NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think abortion should be legal or illegal?

Legal all the time regardless of the circumstances.

*gets popcorn*

*gets popcorn*

*joins you*

Legal. Pursuit of Happiness.

*joins you*
*offers beer/soda*

You want any?

Illegal, except to save the mothers life.

legal at all times.

subject to medical ethics.

*offers beer/soda*

You want any?

*takes Beer and eat popcorns*

*takes Beer and eat popcorns*
Time for the main event!

Do you think abortion should be legal or illegal?

Legal as long as the fetus has not reached the capacity to experience things (up tot that point abortion does not harm it - from the fetus point of view it is equivalent to never being conceived in the first place).
After that there should be restrictions, which increase as the fetus develops further and further.

Illegal in all cases.

Life clearly begins at conception.

Legal at all times.
And finally a poll without the pro-choice/pro-life crap.

Compulsatory. :p

Absolutely legal. I think more women should avail of the option, personally, but each to their own.

*Runs and gets more comfortable chair, turns down beer but takes some popcorn. Sits down, thinks for a second, runs and grabs a soda, comes back.*

Wow. I think this is the slowest start to an abortion debate I have ever seen.
Let me just help out a bit...

Women will do it anyway, why not make it safe. As for "morning after pils", they should be definately allowed, and made easily available.


EDIT: On second thought, I think I'll sit this one out so that I don't have to worry about being made fun of by people who think Roe v. Wade is a debate on how to cross that crik up by where Billy-Bob-Joe-James's sister/wife/cousin hit that tree yesterday. Or was it last year...

Just kidding, folks. Don't get offended.

I cannot see how people can condone the killing of innocent humans.

I will say this however, 'GOD BLESS SOUTH DAKOTA', the state in America that's seen sense.

*offers beer/soda*

You want any?

Already got some thank you. http://akronkids.homeip.net/smilies/popcorn.gif

Personally I think the following slogan sums it up nicely:

Abortion
NEVER an easy choice.
SOMETIMES the best choice.
ALWAYS the woman's choice.

I have no business deciding what a woman does with her uterus. Her body, her choice. So definitely legal.

Women will do it anyway, why not make it safe. As for "morning after pils", they should be definately allowed, and made easily available.

And the women who try 'home abortions' have a high chance of dying which they deserve.

*joins Ruffy, RLI, Will, and Keda*

I got nachos!

I cannot see how people can condone the killing of innocent humans.

We don't. We don't mind terminating foetuses though.

I will say this however, 'GOD BLESS SOUTH DAKOTA', the state in America that's seen sense.

Personally I hope the trend continues and abortion is banned across America. I'd love to see fifty years of continuous Democratic rule after disillusioned women desert the Republican party in droves.

And the women who try 'home abortions' have a high chance of dying which they deserve.

And you have the gall to call yourself a Christian? Shame on you, troll.

Heres an intresting question: Should Abortion be used as birth control?

*goes back to drinking beer and eating Popcorn*

And the women who try 'home abortions' have a high chance of dying which they deserve.
No.

And the women who try 'home abortions' have a high chance of dying which they deserve.

http://www.feuerwher.de/forum/troll.jpg

I cannot see how people can condone the killing of innocent humans.

Killing another human being is only wrong if said human being did not wish to be killed. An embryo or early fetus has no desire to live - since it in fact has no desires at all.

Heres an intresting question: Should Abortion be used as birth control?

*goes back to drinking beer and eating Popcorn*

Eh? Define "birth control". It stops a birth from happening, so I'd suppose it is birth control regardless.

*joins Ruffy, RLI, Will, and Keda*

I got nachos!
*attacks nachos*
*burps*

And you have the gall to call yourself a Christian? Shame on you, troll.

People who have abortions are murderers; plain and simple. Murderers deserve to die.

Heres an intresting question: Should Abortion be used as birth control?

*goes back to drinking beer and eating Popcorn*

More to the point, should aborted foetuses be recycled into popcorn?

*pours petrol around the thread before diving for cover*

Eh? Define "birth control". It stops a birth from happening, so I'd suppose it is birth control regardless.

Everytime the woman gets pregents she decides to get an abortion. That's pretty much the geist of it.

Heres an intresting question: Should Abortion be used as birth control?

Too damaging to the mother (and in addition requires some expensive doctor time) compared to alternatives.

More to the point, should aborted foetuses be recycled into popcorn?

Eeeew. have you ever tried human flesh ? It is not tasty ;)

More to the point, should aborted foetuses be recycled into popcorn?

*pours petrol around the thread before diving for cover*

*stops eating the popcorn and eats the nachos*

Everytime the woman gets pregents she decides to get an abortion. That's pretty much the geist of it.

Well, if none of the times she wants a baby, why not?

P.S. Course, maybe with a condom and birth control pill, It wouldn't happen so often...

People who have abortions are murderers; plain and simple. Murderers deserve to die.

Shoo, troll. Shoo.

And the women who try 'home abortions' have a high chance of dying which they deserve.

I know I said I would sit this one out, but...

We pro-choicers want a woman to be able to choose whether to rid her body of a low-cell count parasite. You think that women who were raped and became pregnant because of it should die? I think the name Georgia fits you.

Another question to get people to quote me in a bad light:
Stem cell research; should it be legal?

I say yes. There was a story of a person who had a nail shot through his left ventrical (part of your heart), who would normally need that part to be replaced completely. Instead, he made it to Canada, where they simply put stem cells in his heart, and it healed right up. Using conventional surgery, the prognosis was that he would barely be able to climb stairs again. Now he can, just because our nice neighbors to the north have brains in their heads.

Another question to get people to quote me in a bad light:
Stem cell research; should it be legal?I vote Aye.

You think that women who were raped and became pregnant because of it should die?

No, he probably believes the rapist should pay the womans father 50 pieces of silver and then marry her, with no possibility of divorce. That after all is the biblical way.

People who have abortions are murderers; plain and simple. Murderers deserve to die.

*Rolls up newspaper, Smacks On Nose*

Bad Troll, Bad!

I know I said I would sit this one out, but...

We pro-choicers want a woman to be able to choose whether to rid her body of a low-cell count parasite. You think that women who were raped and became pregnant because of it should die? I think the name Georgia fits you.

Another question to get people to quote me in a bad light:
Stem cell research; should it be legal?

I say yes. There was a story of a person who had a nail shot through his left ventricle (part of your heart), who would normally need that part to be replaced completely. Instead, he made it to Canada, where they simply put stem cells in his heart, and it healed right up. Using conventional surgery, the prognosis was that he would barely be able to climb stairs again. Now he can, just because our nice neighbors to the north have brains in their heads.

If a woman is raped, execute the murderer, not the innocent 'by-creation'. No stem cell research should not be allowed; it is morally wrong to interfere with nature.

