was “no evidence of audio manipulation.”
Hell, the videos are mostly time stamped so you can tell when time has been cut.
you put the ellipses on the wrong end of the actual quote. CMP did too, so prob not your fault.
Fusion GPS outlined 42 instances in which CMP edited out content from the short as well as so-called full versions of the tapes, several of which were secretly recorded. The company also identified instances in which context was eliminated, minutes of film were deleted and transcripts released by CMP did not match what was said on the tapes.
The report concludes that the degree of manipulation means the videos have no "evidentiary value" in a legal context, can't be used in "official inquiries" and lack credulity as journalism. Those findings are a direct response to CMP's arguments in court -- while fighting efforts to prevent it from releasing more video -- that it is protected by the First Amendment.
But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no "widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.
-
Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever. So weird.
the fetuses never signed the backs of their licenses.
-
Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever. So weird.
the fetuses never signed the backs of their licenses.
The parents did. Are parents able to designate their children as organ donors after birth? I'm assuming they can, but honestly have no idea.
-
day gonna use dem stem cells to make new people an dats gods job :runaway:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whyimcray.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F06%2Fhumans_jerbs.jpg&hash=afbf2e711e777a48038bfbee892ea02958e4d009)
-
The questions are simple is a fetus meat or developing and growing human? Is the selling of body parts of aborted babies so important that Obama will veto the funding bill and shut down all of the vital functions of government? I would add that at msn news there is a good article about how some states are prosecuting mothers who use drugs and harm their baby. These laws recognizes the personhood of the baby. Why two different standards?
Because one grows up. One doesnt.
-
Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever. So weird.
The fetuses are alive until they are killed in the womb by the doctor, and in some cases killed outside the womb if they did a poor job.
-
so, with very cursory googling, it's a lot easier to find info on the impact of maternity leave on women's salaries than on salaries in general. i'm sure there is info out there, i just didn't come across it.
these following would indicate that employers attempt, to the degree they are able, to compensate the childless (and male parents) for their greater efforts at work compared to mothers who take maternal leave. if they are perfectly able to so, the childless do not subsidize parents.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F12%2FFT_gender1223.png&hash=d3d27efa094c7c98d76ce639f97fe5c9dbbc3a63)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/20/the-link-between-parental-leave-and-the-gender-pay-gap/
Budig’s research shows that childfree, unmarried women earn 96 cents for every dollar a man earns, while married mothers earn 76 cents, and a woman’s pay goes down with the addition of each child.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/complete-without-kids/201411/why-dads-earn-more-and-moms-earn-less-the-childfree
-
so, with very cursory googling, it's a lot easier to find info on the impact of maternity leave on women's salaries than on salaries in general. i'm sure there is info out there, i just didn't come across it.
these following would indicate that employers attempt, to the degree they are able, to compensate the childless (and male parents) for their greater efforts at work compared to mothers who take maternal leave. if they are perfectly able to so, the childless do not subsidize parents.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F12%2FFT_gender1223.png&hash=d3d27efa094c7c98d76ce639f97fe5c9dbbc3a63)
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/20/the-link-between-parental-leave-and-the-gender-pay-gap/
Budig’s research shows that childfree, unmarried women earn 96 cents for every dollar a man earns, while married mothers earn 76 cents, and a woman’s pay goes down with the addition of each child.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/complete-without-kids/201411/why-dads-earn-more-and-moms-earn-less-the-childfree
Interesting. Although that does look like a pretty weak correlation. I also wonder how unmarried childless women compare to unmarried childless men.
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?
I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.
My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice. I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.
But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.
I did a word search of the constitution for "privacy" and "abortion." My search function must not be working right. It did find a pretty clear provision on the right to bear arms, though.
Now add "regulated" and "militia" to your search
Yup - those words are there, too! But why can't I find those rights to sodomy, abortion, birth control, and privacy? I must be looking at an outdated version of the Constitution.
-
Right to sodomy? What are you talking about?
-
Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever. So weird.
the fetuses never signed the backs of their licenses.
Nice. Well, that and the fact that several of the videos indicate that Planned Parenthood is profiting off the sale of the aborted babies, thereby giving them an incentive to provide more abortions. What evidence? For starters, Planned Parenthood claims it only charges its cost for shipping and preparation of the "specimens," but the price varies significantly by "specimen." Apparently, baby heads are primo. Who knew? That's where the real money is - the heads. :thumbs:
-
Right to sodomy? What are you talking about?
Google Lawrence v. Texas.
-
Just grilled a turkey burger.
-
Planned Infanticide hired a "media forensics firm" - Fusion GPS, which normally does oppo research for political campaigns - to analyze some of the videos. You can find their report online. They concluded that the videos were edited - well duh, of course they've been edited. They also noted a few bits of audio that they're not sure were correctly transcribed. This was enough for PP to hand the report to its media surrogates to gin up some favorable headlines. But they also said the "analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation...." They also said there was “no evidence of audio manipulation.”
Hell, the videos are mostly time stamped so you can tell when time has been cut.
you put the ellipses on the wrong end of the actual quote. CMP did too, so prob not your fault.
Fusion GPS outlined 42 instances in which CMP edited out content from the short as well as so-called full versions of the tapes, several of which were secretly recorded. The company also identified instances in which context was eliminated, minutes of film were deleted and transcripts released by CMP did not match what was said on the tapes.
The report concludes that the degree of manipulation means the videos have no "evidentiary value" in a legal context, can't be used in "official inquiries" and lack credulity as journalism. Those findings are a direct response to CMP's arguments in court -- while fighting efforts to prevent it from releasing more video -- that it is protected by the First Amendment.
But the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no "widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.
Thank you for including that additional information on the report, but nowhere does it say that any of the edits were misleading. It simply identifies a lot of time cuts (well duh - that's editing), and says that the video have no evidentiary value because of the edits. Again, that doesn't mean the videos were edited in a misleading way - just that the edited versions would not be admissible in a court of law. Again, that's obvious, but irrelevant. Ultimately - and here's the important part - the firm also wrote that it is impossible to characterize the extent to which the edits and cuts distort the meaning of the conversations depicted and that there was no "widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.
Despite this conclusion, the media painted a very different picture of Planned Parenthood's paid report, which appears to have mislead folks like Mocat into believing that the edited videos are actually misleading.
-
Right to sodomy? What are you talking about?
Google Lawrence v. Texas.
Ok. Brb.
-
Right to sodomy? What are you talking about?
Google Lawrence v. Texas.
Ok. Brb.
Good ruling. It's a shame sodomy was ever illegal.
-
So like, some people say "this issue is decided, it has been for a long time. Abortion is legal, so give up."
I'm wondering if they feel the same way about 2nd amendment rights to firearms, which seem pretty well ingrained too.
I'm assuming you are asking this question to people advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I have to ask, who the hell is doing that?
I'm asking that question to people who want to limit others' constitutionally protected (and reinforced by recent, explicit supreme court caselaw) right to bear arms.
My only point is that it's lame to cite established Supreme Court decisions as an argument for others to give up fighting a perceived injustice. I could just have easily used Dred Scott as an example.
But in this case your comparison is flawed. Professed "pro-lifers" want Roe v. Wade abolished, over turned. Gun control advocates aren't advocating for all guns to be banned in all cases like pro lifers want with abortion. Sure there are people advocating that we melt every gun in America but that's an extremist view, not held by anyone posting here. Pro choice supporters like gun control advocates recognize the constitutional right of both but identify the need for laws to regulate each. Gun rights advocates push back on regulatory laws, as do pro lifers.
I agree that gun control isn't apples to apples with abortion.
Again, my only point in making that comparison was targeted at CNS's argument (which perhaps I should've quoted) -- that saying "this issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court" is a ridiculously weak argument, because society's views (along with the law) can and do evolve.
For the record, saying "all abortions should be banned under every circumstance" is an extremist viewpoint too. The last data I saw showed overwhelming support for exceptions in case of danger to the mother's life, and a majority of support that make exceptions for rape and incest.
-
For the record, saying "all abortions should be banned under every circumstance" is an extremist viewpoint too. The last data I saw showed overwhelming support for exceptions in case of danger to the mother's life, and a majority of support that make exceptions for rape and incest.
Ok by me. Prohibiting abortions subject to those exceptions (assuming those exceptions were honestly adhered to, which is a stretch) would prohibit nearly all abortion.
-
Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever. So weird.
the fetuses never signed the backs of their licenses.
Nice. Well, that and the fact that several of the videos indicate that Planned Parenthood is profiting off the sale of the aborted babies, thereby giving them an incentive to provide more abortions. What evidence? For starters, Planned Parenthood claims it only charges its cost for shipping and preparation of the "specimens," but the price varies significantly by "specimen." Apparently, baby heads are primo. Who knew? That's where the real money is - the heads. :thumbs:
of course different types of tissue would need different types of packaging, prep, and care provisions. it makes perfect sense that brain tissue would cost more in shipping and handling than something like bone or skin.
-
Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever. So weird.
the fetuses never signed the backs of their licenses.
Nice. Well, that and the fact that several of the videos indicate that Planned Parenthood is profiting off the sale of the aborted babies, thereby giving them an incentive to provide more abortions. What evidence? For starters, Planned Parenthood claims it only charges its cost for shipping and preparation of the "specimens," but the price varies significantly by "specimen." Apparently, baby heads are primo. Who knew? That's where the real money is - the heads. :thumbs:
It's been a few months since I got one of those abortion 'cruitment calls. Guess PP must have gotten slapped with a show cause pr something
-
Why do people care what happens to the tissue once it isn't living? Dead old people, ex-fetuses, car accident victims, whatever. So weird.
the fetuses never signed the backs of their licenses.
Nice. Well, that and the fact that several of the videos indicate that Planned Parenthood is profiting off the sale of the aborted babies, thereby giving them an incentive to provide more abortions. What evidence? For starters, Planned Parenthood claims it only charges its cost for shipping and preparation of the "specimens," but the price varies significantly by "specimen." Apparently, baby heads are primo. Who knew? That's where the real money is - the heads. :thumbs:
of course different types of tissue would need different types of packaging, prep, and care provisions. it makes perfect sense that brain tissue would cost more in shipping and handling than something like bone or skin.
Seriously though. If you can break into the baby head business, that's where the money is. Anybody can sell a little bone or skin. It's all about how you procure it. You need to use a "less crunchy" technique. Maybe you crush a little up here, or down here, but keep the money organs intact, you know? Hey, can you pass me the wine? All this talking about baby parts is making me thirsty!
-
Sell the heads and the shafts for all I care. Meat is meat
-
What's the down side to abortion again?
-
What's the down side to abortion again?
the filet should cost the same as the shank
-
What's the down side to abortion again?
the filet should cost the same as the shank
I think this might be a lob pass for a longbone dunk shot.
-
Ksuw is right, medical procedures are pretty yucky
-
What's the down side to abortion again?
Cruelly murdering unborn children.
-
Ksuw is right, medical procedures are pretty yucky
Back to the idiotic "it's just another gross medical procedure" excuse. Was that on the halftime scorecard? Might be time for another.
-
How many abortions are carried out a year?
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
Unwanted babies everywhere!
-
I had a roommate in med school who would be shocked everytime he had to observe a procedure and how much mutilation goes into fixing people. I still cringe at the story of his first observed birth.
-
Who is expected to care for all of these unwanted children? The parents that didn't want to raise them to begin with?
Why are we concerned more with abortion than we are with people breeding that can't care for their children? People who raise obese children? People that can't clothe and feed their kids? Etc. If you want to call the fetus a baby, where is the public outcry for all of the shitty things parents do?
-
Who is expected to care for all of these unwanted children? The parents that didn't want to raise them to begin with?
Why are we concerned more with abortion than we are with people breeding that can't care for their children? People who raise obese children? People that can't clothe and feed their kids? Etc. If you want to call the fetus a baby, where is the public outcry for all of the shitty things parents do?
All valid topics. None justify cruelly murdering innocent babies. None.
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.
-
Who is expected to care for all of these unwanted children? The parents that didn't want to raise them to begin with?
Why are we concerned more with abortion than we are with people breeding that can't care for their children? People who raise obese children? People that can't clothe and feed their kids? Etc. If you want to call the fetus a baby, where is the public outcry for all of the shitty things parents do?
All valid topics. None justify cruelly murdering innocent babies. None.
Agree to disagree.
-
Well murdering innocent babies is illegal already and I'm sure you won't find many supporting that
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.
Not good enough. And I'm accepting your definition of a baby for brevity. Agree to disagree.
-
Just got back from a 20 week ultrasound. Saw my child in there. Was amazing.
-
Just got back from a 20 week ultrasound. Saw my child in there. Was amazing.
This is pretty big news! Congrats cf3 :thumbs:
-
If you feel it is so amazing, may I suggest not aborting it?
-
Just got back from a 20 week ultrasound. Saw my child in there. Was amazing.
Congratulations CF3!
-
Who is expected to care for all of these unwanted children? The parents that didn't want to raise them to begin with?
Why are we concerned more with abortion than we are with people breeding that can't care for their children? People who raise obese children? People that can't clothe and feed their kids? Etc. If you want to call the fetus a baby, where is the public outcry for all of the shitty things parents do?
All valid topics. None justify cruelly murdering innocent babies. None.
Agree to disagree.
I also think we should exterminate all mentally and physically handicapped people, homeless, drug addicts, welfare recipients, anyone over the age of 80 (I'll compromise on the exact age) and anyone else who is a detriment to society. We can do it very humanely - maybe with big gas chambers. If you don't like that, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.
-
Also, congrats!
-
Well murdering innocent babies is illegal already and I'm sure you won't find many supporting that
It is only illegal if they are outside of their mother. It isn't illegal if they are inside. Pretty sure that was covered.
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
You are posturing that if killing innocent people makes their lives better than we are doing them a favor? I mean all those refugees from Syria seem to have it pretty bad, we should probably just wipe the entire country off the map. I mean, some of them might live highly successful and happy lives. But, you know, statistically some of them won't. . .so let's just bomb all of them. Better that they were dead.
-
thx guys
-
Just got back from a 20 week ultrasound. Saw my child in there. Was amazing.
You mean your fetus? Seriously though, congratulations Dad. It's an amazing experience.
-
Who is expected to care for all of these unwanted children? The parents that didn't want to raise them to begin with?
Why are we concerned more with abortion than we are with people breeding that can't care for their children? People who raise obese children? People that can't clothe and feed their kids? Etc. If you want to call the fetus a baby, where is the public outcry for all of the shitty things parents do?
All valid topics. None justify cruelly murdering innocent babies. None.
Agree to disagree.
I also think we should exterminate all mentally and physically handicapped people, homeless, drug addicts, welfare recipients, anyone over the age of 80 (I'll compromise on the exact age) and anyone else who is a detriment to society. We can do it very humanely - maybe with big gas chambers. If you don't like that, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree.
We'll have to hash out some of the details but we are closer to agreement than you might think!
-
Well murdering innocent babies is illegal already and I'm sure you won't find many supporting that
It is only illegal if they are outside of their mother. It isn't illegal if they are inside. Pretty sure that was covered.
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
You are posturing that if killing innocent people makes their lives better than we are doing them a favor? I mean all those refugees from Syria seem to have it pretty bad, we should probably just wipe the entire country off the map. I mean, some of them might live highly successful and happy lives. But, you know, statistically some of them won't. . .so let's just bomb all of them. Better that they were dead.
I'm of the belief that laws should be for the benefit of society at large. Abortion is currently legal. What gets better if we make abortion illegal?
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.
More dead pregnant ladies who didn't want to be pregnant and probably a few more murdered babies (actual babies who have been born) and toddlers.
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.
More dead pregnant ladies who didn't want to be pregnant and probably a few more murdered babies (actual babies who have been born) and toddlers.
Yeah :frown:
-
Just got back from a 20 week ultrasound. Saw my child in there. Was amazing.
Grats bud, being a dad is the greatest I :bawl: uncontrollably when my first was born, there is no better feeling than seeing your healthy child for the first time
-
Just got back from a 20 week ultrasound. Saw my child in there. Was amazing.
Grats bud, being a dad is the greatest I :bawl: uncontrollably when my first was born, there is no better feeling than seeing your healthy child for the first time
Thanks dude!
-
Well murdering innocent babies is illegal already and I'm sure you won't find many supporting that
It is only illegal if they are outside of their mother. It isn't illegal if they are inside. Pretty sure that was covered.
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
You are posturing that if killing innocent people makes their lives better than we are doing them a favor? I mean all those refugees from Syria seem to have it pretty bad, we should probably just wipe the entire country off the map. I mean, some of them might live highly successful and happy lives. But, you know, statistically some of them won't. . .so let's just bomb all of them. Better that they were dead.
I'm of the belief that laws should be for the benefit of society at large. Abortion is currently legal. What gets better if we make abortion illegal?
Besides ending the biggest genocide since the Holocaust? During the Holocaust, approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators. Since Roe v Wade? Approximately fifty eight million unborn babies have been murdered. Even accounting for the one or two percent that fall under "life of the mother, rape, or incest" this genocide is nearly ten times worse.
I stand by the idea that we might be killing the next great innovators and peace makers. Abortion might eliminate the opportunity for someone to grow up who might develop a cure to the disease that you might eventually die from without treatment.
-
women should breed continuously from the onset of puberty until they die, otherwise they are selfishly not finding us the next hitler
-
why dont the people who think banning guns will make guns worse think banning abortion will make abortion worse just like banning alcohol made alcohol worse?
-
If you outlaw abortions, only outlaws will have abortions
-
why dont the people who think banning guns will make guns worse think banning abortion will make abortion worse just like banning alcohol made alcohol worse?
Because the people pushing the agenda are making money off of the millions of idiots too stupid to read and think for themselves.
-
Why do people care about others' "babies?"
-
Well murdering innocent babies is illegal already and I'm sure you won't find many supporting that
It is only illegal if they are outside of their mother. It isn't illegal if they are inside. Pretty sure that was covered.
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
You are posturing that if killing innocent people makes their lives better than we are doing them a favor? I mean all those refugees from Syria seem to have it pretty bad, we should probably just wipe the entire country off the map. I mean, some of them might live highly successful and happy lives. But, you know, statistically some of them won't. . .so let's just bomb all of them. Better that they were dead.
I'm of the belief that laws should be for the benefit of society at large. Abortion is currently legal. What gets better if we make abortion illegal?
Besides ending the biggest genocide since the Holocaust? During the Holocaust, approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators. Since Roe v Wade? Approximately fifty eight million unborn babies have been murdered. Even accounting for the one or two percent that fall under "life of the mother, rape, or incest" this genocide is nearly ten times worse.
I stand by the idea that we might be killing the next great innovators and peace makers. Abortion might eliminate the opportunity for someone to grow up who might develop a cure to the disease that you might eventually die from without treatment.
Ok. Do you.
-
Why do people care about others' "babies?"
Maybe I should say other strangers' "babies." Like CF3 can do whatever he wants w/his, and I hope it works out and there'll be a legacy cancer-lover out soon enough if that's what he chooses.
-
Why do people care about others' "babies?"
Same reasons people care about the death penalty, clubbing of baby seals, income inequality, global warming, racism, etc.
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.
More dead pregnant ladies who didn't want to be pregnant and probably a few more murdered babies (actual babies who have been born) and toddlers.
Serious question: How many more of each, do you think?
Another serious question: Do you think large scale bans on abortion would lead to "back alley" clinics worse than Kermit Gosnell's, which somehow managed to exist under our current legal framework?
-
Why do people care about others' "babies?"
Maybe I should say other strangers' "babies." Like CF3 can do whatever he wants w/his, and I hope it works out and there'll be a legacy cancer-lover out soon enough if that's what he chooses.
luv u 2 buddy
-
Why do people care about others' "babies?"
Same reasons people care about the death penalty, clubbing of baby seals, income inequality, global warming, racism, etc.
"Babies" should get 0% of the do-gooders' efforts, because all those other victims are people or animals that are in the world that can appreciate the efforts or they at least have others in the world who'd be affected by their loss and would appreciate the efforts.
-
Well murdering innocent babies is illegal already and I'm sure you won't find many supporting that
It is only illegal if they are outside of their mother. It isn't illegal if they are inside. Pretty sure that was covered.
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
You are posturing that if killing innocent people makes their lives better than we are doing them a favor? I mean all those refugees from Syria seem to have it pretty bad, we should probably just wipe the entire country off the map. I mean, some of them might live highly successful and happy lives. But, you know, statistically some of them won't. . .so let's just bomb all of them. Better that they were dead.
I'm of the belief that laws should be for the benefit of society at large. Abortion is currently legal. What gets better if we make abortion illegal?
Besides ending the biggest genocide since the Holocaust? During the Holocaust, approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators. Since Roe v Wade? Approximately fifty eight million unborn babies have been murdered. Even accounting for the one or two percent that fall under "life of the mother, rape, or incest" this genocide is nearly ten times worse.
I think you're being charitable with that "one or two percent."
-
Why do people care about others' "babies?"
Maybe I should say other strangers' "babies." Like CF3 can do whatever he wants w/his, and I hope it works out and there'll be a legacy cancer-lover out soon enough if that's what he chooses.
luv u 2 buddy
Did you already say if it's a boy or a girl? If it's a boy, I suppose you can send me an ultrasound pic flaunting multiple balls YOU SONOFABITCH.
-
why dont the people who think banning guns will make guns worse think banning abortion will make abortion worse just like banning alcohol made alcohol worse?
Not sure if this was a serious question, but I'll go ahead and answer anyway. I think it depends upon your definition of "worse" and the impact on human life. A ban on all guns isn't going to stop criminals from having guns, which puts us all in greater danger. A ban on all abortions won't stop some women from getting illegal abortions, and I think it's safe to assume that those abortions will be riskier to the women involved, but it will save far more lives overall. As for the Prohibition comment, I don't think you would seriously equate the right to drink alcohol to the right to kill a baby.
-
Why do people care about others' "babies?"
Maybe I should say other strangers' "babies." Like CF3 can do whatever he wants w/his, and I hope it works out and there'll be a legacy cancer-lover out soon enough if that's what he chooses.
luv u 2 buddy
Did you already say if it's a boy or a girl? If it's a boy, I suppose you can send me an ultrasound pic flaunting multiple balls YOU SONOFABITCH.
we didn't find out. but if its a boy i'll make a plaster mold of his nuts for you
-
Why do people care about others' "babies?"
Maybe I should say other strangers' "babies." Like CF3 can do whatever he wants w/his, and I hope it works out and there'll be a legacy cancer-lover out soon enough if that's what he chooses.
luv u 2 buddy
Did you already say if it's a boy or a girl? If it's a boy, I suppose you can send me an ultrasound pic flaunting multiple balls YOU SONOFABITCH.
we didn't find out. but if its a boy i'll make a plaster mold of his nuts for you
I'll have quite an arrangement of gift nuts if that comes to be.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi709.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww92%2FTommyRoanoke%2FIMAG0768_zpsmxckpm7u.jpg&hash=16c5f76b4b26e95fea3c8583d437ad2e05ba051a) (http://s709.photobucket.com/user/TommyRoanoke/media/IMAG0768_zpsmxckpm7u.jpg.html)
-
Why do people care about others' "babies?"
Same reasons people care about the death penalty, clubbing of baby seals, income inequality, global warming, racism, etc.
"Babies" should get 0% of the do-gooders' efforts, because all those other victims are people or animals that are in the world that can appreciate the efforts or they at least have others in the world who'd be affected by their loss and would appreciate the efforts.
I appreciate your mother's efforts.
-
Whoever aborted trims ball snuffed out a few billion potential babies
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.
More dead pregnant ladies who didn't want to be pregnant and probably a few more murdered babies (actual babies who have been born) and toddlers.
Serious question: How many more of each, do you think?
Another serious question: Do you think large scale bans on abortion would lead to "back alley" clinics worse than Kermit Gosnell's, which somehow managed to exist under our current legal framework?
Probably about 10,000 dead women per year based on the fact that up to 5,000 women died per year in illegal abortions before Roe vs Wade and the U.S. population has doubled since then.
As for infants deaths, I really don't know. There are about 23,440 infant deaths already in the U.S. per year and about 3.9 million births. That's a rate of .6%. I think that in circumstances where the mother is forced to have a child she does not want (or should not have due to fetal anomalies), the death rate would be higher than the general population, let's say 5 times higher.
Maybe there are about a million abortions in the U.S. per year, and let's say that all of those are forced to carry to term.
1 mil x .6% x 5 = 30,000 death infants.
So 10,000 dead women and 30,000 dead infants per year. And yes I think that is more significant than a million aborted fetuses.
I think that the restrictions that anti-abortion activists have caused despite the fact that abortion is legal has lead to illegal "clinics" and yes I think that many more such "clinics" and worse would pop up if abortion were made illegal.
-
Whoever aborted trims ball snuffed out a few billion potential babies
What's funny is that just as a recommended precaution, I put a bunch from the remaining ball in a cup and had them frozen in Minnesota until after all the treatment was done and I knew I could make more. Then I told the place in Minnesota they could trash 'em rather than me continue to pay for freezer space. So it was all my call.
-
Whoever aborted trims ball snuffed out a few billion potential babies
What's funny is that just as a recommended precaution, I put a bunch from the remaining ball in a cup and had them frozen in Minnesota until after all the treatment was done and I knew I could make more. Then I told the place in Minnesota they could trash 'em rather than me continue to pay for freezer space. So it was all my call.
One of those sperms could have grown up to cure cancer.
-
How do you guys feel about Plan B?
-
How do you guys feel about Plan B?
I wish it was used more often.
-
How do you guys feel about Plan B?
Big fan.
-
Whoever aborted trims ball snuffed out a few billion potential babies
What's funny is that just as a recommended precaution, I put a bunch from the remaining ball in a cup and had them frozen in Minnesota until after all the treatment was done and I knew I could make more. Then I told the place in Minnesota they could trash 'em rather than me continue to pay for freezer space. So it was all my call.
One of those sperms could have grown up to cure cancer.
The irony.
-
How do you guys feel about Plan B?
Big fan.
:lol:
-
Well murdering innocent babies is illegal already and I'm sure you won't find many supporting that
i could see making a case for allowing parents to kill their children up to a certain age, if they wished to. babies could be considered the property of their parents until some arbitrary age, at which point they could graduate to legal personhood.
-
How do you guys feel about Plan B?
Better than Plan C. Not as good as Plan A.
-
How do you guys feel about Plan B?
it comes in handy but i also feel like it's probably bad for your body
-
Well murdering innocent babies is illegal already and I'm sure you won't find many supporting that
i could see making a case for allowing parents to kill their children up to a certain age, if they wished to. babies could be considered the property of their parents until some arbitrary age, at which point they could graduate to legal personhood.
I see no practical difference between allowing a parent to kill their baby 2 weeks after birth as opposed to 2 weeks before. Birth is an arbitrary and illogical dividing line.
-
Seems like a pretty logical dividing line :dunno:
-
i think 24 months post conception is the most logical and least arbitrary dividing line.
-
Seems like a pretty logical dividing line :dunno:
yeah, I mean you can have valid arguments against abortion but calling birth an "arbitrary" and "illogical" dividing line is absolutely absurd. Like, where the eff did that argument come from.
-
i can see his point. conception is a firm, fixed point in time, at which point the new organism begins development. in contrast birth occurs at a variable point in time from conception. while most babies are born at roughly the same time from conception, some can be born much earlier or somewhat later than the median. regardless of the timing of birth, those babies are at very nearly the same developmental place as other babies the same age from conception.
obviously, as you get farther from conception this distinction becomes less meaningful. but for young babies, age from conception is a much better indicator of their point in development than is age from birth.
-
well you wouldn't need an abortion if you just used freaking birth control. why isn't this like freely available everywhere
-
i can see his point. conception is a firm, fixed point in time, at which point the new organism begins development. in contrast birth occurs at a variable point in time from conception. while most babies are born at roughly the same time from conception, some can be born much earlier or somewhat later than the median. regardless of the timing of birth, those babies are at very nearly the same developmental place as other babies the same age from conception.
obviously, as you get farther from conception this distinction becomes less meaningful. but for young babies, age from conception is a much better indicator of their point in development than is age from birth.
true, but the severing of the umbilical cord, removal from the womb, (and everything else associated w/ birth) is a clear, significant transition. It's more arbitrary than conception, sure, but it definitely shouldn't be considered "arbitrary" by any definition of the word relative to anything else.
-
Compromise, no more abortions, just premature births. Cut the cord, see how it goes
-
i can see his point. conception is a firm, fixed point in time, at which point the new organism begins development. in contrast birth occurs at a variable point in time from conception. while most babies are born at roughly the same time from conception, some can be born much earlier or somewhat later than the median. regardless of the timing of birth, those babies are at very nearly the same developmental place as other babies the same age from conception.
obviously, as you get farther from conception this distinction becomes less meaningful. but for young babies, age from conception is a much better indicator of their point in development than is age from birth.
For instance, the most premature baby to survive an early birth, Amillia Taylor, was born at just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation, which was two weeks before the legal abortion cut off at the time in the US.
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.
More dead pregnant ladies who didn't want to be pregnant and probably a few more murdered babies (actual babies who have been born) and toddlers.
Serious question: How many more of each, do you think?
Another serious question: Do you think large scale bans on abortion would lead to "back alley" clinics worse than Kermit Gosnell's, which somehow managed to exist under our current legal framework?
Probably about 10,000 dead women per year based on the fact that up to 5,000 women died per year in illegal abortions before Roe vs Wade and the U.S. population has doubled since then.
Let's just start with this first number. You claim that "up to 5,000 women" per year died in illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade. I'm not sure where you got this number from, but it is absurd on its face.
Consider: In 1970, according to the Census Buereau (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0110.pdf), the total number of women who died between the ages of 15 and 34 was approximately 170,000. Are you really going to tell me that you honestly believe that 5,000 (or 3%) of those deaths were due to an illegal abortion? I guess you did say "up to 5,000" - so you're right, the real number is almost certainly a hell of a lot lower than that.
-
Illegal abortionist will NOT work on women over 34
-
Seems like a pretty logical dividing line :dunno:
yeah, I mean you can have valid arguments against abortion but calling birth an "arbitrary" and "illogical" dividing line is absolutely absurd. Like, where the eff did that argument come from.
Let me put this as nicely as possible: You're being stupid. I've already explained, several times, why birth is an arbitrary and illogical dividing line. If you won't listen to me, maybe listen to sys.
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.
More dead pregnant ladies who didn't want to be pregnant and probably a few more murdered babies (actual babies who have been born) and toddlers.
Serious question: How many more of each, do you think?
Another serious question: Do you think large scale bans on abortion would lead to "back alley" clinics worse than Kermit Gosnell's, which somehow managed to exist under our current legal framework?
Probably about 10,000 dead women per year based on the fact that up to 5,000 women died per year in illegal abortions before Roe vs Wade and the U.S. population has doubled since then.
Let's just start with this first number. You claim that "up to 5,000 women" per year died in illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade. I'm not sure where you got this number from, but it is absurd on its face.
Consider: In 1970, according to the Census Buereau (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0110.pdf), the total number of women who died between the ages of 15 and 34 was approximately 170,000. Are you really going to tell me that you honestly believe that 5,000 (or 3%) of those deaths were due to an illegal abortion? I guess you did say "up to 5,000" - so you're right, the real number is almost certainly a hell of a lot lower than that.
I got it from this article. http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/impact-of-illegal-abortion/
I don't think there is really any way to know how many deaths due to illegal abortions really occurred since a lot of them were not reported as deaths due to illegal abortion.
-
Illegal abortionist will NOT work on women over 34
If you followed the link, you would see that the census data is broken down by age groups - not for each year of age. I combined the stats from the 15-24 and 25-34 age groups. Of course you can have children before 15 and after 34, but you also start introducing way more natural causes of death the older you go. Stop. Being. A. Dumbass.
-
Seems like a pretty logical dividing line :dunno:
yeah, I mean you can have valid arguments against abortion but calling birth an "arbitrary" and "illogical" dividing line is absolutely absurd. Like, where the eff did that argument come from.
Let me put this as nicely as possible: You're being stupid. I've already explained, several times, why birth is an arbitrary and illogical dividing line. If you won't listen to me, maybe listen to sys.
I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means.
-
Illegal abortionist will NOT work on women over 34
If you followed the link, you would see that the census data is broken down by age groups - not for each year of age. I combined the stats from the 15-24 and 25-34 age groups. Of course you can have children before 15 and after 34, but you also start introducing way more natural causes of death the older you go. Stop. Being. A. Dumbass.
So only women between 15 and 34 die to illegal abortions.
If I was 34 I think I'd wait until the magical 35th birthday to get the abortion then
-
What are the positives that would be gained if abortions were illegal? (Assuming we have some agreement on rape/incest/health)
A lot fewer cruelly murdered innocent babies.
More dead pregnant ladies who didn't want to be pregnant and probably a few more murdered babies (actual babies who have been born) and toddlers.
Serious question: How many more of each, do you think?
Another serious question: Do you think large scale bans on abortion would lead to "back alley" clinics worse than Kermit Gosnell's, which somehow managed to exist under our current legal framework?
Probably about 10,000 dead women per year based on the fact that up to 5,000 women died per year in illegal abortions before Roe vs Wade and the U.S. population has doubled since then.
Let's just start with this first number. You claim that "up to 5,000 women" per year died in illegal abortions prior to Roe v Wade. I'm not sure where you got this number from, but it is absurd on its face.
Consider: In 1970, according to the Census Buereau (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0110.pdf), the total number of women who died between the ages of 15 and 34 was approximately 170,000. Are you really going to tell me that you honestly believe that 5,000 (or 3%) of those deaths were due to an illegal abortion? I guess you did say "up to 5,000" - so you're right, the real number is almost certainly a hell of a lot lower than that.
I got it from this article. http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/impact-of-illegal-abortion/
I don't think there is really any way to know how many deaths due to illegal abortions really occurred since a lot of them were not reported as deaths due to illegal abortion.
Well that sounds like an unbiased source. It, in turn, links to an article from NARAL, which cites a few studies from the 60s and earlier, all of which seem to use the "up to" qualifier. Of course we can't know the exact number of deaths caused by illegal abortion, but you can use common sense by starting with the overall census numbers, as I did.
-
Seems like a pretty logical dividing line :dunno:
yeah, I mean you can have valid arguments against abortion but calling birth an "arbitrary" and "illogical" dividing line is absolutely absurd. Like, where the eff did that argument come from.
Let me put this as nicely as possible: You're being stupid. I've already explained, several times, why birth is an arbitrary and illogical dividing line. If you won't listen to me, maybe listen to sys.
I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means.
Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
In other words, exactly my point. There is no meaningful difference between a child 2 weeks prior to birth and 2 weeks after.
-
There is no meaningful difference between a child 2 weeks prior to birth and 2 weeks after.
:lol:
-
Seems like a pretty logical dividing line :dunno:
yeah, I mean you can have valid arguments against abortion but calling birth an "arbitrary" and "illogical" dividing line is absolutely absurd. Like, where the eff did that argument come from.
Let me put this as nicely as possible: You're being stupid. I've already explained, several times, why birth is an arbitrary and illogical dividing line. If you won't listen to me, maybe listen to sys.
I'm not sure you know what arbitrary means.
Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
In other words, exactly my point. There is no meaningful difference between a child 2 weeks prior to birth and 2 weeks after.
I mean, going from being encased in a sack of fluid in another human and getting all its nutrients from a cord in its stomach to being unprotected from the elements and having that cord cut and being forced to breathe and eat through its face seems like a couple meaningful differences.
So if you ignore, like, everything associated with birth, I suppose you're right.
-
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html
This article is from 2003, but that shouldn't change the numbers in it. From the sounds of it, deaths from botched illegal abortions were actually very low after the use of antibiotics became available.
-
good lord, you have to force the little fucks to eat and breathe? smdh.
-
yard dog is ok with abortions, as long as they're illegal. they're not that dangerous!
-
yard dog is ok with abortions, as long as they're illegal. they're not that dangerous!
That is simply not true. But, to Mrs. Gooch's statement, it is false to think that it is more deadly overall for abortion to be illegal.
My personal belief is that a positive sex ed culture as opposed to the negative fear driven sex ed we currently have would lead to less teen pregnancy and thus less desire for abortions. That would require parents to talk to their kids about it and cultivate a family environment that encouraged discussion of such things. It has proven very successful in countries who adopt the process.
Serious question, do you all think that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because of their inability to pay for the baby, their lost ability to "achieve their dreams", or is it due to the shame of having a child out of wedlock? (or another reason?)
-
yard dog is ok with abortions, as long as they're illegal. they're not that dangerous!
But, to Mrs. Gooch's statement, it is false to think that it is more deadly overall for abortion to be illegal.
Outlawing abortion is more deadly to actual people.
-
I think that many just don't want to have a kid at that time and that is A-OK with me
-
From the women I know:
Wasn't ready for a kid - 2
Family coerced her because the dad was black - 1 (very churchy pro-life people too)
Raped - 1
-
i kill a lot of small vertebrates, especially mammals. killing day old mammals is much easier psychologically than killing adults of the same species.
-
Ksuw would rather throw them all on deathrow
-
because of their development and ability to process (and express) fear and pain and such.
-
From the women I know:
Wasn't ready for a kid - 2
Family coerced her because the dad was black - 1 (very churchy pro-life people too)
Raped - 1
From the ones I know:
Too young to have a kid and financially unable to support - 2
Financially unable to support a second child - 1
-
From the women I know:
Wasn't ready for a kid - 2
Family coerced her because the dad was black - 1 (very churchy pro-life people too)
Raped - 1
From the ones I know:
Too young to have a kid and financially unable to support - 2
Financially unable to support a second child - 1
Only one that I know of. Wasn't ready to be a mother. The child may or may not have been mine. She maintains she never cheated, I think she did.
-
From the women I know:
Wasn't ready for a kid - 2
Family coerced her because the dad was black - 1 (very churchy pro-life people too)
Raped - 1
From the ones I know:
Too young to have a kid and financially unable to support - 2
Financially unable to support a second child - 1
Only one that I know of. Wasn't ready to be a mother. The child may or may not have been mine. She maintains she never cheated, I think she did.
And just to clarify none of these cases were instances where they could have carried the baby to term and given it up for adoption?
-
Just to clarify, they didn't want to
-
Good article comparing options between abortion and adoption.
http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/deciding_between_abortion_or_adoption
Abortions range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on your stage of pregnancy. Conversely, not only is adoption free, but you may also receive living expenses from the adoptive family to help you cover pregnancy-related expenses such as rent, food, utilities, transportation and more.
-
Yes, in the case I know of, she could have. That's not really the point though.
-
My personal belief is that a positive sex ed culture as opposed to the negative fear driven sex ed we currently have would lead to less teen pregnancy and thus less desire for abortions.
good news: this is already happening, and teen pregnancies and also abortions are down quite a bit since the 90s. i will find some data but i don't have the time right now
-
Who will help me pay living expenses for yard dog to live with chlamydia for 9 months
-
My personal belief is that a positive sex ed culture as opposed to the negative fear driven sex ed we currently have would lead to less teen pregnancy and thus less desire for abortions.
good news: this is already happening, and teen pregnancies and also abortions are down quite a bit since the 90s. i will find some data but i don't have the time right now
nvm, this took like 2 secs (i have no idea what this website is)
Between 1991 and 2013, the teen birth rate declined by an impressive 57% nationwide. It has declined in all 50 states and among all racial/ethnic groups.
https://thenationalcampaign.org/data/compare/1678 (https://thenationalcampaign.org/data/compare/1678)
-
Good article comparing options between abortion and adoption.
http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/deciding_between_abortion_or_adoption
Abortions range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on your stage of pregnancy. Conversely, not only is adoption free, but you may also receive living expenses from the adoptive family to help you cover pregnancy-related expenses such as rent, food, utilities, transportation and more.
Some women choose abortion over adoption because it can be done confidentially. What they fail to realize is an adoption can also be completed confidentially, where her family, friends and community won’t know about it. Of course, hiding a pregnancy can be difficult, but adoption agencies like American Adoptions can help you by purchasing baggy clothing or providing a temporary out-of-town living situation. There is always a solution of keeping one’s pregnancy and adoption private.
LOL. They are going to buy you some baggy clothes so that your friends and family don't notice that you are pregnant. :lol: :lol:
-
My personal belief is that a positive sex ed culture as opposed to the negative fear driven sex ed we currently have would lead to less teen pregnancy and thus less desire for abortions.
good news: this is already happening, and teen pregnancies and also abortions are down quite a bit since the 90s. i will find some data but i don't have the time right now
That's definitely good to hear. I was in S.H.A.P.E. while I was at KState and you'd be surprised at how little many of the students we talked with understood about sex.
-
Good article comparing options between abortion and adoption.
http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/deciding_between_abortion_or_adoption
Abortions range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on your stage of pregnancy. Conversely, not only is adoption free, but you may also receive living expenses from the adoptive family to help you cover pregnancy-related expenses such as rent, food, utilities, transportation and more.
Some women choose abortion over adoption because it can be done confidentially. What they fail to realize is an adoption can also be completed confidentially, where her family, friends and community won’t know about it. Of course, hiding a pregnancy can be difficult, but adoption agencies like American Adoptions can help you by purchasing baggy clothing or providing a temporary out-of-town living situation. There is always a solution of keeping one’s pregnancy and adoption private.
LOL. They are going to buy you some baggy clothes so that your friends and family don't notice that you are pregnant. :lol: :lol:
Hey if it works and you get a chance to give your baby up for adoption instead of killing it, it is definitely worth trying it.
-
Good article comparing options between abortion and adoption.
http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/deciding_between_abortion_or_adoption
Abortions range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on your stage of pregnancy. Conversely, not only is adoption free, but you may also receive living expenses from the adoptive family to help you cover pregnancy-related expenses such as rent, food, utilities, transportation and more.
Some women choose abortion over adoption because it can be done confidentially. What they fail to realize is an adoption can also be completed confidentially, where her family, friends and community won’t know about it. Of course, hiding a pregnancy can be difficult, but adoption agencies like American Adoptions can help you by purchasing baggy clothing or providing a temporary out-of-town living situation. There is always a solution of keeping one’s pregnancy and adoption private.
LOL. They are going to buy you some baggy clothes so that your friends and family don't notice that you are pregnant. :lol: :lol:
:lol:
-
Good article comparing options between abortion and adoption.
http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/deciding_between_abortion_or_adoption
Abortions range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on your stage of pregnancy. Conversely, not only is adoption free, but you may also receive living expenses from the adoptive family to help you cover pregnancy-related expenses such as rent, food, utilities, transportation and more.
Some women choose abortion over adoption because it can be done confidentially. What they fail to realize is an adoption can also be completed confidentially, where her family, friends and community won’t know about it. Of course, hiding a pregnancy can be difficult, but adoption agencies like American Adoptions can help you by purchasing baggy clothing or providing a temporary out-of-town living situation. There is always a solution of keeping one’s pregnancy and adoption private.
LOL. They are going to buy you some baggy clothes so that your friends and family don't notice that you are pregnant. :lol: :lol:
true story, a girl at my high school lied about being pregnant and played a basketball game the night she gave birth. :sdeek:
-
Good article comparing options between abortion and adoption.
http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/deciding_between_abortion_or_adoption
Abortions range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on your stage of pregnancy. Conversely, not only is adoption free, but you may also receive living expenses from the adoptive family to help you cover pregnancy-related expenses such as rent, food, utilities, transportation and more.
Some women choose abortion over adoption because it can be done confidentially. What they fail to realize is an adoption can also be completed confidentially, where her family, friends and community won’t know about it. Of course, hiding a pregnancy can be difficult, but adoption agencies like American Adoptions can help you by purchasing baggy clothing or providing a temporary out-of-town living situation. There is always a solution of keeping one’s pregnancy and adoption private.
LOL. They are going to buy you some baggy clothes so that your friends and family don't notice that you are pregnant. :lol: :lol:
true story, a girl at my high school lied about being pregnant and played a basketball game the night she gave birth. :sdeek:
Did she really lie about being pregnant (like someone said "Are you pregnant?" and she said "No") or did she just not tell anyone?
Also, basketball jerseys are pretty tight.
-
Good article comparing options between abortion and adoption.
http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/deciding_between_abortion_or_adoption
Abortions range from hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on your stage of pregnancy. Conversely, not only is adoption free, but you may also receive living expenses from the adoptive family to help you cover pregnancy-related expenses such as rent, food, utilities, transportation and more.
Some women choose abortion over adoption because it can be done confidentially. What they fail to realize is an adoption can also be completed confidentially, where her family, friends and community won’t know about it. Of course, hiding a pregnancy can be difficult, but adoption agencies like American Adoptions can help you by purchasing baggy clothing or providing a temporary out-of-town living situation. There is always a solution of keeping one’s pregnancy and adoption private.
LOL. They are going to buy you some baggy clothes so that your friends and family don't notice that you are pregnant.
true story, a girl at my high school lied about being pregnant and played a basketball game the night she gave birth. :sdeek:
Girl at my highschool played softball all through her pregnancy. Intentionally slid everywhere.
-
also the "waiting families" photos are such a sad collection of white people. :frown:
-
I'll just sit back and let sys kick your ass on this one.
i'm not your personal fact-checker.
-
also the "waiting families" photos are such a sad collection of white people. :frown:
Curt & Sharla sure are doing a lot of fun things in those photos. All that will end when they adopt a kid.
-
Can adoption moms sell their babies to the highest bidder? seems like they should be able to on the free market (if they aren't already).
-
I'll just sit back and let sys kick your ass on this one.
i'm not your personal fact-checker.
But I appreciate your help. And coming from someone who's pro-choice, too.
-
Also also, LOL @ yard dog talking to students about sex. :lol:
-
I would be interested in what kind of information yard dog was dishing out
-
the old biblical story of sodomy and gonorrhea
-
I would be interested in what kind of information yard dog was dishing out
The normal S.H.A.P.E info. Did you ever get to see a S.H.A.P.E. presentation? Main things were promoting condom use. The main demonstration being the proper technique for putting a condom on and how to take it off and dispose of it (we used fake bananas). We had an activity where we went around the room and had people practice different things to tell their partners if they insisted on not using protection. We then did that thing where you pull a normal sized condom over your head and blow it up. Thus proving that no one is "too big for a condom". We encouraged getting tested since it was pretty cheap for students. Then we opened up the floor for questions. It was important to dispel myths like being on top meant the girl couldn't get pregnant due to gravity or that two condoms were better than one.
-
Ugh, condoms are the worst
-
Ugh, condoms are the worst
You are playing with fire without them. While I was still at KState the CDC came out with reports about a strain of chlamydia that was resistant to the drugs generally used to cure people of it. crap's scary.
-
What were some of the crazy questions?
-
t was important to dispel myths like being on top meant the girl couldn't get pregnant due to gravity
:lol:
-
What were some of the crazy questions?
Oh man, I have a terrible memory, but just sincere questions like
"Can I get pregnant from a blowjob?" or "As long as he pulls out we're good right?"
There was quite a bit of confusion over a woman's menstrual cycle as it relates to getting pregnant and an ignorance of the existence and potency of pre-ejaculate. And explaining how bad it was for a condom to keep it in your wallet.
We also had to go through the three step process of checking if a condom was still good.
I'll message some of the people I was in the group with to see if they remember any better ones.
-
This is why religious people shouldn't have any sway over schools.
-
This is why religious people shouldn't have any sway over schools.
I agree that abstinence only education is damaging. You can be religious and also honest with your children about sexuality.
-
I want yard dog's students to post here.
-
From the women I know:
Wasn't ready for a kid - 2
Family coerced her because the dad was black - 1 (very churchy pro-life people too)
Raped - 1
From the ones I know:
Too young to have a kid and financially unable to support - 2
Financially unable to support a second child - 1
Only one that I know of. Wasn't ready to be a mother. The child may or may not have been mine. She maintains she never cheated, I think she did.
eff, man. Sorry bro, that's heavy.
-
Ugh, condoms are the worst
qft, I got so rough ridin' lucky
-
From the women I know:
Wasn't ready for a kid - 2
Family coerced her because the dad was black - 1 (very churchy pro-life people too)
Raped - 1
From the ones I know:
Too young to have a kid and financially unable to support - 2
Financially unable to support a second child - 1
Only one that I know of. Wasn't ready to be a mother. The child may or may not have been mine. She maintains she never cheated, I think she did.
eff, man. Sorry bro, that's heavy.
I found out a year or so after the fact. It may have allowed me to look at it more objectively. Looking back I think it was for the best. If a situation arose now, I imagine it would have a different impact.
-
I really don't think the argument that "if we make x illegal, then doing x will become more dangerous" holds much water. If we decide that abortions are wrong or immoral and decide to make it illegal, then people who get illegal abortions do so at their own peril. I'm sure illegal abortions are very dangerous. But I mean, they're also illegal. If we made that the law, then we're telling people "don't get abortions. we don't approve of them, and trying to get one is a bad idea."
We make it illegal to sell organs, and because it's illegal, I'm sure it's a much more dangerous undertaking than it otherwise would be.
-
I just wish people were more responsible. Looked at pregnancy and safe sex as a serious matter. I wish there weren't so many pregnancies and I wish there weren't so many abortions. I wish that children were planned for the most part and raised by parents that do the best they can and put their children first. Nothing saddens me more than seeing obese, unclean, uneducated, or impoverished children. In fact, it pisses me off a lot. I guess I comfort myself with thinking that maybe abortion is preventing more children from continuing the cycle. That's probably wrong.
-
inventing better birth control would be the most effective anti-abortion measure possible.
-
inventing better birth control would be the most effective anti-abortion measure possible.
The IUD's on the market are pretty damn salty.
-
this board needs more people willing to take the ol' manhatter approach to bc analysis
-
this board needs more people willing to take the ol' manhatter approach to bc analysis
:sdeek:
-
I just wish people were more responsible. Looked at pregnancy and safe sex as a serious matter. I wish there weren't so many pregnancies and I wish there weren't so many abortions. I wish that children were planned for the most part and raised by parents that do the best they can and put their children first. Nothing saddens me more than seeing obese, unclean, uneducated, or impoverished children. In fact, it pisses me off a lot. I guess I comfort myself with thinking that maybe abortion is preventing more children from continuing the cycle. That's probably wrong.
Yes, it's wrong. Try this (not really - it's a rhetorical exercise): Next time you see one of those kids in poverty, walk up and ask them "Gosh, looking at you makes me feel really sad. Would you prefer to have been ripped limb from limb in your mom's belly and discarded as trash or sold for scrap?"
-
I just wish people were more responsible. Looked at pregnancy and safe sex as a serious matter. I wish there weren't so many pregnancies and I wish there weren't so many abortions. I wish that children were planned for the most part and raised by parents that do the best they can and put their children first. Nothing saddens me more than seeing obese, unclean, uneducated, or impoverished children. In fact, it pisses me off a lot. I guess I comfort myself with thinking that maybe abortion is preventing more children from continuing the cycle. That's probably wrong.
Yes, it's wrong. Try this (not really - it's a rhetorical exercise): Next time you see one of those kids in poverty, walk up and ask them "Gosh, looking at you makes me feel really sad. Would you prefer to have been ripped limb from limb in your mom's belly and discarded as trash or sold for scrap?"
What scope do you look at the world in? In seems very narrow.
-
Do I feel the world would be better if some people were never born? Yes.
-
I just wish people were more responsible. Looked at pregnancy and safe sex as a serious matter. I wish there weren't so many pregnancies and I wish there weren't so many abortions. I wish that children were planned for the most part and raised by parents that do the best they can and put their children first. Nothing saddens me more than seeing obese, unclean, uneducated, or impoverished children. In fact, it pisses me off a lot. I guess I comfort myself with thinking that maybe abortion is preventing more children from continuing the cycle. That's probably wrong.
Yes, it's wrong. Try this (not really - it's a rhetorical exercise): Next time you see one of those kids in poverty, walk up and ask them "Gosh, looking at you makes me feel really sad. Would you prefer to have been ripped limb from limb in your mom's belly and discarded as trash or sold for scrap?"
What scope do you look at the world in? In seems very narrow.
If it is narrow-minded to believe that it is wrong to decide a child is better off dead than poor, then consider the blinders firmly on.
The reason I am wrecking so many of these libtarded arguments with such relative ease is that I've actually thought deeply about the issue, considering the arguments both pro and con. It's clear that many here have not.
You know what? The rhetorical exercise didn't work for you, so go ahead and try what I suggested. Report back how that works out for you.
-
Do I feel the world would be better if some people were never born? Yes.
Do you think the world would be better if certain people were murdered right now?
-
I really don't think the argument that "if we make x illegal, then doing x will become more dangerous" holds much water. If we decide that abortions are wrong or immoral and decide to make it illegal, then people who get illegal abortions do so at their own peril. I'm sure illegal abortions are very dangerous. But I mean, they're also illegal. If we made that the law, then we're telling people "don't get abortions. we don't approve of them, and trying to get one is a bad idea."
We make it illegal to sell organs, and because it's illegal, I'm sure it's a much more dangerous undertaking than it otherwise would be.
Ordinarily and logically, you are correct. But in this case the feminists and pro-abortionists have done a marvelous job of threading the needle, spinning the narrative that while women are equal to men in virtually every regard, they are helpless waifs in all matters sexual, including abortion and birth control, and cannot be held even remotely accountable for any decisions they might make in these regards.
-
Do I feel the world would be better if some people were never born? Yes.
Do you think the world would be better if certain people were murdered right now?
No.
-
Ksu, your argument is flawed in that an aborted fetus will never miss what it never had. Life.
-
Do I feel the world would be better if some people were never born? Yes.
Do you think the world would be better if certain people were murdered right now?
No.
Really? Not even like, someone who was going to rape or murder or do something truly horrible to someone tomorrow?
I'll skip ahead -- obviously the world would be better if certain people were never born, or were murdered. That's not (or at least shouldn't be) contentious. But just because saying the world would've been better if Hitler or some future criminal was aborted or murdered isn't a good argument for legalizing abortion or murder in all circumstances.
-
Do I feel the world would be better if some people were never born? Yes.
Do you think the world would be better if certain people were murdered right now?
No.
Really? Not even like, someone who was going to rape or murder or do something truly horrible to someone tomorrow?
I'll skip ahead -- obviously the world would be better if certain people were never born, or were murdered. That's not (or at least shouldn't be) contentious. But just because saying the world would've been better if Hitler or some future criminal was aborted or murdered isn't a good argument for legalizing abortion or murder in all circumstances.
What he said, exactly.
-
Dlew, others, non religious reason to be anti abortion at any point? As opposed to most I'm not looking to trap anyone or do any other stupid crap, just curious what it would be.
-
Ksu, your argument is flawed in that an aborted fetus will never miss what it never had. Life.
Ok. New exercise. Go up to that kid and say: "Looking at you makes me very sad. I wish you had been aborted. You never would have known the difference." I hope that kid is old enough to punch you in the face, or at least kick you in the balls.
-
I'm not even talking about that. I'm not even talking about anyone in particular. Some people shouldn't raise kids or have as many as they do. These are the children I feel we would be better of without.
-
I just don't care how Jane Doe's pregnancy plays out.