If a woman is raped, execute the murderer, not the innocent 'by-creation'.

According to the Bible, if the rape occurs in a city and the woman has a partner, she must be put to death - which would also kill the innocent by-creation.

If a woman is raped, execute the murderer, not the innocent 'by-creation'. No stem cell research should not be allowed; it is morally wrong to interfere with nature.


You claim to be a cardiologist, but you don't know the difference between anorexia and anorexia nervosa, and then you claim that it is "morally wrong" to interfere with nature, despite cardiology being one of the most "interfering" specialities of medicine, what with xeno-transplants, heart transplants, stem-cells, and so forth.

I do believe we have found ourselves a lying little troll.

Abortion needs to remain both elective and legal as long as contraception is not freely available EVERYWHERE (and is not 100% effective) as long as RAPE and INCEST continue to occur, as long as women's reproductive health is NOT PERFECT and not freely taken care of in ALL AREAS. Only, and I do mean ONLY, when contraception of all kinds is FREE, when rape and incest DO NOT EXIST, and when women's reproductive healthcare is FREE AND ALWAYS AVAILABLE, should abortion not be both elective and legal.

when women's reproductive healthcare is FREE AND ALWAYS AVAILABLE,

This...

should abortion not be both elective and legal.

... precludes that. For women's reproductive health care to be "free and available," abortion must also be.

This...



... precludes that. For women's reproductive health care to be "free and available," abortion must also be.


Bad wording on my part.

You claim to be a cardiologist, but you don't know the difference between anorexia and anorexia nervosa, and then you claim that it is "morally wrong" to interfere with nature, despite cardiology being one of the most "interfering" specialities of medicine, what with xeno-transplants, heart transplants, stem-cells, and so forth.

I do believe we have found ourselves a lying little troll.

I believed the person who posted before me was referring to anorexia as a symptom of anorexia nervosa. Bill Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo incorrectly, do want to take away his MD as well? Cardiology is the internal medicine of the heart, transplantations and xeno transplantations are carried out by surgeons. I do not agree with these operations; I recommend to patients when is required but informing them of both physical risks and well as moral issues surrounding them.

I believed the person who posted before me was referring to anorexia as a symptom of anorexia nervosa. Bill Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo incorrectly, do want to take away his MD as well? Cardiology is the internal medicine of the heart, transplantations and xeno transplantations are carried out by surgeons. I do not agree with these operations; I recommend to patients when is required but informing them of both physical risks and well as moral issues surrounding them.

It appears someone is in the wrong thread. o.O...or maybe backpedaling?...or something. Still... o.O

People who have abortions are murderers; plain and simple. Murderers deserve to die.
This is exactly why this new anti-abortion pill (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48199) was invented: kills the mother, saves the foetus.

I've no uterus, so I've no opinion. Or not one that matters anyway.

This is exactly why this new anti-abortion pill (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48199) was invented: kills the mother, saves the foetus.

LMAO!!! :p

Off topic: It's been a while since I've hung around long enough to stumble across a troll. This might prove amusing.

Legal unless medically unethical.

It should be made compulsory, and any who then try to avoid it should be sterilized.

Besides my wish for such a drastic measure, however: It should be legal in all cases, and "post-birth abortion" (killing the baby in a humane manner) should be avaliable for a short period of time.

It should be made compulsory, and any who then try to avoid it should be sterilized.

Besides my wish for such a drastic measure, however: It should be legal in all cases, and "post-birth abortion" (killing the baby in a humane manner) should be avaliable for a short period of time.
So, you want infantcide legalised?

Uh... even though I'm pro-choice, I have to say that to all people who support abortion after birth... are just as nuts as the pro-lifers!

Legal at all times.
And finally a poll without the pro-choice/pro-life crap.

Bah! I refuse to use pro-choice/pro-life ... you're either for or against abortion (pro-/anti-abortion), that's the real issue. It not only obfuscates the issue, but dips the termination of a foetus in licorice twist candy coating, thereby reducing the seriousness of the act.

Of course abortions should remain safe and legal.

In the mean time support birth control education and your local planned parenthood...if pregnancy never occurs until planned you never have to consider abortion that does not preserve the mother's life or mental health (as in rape).

93,
Castrensis

"post-birth abortion" (killing the baby in a humane manner) should be avaliable for a short period of time.

:S Are you joking or just evil?

Bah! I refuse to use pro-choice/pro-life ... you're either for or against abortion (pro-/anti-abortion), that's the real issue.

Well, no. One can be against abortion, but in favour of pro-choice.

you're either for or against abortion (pro-/anti-abortion), that's the real issue

Actually, you could be against abortion but still want it legal.

P.S. Curse you Alma!

The poll is too vague; despite what solid pro-life and pro-choice people would like to believe, most people are somewhere in between the "legal" and "illegal" options.

The poll is too vague; despite what solid pro-life and pro-choice people would like to believe, most people are somewhere in between the "legal" and "illegal" options.

...Doesn't that make the poll not vague enough?

let me just run on the purely political angle for a minute...

liberals say legal as a matter of personal freedom, pursuit of happiness, blablabla...

conservatives SAY that government should stay out of your business, but that abortion must be regulated to death (illegal). If they followed their own dogma, they would also support its legality.

lets review, government must stay out of your business, but it can regulate what goes on with your reproductive areas all they want.

mmmm, nothing like the smell of BS and hypocracy in teh morning.

It should be legal.
Most of the pregnancy, there's only one organism in question: the mother. Her interests should be preserved above all. When the fetus becomes a separte organism, then it should remain an option for health reasons.

The poll is too vague; despite what solid pro-life and pro-choice people would like to believe, most people are somewhere in between the "legal" and "illegal" options.
Not really... I mean, it's either legal or illegal. It can be legal with restrictions (like drinking alcohol) but still legal.

Well, no. One can be against abortion, but in favour of pro-choice.

It is my understanding that pro-abortion is in favour of the legalisation of abortion and anti-abortion is in favour of the criminalisation of abortion.

Whether or not you would choose to have an abortion is another issue, a decision that should be subject to individual judgement and not national mandate.

93,
Castrensis

let me just run on the purely political angle for a minute...

liberals say legal as a matter of personal freedom, pursuit of happiness, blablabla...

conservatives SAY that government should stay out of your business, but that abortion must be regulated to death (illegal). If they followed their own dogma, they would also support its legality.

lets review, government must stay out of your business, but it can regulate what goes on with your reproductive areas all they want.

mmmm, nothing like the smell of BS and hypocracy in teh morning.
Conservatives believe that abortion is an infringement on the fetus's right to life. That's their point of view, and there's nothing hypocritical about that. If they believe that a certain act is an infringement on a person's basic right, then it has nothing to do with goverment intervention in people's lives in their minds, but with protecting fundamental freedoms.

No stem cell research should not be allowed; it is morally wrong to interfere with nature.
So if you get cancer, you should be allowed to die without any treatment whatsoever because it's morally wrong to interefere with nature? No chemo for you...

let me just run on the purely political angle for a minute...

liberals say legal as a matter of personal freedom, pursuit of happiness, blablabla...

conservatives SAY that government should stay out of your business, but that abortion must be regulated to death (illegal). If they followed their own dogma, they would also support its legality.

lets review, government must stay out of your business, but it can regulate what goes on with your reproductive areas all they want.

mmmm, nothing like the smell of BS and hypocracy in teh morning.

But we believe that life begins at conception, thus making abortion murder which infringes on the rights of an innocent unborn child.

Not really... I mean, it's either legal or illegal. It can be legal with restrictions (like drinking alcohol) but still legal.
But it's not legal or illegal. Many believe it should be legal in certain circumstances, illegal in others.

It is my understanding that pro-abortion is in favour of the legalisation of abortion and anti-abortion is in favour of the criminalisation of abortion.
Not really. I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice. I believe that women should have access to all the education and contraceptives necessary to prevent an undesired pregnancy, but should a woman find herself pregnant, she should have the right to choose what to do.

In an ideal situation, there wouldn't be any unwanted pregnancies or health issues, thus no abortions.

But it's not legal or illegal. Many believe it should be legal in certain circumstances, illegal in others.
In which case it's legal with some restrictions.

Like alcohol. It's legal, but it's not legal to drink out on the street.

So if you get cancer, you should be allowed to die without any treatment whatsoever because it's morally wrong to interefere with nature? No chemo for you...

Illnesses are afflictions of Satan; however how we cure them is where morality and ethics enters the equation. All I know is that we sure do whatever we can to save human lives as long as we don't step outside of moral and ethical boundaries.

But we believe that life begins at conception, thus making abortion murder which infringes on the rights of an innocent unborn child.
Good thing your belief has no basis in reality so you don't have the right to force others to agree with you.

In which case it's legal with some restrictions.

Like alcohol. It's legal, but it's not legal to drink out on the street.
My whole point is that abortion has a lot more shades of grey than alcohol consumption; should it be legal due to rape, health problems, under any circumstances, up to only a certain trimester, only to save a mother's life, if there is a problem in fetal development, etc. To put all of those points of view under the "legal" option would only leave a few extreme anti-abortion people under the "illegal" option, who believe it should be legal in all circumstances.

Illnesses are afflictions of Satan; however how we cure them is where morality and ethics enters the equation. All I know is that we sure do whatever we can to save human lives as long as we don't step outside of moral and ethical boundaries.
But wait, you just said that it's unethical to interfere with nature. Now you're changing your tune?

Also, I dont' consider it immoral to use stem cell research. It's really better to use them than to dispose them as medical waste.

Also, illnesses aren't afflictions of Satan, most of them are bacterial or viral in nature...

Illnesses are afflictions of Satan; however how we cure them is where morality and ethics enters the equation. All I know is that we sure do whatever we can to save human lives as long as we don't step outside of moral and ethical boundaries.

So my chickenpox when I was young was just satan having some shits and giggles? THAT BASTARD!

Individual life begins with conception by the union of the couple's sex cells or gametes. The 23 chromosomes of the paternal sperm (male pronucleus) fuses with the 23 chromosomes of the maternal oocyte (egg or female pronucleus) at fertilization to create a single cell embryo or zygote containing 46 chromosomes. The fertilization process takes about 24 hours.
The new human zygote has the inherent capacity or potential to become a fully rational and cognizant person.

Each one represents a unique, irreplaceable, never-to-be-reduplicated human being.

So my chickenpox when I was young was just satan having some shits and giggles? THAT BASTARD!

Believe what you will.

Good thing your belief has no basis in reality so you don't have the right to force others to agree with you.
That argument could be flipped to disfavor the pro-choice side; the argument that an organism that grows into a human being is not alive when it is conceived could be said as not having a basis in reality as well.

So, you want infantcide legalised?

Uh... even though I'm pro-choice, I have to say that to all people who support abortion after birth... are just as nuts as the pro-lifers!For newborn infants. What would the difference be between killing a fetus just before birth and killing a newborn baby? Not much. How "wrong" killing someone or something, to me is, depends on how much of a personality that someone has developed; basically, how much experience that person has collected, processed, and stored the results of. A newborn, while alive and capable of thinking and feeling, has yet to collect much experience, and yet to develop an identity and personality.

Individual life begins with conception by the union of the couple's sex cells or gametes. The 23 chromosomes of the paternal sperm (male pronucleus) fuses with the 23 chromosomes of the maternal oocyte (egg or female pronucleus) at fertilization to create a single cell embryo or zygote containing 46 chromosomes. The fertilization process takes about 24 hours.
The new human zygote has the inherent capacity or potential to become a fully rational and cognizant person.

Each one represents a unique, irreplaceable, never-to-be-reduplicated human being.
:rolleyes:
I have the potential to be a straight A student, that doesn't make me so. There is a huge difference between potential and reality.

And really, the fetus isn't an individual life until it fits the requirements for life. The last one it is capable of is stimulus response, which doesn't happen as an organism until the 20th week.

conservatives SAY that government should stay out of your business, but that abortion must be regulated to death (illegal). If they followed their own dogma, they would also support its legality.Those aren't really conservatives. They're Christofascists wearing conservative's clothing.

But we believe that life begins at conception, thus making abortion murder which infringes on the rights of an innocent unborn child.Well, since you can't scientifically or legally prove it, you're welcome to believe it as a personal philosophy but not force your personal beliefs on others.

That argument could be flipped to disfavor the pro-choice side; the argument that an organism that grows into a human being is not alive when it is conceived could be said as not having a basis in reality as well.
Except you know, the biology behind it. Furthermore, no pro-choice person is forcing a woman to have an abortion.

Believe what you will.

I believe that if satan exists, and that's a big if it has better things to do then giving people the flu, or a cold. I mean seriously that shit would be tedious as hell with how many people are on earth screw doing that.

*gets popcorn*

Got mine already.

:rolleyes:
I have the potential to be a straight A student, that doesn't make me so. There is a huge difference between potential and reality.

Not being a straight A student is your choice, we cannot choose however how fast physical development occurs.

Believe what you will.
No, I believe he was repeating what you said.


Get out of the middle ages, seriously, disease isn't casued by Satan or any other supernatural boogyman.

Not being a straight A student is your choice, we cannot choose however how fast physical development occurs.
Choice or not doesn't matter in this case, the fact of the matter is that potential is not the same as actual. If I destroy 100 acorns, I didn't just clearcut a forest.