-
Ksu, your argument is flawed in that an aborted fetus will never miss what it never had. Life.
Ok. New exercise. Go up to that kid and say: "Looking at you makes me very sad. I wish you had been aborted. You never would have known the difference." I hope that kid is old enough to punch you in the face, or at least kick you in the balls.
That's a cruel thing to say, man.
-
Dlew, others, non religious reason to be anti abortion at any point? As opposed to most I'm not looking to trap anyone or do any other stupid crap, just curious what it would be.
I think if you believe that there's such a thing as "right" or "wrong," it's at least rational to be anti abortion. At it's heart, it's a pretty simple argument:
1. I think killing people is wrong.
2. I think abortion is "killing people."
3. I think abortion is wrong.
Step 2 is the only part in the general abortion debate that's worth discussing imo. If step two is true, then, as insensitive as it sounds, I don't really give a crap about women's rights about the subject, or the burden on society. I will say that there are decent arguments about rape that exist, and in those circumstances, things get very complicated.
That being said, I happen to fall on the side that Step 2 is true. I understand how people could fall on the other side, and I respect that. But I think they're wrong, and I think it's important.
-
i don't think "why? i was convinced that thing in my uterus was going to get birf'd and go on to kill millions of jews - you fuckers are welcome" would show up in any meaningful quantity at an abortion clinic exit poll
-
I'm not even talking about that. I'm not even talking about anyone in particular. Some people shouldn't raise kids or have as many as they do. These are the children I feel we would be better of without.
And my point is that you don't get to play God in a vacuum. This is not a theoretical thing. The decision to abort a human being ends a human life.
-
Dlew, others, non religious reason to be anti abortion at any point? As opposed to most I'm not looking to trap anyone or do any other stupid crap, just curious what it would be.
whatever your non-religious reasons are for being anti-murder, they pretty much should apply.
-
Dlew, others, non religious reason to be anti abortion at any point? As opposed to most I'm not looking to trap anyone or do any other stupid crap, just curious what it would be.
whatever your non-religious reasons are for being anti-murder, they pretty much should apply.
Sys - I thought you were pro-choice? You seem to be saying what I'm saying.
-
Dlew, others, non religious reason to be anti abortion at any point? As opposed to most I'm not looking to trap anyone or do any other stupid crap, just curious what it would be.
whatever your non-religious reasons are for being anti-murder, they pretty much should apply.
Sys - I thought you were pro-choice? You seem to be saying what I'm saying.
You're allowed to acknowledge that the other side has reasonable arguments, even if you disagree.
-
Sys - I thought you were pro-choice? You seem to be saying what I'm saying.
i place a very high value on personal liberty. and probably value human life a little less than most people.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi709.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww92%2FTommyRoanoke%2Fhamburger_zps8whvi20j.png&hash=e4bca3c45ef233da353307dbd5dc8692d9357ea5) (http://s709.photobucket.com/user/TommyRoanoke/media/hamburger_zps8whvi20j.png.html)
-
I'm not even talking about that. I'm not even talking about anyone in particular. Some people shouldn't raise kids or have as many as they do. These are the children I feel we would be better of without.
And my point is that you don't get to play God in a vacuum. This is not a theoretical thing. The decision to abort a human being ends a human life.
I don't think we disagree on what an abortion does. We just disagree on if that matters or not. I say it doesnt. There is no human shortage. If I wasn't pulling this pallet jack around, someone else would. There is little that happens in our lives that can only be done by us. We are not snowflakes. A handful of our generation will influence more than a couple generations of our immediate family the rest of us are just biding our e til we die. Some lives are 100 years. Some are 100 seconds. Very little of either really matters. If you didn't marry your wife, someone else would. If I wasn't having rhis conversation with you I'd be having it with someone else. And likewise.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi709.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww92%2FTommyRoanoke%2Fhamburger_zps8whvi20j.png&hash=e4bca3c45ef233da353307dbd5dc8692d9357ea5) (http://s709.photobucket.com/user/TommyRoanoke/media/hamburger_zps8whvi20j.png.html)
:lol:
-
holy crap :lol:
-
is that a real cemetery or an arbitrary cemetery?
-
is that a real cemetery or an arbitrary cemetery?
:dunno:
I was gonna have some crosses on the little hill too but thought it might be too inflammatory.
-
and I don't want to have this conversation anymore. TBH the thought of death scares the crap out of me. I'm out.
-
I'm a step 2 false'r
I understand the step 2 truthers, but I think they're wrong.
-
Also probably a little sys mixed in
-
I just wish people were more responsible. Looked at pregnancy and safe sex as a serious matter. I wish there weren't so many pregnancies and I wish there weren't so many abortions. I wish that children were planned for the most part and raised by parents that do the best they can and put their children first. Nothing saddens me more than seeing obese, unclean, uneducated, or impoverished children. In fact, it pisses me off a lot. I guess I comfort myself with thinking that maybe abortion is preventing more children from continuing the cycle. That's probably wrong.
Yes, it's wrong. Try this (not really - it's a rhetorical exercise): Next time you see one of those kids in poverty, walk up and ask them "Gosh, looking at you makes me feel really sad. Would you prefer to have been ripped limb from limb in your mom's belly and discarded as trash or sold for scrap?"
What scope do you look at the world in? In seems very narrow.
If it is narrow-minded to believe that it is wrong to decide a child is better off dead than poor, then consider the blinders firmly on.
The reason I am wrecking so many of these libtarded arguments with such relative ease is that I've actually thought deeply about the issue, considering the arguments both pro and con. It's clear that many here have not.
You know what? The rhetorical exercise didn't work for you, so go ahead and try what I suggested. Report back how that works out for you.
:lol:
-
I just wish people were more responsible. Looked at pregnancy and safe sex as a serious matter. I wish there weren't so many pregnancies and I wish there weren't so many abortions. I wish that children were planned for the most part and raised by parents that do the best they can and put their children first. Nothing saddens me more than seeing obese, unclean, uneducated, or impoverished children. In fact, it pisses me off a lot. I guess I comfort myself with thinking that maybe abortion is preventing more children from continuing the cycle. That's probably wrong.
Yes, it's wrong. Try this (not really - it's a rhetorical exercise): Next time you see one of those kids in poverty, walk up and ask them "Gosh, looking at you makes me feel really sad. Would you prefer to have been ripped limb from limb in your mom's belly and discarded as trash or sold for scrap?"
What scope do you look at the world in? In seems very narrow.
If it is narrow-minded to believe that it is wrong to decide a child is better off dead than poor, then consider the blinders firmly on.
The reason I am wrecking so many of these libtarded arguments with such relative ease is that I've actually thought deeply about the issue, considering the arguments both pro and con. It's clear that many here have not.
You know what? The rhetorical exercise didn't work for you, so go ahead and try what I suggested. Report back how that works out for you.
:lol:
Welp, I can't argue with an :lol: You've stumped me.
-
Dlew, others, non religious reason to be anti abortion at any point? As opposed to most I'm not looking to trap anyone or do any other stupid crap, just curious what it would be.
I think if you believe that there's such a thing as "right" or "wrong," it's at least rational to be anti abortion. At it's heart, it's a pretty simple argument:
1. I think killing people is wrong.
2. I think abortion is "killing people."
3. I think abortion is wrong.
Step 2 is the only part in the general abortion debate that's worth discussing imo. If step two is true, then, as insensitive as it sounds, I don't really give a crap about women's rights about the subject, or the burden on society. I will say that there are decent arguments about rape that exist, and in those circumstances, things get very complicated.
That being said, I happen to fall on the side that Step 2 is true. I understand how people could fall on the other side, and I respect that. But I think they're wrong, and I think it's important.
How can you justify an exception for rape if you truly believe in #2?
-
Dlew, others, non religious reason to be anti abortion at any point? As opposed to most I'm not looking to trap anyone or do any other stupid crap, just curious what it would be.
I think if you believe that there's such a thing as "right" or "wrong," it's at least rational to be anti abortion. At it's heart, it's a pretty simple argument:
1. I think killing people is wrong.
2. I think abortion is "killing people."
3. I think abortion is wrong.
Step 2 is the only part in the general abortion debate that's worth discussing imo. If step two is true, then, as insensitive as it sounds, I don't really give a crap about women's rights about the subject, or the burden on society. I will say that there are decent arguments about rape that exist, and in those circumstances, things get very complicated.
That being said, I happen to fall on the side that Step 2 is true. I understand how people could fall on the other side, and I respect that. But I think they're wrong, and I think it's important.
How can you justify an exception for rape if you truly believe in #2?
I don't really remember. I forget exactly how the philosophy worked, but I remember reading it at the time and thinking "this complicates things."
-
Dlew, others, non religious reason to be anti abortion at any point? As opposed to most I'm not looking to trap anyone or do any other stupid crap, just curious what it would be.
I think if you believe that there's such a thing as "right" or "wrong," it's at least rational to be anti abortion. At it's heart, it's a pretty simple argument:
1. I think killing people is wrong.
2. I think abortion is "killing people."
3. I think abortion is wrong.
Step 2 is the only part in the general abortion debate that's worth discussing imo. If step two is true, then, as insensitive as it sounds, I don't really give a crap about women's rights about the subject, or the burden on society. I will say that there are decent arguments about rape that exist, and in those circumstances, things get very complicated.
That being said, I happen to fall on the side that Step 2 is true. I understand how people could fall on the other side, and I respect that. But I think they're wrong, and I think it's important.
How can you justify an exception for rape if you truly believe in #2?
I don't really remember. I forget exactly how the philosophy worked, but I remember reading it at the time and thinking "this complicates things."
Do you not believe that a child conceived via rape is a person? Or are the complications the mother's rights?
-
the rape exception makes no sense. i'd love for dlew to post his rationale.
-
the rape exception makes no sense. i'd love for dlew to post his rationale.
Only from a standpoint of political pragmatism.
-
the rape exception makes no sense. i'd love for dlew to post his rationale.
there is no chance i remember the paper i read it in. it was years ago.
i think it was an argument based on the violinist thought experiment, but specifically applying it to rape situations. for those interested, here is a summary of the original violinist argument:
In "A Defense of Abortion", Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]
Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]
For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's legitimate rights, but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions—to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, a woman does not violate any moral obligation; rather, a woman who carries her pregnancy to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.[6]
-
political pragmatism seems like a weird thing to have personal conviction about
-
i don't see how the rape baby has any less right to appropriate the woman's body than the love baby does.
-
i don't see how the rape baby has any less right to appropriate the woman's body than the love baby does.
i don't know. maybe it just complicates it for me.
i think i stand in the anti-abortion camp even for rape. but i think the violinist is a pretty good argument for cases of rape and one that puts anti-abortion people like myself in a position where we have to make an unsavory argument in order to remain consistent.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.womenonwaves.org%2Fen%2Fmedia%2Finline%2F2013%2F4%2F11%2Fscreen_shot_2013_04_11_at_11_43_59_am.png&hash=65b729a13d03a8f9d5c1c5462800b2bce528923d)
looks like banning abortion causes your country to be a shithole.... decent reason to pro-choice, sd
-
i'm fascinated by "socioeconomic grounds". i'll have to google that later
-
i don't see how the rape baby has any less right to appropriate the woman's body than the love baby does.
i don't know. maybe it just complicates it for me.
i think i stand in the anti-abortion camp even for rape. but i think the violinist is a pretty good argument for cases of rape and one that puts anti-abortion people like myself in a position where we have to make an unsavory argument in order to remain consistent.
I don't see how rape is especially related to the violinist scenario, but other pregnancies are not.
-
Twins division title chances are hamburged.
-
inventing better birth control would be the most effective anti-abortion measure possible.
The IUD's on the market are pretty damn salty.
They have pretty terrible side effects for a lot of women.
-
i'm fascinated by "socioeconomic grounds". i'll have to google that later
I got ya', blood.
http://worldabortionlaws.com/questions.html
The interesting thing about this link is the stat in the right margin that seems to slap the theory that illegal abortions aren't dangerous theory right in the mouf.
Here's another link to a pdf that essentially states what the laws/restrictions are in these countries designated as socioeconomic, it really isn't socioeconomic at all, as a matter of fact I don't understand why America doesn't fall into this category because abortion laws differ by state, a distinct sub group of the socioeconomic group.
-
i don't see how the rape baby has any less right to appropriate the woman's body than the love baby does.
i don't know. maybe it just complicates it for me.
i think i stand in the anti-abortion camp even for rape. but i think the violinist is a pretty good argument for cases of rape and one that puts anti-abortion people like myself in a position where we have to make an unsavory argument in order to remain consistent.
I don't see how rape is especially related to the violinist scenario, but other pregnancies are not.
Really?
The person who was hooked to the violinist was kidnapped -- she had absolutely no part in the circumstances that led her to being hooked up to the person. Kind of like how a raped pregnant woman had absolutely no part in the circumstances that led her to being hooked up to the baby.
-
Why is it a concert violinist? Is that supposed to make this person like, much much more important than anyone else? Or can the violinist play soothing music during the nine months? Just seemed like a weird choice.
Also, if I were the violinist, I'd be really really pissed at the person who kidnapped me and put me in this position. Whereas I think a child of rape is probably grateful for having been made in the first place, even under horrible circumstances. That's where the analogy doesn't hold up.
-
Why is it a concert violinist? Is that supposed to make this person like, much much more important than anyone else? Or can the violinist play soothing music during the nine months? Just seemed like a weird choice.
Also, if I were the violinist, I'd be really really pissed at the person who kidnapped me and put me in this position. Whereas I think a child of rape is probably grateful for having been made in the first place, even under horrible circumstances. That's where the analogy doesn't hold up.
The fact that he's a violinist isn't really important other than it factors into the utilitarian calculus that he's a valuable member of society. I always assumed that from the utilitarian perspective, the violinist was more "valuable" than the kidnapped person.
And just to be clear, the violinist wasn't the person kidnapped. The person hooked up to the machine was the one kidnapped.
-
Ksu, your argument is flawed in that an aborted fetus will never miss what it never had. Life.
Ok. New exercise. Go up to that kid and say: "Looking at you makes me very sad. I wish you had been aborted. You never would have known the difference." I hope that kid is old enough to punch you in the face, or at least kick you in the balls.
If you said it to this girl, she would probably agree with you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3194836/Parents-sue-hospital-psychological-trauma-failed-abortion-cost-bringing-daughter-14-incredibly-supports-700-000-claim-despite-knowing-never-wanted.html
-
Why is it a concert violinist? Is that supposed to make this person like, much much more important than anyone else? Or can the violinist play soothing music during the nine months? Just seemed like a weird choice.
Also, if I were the violinist, I'd be really really pissed at the person who kidnapped me and put me in this position. Whereas I think a child of rape is probably grateful for having been made in the first place, even under horrible circumstances. That's where the analogy doesn't hold up.
The fact that he's a violinist isn't really important other than it factors into the utilitarian calculus that he's a valuable member of society. I always assumed that from the utilitarian perspective, the violinist was more "valuable" than the kidnapped person.
And just to be clear, the violinist wasn't the person kidnapped. The person hooked up to the machine was the one kidnapped.
So the violinist was in on the plan to kidnap the other person? Well eff him them.
-
ok, now do the same thought experiment but with one important wrinkle: change the violinist to Kanye. what do you do?
-
all of a sudden michigancat is anti-abortion is what happens there
-
I guess it's a more complicated thought experiment than I thought.
Anyhow, my point is that the way I saw it, it was a pretty logical argument for rape exceptions.
-
i don't see how the rape baby has any less right to appropriate the woman's body than the love baby does.
i don't know. maybe it just complicates it for me.
i think i stand in the anti-abortion camp even for rape. but i think the violinist is a pretty good argument for cases of rape and one that puts anti-abortion people like myself in a position where we have to make an unsavory argument in order to remain consistent.
I don't see how rape is especially related to the violinist scenario, but other pregnancies are not.
Really?
The person who was hooked to the violinist was kidnapped -- she had absolutely no part in the circumstances that led her to being hooked up to the person. Kind of like how a raped pregnant woman had absolutely no part in the circumstances that led her to being hooked up to the baby.
Yes, but I didn't think that was really the point of the exercise. The rights of each person hooked up to the machine don't change if say, there's a birth control failure, IMO.
-
Why is it a concert violinist? Is that supposed to make this person like, much much more important than anyone else? Or can the violinist play soothing music during the nine months? Just seemed like a weird choice.
Also, if I were the violinist, I'd be really really pissed at the person who kidnapped me and put me in this position. Whereas I think a child of rape is probably grateful for having been made in the first place, even under horrible circumstances. That's where the analogy doesn't hold up.
The fact that he's a violinist isn't really important other than it factors into the utilitarian calculus that he's a valuable member of society. I always assumed that from the utilitarian perspective, the violinist was more "valuable" than the kidnapped person.
And just to be clear, the violinist wasn't the person kidnapped. The person hooked up to the machine was the one kidnapped.
So the violinist was in on the plan to kidnap the other person? Well eff him them.
Right. Either the violinist is an bad person, or the violinist is a victim. Either way, it isn't a very good comparison to a rape conception.
-
Ksu, your argument is flawed in that an aborted fetus will never miss what it never had. Life.
Ok. New exercise. Go up to that kid and say: "Looking at you makes me very sad. I wish you had been aborted. You never would have known the difference." I hope that kid is old enough to punch you in the face, or at least kick you in the balls.
If you said it to this girl, she would probably agree with you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3194836/Parents-sue-hospital-psychological-trauma-failed-abortion-cost-bringing-daughter-14-incredibly-supports-700-000-claim-despite-knowing-never-wanted.html
Wow. That's pretty mumped up. I mean, I know it's all about the money, but still pretty mumped up for anyone (who's not suicidal, which would be diagnosed as a mental disorder) to say "yeah, I wish I had been aborted." For extra kicks, did you notice the part where the girl says she wants to be a psychologist when she grows up? That was a nice touch. :thumbs: "Hi - I wish I had been aborted. Now how can I help you diagnose and work through your mental issues?"
-
I'm not even talking about that. I'm not even talking about anyone in particular. Some people shouldn't raise kids or have as many as they do. These are the children I feel we would be better of without.
And my point is that you don't get to play God in a vacuum. This is not a theoretical thing. The decision to abort a human being ends a human life.
I don't think we disagree on what an abortion does. We just disagree on if that matters or not. I say it doesnt. There is no human shortage. If I wasn't pulling this pallet jack around, someone else would. There is little that happens in our lives that can only be done by us. We are not snowflakes. A handful of our generation will influence more than a couple generations of our immediate family the rest of us are just biding our e til we die. Some lives are 100 years. Some are 100 seconds. Very little of either really matters. If you didn't marry your wife, someone else would. If I wasn't having rhis conversation with you I'd be having it with someone else. And likewise.
I'm kind of with SdK here. Even under the thought experiment (that I don't agree with, but understand) that an X week old fetus is a "person", I'm totally fine with that "person's" parents decision to prevent it from living. I'm comfortable saying I don't value all lives equally. I don't remember being a fetus, I don't think anyone really does, and I don't think there is any knowledge of loss on the fetuses part. The only knowledge of loss of any consequence is by the parent(s) who made the decision. The world doesn't care. It doesn't change anything. It gets weird for me since I don't have memories of being a baby, but I'm fine with drawing the line at birth, or even a little bit earlier if you want to get conservative about it.
-
I gave up on trying to read the last 200 plus comments.
My thoughts (if you give a crap):
In my case, I can tell you that I felt like there was another human the second my wife told me she thought she was pregnant. Yes, I was sad the times she told me that she wasn't. Or the time she miscarried. Was I distraught? No. A strong relationship with the baby and/or not fully knowing whether or not she was pregnant prevented me from being overly distraught. I was sad.
For those of you saying "what harm is it doing me?" Or "let people do what they want and then let God decide", my response is "whatever you do to the least, you do to me".
I am pro-life. I believe in God. I know some of you are 100% different than me in those two points, but it is part of who I am.
Go Royals!
(FTR, I have not watched the videos.)
Gonna win 'em all!
-
For those of you saying "what harm is it doing me?" Or "let people do what they want and then let God decide", my response is "whatever you do to the least, you do to me".
What are pro-choice'rs doing to whom?
I'm cool with you not having an abortion, slobber.
-
For those of you saying "what harm is it doing me?" Or "let people do what they want and then let God decide", my response is "whatever you do to the least, you do to me".
What are pro-choice'rs doing to whom?
I'm cool with you not having an abortion, slobber.
Somebody said about 300 comments ago that "somebody else having an abortion has no impact on my life so Trim3:16. "
Gonna win 'em all!
-
I don't get it either. So if someone you don't know is having an abortion, they are aborting you?
-
For those of you saying "what harm is it doing me?" Or "let people do what they want and then let God decide", my response is "whatever you do to the least, you do to me".
What are pro-choice'rs doing to whom?
I'm cool with you not having an abortion, slobber.
Somebody said about 300 comments ago that "somebody else having an abortion has no impact on my life so Trim3:16. "
I know that somebody said that. I would've. But who are the doers and "least" in your response to that and what are they "doing?"
-
It's a bible quote:
Whatever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me.
-
I gave up on trying to read the last 200 plus comments.
My thoughts (if you give a crap):
In my case, I can tell you that I felt like there was another human the second my wife told me she thought she was pregnant. Yes, I was sad the times she told me that she wasn't. Or the time she miscarried. Was I distraught? No. A strong relationship with the baby and/or not fully knowing whether or not she was pregnant prevented me from being overly distraught. I was sad.
For those of you saying "what harm is it doing me?" Or "let people do what they want and then let God decide", my response is "whatever you do to the least, you do to me".
I am pro-life. I believe in God. I know some of you are 100% different than me in those two points, but it is part of who I am.
Go Royals!
(FTR, I have not watched the videos.)
Gonna win 'em all!
Can you rephrase without quoting the bible?
-
For those actually interested in the violinist thing, here's the he paper it came from. It's a very famous paper in the larger abortion debate:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)
-
I don't get it either. So if someone you don't know is having an abortion, they are aborting you?
No, if you abort a fetus, you are aborting Jesus.
-
I am a dumbass. That is what I am saying.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Are anti-abortionists all running homeless shelters out of their homes and sending food to 3rd-world countries on the reg to make sure all those tangible people don't die too?
-
Are anti-abortionists all running homeless shelters out of their homes and sending food to 3rd-world countries on the reg to make sure all those tangible people don't die too?
There's no money to be made from the conservative agenda setters in doing that.
-
Are anti-abortionists all running homeless shelters out of their homes and sending food to 3rd-world countries on the reg to make sure all those tangible people don't die too?
There's no money to be made from the conservative agenda setters in doing that.
You keep alluding to this. Care to explain?
-
i don't see how the rape baby has any less right to appropriate the woman's body than the love baby does.
What about an "I like her okay" baby?
-
I don't get it either. So if someone you don't know is having an abortion, they are aborting you?
No, if you abort a fetus, you are aborting Jesus.
The Jews already did that
-
We are all God's people and if you treat somebody poorly, you are treating God poorly.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
For those actually interested in the violinist thing, here's the he paper it came from. It's a very famous paper in the larger abortion debate:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)
i don't see how you came out of that with a rape exception. in fact, the author specifically outlines the illogic of rape exceptions.
i like his chocolate discussion. it fits my own preferences very well - i can view the abortion woman as thoughtless, careless, stupid, uncaring, immoral and unethical and righteously disdain her choice, but it does not follow that i have either the right or obligation to force her to choose otherwise.
-
I love the questions that are asked by differing view points in this thread. Mostly they are asked in a "by the way, you are a dumbass" sort of way. (By people from both sides of any argument.)
Gonna win 'em all!
-
i don't see how the rape baby has any less right to appropriate the woman's body than the love baby does.
What about an "I like her okay" baby?
sorry, lust baby, you have no right to use that woman's body.
-
We are all God's people and if you treat somebody poorly, you are treating God poorly.
fortunately, when you mistreat god, the least of us suffer not a whit.
-
For those actually interested in the violinist thing, here's the he paper it came from. It's a very famous paper in the larger abortion debate:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)
i don't see how you came out of that with a rape exception. in fact, the author specifically outlines the illogic of rape exceptions.
I only read the wikipedia entry about it and took away that a rape exception is what anti-abortion readers say is the only thing that the violinist example can support, because it's that the violinist and/or the other guy had something bad done to him unwillingly.
-
Man, there's gonna be a lot of crap to be talked on this blog when we're all dead.
-
For those of you saying "what harm is it doing me?" Or "let people do what they want and then let God decide", my response is "whatever you do to the least, you do to me".
What are pro-choice'rs doing to whom?
I'm cool with you not having an abortion, slobber.
Somebody said about 300 comments ago that "somebody else having an abortion has no impact on my life so Trim3:16. "
I know that somebody said that. I would've. But who are the doers and "least" in your response to that and what are they "doing?"
I am sure you must have a point to this, but I will :takethebait:
Using the relevant example of not standing up for an unborn baby when somebody else chooses to have an abortion: the unborn baby would be the least, in that they are not able to speak for themselves or defend themselves. Me, by being a 3rd party person, should try to help the baby. I am not the person that is with child.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
For those actually interested in the violinist thing, here's the he paper it came from. It's a very famous paper in the larger abortion debate:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)
i don't see how you came out of that with a rape exception. in fact, the author specifically outlines the illogic of rape exceptions.
i like his chocolate discussion. it fits my own preferences very well - i can view the abortion woman as thoughtless, careless, stupid, uncaring, immoral and unethical and righteously disdain her choice, but it does not follow that i have either the right or obligation to force her to choose otherwise.
Again, a couple things: first, I didn't come out of it with a rape exception. I said that a paper I read years ago posited a pretty good argument based on that hypothetical.
Second, I think she factors rape into the wrong side of the moral calculus. I don't think a fetus that is a product of rape is inherently any less valuable. But I think that there's something to be said for the idea that when a person is raped (Or "kidnapped" in the hypothetical) then the situation they're out into is due to no fault of their own, therefore increasing their moral position (relative to someone who voluntarily has sex). Like I said, I don't think it tilts the scale in favor of the woman's rights (compared to the fetus), but I think it's closer. This is what I meant when I said rape complicates things.
-
Using the relevant example of not standing up for an unborn baby when somebody else chooses to have an abortion: the unborn baby would be the least, in that they are not able to speak for themselves or defend themselves. Me, by being a 3rd party person, should try to help the baby. I am not the person that is with child.
OK. I think you'll get a lot more bang for your helping buck by going out and saving tangible people.
-
I get what you are saying, but you don't understand the underlying belief that I have that an unborn baby is a tangible person.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
This is what I meant when I said rape complicates things.
well, not logically. but certainly in practice.
-
This is what I meant when I said rape complicates things.
well, not logically. but certainly in practice.
Maybe I should have specified.
-
I get what you are saying, but you don't understand the underlying belief that I have that an unborn baby is a tangible person.
a) they're just rough ridin' with you dobsie. b) is not the pregnant woman also the least of us?
-
I get what you are saying, but you don't understand the underlying belief that I have that an unborn baby is a tangible person.
No, I get your belief. But even understnding that you have an admirable goal of saving all lives and that all lives includes fetuses, preventing abortions seems like the most unproductive place in which to start the mission.
-
I'm amazed that the violinist scenario is a well-known philosophical discussion piece.
-
I'm amazed that the violinist scenario is a well-known philosophical discussion piece.
It's the most famous discussion piece among abortion philosophy is say.
-
I'm amazed that the violinist scenario is a well-known philosophical discussion piece.
you didn't like it? i love thought problems like that.
-
I've been too embarrassed to ask what it is :blush:
-
I'm amazed that the violinist scenario is a well-known philosophical discussion piece.
you didn't like it? i love thought problems like that.
I think I just don't like philosophy in general
-
I think I just don't like philosophy in general
you have a weird brain.
-
I think I just don't like philosophy in general
you have a weird brain.
I should have said *philosophers*
I still have a *unique* brain
-
why is this 21 pages
-
why is this 21 pages
Because people don't agree whether fetuses are people or not.
-
why is this 21 pages
Because people don't agree whether fetuses are people or not.
As was explained earlier ITT, the point at which a fetus becomes a "person" is both impossible to say (because it depends on your definition of person) and irrelevant.
KSUW, where do you consider the fetus to become a person, if not at birth? (not gE'ing i just want to know)
In all honesty, I don't know when that collection of cells becomes a "person" - that may depend upon how you define a person - but I think it is irrelevant, as I'll explain below.
First, here are some things that I believe are indisputable:
1. On one end of the spectrum, there's birth. But that is an arbitrary and illogical line. Aside from some fluid in the lungs, there is no meaningful difference between a baby 5 minutes prior to birth and 5 minutes after.
2. On the other end of the spectrum is conception. That's when human life begins.
Then there's "viability." But that's not a very good dividing line, either, because (1) the time of viability keeps getting pushed earlier and earlier with advances in medicine (another reason why blind adherence to cases like Roe v Wade, based on antiquated technology, is absurd and why justices shouldn't be concocting laws in the first place), and (2) viability is premised on the theory that the life can survive outside the womb, but a full term baby can't survive without support. Neither can a toddler, or most full grown liberals.
Therefore, I err on the side of life. I don't think it is my place to play God in deciding when that life becomes a "person" or otherwise deserves protection. So I start at the beginning. Human life begins at conception, and I believe it is evil to kill human life.
-
I enjoy that ksuw is kicking his feet up thinking he's really whipped some ass in this thread
-
the whole point of the violinist and the chocolate brothers is that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.
-
Are anti-abortionists all running homeless shelters out of their homes and sending food to 3rd-world countries on the reg to make sure all those tangible people don't die too?
There's no money to be made from the conservative agenda setters in doing that.
You keep alluding to this. Care to explain?
Pretty obvious dlew. Most if not all conservative viewpoints/talking points are hand fed by entities making money off of either stoking existing outrage making something up to get outraged about. There's more money to be made from calling disadvantaged adults and their offspring lazy than making a call to be human and help them. This abortion debate is crafted to fire up religious zealots. I am conflicted about abortion but I feel I have to be 100% pro choice because of the political implications of being pro life, and the people responsible for this are completely happy removing all nuance from this conversation.
-
I am conflicted about abortion but I feel I have to be 100% pro choice because of the political implications of being pro life.
you should not feel this way.
-
I am conflicted about abortion but I feel I have to be 100% pro choice because of the political implications of being pro life.
you should not feel this way.
It's a pretty complex issue. The length of this thread and both sides meandering what if scenarios kind of proves that.
-
I spend more time and resources trying to help "least" that are not unborn than I do with "least" that are unborn. Doesn't make one or the other less important or less of a person.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
I spend more time and resources trying to help "least" that are not unborn than I do with "least" that are unborn. Doesn't make one or the other less important or less of a person.
Gonna win 'em all!
Is there a typo in here or am I an idiot because I don't get what you're saying?
-
It's Bible stuff
-
I there a biblical basis for being anti abortion? I'd be interested in the scripture
-
psalm 139:13-18 and Jeremiah 1:4-5 both allude to humanity being a person in their mother's womb.
proverbs 31:8 would be a verse many pro lifers use as a foundation for their speaking up for abortion (although the next verse is about caring for the poor, which many pro-lifers are rightly criticized for ignoring.)
-
Thanks bud
-
I spend more time and resources trying to help "least" that are not unborn than I do with "least" that are unborn. Doesn't make one or the other less important or less of a person.
Gonna win 'em all!
Is there a typo in here or am I an idiot because I don't get what you're saying?
He helps needy people and doesn't hang out with fetuses.
-
the whole point of the violinist and the chocolate brothers is that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.
I think the point of the violinist is that the people who try to use it think a fetus is equivalent to a violinist (a person)
I don't know what the chocolate brothers is.
-
I think the point of the violinist is that the people who try to use it think a fetus is equivalent to a violinist (a person)
I don't know what the chocolate brothers is.
the problem is meant to illustrate that a living being that is unquestionably a human (a violinist) does not have the right to live, if the only way the violinist can remain alive is by through the imposition of significant hardship on another living human. hence, the question of whether a fetus is a person does not need be answered to derive an ethical position on abortion, because even if you start with the position that fetuses are persons, it does not follow that they have a right to live inside of a woman that does not wish to carry them.
the chocolate brothers was in the same essay that dlew shared. two brothers, the elder of which has chocolate, the younger brother does not. is the elder brother ethically compelled to share with the younger? is a third party observing the brothers permitted and/or obligated to force the elder brother to share with the younger?
-
the whole point of the violinist and the chocolate brothers is that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.
I think the point of the violinist is that the people who try to use it think a fetus is equivalent to a violinist (a person)
I don't know what the chocolate brothers is.
:confused:
The violinist is a pro abortion argument, Mrs. G.
-
the whole point of the violinist and the chocolate brothers is that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.
I think the point of the violinist is that the people who try to use it think a fetus is equivalent to a violinist (a person)
I don't know what the chocolate brothers is.
:confused:
The violinist is a pro abortion argument, Mrs. G.
OK, I was between meetings when I wrote that. I was wrong. The violinist story still sounds to me like yeah the violinist (fetus) has no right to the use of the other person's body but everyone is going to think you are horrible and call you a murderer if you don't help him.
-
the whole point of the violinist and the chocolate brothers is that it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person.
I think the point of the violinist is that the people who try to use it think a fetus is equivalent to a violinist (a person)
I don't know what the chocolate brothers is.
:confused:
The violinist is a pro abortion argument, Mrs. G.
OK, I was between meetings when I wrote that. I was wrong. The violinist story still sounds to me like yeah the violinist (fetus) has no right to the use of the other person's body but everyone is going to think you are horrible and call you a murderer if you don't help him.
I mean, you might think that...but it's meant to illustrate the moral permissibility of killing another when they unjustifiably infringe on your bodily autonomy.
Like I've been saying, I disagree with it, but I think it's a good argument.
-
I'm going to read it later but I know I'm going to get all distracted by the holes in the plot of the violinist-aid'r kidnapping/hostage situation.
-
I spend more time and resources trying to help "least" that are not unborn than I do with "least" that are unborn. Doesn't make one or the other less important or less of a person.
Gonna win 'em all!
Is there a typo in here or am I an idiot because I don't get what you're saying?
He helps needy people and doesn't hang out with fetuses.
Sorry. As stated, I am a dumbass. I was responding to Trim, but I did not quote.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Are anti-abortionists all running homeless shelters out of their homes and sending food to 3rd-world countries on the reg to make sure all those tangible people don't die too?
There's no money to be made from the conservative agenda setters in doing that.
You keep alluding to this. Care to explain?
Pretty obvious dlew. Most if not all conservative viewpoints/talking points are hand fed by entities making money off of either stoking existing outrage making something up to get outraged about. There's more money to be made from calling disadvantaged adults and their offspring lazy than making a call to be human and help them. This abortion debate is crafted to fire up religious zealots. I am conflicted about abortion but I feel I have to be 100% pro choice because of the political implications of being pro life, and the people responsible for this are completely happy removing all nuance from this conversation.
Huh. Well aright then. Kinda weird.
-
Like MiR, I've always been conflicted on abortion. This thread has really helped me somewhat clarify my position to myself. In the past, I'd always thought "a fetus is a human, therefore it shouldn't be killed". The idea of it being the mother's burden and therefore her choice really initially complicated it for me. Anyway, here is why I am now firmly pro-choice.
1) Fetuses are lesser humans. There's no way around it, they just are. They're lesser humans than anyone that has actually been born and can survive on its own. (Someone mentioned in this thread that the least gestated fetus was like 20 weeks or something. Well, hardly any abortions at all occur after 20 weeks. I didn't realize there was a bill for this under consideration, but I probably would support a solid ban on abortions after 20 weeks (including cases of rape or incest): http://theweek.com/articles/579065/why-liberals-should-support-banning-lateterm-abortions
2) Sundance had a great post about how losing a fetus doesn't affect society one bit, and he's right. I've always been firmly anti-death penalty, and had trouble with people who were both pro-life and pro-death-penalty, and vice versa. But the death penalty is carried out by the state, which is scary as crap. I'd be firmly against state-mandated abortions, as well.
3) The mother's rights. It's easy for Yard Dog to just tell a mom to suck it up and put it up for adoption, but pregnancy is some serious crap that he doesn't have to deal with, even if he's the father and he told the girl she wouldn't get pregnant if she was on top. The only person that really has to deal with it is the mom, and to a lesser degree, society. The fetus is part of her body, she should decide what to do with it.
-
Fetus's can survive on their own about as well as sub 2 year old humans.
-
Fetus's can survive on their own about as well as sub 2 year old humans.
If a 6 month old baby's mother dies, could it continue surviving? What about a fetus at 6 months?
(yes, I know I should have said a fetus is completely dependent on the mother, unlike babies. Ya got me!)
-
Fetus's can survive on their own about as well as sub 2 year old humans.
AND MOST LIBERALS! LOL
-
the violinist deals with infanticide. the woman has the right to deny the violinist the use of her body, even if it kills him. but she does not have the right to kill the violinist if his survival places no demands on her body. i think he would argue that a woman ought to give an unwanted postnatal baby up for adoption, but that she could abandon the child in a less formal manner, provided that she did not do so in a way that unreasonably placed the child in joepardy.
-
I've always been pro-choice, but I'm surprised by even the pro choice views in this thread. I think SdK and I are the only pro choice people who don't care whether a fetus is a person or not. It is really interesting to see everyone's views on this, and remember that we're all friends for the most part.
-
I think the pro choice people who think fetuses aren't people are jumping through mental hoops to convince themselves they aren't morally wrong similarly to how K-S-U convinces himself that greenhouse gas theory is incorrect so he can feel better about global warming.
-
I'm going to read it later but I know I'm going to get all distracted by the holes in the plot of the violinist-aid'r kidnapping/hostage situation.
Which is part of the reason why it's a shitty analogy.
-
It's like playing whack-a-mole around here. Ok Rusty, let's take your points one by one...
1) Fetuses are lesser humans. There's no way around it, they just are. They're lesser humans than anyone that has actually been born and can survive on its own. (Someone mentioned in this thread that the least gestated fetus was like 20 weeks or something. Well, hardly any abortions at all occur after 20 weeks. I didn't realize there was a bill for this under consideration, but I probably would support a solid ban on abortions after 20 weeks (including cases of rape or incest): http://theweek.com/articles/579065/why-liberals-should-support-banning-lateterm-abortions
Are you telling me a 2-week old, or two-year old, can really "survive on its own"? It can't. Which is a big reason why birth is an arbitrary and illogical dividing line.
BTW, that "bill under consideration" is currently being blocked by the ghouls in Congress - Democrats.
2) Sundance had a great post about how losing a fetus doesn't affect society one bit, and he's right. I've always been firmly anti-death penalty, and had trouble with people who were both pro-life and pro-death-penalty, and vice versa. But the death penalty is carried out by the state, which is scary as crap. I'd be firmly against state-mandated abortions, as well.
By that same logic, losing a 2-week old or 2-year old doesn't really affect society one bit, either, does it? In fact, if you were really ghoulish, I bet you could argue (as some on this board have) that aborting babies is actually beneficial to society. From there, the same logic could apply to people post-birth (again, there is no logical reason to use birth as the dividing line - see above). A "society" that places itself above innocent human life is not much of a society at all. It is barbarism.
3) The mother's rights. It's easy for Yard Dog to just tell a mom to suck it up and put it up for adoption, but pregnancy is some serious crap that he doesn't have to deal with, even if he's the father and he told the girl she wouldn't get pregnant if she was on top. The only person that really has to deal with it is the mom, and to a lesser degree, society. The fetus is part of her body, she should decide what to do with it.
I've got news for you - abortion is "some serious crap," too. And how do you square your mother's rights with getting behind a bill that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks? Even you have decided that - at some point prior to birth - that human life should be given value over a mother's whim to kill it.
-
I just googled that there's an abortion clinic right across from my gym and in the same building I'm often in for classes. I might hit that floor next time and give words of encouragement to the ladies to counteract whatever crap they're getting.
-
1) A 2 week old can survive without its mother, a fetus cannot.
2) You being up a good point, although much more has been spent on a birth than a fetus. Also you would know what you're getting in my new free market adoption marketplace.
3) I would lean to it always being the mother's choice, but 20 weeks seems like a nice compromise.
-
GHOUL
-
With video (non-gross)!
http://www.smawc.com/spiritualsupportforabortion.php
-
watched twice
-
watched twice
I don't know what that ethical humanist lady's all about but she better recognize.
-
i couldn't tell her @ from that list to dig deeper
-
She had her own related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsbjNU2WTyE
-
Whoa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_movement
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicsforchoice.com%2Fnews%2Fpr%2F2015%2Fimages%2Fcakefinal500.jpg&hash=ac9b74c2271a0b4098c46aefa571f77e589512cf)
-
For those actually interested in the violinist thing, here's the he paper it came from. It's a very famous paper in the larger abortion debate:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)
That could've been a lot shorter.
-
Bill Nye should stick to global warming hysteria - he sounds even dumber when talking about abortion.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/25/bill-nye-anti-abortion-laws-are-based-on-ignorance/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/09/25/bill-nye-anti-abortion-laws-are-based-on-ignorance/)
"If you’re going to say when an egg is fertilized it therefore has the same rights as an individual, then whom are you going to sue?" he says. "Whom are you going to imprison? Every woman who’s had a fertilized egg pass through her? Every guy whose sperm has fertilized an egg and then it didn’t become a human? Have all these people failed you?"
Yes Bill, there's a raging debate about suing people who's embryos fail to implant/develop.
Side note to the klimate krazies - this guy's on your team.
-
ksuw is just whipping ass
-
Ksuw is right about bill guy the science nye. Life begins when sperm and egg combine, and will end at some point. Prolife advocate life ending naturally, not at the hands of an abortionis or by choice of fulproof contraception. I started this thread on the simple premise, is a government de facto controlled abortion service more important than allowing government to function and provide essential government services. Democrats think the meet carvers at Planned Hamburger are more important. This is not about ending abortion, but ending this abhorrent practice of harvesting organs from babies killed by sick people who brag about their Frankenstein lustily for money.
-
I will say that outrage over Big {insert industry here} making tons of money and then bragging about it would have been through the roof. Of course, in that instance, the right would have defended the practice, much like the left has defended this practice.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Is there enough money to be made in slang'n organs that I should quit my gE job and open up a head shop so to speak?
-
Slobber, your pit posts are sometimes very similar to yard dog's
-
I don't really attack others' beliefs in the pit. Maybe that means I should leave this place for the pros?
Gonna win 'em all!
-
It's much more than a moral or ethical issue. There are numerous policy arguments to consider, as well. There are many reasons why fetuses are not afforded the same rights to life, liberty and property that natural born citizens enjoy. Should a pregnant woman who engages in risky behavior and suffers a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? Consider the various ways in which that scenario could unfold in the real world. What purpose would criminalizing such behavior serve for society? What about smoking during pregnancy? Consider the fact that a pregnant smoker could avoid prosecution under so-called fetal harm laws if she aborted the fetus before carrying it to term.
-
It's much more than a moral or ethical issue. There are numerous policy arguments to consider, as well. There are many reasons why fetuses are not afforded the same rights to life, liberty and property that natural born citizens enjoy. Should a pregnant woman who engages in risky behavior and suffers a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? Consider the various ways in which that scenario could unfold in the real world. What purpose would criminalizing such behavior serve for society? What about smoking during pregnancy? Consider the fact that a pregnant smoker could avoid prosecution under so-called fetal harm laws if she aborted the fetus before carrying it to term.
Are you really suggesting there is any debate or rationale for charging a woman with anything for miscarriage? Who is making that argument? (Besides Bill Nye the crazy guy.) What are you suggesting the rationale would be?
As for your other points, I would have no issue with a law charging pregnant smokers or drug abusers with child abuse. Alcohol is trickier, since there is no evidence that moderate alcohol consumption is harmful.
-
It's much more than a moral or ethical issue. There are numerous policy arguments to consider, as well. There are many reasons why fetuses are not afforded the same rights to life, liberty and property that natural born citizens enjoy. Should a pregnant woman who engages in risky behavior and suffers a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? Consider the various ways in which that scenario could unfold in the real world. What purpose would criminalizing such behavior serve for society? What about smoking during pregnancy? Consider the fact that a pregnant smoker could avoid prosecution under so-called fetal harm laws if she aborted the fetus before carrying it to term.
Are you really suggesting there is any debate or rationale for charging a woman with anything for miscarriage? Who is making that argument? What are you suggesting the rationale would be?
If a fetus has the requisite rights to make abortion a crime, then would a fetus not have a cause of action against a mother who intentionally, knowingly, negligently or recklessly engages in behavior that she knows might result in the termination of her pregnancy, and does actually result in a miscarriage? Of course, someone would have to bring the action in the place of the dead fetus. In criminal cases, most states have enacted fetal harm laws that ostensibly are intended to provide stiffer penalties to those that harm pregnant women. A closer look reveals that these laws are typically supported by prolife groups engaging in a proliferation of fetal rights campaign designed to tack on as many legal protections to the unborn as possible. However, a body of new case law has emerged where states have used these laws to attempt to prosecute women for crimes ranging from child abuse to depraved heart murder for drug use during pregnancy where the child was stillborn or died shortly after birth. Ironically, the best way to avoid prosecution is to get an abortion.
-
What if I told you that alcohol and nicotine are at least, and probably more so harmful that drugs such as crack cocaine?
-
It's much more than a moral or ethical issue. There are numerous policy arguments to consider, as well. There are many reasons why fetuses are not afforded the same rights to life, liberty and property that natural born citizens enjoy. Should a pregnant woman who engages in risky behavior and suffers a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter? Consider the various ways in which that scenario could unfold in the real world. What purpose would criminalizing such behavior serve for society? What about smoking during pregnancy? Consider the fact that a pregnant smoker could avoid prosecution under so-called fetal harm laws if she aborted the fetus before carrying it to term.
Are you really suggesting there is any debate or rationale for charging a woman with anything for miscarriage? Who is making that argument? What are you suggesting the rationale would be?
If a fetus has the requisite rights to make abortion a crime, then would a fetus not have a cause of action against a mother who intentionally, knowingly, negligently or recklessly engages in behavior that she knows might result in the termination of her pregnancy, and does actually result in a miscarriage? Of course, someone would have to bring the action in the place of the dead fetus. In criminal cases, most states have enacted fetal harm laws that ostensibly are intended to provide stiffer penalties to those that harm pregnant women. A closer look reveals that these laws are typically supported by prolife groups engaging in a proliferation of fetal rights campaign designed to tack on as many legal protections to the unborn as possible. However, a body of new case law has emerged where states have used these laws to attempt to prosecute women for crimes ranging from child abuse to depraved heart murder for drug use during pregnancy where the child was stillborn or died shortly after birth. Ironically, the best way to avoid prosecution is to get an abortion.
Oh sorry - I thought you were talking a case to be made (not that you necessarily agree) that any miscarriage was manslaughter. Manslaughter in most states requires recklessness, which is a higher threshold than negligence. And if a pregnant mom lost her baby drag racing, for example, it would be perfectly appropriate to charge her the same as if she was doing it with an infant.
-
When abortion was illegal was the crime commited by the abortion performer and the recepient?
-
Miscarriages happen all the time, and there is no such thing as a routine pregnancy. Every pregnant woman engages in potentially harmful activities, admittedly in broadly varying degrees. So, prosecutors have broad discretion in enforcing these laws. Would you be shocked to learn that these laws are disproportionately enforced against minorities who also happen to be poor? Most of the cases I have read where a woman has been charged and convicted of these types of crimes have been reversed by a higher court. However, many of these women end up pleading guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid a longer prison sentence, probably because they can't afford competent legal representation.
-
Miscarriages happen all the time, and there is no such thing as a routine pregnancy. Every pregnant woman engages in potentially harmful activities, admittedly in broadly varying degrees. So, prosecutors have broad discretion in enforcing these laws. Would you be shocked to learn that these laws are disproportionately enforced against minorities who also happen to be poor? Most of the cases I have read where a woman has been charged and convicted of these types of crimes have been reversed by a higher court. However, many of these women end up pleading guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid a longer prison sentence, probably because they can't afford competent legal representation.
I would not be shocked, but that's a criminal justice reform issue - not an abortion issue. And of course the facts won't always be clear, which is why we have a justice system.
-
So basically KSUW you're saying the rights of the fetus override the rights of the Mom for the 9 months of pregnancy and the Mom's only goal during those 9 months should be to keep the baby healthy, even if she doesnt want the baby?
-
Also I watched most of the PP videos, including the one where the lady described the abortion, and playing with the fetus. but is there one that actually shows these actions that i am missing?
-
Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution. Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen. They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.
-
Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution. Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen. They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.
"the 14th amendment isn't part of the original constitution" -ksuw (probably)
-
Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution. Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen. They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.
"the 14th amendment isn't part of the original constitution" -ksuw (probably)
No i think he goes with the "3/5th" clause of the original constitution to show the constitution isnt always right. But we shall see!!!!
-
"the 14th amendment isn't part of the original constitution" -ksuw (probably)
The other day my boss was talking about how Ted Cruz just wants to follow the constitution (by denying gay marriage, I guess) and my co-worker pointed out that civil rights are in the constitution, and my boss actually said "Yeah, in an amendment".
-
:lol:
-
"the 14th amendment isn't part of the original constitution" -ksuw (probably)
The other day my boss was talking about how Ted Cruz just wants to follow the constitution (by denying gay marriage, I guess) and my co-worker pointed out that civil rights are in the constitution, and my boss actually said "Yeah, in an amendment".
Interestingly, the framers of the 14th Amendment would have considered marriage a "social right," as opposed to a "civil right." In the 19th century there was a distinction between civil, social and political rights (I presume as a rationalization for maintaining some semblance of a caste system), and at the time the 14th Amendment was understood only to guarantee civil rights. Social rights included the right to freely associate, and interracial coupling would be an example (and presumably gays). The right to vote was considered a political right, and the evidence of this distinction is manifest in the 15th Amendment, which prohibits the denial of voting rights based on race. Had this distinction not been widely accepted, the 15th Amendment would have been unnecessary. So in a sense, Cruz could be said to be following the Constitution from an originalist interpretation. Of course, subsequent constitutional doctrine has obliterated the distinction and brought all those rights under the "civil" umbrella. Nevertheless, if you could fill a court with a bunch of Scalias, then suddenly Cruz's argument is persuasive.
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
-
Abortions aren't funded by the government, neocons seem to be having trouble with that little fact
(but they should be funded by the government)
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.
That and the fact it would behoove planned parenthood to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make more profit. I think that is the reason people are outraged at any profit being made by the sale of the fetal tissue.
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.
This is not an issue that is near to me, so I don't know all the particulars about how the funding is directed as it relates to specific PP services. I do know that the amount of funding in question has not reached the general threshold where I feel that I, as a taxpayer, am unduly burdened. Therefore I defer to the judgment of the legislature that appropriating these funds to subsidize medical care for low-income individuals serves a reasonable policy interest and is probably better than the alternative. Even if there are public dollars subsidizing abortions and the majority thought it inappropriate, (1) abortion is a legal medical procedure, (2) I'm not sure what policy would be advanced by causing poor people to give birth to babies they don't want (at a substantially higher cost to the taxpayer; giving birth is much more expensive than getting an abortion, not to mention the cascade of other benefits that would accrue), and (3) the concept of a cottage industry of abortion loans to low-income individuals seems like it would be much worse than the status quo.
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.
That and the fact it would behoove planned parenthood to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make more profit. I think that is the reason people are outraged at any profit being made by the sale of the fetal tissue.
Please note the difference between profit and revenue. PP is a non-profit. And actually, I think you have the incentives backwards. If we cut public funding, then it may behoove PP to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make up for lost revenue.
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.
This is not an issue that is near to me, so I don't know all the particulars about how the funding is directed as it relates to specific PP services. I do know that the amount of funding in question has not reached the general threshold where I feel that I, as a taxpayer, am unduly burdened. Therefore I defer to the judgment of the legislature that appropriating these funds to subsidize medical care for low-income individuals serves a reasonable policy interest and is probably better than the alternative. Even if there are public dollars subsidizing abortions and the majority thought it inappropriate, (1) abortion is a legal medical procedure, (2) I'm not sure what policy would be advanced by causing poor people to give birth to babies they don't want (at a substantially higher cost to the taxpayer; giving birth is much more expensive than getting an abortion, not to mention the cascade of other benefits that would accrue), and (3) the concept of a cottage industry of abortion loans to low-income individuals seems like it would be much worse than the status quo.
To me, it comes down to morality. I don't agree with legislating morality, therefore I think abortion should be legal. At the same time, I'd rather the US government itself not be immoral. Therefore, I don't support taxpayer dollars being used toward murdering unborn babies.
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.
That and the fact it would behoove planned parenthood to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make more profit. I think that is the reason people are outraged at any profit being made by the sale of the fetal tissue.
Please note the difference between profit and revenue. PP is a non-profit. And actually, I think you have the incentives backwards. If we cut public funding, then it may behoove PP to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make up for lost revenue.
The hope/idea would be that PP would fold and the myriad of more complete and easier to access women's health non profits would be the ones speaking with conflicted women. At the end of the day, the President is willing to let the government shut down to protect an organization. The republicans have put forward a measure that would split the money previously allocated to PP among other non-profits who support women's health. It seems like a no brainer to sign that budget and be good to go. Why are the democrats so hung up on defending one organization?
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.
That and the fact it would behoove planned parenthood to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make more profit. I think that is the reason people are outraged at any profit being made by the sale of the fetal tissue.
Please note the difference between profit and revenue. PP is a non-profit. And actually, I think you have the incentives backwards. If we cut public funding, then it may behoove PP to encourage conflicted women to get abortions in order to make up for lost revenue.
The hope/idea would be that PP would fold and the myriad of more complete and easier to access women's health non profits would be the ones speaking with conflicted women. At the end of the day, the President is willing to let the government shut down to protect an organization. The republicans have put forward a measure that would split the money previously allocated to PP among other non-profits who support women's health. It seems like a no brainer to sign that budget and be good to go. Why are the democrats so hung up on defending one organization?
Couldn't one ask why the Republicans are so hung up on destroying one non-profit?
-
Why are theocratic republicans so hell bent on persecuting one women's health organization
-
Because there is doubt that they are operating ethically and/or legally. If the videos are accurate or not, the issue comes down to whether we continue to fund them and turn a blind eye to the possibility of unethical and illegal behavior, or pause their funding during a full investigation.
-
Also, any argument beyond "it will make it slightly harder for poor people to get abortions" is a mere pretext. I think Democrats defend PP because it is the largest organization of its kind that provides services to low-income women, and that fits into their brand narrative. Also, they see it for what it is--yet another attempted end-around to limit the availability of abortions. "Well, we can't make it illegal, so let's make it slightly harder." It reminds me of the Democrats during Reconstruction. "Sure, blacks can be free, but not toooooo free."
-
I think history will judge both the same.
-
I think history will judge both the same.
I think that is unlikely.
-
Because there is doubt that they are operating ethically and/or legally. If the videos are accurate or not, the issue comes down to whether we continue to fund them and turn a blind eye to the possibility of unethical and illegal behavior, or pause their funding during a full investigation.