Also, way to ignore the facts I posted because they were inconvenient...

Why else would such pain and suffering be inflicted?

Except you know, the biology behind it.
The only biological information available is posted above by The State of Georgia:
Individual life begins with conception by the union of the couple's sex cells or gametes. The 23 chromosomes of the paternal sperm (male pronucleus) fuses with the 23 chromosomes of the maternal oocyte (egg or female pronucleus) at fertilization to create a single cell embryo or zygote containing 46 chromosomes. The fertilization process takes about 24 hours.
The new human zygote has the inherent capacity or potential to become a fully rational and cognizant person.
No matter what your belief is about when something fulfills the requirements to be "alive" enough to warrant protection, the zygote is physically alive. You didn't grow from a zygote. You were a zygote. Therefore, conservatives are justified in their point of view that the unborn child should be protected, because it is their conviction that all life, even unintelligent, pre-developed life, should be guaranteed a right to live. Whether or not you agree with this stance is what the matter of debate should be about.

Why else would such pain and suffering be inflicted?

Do you consider natural disasters the work of satan as well?

Choice or not doesn't matter in this case, the fact of the matter is that potential is not the same as actual. If I destroy 100 acorns, I didn't just clearcut a forest.

Also, way to ignore the facts I posted because they were inconvenient...

Those acorns aren't growing, like an unborn human baby.

Do you consider natural disasters the work of satan as well?

Start a new thread.

I believe that if satan exists, and that's a big if it has better things to do then giving people the flu, or a cold. I mean seriously that shit would be tedious as hell with how many people are on earth screw doing that.Ya know, there could be a Dept. of Flu in the Division of Infliction of Diseases within Hell. And I bet it's staffed by all those evil bureaucratic file clerks that would never sign my financial aid applications because I needed yet another form filled out in triplicate. :D

illegal
living thing, means it's murder

i understand why it's done.. but it's your dumbass fault if you need to get one
live with the choices you make.. take what happens..

Ya know, there could be a Dept. of Flu in the Division of Infliction of Diseases within Hell. And I bet it's staffed by all those evil bureaucratic file clerks that would never sign my financial aid applications because I needed yet another form filled out in triplicate. :D

So that's where the inspiration for Office Space came from! :eek:

If a woman is raped, execute the murderer, not the innocent 'by-creation'. No stem cell research should not be allowed; it is morally wrong to interfere with nature.



OK, now you've managed to piss me off. Was it God's plan that I was born disabled? Was it also God's plan that you're an asshat? If stem cell research can save a child from having to go through what I have because of "God's plan", then I for one support it fully.

Go away now, troll. You've ceased to be amusing.

Legal, as long as the fetus is not harmed in any way shape or form and only 3 months into the pregnancy. There should also be a penalty after a woman has an abortion ,like a monthe or two in prison and 1000 dollar fine.:sniper::gundge:

Jill Stanek's Testimony:
www.JillStanek.com

In 1999, my life and life's work were forever changed in the span of 45 minutes. During that time, I held a live aborted baby until he died. I was a labor and delivery nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Unbeknownst to me, the hospital was and is involved in a method of abortion that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive. The baby boy I held had been aborted alive at the gestational age of 21 weeks because he had Down syndrome. His parents did not want to hold him, and his attending nurse did not have time to hold him, so she was taking him to the Soiled Utility Room to die alone. But I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone, so I cradled and rocked him for the short time he lived.

The only biological information available is posted above by The State of Georgia:
Not really...

No matter what your belief is about when something fulfills the requirements for life that is "alive" enough to warrant protection, the zygote is alive. You didn't grow from a zygote. You werea zygote. Therefore, conservatives are justified in their point of view that the unborn child should be protected, because it is their conviction that all life, even unintelligent, pre-developed life, should be guaranteed a right to life. Whether or not you agree with this stance is what the matter of debate should be about.
1. Don't try to make this personal, I was a planned pregnancy, I really wish you people would stop playing that card.
2. There are scientific definitions of what constitutes life, the zygote does not fit the definition for an organism, therefore it is not a life, it is a collection of cells.
3. Cows are more intelligent and sentient than a zygote, yet nobody cares how much they suffer, your argument that conservatives care about every life no matter how unintelligent is therefore silly. Unless by life, you meant human life, in which case the people on death row are much more sentient than a zygote and obviously the conservatives want them dead.
4. If you consider a zygote to be a life, then my arm is also a life, my stomach is a life, I am composed of thousands of lives.

Not really. I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice. I believe that women should have access to all the education and contraceptives necessary to prevent an undesired pregnancy, but should a woman find herself pregnant, she should have the right to choose what to do.

You're confusing matters. The issue is the legal status of abortion. Each person who has an opinion has established their stance. This is the issue that effects the entire populace, your personal feelings may determine your stance but are of little importance when considering the impact on others.

Fortunately I only care about what you do as it affects me, and with attention to this issue only your stance on legalisation is of concern.

Go away now, troll. You've ceased to be amusing.

Is that how you would treat an unborn baby as well?

conservatives are justified in their point of view that the unborn child should be protected, because it is their conviction that all life, even unintelligent, pre-developed life, should be guaranteed a right to live. Well, that is until it's born, then it's on its own, right? Because conservatives really can't be bothered to fund social programs of any kind.

Jill Stanek's Testimony:
www.JillStanek.com

In 1999, my life and life's work were forever changed in the span of 45 minutes. During that time, I held a live aborted baby until he died. I was a labor and delivery nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Unbeknownst to me, the hospital was and is involved in a method of abortion that sometimes results in babies being aborted alive. The baby boy I held had been aborted alive at the gestational age of 21 weeks because he had Down syndrome. His parents did not want to hold him, and his attending nurse did not have time to hold him, so she was taking him to the Soiled Utility Room to die alone. But I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone, so I cradled and rocked him for the short time he lived.
Aborted at 21 weeks, did you conveniently ignore the part where I pointed out that it doesnt' become a life, an organism until around 20 weeks? Or are you just being dense?

I see abortion simply as this: Keep it safe, keep it legal, and keep it rare. I fully believe a woman has the right to choose, but I also think that we need to encourage adoption as an option.

Is that how you would treat an unborn baby as well?
It's not a baby until it leaves the womb alive. And fetuses don't troll on message boards, so obviously that's not how we'd treat a fetus.

For newborn infants. What would the difference be between killing a fetus just before birth and killing a newborn baby? Not much. How "wrong" killing someone or something, to me is, depends on how much of a personality that someone has developed; basically, how much experience that person has collected, processed, and stored the results of. A newborn, while alive and capable of thinking and feeling, has yet to collect much experience, and yet to develop an identity and personality.
any infant that would have qualified for a 39th or 40th week abortion would be so completely handicapped that it would be made as comfortable as possible while it completed the process of dying.

no one aborts a healthy 39 week fetus.

Those acorns aren't growing, like an unborn human baby.
Fine, I plant a bunch of acorns in the ground, make sure they're growing and then pour gasoline on the lot of them and destroy them that way. Did I just destroy a forest?

By the way, thanks for missing the point.

Aborted at 21 weeks, did you conveniently ignore the part where I pointed out that it doesnt' become a life, an organism until around 20 weeks? Or are you just being dense?

I wasn't responding to you, I was posting first hand emotional testimony.

illegal
living thing, means it's murder

i understand why it's done.. but it's your dumbass fault if you need to get one
live with the choices you make.. take what happens..
Ah, the baby as a way to punish the sluts argument. How wonderful.

I wasn't responding to you, I was posting first hand emotional testimony.

So appeal to emotion fallacy basically?

Fine, I plant a bunch of acorns in the ground, make sure they're growing and then pour gasoline on the lot of them and destroy them that way. Did I just destroy a forest?

By the way, thanks for missing the point.

You destroyed 100 growing trees; no crime there.

I wasn't responding to you, I was posting first hand emotional testimony.
Emotional arguments is all you people have, isn't it? And your religous doctrine...

You do know that the church used to allow abortions up to 40 weeks, right? Until it became safe for the woman to obtain one.

You destroyed 100 growing trees; no crime there.
I didn't say anything about a crime. I asked if it was the same as destroying an entire forest. Stop avoiding the answer just because you can't counter it properly and it destroys your "argument" from potential.

Which church was that?

I am composed of thousands of lives.

Actually, you're estimated at about 100 trillion (100,000,000,000,000)

Not really...


1. Don't try to make this personal, I was a planned pregnancy, I really wish you people would stop playing that card.
2. There are scientific definitions of what constitutes life, the zygote does not fit the definition for an organism, therefore it is not a life, it is a collection of cells.
3. Cows are more intelligent and sentient than a zygote, yet nobody cares how much they suffer, your argument that conservatives care about every life no matter how unintelligent is therefore silly. Unless by life, you meant human life, in which case the people on death row are much more sentient than a zygote and obviously the conservatives want them dead.
4. If you consider a zygote to be a life, then my arm is also a life, my stomach is a life, I am composed of thousands of lives.
1. How in the hell did I make anything personal? And for the record, I resent being lumped under your undefined umbrella of "you people." If you meant by that unnecessarily defensive statement conservatives, it might surprise you that I'm not conservative. I just understand their point of view and am tired of seeing it skewed to fit the standards of a ludicrous debate.
2. A collection of cells is a life. What do you think a fully-developed human being is? Whether or not it's sentient and deserves protection is the debate here.
3. A conservative would say that a fetus is not guilty of any crime; in fact they are completely innocent of any wrong-doing, so the two issues are completely unrelated. For the record, I'm against the death penalty.
4. Your stomach and your arm are not individual human lives.

Again, this is all done in favor of making a logical debate. There's no doubt that a fetus, zygote, whatever, is alive. The issue is whether or not it deserves protection, or at what time or under what circumstances.

You destroyed 100 growing trees.

Does three words less make it simpler for you?

Emotional arguments is all you people have, isn't it? And your religous doctrine...

You do know that the church used to allow abortions up to 40 weeks, right? Until it became safe for the woman to obtain one.

Wasn't it up to the quickening?

Which church was that?
To my knowledge all of them. They didn't believe the soul entered the fetus until the 40th day.
Although some of them allowed abortions until quickening began.

Wasn't it up to the quickening?
It varied as far as I know.... but yeah that too.

Actually, you're estimated at about 100 trillion (100,000,000,000,000)
Even better. Aren't I special? :D

Illegal in all cases.

Life clearly begins at conception.
Life clearly begins at nine o'clock Monday morning.

To my knowledge all of them.

I wouldn't trust your knowledge, it's less reliable than my 'emotional testimony' or 'religious doctrine'.

2. A collection of cells is a life.

It's not always a single organism.

4. Your stomach and your arm are not individual human lives.

They're collections of cells.

There's no doubt that a fetus, zygote, whatever, is alive.

Actually, there is. It's not an organism at the time of most abortions

Do you think abortion should be legal or illegal?
Why don't you ask the person whose life you'd be depriving of? If you all knew your mother would have had an abortion if it was legal (YOU would have been the victum), would your veiws still be the same?

Why don't you ask the person whose life you'd be depriving of? If you all knew your mother would have had an abortion if it was legal (YOU would have been the victum), would your veiws still be the same?
I would have fought back... with a vengeance!

Ah, the baby as a way to punish the sluts argument. How wonderful.

indeed.. it's their stupidity.. live with it

It's not always a single organism.



They're collections of cells.



Actually, there is. It's not an organism at the time of most abortions
I'd love to hear this scientific definition of organism, as it has mentioned over and over again yet never stated.

And for the record, an arm or a leg is different than a "clump of cells" who make up the existence of an entire being.

Why don't you ask the person whose life you'd be depriving of? If you all knew your mother would have had an abortion if it was legal (YOU would have been the victum), would your veiws still be the same?
Absolutely the same.

1. How in the hell did I make anything personal? And for the record, I resent being lumped under your undefined umbrella of "you people." If you meant by that unnecessarily defensive statement conservatives, it might surprise you that I'm not conservative. I just understand their point of view and am tired of seeing it skewed to fit the standards of a ludicrous debate.
2. A collection of cells is a life. What do you think a fully-developed human being is? Whether or not it's sentient and deserves protection is the debate here.
3. A conservative would say that a fetus is not guilty of any crime; in fact they are completely innocent of any wrong-doing, so the two issues are completely unrelated. For the record, I'm against the death penalty.
4. Your stomach and your arm are not individual human lives.

Again, this is all done in favor of making a logical debate. There's no doubt that a fetus, zygote, whatever, is alive. The issue is whether or not it deserves protection, or at what time or under what circumstances.
1. You made it personal by mentioning that I was a zygote. I apologize for the rest.
2. A fully developed human being is a life because the collection of cells act together as one organism. The fetus does not do that until it can preform stimulus response as an organism around the 20th week.
3. If every life is so valuable, then the life of a criminal should obviously be valuable as well. Innocence or guilt are irrelevant to that particular argument.
4. By the definition of life that makes a zygote a human being, my stomach and my arms are individual human lives.

Yes, I know they're alive, but that doesn't make them a life there is quite a difference between the two. We obliterate single celled organisms all the time in the name of keeping ourselves healthy. Why should a collection of single cells be so important simply because they have human DNA, moreover, why should they override the well-established and agreed upon life of a woman? Many conservatives seem to be in favour of devaluing the life of the woman while elevating the "life" of the embryo.