There is only doubt if you suspend reality and choose to think there are things in the videos that aren't there
-
Also, any argument beyond "it will make it slightly harder for poor people to get abortions" is a mere pretext. I think Democrats defend PP because it is the largest organization of its kind that provides services to low-income women, and that fits into their brand narrative. Also, they see it for what it is--yet another attempted end-around to limit the availability of abortions. "Well, we can't make it illegal, so let's make it slightly harder." It reminds me of the Democrats during Reconstruction. "Sure, blacks can be free, but not toooooo free."
How accurate is that really? Is PP practically giving away abortions for free and every other abortion provider is price gouging?
-
Planned parenthood is generally located in low income areas and areas other clinics do not serve, that's why your "plenty of other places to go!" argument is ignorant
-
Also, any argument beyond "it will make it slightly harder for poor people to get abortions" is a mere pretext. I think Democrats defend PP because it is the largest organization of its kind that provides services to low-income women, and that fits into their brand narrative. Also, they see it for what it is--yet another attempted end-around to limit the availability of abortions. "Well, we can't make it illegal, so let's make it slightly harder." It reminds me of the Democrats during Reconstruction. "Sure, blacks can be free, but not toooooo free."
How accurate is that really? Is PP practically giving away abortions for free and every other abortion provider is price gouging?
Are you challenging the validity of the bolded part? For the record, I have no idea what PP charges relative to whatever the market rate is, but that's not even the point.
-
Also, any argument beyond "it will make it slightly harder for poor people to get abortions" is a mere pretext. I think Democrats defend PP because it is the largest organization of its kind that provides services to low-income women, and that fits into their brand narrative. Also, they see it for what it is--yet another attempted end-around to limit the availability of abortions. "Well, we can't make it illegal, so let's make it slightly harder." It reminds me of the Democrats during Reconstruction. "Sure, blacks can be free, but not toooooo free."
How accurate is that really? Is PP practically giving away abortions for free and every other abortion provider is price gouging?
Are you challenging the validity of the bolded part? For the record, I have no idea what PP charges relative to whatever the market rate is, but that's not even the point.
Well your statement seemed to be based around that being an understood fact, which I, in my limited research, have found no proof of. I would agree that this is so important to republicans in congress because any damage they can do to the abortion industry is well worth it. Democrats know this, and since our political system is so incredibly divided, they know it would be considered a major loss by the media and their constituents if PP was defunded.
I have a hard time believing the narrative that if PP was defunded that individuals who needed information on the topic of sexual health would be unable to get it. I also doubt that if an individual wanted an abortion, PP being defunded would stop them if they were truly resolute. If I were the democrats I would let this budget through to prove that you can work with the republicans, and then set out to prove that the republicans haven't limited access to abortions at all.
-
Do you think if we banned soup kitchens it would be slightly harder for homeless people to get soup? On the one hand, you say you can't find anything to confirm what I asserted as an understood fact, but on the other hand you seem to rely on it implicitly. After all, if we banned soup kitchens, a truly resolute homeless person would still be able to get soup somewhere else.
-
I don't agree with soup kitchens getting federal funding, either, fwiw.
-
I mean, it's ok to get an abortion as long as you are willing to work a little harder to get it. Is that what you're saying?
-
I mean, it's ok to get an abortion as long as you are willing to work a little harder to get it. Is that what you're saying?
Not at all.
-
Sorry, was directed @Yarddog
-
I mean, it's ok to get an abortion as long as you are willing to work a little harder to get it. Is that what you're saying?
Yeah as long as you are willing to get your abortion from a hack with a dirty knife and a folding table, you should be able to find one.
-
I mean, it's ok to get an abortion as long as you are willing to work a little harder to get it. Is that what you're saying?
Yeah as long as you are willing to get your abortion from a hack with a dirty knife and a folding table, you should be able to find one.
I am not. I think that abortion is abhorrent and should be illegal. But if we are talking about the shutdown of the federal government over funding PP, I am thinking objectively that the Democrats could spin this into a positive while silencing the GOP about PP.
Mrs. Gooch, are you implying that if PP was defunded that women who were interested in an abortion would no longer have access to abortions from clinics that have sterile environments and are up to code? Because it is easy to see that is not true at all.
-
Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution. Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen. They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.
Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.
So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.
It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "the most important part of the Constitution." :lol:
Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?
-
Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution. Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen. They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.
Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.
So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.
It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "the most important part of the Constitution."
Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?
Illegal immigrants are persons. The unborn are not included in the definition of persons as used in the 14th Amendment. See Roe v. Wade.
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.
This is not an issue that is near to me, so I don't know all the particulars about how the funding is directed as it relates to specific PP services. I do know that the amount of funding in question has not reached the general threshold where I feel that I, as a taxpayer, am unduly burdened. Therefore I defer to the judgment of the legislature that appropriating these funds to subsidize medical care for low-income individuals serves a reasonable policy interest and is probably better than the alternative. Even if there are public dollars subsidizing abortions and the majority thought it inappropriate, (1) abortion is a legal medical procedure, (2) I'm not sure what policy would be advanced by causing poor people to give birth to babies they don't want (at a substantially higher cost to the taxpayer; giving birth is much more expensive than getting an abortion, not to mention the cascade of other benefits that would accrue), and (3) the concept of a cottage industry of abortion loans to low-income individuals seems like it would be much worse than the status quo.
To me, it comes down to morality. I don't agree with legislating morality, therefore I think abortion should be legal. At the same time, I'd rather the US government itself not be immoral. Therefore, I don't support taxpayer dollars being used toward murdering unborn babies.
Do you realize that our entire legal system is based on morality? Are you ok with criminalizing murder? What do you think that's based on?
-
I mean, it's ok to get an abortion as long as you are willing to work a little harder to get it. Is that what you're saying?
Yeah as long as you are willing to get your abortion from a hack with a dirty knife and a folding table, you should be able to find one.
I am not. I think that abortion is abhorrent and should be illegal. But if we are talking about the shutdown of the federal government over funding PP, I am thinking objectively that the Democrats could spin this into a positive while silencing the GOP about PP.
Mrs. Gooch, are you implying that if PP was defunded that women who were interested in an abortion would no longer have access to abortions from clinics that have sterile environments and are up to code? Because it is easy to see that is not true at all.
No, I'm not saying that would immediately happen; I am taking that need to be "truly resolute" to an extreme. The anti-abortion goal is to make it a bit harder to get an abortion with each step and eventually they would like to make abortion illegal.....in which case you could still get an abortion if you are "truly resolute".
Also, that's a Dirty Dancing reference.
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.
This is not an issue that is near to me, so I don't know all the particulars about how the funding is directed as it relates to specific PP services. I do know that the amount of funding in question has not reached the general threshold where I feel that I, as a taxpayer, am unduly burdened. Therefore I defer to the judgment of the legislature that appropriating these funds to subsidize medical care for low-income individuals serves a reasonable policy interest and is probably better than the alternative. Even if there are public dollars subsidizing abortions and the majority thought it inappropriate, (1) abortion is a legal medical procedure, (2) I'm not sure what policy would be advanced by causing poor people to give birth to babies they don't want (at a substantially higher cost to the taxpayer; giving birth is much more expensive than getting an abortion, not to mention the cascade of other benefits that would accrue), and (3) the concept of a cottage industry of abortion loans to low-income individuals seems like it would be much worse than the status quo.
To me, it comes down to morality. I don't agree with legislating morality, therefore I think abortion should be legal. At the same time, I'd rather the US government itself not be immoral. Therefore, I don't support taxpayer dollars being used toward murdering unborn babies.
Do you realize that our entire legal system is based on morality? Are you ok with criminalizing murder? What do you think that's based on?
I'm fine with criminalizing murder because it is absolutely necessary to have a functioning society. I do not support the death penalty, though.
-
Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution. Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen. They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.
Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.
So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.
It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "the most important part of the Constitution."
Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?
Illegal immigrants are persons. The unborn are not included in the definition of persons as used in the 14th Amendment. See Roe v. Wade.
Sorry bub, you had it right the first time. The 14th amendment does not define "person" - it defines what persons are "citizens." That was the whole point of the 14th Amendment, so that Southern states could not argue that former slaves were not citizens. (Not, by the way, that those slaves had the right to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, etc., etc.).
You really need to sit this one out - you're not nearly as smart as you think you are and you're proving it by continuing this absurd line of argument. Go back to your ConLaw professor and see if you can get a little more help.
-
But is it the government's role to provide abortion services by funding planned hamburger? If they, planned hamburger did not provide this service, there are others who provide it. How is a right being denied? Allies of Planned Hamburger want to spin the horrific of dead baby meat markets to another issue, and not address using public money for this. Why can't the Hollywood death hounds provide the funding. May be Bill the Thrill.
If they couldn't sell tissue (that would otherwise be wasted), wouldn't that mean they would have a greater dependence on public funding? Would you rather the fetal tissue be thrown away than used for important research or medical treatment? Abortion is legal; dead fetuses are a byproduct of that legal act; that byproduct can either be discarded or provide a benefit to society through research and treatment. Revenue from that transaction reduces the need for other funding. Seems like a win-win for me as a taxpayer and a citizen.
I agree with that line of thinking, but I also think abortion providers would get by just fine without getting taxpayer dollars, and it really shouldn't be our concern even if they can't.
This is not an issue that is near to me, so I don't know all the particulars about how the funding is directed as it relates to specific PP services. I do know that the amount of funding in question has not reached the general threshold where I feel that I, as a taxpayer, am unduly burdened. Therefore I defer to the judgment of the legislature that appropriating these funds to subsidize medical care for low-income individuals serves a reasonable policy interest and is probably better than the alternative. Even if there are public dollars subsidizing abortions and the majority thought it inappropriate, (1) abortion is a legal medical procedure, (2) I'm not sure what policy would be advanced by causing poor people to give birth to babies they don't want (at a substantially higher cost to the taxpayer; giving birth is much more expensive than getting an abortion, not to mention the cascade of other benefits that would accrue), and (3) the concept of a cottage industry of abortion loans to low-income individuals seems like it would be much worse than the status quo.
To me, it comes down to morality. I don't agree with legislating morality, therefore I think abortion should be legal. At the same time, I'd rather the US government itself not be immoral. Therefore, I don't support taxpayer dollars being used toward murdering unborn babies.
Do you realize that our entire legal system is based on morality? Are you ok with criminalizing murder? What do you think that's based on?
I'm fine with criminalizing murder because it is absolutely necessary to have a functioning society. I do not support the death penalty, though.
That's fine. Just as long as we're clear that the "I don't agree with legislating morality" canard is silly.
-
Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution. Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen. They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.
Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.
So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.
It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "the most important part of the Constitution."
Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?
Illegal immigrants are persons. The unborn are not included in the definition of persons as used in the 14th Amendment. See Roe v. Wade.
Sorry bub, you had it right the first time. The 14th amendment does not define "person" - it defines what persons are "citizens." That was the whole point of the 14th Amendment, so that Southern states could not argue that former slaves were not citizens. (Not, by the way, that those slaves had the right to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, etc., etc.).
You really need to sit this one out - you're not nearly as smart as you think you are and you're proving it by continuing this absurd line of argument. Go back to your ConLaw professor and see if you can get a little more help.
Did you seriously just hit me with that old "bub" canard?
-
:lol:
-
Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution. Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen. They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.
Are we back to making the (absurd) argument that only citzens have rights? That is simply not true. Non-citizens enjoy all sorts of legal protections in this country. If, for example, you went out and murdered an illegal immigrant, you would be prosecuted and convicted of the same murder as if he or she were a citizen.
So basing your argument on the 14th amendment citizenship standard is ridiculous. Moreover, what is the mother's competing "right" under the 14th Amendment to which you refer? Oh yes, that "right to privacy" that isn't actually in the 14th Amendment, but was created by liberal justices in response to a stupid contraception ban. Here's the thing they may not have taught you in ConLaw - there's a difference between stupid laws and unconsitutional laws.
It is particularly ironic that you point to the intent of the "framers of the 14th Amendment." Do you know what the intent of the 14th Amendment was? It was actually quite narrow, and I can guarantee you it didn't cover the "rights" to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, or anything else liberal justices have managed to shoehorn into the Constitution through an absurd distortion of the 14th Amendment. But I guess that's why you call it "the most important part of the Constitution."
Seriously, did some law professor actually feed you this crap, or are you reading it off a blog?
Illegal immigrants are persons. The unborn are not included in the definition of persons as used in the 14th Amendment. See Roe v. Wade.
Sorry bub, you had it right the first time. The 14th amendment does not define "person" - it defines what persons are "citizens." That was the whole point of the 14th Amendment, so that Southern states could not argue that former slaves were not citizens. (Not, by the way, that those slaves had the right to privacy, contraception, abortion, sodomy, etc., etc.).
You really need to sit this one out - you're not nearly as smart as you think you are and you're proving it by continuing this absurd line of argument. Go back to your ConLaw professor and see if you can get a little more help.
Did you seriously just hit me with that old "bub" canard?
Well, I thought it was more polite than calling you a moron.
-
A Constitution that could only be interpreted based on a backward-looking
reconstruction of what we think the framers thought at the time (people who among themselves held various opposing views) would be disastrous and not really a constitution at all.
I will concede that your view is not wrong. It just lost.
-
A Constitution that could only be interpreted based on a backward - looking
You haven't even finished your thought and I can already tell you're scrambling to switch arguments. Sad.
-
Hey Tom, stop being petty.
-
Sorry to you and others, I tend to get a little mean on this topic. Abortion just really strikes a nerve with me, more so than other things.
-
Sorry to you and others, I tend to get a little mean on this topic. Abortion just really strikes a nerve with me, more so than other things.
Did your parents abort the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) baby
-
Here's a guide to the planned parenthood videos released so far, complete with easy links to pertinent portions of the videos.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/ (http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/)
These ghouls get $500mil of our money. Per year. They really have a passion for their work.
-
Here's a guide to the planned parenthood videos released so far, complete with easy links to pertinent portions of the videos.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/ (http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/)
These ghouls get $500mil of our money. Per year. They really have a passion for their work.
The DOD gets 100X that and commits many more atrocities, I'd rather focus on defunding them first
-
Here's a guide to the planned parenthood videos released so far, complete with easy links to pertinent portions of the videos.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/ (http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/29/a-quick-and-easy-guide-to-the-planned-parenthood-videos/)
These ghouls get $500mil of our money. Per year. They really have a passion for their work.
THAT'S all you've been blabbering about? *Yawn*
-
lol
-
I though Obamacare gave women, including poor women, hamburger coverage. Wild eyed libbers want state controlled abortion clinics that local yokles can't legislate to close.
-
I though Obamacare gave women, including poor women, hamburger coverage. Wild eyed libbers want state controlled abortion clinics that local yokles can't legislate to close.
Would take
-
good grief these hearings
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/29/_if_a_child_survives_an_abortion_should_it_be_given_nourishment_and_medical.html
-
just as a thought experiment, what stereotypical american freedoms would you be willing to give up in exchange for a complete end to abortion?
-
would you give up your second amendment in exchange for a complete end to abortion?
-
would you allow illegal immigrants to vote in exchange for a complete end to abortion?
-
would you allow a ban on capital punishment in exchange for a ban on abortion?
-
would you give Obama a THIRD term in exchange for a permanent end to abortion in america?
-
would you provide universal fully subsidized birth control in exchange for a permanent ban on abortion?
-
These are interesting proposals, puni.
-
would you accept a ban on soft drinks larger than 20 fl oz in exchange for an end to abortion?
-
How about crapping in a coffee can for 2 months.
-
These are interesting proposals, puni.
sometimes i just like to think about whether people think that the life of an unborn baby is worth more than 24 oz of soda in your route 44 or not.
-
How about crapping in a coffee can for 2 months.
the same can? can you empty it? can you throw it away and use a new can each time?
-
These are great. I think my answer is yes to all of them. Maybe except the illegals voting - I need clarification on that one. Are you saying the ban on abortion would be permanent and could never be reversed? I'd be concerned about illegals voting enough liberals into office to reverse the ban (they'd probably allow infanticide, too, up to a certain age).
-
I knew the illegals one would be the one to give him pause :D
-
Hey puni! Yes to all. I value human life above all of those things! (That soda one kind of had me in a bit of a prickly doo for a bit!)
I struggle with the contraceptive topic, but I'm just gonna wrestle that one myself and not discuss it here. Better to let you know that I might be stupid than to type a bunch of words and prove it!
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Let's really ratchet this up puni
Would you live under global communist sharia law to ban all abortion. Also in this scenario illegal abortions are magically gone as well
-
These are great. I think my answer is yes to all of them. Maybe except the illegals voting - I need clarification on that one. Are you saying the ban on abortion would be permanent and could never be reversed? I'd be concerned about illegals voting enough liberals into office to reverse the ban (they'd probably allow infanticide, too, up to a certain age).
Yup that's what I'm saying!
-
Hey puni! Yes to all. I value human life above all of those things! (That soda one kind of had me in a bit of a prickly doo for a bit!)
I struggle with the contraceptive topic, but I'm just gonna wrestle that one myself and not discuss it here. Better to let you know that I might be stupid than to type a bunch of words and prove it!
Gonna win 'em all!
This just makes me think you're a fsd "condoms are genocide" person, so maybe you'd rather just explain your conflict
-
Let's really ratchet this up puni
Would you live under global communist sharia law to ban all abortion. Also in this scenario illegal abortions are magically gone as well
Good one. In my scenarios "end" means total magical and "ban" means legal political.
-
Hey puni! Yes to all. I value human life above all of those things! (That soda one kind of had me in a bit of a prickly doo for a bit!)
I struggle with the contraceptive topic, but I'm just gonna wrestle that one myself and not discuss it here. Better to let you know that I might be stupid than to type a bunch of words and prove it!
Gonna win 'em all!
This just makes me think you're a fsd "condoms are genocide" person, so maybe you'd rather just explain your conflict
Better to let you know that I might be stupid than to type a bunch of words and prove it!
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Slobber, do you think it is murder when people jizz in a sock?
-
No, but that is gross!
Gonna win 'em all!
-
katdaddy, work order #52210 "increase usage of word 'jizz'" has been closed by: Mrs. Gooch
-
I'd want illegal immigrants absolutely banned from voting, legally and effectively, before we all lose our rights to abortions.
-
katdaddy, work order #52210 "increase usage of word 'jizz'" has been closed by: Mrs. Gooch
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
one of the reasons i didn't want to post the dream is because it had excessive usage of the word "jizz"
-
Would you elect a Muslim President in exchange for a ban on abortion? (I mean another one ha Ha ha ha)
-
Was Mrs Gooch the first poster to even use the J word?
-
Was Mrs Gooch the first poster to even use the J word?
Wacky used to have it in his sig. Maybe he still does.
-
What is jizz?
-
baby batter
-
When a man and his sock love each other very much...
-
Ohhhhhh haha.
-
Was Mrs Gooch the first poster to even use the J word?
It was actually Mr. Gooch. :lol:
If aTm pulls this off I will fill a jizz jar by myself tonight in their honor.
-
dear god, :ohno:
Should this be on the premium board? mods?
Also, not trying be a buzz kill here, I would jizz all over the place if true.
-
Search!
-
Search!
very odd. your gooch quote doesn't even come up on my search
-
MSN news is reporting that leaders in the Secret Service sent emails recommending the release of damaging personal information about Congressman Chavetts (?) Who is the chairman of the committee that grilled THEE Ms Hamburger recently. Apparently he applied to be in the secret service in the past, and have juicy damaging evidence. I don't care if he crapped on the Statue of Liberty, these arrogant bastards in power have no shame morals, or brains. This would be criminal. This explains the depth of their blind depravity and why they are willing to shut down all other vital federal services to fund these human butchers with federal funds.
-
Search!
very odd. your gooch quote doesn't even come up on my search
I think I sorted by "most recent" and I just assumed the oldest one on that list was the oldest but it only brought up 30 results.
-
Rick Santorum sums it up perfectly why Planned Parenthood can get out.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-whoopi-tries-taking-a-stand-for-planned-parenthood-then-a-republican-stops-her-right-in-her-tracks/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=WesternJournalism&utm_content=2015-10-01
-
they are willing to shut down all other vital federal services to fund these human butchers with federal funds.
i must have been confused as to who was threatening the shut down
-
republicans are very insistent about debate framing.
-
Westernjournalism.com
-
Westernjournalism.com
those headlines are a delight.
-
i feel like yard dog is really holding back on us in the facebook thread, based on the amazing links he gives everywhere else
-
Westernjournalism.com
those headlines are a delight.
i came this close from clicking on Things Just Went Very Wrong For Radical Feminist Lena Dunham
-
Westernjournalism.com
those headlines are a delight.
i came this close from clicking on Things Just Went Very Wrong For Radical Feminist Lena Dunham
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?s=lena+dunham
The Fallon-ization Of Freaky-Deaky Dunham And Lyin’ Williams
:D
-
republicans are very insistent about debate framing.
So are liberals, and in this case, the liberals clearly won. Three examples:
1. They have successfully pinned the blame for any "shutdown" squarely on the Republican Congress, contrary to all reason. If the Congress passed a bill completely funding the government except for $500 million to PP, and Obama vetoed that bill because he insists on funding PP, who is really more responsible for the "shutdown"? Obama, right? The GOP passed a bill funding all other areas of government, but Obama vetoed all that unrelated funding because he didn't get $500 million for the baby butchers. The GOP is so terrified of being blamed that they didn't even try it.
2. They have successfully introduced "shutdown" into the political vernacular - even amongst the GOP! - when, in fact, a "shutdown" doesn't actually shut down much of anything at all.
3. They have also successfully pushed the "clean bill" term for full funding - again, even the GOP now uses the term. Who doesn't like to be clean? A bill that funds everything except PP isn't "clean."
Granted, liberals have been aided tremendously by their accomplices in the MSM, but you still have to admire their messaging wizardry. George Orwell would be proud.
-
republicans are very insistent about debate framing.
So are liberals, and in this case, the liberals clearly won. Three examples:
1. They have successfully pinned the blame for any "shutdown" squarely on the Republican Congress, contrary to all reason. If the Congress passed a bill completely funding the government except for $500 million to PP, and Obama vetoed that bill because he insists on funding PP, who is really more responsible for the "shutdown"? Obama, right? The GOP passed a bill funding all other areas of government, but Obama vetoed all that unrelated funding because he didn't get $500 million for the baby butchers. The GOP is so terrified of being blamed that they didn't even try it.
2. They have successfully introduced "shutdown" into the political vernacular - even amongst the GOP! - when, in fact, a "shutdown" doesn't actually shut down much of anything at all.
3. They have also successfully pushed the "clean bill" term for full funding - again, even the GOP now uses the term. Who doesn't like to be clean? A bill that funds everything except PP isn't "clean."
Granted, liberals have been aided tremendously by their accomplices in the MSM, but you still have to admire their messaging wizardry. George Orwell would be proud.
1. Ted Cruz has much more to do with this perception than any debate framing the democrats have done. He threatens to shut the government down constantly on a national stage.
2. A shutdown closes down pretty much every government office and adds long delays to anyone waiting on a permit, waiver, etc. to try to get a project started.
-
Weren't you the guy bitching that so much was shutdown during the last shutdown (that you fully supported) and now you say they don't even shut anything down?
:lol:
-
I'd like to know how accurate the numbers are the libs throw around about money lost during shutdowns. The amount sounds ludicrous, so I would have to guess they are including profits lost if workers went out to eat at a fine dining establishments or something.
-
MSM conspiracy!! :runaway:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/20/ideas-for-reporters-struggling-to-cover-planned-parenthood/
Using Nexis, I looked at a few media outlets to see how their coverage of the Confederate flag compared to the Planned Parenthood video. For my quick searches, I put in “Confederate” and “flag,” and “Planned Parenthood” and “video,” with the appropriate dates. My search of the media companies’ web sites showed higher counts for one or the other entry than what showed up in Nexis, for what it’s worth. And for CNN, I modified “video” with “undercover.” What I found was most interesting, and goes a long way to show how the media can drum up interest in a story or work to suppress a story:
CNN has had 493 mentions of the Confederate flag since June 17 (only 188 of these even mention alleged church shooter Dylann Roof), and managed 167 in the first six days. In the first six days of the Planned Parenthood scandal, they managed 7 mentions, less than 5 percent what you’d expect if you considered those stories only of equal importance.
The Washington Post mentioned the Confederate flag 624 times in the last month (only 135 of these mention Roof), and 126 times in the first six days. The Washington Post has 28 stories mentioning the Planned Parenthood video in the first six days, just over 22 percent of what you’d expect if you considered the harvesting of organs from aborted babies to be merely as important as the Confederate flag topic.
The New York Times has run stories and essays on the Confederate flag 149 times since June 17 (and only 39 of those mention Roof), 41 of those in the first six days. That compares to three stories on Planned Parenthood during the same window, just 7 percent of what you’d expect if the New York Times considered those stories merely of equal importance.
Finally, Nexis shows 70 mentions of the Confederate flag on Politico.com in the last month (only 18 mention Roof), 29 of those in the first six days of the story. For the Planned Parenthood video, it shows 4 stories.
-
So are liberals, and in this case, the liberals clearly won. Three examples:
1. They have successfully pinned the blame for any "shutdown" squarely on the Republican Congress, contrary to all reason. If the Congress passed a bill completely funding the government except for $500 million to PP, and Obama vetoed that bill because he insists on funding PP, who is really more responsible for the "shutdown"? Obama, right? The GOP passed a bill funding all other areas of government, but Obama vetoed all that unrelated funding because he didn't get $500 million for the baby butchers. The GOP is so terrified of being blamed that they didn't even try it.
2. They have successfully introduced "shutdown" into the political vernacular - even amongst the GOP! - when, in fact, a "shutdown" doesn't actually shut down much of anything at all.
3. They have also successfully pushed the "clean bill" term for full funding - again, even the GOP now uses the term. Who doesn't like to be clean? A bill that funds everything except PP isn't "clean."
Granted, liberals have been aided tremendously by their accomplices in the MSM, but you still have to admire their messaging wizardry. George Orwell would be proud.
it's funny because you believe what you wrote.
-
I'd like to know how accurate the numbers are the libs throw around about money lost during shutdowns. The amount sounds ludicrous, so I would have to guess they are including profits lost if workers went out to eat at a fine dining establishments or something.
let us know the results of your investigation, yardsie.
-
Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research? If so, why?
-
Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research? If so, why?
I oppose selling organs for profit, and I oppose altering abortion techniques so as to more effectively harvest organs.
-
So are liberals, and in this case, the liberals clearly won. Three examples:
1. They have successfully pinned the blame for any "shutdown" squarely on the Republican Congress, contrary to all reason. If the Congress passed a bill completely funding the government except for $500 million to PP, and Obama vetoed that bill because he insists on funding PP, who is really more responsible for the "shutdown"? Obama, right? The GOP passed a bill funding all other areas of government, but Obama vetoed all that unrelated funding because he didn't get $500 million for the baby butchers. The GOP is so terrified of being blamed that they didn't even try it.
2. They have successfully introduced "shutdown" into the political vernacular - even amongst the GOP! - when, in fact, a "shutdown" doesn't actually shut down much of anything at all.
3. They have also successfully pushed the "clean bill" term for full funding - again, even the GOP now uses the term. Who doesn't like to be clean? A bill that funds everything except PP isn't "clean."
Granted, liberals have been aided tremendously by their accomplices in the MSM, but you still have to admire their messaging wizardry. George Orwell would be proud.
it's funny because you believe what you wrote.
this is too much right here
-
Weren't you the guy bitching that so much was shutdown during the last shutdown (that you fully supported) and now you say they don't even shut anything down?
:lol:
I'm pretty sure you're thinking of someone else, lib7. My only complaint was that Obama was actually spending greater resources "shutting down" things like open air monuments and scenic viewpoints.
-
Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research? If so, why?
I think it is more about profiting off of the baby parts, not just the selling. The worry is that if a corporation made profit off of this practice, they would abuse their influence in an attempt to garner more business. So you have a clinic that wants to help women "make the right choice" pushing for abortion to help their bottom line.
This also leads to selling human tissue in general. If it's ok to sell non-living baby parts, why not sell non-living adult parts? If this happens you would see organ donation turn into organ profiteering. Dying and need a heart transplant? You just owe Amazon Prime's body part division $10,000,000. Oh you are poor? Tough luck.
-
Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research? If so, why?
I think it is more about profiting off of the baby parts, not just the selling. The worry is that if a corporation made profit off of this practice, they would abuse their influence in an attempt to garner more business. So you have a clinic that wants to help women "make the right choice" pushing for abortion to help their bottom line.
This also leads to selling human tissue in general. If it's ok to sell non-living baby parts, why not sell non-living adult parts? If this happens you would see organ donation turn into organ profiteering. Dying and need a heart transplant? You just owe Amazon Prime's body part division $10,000,000. Oh you are poor? Tough luck.
free market?
-
the "for profit" part seems to be what ksuw disapproves of the most. has there been any evidence of this? oh and covering the S&H doesn't count as profit
-
So are liberals, and in this case, the liberals clearly won. Three examples:
1. They have successfully pinned the blame for any "shutdown" squarely on the Republican Congress, contrary to all reason. If the Congress passed a bill completely funding the government except for $500 million to PP, and Obama vetoed that bill because he insists on funding PP, who is really more responsible for the "shutdown"? Obama, right? The GOP passed a bill funding all other areas of government, but Obama vetoed all that unrelated funding because he didn't get $500 million for the baby butchers. The GOP is so terrified of being blamed that they didn't even try it.
2. They have successfully introduced "shutdown" into the political vernacular - even amongst the GOP! - when, in fact, a "shutdown" doesn't actually shut down much of anything at all.
3. They have also successfully pushed the "clean bill" term for full funding - again, even the GOP now uses the term. Who doesn't like to be clean? A bill that funds everything except PP isn't "clean."
Granted, liberals have been aided tremendously by their accomplices in the MSM, but you still have to admire their messaging wizardry. George Orwell would be proud.
it's funny because you believe what you wrote.
this is too much right here
I'd be curious to know why you disagree, but let's start a new thread. http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36135.0 (http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36135.0)
-
Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research? If so, why?
I think it is more about profiting off of the baby parts, not just the selling. The worry is that if a corporation made profit off of this practice, they would abuse their influence in an attempt to garner more business. So you have a clinic that wants to help women "make the right choice" pushing for abortion to help their bottom line.
This also leads to selling human tissue in general. If it's ok to sell non-living baby parts, why not sell non-living adult parts? If this happens you would see organ donation turn into organ profiteering. Dying and need a heart transplant? You just owe Amazon Prime's body part division $10,000,000. Oh you are poor? Tough luck.
free market?
slippery slope.
-
Americans against profit. Sounds like we need socialized medicine and medical research.
-
Americans against profit. Sounds like we need socialized medicine and medical research.
the govt is the only one we can trust with tissue and organ transfers.
-
Americans against profit. Sounds like we need socialized medicine and medical research.
the govt is the only one we can trust with tissue and organ transfers.
That should be a part of being a citizen. Signing on the dotted line that our bodies belong to the Fed and in death will belong to the People. No more of this "opt in if you want" bs.
-
With you on the profit thing, but you lose me on the second thing. What difference does the technique make as long as it's medically safe for the aborter
-
That should be a part of being a citizen. Signing on the dotted line that our bodies belong to the Fed and in death will belong to the People. No more of this "opt in if you want" bs.
what is good for the whole is good for the individual.
-
Americans against profit. Sounds like we need socialized medicine and medical research.
the govt is the only one we can trust with tissue and organ transfers.
That should be a part of being a citizen. Signing on the dotted line that our bodies belong to the Fed and in death will belong to the People. No more of this "opt in if you want" bs.
No big on religious rights I see
-
the "for profit" part seems to be what ksuw disapproves of the most. has there been any evidence of this? oh and covering the S&H doesn't count as profit
MoCat, have you ever sold something on ebay, or listened to an infomercial? Call in the next 5 minutes and we'll double you order of baby heads for FREE* Just pay separate shipping and handling. It's all a matter of semantics. Fees for shipping, handling, processing, etc. are a great way to make money, or as one Planned Parenthood exec said, "do a little better than break even."
Another comment was even more telling:
So Heather, a Novogenix person would come to the site, and our staff would sign the patients up, and get consent. Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal, they have been paying by the case, and there was some discussion about do we, in a different way, or I don’t know what you’re used to doing, how you’re used to doing compensation.
Planned Parenthood didn't have to do anything. You know, except for palm the cash.
In fact, this is routinely what Planned Parenthood does - performing abortions in one room while the third-party tissue harvesters are in the very next room sifting through the remains. And yet, Planned Parenthood still gets their cut - I guess $500 million a year just isn't enough.
-
what if the federal govt. kicked in another 500 billion, but then pp agreed not to accept any compensation for making tissue available to researchers? would that make everyone happy?
-
the "for profit" part seems to be what ksuw disapproves of the most. has there been any evidence of this? oh and covering the S&H doesn't count as profit
MoCat, have you ever sold something on ebay, or listened to an infomercial? Call in the next 5 minutes and we'll double you order of baby heads for FREE* Just pay separate shipping and handling. It's all a matter of semantics. Fees for shipping, handling, processing, etc. are a great way to make money, or as one Planned Parenthood exec said, "do a little better than break even."
Another comment was even more telling:
So Heather, a Novogenix person would come to the site, and our staff would sign the patients up, and get consent. Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal, they have been paying by the case, and there was some discussion about do we, in a different way, or I don’t know what you’re used to doing, how you’re used to doing compensation.
Planned Parenthood didn't have to do anything. You know, except for palm the cash.
In fact, this is routinely what Planned Parenthood does - performing abortions in one room while the third-party tissue harvesters are in the very next room sifting through the remains. And yet, Planned Parenthood still gets their cut - I guess $500 million a year just isn't enough.
so it is just the S&H then? i mean you made it sound like they were charging an arm and a leg for arms and legs
-
Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research? If so, why?
According to my boss, they harvested a bunch of stem cells or whatever about 35 years ago and they have been growing (multiplying) these cells in labs since then, so there should be no need to harvest more fetal tissue.
-
Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research? If so, why?
According to my boss, they harvested a bunch of stem cells or whatever about 35 years ago and they have been growing (multiplying) these cells in labs since then, so there should be no need to harvest more fetal tissue.
What if lab grown isn't as good?
-
Like why do people prefer tossing this ex-fetus meat in an incinerator? It just seems strange to me
-
the "for profit" part seems to be what ksuw disapproves of the most. has there been any evidence of this? oh and covering the S&H doesn't count as profit
MoCat, have you ever sold something on ebay, or listened to an infomercial? Call in the next 5 minutes and we'll double you order of baby heads for FREE* Just pay separate shipping and handling. It's all a matter of semantics. Fees for shipping, handling, processing, etc. are a great way to make money, or as one Planned Parenthood exec said, "do a little better than break even."
Another comment was even more telling:
So Heather, a Novogenix person would come to the site, and our staff would sign the patients up, and get consent. Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required, so logistically it was very easy for us, we didn’t have to do anything. There was compensation for this, and there was discussion if that was legal, they have been paying by the case, and there was some discussion about do we, in a different way, or I don’t know what you’re used to doing, how you’re used to doing compensation.
Planned Parenthood didn't have to do anything. You know, except for palm the cash.
In fact, this is routinely what Planned Parenthood does - performing abortions in one room while the third-party tissue harvesters are in the very next room sifting through the remains. And yet, Planned Parenthood still gets their cut - I guess $500 million a year just isn't enough.
so it is just the S&H then? i mean you made it sound like they were charging an arm and a leg for arms and legs
Tell me mocat, what's the shipping and handling involved in transporting a dead baby from one room to another? Planned Parenthood would tell you that'll be $50-$100. It's not about the money, after all. I mean, we like to a little better break even, but it's totally not about the money.
-
Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research? If so, why?
According to my boss, they harvested a bunch of stem cells or whatever about 35 years ago and they have been growing (multiplying) these cells in labs since then, so there should be no need to harvest more fetal tissue.
If that were true, nobody would be buying the organs.
-
Tell me mocat, what's the shipping and handling involved in transporting a dead baby from one room to another?
overhead.
-
$50-100 seems like entirely reasonable S&H charges for fetal tissue.
Is this whole thing really about PP getting $50-100 each time they ship fetal tissue? gee whiz
-
why would the republicans make such huge deal when they cant win it?
-
why would the republicans make such huge deal when they cant win it?
They love the crap out of losing, goes with the whole persecution complex thing
-
$50-100 seems like entirely reasonable S&H charges for fetal tissue.
Is this whole thing really about PP getting $50-100 each time they ship fetal tissue? gee whiz
yes, and yes.
-
is it correct to say there would be no controversy here if the fetal parts where thrown in the trash or flushed down the toilet instead of being [sold] for medical research?
-
is it correct to say there would be no controversy here if the fetal parts where thrown in the trash or flushed down the toilet instead of being [sold] for medical research?
There's still the little problem of giving $500mil on tax dollars per year to an abortion provider...
-
$50-100 seems like entirely reasonable S&H charges for fetal tissue.
Is this whole thing really about PP getting $50-100 each time they ship fetal tissue? gee whiz
You mean "shipping" from one room to the next?
-
is it correct to say there would be no controversy here if the fetal parts where thrown in the trash or flushed down the toilet instead of being [sold] for medical research?
There's still the little problem of giving $500mil on tax dollars per year to an abortion provider...
we can debate or not whether that money is used on abortions forever, but my question is PP receiving federal $ a new thing, or already a thing?
-
$50-100 seems like entirely reasonable S&H charges for fetal tissue.
Is this whole thing really about PP getting $50-100 each time they ship fetal tissue? gee whiz
You mean "shipping" from one room to the next?
what the eff does H stand for?
-
is it correct to say there would be no controversy here if the fetal parts where thrown in the trash or flushed down the toilet instead of being [sold] for medical research?
There's still the little problem of giving $500mil on tax dollars per year to an abortion provider...
but that was true before {THE TAPES}.
-
$50-100 seems like entirely reasonable S&H charges for fetal tissue.
Is this whole thing really about PP getting $50-100 each time they ship fetal tissue? gee whiz
You mean "shipping" from one room to the next?
what the eff does H stand for?
^ the ultimate question for all fans of Tool
-
I just wanna go back to this real quick
Rick Santorum sums it up perfectly
-
$50-100 seems like entirely reasonable S&H charges for fetal tissue.
Is this whole thing really about PP getting $50-100 each time they ship fetal tissue? gee whiz
You mean "shipping" from one room to the next?
what the eff does H stand for?
:lol:
-
$50-100 seems like entirely reasonable S&H charges for fetal tissue.
Is this whole thing really about PP getting $50-100 each time they ship fetal tissue? gee whiz
You mean "shipping" from one room to the next?
what the eff does H stand for?
:lol:
that was a just for fun (JFF) question.
is it correct to say there would be no controversy here if the fetal parts where thrown in the trash or flushed down the toilet instead of being [sold] for medical research?
There's still the little problem of giving $500mil on tax dollars per year to an abortion provider...
we can debate or not whether that money is used on abortions forever, but my question is PP receiving federal $ a new thing, or already a thing?
this was a for real question
-
what the eff does H stand for?
^ the ultimate question for all fans of Tool
:thumbs:
-
Would you be willing to doom your own eternal soul to hell in exchange for defending the lives of the unborn?
-
is it correct to say there would be no controversy here if the fetal parts where thrown in the trash or flushed down the toilet instead of being [sold] for medical research?
There's still the little problem of giving $500mil on tax dollars per year to an abortion provider...
is PP receiving federal $ a new thing, or already a thing?
ksuw refuses to answer this one
-
is it correct to say there would be no controversy here if the fetal parts where thrown in the trash or flushed down the toilet instead of being [sold] for medical research?
There's still the little problem of giving $500mil on tax dollars per year to an abortion provider...
is PP receiving federal $ a new thing, or already a thing?
ksuw refuses to answer this one
Are you surprised?
-
is it correct to say there would be no controversy here if the fetal parts where thrown in the trash or flushed down the toilet instead of being [sold] for medical research?
There's still the little problem of giving $500mil on tax dollars per year to an abortion provider...
is PP receiving federal $ a new thing, or already a thing?
ksuw refuses to answer this one
Are you surprised?
I thought that was a rhetorical question. Already a thing.
-
so if things stay the same as they already are, pubs want a shutdown, got it. thanks.
-
Would you be willing to doom your own eternal soul to hell in exchange for defending the lives of the unborn?
probably not. maybe that makes me selfish
-
Would you be willing to doom your own eternal soul to hell in exchange for defending the lives of the unborn?
I am sorry, but I will not answer this one.
But I have one for you. Would you be willing to doom your own soul to eternal hell in exchange for defending anything that you believe in?
Gonna win 'em all!
-
I'd doom my eternal soul for a snickers bar. Because an eternal soul is not real, so it has no value to me, a snickers bar does
-
I'd doom my eternal soul for a snickers bar. Because an eternal soul is not real, so it has no value to me, a snickers bar does
this helps me understand your aversion to dream-related movies
-
I'd doom my eternal soul for a snickers bar. Because an eternal soul is not real, so it has no value to me, a snickers bar does
so I am supposed to think hypothetically, but you can't?
Gonna win 'em all!
-
I also don't like drug scenes
-
Would you be willing to doom your own eternal soul to hell in exchange for defending the lives of the unborn?
I am sorry, but I will not answer this one.
But I have one for you. Would you be willing to doom your own soul to eternal hell in exchange for defending anything that you believe in?
Gonna win 'em all!
I don't believe in either concept, so I really can't answer that in fairness.
-
I'd doom my eternal soul for a snickers bar. Because an eternal soul is not real, so it has no value to me, a snickers bar does
so I am supposed to think hypothetically, but you can't?
Gonna win 'em all!
I think it is fair, considering they are concepts that are true to you.
-
I'd doom my eternal soul for a snickers bar. Because an eternal soul is not real, so it has no value to me, a snickers bar does
so I am supposed to think hypothetically, but you can't?
Gonna win 'em all!
The question is only interesting to ask someone who values an eternal soul. I can't pretend to know how valuable that is to someone. It's fairly easy to knoknow how much you value your political views though
-
I also don't like drug scenes
this is a pretty giant umbrella
-
I also don't like drug scenes
this is a pretty giant umbrella
Like when they try to show what a character is experiencing on drugs. Usually blurry and fast moving camera and distorted voices
-
I'd doom my eternal soul for a snickers bar. Because an eternal soul is not real, so it has no value to me, a snickers bar does
so I am supposed to think hypothetically, but you can't?
Gonna win 'em all!
The question is only interesting to ask someone who values an eternal soul. I can't pretend to know how valuable that is to someone. It's fairly easy to knoknow how much you value your political views though
My political views? The only thing that I have discussed is my personal beliefs, some of which can be equated to a political party, but that doesn't mean they are. Man, you seem to be really on edge lately. I am not attacking you in any thread, but it seems that you are trying to take a lot of little jabs at me and what I believe. Sorry if I am offending you. I typically assume that gE regulars get my sarcasm in certain threads and get my sincerity in others, and me the same in return. If I am misreading you (on a message board! Ha!), then I am sorry.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
I was answering your question in an honest manner. Unless you're an idiot like yard dog or an extremist like ksuw, I enjoy civil discussions. I don't think you're either of those, so whatever jabs you feel are not being thrown.
I don't like that you won't explain your views though, because I enjoy hearing different points of view. I've mentioned it about mir before, that he often brings a unique pov (in the context of this message board) and I like having another way of looking at things because I might be missing something.
Also political views are personal beliefs, not sure why you are bringing parties into this. If you've read the pit much you would know I'm extremely anti-party. People clamor for a third party, I want zero parties. They are only fund raising rackets
-
I also don't like drug scenes
this is a pretty giant umbrella
Like when they try to show what a character is experiencing on drugs. Usually blurry and fast moving camera and distorted voices
oh yeah i hate that too. i thought you meant any scene where a character is seen doing drugs.
-
hellPAK?
-
I gave up on trying to read the last 200 plus comments.
My thoughts (if you give a crap):
In my case, I can tell you that I felt like there was another human the second my wife told me she thought she was pregnant. Yes, I was sad the times she told me that she wasn't. Or the time she miscarried. Was I distraught? No. A strong relationship with the baby and/or not fully knowing whether or not she was pregnant prevented me from being overly distraught. I was sad.
For those of you saying "what harm is it doing me?" Or "let people do what they want and then let God decide", my response is "whatever you do to the least, you do to me".
I am pro-life. I believe in God. I know some of you are 100% different than me in those two points, but it is part of who I am.
Go Royals!
(FTR, I have not watched the videos.)
Gonna win 'em all!
Here are my beliefs. It is pretty simple. Others have different beliefs, and I get that. I am not out evangelizing, but if somebody wants to talk seriously about God and something they are struggling with, I am certainly willing to do that. That, for me, would be a pretty serious and personal conversation. I probably wouldn't have that on a message board.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
If you believe in a god that like has a scale that adds up all the good and bad things you did to decide if you get into heaven or hell, seems like damning your soul to hell for eternity to save what this God thought were babies babies would tip the scale back to the going to heaven side. So in a way, it may be a selfish act either way.
-
I was answering your question in an honest manner. Unless you're an idiot like yard dog or an extremist like ksuw, I enjoy civil discussions. I don't think you're either of those, so whatever jabs you feel are not being thrown.
I don't like that you won't explain your views though, because I enjoy hearing different points of view. I've mentioned it about mir before, that he often brings a unique pov (in the context of this message board) and I like having another way of looking at things because I might be missing something.
Also political views are personal beliefs, not sure why you are bringing parties into this. If you've read the pit much you would know I'm extremely anti-party. People clamor for a third party, I want zero parties. They are only fund raising rackets
My personal beliefs about God and abortion are not political. That is what I was attempting to convey.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
If you believe in a god that like has a scale that adds up all the good and bad things you did to decide if you get into heaven or hell, seems like damning your soul to hell for eternity to save what this God thought were babies babies would tip the scale back to the going to heaven side. So in a way, it may be a selfish act either way.
Kind of like when Huckabee volunteered to go to jail for Kim Davis. He knew the judge wouldn't really put him in jail, just like he knows God wouldn't really send him to hell.
-
If you believe in a god that like has a scale that adds up all the good and bad things you did to decide if you get into heaven or hell, seems like damning your soul to hell for eternity to save what this God thought were babies babies would tip the scale back to the going to heaven side. So in a way, it may be a selfish act either way.
The Christian belief is that you do not get to heaven through good works alone. So the act of damning your soul to hell would do just that. God isn't one to really be ok with ends justifying means. That doesn't mean that His followers haven't messed that up along the way.
-
If you believe in a god that like has a scale that adds up all the good and bad things you did to decide if you get into heaven or hell, seems like damning your soul to hell for eternity to save what this God thought were babies babies would tip the scale back to the going to heaven side. So in a way, it may be a selfish act either way.
Kind of like when Huckabee volunteered to go to jail for Kim Davis. He knew the judge wouldn't really put him in jail, just like he knows God wouldn't really send him to hell.
Exactly.
-
I was answering your question in an honest manner. Unless you're an idiot like yard dog or an extremist like ksuw, I enjoy civil discussions. I don't think you're either of those, so whatever jabs you feel are not being thrown.
I don't like that you won't explain your views though, because I enjoy hearing different points of view. I've mentioned it about mir before, that he often brings a unique pov (in the context of this message board) and I like having another way of looking at things because I might be missing something.
Also political views are personal beliefs, not sure why you are bringing parties into this. If you've read the pit much you would know I'm extremely anti-party. People clamor for a third party, I want zero parties. They are only fund raising rackets
My personal beliefs about God and abortion are not political. That is what I was attempting to convey.
Gonna win 'em all!
What does this mean though? You state you're pro-life, but you aren't into making it illegal? Why chime in on a political abortion thread if you don't want to share your political opinions on abortion?
Ftr, I've never impregnated anyone, but I imagine I would react similarly to you. You (or me) wanting a kid and being happy or sad about the development or miscarriage of that potential child has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand
Your pit posts are very confusing to me.
-
I was answering your question in an honest manner. Unless you're an idiot like yard dog or an extremist like ksuw, I enjoy civil discussions. I don't think you're either of those, so whatever jabs you feel are not being thrown.
I don't like that you won't explain your views though, because I enjoy hearing different points of view. I've mentioned it about mir before, that he often brings a unique pov (in the context of this message board) and I like having another way of looking at things because I might be missing something.
Also political views are personal beliefs, not sure why you are bringing parties into this. If you've read the pit much you would know I'm extremely anti-party. People clamor for a third party, I want zero parties. They are only fund raising rackets
My personal beliefs about God and abortion are not political. That is what I was attempting to convey.
Gonna win 'em all!
What does this mean though? You state you're pro-life, but you aren't into making it illegal? Why chime in on a political abortion thread if you don't want to share your political opinions on abortion?
Ftr, I've never impregnated anyone, but I imagine I would react similarly to you. You (or me) wanting a kid and being happy or sad about the development or miscarriage of that potential child has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand
Your pit posts are very confusing to me.
When I posted that, the topic within the thread was "when does life begin".
That was when I decided to chime in. I struggle with making a law against abortion. I'd rather live in a society that values human life more than that. BUT WAIT!!! Why do we need laws against anything? Wouldn't we all rather live in a society without laws but everyone just does the right thing? Well, welcome to my world! It is a very conflicting place!
Gonna win 'em all!
-
We are in the last days.
-
Regarding the argument that the moment of birth is an arbitrary distinction as it pertains to the endowment of rights, proponents of that argument would need to resolve the discrepancy between that stance and the Constitution. Is it fair to only espouse the Constitution when it fits your agenda? The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly felt that birth was the earliest point at which a person should be afforded the rights and protections of a citizen. They felt it necessary to begin the first section of what would become the most important part of the Constitution with the assertion that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, before the moment of birth, I don't see how anyone can assert that the rights of the mother are equal or subordinate to the rights of the unborn.
"the 14th amendment isn't part of the original constitution" -ksuw (probably)
No i think he goes with the "3/5th" clause of the original constitution to show the constitution isnt always right. But we shall see!!!!
:ROFL:
Collective dumbassery is the best dumbassery
-
Does anyone actually oppose selling non-living body parts (fetuses, stillborn babies, old people, whatever) for medical research? If so, why?
Selling body parts seems very macabre, frankenstein-y, china-y, slippery slope bad policy. Would help remediate the bum problem, however.
-
Osu week :ksu:
-
Osu week :ksu:
the best
-
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/5q4ri0/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-not-so-pro-life-after-all
-
I bet the Hamburger Meat Mavens are crapping their gruns tonight. Congress is going to form a special committee that has subpoena powers to get information about Planned Hamburger's kill floor and meat market practices. Bad day for the fetus is just tissue camp. Does an unborn baby have a soul? Doctors say developing babies are already learning in uterine, so how can a blob of tissue learn?
-
I bet the Hamburger Meat Mavens are crapping their gruns tonight. Congress is going to form a special committee that has subpoena powers to get information about Planned Hamburger's kill floor and meat market practices. Bad day for the fetus is just tissue camp. Does an unborn baby have a soul? Doctors say developing babies are already learning in uterine, so how can a blob of tissue learn?
The soul gets injected as it passes through the birth canal.
-
the soul comes from mcdonalds french fries the first moment a tyke tastes mcdonalds
you can honestly see it happen
-
From MSN news. A judge ruled that the state should not have guardianship over an Amish teen girl who the state was forcing to have chemotherapy. The parents went into hiding and the kid is now as healthy as a plow horse. My question is why does society think it has any right to invade in a child's well being when they abdicate this right when the child is at its most vulnerable stage of existence?
-
Sounds like child abuse
-
the soul comes from mcdonalds french fries the first moment a tyke tastes mcdonalds
you can honestly see it happen
This was cute - it really was. I would have substituted ice cream.
-
From MSN news. A judge ruled that the state should not have guardianship over an Amish teen girl who the state was forcing to have chemotherapy. The parents went into hiding and the kid is now as healthy as a plow horse. My question is why does society think it has any right to invade in a child's well being when they abdicate this right when the child is at its most vulnerable stage of existence?
Good point. But in serious answer to question, many states have fetal protection laws that protect the unborn from (primarily drug and alcohol) abuse. As they should.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F10%2F26%2Fed2f32a8bfd9d39229e5b753e75895d9.jpg&hash=8d2ef10d7a566a0aed2c5367e319efd4768afa0f)
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/27/planned-parenthood-doctor-appears-to-admit-to-partial-birth-abortions/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/27/planned-parenthood-doctor-appears-to-admit-to-partial-birth-abortions/)
-
"appears"
-
A Planned Parenthood doctor laughs as she says she continues to “strive” to deliver an aborted baby with an intact skull and appears to admit participating in partial-birth abortions in the latest undercover video released Tuesday targeting Planned Parenthood.
A woman identified as Dr. Amna Dermish of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas is the focus of the Center for Medical Progress’ 11th video, which is purported to have been filmed during a medical conference in October 2014.
“My aim is usually to get the specimens out pretty intact,” Dermish says at one point.
Dermish says in the video that she does not use the chemical digoxin, used to kill fetuses in the womb, before 20 weeks. She doesn’t say if she uses another chemical during the more than eight-minute, edited clip, and CMP asserts that means babies are delivered alive and killed outside of the womb. Dermish says she has used “ultrasound guidance” to manipulate fetuses for feet-first abortions in the video, a practice CMP describes as a “hallmark” of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure.
A partial-birth abortion is defined as “deliberately and intentionally vaginally” delivering a living fetus where “any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of” killing the fetus. The practice was outlawed by President George W. Bush in 2003.
“Usually what I do, if it’s a [feet-first] presentation, I’ll remove the extremities first, the lower extremities, and then go for the spine and then sort of bring it down that way,” Dermish says.
Asked about harvesting intact fetal brains, Dermish says she has not been able to do that yet.
“Well this will give me something to strive for!” she says, laughing.
When discussing a colleague that is able to identify nine-week fetal hearts in the remains of aborted babies, a woman identified as being from Whole Women’s Health, another abortion clinic, interjects, “Well it’s cute. It is cute.”
Dermish adds: “It’s amazing. It’s sort of – I have so much respect for development. It’s just incredible. So she’s always at 10, 11, 12 weeks, she’s like trying to find the kidneys and any of the organs of that gestation.”
-
Lol
-
#livesmatter
I can't believe a licensed doctor is capable of such demented practices. Bone chilling. This doctor should be dismembered alive, just like her baby victim. That level of psychopathy is incurable, and has no place in society.
Does anybody anywhere (besides 7) actually condone this practice?
-
I don't condone it. In your face 7!
-
I think steers get more humane treatment when they killed for slaughter than that's babies. I believe you get a soul at conception. The exception may be this doctor.
-
Yeah, I'm not sure what it is that allows a "doctor" to root around in a woman's womb, pulling a baby apart limb from limb, and laugh about it over lunch. It's definitely something. Maybe it's the same thing that allowed the nazis to usher Jews into the showers. Or any slaughter of innocents throughout history. It's just a complete lack of humanity. Dead inside.m
Meanwhile, our tax dollars are still paying for this.
-
did the woman want the doctor to do it, or no?