Why don't you ask the person whose life you'd be depriving of? If you all knew your mother would have had an abortion if it was legal (YOU would have been the victum), would your veiws still be the same?

Of course not. If my mother had had an abortion, I would not have had existed - and as such never been able to formulate a view.

Which of course is the whole point. The fetus or embryo doesn't give a fuck if it is aborted or not. The ones who do are the mother and you - a stranger.

Guess who I think has more right to make the decision ?

indeed.. it's their stupidity.. live with it
How about "nobody died and made you dictator of human behaviour, live with it."

If you're looking for stupidity, have a glance in the mirror. And yes, that argument was about as grown up as yours.

Is that how you would treat an unborn baby as well?


How dare you? Who the hell do you think you are? Address my post, don't take something out of context and attack me for a position I didn't take. Go ahead, troll. Answer me. Was my disablity "an act of natire"? was it "God's will"? Should we just let children born with defects die so that "nature can take its course"? You claim to be a doctor, do you not follow the Hippocratic Oath?

I'd love to hear this scientific definition of organism, as it has mentioned over and over again yet never stated.

Sorry, assumed you'd done the whole "high school biology" thing.

1. Organization - Living things are composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
2. Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
3. Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
4. Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
5. Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
6. Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.


And for the record, an arm or a leg is different than a "clump of cells" who make up the existence of an entire being.

What if you cut off the arm? Then it's an entire being by itself.

Why don't you ask the person whose life you'd be depriving of? If you all knew your mother would have had an abortion if it was legal (YOU would have been the victum), would your veiws still be the same?
My mother wouldn't have aborted me. I was planned. Making this personal is a terrible tactic and detracts from debate.

2. A collection of cells is a life. What do you think a fully-developed human being is? Whether or not it's sentient and deserves protection is the debate here. A collection of cells may be living, but it is not a life--until it meets the criteria for an independently functioning organism. A fully-developed human being is one that meets all such criteria and evinces characteristics of homo sapiens. Frankly, that doesn't happen until very close to birth.

4. Your stomach and your arm are not individual human lives.And neither is the zygote. It does not and cannot exist independently of its host organ, the uterus.

There's no doubt that a fetus, zygote, whatever, is alive. The issue is whether or not it deserves protection, or at what time or under what circumstances.You continually confuse "alive" with "a [human] life." Human papilloma virus is "alive", but it is not "a life." Basal cell carcinoma is a collection of cells and is "alive". Is it a life deserving of protection?

"Reproductive rights" and the idea of a child not being a human until birth are two things that liberals use in support of abortion. But it really does not matter when an unborn child becomes a person, because the fact remains that feminists and liberals simply use that argument to justify something that is, regardless, inherently wrong: abortion.

Abortion was, is, and always will be illegal. You cannot "legalize" abortion because law that contradicts God's Law is not bad law, but is not law at all. God's Law dictates that you may not murder, and murder is defined as the taking of innocent life. Killing a guilty person with due process of law is fine, but it's impossible for an unborn child to do something warranting the death penalty because he is stuck in his mother's womb.

Abortions were used by the racist Margaret Sanger to exterminate black people. She purposefully placed many Planned Parenthood clinics in poorer neighborhoods so that they would be encouraged not to procreate.

Feminists just want the "right" to an abortion so that they can have sex all day with the abomination of birth control, and then if that birth control fails they can just go murder their child.

And then there's rape/incest. Let it simply be said that the child, being the most innocent among us, should not be punished by death for crimes of his mother or father, be they rapists, whores, or whatnot.

Or there's even the idea of using abortion to eliminate people for overpopulation or because they would be born into poverty. Now let us realize the truth, that this is Nazi-esque. The Nazis murdered people whom they thought had "meaningless lives" -- which meant people in wheelchairs (so my sister would be dead in Nazi Germany), people who might be braindead (so Terry Schiavo would've been murdered in Nazi Germany -- oh wait she was murdered!)... or unborn children who might possibly not have a pleasant life. Is that justification for death? I don't think so. God is always with us if you accept Him into your heart, and no amount of suffering can take Him away -- unless an abortionist decides to kill you.

Yes, I know they're alive, but that doesn't make them a life there is quite a difference between the two. We obliterate single celled organisms all the time in the name of keeping ourselves healthy. Why should a collection of single cells be so important simply because they have human DNA, moreover, why should they override the well-established and agreed upon life of a woman? Many conservatives seem to be in favour of devaluing the life of the woman while elevating the "life" of the embryo.
And that's just what I was getting at. Let's debate about whether or not it's a life worthy of protection, if it's a human being, not whether or not it's truly alive. That much is clear, but the shades of grey are the real issues here.

"Reproductive rights" and the idea of a child not being a human until birth are two things that liberals use in support of abortion. But it really does not matter when an unborn child becomes a person, because the fact remains that feminists and liberals simply use that argument to justify something that is, regardless, inherently wrong: abortion.

Abortion was, is, and always will be illegal. You cannot "legalize" abortion because law that contradicts God's Law is not bad law, but is not law at all. God's Law dictates that you may not murder, and murder is defined as the taking of innocent life. Killing a guilty person with due process of law is fine, but it's impossible for an unborn child to do something warranting the death penalty because he is stuck in his mother's womb.

Abortions were used by the racist Margaret Sanger to exterminate black people. She purposefully placed many Planned Parenthood clinics in poorer neighborhoods so that they would be encouraged not to procreate.

Feminists just want the "right" to an abortion so that they can have sex all day with the abomination of birth control, and then if that birth control fails they can just go murder their child.

And then there's rape/incest. Let it simply be said that the child, being the most innocent among us, should not be punished by death for crimes of his mother or father, be they rapists, whores, or whatnot.

Or there's even the idea of using abortion to eliminate people for overpopulation or because they would be born into poverty. Now let us realize the truth, that this is Nazi-esque. The Nazis murdered people whom they thought had "meaningless lives" -- which meant people in wheelchairs (so my sister would be dead in Nazi Germany), people who might be braindead (so Terry Schiavo would've been murdered in Nazi Germany -- oh wait she was murdered!)... or unborn children who might possibly not have a pleasant life. Is that justification for death? I don't think so. God is always with us if you accept Him into your heart, and no amount of suffering can take Him away -- unless an abortionist decides to kill you.
Are you a crazy person?

Abortion was, is, and always will be illegal. You cannot "legalize" abortion because law that contradicts God's Law is not bad law, but is not law at all. God's Law dictates that you may not murder, and murder is defined as the taking of innocent life. Killing a guilty person with due process of law is fine, but it's impossible for an unborn child to do something warranting the death penalty because he is stuck in his mother's womb.