-
Yeah, I'm not sure what it is that allows a "doctor" to root around in a woman's womb, pulling a baby apart limb from limb, and laugh about it over lunch. It's definitely something. Maybe it's the same thing that allowed the nazis to usher Jews into the showers. Or any slaughter of innocents throughout history. It's just a complete lack of humanity. Dead inside.m
Meanwhile, our tax dollars are still paying for this.
Lol
-
did the woman want the doctor to do it, or no?
I'm going to assume the answer is yes. I'm not sure why that's relevant. That's not the life that was pulled limb from limb.
“Usually what I do, if it’s a [feet-first] presentation, I’ll remove the extremities first, the lower extremities, and then go for the spine and then sort of bring it down that way,” Dermish says.
Asked about harvesting intact fetal brains, Dermish says she has not been able to do that yet.
“Well this will give me something to strive for!” she says, laughing.
:lol: amiright? I mean who wouldn't laugh about that? Pass the wine, please!
-
did the woman want the doctor to do it, or no?
I'm going to assume the answer is yes. I'm not sure why that's relevant. That's not the life that was pulled limb from limb.
well you compared it to what the nazis did to the jews in the holocaust. so i think in this case the doctor is the SS officer who hit the gas switch, and the mother is adolf hitler who instructed the doctor to do it?
-
Interesting take, mocat.
I suppose people could argue Josef Mengele was more evil than Hitler. It's a fair analogy and worth exploring. Wo is worse of these modern day nazis, the woman or the doctor. Is lib7 Achmadinjad (holocaust denier)?
-
:lol:
-
http://www.mic.com/articles/129329/a-former-planned-parenthood-employee-tweeted-this-list-of-acts-of-terrorism-she-survived?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.lUlc8nSyE
-
http://www.mic.com/articles/129329/a-former-planned-parenthood-employee-tweeted-this-list-of-acts-of-terrorism-she-survived?utm_source=policymicFB&utm_medium=main&utm_campaign=social#.lUlc8nSyE
Most of that stuff ranges from pretty bad to downright evil, (on par with slaughtering unborn human life). She probably could have left out the part about "surviving" stink bombs. I think most of us survived a few of those in high school. But yeah, I'd also say most of it qualifies as terrorism.
But just to put things in perspective, there are 11 recorded killings associated with anti-abortion violence in the US. 22 others have been wounded. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence)
By contrast, in just one act of domestic terrorism, which we were assured was just "workplace violence," Major Nidal Hassan killed 13 and wounded 32.
So no, I wouldn't say there is an epidemic of anti-abortion terrorism.
-
ksuw, how are you not morally ok with people killing abortion doctors (and really the women getting abortions as well)? seems disingenuous to equate abortion in america to the holocaust, but not be ok with stopping the people responsible by physical force.
just wondering, thanks
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F11%2F30%2Fe85bbfa05aac5186204d378dab3d11ed.jpg&hash=f6754849bc3e75b536ed1cdf27007015cb65c1a9)
-
Known person smarter than everyone at Foxnews, Rachel Maddow, did a great piece last night on the terrorist threats abortion doctors face and how Ted Cruz embraces the support of said domestic terrorists.
-
ksuw, how are you not morally ok with people killing abortion doctors (and really the women getting abortions as well)? seems disingenuous to equate abortion in america to the holocaust, but not be ok with stopping the people responsible by physical force.
just wondering, thanks
I can't speak for KSUW, but for me, it's pretty simple: I am not in favor of anyone taking anyone else's life.
-
ksuw, how are you not morally ok with people killing abortion doctors (and really the women getting abortions as well)? seems disingenuous to equate abortion in america to the holocaust, but not be ok with stopping the people responsible by physical force.
just wondering, thanks
I can't speak for KSUW, but for me, it's pretty simple: I am not in favor of anyone taking anyone else's life.
You're fairly consistent here, but ksuw is pro death penalty and def on the "turn the middle east to glass" side, so I don't think your answer applies to him.
-
People who kill abortion doctors are not terrorists. They are evil nuts. Pro life means valuing all life. Taking the life of the abortionist puts that person on the same plane as the abortionist. Some people are inflamed beyond rational by the sick disregard that the hamburger or bust crowd has for life in the womb. All they want is either foolproof birth control for their rabbit sex orgies or a legal tool for eugenics.
-
ksuw, how are you not morally ok with people killing abortion doctors (and really the women getting abortions as well)? seems disingenuous to equate abortion in america to the holocaust, but not be ok with stopping the people responsible by physical force.
just wondering, thanks
I can't speak for KSUW, but for me, it's pretty simple: I am not in favor of anyone taking anyone else's life.
You're fairly consistent here, but ksuw is pro death penalty and def on the "turn the middle east to glass" side, so I don't think your answer applies to him.
It's an interesting philosophical question I've considered before. First, as you allude to above, I do not believe it is always immoral to kill human life. War is not always immoral, nor is the death penalty, nor is killing as absolutely necessary to defend yourself or others.
So let's start with when I believe that killing another human life is moral, and then use that to answer your question. I believe that killing a human life is moral if it is absolutely necessary to protect against the loss of your own life or the lives of others (self-defense), when there is a reasonable chance that such killing, and only killing, will prevent a greater loss of life and/or suffering (some wars), and as justice through a fair and impartial legal system.
In my opinion, anti-abortion violence doesn't fit in any of these categories. Let's start with the easy one - it certainly isn't justice through a fair and impartial legal system. But in my opinion anti-abortion violence doesn't fit in the other categories either, because (1) killing one abortionist isn't likely to save many innocent lives, if any (the women will almost certainly abort, anyway), and (2) there are peaceful and more effective means of preventing abortion. I don't think anyone can seriously disagree that the peaceful pro-life movement (which is the vast majority), aided by advances in imaging technology, have been far more successful in shifting public opinion and reducing abortion than violence.
-
So you would have let the nazi's operate for 40 years just hoping that the nazi's would change their mind?
-
ksuw, how are you not morally ok with people killing abortion doctors (and really the women getting abortions as well)? seems disingenuous to equate abortion in america to the holocaust, but not be ok with stopping the people responsible by physical force.
just wondering, thanks
I can't speak for KSUW, but for me, it's pretty simple: I am not in favor of anyone taking anyone else's life.
You're fairly consistent here, but ksuw is pro death penalty and def on the "turn the middle east to glass" side, so I don't think your answer applies to him.
It's an interesting philosophical question I've considered before. First, as you allude to above, I do not believe it is always immoral to kill human life. War is not always immoral, nor is the death penalty, nor is killing as absolutely necessary to defend yourself or others.
So let's start with when I believe that killing another human life is moral, and then use that to answer your question. I believe that killing a human life is moral if it is absolutely necessary to protect against the loss of your own life or the lives of others (self-defense), when there is a reasonable chance that such killing, and only killing, will prevent a greater loss of life and/or suffering (some wars), and as justice through a fair and impartial legal system.
In my opinion, anti-abortion violence doesn't fit in any of these categories. Let's start with the easy one - it certainly isn't justice through a fair and impartial legal system. But in my opinion anti-abortion violence doesn't fit in the other categories either, because (1) killing one abortionist isn't likely to save many innocent lives, if any (the women will almost certainly abort, anyway), and (2) there are peaceful and more effective means of preventing abortion. I don't think anyone can seriously disagree that the peaceful pro-life movement (which is the vast majority), aided by advances in imaging technology, have been far more successful in shifting public opinion and reducing abortion than violence.
So then you would be ok with aborting baby Hitler? (Sorry if this has already been discussed in the Jeb Bush thread.)
-
It's very telling that some equate abortion with the work of Hitler and the Nazis.
-
ksuw, how are you not morally ok with people killing abortion doctors (and really the women getting abortions as well)? seems disingenuous to equate abortion in america to the holocaust, but not be ok with stopping the people responsible by physical force.
just wondering, thanks
I can't speak for KSUW, but for me, it's pretty simple: I am not in favor of anyone taking anyone else's life.
You're fairly consistent here, but ksuw is pro death penalty and def on the "turn the middle east to glass" side, so I don't think your answer applies to him.
It's an interesting philosophical question I've considered before. First, as you allude to above, I do not believe it is always immoral to kill human life. War is not always immoral, nor is the death penalty, nor is killing as absolutely necessary to defend yourself or others.
So let's start with when I believe that killing another human life is moral, and then use that to answer your question. I believe that killing a human life is moral if it is absolutely necessary to protect against the loss of your own life or the lives of others (self-defense), when there is a reasonable chance that such killing, and only killing, will prevent a greater loss of life and/or suffering (some wars), and as justice through a fair and impartial legal system.
In my opinion, anti-abortion violence doesn't fit in any of these categories. Let's start with the easy one - it certainly isn't justice through a fair and impartial legal system. But in my opinion anti-abortion violence doesn't fit in the other categories either, because (1) killing one abortionist isn't likely to save many innocent lives, if any (the women will almost certainly abort, anyway), and (2) there are peaceful and more effective means of preventing abortion. I don't think anyone can seriously disagree that the peaceful pro-life movement (which is the vast majority), aided by advances in imaging technology, have been far more successful in shifting public opinion and reducing abortion than violence.
So then you would be ok with aborting baby Hitler? (Sorry if this has already been discussed in the Jeb Bush thread.)
I suppose that question will become relevant once we invent time travel (or maybe they already have but they're just not telling us?!?!), but until that time, it is irrelevant.
-
It's very telling that some equate abortion with the work of Hitler and the Nazis.
Only when they think it serves their argument.
-
It's very telling that some equate abortion with the work of Hitler and the Nazis.
Only when they think it serves their argument.
Yes, very telling indeed
-
Some (fsd) equate condoms with nazi's :sdeek:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F11%2F30%2Fe85bbfa05aac5186204d378dab3d11ed.jpg&hash=f6754849bc3e75b536ed1cdf27007015cb65c1a9)
did you tell him to cool off?
-
'bias' post is cloaked in mystery
-
did you tell him to cool off?
:thumbs:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F15%2F11%2F30%2Fe85bbfa05aac5186204d378dab3d11ed.jpg&hash=f6754849bc3e75b536ed1cdf27007015cb65c1a9)
did you tell him to cool off?
What is this?
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yUpbOliTHJY
-
People who kill abortion doctors are not terrorists.
Really? I think one could certainly argue that people who arm themselves to the teeth and walk into public places full of unsuspecting people and open fire with the intent to kill shitloads of people because of some perverted interpretation of religion are indeed terrorists. That's inflicting terror. That's what terrorism is.
-
Known person smarter than everyone at Foxnews, Rachel Maddow, did a great piece last night on the terrorist threats abortion doctors face and how Ted Cruz embraces the support of said domestic terrorists.
:lol: this is great
Who hacked Edna's account?
-
Known person smarter than everyone at Foxnews, Rachel Maddow, did a great piece last night on the terrorist threats abortion doctors face and how Ted Cruz embraces the support of said domestic terrorists.
:lol: this is great
Who hacked Edna's account?
It's the equivalent of him making a 3/4 court shot.
-
You guys, the Planned Parenthood terrorist's outbursts in court today were majorly lol. His crazy crown is a jubilee of freedom.
-
Really? Nobody has anything to add on this? (Maybe cuz the super insane weirdo with bizarre courtroom outbursts is on the same side as most of the people getting butthurt itt?)
-
do you have a link or anything skinbens?
-
i legit have no idea what he's talking about
-
I just heard the "warrior for babies" and the "I'm guilty" drops. We're there others? Both of those were predictable.
-
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/cecile-richards-on-suspects-court-outbursts-583330883951
I think this is it. Not really working on my phone for some reason but I know I saw it on that weird lawrence o'donnell guy's show.
-
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430152/abortion-roe-v-wade-unborn-children-women-feminism-march-life (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430152/abortion-roe-v-wade-unborn-children-women-feminism-march-life)
Good read. I'd encourage all to consider the viewpoint presented.
-
A lot of propagandizing in that.
She keeps saying women don't want abortions, but doesn't the fact that 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion (from the article, dunno if true) kind of prove that american women DO want and value legal abortion? No one wants any medical procedure, but that is no argument to outlaw them.
-
A lot of propagandizing in that.
She keeps saying women don't want abortions, but doesn't the fact that 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion (from the article, dunno if true) kind of prove that american women DO want and value legal abortion? No one wants any medical procedure, but that is no argument to outlaw them.
Her point is that a lot of people around the woman want her to get an abortion and/or tell her they'll "be there for her" if she has one - but do not show the same support/encouragement for having the baby. And she's probably right.
I'm glad someone posted this. It's a hard read. Particularly hard for libtards who want to hide in their cocoon of ignorance, pretending that this isn't the termination of human life. Most of the libtards won't bother to actually read it. Might add some quotes from it later.
-
A lot of propagandizing in that.
She keeps saying women don't want abortions, but doesn't the fact that 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion (from the article, dunno if true) kind of prove that american women DO want and value legal abortion? No one wants any medical procedure, but that is no argument to outlaw them.
society demanding and valuing something isn't a good test of the worthiness of an issue or law. society has proven time and time again they will collectively choose something that is damaging and dehumanizing.
-
A lot of propagandizing in that.
She keeps saying women don't want abortions, but doesn't the fact that 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion (from the article, dunno if true) kind of prove that american women DO want and value legal abortion? No one wants any medical procedure, but that is no argument to outlaw them.
Her point is that a lot of people around the woman want her to get an abortion and/or tell her they'll "be there for her" if she has one - but do not show the same support/encouragement for having the baby. And she's probably right.
I'm glad someone posted this. It's a hard read. Particularly hard for libtards who want to hide in their cocoon of ignorance, pretending that this isn't the termination of human life. Most of the libtards won't bother to actually read it. Might add some quotes from it later.
90% of the article was not about this though. it was anecdotes about how some women regret they had an abortion, which of course happens. regrets are part of life, especially on something permanent. nothing in that article was hard for me to read, because it was all a very obviously misleading view.
-
i mean one of her reasons for outlawing abortion is that it's "humiliating" to go to the doctor, wtf kind of crap is this?
-
A lot of propagandizing in that.
She keeps saying women don't want abortions, but doesn't the fact that 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion (from the article, dunno if true) kind of prove that american women DO want and value legal abortion? No one wants any medical procedure, but that is no argument to outlaw them.
society demanding and valuing something isn't a good test of the worthiness of an issue or law. society has proven time and time again they will collectively choose something that is damaging and dehumanizing.
that's fine, then she shouldn't use a twisted "women don't want abortion" narrative for her article.
-
I would hope humiliation is one of many painful and demeaning emotions someone feels after murdering their unborn child.
WTF
-
A lot of propagandizing in that.
She keeps saying women don't want abortions, but doesn't the fact that 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion (from the article, dunno if true) kind of prove that american women DO want and value legal abortion? No one wants any medical procedure, but that is no argument to outlaw them.
society demanding and valuing something isn't a good test of the worthiness of an issue or law. society has proven time and time again they will collectively choose something that is damaging and dehumanizing.
that's fine, then she shouldn't use a twisted "women don't want abortion" narrative for her article.
The article seemed to me to be pushing the idea that women feel societal pressure and that is a major component of abortion, outside factors rather than inward desires. I have no idea if its accurate or not. Perhaps its propaganda. But we ought to consider what she says about how history will view us.
-
abortion had been taboo for years, it's only recently began to be accepted. my feeling is the outlawed history and the third world countries that still ban abortion are the ones that history will judge.
-
abortion had been taboo for years, it's only recently began to be accepted. my feeling is the outlawed history and the third world countries that still ban abortion are the ones that history will judge.
History will judge a society that murdered tens of millions of its own children. And it won't be a kind judgment.
-
well that's just like, your opinion, man.
-
at the time, we didn’t have much understanding of what abortion was. We knew nothing of fetal development. We consistently termed the fetus “a blob of tissue,” and that’s just how we pictured it — an undifferentiated mucous-like blob, not recognizable as human or even as alive. It would be another 15 years of so before pregnant couples could show off sonograms of their unborn babies, shocking us with the obvious humanity of the unborn.
We also thought, back then, that few abortions would ever be done. It’s a grim experience, going through an abortion, and we assumed a woman would choose one only as a last resort. We were fighting for that “last resort.” We had no idea how common the procedure would become; today, one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion.
Nor could we have imagined how high abortion numbers would climb. In the 43 years since Roe v. Wade, there have been 59 million abortions. It’s hard even to grasp a number that big. Twenty years ago, someone told me that, if the names of all those lost babies were inscribed on a wall, like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the wall would have to stretch for 50 miles. It’s 20 years later now, and that wall would have to stretch twice as far. But no names could be written on it; those babies had no names.
We expected that abortion would be rare. What we didn’t realize was that, once abortion becomes available, it becomes the most attractive option for everyone around the pregnant woman. If she has an abortion, it’s like the pregnancy never existed. No one is inconvenienced. It doesn’t cause trouble for the father of the baby, or her boss, or the person in charge of her college scholarship. It won’t embarrass her mom and dad.
Abortion is like a funnel; it promises to solve all the problems at once. So there is significant pressure on a woman to choose abortion, rather than adoption or parenting.
A woman who had had an abortion told me, “Everyone around me was saying they would ‘be there for me’ if I had the abortion, but no one said they’d ‘be there for me’ if I had the baby.” For everyone around the pregnant woman, abortion looks like the sensible choice. A woman who determines instead to continue an unplanned pregnancy looks like she’s being foolishly stubborn. It’s like she’s taken up some unreasonable hobby. People think: If she would only go off and do this one thing, everything would be fine.
But that’s an illusion. Abortion can’t really turn back the clock. It can’t push the rewind button on life and make it so that she was never pregnant. It can make it easy for everyone around the woman to forget the pregnancy, but the woman herself may struggle. When she first sees the positive pregnancy test she may feel, in a panicky way, that she has to get rid of it as fast as possible. But life stretches on after abortion, for months and years — for many long nights — and all her life long she may ponder the irreversible choice she made.
-
This issue gets presented as if it’s a tug of war between the woman and the baby. We see them as mortal enemies, locked in a fight to the death. But that’s a strange idea, isn’t it? It must be the first time in history when mothers and their own children have been assumed to be at war. We’re supposed to picture the child attacking her, trying to destroy her hopes and plans, and picture the woman grateful for the abortion, since it rescued her from the clutches of her child.
If you were in charge of a nature preserve and you noticed that the pregnant female mammals were trying to miscarry their pregnancies, eating poisonous plants or injuring themselves, what would you do? Would you think of it as a battle between the pregnant female and her unborn and find ways to help those pregnant animals miscarry? No, of course not. You would immediately think, “Something must be really wrong in this environment.” Something is creating intolerable stress, so much so that animals would rather destroy their own offspring than bring them into the world. You would strive to identify and correct whatever factors were causing this stress in the animals.
-
I changed my opinion on abortion after I read an article in Esquire magazine, way back in 1976. I was home from grad school, flipping through my dad’s copy, and came across an article titled “What I Saw at the Abortion.” The author, Richard Selzer, was a surgeon, and he was in favor of abortion, but he’d never seen one. So he asked a colleague whether, next time, he could go along.
Selzer described seeing the patient, 19 weeks pregnant, lying on her back on the table. (That is unusually late; most abortions are done by the tenth or twelfth week.) The doctor performing the procedure inserted a syringe into the woman’s abdomen and injected her womb with a prostaglandin solution, which would bring on contractions and cause a miscarriage. (This method isn’t used anymore, because too often the baby survived the procedure — chemically burned and disfigured, but clinging to life. Newer methods, including those called “partial birth abortion” and “dismemberment abortion,” more reliably ensure death.)
After injecting the hormone into the patient’s womb, the doctor left the syringe standing upright on her belly. Then, Selzer wrote, “I see something other than what I expected here. . . . It is the hub of the needle that is in the woman’s belly that has jerked. First to one side. Then to the other side. Once more it wobbles, is tugged, like a fishing line nibbled by a sunfish.” He realized he was seeing the fetus’s desperate fight for life. And as he watched, he saw the movement of the syringe slow down and then stop. The child was dead. Whatever else an unborn child does not have, he has one thing: a will to live. He will fight to defend his life.
The last words in Selzer’s essay are, “Whatever else is said in abortion’s defense, the vision of that other defense [i.e., of the child defending its life] will not vanish from my eyes. And it has happened that you cannot reason with me now. For what can language do against the truth of what I saw?”
Yeah, "it's my opinion" to be horrified by murdering innocent unborn human life. To each his own.
-
It absolutely is your opinion, which doesn't automatically make it right because others feel the same about it.
-
i'm of the opinion that healthcare is a fundamental right and should be provided free of charge by the government (including abortions).
opinions are fun!
-
I wish ksuwildcats mom had an abortion. That's just my imo tho
-
Some of us believe an unborn baby is more than hamburger to be discarded by an a woman who is inconveniented by pregnancy. Pro abortionist think it is just disposal tissue. I will say a bunch of frothing hollering by prolifers will not change a dang thing, we have to willing to adopt kids and put the hanker doodies of men who get women pregnant in a bear trap, low life bastards.
-
if you are a middle class white male, be not afraid. this thread is a safe haven for your opinion
-
I'm always impressed by what a quality human being CF3 is. :cheers: CF3
-
if you are a middle class white male, be not afraid. this thread is a safe haven for your opinion
Can't change who I am Tobias. I get that I'm not a minority or an impoverished young girl. But that doesnt' invalidate my position.
-
Abortion advocates are rough ridin' sick in the head. There's no excuse for that barbaric and inhumane practice in this day and age.
-
if you are a middle class white male, be not afraid. this thread is a safe haven for your opinion
This is an amazingly ignorant comment. Wow
-
As medicine has advanced and we have learned more about fetal development and the true horror of abortion, the following is a pretty good representation of what "pro-choice" argument has been reduced to:
Yeah, "it's my opinion" to be horrified by murdering innocent unborn human life. To each his own.
It absolutely is your opinion, which doesn't automatically make it right because others feel the same about it.
i'm of the opinion that healthcare is a fundamental right and should be provided free of charge by the government (including abortions).
opinions are fun!
I wish ksuwildcats mom had an abortion. That's just my imo tho
if you are a middle class white male, be not afraid. this thread is a safe haven for your opinion
-
I'm always impressed by what a quality human being CF3 is. :cheers: CF3
Yes!
-
So, the video heros have been indicted, per NYT this afternoon.
-
So, the video heros have been indicted, per NYT this afternoon.
Just read the article, sounds like they got indicted for trying to purchase fetal tissue. Even though they were only faking it for the videos, the investigators said that is what the videos showed.
-
Sounds like Planned Parenthood did a double secret sting investigation on their asses.
-
Well, if your going to threaten The Liberal Sacrament, you'd better be prepared for the consequences....
This kind of reminds of that guy who made the YouTube video that caused those peaceful Muslims to kill our ambassador in Benghazi. Couldn't do anything about the video so they nabbed him on - what was it, tax evasion?
-
Sound like a couple of lawless thugs to me.
-
Lol wut
-
Same review that led to their indictment found no issue w planned parenthood.
Obvsly liberal agenda
-
http://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Harris-grand-jury-indicts-pair-behind-Planned-6782865.php
For anyone wanting to read about liberal fact checkers on grand juries. With their liberalness and facts and law....... :curse:
-
worrying about the videos one way or the other is ridiculous and is a non story. that is not the point of any of this
-
The record-tampering charges appeared to involve their use of fake identification.
I'm not sure how this excuses Planned Parenthood's cavalier attitude about butchering babies while joking and swilling down chardonnay, but this is evidently some sort of "vindication" for libtards. "Hey, you can't actually prove they were profiting off the butchered remains, so there's nothing to see here!!!" Oh the warped minds of libtards....
-
Yeah, I'm not sure shining more light on this escapade is good for the baby slayers
-
So still no illegal activity by planned parenthood?
-
worrying about the videos one way or the other is ridiculous and is a non story. that is not the point of any of this
You don't think it's a little interesting that this group had to break the law to unsuccessfully set up a sting operation? Seems interesting to me
-
It's like if some ku fan offered up video proof of ksu recruiting violations and instead the videos showed ksu is operating cleanly but ku is cheating :lol:
-
worrying about the videos one way or the other is ridiculous and is a non story. that is not the point of any of this
yeah you definitely weren't saying this when these videos first came out and defunding Planned Parenthood was the number one topic on the news for like a month.
-
It's like if some ku fan offered up video proof of ksu recruiting violations and instead the videos showed ksu is operating cleanly but ku is cheating :lol:
:lol:
-
worrying about the videos one way or the other is ridiculous and is a non story. that is not the point of any of this
What? Those videos started an entire movement. It's mentioned in many campaign ads, the videos have been mentioned in every republican debate including ones that were supposed be limited to fiscal issues.
Why is it so hard for people to admit that they can sometimes be wrong. Lame post.
-
worrying about the videos one way or the other is ridiculous and is a non story. that is not the point of any of this
You don't think it's a little interesting that this group had to break the law to unsuccessfully set up a sting operation? Seems interesting to me
They had to fake their identities to set up the sting? No, that doesn't seem strange at all. That seems like exactly what law enforcement does, too, only they legally can.
Again, mess with liberals' Most Sacred Cow, and you'd better be prepared for the consequences. This does not in any way invalidate the inhumanity and evil on display in those videos - a point that still cannot be denied by the libtards, so instead they point to "yeah but they didn't break the law." It's still evil, and taxpayer funded evil.
-
Same review that led to their indictment found no issue w planned parenthood.
Obvsly liberal agenda
Yes, obviously.
-
worrying about the videos one way or the other is ridiculous and is a non story. that is not the point of any of this
You don't think it's a little interesting that this group had to break the law to unsuccessfully set up a sting operation? Seems interesting to me
They had to fake their identities to set up the sting? No, that doesn't seem strange at all. That seems like exactly what law enforcement does, too, only they legally can.
Again, mess with liberals' Most Sacred Cow, and you'd better be prepared for the consequences. This does not in any way invalidate the inhumanity and evil on display in those videos - a point that still cannot be denied by the libtards, so instead they point to "yeah but they didn't break the law." It's still evil, and taxpayer funded evil.
The group has put out a statement that they did nothing different than what investigative journalists do all the time. I have a feeling they will win that case.
-
Here's what I meant. The fundamental issue is if an unborn person has human rights and is considered a person or not. The videos were a tool to sway the argument towards that. What some grand jury says about the ethics of the videos matters little to me. Its a fantastic way to diverge the argument from the actual issue.
Fundamentally, the question is what qualifies as a person who is deserving of basic protection. That's the issue.
-
Here's what I meant. The fundamental issue is if an unborn person has human rights and is considered a person or not. The videos were a tool to sway the argument towards that. What some grand jury says about the ethics of the videos matters little to me. Its a fantastic way to diverge the argument from the actual issue.
Fundamentally, the question is what qualifies as a person who is deserving of basic protection. That's the issue.
The videos had little to do with that. They were specifically trying to catch illegal activity and they failed to do so, so they lied and said there was illegal activity anyway. This directly led to a man shooting people at an abortion clinic.
-
The videos captured the cavalier and inhuman way PP deal with, markets and sells dead baby body parts.
Whether the videos were legally obtained doesn't detract from that horror.
-
Here's what I meant. The fundamental issue is if an unborn person has human rights and is considered a person or not. The videos were a tool to sway the argument towards that. What some grand jury says about the ethics of the videos matters little to me. Its a fantastic way to diverge the argument from the actual issue.
Fundamentally, the question is what qualifies as a person who is deserving of basic protection. That's the issue.
The videos had little to do with that. They were specifically trying to catch illegal activity and they failed to do so, so they lied and said there was illegal activity anyway. This directly led to a man shooting people at an abortion clinic.
which is, imo, why they aren't the issue. An issue? I guess, but not THE issue.
And that shooter was crazy and I hate that that happened.
-
The videos captured the cavalier and inhuman way PP deal with, markets and sells dead baby body parts.
Whether the videos were legally obtained doesn't detract from that horror.
I suspect you've never heard any doctors or surgeons talk about medical procedures
-
I'll bet people were ordering fetus arms for necklaces and earrings.
-
Here's what I meant. The fundamental issue is if an unborn person has human rights and is considered a person or not. The videos were a tool to sway the argument towards that. What some grand jury says about the ethics of the videos matters little to me. Its a fantastic way to diverge the argument from the actual issue.
Fundamentally, the question is what qualifies as a person who is deserving of basic protection. That's the issue.
The videos had little to do with that. They were specifically trying to catch illegal activity and they failed to do so, so they lied and said there was illegal activity anyway. This directly led to a man shooting people at an abortion clinic.
I'd say "crazy" had a lot more to do with that guy shooting up the clinic than some video exposing the horror of what those clinics do. Such exposes should not be silenced simply because of how a crazy person might respond.
The videos fairly and accurately presented what these clinics actually do. The Planned Parenthood execs actually said what they said. They actually made those jokes and glibly discussed their butchery over lunch. They actually went through their "menu" and pricing of various prices (man, if you can get an intact head that's where the big money is!). The vultures actually coo'd "it's another boy!" while sifting through the remains. These things actually happened, and they were caught on tape.
You don't like to admit the evil of this enterprise, so you deflect to other issues - "The activists forged IDs!", "PP wasn't indicted!" So? They're still monsters.
-
The videos captured the cavalier and inhuman way PP deal with, markets and sells dead baby body parts.
Whether the videos were legally obtained doesn't detract from that horror.
I suspect you've never heard any doctors or surgeons talk about medical procedures
I'm seriously questioning whether you even have a conscience. How does a human being get to the point where they can't distinguish a moral difference between say, a knee or heart surgery, and tearing an unborn child limb from limb? It's really telling, lib7. You ought to take a few minutes and really think about how you're representing yourself with these terrible arguments.
-
:dunno:
-
I mean, you're the one that thinks if a poor person needs medical treatment they can't afford that that person just should have worked harder in life and eff him if he dies, he's a taker anyway. You literally care more about a fetus than an actual human.
-
I mean, you're the one that thinks if a poor person needs medical treatment they can't afford that that person just should have worked harder in life and eff him if he dies, he's a taker anyway. You literally care more about a fetus than an actual human.
First, that's not true. I have never said that people should be denied life-saving care due to the inability to pay. We already have such laws that prohibit that, for good reason.
Second, you are deflecting once again. Sometimes the truth hurts. You need to really do some self reflection and ask yourself "Did I really just compare tearing an unborn child limb from limb to any other 'medical procedure?' Do I really not see the difference?"
Here is a more eloquent display of the exact same lack of conscience and morality from another abortion supporter:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/14/lila_rose_and_live_action_have_another_planned_parenthood_sting_yet_again.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/14/lila_rose_and_live_action_have_another_planned_parenthood_sting_yet_again.html)
As someone who is squeamish, it was extremely difficult for me to listen to Nucatola talk about extracting liver, heart, and other parts to be donated to medical research. (I nearly fainted when a friend showed me the video of her knee operation once.) But people who work in medicine for a living do, in fact, become inured to the gore in a way that can seem strange to those of us who aren't regularly exposed to it. She also thought she was speaking to people in her profession who would be similarly accustomed to this sort of thing.
Abortion is gross, no doubt about it. It becomes grosser the later in a pregnancy it gets. But so is heart surgery. So is child-birth, for that matter. We don't deny people who need help in those cases because the help is gross. Nor should we deny people that help when it comes to needing abortion. We also shouldn't deny women who want to donate fetal or embryonic remains to science any more than we would deny someone who wants to be an organ donor, even though the latter is also quite gross to ponder.
This mentality is what is "gross." It's worse than gross. It is horrific.
-
You obviously miss the point, but that's understandable you're highly emotional about this issue. You're also wrong, but no doubt emotional, so it's clear you can't look at it like a rational person
-
You obviously miss the point, but that's understandable you're highly emotional about this issue. You're also wrong, but no doubt emotional, so it's clear you can't look at it like a rational person
I have not missed the point - I'm simply taking it one step further than you've considered. You're saying this is nothing more than doctors talking about medical procedures that might make non-medical people squeamish. And I'm pointing out that this is not like any other "gross" procedure. Unless you have no conscience and cannot make the moral distinction.
-
I give ksuw credit for just being emotional instead of dumb tho, check this out from the cloak room (not a troll)
You have to understand the context of these people's beliefs. It's not that they support abortion / killing babies in a vacuum (no pun intended). It's the context of being warriors for the feminist cause. That's what these people get off on, for varying reasons. Some have been indoctrinated by society/media for the last 30 years. Some think it's going to get them pussy. You have to understand the root ideology. Feminism seeks to maximize constraint of male sexuality, while at the same time maximizing lack of constraint of female sexuality.
-
clear lake horn?
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
No offense, but that's the laziest crap in the world.
You admit it's a tragedy -- why exactly is it tragic? I thought this was a mere medical procedure. Like removing a cyst or setting a broken ankle. Is it tragic solely because the procedure sometimes puts an emotional toll on the woman? Is every mere medical procedure a tragedy?
Also, the argument that women will get abortions whether or not they're illegal is a nonsense argument. The idea that society should only make an activity illegal if it means that, henceforth, no one will engage in that activity is extremely silly when you think about it for longer than five seconds. People still steal things. People still murder.
Finally, the "I'm a man so I can't have a say," is just bullshit. Should non-slaveholding northerners just minded their own business? If you think abortion is murder, "I'm a man" is irrelevant.
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
No offense, but that's the laziest crap in the world.
You admit it's a tragedy -- why exactly is it tragic? I thought this was a mere medical procedure. Like removing a cyst or setting a broken ankle. Is it tragic solely because the procedure sometimes puts an emotional toll on the woman? Is every mere medical procedure a tragedy?
Also, the argument that women will get abortions whether or not they're illegal is a nonsense argument. The idea that society should only make an activity illegal if it means that, henceforth, no one will engage in that activity is extremely silly when you think about it for longer than five seconds. People still steal things. People still murder.
Finally, the "I'm a man so I can't have a say," is just bullshit. Should non-slaveholding northerners just minded their own business? If you think abortion is murder, "I'm a man" is irrelevant.
Damn Bringing the fire.
tragedy was probably the wrong word. Do I wish there less abortions? Abosolutely. But I don't think it's murder, could the fetus live on its own without being in the womb?
But I'm reminded on the chapter in Freaknomics when it basically makes an argument that the lowering of the crime rate in the early 90's was due to Roe v Wade. I don't think that in itself makes a abortion right, but I think it shows the types of lives outlawing abortion leads too.
and yes I know the argument about it would be done even if it's was illegal I terrible argument, I fight against it all the time in gun control arguments. But I think for the safety and health of our fellow citizens they should have the opportunity to get safe legal abortions.
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
No offense, but that's the laziest crap in the world.
You admit it's a tragedy -- why exactly is it tragic? I thought this was a mere medical procedure. Like removing a cyst or setting a broken ankle. Is it tragic solely because the procedure sometimes puts an emotional toll on the woman? Is every mere medical procedure a tragedy?
Also, the argument that women will get abortions whether or not they're illegal is a nonsense argument. The idea that society should only make an activity illegal if it means that, henceforth, no one will engage in that activity is extremely silly when you think about it for longer than five seconds. People still steal things. People still murder.
Finally, the "I'm a man so I can't have a say," is just bullshit. Should non-slaveholding northerners just minded their own business? If you think abortion is murder, "I'm a man" is irrelevant.
Damn Bringing the fire.
tragedy was probably the wrong word. Do I wish there less abortions? Abosolutely. But I don't think it's murder, could the fetus live on its own without being in the womb?
But I'm reminded on the chapter in Freaknomics when it basically makes an argument that the lowering of the crime rate in the early 90's was due to Roe v Wade. I don't think that in itself makes a abortion right, but I think it shows the types of lives outlawing abortion leads too.
and yes I know the argument about it would be done even if it's was illegal I terrible argument, I fight against it all the time in gun control arguments. But I think for the safety and health of our fellow citizens they should have the opportunity to get safe legal abortions.
what is your stance on eugenics?
-
Got the videos "illegally" really bad. PP willing to traffic baby parts perfectly fine. :thumbsup: Nice work ProgLibs
-
There is lots and lots of evidence that we would reduce costs to society and drastically reduce abortions by providing free contraception to everyone, especially teenagers.
Amazingly, the same people that claim abortion is a literal holocaust don't want to do that.
-
There is lots and lots of evidence that we would reduce costs to society and drastically reduce abortions by providing free contraception to everyone, especially teenagers.
Amazingly, the same people that claim abortion is a literal holocaust don't want to do that.
Education too. However, same ppl really like ignorant, unprepared, baby time bombs.
-
Can't you just walk into PP and other clinics and pretty much get free contraceptives?
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
No offense, but that's the laziest crap in the world.
You admit it's a tragedy -- why exactly is it tragic? I thought this was a mere medical procedure. Like removing a cyst or setting a broken ankle. Is it tragic solely because the procedure sometimes puts an emotional toll on the woman? Is every mere medical procedure a tragedy?
Also, the argument that women will get abortions whether or not they're illegal is a nonsense argument. The idea that society should only make an activity illegal if it means that, henceforth, no one will engage in that activity is extremely silly when you think about it for longer than five seconds. People still steal things. People still murder.
Finally, the "I'm a man so I can't have a say," is just bullshit. Should non-slaveholding northerners just minded their own business? If you think abortion is murder, "I'm a man" is irrelevant.
Bravo. 110% agreed. Could not say it better.
One other point regarding "women will get them anyway" even if they're illegal, the author linked on the previous page makes a compelling argument that this isn't true. She believes that many women are either explicitly or implicitly encouraged to get abortions by their friends and families. "I'll be there for you." They don't receive that same level of encouragement to keep the baby. Abortion has become culturally acceptable. Making more abortion illegal would make it less culturally acceptable.
-
There is lots and lots of evidence that we would reduce costs to society and drastically reduce abortions by providing free contraception to everyone, especially teenagers.
Amazingly, the same people that claim abortion is a literal holocaust don't want to do that.
Education too. However, same ppl really like ignorant, unprepared, baby time bombs.
I am for these solutions!
-
There is lots and lots of evidence that we would reduce costs to society and drastically reduce abortions by providing free contraception to everyone, especially teenagers.
Amazingly, the same people that claim abortion is a literal holocaust don't want to do that.
Free contraception may solve some problems but the burning in hell for eternity problem would just get worse
-
Can't you just walk into PP and other clinics and pretty much get free contraceptives?
Yes. But I believe KK is referring to OTC availability of morning after pill?
I respect people who oppose such availability because it can cause abortion. However, I support it from the pragmatic viewpoint that it could dramatically reduce both the number of later term abortions and the rationale therefore.
-
I give ksuw credit for just being emotional instead of dumb tho, check this out from the cloak room (not a troll)
You have to understand the context of these people's beliefs. It's not that they support abortion / killing babies in a vacuum (no pun intended). It's the context of being warriors for the feminist cause. That's what these people get off on, for varying reasons. Some have been indoctrinated by society/media for the last 30 years. Some think it's going to get them pussy. You have to understand the root ideology. Feminism seeks to maximize constraint of male sexuality, while at the same time maximizing lack of constraint of female sexuality.
You're still deflecting. I've made my point. You don't have to admit you're wrong - just think about it.
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
No offense, but that's the laziest crap in the world.
You admit it's a tragedy -- why exactly is it tragic? I thought this was a mere medical procedure. Like removing a cyst or setting a broken ankle. Is it tragic solely because the procedure sometimes puts an emotional toll on the woman? Is every mere medical procedure a tragedy?
Also, the argument that women will get abortions whether or not they're illegal is a nonsense argument. The idea that society should only make an activity illegal if it means that, henceforth, no one will engage in that activity is extremely silly when you think about it for longer than five seconds. People still steal things. People still murder.
Finally, the "I'm a man so I can't have a say," is just bullshit. Should non-slaveholding northerners just minded their own business? If you think abortion is murder, "I'm a man" is irrelevant.
It's ok to think it's a tragedy and still not want the government to throw people in jail for having an abortion.
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
No offense, but that's the laziest crap in the world.
You admit it's a tragedy -- why exactly is it tragic? I thought this was a mere medical procedure. Like removing a cyst or setting a broken ankle. Is it tragic solely because the procedure sometimes puts an emotional toll on the woman? Is every mere medical procedure a tragedy?
Also, the argument that women will get abortions whether or not they're illegal is a nonsense argument. The idea that society should only make an activity illegal if it means that, henceforth, no one will engage in that activity is extremely silly when you think about it for longer than five seconds. People still steal things. People still murder.
Finally, the "I'm a man so I can't have a say," is just bullshit. Should non-slaveholding northerners just minded their own business? If you think abortion is murder, "I'm a man" is irrelevant.
It's ok to think it's a tragedy and still not want the government to throw people in jail for having an abortion.
I don't disagree with that. My question is why do you think it's a tragedy?
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
No offense, but that's the laziest crap in the world.
You admit it's a tragedy -- why exactly is it tragic? I thought this was a mere medical procedure. Like removing a cyst or setting a broken ankle. Is it tragic solely because the procedure sometimes puts an emotional toll on the woman? Is every mere medical procedure a tragedy?
Also, the argument that women will get abortions whether or not they're illegal is a nonsense argument. The idea that society should only make an activity illegal if it means that, henceforth, no one will engage in that activity is extremely silly when you think about it for longer than five seconds. People still steal things. People still murder.
Finally, the "I'm a man so I can't have a say," is just bullshit. Should non-slaveholding northerners just minded their own business? If you think abortion is murder, "I'm a man" is irrelevant.
It's ok to think it's a tragedy and still not want the government to throw people in jail for having an abortion.
I don't disagree with that. My question is why do you think it's a tragedy?
Because you are ending a human life when you get an abortion, obviously.
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
No offense, but that's the laziest crap in the world.
You admit it's a tragedy -- why exactly is it tragic? I thought this was a mere medical procedure. Like removing a cyst or setting a broken ankle. Is it tragic solely because the procedure sometimes puts an emotional toll on the woman? Is every mere medical procedure a tragedy?
Also, the argument that women will get abortions whether or not they're illegal is a nonsense argument. The idea that society should only make an activity illegal if it means that, henceforth, no one will engage in that activity is extremely silly when you think about it for longer than five seconds. People still steal things. People still murder.
Finally, the "I'm a man so I can't have a say," is just bullshit. Should non-slaveholding northerners just minded their own business? If you think abortion is murder, "I'm a man" is irrelevant.
It's ok to think it's a tragedy and still not want the government to throw people in jail for having an abortion.
I don't disagree with that. My question is why do you think it's a tragedy?
Because you are ending a human life when you get an abortion, obviously.
I'm not sure I can understand not wanting to make the practice illegal if that's your rationale.
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
No offense, but that's the laziest crap in the world.
You admit it's a tragedy -- why exactly is it tragic? I thought this was a mere medical procedure. Like removing a cyst or setting a broken ankle. Is it tragic solely because the procedure sometimes puts an emotional toll on the woman? Is every mere medical procedure a tragedy?
Also, the argument that women will get abortions whether or not they're illegal is a nonsense argument. The idea that society should only make an activity illegal if it means that, henceforth, no one will engage in that activity is extremely silly when you think about it for longer than five seconds. People still steal things. People still murder.
Finally, the "I'm a man so I can't have a say," is just bullshit. Should non-slaveholding northerners just minded their own business? If you think abortion is murder, "I'm a man" is irrelevant.
It's ok to think it's a tragedy and still not want the government to throw people in jail for having an abortion.
I don't disagree with that. My question is why do you think it's a tragedy?
Because you are ending a human life when you get an abortion, obviously.
I'm not sure I can understand not wanting to make the practice illegal if that's your rationale.
Making it illegal entails some sort of punishment. The punishment couldn't be a fine because then you really aren't doing anything but making abortion illegal for poor people. I don't see people who get abortions as any sort of threat to society in the same way I view somebody who murders people that have already been born and living outside of the womb for any period of time, so I think jailing them would be counter-productive. I would also support shorter sentences for some murders than the standard life sentence, fwiw.
I'd probably be willing to support making the practice illegal for doctors to perform, with stripping their license as the punishment. I wouldn't support putting doctors who perform abortions without a license in jail, though.
-
Got the videos "illegally" really bad. PP willing to traffic baby parts perfectly fine. :thumbsup: Nice work ProgLibs
Dax hates cancer and neurological research. Good job 'Pubs.
-
Here's what I meant. The fundamental issue is if an unborn person has human rights and is considered a person or not. The videos were a tool to sway the argument towards that. What some grand jury says about the ethics of the videos matters little to me. Its a fantastic way to diverge the argument from the actual issue.
Fundamentally, the question is what qualifies as a person who is deserving of basic protection. That's the issue.
The videos had little to do with that. They were specifically trying to catch illegal activity and they failed to do so, so they lied and said there was illegal activity anyway. This directly led to a man shooting people at an abortion clinic.
I'd say "crazy" had a lot more to do with that guy shooting up the clinic than some video exposing the horror of what those clinics do. Such exposes should not be silenced simply because of how a crazy person might respond.
The videos fairly and accurately presented what these clinics actually do. The Planned Parenthood execs actually said what they said. They actually made those jokes and glibly discussed their butchery over lunch. They actually went through their "menu" and pricing of various prices (man, if you can get an intact head that's where the big money is!). The vultures actually coo'd "it's another boy!" while sifting through the remains. These things actually happened, and they were caught on tape.
You don't like to admit the evil of this enterprise, so you deflect to other issues - "The activists forged IDs!", "PP wasn't indicted!" So? They're still monsters.
This is a total lie. The people at PP have never said that, because the stuff that the videos portray has never happened at a PP clinic, see the controversy over the still born fetus being used as a prop by these disgusting video makers to create a controversy.
-
Dlew I'm surprised to see you take this stance. Your post is a fair bit of misdirection at what people are actually claiming and doing versus narrative. 99% of abortion people would want less abortions. Making them illegal only puts people at risk. The comparisons as people have noted to murder are just absurd. It's about state control of the human body. If there were a similar mens issue KSUW would take over a wild life refuge to protest the state limiting his right to it. The overall attack is less about abortion and more about control of women, which has gone on for centuries.
-
Dlew I'm surprised to see you take this stance. Your post is a fair bit of misdirection at what people are actually claiming and doing versus narrative. 99% of abortion people would want less abortions. Making them illegal only puts people at risk. The comparisons as people have noted to murder are just absurd. It's about state control of the human body. If there were a similar mens issue KSUW would take over a wild life refuge to protest the state limiting his right to it. The overall attack is less about abortion and more about control of women, which has gone on for centuries.
Some well thought out arguments here.
-
My hot take on Abortion. It's a tragedy and we as a society should work so there is less of them. But women will have them done if they are legal or not, so why not make them legal to a certain point of the pregnancy? As a male I have a hard time telling a women that she must have a kid, especially when we have such a shoddy safety net. Just my humble opinion.
pretty much where i stand
No offense, but that's the laziest crap in the world.
You admit it's a tragedy -- why exactly is it tragic? I thought this was a mere medical procedure. Like removing a cyst or setting a broken ankle. Is it tragic solely because the procedure sometimes puts an emotional toll on the woman? Is every mere medical procedure a tragedy?
Also, the argument that women will get abortions whether or not they're illegal is a nonsense argument. The idea that society should only make an activity illegal if it means that, henceforth, no one will engage in that activity is extremely silly when you think about it for longer than five seconds. People still steal things. People still murder.
Finally, the "I'm a man so I can't have a say," is just bullshit. Should non-slaveholding northerners just minded their own business? If you think abortion is murder, "I'm a man" is irrelevant.
Damn Bringing the fire.
tragedy was probably the wrong word. Do I wish there less abortions? Abosolutely. But I don't think it's murder, could the fetus live on its own without being in the womb?
But I'm reminded on the chapter in Freaknomics when it basically makes an argument that the lowering of the crime rate in the early 90's was due to Roe v Wade. I don't think that in itself makes a abortion right, but I think it shows the types of lives outlawing abortion leads too.
and yes I know the argument about it would be done even if it's was illegal I terrible argument, I fight against it all the time in gun control arguments. But I think for the safety and health of our fellow citizens they should have the opportunity to get safe legal abortions.
what is your stance on eugenics?
Obviously I'm against it. I'm not saying abortion should be legal for the betterment of society, I'm just saying there is evidence that shows it might improve society.
-
I am entirely okay with telling women, or men for that matter, that they can't kill somebody.
-
What if "someone" is a clump of two or three cells? I mean, thats what we are talking about with the morning after pill.
-
I am entirely okay with telling women, or men for that matter, that they can't kill somebody.
See Ya death penalty
-
I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.
-
For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.
-
I am entirely okay with telling women, or men for that matter, that they can't kill somebody.
See Ya death penalty
Now you're starting to get it!
-
Babies, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
-
I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.
But still, the question I'm getting at is why do you think it's bad or a tragedy.
For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.
That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible. Can you help me out?
Also, war is sad because people die and it can ruin the survivors' lives. I just don't understand why pro-choice people call abortion a "tragedy." I can understand the logic behind believing the practice is a standard medical procedure, but I don't get why that would be tragic.
-
Babies, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
This is irrelevant.
-
FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?
-
FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?
Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other? That's not how rights work.
-
For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.
That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible. Can you help me out?
I think the American Revolution could fall into that space. Patriots wanted to govern themselves and Britain wanted to keep its territory. Immoral acts occurred during the war, but I wouldn't say either party were immoral for starting the war.
-
FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?
Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other? That's not how rights work.
They aren't individuals yet, unless they can live without being in the mother's womb.
-
For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.
That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible. Can you help me out?
I think the American Revolution could fall into that space. Patriots wanted to govern themselves and Britain wanted to keep its territory. Immoral acts occurred during the war, but I wouldn't say either party were immoral for starting the war.
Fair enough. A fine example.
That said, I think we got off the line a tad. My question is, why is abortion a tragedy? I think abortion is a tragedy for presumably the same reason war is a tragedy -- i.e. people die.
You view abortion as a tragedy because...?
-
FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?
Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other? That's not how rights work.
They aren't individuals yet, unless they can live without being in the mother's womb.
Sorry you feel that way.
Do you think a baby 30 seconds outside the womb is any more viable than one 30 seconds before? Sure, there is the incremental difference in survival rate between those two points, but it's pretty insignificant.
-
Hey Dlew, how would you react if your sister (or someone similar) had an abortion?
-
Hey Dlew, how would you react if your sister (or someone similar) had an abortion?
I have no clue. Probably be pretty shocked.
-
For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.
That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible. Can you help me out?
I think the American Revolution could fall into that space. Patriots wanted to govern themselves and Britain wanted to keep its territory. Immoral acts occurred during the war, but I wouldn't say either party were immoral for starting the war.
Fair enough. A fine example.
That said, I think we got off the line a tad. My question is, why is abortion a tragedy? I think abortion is a tragedy for presumably the same reason war is a tragedy -- i.e. people die.
You view abortion as a tragedy because...?
I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.
-
For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.
That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible. Can you help me out?
I think the American Revolution could fall into that space. Patriots wanted to govern themselves and Britain wanted to keep its territory. Immoral acts occurred during the war, but I wouldn't say either party were immoral for starting the war.
Fair enough. A fine example.
That said, I think we got off the line a tad. My question is, why is abortion a tragedy? I think abortion is a tragedy for presumably the same reason war is a tragedy -- i.e. people die.
You view abortion as a tragedy because...?
I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.
You don't think knowingly causing an innocent person to die is morally wrong? FTR, I definitely fall on the "knowingly causing enough pollution to kill someone is morally wrong" side of the coin.
-
A big reason it's a tragedy is because of the incredible mental and emotional hardship on the woman having the abortion. Even if they'd have no way of properly taking care of a baby, ending a pregnancy can't be an easy thing to do because of how the human brain is wired. Often they have to go through it alone, are in desperate situations, etc.
-
Babies, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
Those parents probably wouldn't choose to have an abortion.
-
FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?
Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other? That's not how rights work.
They aren't individuals yet, unless they can live without being in the mother's womb.
Sorry you feel that way.
Do you think a baby 30 seconds outside the womb is any more viable than one 30 seconds before? Sure, there is the incremental difference in survival rate between those two points, but it's pretty insignificant.
I don't think a lot of abortions are happening 30 seconds before the baby is born. I'm against late term abortions, except in cases of the mother's health, rape or incest). But a fetus being aborted 10 weeks into the pregnancy is not a viable life form yet so therefore does not have protections or rights a person would have.
-
Dlew I'm surprised to see you take this stance. Your post is a fair bit of misdirection at what people are actually claiming and doing versus narrative. 99% of abortion people would want less abortions. Making them illegal only puts people at risk. The comparisons as people have noted to murder are just absurd. It's about state control of the human body. If there were a similar mens issue KSUW would take over a wild life refuge to protest the state limiting his right to it. The overall attack is less about abortion and more about control of women, which has gone on for centuries.
Some well thought out arguments here.
Edna probably has the highest stupid/loud quotient in the Pit. Example:
I'd say "crazy" had a lot more to do with that guy shooting up the clinic than some video exposing the horror of what those clinics do. Such exposes should not be silenced simply because of how a crazy person might respond.
The videos fairly and accurately presented what these clinics actually do. The Planned Parenthood execs actually said what they said. They actually made those jokes and glibly discussed their butchery over lunch. They actually went through their "menu" and pricing of various prices (man, if you can get an intact head that's where the big money is!). The vultures actually coo'd "it's another boy!" while sifting through the remains. These things actually happened, and they were caught on tape.
You don't like to admit the evil of this enterprise, so you deflect to other issues - "The activists forged IDs!", "PP wasn't indicted!" So? They're still monsters.
This is a total lie. The people at PP have never said that, because the stuff that the videos portray has never happened at a PP clinic, see the controversy over the still born fetus being used as a prop by these disgusting video makers to create a controversy.
-
FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?
Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other? That's not how rights work.
They aren't individuals yet, unless they can live without being in the mother's womb.
Sorry you feel that way.
Do you think a baby 30 seconds outside the womb is any more viable than one 30 seconds before? Sure, there is the incremental difference in survival rate between those two points, but it's pretty insignificant.
I don't think a lot of abortions are happening 30 seconds before the baby is born. I'm against late term abortions, except in cases of the mother's health, rape or incest). But a fetus being aborted 10 weeks into the pregnancy is not a viable life form yet so therefore does not have protections or rights a person would have.
First, why should rape or incest be an exception for murdering a baby 30 seconds prior to birth?
Second, why does a 10 week old fetus have less right to live than a 30 week fetus? What does viability have to do with human rights?
-
What does a fetus have to do with human rights? (except obviously the mothers rights)
-
I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.
Just inserting a marker here. The above quote is a real thing. It was actually said. "Sure you're intentionally killing a human life, but people die because of pollution all the time." I repeat, somebody actually believes this is a good argument.
-
What does a fetus have to do with human rights? (except obviously the mothers rights)
Lib7, you're in the timeout corner for comparing abortion to knee surgery. Remember? Please don't double down on your stupidity today. Give it 24 hours.
-
What does a fetus have to do with human rights? (except obviously the mothers rights)
Lib7, you're in the timeout corner for comparing abortion to knee surgery. Remember? Please don't double down on your stupidity today. Give it 24 hours.
you don't get to ban people from discussion for making absurd statements.
-
For example War is a tragedy and bad, but I think most on here would agree that it's not murder, nor was a moral law broken.
That may be true -- but I'm trying to think of an example where a war was a result of all parties acting morally permissible. Can you help me out?