Wrong. If the mother had a partner but was made pregnant through rape while within a city, she is to be put to death according to Deuteronomy. This would automatically also kill the unborn child, and the Bible does not object to this.

"Reproductive rights" and the idea of a child not being a human until birth are two things that liberals use in support of abortion. But it really does not matter when an unborn child becomes a person, because the fact remains that feminists and liberals simply use that argument to justify something that is, regardless, inherently wrong: abortion.

Abortion was, is, and always will be illegal. You cannot "legalize" abortion because law that contradicts God's Law is not bad law, but is not law at all. God's Law dictates that you may not murder, and murder is defined as the taking of innocent life. Killing a guilty person with due process of law is fine, but it's impossible for an unborn child to do something warranting the death penalty because he is stuck in his mother's womb.

Abortions were used by the racist Margaret Sanger to exterminate black people. She purposefully placed many Planned Parenthood clinics in poorer neighborhoods so that they would be encouraged not to procreate.

Feminists just want the "right" to an abortion so that they can have sex all day with the abomination of birth control, and then if that birth control fails they can just go murder their child.

And then there's rape/incest. Let it simply be said that the child, being the most innocent among us, should not be punished by death for crimes of his mother or father, be they rapists, whores, or whatnot.

Or there's even the idea of using abortion to eliminate people for overpopulation or because they would be born into poverty. Now let us realize the truth, that this is Nazi-esque. The Nazis murdered people whom they thought had "meaningless lives" -- which meant people in wheelchairs (so my sister would be dead in Nazi Germany), people who might be braindead (so Terry Schiavo would've been murdered in Nazi Germany -- oh wait she was murdered!)... or unborn children who might possibly not have a pleasant life. Is that justification for death? I don't think so. God is always with us if you accept Him into your heart, and no amount of suffering can take Him away -- unless an abortionist decides to kill you.
However, there are secular laws outside of "God's Law", which has no bearing on secular governments.

Legal in Blue states. Compulsory in Red states.

You cannot "legalize" abortion because law that contradicts God's Law is not bad law, but is not law at all. God's Law dictates that you may not murder, and murder is defined as the taking of innocent life. Your god doesn't exist. And certainly doesn't have any say in my secular government.

And that's just what I was getting at. Let's debate about whether or not it's a life worthy of protection, if it's a human being, not whether or not it's truly alive. That much is clear, but the shades of grey are the real issues here.

Well why should anyone else besides the parents of the child be able to make that choice? I mean is it really anyone besides their concern if they chose to bring their child to term or not?

"Reproductive rights" and the idea of a child not being a human until birth are two things that liberals use in support of abortion. But it really does not matter when an unborn child becomes a person, because the fact remains that feminists and liberals simply use that argument to justify something that is, regardless, inherently wrong: abortion.
This paragraph just amuses me and makes me sad for the world at the same time.

Abortion was, is, and always will be illegal.
No, it's quite legal here.

You cannot "legalize" abortion because law that contradicts God's Law is not bad law, but is not law at all.
My god said she's cool with it.

God's Law dictates that you may not murder, and murder is defined as the taking of innocent life.
That's not the definition of murder.

Killing a guilty person with due process of law is fine, but it's impossible for an unborn child to do something warranting the death penalty because he is stuck in his mother's womb.
Funny, my god has issues with murdering people because other people think they commited a crime.

Abortions were used by the racist Margaret Sanger to exterminate black people. She purposefully placed many Planned Parenthood clinics in poorer neighborhoods so that they would be encouraged not to procreate.
I call bullshit.

Feminists just want the "right" to an abortion so that they can have sex all day with the abomination of birth control, and then if that birth control fails they can just go murder their child.
Ah, the "women are stupid sluts who can't be trusted to make their own decisions" argument rears its ugly head.

And then there's rape/incest. Let it simply be said that the child, being the most innocent among us, should not be punished by death for crimes of his mother or father, be they rapists, whores, or whatnot.
No, let's just punish the woman for suffering from a violent act.

Or there's even the idea of using abortion to eliminate people for overpopulation or because they would be born into poverty. Now let us realize the truth, that this is Nazi-esque. The Nazis murdered people whom they thought had "meaningless lives" -- which meant people in wheelchairs (so my sister would be dead in Nazi Germany), people who might be braindead (so Terry Schiavo would've been murdered in Nazi Germany -- oh wait she was murdered!)... or unborn children who might possibly not have a pleasant life. Is that justification for death? I don't think so. God is always with us if you accept Him into your heart, and no amount of suffering can take Him away -- unless an abortionist decides to kill you.
And now the Hitler comparisons. Awesome!

Well, your post had it all wrapped into one. The "god says so" argument, the "stupid slut" argument, the "protect the innocent" argument, the "pro-choice=racist nazi" argument. I think you don't need to post in this thread anymore since you said it all in one go. Anything else and you'd be repeating yourself.

How about "nobody died and made you dictator of human behaviour, live with it."

If you're looking for stupidity, have a glance in the mirror. And yes, that argument was about as grown up as yours.

indeed nobody did.. never said i was

i'm stating that if they're stupid enough to get pregnant without wanting to.. let them live with what that they deserve..

unless the person was raped, it should be illegal

And that's just what I was getting at. Let's debate about whether or not it's a life worthy of protection, if it's a human being, not whether or not it's truly alive. That much is clear, but the shades of grey are the real issues here.
Well, it's alive, but it's not a life, therefore it doesn't deserve to be treated as a life and it doesn't deserve protection. It certainly doesn't deserve to be treated better than the woman.

indeed nobody did.. never said i was

i'm stating that if they're stupid enough to get pregnant without wanting to.. let them live with what that they deserve..

Your love for the future child is heart warming. I assume you will also force the woman to take care of it against her will, making sure it has a happy life ?

indeed nobody did.. never said i was

i'm stating that if they're stupid enough to get pregnant without wanting to.. let them live with what that they deserve..

unless the person was raped, it should be illegalUntil birth control is freely available, idiot-proof and 100% effective, unexpected pregnancies will continue to occur.

Well why should anyone else besides the parents of the child be able to make that choice? I mean is it really anyone besides their concern if they chose to bring their child to term or not?
If one was to be under the impression that the child in the womb is a life worthy of protection, then it makes since that one would believe it the role of government to protect the fetus, even from its parents.

indeed nobody did.. never said i was

i'm stating that if they're stupid enough to get pregnant without wanting to.. let them live with what that they deserve..

unless the person was raped, it should be illegal
That's a fine opinion. You should talk it over with your church leaders while the rest of us sin until we see the light.

i'm stating that if they're stupid enough to get pregnant without wanting to.. let them live with what that they deserve..
So you want the stupid people to outbreed the intelligent ones?

unless the person was raped, it should be illegal
So it's only murder when the woman wanted to have sex. Good job. A true filthy whore argument if ever I heard one.