I think the American Revolution could fall into that space. Patriots wanted to govern themselves and Britain wanted to keep its territory. Immoral acts occurred during the war, but I wouldn't say either party were immoral for starting the war.
Fair enough. A fine example.
That said, I think we got off the line a tad. My question is, why is abortion a tragedy? I think abortion is a tragedy for presumably the same reason war is a tragedy -- i.e. people die.
You view abortion as a tragedy because...?
I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.
You don't think knowingly causing an innocent person to die is morally wrong? FTR, I definitely fall on the "knowingly causing enough pollution to kill someone is morally wrong" side of the coin.
I mean then give up a lot of modern accessories cars, electricity, too many chemicals too count. And when I say cars I don't just mean C02, but ozone and other pollutants that cause asthma/heart attacks.
-
I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.
Newborn babies can't live outside the womb, either. Not without care from others. Your argument is weak. Birth is an arbitrary dividing line with monstrous results.
-
I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.
Just inserting a marker here. The above quote is a real thing. It was actually said. "Sure you're intentionally killing a human life, but people die because of pollution all the time." I repeat, somebody actually believes this is a good argument.
Every time you get in car you are knowingly shortening the life of another human and probably yourself.
-
I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.
Newborn babies can't live outside the womb, either. Not without care from others. Your argument is weak. Birth is an arbitrary dividing line with monstrous results.
But they are viable life forms that could live with the help of others. A 10 week old fetus can't even do that.
-
I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.
Just inserting a marker here. The above quote is a real thing. It was actually said. "Sure you're intentionally killing a human life, but people die because of pollution all the time." I repeat, somebody actually believes this is a good argument.
Every time you get in car you are knowingly shortening the life of another human and probably yourself.
Not really. If there were no automobiles, the average human lifespan would be shorter.
-
Can't you just walk into PP and other clinics and pretty much get free contraceptives?
Defunding planned parenthood is a plank of the Republican Party platform. Also, there is not nearly enough effort made given the low costs of the intervention, the cost savings and the moral benefits.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Did I already ask months ago why you people care if someone else gets an abortion?
-
Did I already ask months ago why you people care if someone else gets an abortion?
Why does anyone care about anything?
-
Did I already ask months ago why you people care if someone else gets an abortion?
Why does anyone care about anything?
Self-interest.
-
I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.
Newborn babies can't live outside the womb, either. Not without care from others. Your argument is weak. Birth is an arbitrary dividing line with monstrous results.
But they are viable life forms that could live with the help of others. A 10 week old fetus can't even do that.
Would your opinion change if technology made it possible?
-
Did I already ask months ago why you people care if someone else gets an abortion?
Why does anyone care about anything?
Self-interest.
Is it your opinion that when someone cares about another person it is out of self-interest?
-
Can't you just walk into PP and other clinics and pretty much get free contraceptives?
Yes. But I believe KK is referring to OTC availability of morning after pill?
I respect people who oppose such availability because it can cause abortion. However, I support it from the pragmatic viewpoint that it could dramatically reduce both the number of later term abortions and the rationale therefore.
Why can't CVS perform implants (arm) free of charge and provide other forms of contraceptives and charge taxpayers? Could offer condoms as well. The evidence for IUDs has been dramatic reductions in unwanted pregnancies, I would want to do more to offer condoms to prevent transmission of STIs as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I agree, a person (or what would become a person) dies. That doesn't make it murder or morally wrong. I mean people die or have their lives significantly shortened because of pollution. That doesn't mean Someone murdered them or the pollution was morally wrong, if it did a lot of people should be going to jail.
Just inserting a marker here. The above quote is a real thing. It was actually said. "Sure you're intentionally killing a human life, but people die because of pollution all the time." I repeat, somebody actually believes this is a good argument.
Every time you get in car you are knowingly shortening the life of another human and probably yourself.
Not really. If there were no automobiles, the average human lifespan would be shorter.
Touche. I'll still stand by my argument that we use stuff everyday that pollutes and kills people. And we have accepted it as a society when we do a cost/benefit analysis.
-
I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.
Newborn babies can't live outside the womb, either. Not without care from others. Your argument is weak. Birth is an arbitrary dividing line with monstrous results.
But they are viable life forms that could live with the help of others. A 10 week old fetus can't even do that.
A 10 week old fetus will become 11 weeks, then 12, etc. - unless something intervenes, like being butchered by an abortion doctor. You still haven't explained the moral basis for your dividing line.
-
I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.
Newborn babies can't live outside the womb, either. Not without care from others. Your argument is weak. Birth is an arbitrary dividing line with monstrous results.
But they are viable life forms that could live with the help of others. A 10 week old fetus can't even do that.
Would your opinion change if technology made it possible?
So many question in your hypothetical argument, how much would said technology cost and who would the burden of such cost fall too? Are we gonna put poor mothers in debt so their 10 week old fetus could be in the hospital for a long time?
-
I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.
Newborn babies can't live outside the womb, either. Not without care from others. Your argument is weak. Birth is an arbitrary dividing line with monstrous results.
But they are viable life forms that could live with the help of others. A 10 week old fetus can't even do that.
Would your opinion change if technology made it possible?
So many question in your hypothetical argument, how much would said technology cost and who would the burden of such cost fall too? Are we gonna put poor mothers in debt so their 10 week old fetus could be in the hospital for a long time?
That is a diversion from the purpose of his point. The point being made was that if a fetus isn't viable it isn't life and thus the abortion isn't morally wrong. So if it could actually be viable earlier, does that change when an abortion should be allowed to occur? It isn't a call for poor young mothers to pay huge sums in that regard.
-
I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.
Newborn babies can't live outside the womb, either. Not without care from others. Your argument is weak. Birth is an arbitrary dividing line with monstrous results.
But they are viable life forms that could live with the help of others. A 10 week old fetus can't even do that.
Would your opinion change if technology made it possible?
So many question in your hypothetical argument, how much would said technology cost and who would the burden of such cost fall too? Are we gonna put poor mothers in debt so their 10 week old fetus could be in the hospital for a long time?
That is a diversion from the purpose of his point. The point being made was that if a fetus isn't viable it isn't life and thus the abortion isn't morally wrong. So if it could actually be viable earlier, does that change when an abortion should be allowed to occur? It isn't a call for poor young mothers to pay huge sums in that regard.
For me, no I would still allow abortions in that case. I'm trying to make the point for society to accept. But alas we would never agree to anything.
Like I have made the point before, people dying ,while a tragedy and bad, is not necessarily murder or morally wrong. It has happened throughout human history and will continue to happen.
-
I don't see the moral difference in a country going to war (when it will knowingly kill innocents) and abortion. We make those human cost/benefit analysis all the time. So why is abortion different?
-
Dlew I'm surprised to see you take this stance. Your post is a fair bit of misdirection at what people are actually claiming and doing versus narrative. 99% of abortion people would want less abortions. Making them illegal only puts people at risk. The comparisons as people have noted to murder are just absurd. It's about state control of the human body. If there were a similar mens issue KSUW would take over a wild life refuge to protest the state limiting his right to it. The overall attack is less about abortion and more about control of women, which has gone on for centuries.
Some well thought out arguments here.
Whether or not you agree with it doesn't change the fact that most people's default argument for choice centers on the principle of the government telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. This country has embraced this uniquely conservative issue for decades and the justification has shifted while the underlying issue at hand has always remained the same: government controlling the female body. The irony is that the party of life only gets on that moral soap box when its abortion and is literally 180 opposite on every other level of protection of life, from death penalty to social services.
-
Dlew I'm surprised to see you take this stance. Your post is a fair bit of misdirection at what people are actually claiming and doing versus narrative. 99% of abortion people would want less abortions. Making them illegal only puts people at risk. The comparisons as people have noted to murder are just absurd. It's about state control of the human body. If there were a similar mens issue KSUW would take over a wild life refuge to protest the state limiting his right to it. The overall attack is less about abortion and more about control of women, which has gone on for centuries.
Some well thought out arguments here.
Whether or not you agree with it doesn't change the fact that most people's default argument for choice centers on the principle of the government telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. This country has embraced this uniquely conservative issue for decades and the justification has shifted while the underlying issue at hand has always remained the same: government controlling the female body. The irony is that the party of life only gets on that moral soap box when its abortion and is literally 180 opposite on every other level of protection of life, from death penalty to social services.
But that's a little disingenuous to frame the argument that way. I don't give a crap what women do with their bodies. Get tattoos! Do drugs! Work out! Get breast implants! Become sterile! Have kids! Don't have kids! Do literally anything -- but do not harm anybody else.
And I'm sure you feel the same way, but contend that "anybody else" doesn't include unborn babies or fetuses or whatever you'd like to call them. And that, I submit, is the actual "underlying issue."
"You want control of women's bodies" is as disingenuous as "you want to kill babies."
-
I mostly agree with you there dlew
-
i really enjoy D-Lew's arguments. As they are always well reasoned and make me think about my beliefs more which is always a good thing. :cheers:
-
Yeah, until he starts getting all 2nd year law schoolery
-
Yeah, until he starts getting all 2nd year law schoolery
THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO :curse:
-
So the Planned Hamburger killer zealots are accusing the video guys of creating a fake ID and they can get 20 years in the concentration camp. So does a teener with a fake ID trying to buy beer get 20 years? Why don't these meat.merchants get some time for commercial cannibalism?
-
They also violated texas state law that bans attempting to buy fetal tissue
-
They sent an email to pp asking to buy tissue at $1600 apiece :lol:
-
Got the videos "illegally" really bad. PP willing to traffic baby parts perfectly fine. :thumbsup: Nice work ProgLibs
Dax hates cancer and neurological research. Good job 'Pubs.
Yes illegal body part trafficking, edn Whackadoodle loves it. Welcome to the new Eastern Bloc America!
-
Got the videos "illegally" really bad. PP willing to traffic baby parts perfectly fine. :thumbsup: Nice work ProgLibs
Dax hates cancer and neurological research. Good job 'Pubs.
Yes illegal body part trafficking, edn Whackadoodle loves it. Welcome to the new Eastern Bloc America!
Where did this happen?
-
The implication was there, they didn't shut down the conversation.
-
The implication was there, they didn't shut down the conversation.
implication was there........
or if you watch the director's cut with extended footage they did shut down the "for profit" angle and personal gain. But who has time for hours of movies when your brain can only handle 8 minutes of soundbites.
-
The implication was there, they didn't shut down the conversation.
implication was there........
or if you watch the director's cut with extended footage they did shut down the "for profit" angle and personal gain. But who has time for hours of movies when your brain can only handle 8 minutes of soundbites.
8 minutes of "soundbites" is actually quite a long time in this day and age Whack-a-doodle. So they all shut it down? Why even entertain the conversation to begin with? Unless you're going to run straight to the "saving everyone from disease and death angle" which is absolutely absurd and disingenuous even for you and your 1000's of flailing strawmen.
-
Dlew I'm surprised to see you take this stance. Your post is a fair bit of misdirection at what people are actually claiming and doing versus narrative. 99% of abortion people would want less abortions. Making them illegal only puts people at risk. The comparisons as people have noted to murder are just absurd. It's about state control of the human body. If there were a similar mens issue KSUW would take over a wild life refuge to protest the state limiting his right to it. The overall attack is less about abortion and more about control of women, which has gone on for centuries.
Some well thought out arguments here.
Whether or not you agree with it doesn't change the fact that most people's default argument for choice centers on the principle of the government telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. This country has embraced this uniquely conservative issue for decades and the justification has shifted while the underlying issue at hand has always remained the same: government controlling the female body. The irony is that the party of life only gets on that moral soap box when its abortion and is literally 180 opposite on every other level of protection of life, from death penalty to social services.
But that's a little disingenuous to frame the argument that way. I don't give a crap what women do with their bodies. Get tattoos! Do drugs! Work out! Get breast implants! Become sterile! Have kids! Don't have kids! Do literally anything -- but do not harm anybody else.
And I'm sure you feel the same way, but contend that "anybody else" doesn't include unborn babies or fetuses or whatever you'd like to call them. And that, I submit, is the actual "underlying issue."
"You want control of women's bodies" is as disingenuous as "you want to kill babies."
Not really when you can list a litany of other points where sex/gender were used to enforce control. Look at access to women's healthcare, look at birth control access, look at laws which specifically relate to pregnancy (GE v Gilbert). I would argue the betrayal of your point is that social conservatives who "value" life are all too willing to destroy it at many other crossroads from the death penalty to healthcare for the most vulnerable elements of society. If as you contend that the underlying life of the fetus is paramount why are we doing so little to improve that life from beginning to potential end? You are also including nearly impossible things to square with your value judgements when you get into things like the threat to a mother's life in pregnancy. Now you haven't elaborated too much on grey area topics, but you've been pretty black and white so far. Forgive me if you think I'm putting words in your mouth on what position you hold.
-
That's a nice and typical screed (as usual) edn, but your so far off of my point (and that's tough for you) it's hilarious. I'm not at all debating the availability of abortions, but as usual, you're too stupid to see that. So when you've got nothing, you just engage in ranting and nonsense.
I'm also not at all debating stem cell and related research . . . so yes, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth, but I guess a Whack-a-Doodle like you needs to feel better . . . a lot.
-
That's a nice and typical screed (as usual) edn, but your so far off of my point (and that's tough for you) it's hilarious. I'm not at all debating the availability of abortions, but as usual, you're too stupid to see that. So when you've got nothing, you just engage in ranting and nonsense.
I'm also not at all debating stem cell and related research . . . so yes, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth, but I guess a Whack-a-Doodle like you needs to feel better . . . a lot.
I don't think you understand how the quote feature works.
-
The implication was there, they didn't shut down the conversation.
implication was there........
or if you watch the director's cut with extended footage they did shut down the "for profit" angle and personal gain. But who has time for hours of movies when your brain can only handle 8 minutes of soundbites.
8 minutes of "soundbites" is actually quite a long time in this day and age Whack-a-doodle. So they all shut it down? Why even entertain the conversation to begin with? Unless you're going to run straight to the "saving everyone from disease and death angle" which is absolutely absurd and disingenuous even for you and your 1000's of flailing strawmen.
They "shut down" everything they morally had a duty to. I'm sorry that your side doesn't understand that at the point the fetus is destroyed/killed/terminated/etc it is essentially medical waste the same way an amputated limb is. If someone can get some use, especially life saving research use from that body, why wouldn't you give it up to science? Your side invented a strawman stuffed with rhetoric about trafficing for profit in human body parts and don't seem to care that you're now an empty shirt of a scarecrow. It's been proven over and over again that this was a lie. It's been proven over and over again that the methods used in termination and "distribution" were 100% legal. You literally have no leg to stand on with the law yet you continue with this moral outrage bullshit. Were the reps cavalier and grotesque about what they were doing IMO: Yes. Were they lacking empathy that this was once the body of a human life and not an amputated foot: Yes. But But none of that is a legal reason to remove funding from PP. None of that was a legal reason to seek an indictment.
-
This is clearly too much for you, and if you can't understand the draconian nature of what the ghouls at PP were at least willing to entertain, then I feel sad for you.
There's been nothing that I've seen which "proves over and over again" that what they were willing too engage in was entirely on the up-and-up, but when you've got a well funded propaganda machine that gets unleashed anytime this ghouls are caught, this is what you can expect. Please provide something that isn't from Salon or one of your usual suspect publications or highly slanted sources that "proves" "over and over again" that these people weren't willing to entertain trafficking human body parts.
-
That's a nice and typical screed (as usual) edn, but your so far off of my point (and that's tough for you) it's hilarious. I'm not at all debating the availability of abortions, but as usual, you're too stupid to see that. So when you've got nothing, you just engage in ranting and nonsense.
I'm also not at all debating stem cell and related research . . . so yes, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth, but I guess a Whack-a-Doodle like you needs to feel better . . . a lot.
I don't think you understand how the quote feature works.
Tap out, as usual.
-
Was there someone in the prosecutors office with substantial ties to PP edn? Now, I know you live in some sort of non-real world academic life, but if you actually believe the story that she recused herself and had no sway over the situation, then :lol: right in your face.
-
I was very behind in all this, so these are quotes I pulled out as they affected me and my 'feelings'
Babies, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
How do they have rights? Test a baby and tell me they know anything other than being alive. Maybe they have the instinct of staying alive as KSU pointed out, but cognitively they know nothing beyond that. Medically if they can stay alive, I guess they have rights, but biological development to stay alive is not possible before a certain point. What makes that point? This crowd claims they have rights, yet can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt when, only defaulting to conception as the time. Yet science has proved this isn't possible, using empathy as a weapon to convince others of this point is sad in itself.
FETUSES, unborn or not, have rights. I challenge you to go to one funeral for an unborn baby and tell those parents their dead child was "not a person yet."
But do their rights supersede those of the mothers, especially when the fetus can't live outside the mother yet?
Do the rights of any individual supersede the rights of any other? That's not how rights work.
They aren't individuals yet, unless they can live without being in the mother's womb.
Sorry you feel that way.
Do you think a baby 30 seconds outside the womb is any more viable than one 30 seconds before? Sure, there is the incremental difference in survival rate between those two points, but it's pretty insignificant.
I don't think a lot of abortions are happening 30 seconds before the baby is born. I'm against late term abortions, except in cases of the mother's health, rape or incest). But a fetus being aborted 10 weeks into the pregnancy is not a viable life form yet so therefore does not have protections or rights a person would have.
First, why should rape or incest be an exception for murdering a baby 30 seconds prior to birth?
Second, why does a 10 week old fetus have less right to live than a 30 week fetus? What does viability have to do with human rights?
This is in response to KSU Wildcats:
Rape and incest should absolutely be a reason for an abortion. As you sit in your ivory tower and look down on these women, they should have prevented this in your eyes. They are at fault for being raped, therefore, they should be made to have that baby. Regardless of whether it was their choice.
No matter what their background, rich, poor, young, and old, they better have that baby. Continue the rapist line so that other young women, maybe even your own daughter, can continue this cycle of birth. It can only help and improve the human race, which is what it is all about right? Let us continue this race and provide our children with a fine crop of rapist and murderer blood. That will ensure our kin will be safe.
After thoughts:
There is all this talk of Morals. So what makes up the entire human races morals? What set document defines these? What defines this right and wrong, other than the law, for which we may not agree with? How do you define morals that other people should live by, when you yourself didn't learn them until later in life?
-
Jesus, tbt really knows how to murder whatever side he fights for
-
Whether or not you agree with it doesn't change the fact that most people's default argument for choice centers on the principle of the government telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. This country has embraced this uniquely conservative issue for decades and the justification has shifted while the underlying issue at hand has always remained the same: government controlling the female body. The irony is that the party of life only gets on that moral soap box when its abortion and is literally 180 opposite on every other level of protection of life, from death penalty to social services.
But that's a little disingenuous to frame the argument that way. I don't give a crap what women do with their bodies. Get tattoos! Do drugs! Work out! Get breast implants! Become sterile! Have kids! Don't have kids! Do literally anything -- but do not harm anybody else.
And I'm sure you feel the same way, but contend that "anybody else" doesn't include unborn babies or fetuses or whatever you'd like to call them. And that, I submit, is the actual "underlying issue."
"You want control of women's bodies" is as disingenuous as "you want to kill babies."
Not really when you can list a litany of other points where sex/gender were used to enforce control. Look at access to women's healthcare, look at birth control access, look at laws which specifically relate to pregnancy (GE v Gilbert). I would argue the betrayal of your point is that social conservatives who "value" life are all too willing to destroy it at many other crossroads from the death penalty to healthcare for the most vulnerable elements of society. If as you contend that the underlying life of the fetus is paramount why are we doing so little to improve that life from beginning to potential end? You are also including nearly impossible things to square with your value judgements when you get into things like the threat to a mother's life in pregnancy. Now you haven't elaborated too much on grey area topics, but you've been pretty black and white so far. Forgive me if you think I'm putting words in your mouth on what position you hold.
I think you have put words in my mouth.
There is lots and lots of evidence that we would reduce costs to society and drastically reduce abortions by providing free contraception to everyone, especially teenagers.
Amazingly, the same people that claim abortion is a literal holocaust don't want to do that.
Education too. However, same ppl really like ignorant, unprepared, baby time bombs.
I am for these solutions!
I can't speak for the pro-life movement as a whole, or the right in general, because I don't share a lot of their political beliefs. But I'd be surprised if you went up and asked any one of them why they were anti-abortion and they told you "control of women's bodies."
-
I think there is a space where you can call something bad or a tragedy, and not mean murder or a moral law is broken. Is it really murder if it couldn't live outside the womb? To me that's not a person yet.
Newborn babies can't live outside the womb, either. Not without care from others. Your argument is weak. Birth is an arbitrary dividing line with monstrous results.
But they are viable life forms that could live with the help of others. A 10 week old fetus can't even do that.
Would your opinion change if technology made it possible?
So many question in your hypothetical argument, how much would said technology cost and who would the burden of such cost fall too? Are we gonna put poor mothers in debt so their 10 week old fetus could be in the hospital for a long time?
Let's just assume it's free.
-
How do they have rights? Test a baby and tell me they know anything other than being alive. Maybe they have the instinct of staying alive as KSU pointed out, but cognitively they know nothing beyond that. Medically if they can stay alive, I guess they have rights, but biological development to stay alive is not possible before a certain point. What makes that point? This crowd claims they have rights, yet can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt when, only defaulting to conception as the time. Yet science has proved this isn't possible, using empathy as a weapon to convince others of this point is sad in itself.
Respectfully, you haven't thought this through very well. In deciding on when a baby acquires the right to not be killed (I'm speaking of moral rights - not legal rights, mind you, which are an issue of jurisprudence), some people use birth, some people use viability, some people use conception. Only one of these has a moral basis.
Using birth as a dividing line is absurd and monstrous - aside from an umbilical cord and some fluid in the longs, there is no physical difference between a child 30 seconds prior to birth and 30 seconds after.
But there is also no moral basis for "viability" as the dividing line - not to mention that "viability" is ill-defined and keeps getting earlier with technological advances. Neither a 10 week old fetus nor a newborn infant are independent, self-sustaining life forms. Both require constant care and nourishment to survive. A newborn infant is really no more "viable" than the fetus. The fetus, just like the infant, will continue to grow and develop unless he or she dies or is killed. Sometimes fetuses die due to development problems, just the same as infants. There is no moral, logical argument for treating a fetus different from a newborn infant.
Conception it at least premised upon one inescapable scientific fact: this is when human life begins. That is a logical, moral basis for when life should be protected (from the start).
Rape and incest should absolutely be a reason for an abortion. As you sit in your ivory tower and look down on these women, they should have prevented this in your eyes. They are at fault for being raped, therefore, they should be made to have that baby. Regardless of whether it was their choice.
No matter what their background, rich, poor, young, and old, they better have that baby. Continue the rapist line so that other young women, maybe even your own daughter, can continue this cycle of birth. It can only help and improve the human race, which is what it is all about right? Let us continue this race and provide our children with a fine crop of rapist and murderer blood. That will ensure our kin will be safe.
Rape is a terrible offenses. For this reason, we punish rape criminally, and harshly. But the baby is innocent of the crime. There is no moral argument for killing a baby who is the product of rape. It is particularly absurd to suggest that a baby should be permitted to be killed up to the moment of birth if conceived by rape.
The "rape exception" is also mostly a red herring thanks to medical advancements. A woman who is raped can now be administered medication at the hospital that prevents her from conceiving. Of course there are still some situations where the rape will not be treated immediately - familial incest being the worst such example - but this is still not a moral reason to kill an innocent human being. It is a benchmark of our civilization and society that we punish the guilty - not the innocent. You can call that "ivory tower" if you like - it's true.
-
My stance on abortion is: When there's a heartbeat, I'd probably consider it a life. So, I'm against abortions after 17 weeks. The only exception, would be if the life of the mother is threatened.
I would normally not let abortion be a factor in my voting but I'm against defunding Planned Parenthood because of all the other services they provide. So, if defunding PP is a part of their platform, I likely wouldn't vote for them.
-
I'm fine with the free contraceptives argument. If that's your stance, sure, I'm on board. However the education thing is pretty weak. If you want more sex ed in schools or wherever, I'm fine with that too. But I have a hard time believing teens are just humping with the knowledge that a pregnancy is a potential consequence. Its 2016.
-
The education is on how to better use birth control
-
The education is on how to better use birth control
oh. yeah that's fine. i'm ok with that.
-
The implication was there, they didn't shut down the conversation.
Ok. So nothing illegal. Thanks for clarifying.
-
The education is on how to better use birth control
It should also be positively skewed. I was a member of S.H.A.P.E. at KState and the research showed that countries who had a positive dialogue about sex in schools and in the home had lower teen pregnancies and lower rape numbers by a significant amount when compared with the United States..
-
I agree yard dog :thumbs:
-
I'm fine with the free contraceptives argument. If that's your stance, sure, I'm on board. However the education thing is pretty weak. If you want more sex ed in schools or wherever, I'm fine with that too. But I have a hard time believing teens are just humping with the knowledge that a pregnancy is a potential consequence. Its 2016.
I have several friends that are mid thirties now, grew up in various parts of KS, are from conservative religious families that don't know some pretty significant pregnancy things.
I know two couples that had a kid 11 months after the first because both always thought you couldn't get pregnant while breast feeding, for example.
You hear stories all the time about ppl that simply don't understand odds of prevention and what not. How are sheltered kids supposed to learn this info? I think you assume that all are seeking the info on line? I don't think that is the case. Many kids brought up in such environments buy in.
-
That reinforces how important an open dialogue about sex in the home is. And it shouldn't be seen as the great devil. It should be viewed as something beautiful to look forward to and cherish. If you support saving it for marriage, you can still frame the beauty in a way that doesn't leave your kids ignorant.
No matter if Planned Parenthood or any other source of information exists, there is no guarantee that information will reach the ears of the youth. If anything I support any organization that teaches parents how to talk about this stuff at home. If a kid feels comfortable asking their parents about things then there will be a lot less fear and confusion around the whole process.
-
My stance on abortion is: When there's a heartbeat, I'd probably consider it a life. So, I'm against abortions after 17 weeks. The only exception, would be if the life of the mother is threatened.
The heart begins pumping at 4-6 weeks, not that I can understand why protection should commence at that particular stage of development.
It's amazing how much we've learned about fetal development in the decades after the Supreme Court supposedly settled the controversy over abortion. If those justices knew then what we know now, I'm pretty sure the ruling would have been significanlty different. Yet libtards cling to Roe v Wade as canon all these years later despite advances in knowledge. "The Party of Science" huh?
-
I'm fine with the free contraceptives argument. If that's your stance, sure, I'm on board. However the education thing is pretty weak. If you want more sex ed in schools or wherever, I'm fine with that too. But I have a hard time believing teens are just humping with the knowledge that a pregnancy is a potential consequence. Its 2016.
i would wager an astronomical percentage of teens think pulling out is an effective way to avoid pregnancy
-
I'm fine with the free contraceptives argument. If that's your stance, sure, I'm on board. However the education thing is pretty weak. If you want more sex ed in schools or wherever, I'm fine with that too. But I have a hard time believing teens are just humping with the knowledge that a pregnancy is a potential consequence. Its 2016.
i would wager an astronomical percentage of teens think pulling out is an effective way to avoid pregnancy
There was a stat on 98.1 in KC this summer saying that there is a rise in teens saying this is what they use now. It's a small percentage, but its going up, according to that story that was too long ago for me to remember the source of.
-
I'm fine with the free contraceptives argument. If that's your stance, sure, I'm on board. However the education thing is pretty weak. If you want more sex ed in schools or wherever, I'm fine with that too. But I have a hard time believing teens are just humping with the knowledge that a pregnancy is a potential consequence. Its 2016.
i would wager an astronomical percentage of teens think pulling out is an effective way to avoid pregnancy
Also, girl on top is a known way to prevent pregnancy. Because gravity, duh.
-
I'm fine with the free contraceptives argument. If that's your stance, sure, I'm on board. However the education thing is pretty weak. If you want more sex ed in schools or wherever, I'm fine with that too. But I have a hard time believing teens are just humping with the knowledge that a pregnancy is a potential consequence. Its 2016.
i would wager an astronomical percentage of teens think pulling out is an effective way to avoid pregnancy
wait, its not?
-
jk. jk.
-
What's the criteria for "effective" ?
-
Can't get pregnant in water because the sperm will drown
-
Can't get pregnant in space because there is no sound and of course the sperm navigate much like a bat.
-
abortion is way better than unwanted kids
-
I think nowadays HS kids just do it in the butt to prevent pregnancy.
-
I think nowadays HS kids just do it in the butt to prevent pregnancy.
pretty effective and you don't have to tell your mom you want birth control!
potential for unwanted poop is worth it to avoid potential of unwanted pregnancy
-
I think nowadays HS kids just do it in the butt to prevent pregnancy.
pretty effective and you don't have to tell your mom you want birth control!
potential for unwanted poop is worth it to avoid potential of unwanted pregnancy
Also, you are still a virgin so God won't hate you.
-
Now we know how the goochs' roll. :sdeek:
-
Good overview of the state investigations into these lies.
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/464594826/in-wake-of-videos-planned-parenthood-investigations-find-no-fetal-tissue-sales
-
Now we know how the goochs' roll. :sdeek:
I said HS kids. We have taken more permanent measures.
-
Have them watch the video Last Week Tonight has in here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0jQz6jqQS0
FWIW I'm fairly anti abortion except for certain cases (rape, incest, medical emergencies that could kill the mom) but I feel that number would be pretty low. 110% behind any sort of contraception, male and female and better consistent education behind it. Basically I don't want abortions to happen, but if they do it should stem from extraneous and terrible circumstances, not because they and their partners didn't know of the proper protection and contraception. A woman has the right to decide to pregnant when and how they want to, just as they have the right to choose to have sex or not. If you want to save it for marriage, go for it. You don't, that's fine too, here's how to protect yourself. IMO unwanted births carry plenty of real life implications beyond just the abortion part (mistreatment, kid living a crappy life because of that, etc). Don't always agree with yard dog but he was hitting it out of the park ITT.
The education is on how to better use birth control
It should also be positively skewed. I was a member of S.H.A.P.E. at KState and the research showed that countries who had a positive dialogue about sex in schools and in the home had lower teen pregnancies and lower rape numbers by a significant amount when compared with the United States..
That reinforces how important an open dialogue about sex in the home is. And it shouldn't be seen as the great devil. It should be viewed as something beautiful to look forward to and cherish. If you support saving it for marriage, you can still frame the beauty in a way that doesn't leave your kids ignorant.
No matter if Planned Parenthood or any other source of information exists, there is no guarantee that information will reach the ears of the youth. If anything I support any organization that teaches parents how to talk about this stuff at home. If a kid feels comfortable asking their parents about things then there will be a lot less fear and confusion around the whole process.
^Great stuff right here.
-
I'm cool with that cfbandyman. But unless the debate is settled that an unborn person is a person, and part of the roll of government is to protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people, then all that other stuff is just a side step.
-
I mean, you're the one that thinks if a poor person needs medical treatment they can't afford that that person just should have worked harder in life and eff him if he dies, he's a taker anyway. You literally care more about a fetus than an actual human.
First, that's not true. I have never said that people should be denied life-saving care due to the inability to pay. We already have such laws that prohibit that, for good reason.
Second, you are deflecting once again. Sometimes the truth hurts. You need to really do some self reflection and ask yourself "Did I really just compare tearing an unborn child limb from limb to any other 'medical procedure?' Do I really not see the difference?"
Here is a more eloquent display of the exact same lack of conscience and morality from another abortion supporter:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/14/lila_rose_and_live_action_have_another_planned_parenthood_sting_yet_again.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/14/lila_rose_and_live_action_have_another_planned_parenthood_sting_yet_again.html)
As someone who is squeamish, it was extremely difficult for me to listen to Nucatola talk about extracting liver, heart, and other parts to be donated to medical research. (I nearly fainted when a friend showed me the video of her knee operation once.) But people who work in medicine for a living do, in fact, become inured to the gore in a way that can seem strange to those of us who aren't regularly exposed to it. She also thought she was speaking to people in her profession who would be similarly accustomed to this sort of thing.
Abortion is gross, no doubt about it. It becomes grosser the later in a pregnancy it gets. But so is heart surgery. So is child-birth, for that matter. We don't deny people who need help in those cases because the help is gross. Nor should we deny people that help when it comes to needing abortion. We also shouldn't deny women who want to donate fetal or embryonic remains to science any more than we would deny someone who wants to be an organ donor, even though the latter is also quite gross to ponder.
This mentality is what is "gross." It's worse than gross. It is horrific.
No it is not.
-
I'm cool with that cfbandyman. But unless the debate is settled that an unborn person is a person, and part of the roll of government is to protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people, then all that other stuff is just a side step.
Do you think it's the role of our government to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of people in other countries?
-
How do they have rights? Test a baby and tell me they know anything other than being alive. Maybe they have the instinct of staying alive as KSU pointed out, but cognitively they know nothing beyond that. Medically if they can stay alive, I guess they have rights, but biological development to stay alive is not possible before a certain point. What makes that point? This crowd claims they have rights, yet can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt when, only defaulting to conception as the time. Yet science has proved this isn't possible, using empathy as a weapon to convince others of this point is sad in itself.
Respectfully, you haven't thought this through very well. In deciding on when a baby acquires the right to not be killed (I'm speaking of moral rights - not legal rights, mind you, which are an issue of jurisprudence), some people use birth, some people use viability, some people use conception. Only one of these has a moral basis.
Using birth as a dividing line is absurd and monstrous - aside from an umbilical cord and some fluid in the longs, there is no physical difference between a child 30 seconds prior to birth and 30 seconds after.
But there is also no moral basis for "viability" as the dividing line - not to mention that "viability" is ill-defined and keeps getting earlier with technological advances. Neither a 10 week old fetus nor a newborn infant are independent, self-sustaining life forms. Both require constant care and nourishment to survive. A newborn infant is really no more "viable" than the fetus. The fetus, just like the infant, will continue to grow and develop unless he or she dies or is killed. Sometimes fetuses die due to development problems, just the same as infants. There is no moral, logical argument for treating a fetus different from a newborn infant.
Conception it at least premised upon one inescapable scientific fact: this is when human life begins. That is a logical, moral basis for when life should be protected (from the start).
What exactly are you arguing here? Morals in general are not a finite argument, because although some morals may be closely related, there is no set standard. Sure you can say 'common morals' or a mutual belief in a certain concept, but there are no absolutes when driven to technicalities. Just because my morals differ from someone else doesn't automatically assume I am a good or bad person, because they are based on your view of the world.
What are you using as your basis for birth? Does using 'birth' invoke that it must be 9 months after conception, because a fetus that is 9 months along compared to a fetus 7 months along is much different. At that stage development hasn't completed, and in some cases it can be caused by an underlying problem. So are you blaming nature for the insufficient murder of this child based on natural selection? I mean the only way a fetus survives is because of medical involvement.
Conception is one that you obviously think you know a lot about. Genetics, which are a part of your tech improvement arguments applies here. The advances in this area can, in your mind, make every scientist working in this area an abortion murderist. Tweaking and compromising these cells is manipulation before it is human, and even if it is, can be changed to an entirely different species. Let's not get into genetics, that's splitting more hairs than I think you can afford.
Rape and incest should absolutely be a reason for an abortion. As you sit in your ivory tower and look down on these women, they should have prevented this in your eyes. They are at fault for being raped, therefore, they should be made to have that baby. Regardless of whether it was their choice.
No matter what their background, rich, poor, young, and old, they better have that baby. Continue the rapist line so that other young women, maybe even your own daughter, can continue this cycle of birth. It can only help and improve the human race, which is what it is all about right? Let us continue this race and provide our children with a fine crop of rapist and murderer blood. That will ensure our kin will be safe.
Rape is a terrible offenses. For this reason, we punish rape criminally, and harshly. But the baby is innocent of the crime. There is no moral argument for killing a baby who is the product of rape. It is particularly absurd to suggest that a baby should be permitted to be killed up to the moment of birth if conceived by rape.
The "rape exception" is also mostly a red herring thanks to medical advancements. A woman who is raped can now be administered medication at the hospital that prevents her from conceiving. Of course there are still some situations where the rape will not be treated immediately - familial incest being the worst such example - but this is still not a moral reason to kill an innocent human being. It is a benchmark of our civilization and society that we punish the guilty - not the innocent. You can call that "ivory tower" if you like - it's true.
I agree that the baby is innocent of this crime, but the woman is just supposed to deal with it? Are you implying that the woman is a factor in the guilt? If it is a rape, then obviously this wasn't the woman's choice, but we should just oppress their choice anyway? I'm sorry but that kind of reasoning just doesn't make sense and honestly is more disgusting than removing something that wasn't their decision to begin with.
So, let me get this straight, the woman should just walk to the nearest hospital and get a 'morning after pill'. She should suppress her own emotions, and in most cases the most humiliating thing(in her mind) that has ever happened, "just deal with it", and get it done. You sit in your nice house, without the chance of being raped, and gladly tell a woman to suck it up and get that pill, or if she doesn't, she is a murderer. All the while you know nothing of the emotional toll it is to carry a child with your own consent, let along being forcefully raped.
-
Hey guys, with weeks if not months of advance notice abortion clinics had a chance to get their books straight . . . so "lies".
-
:lol:
-
:ROFL:
-
Hey guys, with weeks if not months of advance notice abortion clinics had a chance to get their books straight . . . so "lies".
So you want them to doctor their books? That seems like a much bigger issue than performing legal abortions that you are not authorized to do because of administrative issues.
But let's not focus on the fact that the entire premise of this investigation was that PP was "trafficking", for profit, in HUMAN BODY PARTS!!!! (scary voice) and that was a total lie. Tertiary at best now.
-
edn Whack-a-doodle, such a simpleton :lol:
-
Yes, because the transcripts are all lies!!
So much backtracking when they realized what they had been saying.
Classic "talking themselves out of the sale" behavior . . . but leave it to non real worlders to not understand.
Sad, but classic.
-
Did you just pull random sentences from some webpage and paste them in for your response? It doesn't make any sense. Could you be having a stroke?
Dax and klan: hey guys, PP is totes selling babies and having partial birth abortions!
Brownback and klan: ZOMG better cut off funding for all programs. This is the final bombshell we've been jerking off for!!!!!
People who investigate: Sorry, facts say otherwise. Your entire premise is false.
Dax and klan: But what about their minor clerical errors that will have no effect on their operation and weren't even something on our radar when these videos were released!!!
People who like facts: (https://i.imgur.com/r5CelZD.gif)
-
:lol: edn, such a butthurt Whack-A-Doodle
-
:lol:
-
I think nowadays HS kids just do it in the butt to prevent pregnancy.
That explains a lot about where some people come from!!!!
-
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/01/31/464750384/zika-virus-isnt-the-first-disease-to-spark-a-debate-about-abortion
-
http://time.com/4207543/contraception-medicaid-births-texas-defunded-planned-parenthood/
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/home-abortions-rise-after-texas-law-closes-clinics-n465451
-
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/home-abortions-rise-after-texas-law-closes-clinics-n465451
Well this certainly sounds authoritative!
The study estimated that between 100,000 and 240,000 women aged 18 to 49 in Texas have tried to self-induce abortion since the law went into effect, using such methods as herbs, teas and medications obtained in Mexico without prescription.
So that's about 2% of all Texas women ages 18-49 attempting an at-home abortion since the law went into effect? And you're going to suspend all reason and common sense and just accept such a ridiculous number?
-
From the Zika virus article:
Reproductive rights activists are outraged that the Salvadoran government would make this recommendation in country where women have no legal options to terminate a pregnancy if they are concerned about birth defects. That's because the law recognizes a fetus as a human being from the moment of conception.
At Ilopango prison for women, there are 17 inmates who said they had miscarriages but were accused by the courts of having abortions. They were sentenced for up to 40 years for aggravated homicide.
Salvadoran law "criminalizes abortion on all grounds, including when the mother's life or health is in danger, and in cases of rape," wrote Erika Guevara Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International, in a New York Times op-ed. "Women and girls cannot access an abortion even if continuing their pregnancy will kill them, or if their fetuses are not viable."
LOL that so many weirdos in America (and probably a bunch in this thread), would prefer that the United States model our medical policy and enforcement after the medical practices of rough ridin' El Salvador.
-
What was the number of women getting abortions prior?
Also, contraception and abortion are not the same thing. Shutting down PP effects both, though.
-
What was the number of women getting abortions prior?
Also, contraception and abortion are not the same thing. Shutting down PP effects both, though.
Why, I'm glad you asked. In 2011, there were approximately 73,000 legal abortions in Texas. https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/texas.html (https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/texas.html)
Somehow, after passage of the law which closed some, but not all clinics, "at home abortions" spiked to "between 100,000 and 240,000."
How on earth did they even arrive at that ludicrous number? Well, apparently "at home abortions" means "herbs, teas and medications obtained in Mexico without prescription." So basically morning after pills and home remedy morning after teas and herbs. No word on how many women were trying such morning after remedies before the law took effect.
Good lord what a stupid study. But if the libtards can't find a study that supports their crusade, they just make one!
-
You are counting morning after as abortion. I would assume that a very large majority of ppl that take the morning after do so because of a mishap and just in case. They don't even know if they are pregnant, yet you count it.
-
You are counting morning after as abortion. I would assume that a very large majority of ppl that take the morning after do so because of a mishap and just in case. They don't even know if they are pregnant, yet you count it.
To be fair, K-S-U isn't counting them and is criticizing the count. I don't think you are referring to him with "you" but it sort of reads that way.
-
Well, yes. I have a tendency to do that. Not attacking him at all.
-
Watch these meat merchants use Zika as an excuse to spread their planned hamburger immorality.
-
Watch these meat merchants use Zika as an excuse to spread their planned hamburger immorality.
Oh don't worry, there are zillions of other horrific, miserable, unquestionably fatal diseases that can be diagnosed well before birth that more than justify abortion.
-
It's kinda funny how Edna just drops links to phony crap like this and then radio silence when it's exposed as utter BS. At some point, don't you need to do some self reflection and realize "gosh, my arguments keep getting shredded and this stuff I keep posting turns out to be garbage - maybe I'm not very smart."
-
It's kinda funny how Edna just drops links to phony crap like this and then radio silence when it's exposed as utter BS. At some point, don't you need to do some self reflection and realize "gosh, my arguments keep getting shredded and this stuff I keep posting turns out to be garbage - maybe I'm not very smart."
Irony
-
The International House of Hamburger, the UN, is demanding all nations where Zika squeeters live to allow abortiona and birth control. I would not be surprised to see it done by force.
-
:lol:
-
Watch these meat merchants use Zika as an excuse to spread their planned hamburger immorality.
Oh don't worry, there are zillions of other horrific, miserable, unquestionably fatal diseases that can be diagnosed well before birth that more than justify abortion.
how is this different from eugenics
-
eugenics, iirc, is about improving the genetic makeup of a human population. the concern is with reducing the propagation of less desired or injurious genes. sb is talking about aborting fetuses that have contracted diseases that would either make them unduly burdensome to rear, consign them to an unpleasant, painful life or both.
-
most people equate eugenics with forced sterilization.
-
eugenics, iirc, is about improving the genetic makeup of a human population. the concern is with reducing the propagation of less desired or injurious genes. sb is talking about aborting fetuses that have contracted diseases that would either make them unduly burdensome to rear, consign them to an unpleasant, painful life or both.
That point is only persuasive if you already favor abortion. Otherwise it would equally justify euthanizing a 4 year old with a chronic disease.
-
Interesting that all of the people that advocate in favor of abortion have already been born.
-
Interesting that all of the people that advocate in favor of abortion have already been born.
This is probably the stupidest thing ever posted on this blog
-
Interesting that all of the people that advocate in favor of abortion have already been born.
omg! :lol:
-
:lol:
-
eugenics, iirc, is about improving the genetic makeup of a human population. the concern is with reducing the propagation of less desired or injurious genes. sb is talking about aborting fetuses that have contracted diseases that would either make them unduly burdensome to rear, consign them to an unpleasant, painful life or both.
That point is only persuasive if you already favor abortion. Otherwise it would equally justify euthanizing a 4 year old with a chronic disease.
i wasn't trying to persuade anyone of anything. c43 asked a question, i tried to answer it.
-
eugenics, iirc, is about improving the genetic makeup of a human population. the concern is with reducing the propagation of less desired or injurious genes. sb is talking about aborting fetuses that have contracted diseases that would either make them unduly burdensome to rear, consign them to an unpleasant, painful life or both.
That point is only persuasive if you already favor abortion. Otherwise it would equally justify euthanizing a 4 year old with a chronic disease.
i wasn't trying to persuade anyone of anything. c43 asked a question, i tried to answer it.
Well I wasn't saying you were trying to persuade anyone. I was referencing the talking point that you had clarified.
-
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/01/31/464750384/zika-virus-isnt-the-first-disease-to-spark-a-debate-about-abortion
From another perspective...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430834/zika-virus-and-abortion-cause
-
Watch these meat merchants use Zika as an excuse to spread their planned hamburger immorality.
Oh don't worry, there are zillions of other horrific, miserable, unquestionably fatal diseases that can be diagnosed well before birth that more than justify abortion.
how is this different from eugenics
Aborting a fetus which afflicted with the unquestionably fatal and horrific anencephaly is very different from forced sterilization based on race or w/e.
-
From the Zika virus article:
Reproductive rights activists are outraged that the Salvadoran government would make this recommendation in country where women have no legal options to terminate a pregnancy if they are concerned about birth defects. That's because the law recognizes a fetus as a human being from the moment of conception.
At Ilopango prison for women, there are 17 inmates who said they had miscarriages but were accused by the courts of having abortions. They were sentenced for up to 40 years for aggravated homicide.
Salvadoran law "criminalizes abortion on all grounds, including when the mother's life or health is in danger, and in cases of rape," wrote Erika Guevara Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International, in a New York Times op-ed. "Women and girls cannot access an abortion even if continuing their pregnancy will kill them, or if their fetuses are not viable."
LOL that so many weirdos in America (and probably a bunch in this thread), would prefer that the United States model our medical policy and enforcement after the medical practices of rough ridin' El Salvador.
Libtards want model our health care system after these types of countries, fwiw. Hell, half the libtards genuinely believe cuba has a superior medical system to the usa.
-
Interesting that all of the people that advocate in favor of abortion have already been born.
We didn't ask to be. :)
-
I think if you have to have an abortion because of a birth defect the parents should be sterilized because their genes are prolly mumped up as well.
-
That is probs fair, except in cases like zika where it was an outside influence.
-
I think if you have to have an abortion because of a birth defect the parents should be sterilized because their genes are prolly mumped up as well.
We're talking about fatal diseases and syndromes that would have the same result as an abortion but would mitigate tons and tons of heartache, dorks. Nobody's talking about aborting a baby with webbed toes.
-
I think if you have to have an abortion because of a birth defect the parents should be sterilized because their genes are prolly mumped up as well.
We're talking about fatal diseases and syndromes that would have the same result as an abortion but would mitigate tons and tons of heartache, dorks. Nobody's talking about aborting a baby with webbed toes.
Honest question. What percent of abortions performed in America happen because of what you're talking about? I'm guessing that number is pretty small.
BTW I don't have an issue with abortions when the mothers life is at risk or the fetus is in viable.
-
BTW I don't have an issue with abortions when the mothers life is at risk or the fetus is in viable.
When does a fetus become viable?
-
It's kinda funny how Edna just drops links to phony crap like this and then radio silence when it's exposed as utter BS. At some point, don't you need to do some self reflection and realize "gosh, my arguments keep getting shredded and this stuff I keep posting turns out to be garbage - maybe I'm not very smart."
Oh man :lol:
-
Many of us saw the Doritoes superbowl commercial with the ultrasound. The NARAL gals are angry about as they felt it was humanizing a fetus.
-
How dare they humanize a human! :shakesfist:
-
Many of us saw the Doritoes superbowl commercial with the ultrasound. The NARAL gals are angry about as they felt it was humanizing a fetus.
That whole situation is ludicrous.
http://www.ijreview.com/2016/02/532103-doritos-super-bowl-ad-draws-fire-from-radical-pro-choice-group/?author=cs&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijreview&utm_content=life
-
Well of course NARAL, Planned Hamburger, the Democrat Party and every other pro-abortion organization opposed the ad. If you actually look at what abortion is, look into the womb via ultrasound, and critically assess what is happening, reasonable people will be more than likely appalled.
Unreasonable people will march on telling everyone to "not look behind the screen;" "nothing to see here..."
-
I would have thought NARAL would have really enjoyed that ad, since it basically ends with what would have amounted to an abortion.
-
good grief
-
It's kinda funny how Edna just drops links to phony crap like this and then radio silence when it's exposed as utter BS. At some point, don't you need to do some self reflection and realize "gosh, my arguments keep getting shredded and this stuff I keep posting turns out to be garbage - maybe I'm not very smart."
It's great you checked all those university people with their PhDs so soundly. I mean you really showed them up!
-
good grief
-
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/8/10942192/abortion-pbs-democratic-debate (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/8/10942192/abortion-pbs-democratic-debate)
In five debates, Dems haven't been asked about abortion once. I guess they just didn't have time (oh wait, they ended two early).
I'm sure that will change, but they won't be asked whether there is any circumstance/time a woman should be denied an abortion.
-
KSUW do you think they will asked about people who humanize a fetus? Or why reproductive is used instead of infanticide? This is about women wanting to be just like men. They hamburger devils are so damn ashamed of being women. They think they should be able to have the right to hedonist sex are have no consequences. Women are more special than us scuzzy men. Smart women embrace their specialness. You can prevent unplanned pregnancy easily.
-
protip: women aren't special
-
KSUW do you think they will asked about people who humanize a fetus? Or why reproductive is used instead of infanticide? This is about women wanting to be just like men. They hamburger devils are so damn ashamed of being women. They think they should be able to have the right to hedonist sex are have no consequences. Women are more special than us scuzzy men. Smart women embrace their specialness. You can prevent unplanned pregnancy easily.
well said as always
-
The abortion line is so well drawn there's really no reason to ask about it. Oh you're a democrat? You must support a woman's right to choose. Oh you're a republican? You must support a child's right to life.
Not to mention that, short of amending the constitution, it is really only the Supreme Court that could change anything at this point.
-
The abortion line is so well drawn there's really no reason to ask about it. Oh you're a democrat? You must support a woman's right to choose. Oh you're a republican? You must support a child's right to life.
Not to mention that, short of amending the constitution, it is really only the Supreme Court that could change anything at this point.
Actually, all you need is to get a SCOTUS majority to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Abortion law would then revert to state control, where it should be.
-
The abortion line is so well drawn there's really no reason to ask about it. Oh you're a democrat? You must support a woman's right to choose. Oh you're a republican? You must support a child's right to life.
Not to mention that, short of amending the constitution, it is really only the Supreme Court that could change anything at this point.
There is absolutely a point to asking about abortion - Clinton and Sanders need to be nailed down on exactly how radical their views on abortion are. "If a woman has a doctor willing to perform an abortion, should that woman be legally allowed to get an abortion for any reason up to the moment of birth?" That is NARAL's position, which funds these candidates. I want to know if they agree. Actually, I know they agree, but I want them to have to admit that they agree.
But no, the media always focuses on trying to paint Republicans as the radicals on abortion because they believe life begins at conception (which it does) and we should err on the side of human life. Republicans have been asked about abortion in at least 4 of the debates so far. They're always presented with the "rape/incest/life of mother" litmus test, situations that are incredibly rare (particularly with Plan B). Abortion has not been asked once in any of the Dem debates.
-
That goes to my second point, though. Right now the "right to abortion" exists because of SCOTUS's (strained) interpretation of the constitution. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned then the legality of abortion depends on the states; the prez would have no say.
From an election stand point it really only matters whether they would appoint a Supreme Court justice who agrees or disagrees with the reasoning of Roe v. Wade, and I think that line is pretty clearly drawn between Republicans and Democrats.
I think the questions for Republicans are just as pointless, but it's somewhat understandable since abortion is a much bigger issue for pro-lifers than pro-choicers (stopping murder vs promoting women's right).
-
Media :curse:
-
That goes to my second point, though. Right now the "right to abortion" exists because of SCOTUS's (strained) interpretation of the constitution. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned then the legality of abortion depends on the states; the prez would have no say.
From an election stand point it really only matters whether they would appoint a Supreme Court justice who agrees or disagrees with the reasoning of Roe v. Wade, and I think that line is pretty clearly drawn between Republicans and Democrats.
I think the questions for Republicans are just as pointless, but it's somewhat understandable since abortion is a much bigger issue for pro-lifers than pro-choicers (stopping murder vs promoting women's right).
A president has much more influence on abortion than just appointing Supreme Court justices. They also appoint lower level judges which have a bigger influence on abortion than the SC's few opinions. Furthermore, this whole thread is about whether Planned Parenthood, that nation's biggest abortion provider, should continue to receive tax dollars. As we've seen, the president plays a role in that budget fight. Further, the president controls the administrative bureaucracy, which likewise has an influence on abortion providers.
Finally, one's views on abortion may have broader implications on character. There's a spectrum of pro-abortion supporters. On the one end are the folks who think abortion should be allowed only in certain cases or early in the pregnancy. I don't think they've thought deeply enough about the issue, but they're not crazy/evil. On the other end, you've got the "abortion for any reason, no matter when, as long as there's still a toe in the birth canal" NARAL Nazis. They're crazy/evil. Do you want a crazy/evil person in the White House? I don't.
-
:lol:
-
protip: women aren't special
This is ripe coming from you.
-
K-S-U-W is really bringing the crazy in this thread. Love the zeal. :love:
-
protip: women aren't special
This is ripe coming from you.
Am I wrong?
-
Is that really NARAL's stance? :sdeek:
-
Women are special. I would not to pass a baby out my weasel. Why do demean womanhood instead of celebrate. My ol hillbilly ma pounded this into her boys. KSUW gets it.
-
So your standard of normal is male? That seems pretty demeaning to women
-
protip: women aren't special
This is ripe coming from you.
Am I wrong?
All people are special, because all people are uniquely made. Believing no one is special is a sad reality.
The "reverse sexism" concept that if girls want equal rights they should have to be equal in all manners seems like a Pub argument not an uber lib argument.
-
So is ksuw calling me crazy here or what, he never responded to our convo from like 2 weeks ago
-
So is ksuw calling me crazy here or what, he never responded to our convo from like 2 weeks ago
he is weirdly butthurt itt, like even more than usual
-
So is ksuw calling me crazy here or what, he never responded to our convo from like 2 weeks ago
he is weirdly butthurt itt, like even more than usual
I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when that Doritos commercial played during the super bowl
-
protip: women aren't special
This is ripe coming from you.
Am I wrong?
All people are special, because all people are uniquely made. Believing no one is special is a sad reality.
The "reverse sexism" concept that if girls want equal rights they should have to be equal in all manners seems like a Pub argument not an uber lib argument.
Good grief :facepalm:
-
All people are special is the type of comment from participation medal upbringing smdh
-
Human life is no more special than any other form of life. We all got here the same way. The only thing that is true is that earth will survive long after us.
#TheWesIsTheFuture
-
Humans are.more important than other life forms and are superior. I am glad that others agree life was created by God.
-
Why would God create a species that kills all other species and itself in the process?
-
I am a Christian. We are taught God created a perfect world in which man was its caretaker. The fall into sin by men screwed that perfect world into choas. And death to.eat.came.about. A fetus is hamburger to prolife people. I think humans are special and it starts at conception and the blessing of a soul.
-
God damn God inventing sin and rough ridin' up our world :curse:
-
I am a Christian. We are taught God created a perfect world in which man was its caretaker. The fall into sin by men screwed that perfect world into choas. And death to.eat.came.about. A fetus is hamburger to prolife people. I think humans are special and it starts at conception and the blessing of a soul.
Wut? You cook it until it's done?
Are you meaning pro-choice it's hamburger because they can discard it at any time? I don't think you understand what's going on here
-
Thanks Train. Meant pro choice, pro abortion, fetus is.just tissue meat. A fetus is a life with a soul.
-
Kentucky senator(lady) proposing bill where guys needing viagra will need a.note from their wife to fill their prescription. Social comment on women interfering with men's bodies and reproductive parts. Pretty lol.
-
I hope gay men just get theirs filled without a note. Would be an amazing bit of legislation
#TheWesIsTheFuture
-
I hope gay men just get theirs filled without a note. Would be an amazing bit of legislation
#TheWesIsTheFuture
Likely separate but equal legislation.
-
Nope, that lady is crafty. It says Wife's note. Didn't reno post that the new kentucky same sex wedding license doesn't call the two ppl husband and wife, but person 1 and person 2? If so, no wife. It doesn't say "...note from 'Person 2'". She is sticking it to old white men trying to legislate women's rights, as well as gay ppl.
She will probably be running the state soon.
-
Kentucky senator(lady) proposing bill where guys needing viagra will need a.note from their wife to fill their prescription. Social comment on women interfering with men's bodies and reproductive parts. Pretty lol.
Everyone screams.about stories like this and don't give navel lint about ending.life. this.Kentucky gal can forego weasel rouser and use one.of those dildonuts. And.why do.they charge.$27 dollars.a.pill. where is.Obama care.
-
Man, can you imagine.the pub support if Obama care did cover viagra?
-
Kentucky senator(lady) proposing bill where guys needing viagra will need a.note from their wife to fill their prescription. Social comment on women interfering with men's bodies and reproductive parts. Pretty lol.
This actually would not be the first such law proposed. It's really sad that the closest Dems can come to abortion - the killing of a human life - is Viagra on the man's side. It just isn't comparable in any way shape or form.
-
Kentucky senator(lady) proposing bill where guys needing viagra will need a.note from their wife to fill their prescription. Social comment on women interfering with men's bodies and reproductive parts. Pretty lol.
This actually would not be the first such law proposed. It's really sad that the closest Dems can come to abortion - the killing of a human life - is Viagra on the man's side. It just isn't comparable in any way shape or form.
Relax, she's just trying to get a rise out of you.
-
Only if he has a note
-
Kentucky senator(lady) proposing bill where guys needing viagra will need a.note from their wife to fill their prescription. Social comment on women interfering with men's bodies and reproductive parts. Pretty lol.
This actually would not be the first such law proposed. It's really sad that the closest Dems can come to abortion - the killing of a human life - is Viagra on the man's side. It just isn't comparable in any way shape or form.
Relax, she's just trying to get a rise out of you.
:lol: :thumbs:
-
Only if he has a note
:lol:
-
John Oliver pwn3d pubs on this tonight, fyi
-
Good for him
#TheWesIsTheFuture
-
John Oliver pwn3d pubs on this tonight, fyi
I once was a pro life Democrat.
Anyway that Oliver segment was great, it made me very sad and angry.
-
John Oliver pwn3d pubs on this tonight, fyi
I once was a pro life Democrat.
Anyway that Oliver segment was great, it made me very sad and angry.
my best friend is a pro life democrat! will watch the oliver segment tonight.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y
There's the Oliver piece for anyone who's interested.
-
We've probably talked about it ad nauseam in this thread, but the ultimate solution has to be figuring out how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the same time I think it is important to the mental health and well being to not just throw nexplanon and condoms at the problem. It would take a societal effort to change the commonality from "if I mess up I have an out" to "I will not mess up".
-
We've probably talked about it ad nauseam in this thread, but the ultimate solution has to be figuring out how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the same time I think it is important to the mental health and well being to not just throw nexplanon and condoms at the problem. It would take a societal effort to change the commonality from "if I mess up I have an out" to "I will not mess up".
How to prevent unwanted pregnancies....why abstinence only will work!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y
There's the Oliver piece for anyone who's interested.
I thought he did a great job (he always does).
-
We've probably talked about it ad nauseam in this thread, but the ultimate solution has to be figuring out how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. At the same time I think it is important to the mental health and well being to not just throw nexplanon and condoms at the problem. It would take a societal effort to change the commonality from "if I mess up I have an out" to "I will not mess up".
Not sure if this is serious. You cannot create a mistake free culture. Unless you want to try giving prohibition another go, people are going to make very stupid decisions fairly frequently.
As for Oliver's piece, I'm pro life (or anti-abortion as the media calls it) but I do find it messed up that states can create laws that make it practically impossible to do something that they are prohibited from making illegal. IMO that's really a good illustration of the absurdity of SCOTUS stepping in on the issue in the first place.
-
but I do find it messed up that states can create laws that make it practically impossible to do something that they are prohibited from making illegal. IMO that's really a good illustration of the absurdity of SCOTUS stepping in on the issue in the first place.
One of the things that makes America so unique and great is that states have the freedom to set their own laws, within the limits of the powers strictly granted to the federal government by the constitution. SCOTUS says states can regulate abortion occurring after the point of viability.
-
Something like 99.999999% of pregnancies can be avoided by not having sex. And if you're that 0.000001% that gets pregnant without sex, you really shouldn't get an abortion. Trust me on this.
-
Sex is pretty cool tho
-
Something like 99.999999% of pregnancies can be avoided by not having sex. And if you're that 0.000001% that gets pregnant without sex, you really shouldn't get an abortion. Trust me on this.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7W0MVdQ.jpg&hash=8cca98bf30129144eb9b0381fb063b606f0e7da8)
-
Sex is pretty cool tho
So is eating food, but lots of people strictly ration their intake for various reasons.
-
Sex is pretty cool tho
So is eating food, but lots of people strictly ration their intake for various reasons.
We need a 'lemy stuff thread
-
Sex is pretty cool tho
So is eating food, but lots of people strictly ration their intake for various reasons.
Doesnt really work to abstain completely tho
-
maybe leave these to catzacker as well?
-
Abstinence only would be a great law for the Christian Caliphate that you guys want. You should start a list and maybe look for some land.
-
Abstinence only would be a great law for the Christian Caliphate that you guys want. You should start a list and maybe look for some land.
Hahahah :love:
-
Sex is pretty cool tho
So is eating food, but lots of people strictly ration their intake for various reasons.
Doesnt really work to abstain completely tho
Who's advocating that?
-
What's the food abortion analogy? Throwing up?
-
What's the food abstinence analogy? Throwing up?
-
The Oliver piece was interesting, but he never pauses to ask the central question in all this: Is an unborn person a person, and do all persons have a right to live?
-
The Oliver piece was interesting, but he never pauses to ask the central question in all this: Is an unborn person a person, and do all persons have a right to live?
Tends to be how pro choicers do it. Ignore the hard question that might change your viewpoint.
-
The Oliver piece was interesting, but he never pauses to ask the central question in all this: Is an unborn person a person, and do all persons have a right to live?
I think he acknowledges he is dodging that question. His point is that IF you believe at all that abortion is acceptable in some circumstance for some reason then you should be in favor of it being accessible.
Personally, I agree. I think just about all forms of abortion should be illegal, but for those few legal instances the government should not throw up arbitrary hurdles just to make it feasibly impossible to actually do.
-
The Oliver piece was interesting, but he never pauses to ask the central question in all this: Is an unborn person a person, and do all persons have a right to live?
Tends to be how pro choicers do it. Ignore the hard question that might change your viewpoint.
Do you really think anyone that is prochoice hasn't examined that question themselves already?
-
The Oliver piece was interesting, but he never pauses to ask the central question in all this: Is an unborn person a person, and do all persons have a right to live?
Tends to be how pro choicers do it. Ignore the hard question that might change your viewpoint.
Do you really think anyone that is prochoice hasn't examined that question themselves already?
Yes. This thread proves that many pro-choice people have not carefully considered and tested their position. Go back and read all the terrible arguments that have been put forth.
-
I mean I could just as easily say you haven't really thought about it because you don't reach the same conclusion as me. It's strange that you don't even acknowledge how stupid you've been in this thread
-
I think just about all forms of abortion should be illegal, but for those few legal instances the government should not throw up arbitrary hurdles just to make it feasibly impossible to actually do.
Have you ever read the Texas law in question? Basically just says that abortion facilities should meet the following:
No one can get an abortion if they are over 20 weeks of gestation, or 22 weeks if calculated from the last monthly period
Medication abortion (early, non-surgical abortion done with pills) will require up to four visits with the same doctor. First, 24 hours in advance for a sonogram. Then for the first and second doses of the drug. Lastly, abortion patients will have to return within 14 days for a follow-up visit.
All Texas abortion doctors must get admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic.
Those are hardly draconian measures. Have you ever heard of Kermit Gosnell?
-
I mean I could just as easily say you haven't really thought about it because you don't reach the same conclusion as me. It's strange that you don't even acknowledge how stupid you've been in this thread
I think you could at least make the argument that people in favor of late 3rd trimester / partial birth abortions have not seriously thought about the issue.
-
I think just about all forms of abortion should be illegal, but for those few legal instances the government should not throw up arbitrary hurdles just to make it feasibly impossible to actually do.
Have you ever read the Texas law in question? Basically just says that abortion facilities should meet the following:
No one can get an abortion if they are over 20 weeks of gestation, or 22 weeks if calculated from the last monthly period
Medication abortion (early, non-surgical abortion done with pills) will require up to four visits with the same doctor. First, 24 hours in advance for a sonogram. Then for the first and second doses of the drug. Lastly, abortion patients will have to return within 14 days for a follow-up visit.
All Texas abortion doctors must get admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic.
Those are hardly draconian measures. Have you ever heard of Kermit Gosnell?
Watch the vid. It discusses that from a different angle and gives very good reasoning as to why most of that is designed to prevent procedures.
-
I think just about all forms of abortion should be illegal, but for those few legal instances the government should not throw up arbitrary hurdles just to make it feasibly impossible to actually do.
Have you ever read the Texas law in question? Basically just says that abortion facilities should meet the following:
No one can get an abortion if they are over 20 weeks of gestation, or 22 weeks if calculated from the last monthly period
Medication abortion (early, non-surgical abortion done with pills) will require up to four visits with the same doctor. First, 24 hours in advance for a sonogram. Then for the first and second doses of the drug. Lastly, abortion patients will have to return within 14 days for a follow-up visit.
All Texas abortion doctors must get admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic.
Those are hardly draconian measures. Have you ever heard of Kermit Gosnell?
John Oliver pretty much addresses all those points so maybe just watch the video...
-
John Oliver pretty much addresses all those points so maybe just watch the video...
Sorry but you do not go to a comedian for serious analysis. What's next, Gallagher on US-Russia relations?
Go here...at least he's a physician:
http://www.abortionprocedures.com/
-
John Oliver pretty much addresses all those points so maybe just watch the video...
Sorry but you do not go to a comedian for serious analysis. What's next, Gallagher on US-Russia relations?
Go here...at least he's a physician:
http://www.abortionprocedures.com/
We can't learn anything from you satirists!!! Shakespeare, Chaucer, Twain all crap I say! Who needs to look at their underlying evidence, analysis, and logic. Only consider the source.
-
Idaho has a serious cases of the KSUWs
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/feb/25/abortion-debate-heats-up-in-idaho-statehouse/
-
Idaho has a serious cases of the KSUWs
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/feb/25/abortion-debate-heats-up-in-idaho-statehouse/
Well we already knew from Todd Akin that women's bodies have a way to shut that all down if it is legitimate rape.
-
I mean I could just as easily say you haven't really thought about it because you don't reach the same conclusion as me. It's strange that you don't even acknowledge how stupid you've been in this thread
You could just as easily say whatever you want - that wouldn't make it right. Again, go back and re-read the thread.
-
I mean I could just as easily say you haven't really thought about it because you don't reach the same conclusion as me. It's strange that you don't even acknowledge how stupid you've been in this thread
You could just as easily say whatever you want - that wouldn't make it right. Again, go back and re-read the thread.
Exactly, go back and re-read the thread
-
John Oliver pretty much addresses all those points so maybe just watch the video...
Sorry but you do not go to a comedian for serious analysis. What's next, Gallagher on US-Russia relations?
Go here...at least he's a physician:
http://www.abortionprocedures.com/
We can't learn anything from you satirists!!! Shakespeare, Chaucer, Twain all crap I say! Who needs to look at their underlying evidence, analysis, and logic. Only consider the source.
Roasted. *wiggly finger high fivey thing*
-
The Oliver piece was interesting, but he never pauses to ask the central question in all this: Is an unborn person a person, and do all persons have a right to live?
Tends to be how pro choicers do it. Ignore the hard question that might change your viewpoint.
Do you really think anyone that is prochoice hasn't examined that question themselves already?
Yes. This thread proves that many pro-choice people have not carefully considered and tested their position. Go back and read all the terrible arguments that have been put forth.
I provided many valid questions that a thought out opinion has to offer. If I go back and re-read what will I find? Me answering and asking questions without any response. Pretty telling that you only want to believe what you believe, and nothing else.
-
I mean I could just as easily say you haven't really thought about it because you don't reach the same conclusion as me. It's strange that you don't even acknowledge how stupid you've been in this thread
I think you could at least make the argument that people in favor of late 3rd trimester / partial birth abortions have not seriously thought about the issue.
You could also make the argument you haven't seriously thought about the issue either. I guess suppressing a full grown persons rights over something that can't live on its own is a logical choice in your eyes tho.
-
I mean I could just as easily say you haven't really thought about it because you don't reach the same conclusion as me. It's strange that you don't even acknowledge how stupid you've been in this thread
I think you could at least make the argument that people in favor of late 3rd trimester / partial birth abortions have not seriously thought about the issue.
You could also make the argument you haven't seriously thought about the issue either. I guess suppressing a full grown persons rights over something that can't live on its own is a logical choice in your eyes tho.
You could, but it would be a bad argument. I'm talking about a (whatever you chose to call it) that is fully viable and could survive outside of the womb. Or did you not know what late third trimester means?
-
I mean I could just as easily say you haven't really thought about it because you don't reach the same conclusion as me. It's strange that you don't even acknowledge how stupid you've been in this thread
I think you could at least make the argument that people in favor of late 3rd trimester / partial birth abortions have not seriously thought about the issue.
You could also make the argument you haven't seriously thought about the issue either. I guess suppressing a full grown persons rights over something that can't live on its own is a logical choice in your eyes tho.
You could, but it would be a bad argument. I'm talking about a (whatever you chose to call it) that is fully viable and could survive outside of the womb. Or did you not know what late third trimester means?
Oh I didn't know babies that, once born, can fully sustain themselves without the help of others. My point that you completely missed, not surprisingly, was that defaulting to the rights of an unborn baby over a fully functioning adult is stupid.
-
:curse: I'm trying to be clever but you insist on making me state the obvious. The reason I would accuse those folks of not thinking the issue through is because I am presuming they are not in favor of infanticide for the sake of parental convenience. Now if all late third trimester pro-choicers are also pushing for the right to kill a fully functioning infant for the sake of the mother, THEN you would have a point.
I don't believe that is the case, though.
-
:curse: I'm trying to be clever but you insist on making me state the obvious. The reason I would accuse those folks of not thinking the issue through is because I am presuming they are not in favor of infanticide for the sake of parental convenience. Now if all late third trimester pro-choicers are also pushing for the right to kill a fully functioning infant for the sake of the mother, THEN you would have a point.
I don't believe that is the case, though.
You can't speak for all the pro-lifers in the same way I can't for all the pro-choicers. A big issue I have with MOST pro-lifers is they deal in absolutes. Most things in life aren't simple, let alone an issue like this.
-
The Oliver piece was interesting, but he never pauses to ask the central question in all this: Is an unborn person a person, and do all persons have a right to live?
Tends to be how pro choicers do it. Ignore the hard question that might change your viewpoint.
Do you really think anyone that is prochoice hasn't examined that question themselves already?
Yes. This thread proves that many pro-choice people have not carefully considered and tested their position. Go back and read all the terrible arguments that have been put forth.
I provided many valid questions that a thought out opinion has to offer. If I go back and re-read what will I find? Me answering and asking questions without any response. Pretty telling that you only want to believe what you believe, and nothing else.
I ignored your earlier point because it had already been made and addressed, a few times. Go back and read the thread. If you have something new to say, let me know.
-
Gigantic tap out, well noted
-
We can't learn anything from you satirists!!! Shakespeare, Chaucer, Twain all crap I say! Who needs to look at their underlying evidence, analysis, and logic. Only consider the source.
Wow - did you really just rank a cable TV comedian up there with The Bard and the author of the Canterbury Tales?
Damn kids!
-
Gigantic tap out, well noted
It's not a tap out. I'm bored with shooting down the same stale old arguments. Go back and read the thread. If you've got a new point, let me know.
-
Wow! KSUW body just shut down and took it, I better just let nature take its course and wait 9 months.
-
We can't learn anything from you satirists!!! Shakespeare, Chaucer, Twain all crap I say! Who needs to look at their underlying evidence, analysis, and logic. Only consider the source.
Wow - did you really just rank a cable TV comedian up there with The Bard and the author of the Canterbury Tales?
Damn kids!
Are you really debating whether or not the Daily Show's cohort isn't the best political satire since......Twain? I think you should read Twain's works about imperialism before moving forward.
-
Are you really debating whether or not the Daily Show's cohort isn't the best political satire since......Twain? I think you should read Twain's works about imperialism before moving forward.
I truly fear for the future of America!
Young people...Comedy Central IS NOT NEWS. Look at the title of the network, C-o-m-e-d-y, you are not supposed to take them seriously.
-
Lol
-
Ptolemy is an i-d-i-o-t. Do not take him siriusly. Smh.
-
Ptolemy is an i-d-i-o-t. Do not take him siriusly. Smh.
My case be rested.
-
Ptolemy is an i-d-i-o-t. Do not take him siriusly. Smh.
My case be rested.
in piece?
-
Ptolemy is an i-d-i-o-t. Do not take him siriusly. Smh.
My case be rested.
in piece?
:D
-
RGB just performed a partial birth abortion on Texas's law.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html
-
RGB just performed a partial birth abortion on Texas's law.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html
:lol: That was a pretty boss takedown. RBG is a complete stud.
-
RGB just performed a partial birth abortion on Texas's law.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html
:lol: That was a pretty boss takedown. RBG is a complete stud.
But did the New Mexico clinic meet the Texas standards? Why not ask that question?
-
RGB just performed a partial birth abortion on Texas's law.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html
:lol: That was a pretty boss takedown. RBG is a complete stud.
But did the New Mexico clinic meet the Texas standards? Why not ask that question?
Doesn't really matter because Texas would have no way to check the standards of the New Mexico clinic.
-
RGB just performed a partial birth abortion on Texas's law.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html
:lol: That was a pretty boss takedown. RBG is a complete stud.
But did the New Mexico clinic meet the Texas standards? Why not ask that question?
Doesn't really matter because Texas would have no way to check the standards of the New Mexico clinic.
The point is that it does not meet Texas standards.
-
RGB just performed a partial birth abortion on Texas's law.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html
:lol: That was a pretty boss takedown. RBG is a complete stud.
But did the New Mexico clinic meet the Texas standards? Why not ask that question?
Doesn't really matter because Texas would have no way to check the standards of the New Mexico clinic.
The point is that it does not meet Texas standards.
Well the point was that New Mexico did not mandate the same standard. Doesn't mean the clinic did not meet the Texas standard. I see the point about Texas having no way to monitor the clinic though.
-
RGB just performed a partial birth abortion on Texas's law.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html
:lol: That was a pretty boss takedown. RBG is a complete stud.
But did the New Mexico clinic meet the Texas standards? Why not ask that question?
Doesn't really matter because Texas would have no way to check the standards of the New Mexico clinic.
The point is that it does not meet Texas standards.
Well the point was that New Mexico did not mandate the same standard. Doesn't mean the clinic did not meet the Texas standard. I see the point about Texas having no way to monitor the clinic though.
Whether or not they meet those standards is nearly immaterial to the case at hand and its defense. The state says those standards are there solely to protect women. If the state than officially recommends that you go to a state without those standards because of easy of practice than your state's standards don't mean a damn thing.
But we know to a very high degree clinics don't meet those standards because they are preposterous for their level of care.
-
How does a guy that would be someone that would find themselves arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court not have prepared to answer that? That seems basic.
-
How does a guy that would be someone that would find themselves arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court not have prepared to answer that? That seems basic.
Additionally, how did no one ask that question before it got to the supreme court?
-
How does a guy that would be someone that would find themselves arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court not have prepared to answer that? That seems basic.
I mean, it's basically a rhetorical question since everyone knows Texas cannot do anything about New Mexico's standards. In sure he would have liked to say "fair point."
Also, the article above is clearly one-sided, so his answer may have been adequate in the eyes of other non-pitchfork wielding reporters (haven't seen the transcript myself though).
I suppose he could have said something along the lines that Texas is trying to lead the way in improving clinics and the point is to encourage a higher standard, not to shut anything down. If there is a market for abortions in that area, someone will respond and set up a complying clinic in that space. In the meantime the residents in all reality will go to the cheaper nearby clinics in New Mexico. If and when New Mexico follows and implements similar standards then the market will definitely respond with complying clinics.
-
How does a guy that would be someone that would find themselves arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court not have prepared to answer that? That seems basic.
Additionally, how did no one ask that question before it got to the supreme court?
LOTS did....hence it being appealed and Texas being too silly to change their justification.
-
How does a guy that would be someone that would find themselves arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court not have prepared to answer that? That seems basic.
Additionally, how did no one ask that question before it got to the supreme court?
It was a part of the appellate court's opinion, so they actually liked the argument.
-
:clap:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-louisiana-abortion-20160304-story.html
-
How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.
-
WOW!
So you pro-abortion people are trying to argue that we should franchise Planned Hamburger attached to every street corner
McDonald's, so every woman has access to an abortion when she needs one just like all us irresponsible men have ready access to a warm set of fries?
RBG is a 80+ year old flatulent and incontinent recalcitration of Ruth Buzzy that you somehow imagine is the Mother Earth of all things abortion. Kill her, disregard her, but stop using her "logic" as a guide for mankind.
-
our guy ptolemy does have a pretty valid comparison here
-
(Why single out abortion when other procedures, like colonoscopies, pose an exponentially higher safety risk? Is there any proof that clinics were unsafe before the enactment of the new rules?)
ANSWER: Ummm, colonoscopies normally do not involve the question of whether a sentient being deserves to have their right to life protected.
-
Can they defend that right?
-
Ptolemy, if your gf/wife had an unplanned pregnancy, what would happen?
-
Ptolemy, if your gf/wife had an unplanned pregnancy, what would happen?
Don't interact with the poorly executed sock, TBT.
-
:frown:
-
Can they defend that right?
:blank:
-
How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.
There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.
-
How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.
There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.
No thanks, it won't change my stance. Wanting to control what someone else does with their own body just doesn't jive with me. It's a pretty selfish stance, especially if they have nothing else to do with the person.
-
How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.
There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.
No thanks, it won't change my stance. Wanting to control what someone else does with their own body just doesn't jive with me. It's a pretty selfish stance, especially if they have nothing else to do with the person.
"Wanting to control what someone else does with their own property doesn't jive with me. It's a pretty selfish stance, especially if they have nothing else to do with the person." - John C. Calhoun probably
-
Ptolemy, if your gf/wife had an unplanned pregnancy, what would happen?
Same thing that happened to all of my "unplanned pregnancies." I'm getting ready to send one to KState (hopefully).
The notion that I would or should be free to kill another human being simply because I begat it is contrary to nature.
And upon that point, we arrive at the Scott Peterson Inconsistency. Scott Peterson is sitting on Death Row in California for killing his wife AND their unborn son. He was convicted of both crimes. Peterson's wife could have hired him, were he a doctor or whatever qualifies a person to be an abortionist, to kill her baby legally. So she can kill, but he cannot. How is that consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?
-
How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.
There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.
No thanks, it won't change my stance.
Ok then. I'm not going to change my stance either, but the difference is that I've considered all the pro-abortion arguments and found them lacking, as demonstrated ITT. That, and I'm on the side of not killing another human life, so I feel pretty comfortable about my position.
Btw, should a woman be able to kill her baby just prior to birth? How about just after? How about two weeks later? Where do you draw the line and what is the moral basis for that line?
-
I'm sure pro-choicers look at the Peterson (assuming your characterization is accurate) as an issue of whether the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy vs some other guy.
I think you guys have done a good job of illustrating the fundamental disconnect in the discussion here. Unfortunately I don't really think anyone will change anyone's minds with discussion. I can only think of a few examples in history where opposing sides argued over whether a certain group should be viewed as fully human and having a right to life. In all the instances I can think of, those debates got resolved mostly through war instead of votes.
-
How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.
There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.
No thanks, it won't change my stance.
Ok then. I'm not going to change my stance either, but the difference is that I've considered all the pro-abortion arguments and found them lacking, as demonstrated ITT. That, and I'm on the side of not killing another human life, so I feel pretty comfortable about my position.
Btw, should a woman be able to kill her baby just prior to birth? How about just after? How about two weeks later? Where do you draw the line and what is the moral basis for that line?
Just because I haven't recognized all the pro-life arguments ITT doesn't mean I haven't heard them. I'm not one to take a stance like I have ITT without knowing a lot about the topic.
Part of being pro-choice and a male means that decision isn't up to me. I'm not forcing my beliefs on someone else. It's their body, and their baby, whatever they choose is their choice. My moral basis is feeling better knowing I'm not forcing someone to do something against their will.
-
I'm sure pro-choicers look at the Peterson (assuming your characterization is accurate) as an issue of whether the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy vs some other guy.
I think you guys have done a good job of illustrating the fundamental disconnect in the discussion here. Unfortunately I don't really think anyone will change anyone's minds with discussion. I can only think of a few examples in history where opposing sides argued over whether a certain group should be viewed as fully human and having a right to life. In all the instances I can think of, those debates got resolved mostly through war instead of votes.
I think all I'm interested in seeing from your side is some kind of constitutional basis (or a scientific one) for being able to assign a right to life dependent on the notion of a difference between being "human" vs. being "fully human."
-
How people like ksuw justify suppressing women's rights in favor of a fetus just baffles me.
There is another human life at stake. Go back and read the first 25 pages or so of this thread and if you're still baffled, let me know. I'll be happy to answer any questions, but they have probably already been answered ITT.
No thanks, it won't change my stance.
Ok then. I'm not going to change my stance either, but the difference is that I've considered all the pro-abortion arguments and found them lacking, as demonstrated ITT. That, and I'm on the side of not killing another human life, so I feel pretty comfortable about my position.
Btw, should a woman be able to kill her baby just prior to birth? How about just after? How about two weeks later? Where do you draw the line and what is the moral basis for that line?
Just because I haven't recognized all the pro-life arguments ITT doesn't mean I haven't heard them. I'm not one to take a stance like I have ITT without knowing a lot about the topic.
Part of being pro-choice and a male means that decision isn't up to me. I'm not forcing my beliefs on someone else. It's their body, and their baby, whatever they choose is their choice. My moral basis is feeling better knowing I'm not forcing someone to do something against their will.
Nope. "I'm a man" is another crap argument, as you would know if you read the thread.
-
How is that another crap argument, and no, I'm not going to go back and read. I bet you think the gender pay gap should be expanded huh? Why should women have a vote?
I never knew why so many don't like you in the pit but it's becoming very clear to me why.
-
How is that another crap argument, and no, I'm not going to go back and read. I bet you think the gender pay gap should be expanded huh? Why should women have a vote?
I never knew why so many don't like you in the pit but it's becoming very clear to me why.
:lol: :facepalm:
If a woman was about to throw her newborn baby off a balcony, would you just stand aside because "you're a man"? "Hey, I'm just a man. Who am I to tell this woman not to kill her baby?"
-
How is that another crap argument, and no, I'm not going to go back and read. I bet you think the gender pay gap should be expanded huh? Why should women have a vote?
I never knew why so many don't like you in the pit but it's becoming very clear to me why.
:lol: :facepalm:
If a woman was about to throw her newborn baby off a balcony, would you just stand aside because "you're a man"? "Hey, I'm just a man. Who am I to tell this woman not to kill her baby?"
This post is a very good representation of how much I, and many others value your opinion. Surprised it took me this long to see it.
-
How is that another crap argument, and no, I'm not going to go back and read. I bet you think the gender pay gap should be expanded huh? Why should women have a vote?
I never knew why so many don't like you in the pit but it's becoming very clear to me why.
:lol: :facepalm:
If a woman was about to throw her newborn baby off a balcony, would you just stand aside because "you're a man"? "Hey, I'm just a man. Who am I to tell this woman not to kill her baby?"
This post is a very good representation of how much I, and many others value your opinion. Surprised it took me this long to see it.
Lol. Ok bub. And this exchange perfectly demonstrates why I shouldn't bother rehashing the same tired old arguments with people who haven't bothered to first read the thread.
-
How is that another crap argument, and no, I'm not going to go back and read. I bet you think the gender pay gap should be expanded huh? Why should women have a vote?
I never knew why so many don't like you in the pit but it's becoming very clear to me why.
:lol: :facepalm:
If a woman was about to throw her newborn baby off a balcony, would you just stand aside because "you're a man"? "Hey, I'm just a man. Who am I to tell this woman not to kill her baby?"
This post is a very good representation of how much I, and many others value your opinion. Surprised it took me this long to see it.
Lol. Ok bub. And this exchange perfectly demonstrates why I shouldn't bother rehashing the same tired old arguments with people who haven't bothered to first read the thread.
You want people to take a thread titled Planned Hamburger seriously?
-
Are we supposed to take any attempt to change anyone's mind about abortion on the internet seriously?
-
Are we supposed to take any attempt to change anyone's mind about abortion on the internet seriously?
Who is asking you to? I'd be satisfied with a simple explanation for the basis of the belief that a right to life does not exist for a human being in the womb same as it clearly does for one outside the womb.
-
Unless its a simple explanation you don't agree with.
Then you won't be satisfied at all.
-
Unless its a simple explanation you don't agree with.
Then you won't be satisfied at all.
No, seriously, your turn: Explain why a baby has a right to life one minute after birth but not one minute before. I'm sure you have a perfectly rational answer. Go ahead.
-
gotta break the plane
-
you gotta draw the line somewhere. just like any other game.
-
Not a person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpEgAAYE_iw
-
Unless its a simple explanation you don't agree with.
Then you won't be satisfied at all.
No, seriously, your turn: Explain why a baby has a right to life one minute after birth but not one minute before. I'm sure you have a perfectly rational answer. Go ahead.
You know what the answer is though, so why ask? You won't like the answer anyway.
-
Abortion is much more than late term abortion. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
-
Unless its a simple explanation you don't agree with.
Then you won't be satisfied at all.
No, seriously, your turn: Explain why a baby has a right to life one minute after birth but not one minute before. I'm sure you have a perfectly rational answer. Go ahead.
You know what the answer is though, so why ask? You won't like the answer anyway.
The purpose of a rhetorical question is to encourage someone to think about their position.
-
Hey KSU, in case you forgot, I don't think any living thing as any more right to life than anything else. We slaughter life over and over and over. We humans are not special. Life, death, it makes not matter. Earth will live on long after us much as it did before us.
-
Unless its a simple explanation you don't agree with.
Then you won't be satisfied at all.
No, seriously, your turn: Explain why a baby has a right to life one minute after birth but not one minute before. I'm sure you have a perfectly rational answer. Go ahead.
You know what the answer is though, so why ask? You won't like the answer anyway.
The purpose of a rhetorical question is to encourage someone to think about their position.
Good point, I'm sure he/she hasn't really thought out this abortion thing. I'm sure your question will absolutely do the trick.
-
Unless its a simple explanation you don't agree with.
Then you won't be satisfied at all.
No, seriously, your turn: Explain why a baby has a right to life one minute after birth but not one minute before. I'm sure you have a perfectly rational answer. Go ahead.
You know what the answer is though, so why ask? You won't like the answer anyway.
The purpose of a rhetorical question is to encourage someone to think about their position.
Good point, I'm sure he/she hasn't really thought out this abortion thing. I'm sure your question will absolutely do the trick.
It's the question you should start with. We drill down from there.
-
Hey KSU, in case you forgot, I don't think any living thing as any more right to life than anything else. We slaughter life over and over and over. We humans are not special. Life, death, it makes not matter. Earth will live on long after us much as it did before us.
Humans ARE special. We are at the top of the food chain. Humanity sets the table for the future.
Animals live only for their own individual survival.
Human's choose who will continue, for the betterment of all.
-
Abortions are usually for the person's own survival
-
Also abortions are for the betterment of all (humans)
-
Hey KSU, in case you forgot, I don't think any living thing as any more right to life than anything else. We slaughter life over and over and over. We humans are not special. Life, death, it makes not matter. Earth will live on long after us much as it did before us.
Humans ARE special. We are at the top of the food chain. Humanity sets the table for the future.
Animals live only for their own individual survival.
Human's choose who will continue, for the betterment of all.
We are animals.
Humans are parasites, viruses, ruiners of the future. Earth, non human animals, plants, etc will exist far longer than we ever can hope to. We are special in that we exist to the detriment of all else unlike most every other organism.
This idea that excising a future cancer from a woman's body is any great matter is absurd.
-
I'm sure pro-choicers look at the Peterson (assuming your characterization is accurate) as an issue of whether the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy vs some other guy.
I think you guys have done a good job of illustrating the fundamental disconnect in the discussion here. Unfortunately I don't really think anyone will change anyone's minds with discussion. I can only think of a few examples in history where opposing sides argued over whether a certain group should be viewed as fully human and having a right to life. In all the instances I can think of, those debates got resolved mostly through war instead of votes.
Pro lifers would never go to war over abortion because they really don't think fetuses are humans. They say they do, but their actions make it seem pretty hollow.
-
I'm sure pro-choicers look at the Peterson (assuming your characterization is accurate) as an issue of whether the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy vs some other guy.
I think you guys have done a good job of illustrating the fundamental disconnect in the discussion here. Unfortunately I don't really think anyone will change anyone's minds with discussion. I can only think of a few examples in history where opposing sides argued over whether a certain group should be viewed as fully human and having a right to life. In all the instances I can think of, those debates got resolved mostly through war instead of votes.
Pro lifers would never go to war over abortion because they really don't think fetuses are humans. They say they do, but their actions make it seem pretty hollow.
Even if they did go to war it would be a super easy win for pro-choicers. KSUW isn't in the business of killing other humans, so it's an automatic win for us.
-
Hey KSU, in case you forgot, I don't think any living thing as any more right to life than anything else. We slaughter life over and over and over. We humans are not special. Life, death, it makes not matter. Earth will live on long after us much as it did before us.
Humans ARE special. We are at the top of the food chain. Humanity sets the table for the future.
Animals live only for their own individual survival.
Human's choose who will continue, for the betterment of all.
Life is very common across the universe, it's too big and too vast for it not to be. To think we are special means you think the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Which we know is false.
-
I'm not necessarily suggesting people would go to war specifically over the abortion issue, but more like the holocost it would probably just come down to which ideology survives longer.
-
This idea that excising a future cancer from a woman's body is any great matter is absurd.
So...YOU were a "cancer" in your mother's body, how is it that you are alive slamming away here?
-
This idea that excising a future cancer from a woman's body is any great matter is absurd.
So...YOU were a "cancer" in your mother's body, how is it that you are alive slamming away here?
I was born and this what I am. An animal existing. I asked not to be here but will get the most enjoyment that I can out of my life.
When natural selection no longer limits a population, other measure must be taken.
-
KSUW,
Why do you fight so passionately for the unborn, but want to abandon the less fortunate, living in this country?
-
KSUW,
Why do you fight so passionately for the unborn, but want to abandon the less fortunate, living in this country?
Jesus told him this was the right way.
-
KSUW,
Why do you fight so passionately for the unborn, but want to abandon the less fortunate, living in this country?
Jesus told him this was the right way.
Even assuming he follows the Republican Party line, this is a terrible talking point for dems, btw. Jesus was deliberate about separating government obligations from personal ones. Republicans have a higher rate of charitable giving overall. Just because you don't want the government to manage social causes doesn't mean you don't believe in or even support those causes.
-
KSUW,
Why do you fight so passionately for the unborn, but want to abandon the less fortunate, living in this country?
Jesus told him this was the right way.
Even assuming he follows the Republican Party line, this is a terrible talking point for dems, btw. Jesus was deliberate about separating government obligations from personal ones. Republicans have a higher rate of charitable giving overall. Just because you don't want the government to manage social causes doesn't mean you don't believe in or even support those causes.
As were the founding fathers of this country.
-
Life is very common across the universe, it's too big and too vast for it not to be.
Your proof of the commonality of life across the universe is...?
-
I was born and this what I am. An animal existing. I asked not to be here but will get the most enjoyment that I can out of my life.
When natural selection no longer limits a population, other measure must be taken.
Quite selfish way to look at life. Within that limited mental purview, I would have to agree with you that man is a virus that should be exterminated for the good of the universe.
Fortunately, your view is not reality.
What separates man from the animals is the choice we make to do things that make life for other humans better. No animal does that, outside of the mother-offspring demographic..which is quite limited.
Open your mind...you exist for more than just you. Humanity's future depends on people like you figuring out that basic concept.
-
Outlawing abortion is a choice to make life for other humans worse
-
I was born and this what I am. An animal existing. I asked not to be here but will get the most enjoyment that I can out of my life.
When natural selection no longer limits a population, other measure must be taken.
Quite selfish way to look at life. Within that limited mental purview, I would have to agree with you that man is a virus that should be exterminated for the good of the universe.
Fortunately, your view is not reality.
What separates man from the animals is the choice we make to do things that make life for other humans better. No animal does that, outside of the mother-offspring demographic..which is quite limited.
Open your mind...you exist for more than just you. Humanity's future depends on people like you figuring out that basic concept.
This was a very nice retort. While I stand ardently opposed to you on this matter, I will ponder on it further and give more credence to your future posts.
Good day sir/ma'am. :)
-
Life is very common across the universe, it's too big and too vast for it not to be.
Your proof of the commonality of life across the universe is...?
Your proof of God :lol:
-
Your proof of God :lol:
Where did I demand belief in God that you should question me so?
-
Your proof of God :lol:
Where did I demand belief in God that you should question me so?
I apologize, I made the assumption your advocation for anti-abortion was rooted in religion. You can make the case that it isn't, which may be the case, but I have to believe that a small part of it is. If that's the case and you believe in a higher being then I think that belief is just as justified as the belief that there may be other life in the universe.
-
KSUW,
Why do you fight so passionately for the unborn, but want to abandon the less fortunate, living in this country?
Jesus told him this was the right way.
Even assuming he follows the Republican Party line, this is a terrible talking point for dems, btw. Jesus was deliberate about separating government obligations from personal ones. Republicans have a higher rate of charitable giving overall. Just because you don't want the government to manage social causes doesn't mean you don't believe in or even support those causes.
Similarly, just because you don't want the government to punish people who have abortions doesn't mean you want people to go get more of them or would even ever get one yourself.
-
Abortion discussions are the worst.
-
I was born and this what I am. An animal existing. I asked not to be here but will get the most enjoyment that I can out of my life.
When natural selection no longer limits a population, other measure must be taken.
Quite selfish way to look at life. Within that limited mental purview, I would have to agree with you that man is a virus that should be exterminated for the good of the universe.
Fortunately, your view is not reality.
What separates man from the animals is the choice we make to do things that make life for other humans better. No animal does that, outside of the mother-offspring demographic..which is quite limited.
Open your mind...you exist for more than just you. Humanity's future depends on people like you figuring out that basic concept.
This was a very nice retort. While I stand ardently opposed to you on this matter, I will ponder on it further and give more credence to your future posts.
Good day sir/ma'am. :)
Not my conversation, but I thought this was well said on both parts. SdK, I agree with your counterpart that you exist for more than just you. You influence several that you will never know about and potentially a limitless number. Live well, my friend!
And Ptolemy, thanks for thoughtful insight!
-
Similarly, just because you don't want the government to punish people who have abortions doesn't mean you want people to go get more of them or would even ever get one yourself.
Absolutely. However, for anyone who believes life begins at some point before birth, it would be hypocritical to believe murder should be illegal but not abortion after that point (without exceptions at least).
-
Similarly, just because you don't want the government to punish people who have abortions doesn't mean you want people to go get more of them or would even ever get one yourself.
Absolutely. However, for anyone who believes life begins at some point before birth, it would be hypocritical to believe murder should be illegal but not abortion after that point (without exceptions at least).
Not really. I think people who murder other living people outside of the womb are a much greater threat to society at large than somebody who murders their own unborn child.
-
Similarly, just because you don't want the government to punish people who have abortions doesn't mean you want people to go get more of them or would even ever get one yourself.
Absolutely. However, for anyone who believes life begins at some point before birth, it would be hypocritical to believe murder should be illegal but not abortion after that point (without exceptions at least).
Not really. I think people who murder other living people outside of the womb are a much greater threat to society at large than somebody who murders their own unborn child.
Ah, a libertarian I see. I guess I see your point there, but it's kind of begging the question. I think a marijuana vendor in Colorado is much less of a threat to society than a dealer in New Mexico or Texas. One of them is willing to break the law, the other doesn't have to.
Besides, if we are talking a murderer's level of danger to society, I think there is some pretty good evidence that murder has one of the lowest rates of repeat offenses (I remember hearing this in a criminal justice seminar but not sure how time behind bars was taken into account). Maybe not quite as dangerous as you might expect.
-
What separates man from the animals is the choice we make to do things that make life for other humans better. No animal does that, outside of the mother-offspring demographic..which is quite limited.
I guess you haven't seen this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncTeJb2N8BU
-
Similarly, just because you don't want the government to punish people who have abortions doesn't mean you want people to go get more of them or would even ever get one yourself.
Absolutely. However, for anyone who believes life begins at some point before birth, it would be hypocritical to believe murder should be illegal but not abortion after that point (without exceptions at least).
Not really. I think people who murder other living people outside of the womb are a much greater threat to society at large than somebody who murders their own unborn child.
Ah, a libertarian I see. I guess I see your point there, but it's kind of begging the question. I think a marijuana vendor in Colorado is much less of a threat to society than a dealer in New Mexico or Texas. One of them is willing to break the law, the other doesn't have to.
Besides, if we are talking a murderer's level of danger to society, I think there is some pretty good evidence that murder has one of the lowest rates of repeat offenses (I remember hearing this in a criminal justice seminar but not sure how time behind bars was taken into account). Maybe not quite as dangerous as you might expect.
I agree that the dealer in New Mexico or Texas is a greater threat. That is an argument for legalization. And yeah, we probably punish most murderers too harshly.
-
:cheers:
-
I guess you haven't seen this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncTeJb2N8BU
[/quote]
Yeah, that "animals are our friends" notion did not work out so well for Timothy Treadwell.
-
I apologize, I made the assumption your advocation for anti-abortion was rooted in religion. You can make the case that it isn't, which may be the case, but I have to believe that a small part of it is. If that's the case and you believe in a higher being then I think that belief is just as justified as the belief that there may be other life in the universe.
Belief in a higher power is unrelated to whether we should allow killing of our most vulnerable unborn. Such an act is contrary to nature. Sex feels good because nature needs us to procreate in order for the species to survive and thrive. Another aspect that raises us up over lower forms of life is we are the only ones that choose when to engage in the procreative act. The problem that has risen in that evolutionary process is we have attempted to separate the pleasure of the act from the procreative aspect through various unnatural means (contraception and abortion). Nature has never intended that to occur. We're still working on it.
-
I apologize, I made the assumption your advocation for anti-abortion was rooted in religion. You can make the case that it isn't, which may be the case, but I have to believe that a small part of it is. If that's the case and you believe in a higher being then I think that belief is just as justified as the belief that there may be other life in the universe.
Belief in a higher power is unrelated to whether we should allow killing of our most vulnerable unborn. Such an act is contrary to nature. Sex feels good because nature needs us to procreate in order for the species to survive and thrive. Another aspect that raises us up over lower forms of life is we are the only ones that choose when to engage in the procreative act. The problem that has risen in that evolutionary process is we have attempted to separate the pleasure of the act from the procreative aspect through various unnatural means (contraception and abortion). Nature has never intended that to occur. We're still working on it.
Pretty much everything you just typed came off as super religi, fyi
-
Belief in a higher power is unrelated to whether we should allow killing of our most vulnerable unborn. Such an act is contrary to nature. Sex feels good because nature needs us to procreate in order for the species to survive and thrive. Another aspect that raises us up over lower forms of life is we are the only ones that choose when to engage in the procreative act. The problem that has risen in that evolutionary process is we have attempted to separate the pleasure of the act from the procreative aspect through various unnatural means (contraception and abortion). Nature has never intended that to occur. We're still working on it.
As resources become more scarce on Earth do you think nature will respond by causing more people to be born homosexual? This is a question I have legitimately pondered.
-
Belief in a higher power is unrelated to whether we should allow killing of our most vulnerable unborn. Such an act is contrary to nature. Sex feels good because nature needs us to procreate in order for the species to survive and thrive. Another aspect that raises us up over lower forms of life is we are the only ones that choose when to engage in the procreative act. The problem that has risen in that evolutionary process is we have attempted to separate the pleasure of the act from the procreative aspect through various unnatural means (contraception and abortion). Nature has never intended that to occur. We're still working on it.
As resources become more scarce on Earth do you think nature will respond by causing more people to be born homosexual? This is a question I have legitimately pondered.
Maybe if we hadn't criminalized homosexuality in the past, nature would have avoided the overpopulation crisis that is now upon us.
-
Maybe if we hadn't criminalized homosexuality in the past, nature would have avoided the overpopulation crisis that is now upon us.
What evidence is there that the planet is overpopulated? We pay farmers to not grow food. Even then, developed countries throw away more food than the poor countries consume. 95% of the land area in the US is undeveloped. You could take the entire population of the world and move them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is in New York City.
The world is not overpopulated. In fact, the reverse is true in many countries that depend on a greater share of government to care for society than we do here. China, Japan, and much of Europe is facing crisis due to lagging birth rates.
-
China, Japan, and much of Europe is facing crisis due to lagging birth rates.
Because of the gays?
-
As resources become more scarce on Earth do you think nature will respond by causing more people to be born homosexual? This is a question I have legitimately pondered.
Interesting point. Nature may have created the immune deficiency virus in response to the threat that homosexual activity placed on the survival of the species, but evidence is sparse in either direction.
-
Are clothes natural? Cars? Houses?
-
Are clothes natural? Cars? Houses?
Yes. No. Yes.
-
Clothes and houses aren't natural
-
Are clothes natural? Cars? Houses?
Depends on your definition of nature. Some have an agenda that man is a virus on the planet, even though we came from it. Clothes are simply a means for protecting our bodies from the elements. Cars are an extension from bipedalism to allow for more efficiency and productivity in travel. Houses are the extension of caves, which are most certainly natural in any sense of the definition.
So yes, all are natural.
-
Pretty much everything you just typed came off as super religi, fyi
That comes from you, not from the words.
-
Why is contraception and abortion not natural then? They are solutions to a problem, same as clothes, cars, and houses.
-
Contraception is an extension of pulling out.
-
Time to outlaw braces and heart surgery, they aren't natural
-
Almost nothing humans do is natural.
-
I apologize, I made the assumption your advocation for anti-abortion was rooted in religion. You can make the case that it isn't, which may be the case, but I have to believe that a small part of it is. If that's the case and you believe in a higher being then I think that belief is just as justified as the belief that there may be other life in the universe.
Belief in a higher power is unrelated to whether we should allow killing of our most vulnerable unborn. Such an act is contrary to nature. Sex feels good because nature needs us to procreate in order for the species to survive and thrive. Another aspect that raises us up over lower forms of life is we are the only ones that choose when to engage in the procreative act. The problem that has risen in that evolutionary process is we have attempted to separate the pleasure of the act from the procreative aspect through various unnatural means (contraception and abortion). Nature has never intended that to occur. We're still working on it.
Wrong on both counts. It's like you're intentionally shrouding yourself in ignorance.
-
Why is contraception and abortion not natural then? They are solutions to a problem, same as clothes, cars, and houses.
Contraception is most certainly natural. Nature's form of contraception is the cycle of fertility (and aging, of course, except in the cases of Raquel Welch and Sofia Loren!). Nature's form of abortion is miscarriage. However, nature cannot perceive procreation in and of itself as a problem.
-
Wrong on both counts. It's like you're intentionally shrouding yourself in ignorance.
I'm still trying to fathom the resource in your counter argument. This may take a day or two, so please be patient.
-
How is a condom any more unnatural (to idiots like you) than a t-shirt?
-
KSUW,
Why do you fight so passionately for the unborn, but want to abandon the less fortunate, living in this country?
Jesus told him this was the right way.
Even assuming he follows the Republican Party line, this is a terrible talking point for dems, btw. Jesus was deliberate about separating government obligations from personal ones. Republicans have a higher rate of charitable giving overall. Just because you don't want the government to manage social causes doesn't mean you don't believe in or even support those causes.
You're totally missing the point and Jesus message about good governance. Basically the governance you guys want is what Jesus railed against.
-
I feel like we are close to a "condoms are genocide" type moment for 'lemy
-
Clothes and houses aren't natural
Dude, other animals build houses. And clothes are a no-brainer. It's like "hey, that bear looks warm with all that fur, I should get me some of that to wear." If hunting for food is natural, wearing a pelt would be too.
-
Clothes and houses aren't natural
Dude, other animals build houses. And clothes are a no-brainer. It's like "hey, that bear looks warm with all that fur, I should get me some of that to wear." If hunting for food is natural, wearing a pelt would be too.
Humans grow hair.
-
Wrong on both counts. It's like you're intentionally shrouding yourself in ignorance.
I'm still trying to fathom the resource in your counter argument. This may take a day or two, so please be patient.
It's a well known fact that many animals, particularly higher ordered mammals eff. And that not only dispels your point about nature/abortion/rough ridin', but to go further, if we were only to have sex to procreate our biological system would be built around "induced ovulators" and not people who can eff without the reduced chance of pregnancy.
-
KSUW,
Why do you fight so passionately for the unborn, but want to abandon the less fortunate, living in this country?
Jesus told him this was the right way.
Even assuming he follows the Republican Party line, this is a terrible talking point for dems, btw. Jesus was deliberate about separating government obligations from personal ones. Republicans have a higher rate of charitable giving overall. Just because you don't want the government to manage social causes doesn't mean you don't believe in or even support those causes.
You're totally missing the point and Jesus message about good governance. Basically the governance you guys want is what Jesus railed against.
Pretty sure you are missing the point on this one. Jesus didn't rail against any type of government that I can think of. And I'm damn sure he didn't say anything suggesting that the principles he taught concerning love and generosity should be enforced by the government.
-
KSUW,
Why do you fight so passionately for the unborn, but want to abandon the less fortunate, living in this country?
Jesus told him this was the right way.
Even assuming he follows the Republican Party line, this is a terrible talking point for dems, btw. Jesus was deliberate about separating government obligations from personal ones. Republicans have a higher rate of charitable giving overall. Just because you don't want the government to manage social causes doesn't mean you don't believe in or even support those causes.
You're totally missing the point and Jesus message about good governance. Basically the governance you guys want is what Jesus railed against.
Pretty sure you are missing the point on this one. Jesus didn't rail against any type of government that I can think of. And I'm damn sure he didn't say anything suggesting that the principles he taught concerning love and generosity should be enforced by the government.
The fact that you see it as "enforced by the government" is an issue. And we can just ignore all those passages where Jesus says he is coming for all those corrupt kings when the reckoning occurs.
-
Any governmental social program is supported by tax dollars, so yes it is enforced if you don't contribute. Your latter point simply goes back to personal responsibility. Abusing your office is entirely different from forcing people to participate in something you view as a worthy cause.
-
Maybe if we hadn't criminalized homosexuality in the past, nature would have avoided the overpopulation crisis that is now upon us.
What evidence is there that the planet is overpopulated? We pay farmers to not grow food. Even then, developed countries throw away more food than the poor countries consume. 95% of the land area in the US is undeveloped. You could take the entire population of the world and move them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is in New York City.
The world is not overpopulated. In fact, the reverse is true in many countries that depend on a greater share of government to care for society than we do here. China, Japan, and much of Europe is facing crisis due to lagging birth rates.
Just because we really haven't felt it yet in the U.S. dos not mean the problem doesn't exist.
https://news.vice.com/article/these-nations-are-about-to-start-running-out-of-water
-
I was born and this what I am. An animal existing. I asked not to be here but will get the most enjoyment that I can out of my life.
When natural selection no longer limits a population, other measure must be taken.
Quite selfish way to look at life. Within that limited mental purview, I would have to agree with you that man is a virus that should be exterminated for the good of the universe.
Fortunately, your view is not reality.
What separates man from the animals is the choice we make to do things that make life for other humans better. No animal does that, outside of the mother-offspring demographic..which is quite limited.
Open your mind...you exist for more than just you. Humanity's future depends on people like you figuring out that basic concept.
This was a very nice retort. While I stand ardently opposed to you on this matter, I will ponder on it further and give more credence to your future posts.
Good day sir/ma'am. :)
Not my conversation, but I thought this was well said on both parts. SdK, I agree with your counterpart that you exist for more than just you. You influence several that you will never know about and potentially a limitless number. Live well, my friend!
And Ptolemy, thanks for thoughtful insight!
Oh I absolutely agree with that sentiment about the lives we impact. The lives I impact. It has become even more noticeable as of late.
I am very much in favor of doing good works.
-
Just because we really haven't felt it yet in the U.S. dos not mean the problem doesn't exist.
https://news.vice.com/article/these-nations-are-about-to-start-running-out-of-water
Water does not get "used up." There is a finite amount of water on the planet. It has always existed in the current volume. If areas on the planet are lacking water supply, they simply need better means of distribution.
-
Innovation :curse:
-
fwiw I have no idea what Ptolemy is talking about re. natural vs. unnatural.
-
It's a well known fact that many animals, particularly higher ordered mammals eff. And that not only dispels your point about nature/abortion/rough ridin', but to go further, if we were only to have sex to procreate our biological system would be built around "induced ovulators" and not people who can eff without the reduced chance of pregnancy.
Why does it feel good to eat food when we are hungry? Because our bodies need sustenance for the body to survive and thrive. The same relationship exists between intercourse and procreation. If we did not need to procreate to survive, sex would not feel good.
-
Time to outlaw braces and heart surgery, they aren't natural
Yeah, the "not natural" argument is a huge joke. Humans aren't meant to fly from New York to LA in six hours, but we do. We have air conditioners. We have medical treatments that now allow us to live to 80 instead of dying at 35. We watch television, mass produce motor vehicles, build skyscrapers, and just do tons of crap every day that isn't natural. The "natural vs. unnatural" argument is completely irrelevant unless you appropriate it to every aspect of life instead of just picking and choosing when to invoke it for the sake of a particular argument. If you ain't living life as Amish, stfu about outlawing something because it's "unnatural."
-
fwiw I have no idea what Ptolemy is talking about re. natural vs. unnatural.
fwiw 'lemy doesn't either
-
With 7B people on the planet, population control is just the next evolutionary step to preservie the species.
-
Just because we really haven't felt it yet in the U.S. dos not mean the problem doesn't exist.
https://news.vice.com/article/these-nations-are-about-to-start-running-out-of-water
Water does not get "used up." There is a finite amount of water on the planet. It has always existed in the current volume. If areas on the planet are lacking water supply, they simply need better means of distribution.
Right, the "same" amount of water being used by more and more people as the population increases. No negative consequences.
-
KSUW,
Why do you fight so passionately for the unborn, but want to abandon the less fortunate, living in this country?
Jesus told him this was the right way.
Even assuming he follows the Republican Party line, this is a terrible talking point for dems, btw. Jesus was deliberate about separating government obligations from personal ones. Republicans have a higher rate of charitable giving overall. Just because you don't want the government to manage social causes doesn't mean you don't believe in or even support those causes.
You're totally missing the point and Jesus message about good governance. Basically the governance you guys want is what Jesus railed against.
Pretty sure you are missing the point on this one. Jesus didn't rail against any type of government that I can think of. And I'm damn sure he didn't say anything suggesting that the principles he taught concerning love and generosity should be enforced by the government.
The fact that you see it as "enforced by the government" is an issue. And we can just ignore all those passages where Jesus says he is coming for all those corrupt kings when the reckoning occurs.
stop talking to yourself, you rough ridin' psycho.
-
Just because we really haven't felt it yet in the U.S. dos not mean the problem doesn't exist.
https://news.vice.com/article/these-nations-are-about-to-start-running-out-of-water
Water does not get "used up." There is a finite amount of water on the planet. It has always existed in the current volume. If areas on the planet are lacking water supply, they simply need better means of distribution.
Right, the "same" amount of water being used by more and more people as the population increases. No negative consequences.
"We" are currently dumping treated wastewater into the ocean and rivers and such that exceeds current standards for drinking water. People just need to get on board with drinking their own poo water.
-
Right, the "same" amount of water being used by more and more people as the population increases. No negative consequences.
Water does not go away. It simply gets used to perform a task, then it gets re-appropriated for the next user: carry away dirt when we wash, transfer heat, hydrate...etc. It matters not how many people there are.
-
Right, the "same" amount of water being used by more and more people as the population increases. No negative consequences.
Water does not go away. It simply gets used to perform a task, then it gets re-appropriated for the next user: carry away dirt when we wash, transfer heat, hydrate...etc. It matters not how many people there are.
OK, then when you get done using the water that you drank, why don't you just go ahead and take a shower in it?
-
Actually, I do. We all do. It's called the hydrologic cycle.
-
'lemy is the 60yr old version of tbt
-
Actually, I do. We all do. It's called the hydrologic cycle.
Lemy is right on. Drink it. Whizz it. Drink it. Whizz it. On and on, just like the space staion. I would favor bumping.off pets before aborting babies to control population. If we limit.welfare benefits to.any family with more than 3 kids or to illegal trumpmagrunts.
-
Actually, I do. We all do. It's called the hydrologic cycle.
Lemy is right on. Drink it. Whizz it. Drink it. Whizz it. On and on, just like the space staion. I would favor bumping.off pets before aborting babies to control population. If we limit.welfare benefits to.any family with more than 3 kids or to illegal trumpmagrunts.
Seems like that might increase abortions, not lower it.
-
KSUW,
Why do you fight so passionately for the unborn, but want to abandon the less fortunate, living in this country?
Jesus told him this was the right way.
Even assuming he follows the Republican Party line, this is a terrible talking point for dems, btw. Jesus was deliberate about separating government obligations from personal ones. Republicans have a higher rate of charitable giving overall. Just because you don't want the government to manage social causes doesn't mean you don't believe in or even support those causes.
I'm calling bullshit on republicans giving more, I've heard it before, never saw it proven though.
I also need a timeline point of clarification, but don't Christians believe Jesus was kicking it before Plato? How would he have any opinion about government?
-
How much of that charity is to dog shelters and cat rescues? I am betting a bunch.
-
I would guess republicans donate way more to churches and that leads to a bunch.
-
Republicans give more - and it's not even close....http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/republicans-most-generous-people-in-the-world-democrats-not-so-much
-
Informative link name
-
Republicans give more - and it's not even close....http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/republicans-most-generous-people-in-the-world-democrats-not-so-much
So because people who live in Utah give more than people in other states we're supposed to think that Republicans give more than Democrats, and "It's not even close?" Sounds legit.
-
Republicans give more - and it's not even close....http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/republicans-most-generous-people-in-the-world-democrats-not-so-much
So because people who live in Utah give more than people in other states we're supposed to think that Republicans give more than Democrats, and "It's not even close?" Sounds legit.
Please feel free to retort with a resource that indicates that Democrats give more than Republicans...
-
Republicans give more - and it's not even close....http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/republicans-most-generous-people-in-the-world-democrats-not-so-much
So because people who live in Utah give more than people in other states we're supposed to think that Republicans give more than Democrats, and "It's not even close?" Sounds legit.
Please feel free to retort with a resource that indicates that Democrats give more than Republicans...
I would never be stupid enough to assert such a thing. Most people don't disclose their voting predilections when giving to charity.
-
Republicans give more - and it's not even close....http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/republicans-most-generous-people-in-the-world-democrats-not-so-much
So because people who live in Utah give more than people in other states we're supposed to think that Republicans give more than Democrats, and "It's not even close?" Sounds legit.
Please feel free to retort with a resource that indicates that Democrats give more than Republicans...
I would never be stupid enough to assert such a thing. Most people don't disclose their voting predilections when giving to charity.
I've seen this stat before and tend to believe if. First they do believe that charity, particularly religious charities, should lead the way in social services instead of government. Second though you have to look at the outgrowth of religious life to other parts of their lives. Now the money that you might use for entertainment or socialization for many Pubs circles back to their church life, youth group, and now church based sports. Many churches *demand* 10% from their parishioners in the form of tithing. A church going pub now has entertainment dollars going to their church, the standard religious tithing, and some cash to prove that their church can do it better than government donation.
-
I would bet that a very small amt of ppl actually tithe 10%.
-
I also need a timeline point of clarification, but don't Christians believe Jesus was kicking it before Plato? How would he have any opinion about government?
Not sure if I understand the question, but Plato was way before Jesus. Many people think early Christian authors actually read Plato.
-
I would bet that a very small amt of ppl actually tithe 10%.
Not in Utah. Mormons have to have their finances audited to prove they have tithed enough to get into the temple. (10%)
-
Sure. If you are going to cherry pick, that would be the best to cherry pick of the 50 states, I would imagine. I would also imagine mormonism, as well as how strictly they practice, drops as you get a little bit away from the Great Salt Lake.
-
Sure. If you are going to cherry pick, that would be the best to cherry pick of the 50 states, I would imagine. I would also imagine mormonism, as well as how strictly they practice, drops as you get a little bit away from the Great Salt Lake.
Actually Mormons drop off very little in strictness around the country (and I chose them because I have Mormon in-laws). But that's not really relevant.
The point is, donations to the church are definitely the driving factor in Utah's charitable giving, and I'm guessing it's the same for the states in the deep south with high percentages. (Regardless of political affiliation)
-
I also need a timeline point of clarification, but don't Christians believe Jesus was kicking it before Plato? How would he have any opinion about government?
Not sure if I understand the question, but Plato was way before Jesus. Many people think early Christian authors actually read Plato.
Yeah, Jesus lived within the Roman Empire.
-
With 7B people on the planet, population control is just the next evolutionary step to preservie the species.
So perhaps instead of giving tax incentives to families per child, we should give life long tax incentives to those who choose to be sterilized. In the long run they will be getting less money out of the government than if there were several more children that came on to the system draining it of resources for 80+ years.
-
How about we don't give tax incentives for either of those
-
How about we don't give tax incentives for either of those
A lot of lower middle class families would have to start paying taxes again. Also, K-S-U's taxes would probably double or something.
-
I'm fine with both of those
-
Tax incentives for kids makes sense from the govt's perspective. Future tax payers, etc. Just like it makes sense to subsidize ed as much as possible to max earnings.
-
The government shouldn't be encouraging or discouraging having children though the tax code
-
The government should encourage having boys and discourage having girls through the tax code.
-
Tax incentives for kids makes sense from the govt's perspective. Future tax payers, etc. Just like it makes sense to subsidize ed as much as possible to max earnings.
I don't think many kids that are born due to any sort of incentive end up paying taxes when they grow up.
-
(Regardless of political affiliation)
-
I also need a timeline point of clarification, but don't Christians believe Jesus was kicking it before Plato? How would he have any opinion about government?
Not sure if I understand the question, but Plato was way before Jesus. Many people think early Christian authors actually read Plato.
Yeah, Jesus lived within the Roman Empire.
Really? I did not know this, it's odd that this was so recent within the context of world history yet there is so much debate about what happened and what didn't.
-
I also need a timeline point of clarification, but don't Christians believe Jesus was kicking it before Plato? How would he have any opinion about government?
Not sure if I understand the question, but Plato was way before Jesus. Many people think early Christian authors actually read Plato.
Yeah, Jesus lived within the Roman Empire.
Really? I did not know this, it's odd that this was so recent within the context of world history yet there is so much debate about what happened and what didn't.
Yeah, he was born in 1 AD. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment.
-
(Regardless of political affiliation)
Well, I'm assuming that republicans are more likely to be religious. I could be wrong though. I'm just saying it could make sense.
-
(Regardless of political affiliation)
Well, I'm assuming that republicans are more likely to be religious. I could be wrong though. I'm just saying it could make sense.
I quoted you to affirm your point. The assumption that Republicans are more likely to regularly attend church services is likely correct, so the next assumption that there are more republicans giving in church is reasonable. But many republicans won't concede that it's possible to be a democrat and to attend church. I still contend that the "fact" that Republicans give more is total crap and there's a reason why there's no concrete evidence of it being so.
-
(Regardless of political affiliation)
Well, I'm assuming that republicans are more likely to be religious. I could be wrong though. I'm just saying it could make sense.
I quoted you to affirm your point. The assumption that Republicans are more likely to regularly attend church services is likely correct, so the next assumption that there are more republicans giving in church is reasonable. But many republicans won't concede that it's possible to be a democrat and to attend church. I still contend that the "fact" that Republicans give more is total crap and there's a reason why there's no concrete evidence of it being so.
Don't forget to consider that Republicans are also on the average much better off than Democrats and therefore have the means to even be able to give charitably.
-
(Regardless of political affiliation)
Well, I'm assuming that republicans are more likely to be religious. I could be wrong though. I'm just saying it could make sense.
I quoted you to affirm your point. The assumption that Republicans are more likely to regularly attend church services is likely correct, so the next assumption that there are more republicans giving in church is reasonable. But many republicans won't concede that it's possible to be a democrat and to attend church. I still contend that the "fact" that Republicans give more is total crap and there's a reason why there's no concrete evidence of it being so.
Don't forget to consider that Republicans are also on the average much better off than Democrats and therefore have the means to even be able to give charitably.
Not really. More poor people are democrats, but there are just as many wealthy democrats as there are wealthy republicans.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/2014-party-identification-detailed-tables/
-
I also need a timeline point of clarification, but don't Christians believe Jesus was kicking it before Plato? How would he have any opinion about government?
Not sure if I understand the question, but Plato was way before Jesus. Many people think early Christian authors actually read Plato.
Yeah, Jesus lived within the Roman Empire.
Really? I did not know this, it's odd that this was so recent within the context of world history yet there is so much debate about what happened and what didn't.
Honestly for most records outside of super official government stuff, whether a given manuscript survives 2,000 years or 10,000 really just comes down to luck at some point.
I'm also pretty sure there was debate even at the time about what happened. In an era without any reliable recording methods other than letters, how do you think you'd react if someone swears to you they saw a guy rise from the dead a couple states over?
-
(Regardless of political affiliation)
Well, I'm assuming that republicans are more likely to be religious. I could be wrong though. I'm just saying it could make sense.
I quoted you to affirm your point. The assumption that Republicans are more likely to regularly attend church services is likely correct, so the next assumption that there are more republicans giving in church is reasonable. But many republicans won't concede that it's possible to be a democrat and to attend church. I still contend that the "fact" that Republicans give more is total crap and there's a reason why there's no concrete evidence of it being so.
http://news.rice.edu/2012/05/31/liberals-versus-conservatives-how-politics-affects-charitable-giving/
-
(Regardless of political affiliation)
Well, I'm assuming that republicans are more likely to be religious. I could be wrong though. I'm just saying it could make sense.
I quoted you to affirm your point. The assumption that Republicans are more likely to regularly attend church services is likely correct, so the next assumption that there are more republicans giving in church is reasonable. But many republicans won't concede that it's possible to be a democrat and to attend church. I still contend that the "fact" that Republicans give more is total crap and there's a reason why there's no concrete evidence of it being so.
Don't forget to consider that Republicans are also on the average much better off than Democrats and therefore have the means to even be able to give charitably.
Not really. More poor people are democrats, but there are just as many wealthy democrats as there are wealthy republicans.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/2014-party-identification-detailed-tables/
If the number of people wealthy enough to give charitably is the same between parties, but one party is more likely to give because of some religious affiliation, then how could one ever conclude that the opposite party gives just as much? :confused:
-
(Regardless of political affiliation)
Well, I'm assuming that republicans are more likely to be religious. I could be wrong though. I'm just saying it could make sense.
I quoted you to affirm your point. The assumption that Republicans are more likely to regularly attend church services is likely correct, so the next assumption that there are more republicans giving in church is reasonable. But many republicans won't concede that it's possible to be a democrat and to attend church. I still contend that the "fact" that Republicans give more is total crap and there's a reason why there's no concrete evidence of it being so.
Don't forget to consider that Republicans are also on the average much better off than Democrats and therefore have the means to even be able to give charitably.
Not really. More poor people are democrats, but there are just as many wealthy democrats as there are wealthy republicans.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/2014-party-identification-detailed-tables/
If the number of people wealthy enough to give charitably is the same between parties, but one party is more likely to give because of some religious affiliation, then how could one ever conclude that the opposite party gives just as much? :confused:
Nobody concluded that.
-
(Regardless of political affiliation)
Well, I'm assuming that republicans are more likely to be religious. I could be wrong though. I'm just saying it could make sense.
I quoted you to affirm your point. The assumption that Republicans are more likely to regularly attend church services is likely correct, so the next assumption that there are more republicans giving in church is reasonable. But many republicans won't concede that it's possible to be a democrat and to attend church. I still contend that the "fact" that Republicans give more is total crap and there's a reason why there's no concrete evidence of it being so.
Don't forget to consider that Republicans are also on the average much better off than Democrats and therefore have the means to even be able to give charitably.
:bait:
-
(Regardless of political affiliation)
Well, I'm assuming that republicans are more likely to be religious. I could be wrong though. I'm just saying it could make sense.
I quoted you to affirm your point. The assumption that Republicans are more likely to regularly attend church services is likely correct, so the next assumption that there are more republicans giving in church is reasonable. But many republicans won't concede that it's possible to be a democrat and to attend church. I still contend that the "fact" that Republicans give more is total crap and there's a reason why there's no concrete evidence of it being so.
http://news.rice.edu/2012/05/31/liberals-versus-conservatives-how-politics-affects-charitable-giving/
Jesus, I wonder how much time and money they wasted on that? I'm not sure it's possible to have a study confirm something that is more deeply rooted in common sense.
-
Jesus, I wonder how much time and money they wasted on that? I'm not sure it's possible to have a study confirm something that is more deeply rooted in common sense.
Yes, fascinating research.
-
hey KSUW we are complete human and always have been :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/ancient-viruses-are-hiding-within-your-dna
-
Planned Hamburger Vginatroopers are ruthless. The California DOJ, a rabid democomrade, ordered special agents to raid the home of the guy who made the videos of the meat market. They took all of his personal belongings.
-
Planned Hamburger Vginatroopers are ruthless. The California DOJ, a rabid democomrade, ordered special agents to raid the home of the guy who made the videos of the meat market. They took all of his personal belongings.
CA AG Kamala Harris is running for Senate, and she needs "results" for her donor base. More thug government in action.
-
This thug has been caught breaking the law before, what did he do now?
-
This thug has been caught breaking the law before, what did he do now?
If you really think people should be prosecuted for engaging in undercover journalism, you're even more of a brownshirt lemming than I thought. Seriously, troll, put aside your partisan bullshit and ask yourself - are these types of prosecutions good for exposing corruption?
-
Next time he exposes anything but his own lawbreaking will be the first
-
I'm going to expose ksuw's corruption by breaking the law and lying except, crap, I can't find any corruption :frown:
Hey guys when I did all that illegal crap I was just investigating so leave me alone!
-
I don't understand the opposition to Planned Parenthood. Women that get abortions are the best. They don't ruin your life with kids.
-
This thug has been caught breaking the law before, what did he do now?
If you really think people should be prosecuted for engaging in undercover journalism, you're even more of a brownshirt lemming than I thought. Seriously, troll, put aside your partisan bullshit and ask yourself - are these types of prosecutions good for exposing corruption?
The Center for Medical Progress' videos are fabricated and edited in an effort to mislead the anti-abortion crowd. No corruption was "exposed."
-
Man Lib7 is just crushing KSUW....not sure he even knows it.
-
KSUW won't even respond to me I'm crushing it so badly :frown:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.boingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F04%2FTOM-THE-DANCING-BUG-republican-house-of-horrors.jpg&hash=8e649ecbd14edcda9a449f39b24657e56521ebc7)
-
That is the least ugly cruz has ever looked. That should be his new equivalent of his head shot.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
That is the least ugly cruz has ever looked. That should be his new equivalent of his head shot.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Clearly, he needs to grow a mustache.
-
I the Obama EEOC ruling on how defined sex. Of course it contained gender gear shifting and gays, but listed pregnancy. ???? Today HHS issued a that any medical facility or Dr. Recieving federal dollars through even medicaid and medicaid can't deny health services due to sex which includes pregnancy. A dr. Or medical facility cannot deny performing an abortion to do so is sex discrimination, and the punative wrath of.planned hamburger storm troopers at.DOJ squeezing the life out of you.
-
I the Obama EEOC ruling on how defined sex. Of course it contained gender gear shifting and gays, but listed pregnancy. ???? Today HHS issued a that any medical facility or Dr. Recieving federal dollars through even medicaid and medicaid can't deny health services due to sex which includes pregnancy. A dr. Or medical facility cannot deny performing an abortion to do so is sex discrimination, and the punative wrath of.planned hamburger storm troopers at.DOJ squeezing the life out of you.
well said.
-
HIllary. Yesterday called abortion Reproductive Justice. Every woman should have unfettered access to an abortion; no.restrictions. Where is the justice for.the.defenseless baby in the womb. Oh I forgot, to these compassionate HMT women it ain't a.baby, its HAMBURGER.
Do we.really want.a.heartless and.ruthless person for.president?
-
California passed a law that says everyone who provides health insurance has to have a clause in there that says abortion is a routine medical procedure and therefore anyone providing Health Care insurance has to pay for somebody getting an abortion even religious organizations. Obama's Health and Human Services Agency rural that this is a applicable law despite the Weldon Amendment. Just ignore the law which says that religious organizations can't be forced to provide coverage for abortion these planned hamburger women will do anything to get this point across.
-
Religions need to get over it
-
Religions need to get over it
Yeah.
-
Religions need to get over it
get over abortion?
-
Religions need to get over it
get over abortion?
Get over themselves. There is nothing wrong with preaching against abortion, but that should be where it ends. If they want to provide health insurance, fine, but they shouldn't get to tell the recipients of that insurance what they can and can't use it for.
-
Religions need to get over it
get over abortion?
The insurance part. Same with tax money.
-
The idea that a pro life person should just "get over" contributing to pay for abortions is absurd.
-
You aren't paying for abortions
-
I guess I don't understand how insurance works
-
CF3 our taxes go to tons of crap we disagree with, like all the time. Do you think many libtards want their taxes going toward a blank check to the military-industrial complex so we can wage tons of wars all over the globe? I don't. But I get over it.
-
I guess I don't understand how insurance works
Do you favor restrictions on how an employee can spend their paycheck?
-
CF3 our taxes go to tons of crap we disagree with, like all the time. Do you think many libtards want their taxes going toward a blank check to the military-industrial complex so we can wage tons of wars all over the globe? I don't. But I get over it.
I don't want you to get over that. I want you to speak out against the injustices in this world.
I guess I don't understand how insurance works
Do you favor restrictions on how an employee can spend their paycheck?
I don't. But that's a bit different than telling businesses they have to cover abortions with their med. coverage. JMHO.
-
CF3 our taxes go to tons of crap we disagree with, like all the time. Do you think many libtards want their taxes going toward a blank check to the military-industrial complex so we can wage tons of wars all over the globe? I don't. But I get over it.
I don't want you to get over that. I want you to speak out against the injustices in this world.
I guess I don't understand how insurance works
Do you favor restrictions on how an employee can spend their paycheck?
I don't. But that's a bit different than telling businesses they have to cover abortions with their med. coverage. JMHO.
I really don't see much difference.
-
so would you advise people to just "get over" assault rifles?
-
so would you advise people to just "get over" assault rifles?
I would, yes.
-
Climate change. Get over it?
-
It's very hot today :curse:
-
Climate change. Get over it?
No, that is a real problem that will affect millions of people.
-
Do you favor restrictions on how an employee can spend their paycheck?
I don't. But that's a bit different than telling businesses they have to cover abortions with their med. coverage. JMHO.
if tax incentives for employer subsidized insurance were removed, it would be reasonable for employers to be able to restrict access to medical care they disagreed with.
-
In 2005 Congress passed what is.called the Weldon Amendment that has allowed religious institutions not to pay for insurance that covers hamburger merchants. Now Obama just interprets any law the.way he wants to be. I am tired of this bastard crapping.on the written laws of the U.S.
-
In 2005 Congress passed what is.called the Weldon Amendment that has allowed religious institutions not to pay for insurance that covers hamburger merchants. Now Obama just interprets any law the.way he wants to be. I am tired of this bastard crapping.on the written laws of the U.S.
Have you met our governor?
-
In 2005 Congress passed what is.called the Weldon Amendment that has allowed religious institutions not to pay for insurance that covers hamburger merchants. Now Obama just interprets any law the.way he wants to be. I am tired of this bastard crapping.on the written laws of the U.S.
any california religious organization that feels strongly about limiting their employees' access to abortion can create a self-funded health care plan or form a mutual entity with other religious organizations.
-
CF3 our taxes go to tons of crap we disagree with, like all the time. Do you think many libtards want their taxes going toward a blank check to the military-industrial complex so we can wage tons of wars all over the globe? I don't. But I get over it.
So I guess liblib meant that "you are paying for abortions, but you should just accept it because you are probably paying for some other things you don't agree to."
Royals aren't gonna win 'em all
-
No, I meant it as he's not paying for abortions
-
I'd gladly pay for all the abortions that women wanted. We need people who don't want to be/aren't qualified to be parents to not be parents.
-
No, I meant it as he's not paying for abortions
Then who pays for them?
Royals aren't gonna win 'em all
-
I'm assuming the insurance company
-
I'm assuming the insurance company
And how does the insurance company get money to pay for an abortion?
Royals aren't gonna win 'em all
-
By screwing their customers out of money, I assume
-
Dobber, are you OK with big lawn chemical placing restrictions on what you can spend your paycheck on? What if big lawn chemical irrationally hated pacificas? If you buy a Pacifica with money they give you it's basically like big lawn chemical bought a Pacifica. Really technically big lawn chemical owns that Pacifica and not you.
-
Dobber, are you OK with big lawn chemical placing restrictions on what you can spend your paycheck on? What if big lawn chemical irrationally hated pacificas? If you buy a Pacifica with money they give you it's basically like big lawn chemical bought a Pacifica. Really technically big lawn chemical owns that Pacifica and not you.
That isn't your argument. If it is, then I don't know what to tell you.
Royals aren't gonna win 'em all
-
I guess you haven't thought about it
-
every time i open this thread, i want to answer the question posed in the thread title. every single time.
-
Feel free to answer, I'm interested
-
Feel free to answer, I'm interested
just stupid sarcastic one-liners, not real answers.
-
i can get behind that
-
do it, sys.
-
Feel free to answer, I'm interested
just stupid sarcastic one-liners, not real answers.
there was a reason i named you queen of thorns
-
Feel free to answer, I'm interested
just stupid sarcastic one-liners, not real answers.
there was a reason i named you queen of thorns
More like teaser of pricks
-
hamburger merchants.will stop at nothing to wage momicide on.innocent fetal angels. obummer and hillarweird clinton high.five.in hell
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/texas_abortion_supreme_court.html#incart_most-commented_arts_article
-
Sb is renocat?!?
-
crap.
-
Too late bud, you got caught with your socks down
-
:sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek:
-
Good ruling by the court tho
-
Makes sense
-
Sb is renocat?!?
renocat doesn't post links!
Fraud! Impostor! :shakesfist:
-
:shakesfist:
-
Whoa
-
Sorry boys, left the house with one red sock on and one blue sock on today. Also was about a level 4 at the time.
-
I don't think you were in the top 20 people I would have guessed. Well played.
-
CF3 our taxes go to tons of crap we disagree with, like all the time. Do you think many libtards want their taxes going toward a blank check to the military-industrial complex so we can wage tons of wars all over the globe? I don't. But I get over it.
Ifor libtards oppose the military industrial complex, they sure have a strange way of showing it. Nobody in the history of the world has funneled more money to the military industry than the libtards.
-
I don't think you were in the top 20 people I would have guessed. Well played.
there's no reason to jump to conclusions. it's just as likely that sb is a reno sock as the reverse.
-
I the Obama EEOC ruling on how defined sex. Of course it contained gender gear shifting and gays, but listed pregnancy. ???? Today HHS issued a that any medical facility or Dr. Recieving federal dollars through even medicaid and medicaid can't deny health services due to sex which includes pregnancy. A dr. Or medical facility cannot deny performing an abortion to do so is sex discrimination, and the punative wrath of.planned hamburger storm troopers at.DOJ squeezing the life out of you.
well said.
Look at this crap
-
What now? Fire up a pud abortion clinics thread?
-
Abortion is not reproductive freedom it.is.legalized infanticide.
-
Abortion is not reproductive freedom it.is.legalized infanticide.
Well said.
-
outrageous.
-
smdh
-
big meat brigade :curse:
-
Reno, how do you think MG is gonna respond to this supreme court ruling?
-
big meat brigade :curse:
He clearly underestimated how well that would go over
-
My whole world is upside down.
Posters I now suspect are a sb sock (excluding the obvious) :
Katdaddy
Cat27
WackyCat08
Meow meow
-
Listen here you trans cowboy gravy eater, no one has that kind of time on their hands
-
big meat brigade :curse:
He clearly underestimated how well that would go over
Yeah. I hope he keeps making basketball nicknames.
-
it makes a ton of sense
-
Add cf3 to the list
-
making a sock that goes on for that long is kinda weird. the only one I ever made was PIPE_CLEANER
-
Classic.
-
Reno, how do you think MG is gonna respond to this supreme court ruling?
Orgasmic glee.
-
hamburger merchants.will stop at nothing to wage momicide on.innocent fetal angels. obummer and hillarweird clinton high.five.in hell
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/texas_abortion_supreme_court.html#incart_most-commented_arts_article
Well holy eff
-
I never would have guessed a poster I disliked so much was a sock of a poster I like quite a bit. Well done Ski'Be'
-
I never would have guessed a poster I disliked so much was a sock of a poster I like quite a bit. Well done Ski'Be'
Ski.ain't me. God.will give.nightmares tonight. Renocat selling you.hamburger patties.that are crying for mommy.
-
takes us for a bunch of good time rock-n-roll plastic banana FM types :curse:
-
If the banana fits.you must acquit. or else you must be living athiest nightmare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
-
Breitbart is reporting congodems stopping the.funding to fight Zika because funding for planned hamburger is not.included. They don't give crap.about.small brained babies that come.from this skeeter scourge.
-
Breitbart is reporting congodems stopping the.funding to fight Zika because funding for planned hamburger is not.included. They don't give crap.about.small brained babies that come.from this skeeter scourge.
Last time I believe you spelled skeeter "squeeter", which made me lol
-
:Rusty:This could just as easily go in the Trump thread, but I figured it deserved to go here, too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/30/donald-trump-finally-weighs-in-on-sweeping-supreme-court-abortion-decision/
"Now if we had Scalia ... or if Scalia was replaced by me, you wouldn't have had that. Okay? It would've been the opposite," Trump told radio host Mike Gallagher during an interview, referring to late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with the court's liberals in the 5-to-3 decision. Contrary to Trump's comments, the decision would probably have fallen 5 to 4 if Scalia had been alive.
:lol: :lol:
btw it's super easy to make people think you're renocat.
all you have to do is join a bunch of lowercase words together with periods instead of spaces, use weird words, and use names for Democratic politicians that might show up in your grandpa's angry Facebook posts.
-
Abortion zealots should be tarred and feathered. Wtf is wrong with these people.
-
Abortion zealots should be tarred and feathered. Wtf is wrong with these people.
that was pretty good for a first try, except you need to lose the space after your first period and conjoin the words. Kind of doubtful he'd say the phrase Wtf, but that one's a user's choice, I suppose.
-
DNC.Dems can't say abortion. Use code phases for kill babies, unlimited hamburger making, and planned parenthood. Have the guts to say it. Hillary's biggest cheer.
-
Clinton wants.to repeal the Hyde amendment. Doing so would allow federal funds to be used to pay for abortion. Uncle Sam's Planned Hamburger!!! My money for baby killin.
-
Sounds good to me.
-
Hillary wants unfettered abortions at any stage of development. Even partial birth abortion. If it is inside still you can kill. Two days from delivering, no problem. Jab scissors in its head, suck out the brains, and walah it ain't a baby its hamburger. This is what the democrat platform supports. Now Hillary wants the American taxpayer to foot the bill for the carnage. I say horse crap.
-
Hillary wants unfettered abortions at any stage of development. Even partial birth abortion. If it is inside still you can kill. Two days from delivering, no problem. Jab scissors in its head, suck out the brains, and walah it ain't a baby its hamburger. This is what the democrat platform supports. Now Hillary wants the American taxpayer to foot the bill for the carnage. I say horse crap.
You mentioned abortion too many times. I think you meant 'women's rights'.
-
Hillary wants unfettered abortions at any stage of development. Even partial birth abortion. If it is inside still you can kill. Two days from delivering, no problem. Jab scissors in its head, suck out the brains, and walah it ain't a baby its hamburger. This is what the democrat platform supports. Now Hillary wants the American taxpayer to foot the bill for the carnage. I say horse crap.
Link?
-
Hillary is a champion of black baby killing. So much so Planned Hamburger gave 20 million to her campaign. On Breitbart yesterday there was an article about the pope naming mother Teresa a saint, and how she excoriated the Clintokillers about abortion. The article said MG pushed Bill to issue an executive order for the federal government to pay for abortion - welfare killin. Killing black babies.
-
SB the renocat thing is kinda getting weird when you use it on this thread
-
Mother Teresa said to the Clintons and Gores at a national prayer breakfast that if you support killing babies.in the womb, you cannot say you are a.protectors of the poor and down trodden. A country that supports unlimited abortion has no soul and can't truly love. I really don't give a.pound of dog crap who people think.I.am, but I.believe anyone who champions the slaughtering of black babies has no moal authority to call anyone else a racist.
-
SB the renocat thing is kinda getting weird when you use it on this thread
it's always weird.
-
SB the renocat thing is kinda getting weird when you use it on this thread anywhere
-
Typical Hillary minion response. So where's your defense of your position or denial? Name calling is all you got.
-
We can get in depth, contextual analysis of how racist the star spangled banner and confederate battle flag are, how disproportionate the killing of minorities by police is, but abortion is just women's right to privacy stuff.
#thinkprogress #thinklikeapsychopath
-
heh
-
Gloria Steinem, editor of MZ. Magazine and rabid feminist, addressed the national Planned Hamburger convention and forced labor is the cause for global warming. Menbastards are making women have babies. Too many people putting too much pressure on the fragile world. Her answer cull using abortion. We give tax dollars to this crowd? I would not give them a dime.
-
Killing babies in the womb days before they are born is not reproductive choice, it is infanticide. Trump said it is.wrong. I have never been sure where he.stands.on.abortion. Planned Hamburger has no.respect for life.
-
This is one of the biggest reasons I won't be voting for Trump.
https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/what-kind-of-mother-is-8-months-pregnant-and-117104430132.html
-
I think there is an obvious disconnect here in that the vast majority of folks against late term abortions are presuming the baby is viable.
I think most people agree on these anecdotal accounts about babies who couldn't survive outside the womb, but that counsels in favor of creating an exception, not a rule in favor of late term abortion.
It seems crazy to me this is a controversial stance, but I think the general thought on late term abortion from pro lifers is this: at the point a baby could be born (either naturally, induced labor, or c section) and survive without any significant medical intervention, then "abortion" is really just infanticide within the womb.
-
Trans-abortion for hamburger gals to bond? This is sick.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/12/20/lena-dunham-wish-abortion/
-
breitbart AND lena dunham in the same url? clicking the crap out of that rn
-
not nearly salacious enough... kinda a letdown :frown:
-
V boring :zzz:
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-take-upper-hand-in-fight-to-defund-planned-parenthood/ar-BBy19ID
A procedural move in the Senate may mean no more funding fp the Meat Mavens. The maneuver will allow defunding to pass by simple majority not by crapsixty. Good day in America.
-
This woman is really really annoyed, as only a liberal can be, about how ultrasound has impacted the abortion debate. It's an interesting peak into the bizarrely inhuman liberal psychosis around baby killing. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/ultrasound-woman-pregnancy/514109/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/ultrasound-woman-pregnancy/514109/)
-
This woman is really really annoyed, as only a liberal can be, about how ultrasound has impacted the abortion debate. It's an interesting peak into the bizarrely inhuman liberal psychosis around baby killing. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/ultrasound-woman-pregnancy/514109/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/01/ultrasound-woman-pregnancy/514109/)
:D
-
:peek:
-
Apparently ksuw is all in favor of unnecessary medical "treatment"
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-planned-parenthood-survive-without-federal-funds/
Well boo-hoo! Quit killing babies and you, Planned Hamburger, would probably get federal taxpayer money. But killing babies is more important than your other life saving services; to you.
-
https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/829193037813256196
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxUAR3a_Jc
-
Wow, disgusting. Shameful.
-
Well yeah, they're evil. And taxpayer funded, at least for a little while longer.
-
Those evil people diagnosed my friend with cervical cancer. Without PP she'd be dead and her daughter would be an orphan.
I've been donating to PP since Trump won, but now I think I'll donate everytime this thread is bumped. :D
-
Those evil people diagnosed my friend with cervical cancer. Without PP she'd be dead and her daughter would be an orphan.
I've been donating to PP since Trump won, but now I think I'll donate everytime this thread is bumped. :D
PP would have no problem receiving federal funds to continue diagnosing cervical cancer if they stopped killing babies.
Incidentally, how much are you donating for each of these posts?
-
https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/829193037813256196
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxUAR3a_Jc
Repulsive, if true.
How long has this been out? I'd like to see what the rebuttal is.
-
Those evil people diagnosed my friend with cervical cancer. Without PP she'd be dead and her daughter would be an orphan.
I've been donating to PP since Trump won, but now I think I'll donate everytime this thread is bumped. :D
I'm glad they helped your friend, but it is an odd position to take that they are the only people capable of such a diagnosis.
-
Makes perfect sense. "I'm donating money to this group of baby killers because they gave my friend a Pap smear, even though she could have gotten that at a zillion other places that don't kill babies."
Nother donation to the baby killers! How much?
-
Now Abe, while you're making donations for bumps (including this one) you might ask about all the wonderful ways you can specifically direct your donation to be spent!
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/03/shocking-video-shows-planned-parenthood-accepting-donation-to-abort-black-babies/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/03/shocking-video-shows-planned-parenthood-accepting-donation-to-abort-black-babies/)
-
https://twitter.com/scrowder/status/829193037813256196
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxUAR3a_Jc
Repulsive, if true.
How long has this been out? I'd like to see what the rebuttal is.
It's Steven rough ridin' Crowder. He fakes his videos and should never be taken at face value.
-
They are statements that should be pretty easy to prove false if they are false, so I guess we'll see.
-
This organization does some good non abortion things, especially for the poor. If they quit doing abortions, then giving them taxpayer money is okay. But --- these Meat Mavens are willing to let it all go to hell to protect unrestricted abortions.
-
This organization does some good non abortion things, especially for the poor. If they quit doing abortions, then giving them taxpayer money is okay. But --- these Meat Mavens are willing to let it all go to hell to protect unrestricted abortions.
So what do they do when Rick Santorum comes to criminalize birth control next?
-
They are statements that should be pretty easy to prove false if they are false, so I guess we'll see.
for the people that want to believe them, it is quite literally impossible to prove them false.
-
This organization does some good non abortion things, especially for the poor. If they quit doing abortions, then giving them taxpayer money is okay. But --- these Meat Mavens are willing to let it all go to hell tox protect unrestricted abortions.
So what do they do when Rick Santorum comes to criminalize birth control next?
Castrate him.
-
They are statements that should be pretty easy to prove false if they are false, so I guess we'll see.
for the people that want to believe them, it is quite literally impossible to prove them false.
Can't be that many people though. I sure as hell don't want this to be true.
-
Makes perfect sense. "I'm donating money to this group of baby killers because they gave my friend a Pap smear, even though she could have gotten that at a zillion other places that don't kill babies."
Nother donation to the baby killers! How much?
Why so obsessed with how much I'm donating? Don't worry, every donation will be made in your name. It won't be much because I'm just a libtard that doesn't work and wants everything for free. Luckily the check George Soros sent me for participating in the women's march should be here any day now, then I can make another donation.
-
They are statements that should be pretty easy to prove false if they are false, so I guess we'll see.
for the people that want to believe them, it is quite literally impossible to prove them false.
Can't be that many people though. I sure as hell don't want this to be true.
It's about half the US population.
-
Makes perfect sense. "I'm donating money to this group of baby killers because they gave my friend a Pap smear, even though she could have gotten that at a zillion other places that don't kill babies."
Nother donation to the baby killers! How much?
Why so obsessed with how much I'm donating? Don't worry, every donation will be made in your name. It won't be much because I'm just a libtard that doesn't work and wants everything for free. Luckily the check George Soros sent me for participating in the women's march should be here any day now, then I can make another donation.
I feel like in all fairness, it should be a set donation amount per bump. If you simply took a predetermined monthly donation amount (your "baby killing envelope" in Dave Ramsey-speak) and divided it over the total amount of posts, that would not seem to be in keeping with your pledge.
Who knows - enough donations and I could be a top donor right up there with Mike Pence. Maybe I'll get invited to a lunch to eat an organic salad and swill Chardonnay with a PP executive while casually discussing the going rate for baby heads!
-
Planned Parenthood is really just the hired gun. It's the mothers who are ultimately killing babies. Are you really going to save any lives by putting restrictions on PP?
-
Makes perfect sense. "I'm donating money to this group of baby killers because they gave my friend a Pap smear, even though she could have gotten that at a zillion other places that don't kill babies."
Nother donation to the baby killers! How much?
Why so obsessed with how much I'm donating? Don't worry, every donation will be made in your name. It won't be much because I'm just a libtard that doesn't work and wants everything for free. Luckily the check George Soros sent me for participating in the women's march should be here any day now, then I can make another donation.
I feel like in all fairness, it should be a set donation amount per bump. If you simply took a predetermined monthly donation amount (your "baby killing envelope" in Dave Ramsey-speak) and divided it over the total amount of posts, that would not seem to be in keeping with your pledge.
Who knows - enough donations and I could be a top donor right up there with Mike Pence. Maybe I'll get invited to a lunch to eat an organic salad and swill Chardonnay with a PP executive while casually discussing the going rate for baby heads!
#obsessed #triggered
-
Planned Parenthood is really just the hired gun. It's the mothers who are ultimately killing babies. Are you really going to save any lives by putting restrictions on PP?
The video suggest PP had an unofficial policy to coerce young women into getting abortions by convincing them they wouldn't be good mothers if they had the child. You can say the former employee was lying, but that is the current concern, not that abortions are available.
-
No response yet from PP apparently. They're usually pretty good of getting out ahead of stuff like this.
-
Planned Parenthood is really just the hired gun. It's the mothers who are ultimately killing babies. Are you really going to save any lives by putting restrictions on PP?
We could stop giving these hired guns taxpayer funding, for a start.
-
No response yet from PP apparently. They're usually pretty good of getting out ahead of stuff like this.
They'll just say these women are lying. And that'll be enough for anyone inclined to support the baby butchers.
-
I sure as hell don't want this to be true.
your quote actually gets to the crux of the matter. did you see the crowd size experiment? people are very good at believing to be true what they want to be true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/25/we-asked-people-which-inauguration-crowd-was-bigger-heres-what-they-said/?utm_term=.e27fc79608c8
-
Planned Parenthood is really just the hired gun. It's the mothers who are ultimately killing babies. Are you really going to save any lives by putting restrictions on PP?
So guns don't actually kill people?!
-
Planned Parenthood is really just the hired gun. It's the mothers who are ultimately killing babies. Are you really going to save any lives by putting restrictions on PP?
So guns don't actually kill people?!
exactly
-
Planned Parenthood is really just the hired gun. It's the mothers who are ultimately killing babies. Are you really going to save any lives by putting restrictions on PP?
So guns don't actually kill people?!
exactly
Kinda makes you wonder why hitman isn't a legitimate career path.
-
no one would use a legal hitman because the police could just ask them who hired them and then arrest your ass.
-
I'm sure there could be some legal precedent for client confidentiality.
-
Doesn't really apply when you know someone is getting murdered
-
I sure as hell don't want this to be true.
your quote actually gets to the crux of the matter. did you see the crowd size experiment? people are very good at believing to be true what they want to be true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/25/we-asked-people-which-inauguration-crowd-was-bigger-heres-what-they-said/?utm_term=.e27fc79608c8
I think there are plenty of horrific things people believe to be true but don't want to be true.
-
I think there are plenty of horrific things people believe to be true but don't want to be true.
a lot of times you really want things that you don't want to be true to be true.
-
Just checked, and not much new on the latest story. PP really did not have much to say, even admitting they gave a certificate for a center "exceeding abortion visits" in 2013. http://www.snopes.com/planned-parenthood-abortion-quotas/
-
I thought I read PP was getting stripped of federal funding or aome requirement that states fund PP or something. Fabulous news for unborn human beings (libtard translation: purportedly non-viable fetus unless abortion hack doctor says mom could get sick during delivery, then any baby)
-
https://twitter.com/HunterMw/status/841697375215374337
-
Well since 1970 there have been 52 million abortions that we know about. Seems like Holocost-esque in magnitude.
-
That's a lot of abortions. It's very quite sad. I think is very different than the Holocaust, however.
-
Well since 1970 there have been 52 million abortions that we know about. Seems like Holocost-esque in magnitude.
The holocaust comparisons are obviously not taken seriously by most of the people that use it as a comparison, it is hollow rhetoric, which means it is pretty disrespectful to preserving the memory of the victims of the real Holocaust.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Agreed. The body count argument is a pretty insensitive (and very ineffective) line to use if you're pro-life.
However, I think a legitimate parallel could be drawn from the fact that much of the Holocaust was driven by German(ish) people who believed they were were dealing with a sub-human race. In other words, they did not believe the Jews had a similar right to life as they had. It was more than just a hate or power driven tragedy.
-
If there's one thing the pit has taught me, its that calling the other side Nazis or Hitler works 100% of the time
-
Hitlerfor3 is right
-
That's a lot of abortions. It's very quite sad. I think is very different than the Holocaust, however.
Right on both accounts. It is sad, but calling it a Holocaust is intellectually dishonest. However, there are positives, as better contraception are used, the rates of abortions, especially in the US keep going down. If we can bookend that with easier and cheaper contraception and education, we can keep seeing that rate going down. It's an absolute fact the rate has been going down, and is lower in countries that are developed and have availability to contraception.
We'll never get it to 0, as there will still be cases of unwanted pregnancies, health threat to the mother, rape, etc. Also, no law will keep it from happening, there will be ways to get around it, and those ways are usually more riskier than making it at least be an option, but I'd like to think if we use and better educate and make available contraception, we'll continue to see that rate go down. Too bad many hardcore pro-lifers are also anti-contraception.
-
The Nazis killed about 8 million civilians in the Holocaust. Planned Parenthood has aborted about 7 million human lives since 1970.
The Nazis were big proponents of eugenics, which was partially the basis for the ethnic cleansing. Margaret Sanger and other founders of Planned Parenthood were likewise big proponents of eugenics. Margy would be proud - Planned Parenthood exterminates black babies as a much higher percentage than white babies.
The Nazis performed a number of horrifically evil deeds, including medical experimentation, on their captives. Planned Parenthood officials describe their various methods of aborting babies to protect the most profitable organs "you crunch here and here but not there" and casually barter over the going rate of baby heads while swilling Chardonnay.
Sorry the comparison of abortionists to Nazis makes you uncomfortable. A monster is a monster.
-
so is it 7 million or 52 million?
-
sounds like ksuw is ready to take up arms against this evil holocaust!
-
I still disagree. You think people are having abortions to breed a more desirable kid? I'm sure it does happen, but I think it's more about people being reckless and not wanting the financial and social burden. Again, abortion is awful and you can compare to nazis all you want. We just disagree.
-
sounds like ksuw is ready to take up arms against this evil holocaust!
More like peddle BS that has already been proven untrue.
-
Who gives a crap about hard core pro lifers? It's not like contraception is going away.
-
The difference ksu doesnt get is that those women, who are all unaffiliated to each other sans wanting an abotion, still are the ones deciding it, i dont think the nazis asked the jews if the wanted to be killed or not. If the woman didnt want an abortion, wasnt like planned parenthood was going to hunt them down and force them to do it
-
Who gives a crap about hard core pro lifers? It's not like contraception is going away.
Right, but that is also a giant part of planned parenthood, and defunding it to get rid of abortions while really getting rid of the contraception and education it provides it literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
-
sounds like ksuw is ready to take up arms against this evil holocaust!
More like peddle BS that has already been proven untrue.
I'm guessing you take issue with my final paragraph, as the rest is just numbers easily proveable. Here is the video of the Planned Parenthood exec discussing over lunch the going rate of baby heads and other parts, and how they modify procedures to "crunch" various spots to save certain organs. People can watch and decide for themselves.
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/21/second-shock-video-catches-another-top-planned-parenthood-doctor-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/21/second-shock-video-catches-another-top-planned-parenthood-doctor-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies/)
-
so is it 7 million or 52 million?
I was speaking only of Planned Parenthood. Some estimate over 50mil abortions performed overall in US since Roe v Wade.
-
Again, abortion is awful and you can compare to nazis all you want. We just disagree.
I think evil is evil, period. If you don't like the comparison, I suspect it's because you don't think what Planned Parenthood is doing is as evil as the Nazis. I've just pointed out several similarities.
The abortion apologists will say, as CFB just did a few posts up, that Planned Parenthood is far less culpable because the women are volunteering their children to the slaughter. There are two fallacies here: (1) that means precisely dick to the baby being killed, and (2) it has been documented that Planned Parenthood is far from just a passive agent in the endeavor - they have been given quotas to meet and are trained to encourage abortion, saying things like "if you can't afford this visit, how can you afford a baby?"
Planned Parenthood is no more a "provider" of abortion than a crack dealer is a "provider" of crack. They are dealers, pushing a product that is not good for the mom and certainly not good for the baby.
For all these reasons, I am quite comfortable equating Planned Parenthood's actions and motives to the Nazis, and nobody has as of yet demonstrated a compelling difference.
-
^lol
-
It's futile to try and convince you of the differences. You're firmly entrenched in your view as am I.
Have a great night KSU. Go cats.
-
sounds like ksuw is ready to take up arms against this evil holocaust!
Head back to page 32 of this thread for refutation of this dumb argument (made by you).
-
It's futile to try and convince you of the differences. You're firmly entrenched in your view as am I.
Have a great night KSU. Go cats.
:cheers:
-
Who gives a crap about hard core pro lifers? It's not like contraception is going away.
please see Rick Santorum's comments on birth control becoming illegal. It's next, it's a domino play.
-
Who gives a crap about hard core pro lifers? It's not like contraception is going away.
please see Rick Santorum's comments on birth control becoming illegal. It's next, it's a domino play.
Don't be stupid.
-
If you truly believed that abortions in this country were equivalent to gas chambers of Nazi Germany, you would be doing everything in your power to shut them down. If there were gas chambers, in my city, in my state or in my country, that were killing Jewish people, I promise I wouldn't sit idly by and watch it happen.
You do nothing but sit on a moral high horse and probably annoy people at parties with your lame political opinions. Until you've actually done something to prevent abortions, you should probably shut the eff up about comparing abortions to the Holocaust.
-
Page 32 dude
-
Aborting a fetus is not the same as starving a 7 year old for months and then gassing him/her with their entire family.
You're such a piece of crap KSUW. Remember, Mr. High and Mighty Christian, one day God will judge you and this won't be a good look for you.
-
Aborting a fetus is not the same as starving a 7 year old for months and then gassing him/her with their entire family.
You're such a piece of crap KSUW. Remember, Mr. High and Mighty Christian, one day God will judge you and this won't be a good look for you.
Yikes. I can tell I've struck a nerve now. I'm not sure how to respond to such poor reasoning. Ripping someone limb from limb in the womb is not as bad as gassing someone? (Recall that the Nazis created the gas chambers as a "humane" alternative.)
As for your hurling invective about God and religion, I don't think that even merits a response, except to say that this has nothing to do with Christianity or even religion per se. I think even atheists can abhor the slaughter of innocents.
-
The difference ksu doesnt get is that those women, who are all unaffiliated to each other sans wanting an abotion, still are the ones deciding it, i dont think the nazis asked the jews if the wanted to be killed or not. If the woman didnt want an abortion, wasnt like planned parenthood was going to hunt them down and force them to do it
In this scenario the jews are the unborn babies. . .I don't think anyone is asking the babies if they want to be killed.
-
Page 32, though. And Tower 7.
-
I think the real issue I have with most of these views (both sides of the aisle) is this complete acceptance that a certain percentage of the population will have uncontrollable urges. I think education is the best way to avoid "mistakes" and would go a long way to bring down the number of teen pregnancy and emotional issues caused by sexual interaction.
I've said this before, but Planned Parenthood isn't inherently bad no matter what the founder intended. It is there mix in the political world that is sketchy. It is my understanding that they donate money to the democratic party. . .and receive money from the government. To me that is a conflict of interest / shouldn't be allowed.
The education they disseminate is necessary because too many parts of the country still provide fear based education or abstinence only education. I prefer to believe that young people can control themselves and would make less mistakes with positive sex education that also explains the benefits of abstaining till a person is more emotionally developed.
All that said, Planned Parenthood would get my 100% support (even with their financial support of democrats) if they divested themselves entirely from the abortion market. If you are concerned with access to abortions, I would say it wouldn't bother me if PP helped raise private funds to build a separate business as long as they weren't permanently attached to it.
-
Aborting a fetus is not the same as starving a 7 year old for months and then gassing him/her with their entire family.
You're such a piece of crap KSUW. Remember, Mr. High and Mighty Christian, one day God will judge you and this won't be a good look for you.
Yikes. I can tell I've struck a nerve now. I'm not sure how to respond to such poor reasoning. Ripping someone limb from limb in the womb is not as bad as gassing someone? (Recall that the Nazis created the gas chambers as a "humane" alternative.)
As for your hurling invective about God and religion, I don't think that even merits a response, except to say that this has nothing to do with Christianity or even religion per se. I think even atheists can abhor the slaughter of innocents.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/11/99/f9/1199f9b3fd66acf01bdabbfaef98af86.gif)
Look at these kids and then try and trivialize their experience like you have been.
-
I don't at all agree with ksuw's viewpoint, but it seems pretty consistent. Same with the weirdos who want to force a woman to have a raper baby, at least it's consistent. I just can't fathom having that viewpoint and sitting around doing nothing while this evil continues. That's where the viewpoint becomes dishonest
-
Aborting a fetus is not the same as starving a 7 year old for months and then gassing him/her with their entire family.
You're such a piece of crap KSUW. Remember, Mr. High and Mighty Christian, one day God will judge you and this won't be a good look for you.
Yikes. I can tell I've struck a nerve now. I'm not sure how to respond to such poor reasoning. Ripping someone limb from limb in the womb is not as bad as gassing someone? (Recall that the Nazis created the gas chambers as a "humane" alternative.)
As for your hurling invective about God and religion, I don't think that even merits a response, except to say that this has nothing to do with Christianity or even religion per se. I think even atheists can abhor the slaughter of innocents.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/11/99/f9/1199f9b3fd66acf01bdabbfaef98af86.gif)
Look at these kids and then try and trivialize their experience like you have been.
I know this is going to come across petty to you, but those pictured had a chance to live. Though, they did suffer. Is the chance to live less important than avoiding suffering? I think that a lot of people support abortion because the children would suffer from neglect and suffer because of it. To the point of the holocaust, any baby, no matter what family he/she is born into in the United States, may have a much better life than those pictured above, but might experience the same fate.
When it comes to what a human deserves, it is a fighting chance? OR is it the comforting hand of murder to avoid suffering.
-
I don't at all agree with ksuw's viewpoint, but it seems pretty consistent. Same with the weirdos who want to force a woman to have a raper baby, at least it's consistent. I just can't fathom having that viewpoint and sitting around doing nothing while this evil continues. That's where the viewpoint becomes dishonest
Because it's a talking point for k-s-u and not a real issue for him.
-
Look at these kids and then try and trivialize their experience like you have been.
I'm not trivializing holocaust victims by comparing them to abortion victims. Both are horrific acts. I could post all sorts of horrific abortion photos, but you and I know that isn't really necessary. You made a stupid point, and you should move on.
-
I think an update to the scorecard is long over due. The following is my best effort at condensing down all the idiotic pro-abortion arguments in the past 61 pages into one easy to read reference.
1. At the exact moment you exit the womb, that's when the birth fairy magically transforms you from a clump of cells into a human being worthy of protection - lib7
2. Well duh, that's why we celebrate birthdays! - Trim
3. "The government has no more obligation to protect people in the womb than they do people in Mexico. You don't get citizenship until birth." - RATM (I still really like this one :lol:)
4. States don't charge murderers of pregnant women with double murder because of the baby - it's because the dad is also a victim! - Also RATM (Rage went on a hot streak early on)
5. But abortion is legal! - RATM and CNS (thanks captains obvious - that's not what we're discussing)
6. Planned Parenthood would shut down if it couldn't provide abortion - Mrs. G (why do you assume that?)
7. The Supreme Court already decided this - CNS (no, not really)
8. Abortions are only a very small amount of the services Planned Parenthood provides - CNS (:lol: yeah, kinda like how Major League Baseball is in the hot dog business because it sells way more hotdogs than baseball games)
9. Those undercover videos are "heavily edited" - CNS (like every other TV media piece, except the CfMP also made the full versions available online)
10. You just don't like abortion because it's gross, but so is open heart surgery! - Lib7, Mocat, Roid (yup, no difference between the objectives of those procedures - none at all)
11. And autopsies! (see above)
12. IT'S FOR THE GREATER GOOD!! - Sundance (I'm sure that's what any conquering tribe/army throughout history has thought as they tossed the babies in the river - it doesn't make it true or any less barbaric)
UPDATE
13. Planned Parenthood receives no federal funds to provide abortion - that money is kept in the special "abortion pocket" which is like, totally separate from the contraception pocket. - lib7 (Except money is fungible; funding one with tax dollars frees up other money for abortion, similar to how sending foreign aid to the Palestinians helps the PLO spend its money on terrorism).
14. Who's the judge - let God sort it out! - Rage (we pass laws to judge all sorts of things in society and protect human life, like murder)
15. Who's a man to judge? -Rusty (start here for dumbassery of this cop out: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html#)
16. Abortion is every bit as much a constitutional right as gun ownership - MIR (except one is actually written in the Constitution, not added by a couple of dudes in black robes about 200 years later)
17. It's for the GREATER GOOD - SDK (yeah I know we already covered this one, but SDK went back to the well for a few more pages - still never made a convincing argument)
18. About 10,000 per year will be killed by back alley abortions if abortion is banned - MrsG (a laughably absurd number debunked by comparing to total deaths of women of childbearing age)
19. If you criminalize abortion, you'd also have to criminalize miscarriage -Bill Nye and assorts Pit'rs who tried to defend him
20. We shouldn't be in the business of legislating morality - Rage (we do it all the time - see murder - that's what we do in society)
21. If you really think abortion is as bad as murder, you should be taking up arms to oppose it, hypocrite!!! -Lib7 (Page 32)
22. People die all the time from things like pollution and that's not murder, why is abortion any different? -ChuckJames (this was actually said, not in jest)
23. I totally believe this "study" that 100,000 - 240,000 women in Texas tried at home abortions after clinics were shut down - Edna (apply some common sense instead of believing laughably absurd numbers)
24. If we're going to restrict abortion we should restrict Viagra - CNS (CNS might have been joking, but I can't tell for sure)
25. My friend got a Pap Smear at Planned Parenthood, so I support their abortion practice - Honest Abe
-
Finally, here is the Page 32 discussion (which is actually one of the more interesting arguments made, but still lacking)....
ksuw, how are you not morally ok with people killing abortion doctors (and really the women getting abortions as well)? seems disingenuous to equate abortion in america to the holocaust, but not be ok with stopping the people responsible by physical force.
just wondering, thanks
I can't speak for KSUW, but for me, it's pretty simple: I am not in favor of anyone taking anyone else's life.
You're fairly consistent here, but ksuw is pro death penalty and def on the "turn the middle east to glass" side, so I don't think your answer applies to him.
It's an interesting philosophical question I've considered before. First, as you allude to above, I do not believe it is always immoral to kill human life. War is not always immoral, nor is the death penalty, nor is killing as absolutely necessary to defend yourself or others.
So let's start with when I believe that killing another human life is moral, and then use that to answer your question. I believe that killing a human life is moral if it is absolutely necessary to protect against the loss of your own life or the lives of others (self-defense), when there is a reasonable chance that such killing, and only killing, will prevent a greater loss of life and/or suffering (some wars), and as justice through a fair and impartial legal system.
In my opinion, anti-abortion violence doesn't fit in any of these categories. Let's start with the easy one - it certainly isn't justice through a fair and impartial legal system. But in my opinion anti-abortion violence doesn't fit in the other categories either, because (1) killing one abortionist isn't likely to save many innocent lives, if any (the women will almost certainly abort, anyway), and (2) there are peaceful and more effective means of preventing abortion. I don't think anyone can seriously disagree that the peaceful pro-life movement (which is the vast majority), aided by advances in imaging technology, have been far more successful in shifting public opinion and reducing abortion than violence.
-
Just sit around while a holocaust is going on for 40 years, nbd
-
Just sit around while a holocaust is going on for 40 years, nbd
Agreed. It is universally accepted that John Brown and his ilk were the only true abolotionists. Anyone merely arguing against slavery prior to the civil war was being disingenuous.
-
Just sit around while a holocaust is going on for 40 years, nbd
Agreed. It is universally accepted that John Brown and his ilk were the only true abolotionists. Anyone merely arguing against slavery prior to the civil war was being disingenuous.
I like your point, let me think on it for a bit
-
Just sit around while a holocaust is going on for 40 years, nbd
Agreed. It is universally accepted that John Brown and his ilk were the only true abolotionists. Anyone merely arguing against slavery prior to the civil war was being disingenuous.
I like your point, let me think on it for a bit
Don't think too hard because I don't think your issue is all that complicated on a philosophical level.
We all agree that countless atrocities exist throughout the world and have existed throughout the world since pretty much always. I think people can recognize them as wrongs without having the moral burden to resort to any sort of sustained action (especially some form of vigilante violence which you suggested - which is obviously ridiculous). I think it's absolutely morally permissible for people to say "hey I think this is really, really wrong and should be changed" and then leave it at that. Disagree, call me lazy, or disingenuous or whatever, but any other argument requires you to either (1) be John Brown, or (2) be 100% okay with everything happening in the world.
Practically, people do take action to correct perceived wrongs (i.e. gun violence, abortion, racist cops, etc.), but in a more sane (albeit less dramatic) manner: voting and protesting and arguing about it.
Obviously this has little to do with the merits of abortion, but I just think your "why aren't you people reacting violently?!" argument sucks.
-
You can be anti-abortion and not spend your nights and weekends picketing abortion clinics and shaming women entering said clinics. You're being complicit if you truly believe abortion in the US is at the same level as the Holocaust and you're not doing everything you can to stop it.
Would you react violently if they started rounding up Jewish people in the US and taking them to ovens?
-
25. My friend got a Pap Smear at Planned Parenthood, so I support their abortion practice - Honest Abe
So where is the Christian alternative to Planned Parenthood? If there was another organization helping out low income women with necessary health screenings then I see why Planned Parenthood might not need support. Instead of coming up with a solution you just want to shut down the only option.
-
I'm too ignorant of history or the time period to really speak to the feelings of idle abolitionists. Would they disown slaves that revolted or ran away?
And to be clear, I'm not say every Anti-abortion person needs to commit violence to be serious. Your "I don't want anyone killing anyone" thing is perfectly consistent with the hearts and minds approach ksuw pretends to support.
I'm similar to ksuw and am a little more liberal with justified killing. For example I believe strongly that the health insurance industry as a whole is immoral, but it doesn't rise to the violence level for me. Now say child rape is legal and there were planned child rape centers all over the country. Now I'm not personally a violent person so I don't know that I could commit violence, but I certainly would support those that committed it against people that ran planned child rape centers.
Ksuw claims to not support killing, what in his view are, admitted mass murderers, and I think he's either lying to look compassionate or he doesn't actually think abortion doctors are mass murderers.
-
Why didn't you add my agree to disagree and well wishes to the scorecard?
-
Trying to rope me back in I see! Not gonna happen KSU! Have a great day. :)
-
I used to be super pro abortion but now I'm kind of on the fence and in general it just makes me sad people want to do it. there are tons of humans out there that are looking to adopt. own the mistake and give the baby that you conceived to someone that wants it. anyway that's kind of where I'm at. I guess it should be legal or whatever but dang. :frown:
-
the only thing really going for abortion and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread are that we get less dumbasses born from dumbasses. that makes America a little better for those of us that aren't dumbasses.
-
I used to be super pro abortion but now I'm kind of on the fence and in general it just makes me sad people want to do it. there are tons of humans out there that are looking to adopt. own the mistake and give the baby that you conceived to someone that wants it. anyway that's kind of where I'm at. I guess it should be legal or whatever but dang. :frown:
There are tons of humans out there looking to be adopted too
-
Ksuw claims to not support killing, what in his view are, admitted mass murderers, and I think he's either lying to look compassionate or he doesn't actually think abortion doctors are mass murderers.
But people can't just go around killing those who commit (what they perceive to be) horrible, but legal acts -- especially if the acts' morality is as complex as abortion. That's something an insane person would do. What would that universal imperative look like?
Your child-rape center scenario is apples and oranges (as are the holocaust comparisons, on any level other than the body count). In our world, no one debates child rape's morality. So if I'm to jump into your hypothetical universe, I'm jumping into a universe where child rape IS ACTUALLY complicated on a moral level, and (based on that assumption) I'd stick to my guns. If rational minds can disagree on the morality of something, people should go through rational methods of seeking change.
Your position boxes you into acting like a psychopath.
-
Ksuw claims to not support killing, what in his view are, admitted mass murderers, and I think he's either lying to look compassionate or he doesn't actually think abortion doctors are mass murderers.
But people can't just go around killing those who commit (what they perceive to be) horrible, but legal acts -- especially if the acts' morality is as complex as abortion. That's something an insane person would do. What would that universal imperative look like?
Your child-rape center scenario is apples and oranges (as are the holocaust comparisons, on any level other than the body count). In our world, no one debates child rape's morality. So if I'm to jump into your hypothetical universe, I'm jumping into a universe where child rape IS ACTUALLY complicated on a moral level, and (based on that assumption) I'd stick to my guns. If rational minds can disagree on the morality of something, people should go through rational methods of seeking change.
Your position boxes you into acting like a psychopath.
For ksuw there is no valid debate over the complexity of abortion.
-
the only thing really going for abortion and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread are that we get less dumbasses born from dumbasses. that makes America a little better for those of us that aren't dumbasses.
KSU is gonna get you so hard for this. He didn't like my greater good argument either.
-
the only thing really going for abortion and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread are that we get less dumbasses born from dumbasses. that makes America a little better for those of us that aren't dumbasses.
KSU is gonna get you so hard for this. He didn't like my greater good argument either.
I'm not sure that anyone can make a good argument for more dumbasses but I don't control the mic
-
the only thing really going for abortion and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread are that we get less dumbasses born from dumbasses. that makes America a little better for those of us that aren't dumbasses.
a person's dumbassness or level of how much they inconvenience you with their dumbassary isn't a measure of their worth.
-
25. My friend got a Pap Smear at Planned Parenthood, so I support their abortion practice - Honest Abe
So where is the Christian alternative to Planned Parenthood? If there was another organization helping out low income women with necessary health screenings then I see why Planned Parenthood might not need support. Instead of coming up with a solution you just want to shut down the only option.
You should do a quick Google search before posting this stupid crap. There are free and reduced cost clinics all over the place that do Pap Smears without providing abortion.
-
If there have been 52 million abortions. Let's say they all have 1 kid between. Assuming an even sex split. That's 78 million more people. That kind of blows my mind. Increases the population by nearly 25%.
-
I wish I had a crystal ball to know if our economy could have supported all of those people with jobs and good education.
-
If illegals (edit I meant immigrants) are messing up our economy, I'm not sure America could have handled 78+ million more people
Edit: i believe KSU is the one who posted that economist article
-
the only thing really going for abortion and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread are that we get less dumbasses born from dumbasses. that makes America a little better for those of us that aren't dumbasses.
a person's dumbassness or level of how much they inconvenience you with their dumbassary isn't a measure of their worth.
I didn't say it was a measure of their worth and I'm not sure what that even means. I will say that I personally believe that it lowers crime, murder, etc rates and that lowering those rates, if taken as single measure, is a net positive for me.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
-
the only thing really going for abortion and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread are that we get less dumbasses born from dumbasses. that makes America a little better for those of us that aren't dumbasses.
a person's dumbassness or level of how much they inconvenience you with their dumbassary isn't a measure of their worth.
I didn't say it was a measure of their worth and I'm not sure what that even means. I will say that I personally believe that it lowers crime, murder, etc rates and that lowering those rates, if taken as single measure, is a net positive for me.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
what I mean is, the basic argument I (and some others) have against abortion is that people are made by a creator, and have tremendous value simply because they are human. therefore to argue that it is a net positive for you to have less of them around is overshadowed by their value given to them by God himself. There are lots of ways to lower crime rates that we all agree would be dehumanizing, even if it was a net positive for someone like you or me.
-
I used to be super pro abortion but now I'm kind of on the fence and in general it just makes me sad people want to do it. there are tons of humans out there that are looking to adopt. own the mistake and give the baby that you conceived to someone that wants it. anyway that's kind of where I'm at. I guess it should be legal or whatever but dang. :frown:
This is pretty much where I am, only I've never been super pro-abortion.
-
the only thing really going for abortion and it's probably already been mentioned in this thread are that we get less dumbasses born from dumbasses. that makes America a little better for those of us that aren't dumbasses.
a person's dumbassness or level of how much they inconvenience you with their dumbassary isn't a measure of their worth.
I didn't say it was a measure of their worth and I'm not sure what that even means. I will say that I personally believe that it lowers crime, murder, etc rates and that lowering those rates, if taken as single measure, is a net positive for me.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
what I mean is, the basic argument I (and some others) have against abortion is that people are made by a creator, and have tremendous value simply because they are human. therefore to argue that it is a net positive for you to have less of them around is overshadowed by their value given to them by God himself. There are lots of ways to lower crime rates that we all agree would be dehumanizing, even if it was a net positive for someone like you or me.
yeah I'm not talking about, want to talk about, or am qualified to talk about any of that. my super simple point is that more abortions probably means a much lower percentage of adults that will kill and murder other adults. that's a positive. i'll leave the whole whether it's worth it argument to other people.
-
Ah, I think I get your point more now RD
-
God aside, I believe human fetuses are humans just the same, created equal and have rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Of course, they have the most basic right of Life.
-
Not trying to distract, or come up with a side debate, but Emo, do you believe everyone is created equal?
No bearing on the debate. Just curious.
-
Ksuw claims to not support killing, what in his view are, admitted mass murderers, and I think he's either lying to look compassionate or he doesn't actually think abortion doctors are mass murderers.
But people can't just go around killing those who commit (what they perceive to be) horrible, but legal acts -- especially if the acts' morality is as complex as abortion. That's something an insane person would do. What would that universal imperative look like?
Your child-rape center scenario is apples and oranges (as are the holocaust comparisons, on any level other than the body count). In our world, no one debates child rape's morality. So if I'm to jump into your hypothetical universe, I'm jumping into a universe where child rape IS ACTUALLY complicated on a moral level, and (based on that assumption) I'd stick to my guns. If rational minds can disagree on the morality of something, people should go through rational methods of seeking change.
Your position boxes you into acting like a psychopath.
I don't think lib or myself think that a person with a rational belief that abortion is bad and should be illegal should go to the extreme of becoming violent. However, ksu places abortions in the US at the same level of horrificness as the Holocaust. Which means, he's either being hyperbolic to win a political argument or to place himself on a higher moral ground then those who are pro-choice or he's a gutless pig who is willing to sit back and watch something he considers truly horrific and do nothing about it.
You can fight against abortion without being violent or blowing up clinics.
How much of a tax increase would it take to provide free birth control for everyone? I imagine a minimal tax increase of $100 per US resident per year would reduce the number of abortions astronomically. Essentially, people like ksu don't truly value the "innocent living fetus" as much as they value their bank account.
-
The difference ksu doesnt get is that those women, who are all unaffiliated to each other sans wanting an abotion, still are the ones deciding it, i dont think the nazis asked the jews if the wanted to be killed or not. If the woman didnt want an abortion, wasnt like planned parenthood was going to hunt them down and force them to do it
The distinction you draw is the crux of the entire debate. People that compare abortion to the Holocaust are comparing the babies to Jews, not the mothers. The babies clearly have no say in the matter. Your statement presupposes that the mother/baby are the same thing, which is what most pro-choice folks and almost no pro-lifers believe.
-
For ksuw there is no valid debate over the complexity of abortion.
I'm happy to have that debate - you just need to put forward something besides the 25 stupid arguments I've already refuted.
-
If you truly believed that abortions in this country were equivalent to gas chambers of Nazi Germany, you would be doing everything in your power to shut them down. If there were gas chambers, in my city, in my state or in my country, that were killing Jewish people, I promise I wouldn't sit idly by and watch it happen.
You do nothing but sit on a moral high horse and probably annoy people at parties with your lame political opinions. Until you've actually done something to prevent abortions, you should probably shut the eff up about comparing abortions to the Holocaust.
This is an argument I don't think I've actually heard before. What would you do? Would you write about it? Speak or go to rallies about it? Gather a milita together and take up arms? And are you advocating pro-lifers do the same if they truly believe what they say?
-
I don't think lib or myself think that a person with a rational belief that abortion is bad and should be illegal should go to the extreme of becoming violent. However, ksu places abortions in the US at the same level of horrificness as the Holocaust. Which means, he's either being hyperbolic to win a political argument or to place himself on a higher moral ground then those who are pro-choice or he's a gutless pig who is willing to sit back and watch something he considers truly horrific and do nothing about it.
I'm not being hyperbolic - I provided several very clear comparisons between the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood's abortion industry. Your "military action or hypocrisy" argument is absurd as has already been explained by both myself and Dlew. You don't like those responses, so you're just talking past them. I can't make you think rationally.
How much of a tax increase would it take to provide free birth control for everyone? I imagine a minimal tax increase of $100 per US resident per year would reduce the number of abortions astronomically. Essentially, people like ksu don't truly value the "innocent living fetus" as much as they value their bank account.
And here you go with more crazy talk. I would fully support federal funding for Planned Parenthood to provide free and reduced-price contraception - they just have to stop performing abortions. You think this is some sort of Bible-thumping, sex is evil, screw poor people crusade for me. It isn't. Abortion and all forms of murder are morally repugnant.
-
I wish people would just rough ridin' use plan b instead of chancing it. Can planned parenthood give away plan b if they stopped performing abortions? This is a compromise I'd be willing to make.
-
Why the hell would you go all in on plan b if you could just provide free birth control / contraceptives?
-
Because just because it's provided, doesn't mean it will be used. Probably true for plan be as well. I'd hope that if abortion wasn't an option more people would use plan b.
-
Some people just want a small government that only regulates people to protect other people from threats. Others fully support jailing drug users and women who decided to abort their baby for whatever reason. Supporting legal abortion is not necessarily the same thing as advocating abortion, and I think a lot of people fail to realize that.
-
Because just because it's provided, doesn't mean it will be used. Probably true for plan be as well. I'd hope that if abortion wasn't an option more people would use plan b.
My British mate swears by Plan A: Don't cum in her front bum.
-
Because just because it's provided, doesn't mean it will be used. Probably true for plan be as well. I'd hope that if abortion wasn't an option more people would use plan b.
My British mate swears by Plan A: Don't cum in her front bum.
AND IF YA DON'T KNOW, NOW YA KNOW....PREGGO
-
I wish people would just rough ridin' use plan b instead of chancing it. Can planned parenthood give away plan b if they stopped performing abortions? This is a compromise I'd be willing to make.
How much of a tax increase would it take to provide free birth control for everyone? I imagine a minimal tax increase of $100 per US resident per year would reduce the number of abortions astronomically. Essentially, people like ksu don't truly value the "innocent living fetus" as much as they value their bank account.
These are literally the best answer out there to all of this
Stuff like that is basically been the compromise position in my mind would fall to. There needs to be available contraception freaking everywhere, and education. FTR I don't like abortion either, and can see not wanting to publicly provide money for it. But you got to give women I think the right to become pregnant when they want to, and that includes tons of education and contraception, which a lot of pro lifers that I know refuse to take part in which is patently insane to me.
IMO you solve a lot of problems (albeit not fully) by doing that. You get more kids born into families that want them, you save money and the potential wards of the state for kids born into lives that are shitty, and you produce offspring in happier and healthier situations to go onto be more productive lives, and you reduce abortion. It's as much of a win-win-win-win-win situation out there. And while it might not solve every answer, there will still be abortions, and not all kids will be better, you can't argue that in all parts the situation wouldn't improve, it would.
The difference ksu doesnt get is that those women, who are all unaffiliated to each other sans wanting an abotion, still are the ones deciding it, i dont think the nazis asked the jews if the wanted to be killed or not. If the woman didnt want an abortion, wasnt like planned parenthood was going to hunt them down and force them to do it
The distinction you draw is the crux of the entire debate. People that compare abortion to the Holocaust are comparing the babies to Jews, not the mothers. The babies clearly have no say in the matter. Your statement presupposes that the mother/baby are the same thing, which is what most pro-choice folks and almost no pro-lifers believe.
Right, basically the point I was trying to get at. Basically it's still a dumb comparison. I was getting at the systematic killing off of an entire people by a government who didn't want them anymore, and basically IMO that's not what planned parenthood is about. Just the most controversial thing. Ultimately it's the mom's making that decision, and I don't think all those women are of a single mind trying to weed out an entire race of people/all babies, just the one that is in them.
Basically, I see the Holocaust as exactly what it is, an order to eradicate an entire race, or undesirable people and that be the tenet of the law. Abortion would be akin to the Holocaust if the government, or all moms, or w/e, got together and forced all babies to be aborted. It might seem trivial, but I think a very important distinction.
-
Some people just want a small government that only regulates people to protect other people from threats.
Another example of making a pro-choice assumption to rebut a pro-life argument. If you view unborn babies as people, then you are most certainly trying to protect people from threats by advocating to eliminate abortion.
-
Some people just want a small government that only regulates people to protect other people from threats.
Another example of making a pro-choice assumption to rebut a pro-life argument. If you view unborn babies as people, then you are most certainly trying to protect people from threats by advocating to eliminate abortion.
Do you view a woman who has had an abortion as a threat to anyone else? I could see how she might be a threat to future unborn people that she may conceive down the line, but protecting people who might never even exist doesn't make much sense to me.
-
Some people just want a small government that only regulates people to protect other people from threats.
Another example of making a pro-choice assumption to rebut a pro-life argument. If you view unborn babies as people, then you are most certainly trying to protect people from threats by advocating to eliminate abortion.
Do you view a woman who has had an abortion as a threat to anyone else? I could see how she might be a threat to future unborn people that she may conceive down the line, but protecting people who might never even exist doesn't make much sense to me.
Not necessarily. I concede that a woman who has an abortion may very well never have another, nor even do anything wrong ever again in her lifetime.
Are you under the assumption that the *only* reason people are jailed or otherwise punished is to prevent them from committing an identical transgression in the future?
-
Some people just want a small government that only regulates people to protect other people from threats.
Another example of making a pro-choice assumption to rebut a pro-life argument. If you view unborn babies as people, then you are most certainly trying to protect people from threats by advocating to eliminate abortion.
Do you view a woman who has had an abortion as a threat to anyone else? I could see how she might be a threat to future unborn people that she may conceive down the line, but protecting people who might never even exist doesn't make much sense to me.
Not necessarily. I concede that a woman who has an abortion may very well never have another, nor even do anything wrong ever again in her lifetime.
Are you under the assumption that the *only* reason people are jailed or otherwise punished is to prevent them from committing an identical transgression in the future?
No, that is just how I believe it should be.
-
...and have tremendous value simply because they are human. therefore to argue that it is a net positive for you to have less of them around is overshadowed by their value given to them by God himself.
So you are saying the more people the better no matter what?
-
Because just because it's provided, doesn't mean it will be used. Probably true for plan be as well. I'd hope that if abortion wasn't an option more people would use plan b.
My British mate swears by Plan A: Don't cum in her front bum.
AND IF YA DON'T KNOW, NOW YA KNOW....PREGGO
Lol to both. It's not a hard concept. But some people just refuse.
-
Some people just want a small government that only regulates people to protect other people from threats.
Another example of making a pro-choice assumption to rebut a pro-life argument. If you view unborn babies as people, then you are most certainly trying to protect people from threats by advocating to eliminate abortion.
Do you view a woman who has had an abortion as a threat to anyone else? I could see how she might be a threat to future unborn people that she may conceive down the line, but protecting people who might never even exist doesn't make much sense to me.
Did you know murderers have some of the lowest recidivism rates of all criminals because the crime often involves someone they were close to and was not at all premeditated? For most murderers there is actually very little reason to think they would kill someone else, but this is really getting into the function of the penal system which is a very interesting debate but entirely separate from what we're talking about here. I'm talking about whether something should be made illegal, not what the punishment should be for it.
-
Some people just want a small government that only regulates people to protect other people from threats.
Another example of making a pro-choice assumption to rebut a pro-life argument. If you view unborn babies as people, then you are most certainly trying to protect people from threats by advocating to eliminate abortion.
Do you view a woman who has had an abortion as a threat to anyone else? I could see how she might be a threat to future unborn people that she may conceive down the line, but protecting people who might never even exist doesn't make much sense to me.
Did you know murderers have some of the lowest recidivism rates of all criminals because the crime often involves someone they were close to and was not at all premeditated? For most murderers there is actually very little reason to think they would kill someone else, but this is really getting into the function of the penal system which is a very interesting debate but entirely separate from what we're talking about here. I'm talking about whether something should be made illegal, not what the punishment should be for it.
I would fully support lower sentences for murderers if you have good data to support it.
If something is illegal, there sort of has to be a punishment for it. What would you suggest?
-
1. But you still think murder should be illegal, which is important.
2. If you were to make abortion illegal, the simplest punishment is to revoke the license of any doctor performing the abortion and to fine a woman who has one (at a not ridiculous but still high enough amount to where people are like, "yea, I should really just buy birth control if i don't want to have a baby"). The money paid in fines would go to fund local adoption agencies.
I would also support some kind of mandatory birth control education. I'm actually not a big fan of jail under most circumstances because I think it breeds more crime than it protects the public from.
-
1. But you still think murder should be illegal, which is important.
2. If you were to make abortion illegal, the simplest punishment is to revoke the license of any doctor performing the abortion and to fine a woman who has one (at a high enough amount to where people are like, "yea, I should really just buy birth control if i don't want to have a baby"). I would also support some kind of mandatory birth control education. I'm actually not a big fan of jail under most circumstances because I think it breeds more crime than it protects the public from.
1. Yeah, I'm not that comfortable being around a murderer because I know if I piss him/her off, I'm likely to get murdered myself. I don't feel that way about women who have had an abortion in the past.
2. So fines for the wealthy, jail for the poor?
-
This book I read had a punishment for abortion which was dying the skin of the woman red so everyone would know she had had an abortion and then making her go to some classes where she had to pretend a doll was her aborted child. Do you guys think those are the appropriate punishments for abortion?
-
This book I read had a punishment for abortion which was dying the skin of the woman red so everyone would know she had had an abortion and then making her go to some classes where she had to pretend a doll was her aborted child. Do you guys think those are the appropriate punishments for abortion?
I don't think that's an appropriate punishment for anything.
-
1. But you still think murder should be illegal, which is important.
2. If you were to make abortion illegal, the simplest punishment is to revoke the license of any doctor performing the abortion and to fine a woman who has one (at a high enough amount to where people are like, "yea, I should really just buy birth control if i don't want to have a baby"). I would also support some kind of mandatory birth control education. I'm actually not a big fan of jail under most circumstances because I think it breeds more crime than it protects the public from.
1. Yeah, I'm not that comfortable being around a murderer because I know if I piss him/her off, I'm likely to get murdered myself. I don't feel that way about women who have had an abortion in the past.
2. So fines for the wealthy, jail for the poor?
Ok, so your concept of a penal system is that it should be illegal only if it is a threat to you. We disagree on that (for example, I think hate crimes should be punished even though I am not a minority myself), but I think you still follow my basic ideas here.
You can easily build in an alternative if you're unable to pay the fine. The threat to doctors would be the most impactful part of the punishment by far. I'd support community service in lieu of a fine.
-
This book I read had a punishment for abortion which was dying the skin of the woman red so everyone would know she had had an abortion and then making her go to some classes where she had to pretend a doll was her aborted child. Do you guys think those are the appropriate punishments for abortion?
I don't think that's an appropriate punishment for anything.
What he said. What kind of books do you read?
-
Because just because it's provided, doesn't mean it will be used. Probably true for plan be as well. I'd hope that if abortion wasn't an option more people would use plan b.
My British mate swears by Plan A: Don't cum in her front bum.
AND IF YA DON'T KNOW, NOW YA KNOW....PREGGO
Lol to both. It's not a hard concept. But some people just refuse.
Such a blunder. Sometimes it makes me wonder why I even bring the thunder...
-
Women shaming ones it appears
:(
-
1. But you still think murder should be illegal, which is important.
2. If you were to make abortion illegal, the simplest punishment is to revoke the license of any doctor performing the abortion and to fine a woman who has one (at a high enough amount to where people are like, "yea, I should really just buy birth control if i don't want to have a baby"). I would also support some kind of mandatory birth control education. I'm actually not a big fan of jail under most circumstances because I think it breeds more crime than it protects the public from.
1. Yeah, I'm not that comfortable being around a murderer because I know if I piss him/her off, I'm likely to get murdered myself. I don't feel that way about women who have had an abortion in the past.
2. So fines for the wealthy, jail for the poor?
Ok, so your concept of a penal system is that it should be illegal only if it is a threat to you. We disagree on that (for example, I think hate crimes should be punished even though I am not a minority myself), but I think you still follow my basic ideas here.
You can easily build in an alternative if you're unable to pay the fine. The threat to doctors would be the most impactful part of the punishment by far. I'd support community service in lieu of a fine.
It should be illegal if it creates a threat to me or others. I don't support hate crime legislation, but that has nothing to do with not being a minority myself.
-
Women shaming ones it appears
:(
Are your referring to the book? It was a very good book set in a future extreme pro-life dystopia.
(https://books.google.com/books/content?id=tGyEIdtkv-EC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&edge=curl&imgtk=AFLRE72KV5QhIAmt16tvbdFhSO9XJ6QgBkXLaU2s4CmSxPxmaGs78Ue3dT5mi00E0qXSfPb_aKE_nhOd_gaswZciIIpVJ1ugpxueMkHd0S-enSXiHs7xdUQ_50AIQUXDHfwK8mAvuVJZ)
Do you consider the Scarlet Letter a women shaming book, too?
-
Women shaming ones it appears
:(
Are your referring to the book? It was a very good book set in a future extreme pro-life dystopia.
(https://books.google.com/books/content?id=tGyEIdtkv-EC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&edge=curl&imgtk=AFLRE72KV5QhIAmt16tvbdFhSO9XJ6QgBkXLaU2s4CmSxPxmaGs78Ue3dT5mi00E0qXSfPb_aKE_nhOd_gaswZciIIpVJ1ugpxueMkHd0S-enSXiHs7xdUQ_50AIQUXDHfwK8mAvuVJZ)
Do you consider the Scarlet Letter a women shaming book, too?
I wish kidding. Lolita is one of my favorite books. And we all knows it's content. I've never read scarlet letter.
-
I'll have to check that book out. 1984 is another book I really enjoyed. Even though it really made me sad at the end, but that added to its greatness.
-
1. But you still think murder should be illegal, which is important.
2. If you were to make abortion illegal, the simplest punishment is to revoke the license of any doctor performing the abortion and to fine a woman who has one (at a high enough amount to where people are like, "yea, I should really just buy birth control if i don't want to have a baby"). I would also support some kind of mandatory birth control education. I'm actually not a big fan of jail under most circumstances because I think it breeds more crime than it protects the public from.
1. Yeah, I'm not that comfortable being around a murderer because I know if I piss him/her off, I'm likely to get murdered myself. I don't feel that way about women who have had an abortion in the past.
2. So fines for the wealthy, jail for the poor?
Ok, so your concept of a penal system is that it should be illegal only if it is a threat to you. We disagree on that (for example, I think hate crimes should be punished even though I am not a minority myself), but I think you still follow my basic ideas here.
You can easily build in an alternative if you're unable to pay the fine. The threat to doctors would be the most impactful part of the punishment by far. I'd support community service in lieu of a fine.
It should be illegal if it creates a threat to me or others. I don't support hate crime legislation, but that has nothing to do with not being a minority myself.
Well then we're right back where we started. If you consider unborn babies "others" (which is a premise I admit you have to grant me) then I'd say the threat to "others" via those who commit abortions is at least as great as it is among those who commit homicide. It sounds to me like you just don't feel threatened because you know you could never be a victim.
-
1. But you still think murder should be illegal, which is important.
2. If you were to make abortion illegal, the simplest punishment is to revoke the license of any doctor performing the abortion and to fine a woman who has one (at a high enough amount to where people are like, "yea, I should really just buy birth control if i don't want to have a baby"). I would also support some kind of mandatory birth control education. I'm actually not a big fan of jail under most circumstances because I think it breeds more crime than it protects the public from.
1. Yeah, I'm not that comfortable being around a murderer because I know if I piss him/her off, I'm likely to get murdered myself. I don't feel that way about women who have had an abortion in the past.
2. So fines for the wealthy, jail for the poor?
Ok, so your concept of a penal system is that it should be illegal only if it is a threat to you. We disagree on that (for example, I think hate crimes should be punished even though I am not a minority myself), but I think you still follow my basic ideas here.
You can easily build in an alternative if you're unable to pay the fine. The threat to doctors would be the most impactful part of the punishment by far. I'd support community service in lieu of a fine.
It should be illegal if it creates a threat to me or others. I don't support hate crime legislation, but that has nothing to do with not being a minority myself.
Well then we're right back where we started. If you consider unborn babies "others" (which is a premise I admit you have to grant me) then I'd say the threat to "others" via those who commit abortions is at least as great as it is among those who commit homicide. It sounds to me like you just don't feel threatened because you know you could never be a victim.
Unborn or unconceived? I don't consider people who haven't been conceived yet to be others.
-
So in a Rage justice system, murderers are only in jail because there are more people available to be murdered? I guess that means if a woman had an illegal abortion then she should not be punished until she conceives another child? Or if you commit perjury then you shouldn't be punished until you are under oath again?
-
Not trying to distract, or come up with a side debate, but Emo, do you believe everyone is created equal?
No bearing on the debate. Just curious.
I believe for the most part they are, in the eyes of the government. Of course we have the justice system and courts to make right wrongs we may have in place now.
-
So in a Rage justice system, murderers are only in jail because there are more people available to be murdered? I guess that means if a woman had an illegal abortion then she should not be punished until she conceives another child? Or if you commit perjury then you shouldn't be punished until you are under oath again?
I wouldn't punish the mother at all because I don't see a good justification for government to get involved with abortion. The abortion itself should be punishment enough, really.
Jail for perjury is also ridiculous. Jail should be for truly dangerous people. Nobody else should ever be in jail for any reason.
-
So in a Rage justice system, murderers are only in jail because there are more people available to be murdered? I guess that means if a woman had an illegal abortion then she should not be punished until she conceives another child? Or if you commit perjury then you shouldn't be punished until you are under oath again?
I wouldn't punish the mother at all because I don't see a good justification for government to get involved with abortion. The abortion itself should be punishment enough, really.
Jail for perjury is also ridiculous. Jail should be for truly dangerous people. Nobody else should ever be in jail for any reason.
Perjury undermines our entire justice system. One important purpose of punishment is to deter. It is important that we defer something as destructive to justice as perjury.
-
(@Rage) We're talking about any punishment, though. And it sounds like your views on abortion are not rooted in a belief that we should only punish those who are threats to others, but rather in your opinion that the government should not get involved in abortions, regardless of who is affected. And you are of course entitled to that opinion.
-
Not trying to distract, or come up with a side debate, but Emo, do you believe everyone is created equal?
No bearing on the debate. Just curious.
I believe for the most part they are, in the eyes of the government. Of course we have the justice system and courts to make right wrongs we may have in place now.
Ok. Thank you.
-
So in a Rage justice system, murderers are only in jail because there are more people available to be murdered? I guess that means if a woman had an illegal abortion then she should not be punished until she conceives another child? Or if you commit perjury then you shouldn't be punished until you are under oath again?
I wouldn't punish the mother at all because I don't see a good justification for government to get involved with abortion. The abortion itself should be punishment enough, really.
Jail for perjury is also ridiculous. Jail should be for truly dangerous people. Nobody else should ever be in jail for any reason.
Perjury undermines our entire justice system. One important purpose of punishment is to deter. It is important that we defer something as destructive to justice as perjury.
I would just create a record that the person perjured his/herself and leave it at that. It would undermine your credibility for the rest of your life and make it harder to get a job. I think that is enough of a deterrent.
-
Republican liars. No obamacare repeal. Planned Hamburger lives on to kill.
-
Republican liars. No obamacare repeal. Planned Hamburger lives on to kill.
you know the ACA has nothing to do with abortion right?
-
Hey Ripper, the right to kill babies does not make you a.woman. Kill on your own dime. Trump signed a law that reversed Obama's order to allow federal dollars to Planned Hamburger. And the Meat Rippers are crying. From CNN this morning .....
Stripping millions of Americans of the critical health care services that Planned Parenthood provides doesn't just hurt women -- it hurts entire families and their economic security," said Stephanie Schriock, the head of EMILY's List, a Democratic political action committee. "This is just one more example of Donald Trump's White House and this Republican Congress taking every single opportunity to chip away at women's rights, and we won't stand for it."
-
Ben Shapiro has some good points on abortion:
https://www.facebook.com/203805062990264/videos/1352253278145431/?autoplay_reason=all_page_organic_allowed&video_container_type=0&video_creator_product_type=2&app_id=2392950137&live_video_guests=0
-
Did not watch. Did he make any points that haven't been refuted and exposed as asinine in this thread? I updated the scorecard a few pages back if that helps.
-
Hey Ripper, the right to kill babies does not make you a.woman. Kill on your own dime. Trump signed a law that reversed Obama's order to allow federal dollars to Planned Hamburger. And the Meat Rippers are crying. From CNN this morning .....
Stripping millions of Americans of the critical health care services that Planned Parenthood provides doesn't just hurt women -- it hurts entire families and their economic security," said Stephanie Schriock, the head of EMILY's List, a Democratic political action committee. "This is just one more example of Donald Trump's White House and this Republican Congress taking every single opportunity to chip away at women's rights, and we won't stand for it."
As I understand it, this only repeals a law passed late in Obama's term that forced states to allow Planned Parenthood equal access to certain federal health grants. As of now, Planned Parenthood - whose primary business is abortion - is still receiving direct federal funding. Killing babies : sad.
-
Thanks Obama :lol:
Planned Parenthood Clinics Closing
Regardless of their political leanings, news outlets throughout America carry virtually the same headline as Breitbart: Planned Parenthood clinics closing rapidly.
The story goes on to report three of the six Planned Parenthood clinics in New Mexico are expected to close by the end of September, following the announced closing of the Casper WY clinic on July 21. That would make Wyoming and North Dakota the first two states in the nation without a Planned Parenthood clinic, according to Breitbart.
Meanwhile the Denver Post reports the Longmont CO health center will close in August as Planned Parenthood officials adjust to the law of unintended consequences and the impact of the Affordable Care Act.
"We supported (the ACA) because we love the idea of more people having health insurance and increasing access to the critical services that they need, but a lot of our patients were self-pay," the Post quoted a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. "They would come in and get a pap smear and pay out of pocket. Under the ACA, a lot of patients were given the opportunity to be on Medicaid. Again, that's wonderful but it meant that rather than bill them directly, we had to bill Medicaid. And Medicaid reimburses at a very low rate.
Man, I cant wait for libtard utopia, when we're all covered by medicaid--ya know, to make things equaler
-
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article154143134.html (http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article154143134.html)
Can someone help put this in perspective for me? I do not understand the pro choice stance that a group of people running pregnancy crisis centers helping pregnant women is a threat and unacceptable for the Royals to run their ads.
-
I would have to do more research on if the centers are indeed spreading mistruths.
If the Royals are affiliated with the anti-abortion essay contest for 7th graders, that is a bad look.
If the organization is lying to women in crisis situations and have co sponsored essays for kids that are anti-abortion with the Royals. It's equivalent to the Royals supporting the cause and the centers in my opinion.
I see no issue with Vitae buying air time, lying or not, but the essay contest if affiliated with the Royals is not cool.
That's the best I could come up with based on the article.
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-us-fertility-rate-just-hit-a-historic-low-why-some-demographers-are-freaking-out/ar-BBDtypV
So Hamburger Hoochies are advocating extermination of babies when we need more. This gets compounded by all of transyanger stuff. No one knows what the hell they are sexually let alone reproductively.
-
We don't need more children.
-
We don't need more children.
SdK sounds like a bonafide transyanger hamburger hoochie
-
Guilty as charged.
-
Planned Hamburger is running out of breed heifers. What to do now? :confused:
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/protesters-plan-to-show-abortion-on-jumbotron/ar-AAowNme
This is a little much from prolive people. I would hate for my kid to see this on a public street
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/05/planned-parenthood-to-preschoolers-genitals-dont-make-you-a-boy-or-girl/
And they let these nuts avoid the abortionist butcherz
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-court-arkansas-can-block-medicaid-funds-to-planned-parenthood/ar-AAqcqUh
Thank goodness we don't have to help pay for the butcherery.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html?amp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html?amp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh wow. That is interesting. I would be interested to know how they define suffering. Life isn't easy that is sure, but they make it sound like a person born with Downs Syndrome will spend their whole life in pain. I have worked with the mentally handicapped, and I don't see that for those suffering from DS. They are typically very happy individuals. The only issue they may deal with is social interaction with individuals without DS. . .and if those people believe that someone with DS is constantly suffering and would have been better off being aborted. . .I guess living around those people could be a type of suffering?
At the end of the day the person who will struggle the most in these types of situations are the parents. These abortions aren't doing the child a favor, they are saving the parent from a lot of extra work at raising a child.
-
These abortions aren't doing the child a favor, they are saving the parent from a lot of extra work at raising a child.
This. And as someone else said, it is really dangerous to phrase this like they're eliminating a disease like polio or smallpox. This is eugenics. They're trying to eliminate people who are capable of living fulfilling lives simply because they view those people as genetically inferior.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html?amp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh wow. That is interesting. I would be interested to know how they define suffering. Life isn't easy that is sure, but they make it sound like a person born with Downs Syndrome will spend their whole life in pain. I have worked with the mentally handicapped, and I don't see that for those suffering from DS. They are typically very happy individuals. The only issue they may deal with is social interaction with individuals without DS. . .and if those people believe that someone with DS is constantly suffering and would have been better off being aborted. . .I guess living around those people could be a type of suffering?
At the end of the day the person who will struggle the most in these types of situations are the parents. These abortions aren't doing the child a favor, they are saving the parent from a lot of extra work at raising a child.
great post from my guy yard dog right here :cheers:
-
One way to keep some of their universal federal Medicaid-like insurance costs in check...
-
As long as it's not mandatory then I have absolutely no problem with this
-
As long as it's not mandatory then I have absolutely no problem with this
Well of course anyone who is pro-choice would feel this way. The law described in Iceland does not sound any different than the laws here, which is exactly what makes the headline disturbing. It is basically like seeing a headline in the US saying "Doctors in Iceland discover procedure that nearly eliminates the risk of babies being born with Down Syndrome."
It's a non-remarkable story that is trying to sound like they found a cure for a disease.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/iceland-downs-syndrome-no-children-born-first-country-world-screening-a7895996.html?amp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Planned Hamburger Nazis. Nazis' goal was to eradicate all inferior humans from the human race. Will the rabid mob of Nazi eliminatin zealots attack Planned Hamburger? Do elephants fly Cessna planes?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/12/11/7-8-million-settlement-biomedical-companies-accused-profiting-fetal-tissue-sales/
This vidicates pro life groups accusations that Planned Hamburger was selling aborted fetuses to biomedical butcher shops.
-
I really don't get the reasoning for people believing the sale of fetal body parts should be illegal.
-
I really don't get the reasoning for people believing the sale of fetal body parts should be illegal.
It’s the same reason the sale of all body parts is illegal. The government wants to discourage the creation of a market for body parts so that folks are not encouraged to go hacking themselves (or others) apart to make a buck. I’m personally in favor of the current policies. It would just be too much for me to have a market where a woman as a career keeps getting pregnant for the sole purpose of aborting the fetus and selling the parts. Either donate it or nothing.
-
The women aren't selling the parts in these cases, and the parts are being used to find cures for diseases.
-
The women aren't selling the parts in these cases, and the parts are being used to find cures for diseases.
I’m just explaining to you why the selling of human body parts is illegal.
-
Also, if the sale was legalized only for the exact context you give above, then you would still have to closely monitor the transactions to make sure the women were not receiving some kick back from the medical provider. Otherwise it’s like a more disgusting version of a prostitution ring.
On the other hand, if you eliminate the financial incentives, wouldn’t it make it more likely the provider is willing to turn over the materials to researchers since they could not get into bidding wars with others?
-
So, the Republicans have control of the Senate, the House, the Executive branch and the Supreme Court.... we should see a law to make abortion illegal any day now, right? I mean, being pro-life is a huge part of the GOP platform and an issue that has won them a LOT of elections.
-
Republicans still don’t really control the Supreme Court. One more conservative justice and it would be a possibility though. In that case I think you could expect them to walk back the current doctrine but they’re not going to overturn Roe v Wade completely.
-
Also, if the sale was legalized only for the exact context you give above, then you would still have to closely monitor the transactions to make sure the women were not receiving some kick back from the medical provider. Otherwise it’s like a more disgusting version of a prostitution ring.
On the other hand, if you eliminate the financial incentives, wouldn’t it make it more likely the provider is willing to turn over the materials to researchers since they could not get into bidding wars with others?
I think it would be much less likely. It is probably a lot cheaper to incinerate the parts than it is to preserve them without any way to recoup costs.
-
You understand there is a difference between selling the parts and labs paying the cost to preserve and ship them right?
If they are willing to pay for the parts why wouldn’t they be willing to have someone on site ready to take them whenever an abortion is performed? Then the medical provider doesn’t have to even incur the cost of disposal. Win win.
-
You understand there is a difference between selling the parts and labs paying the cost to preserve and ship them right?
If they are willing to pay for the parts why wouldn’t they be willing to have someone on site ready to take them whenever an abortion is performed? Then the medical provider doesn’t have to even incur the cost of disposal. Win win.
I’m sure the current market-based approach is a lot more efficient than your proposed regulation would be.
-
I think if you look at my prior commentary you will see that efficiency is not my concern.
Now if your original statement was that you just don’t understand how making the sale of fetal body parts illegal would make the process more efficient then I’d say we have some common ground.
-
US. District Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington, DC, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that, as reported by the Washington Times, would allow the teens’ “constitutional right to decide whether to carry their pregnancies to term — including their right to change their minds regarding the same.”
THESE ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. AND JUDGE WANT TAXPAYER GUY TO PAY FOR THE ABORTIONS. THESE AREN'T AMERICANS AND HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. ONE GIRL IS SO FAR ALONG THEY ARE GOING TO CUT THE BABY OUT SURGICALLY.
PLANNED HAMBURGER IS OVERJOYED, DEAD MEAT FOR CHRISTMAS.
-
Trump has announced he is going to prohibit federal funding going to family planning clinics where abortions are done. Aborations are legally available, but public money ain't paying for it.
Emily List meatpacking company is going beserk. They are railing that we have to elect women who will protect.reproductive freedom. Birth control access is about freedom. Killing babies, conceived humans, is infanticide.
-
I mean, this is rough ridin' insane and completely inhumane. Please, some pro-lifer in this thread, explain to me how this is fair.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/8lufa5/texas_made_it_law_to_decline_insurance_coverage/
-
I have a policy of not defending specific message board posters for the messages they post.
I only glanced the reddit post but was there anything verifiable in there?
-
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59931244e4b09071f69cd82a/amp
Texas last year past a law saying insurance policies sold in Texas cannot have benefits that pay for elective abortions. So the old buffaloes who want free unlimited abortions for birth control parade out the rape argument to try to get thier way. Abortion is not illegal in Texas. This is about who pays for it. Why don't the buffaloes set up a private fund to help poor women. No, they want society to pay for thier hamburger crusaude. Nirvana would be socialize medicine.
-
As usual thanks for bringing the facts Reno.
From the article:
In debating the measure, Democrats argued that it is largely political theater, as relatively few plans in Texas cover abortion at this point. Nationally, estimates suggest that nearly 70 percent of women pay out of pocket for abortion services because their plans don’t cover the procedure or because they are unsure if they do.
I personally feel that abortions should be covered by insurance in the event of a diagnosis where the child has no chance to survive, but I don’t set the rates.
-
good for Ireland
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-times-exit-poll-projects-ireland-has-voted-by-landslide-to-repeal-eighth-amendment-1.3508861 (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-times-exit-poll-projects-ireland-has-voted-by-landslide-to-repeal-eighth-amendment-1.3508861)
-
About fuckin time
-
The Meat Mavens of Planned Hamburger are mooing and bawling like a pen of weaner calves.
Ripping children from the womb is their great joy, and then selling the mangled carcasses to medical discetors.
Well boss cows Trump has the votes to put on the Supreme Court a conservative who well could stop unfettered abortion. Abortion will never be over turned, but by dang it will be restrictedso some kids can live. Oh I forgot these same planned hamburger hoochies are crying for the little migrant children being ripped from their mother's arms by Trump. They care awit about ripping babies from wombs.
-
https://twitter.com/trscoop/status/1030141930708054016
-
Who is Chelsea Clinton's constituency?
-
Activist liberal Mississippi judges!
https://mobile.twitter.com/blippoblappo/status/1064996356153057282?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1064996356153057282&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Ftwitter2.min.html%231064996356153057282
-
Activist liberal Mississippi judges!
https://mobile.twitter.com/blippoblappo/status/1064996356153057282?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1064996356153057282&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Ftwitter2.min.html%231064996356153057282
Well, not that the judge is wrong in any way (he's not: The law obviously flouts established precedent), but that particular judge is an African-American appointed by Obama.
Some great bench-slapping in the opinion, tho:
So . . . why are we here?
In that spirit, this Court concludes that the Mississippi Legislature’s professed interest in “women’s health” is pure gaslighting.
Its leaders are proud to challenge Roe but choose not to lift a finger to address the tragedies lurking on the other side of the delivery room: our alarming infant and maternal mortality rates.
No, legislation like H.B. 1510 is closer to the old Mississippi—the Mississippi bent on controlling women and minorities. The Mississippi that, just a few decades ago, barred women from serving on juries “so they may continue their service as mothers, wives, and homemakers.” State v. Hall, 187 So. 2d 861, 863 (Miss. 1966). The Mississippi that, in Fannie Lou Hamer’s reporting, sterilized six out of ten black women in Sunflower County at the local hospital—against their will. See Rickie Solinger, Wake Up Little Susie 57 (1992). And the Mississippi that, in the early 1980s, was the last State to ratify the 19th Amendment—the authority guaranteeing women the right to vote.
The Court’s frustration, in part, is that other states have already unsuccessfully litigated the same sort of ban that is before this Court and the State is aware that this type of litigation costs the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money.
No, the real reason we are here is simple. The State chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade
This Court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature.
With the recent changes in the membership of the Supreme Court, it may be that the State believes divine providence covered the Capitol when it passed this legislation. Time will tell. If overturning Roe is the State’s desired result, the State will have to seek that relief from a higher court.
The fact that men, myself included, are determining how women may choose to manage their reproductive health is a sad irony not lost on the Court.
-
Who partyin’? Big victory for Planned Hamburger and all supporters of abortion rights. T’s and P’s to renocat.
-
:Ugh:
-
https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1521288815910039557
-
https://thehill.com/homenews/3584208-georgians-can-claim-an-embryo-as-a-dependent-on-tax-returns/
These are really strange times we are living in.
-
Well that part is only fair
-
https://twitter.com/BoSnerdley/status/1613310552503193600?s=20&t=h71R_SW3DZkB-9UhzJvXZA
-
Is that not already the law?
-
Is that not already the law?
Live births during an abortion procedure are exceedingly rare, experts said, and federal law already requires that a baby who survives an attempted abortion receive emergency medical care. The new bill would clarify the standard of care to which doctors are held and lay out penalties for violators. Policy organizations supporting abortion rights said the measure was an effort to discourage women from seeking abortions and doctors from performing them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/us/politics/house-passes-abortion-bill.amp.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'll never understand corporations who are willing to take a public relations beating instead of getting sued. I get that generally stuff like this doesn't change consumer spending habits enough to make corporations notice but they'll lose more money from the negative media coverage of this than they would in billable hours from getting sued by Kris rough ridin' Kobach
https://twitter.com/byKateSmith/status/1631449702884311042
-
This is only the beginning of the fuckery Kobach is going to unleash here. eff you Andover and Derby for putting him over the top in the election.
-
Looks like Ken wants to make 2024 elections about abortion.
https://x.com/TXAG/status/1732849898532266420?s=20
-
This is even kind of controversial on texags
-
This is even kind of controversial on texags
Probably bc she’s white.
-
Looks like Ken wants to make 2024 elections about abortion.
https://x.com/TXAG/status/1732849898532266420?s=20
I believe this woman probably has the resources to go out of state in the event that a Texas doctor isn’t willing to perform this medically necessary operation. But if she does stay in Texas, and she dies as a result, I think it’s perfectly fair that Ken Paxton et.al get charged with 1st degree murder, or at least manslaughter
-
Looks like Ken wants to make 2024 elections about abortion.
https://x.com/TXAG/status/1732849898532266420?s=20
I believe this woman probably has the resources to go out of state in the event that a Texas doctor isn’t willing to perform this medically necessary operation. But if she does stay in Texas, and she dies as a result, I think it’s perfectly fair that Ken Paxton et.al get charged with 1st degree murder, or at least manslaughter
If she leaves the state to have an abortion she can be arrested when she returns to Texas. And anyone who helps her can be arrested too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Lawyers for Dr. Karsan have said in legal filings that she believes her patient’s abortion is medically necessary to preserve her health and future fertility.
But in his letter, Mr. Paxton warned the order would not constrain state officials or private citizens from filing criminal or civil lawsuits against the hospital or others, such as Ms. Cox’s husband, who might help her obtain an abortion.
He reiterated that position in his filings to the Texas Supreme Court.
“Nothing will prevent enforcement of Texas’s civil and criminal penalties once the T.R.O. erroneously prohibiting enforcement is vacated,” the filings from his office read.[\QUOTE]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
texas kinda seems like it sucks crap
-
You have to think of the child they're saving here though.
Sent from my SM-S906U1 using Tapatalk
-
Nationwide, this story is making a lot of Christian women happy as they recover from their abortions.
-
Nationwide, this story is making a lot of Christian women happy as they recover from their abortions.
They can’t wait to get home to Grapevine,TX in a couple days to celebrate this great victory for Christianity
-
texas kinda seems like it sucks crap
Gov. Abbott seems determined to accelerate the state’s shift to purple.