Also, what about cases where carrying a pregnancy to term would result in the death of the mother or crippling her for life? What if the fetus is too deformed to live in anything but excruciating pain for 5 minutes after it's born, having ripped its mother wide open because its skull has swollen to 50 cm in diameter?

These things happen too...

If one was to be under the impression that the child in the womb is a life worthy of protection, then it makes since that one would believe it the role of government to protect the fetus, even from its parents.

What right does the government have to go into the parents lives and tell them you have to have that child though?

If one was to be under the impression that the child in the womb is a life worthy of protection, then it makes since that one would believe it the role of government to protect the fetus, even from its parents.
I can't remember, does the government get to intervene when religious parents want to "heal" their children through prayer and put them in a hospital? If not, why on earth would the government get to intervene before they're actually children?

Do you think abortion should be legal or illegal?
I think that it should be the Mmother's choice, It's not anyone else's baby.

I can't remember, does the government get to intervene when religious parents want to "heal" their children through prayer and put them in a hospital? If not, why on earth would the government get to intervene before they're actually children?
The parents may be charged with neglect, a various serious offense indeed.

its just murder with a different name and legal

The parents may be charged with neglect, a various serious offense indeed.
Oh, well then that's good. It's important to keep children safe.


A fetus still isn't a child though, and I don't think the government should have the right to force a woman to act as a life support machine.

its just murder with a different name and legal
If it's legal, then it's not murder by definition.

If one was to be under the impression that the child in the womb is a life worthy of protection, then it makes since that one would believe it the role of government to protect the fetus, even from its parents.

Agreed. The issue now is how to ascribe value to that life - and that is where the opinions diverge. My own stance is that the value of someones life can in principle only be determined by one person: the person living it.

In the early stages of pregnancy however, the embryo/fetus is incapable of ascribing value to its life, since it is incapable of experiencing anything.
This means that the decision moves to the other person directly involved in this pregnancy - the woman whose body contains the embryo/fetus.

If it's legal, then it's not murder by definition.

Murder would still be wrong if it was legal

you're still taking away someone's life

im all for abortion unfortunately i clicked the wrong thing so u can take one off illegal and stick in on legal.

I believed the person who posted before me was referring to anorexia as a symptom of anorexia nervosa. Bill Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo incorrectly, do want to take away his MD as well? Cardiology is the internal medicine of the heart, transplantations and xeno transplantations are carried out by surgeons. I do not agree with these operations; I recommend to patients when is required but informing them of both physical risks and well as moral issues surrounding them.

And this is how I know you are lying: the physician is never to discuss the "morality" of a treatment option. That is the patient's arena. The physician deals with ethics, and I would want your MD stripped from you if you in any way attempt to influence a patient with your putrid sense of religion, violating their autonomy, as that is the hight of unethical behaviour.

And I'm not even mentioning how you have supported the genocide of gay people in that other thread. Shame on you.

Murder would still be wrong if it was legal

It wouldn't be murder if it was legal.

Murder would still be wrong if it was legal

you're still taking away someone's life
Look up the definition of murder and then get back to me.

And to get back on topic, if you read my earlier posts, you'll see that a fetus is not a life until the 20th week.

And I'm not even mentioning how you have supported the genocide of gay people in that other thread. Shame on you.
He advocated genocide while coming here proclaiming that life deserved to be protected? What a hypocrite.

*makes more popcorn*

The parents may be charged with neglect, a various serious offense indeed.Where you are, perhaps. But in the U.S., religious parents under freedoms granted by the First Amendment, are allowed to make health-care decisions that place their children's health in jeopardy and have many times led to death of the child.

If there is no compelling reason to interfere in those cases, the state's compelling reason to protect an undeveloped fetus is lacking as well.

He advocated genocide while coming here proclaiming that life deserved to be protected? What a hypocrite.

It is a troll, and all it says is to provoke - in that thread the procovation lay in supporting killing, so it supported killing. In this thread it seems to think provocation is calling women murderers, so in demanding the death of the women, it likes to claim to be "pro-life." In another thread it adopted religious racism to provoke.

An excellent candidate for the ignore list.

It is a troll, and all it says is to provoke - in that thread the procovation lay in supporting killing, so it supported killing. In this thread it seems to think provocation is calling women murderers, so in demanding the death of the women, it like to claim to be "pro-life."

An excellent candidate for the ignore list.
I forgot how to set people on ignore. I've only done it once and that person got banned shortly afterwards anyways...

I'd like to clarify two things:
(1) Abortion was not "legalized" by Roe v. Wade.
(2) Planned Parenthood is, and I am not BSing you, a fascist organization.

(1) The Constitution gives us a judicial system where the courts interpret the law. They cannot, however, make new law. In order for abortion to be "legalized," Congress would have to put up a bill saying that abortion is an inherent reproductive right of women. I would oppose this bill, but pro-abortionists should, instead of using the Roe v. Wade argument, support it. Roe v. Wade was merely an opinion and doesn't legalize anything -- the Courts do not make law.

(2) Margaret Sanger played a large part in founding Planned Parenthood. This quote is attributed to her: "[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Emphasis mine)

"The minister" turned out to Martin Luther King, Jr., by the way.

And another quote: "Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race." (Emphasis mine)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

Exterminating people in the hopes of creating a "cleaner race" is a Nazist act.

He advocated genocide while coming here proclaiming that life deserved to be protected? What a hypocrite.
Are you heteros really that afraid of our superiority? :)

I forgot how to set people on ignore. I've only done it once and that person got banned shortly afterwards anyways...

Profile -> Buddy/Ignore Lists.

I'd like to clarify two things:
(1) Abortion was not "legalized" by Roe v. Wade.
(2) Planned Parenthood is, and I am not BSing you, a fascist organization.


And how exactly are these things relevant to the debate ?
(and why do you not answer people when they comment on your posts ?)

And how exactly are these things relevant to the debate ?
(and why do you not answer people when they comment on your posts ?)
I was replying to one of the immediate replies after my last post. But the time it takes for me to write the post usually allows people to post a whole new page of replies.

It is relevant in that abortionists support Planned Parenthood -- they shouldn't -- and abortionists support Roe v. Wade, which didn't under the Constitution "legalize" abortion since it was just a court opinion and not a law.

I'd like to clarify two things:
(1) Abortion was not "legalized" by Roe v. Wade.
(2) Planned Parenthood is, and I am not BSing you, a fascist organization.

(1) The Constitution gives us a judicial system where the courts interpret the law. They cannot, however, make new law. In order for abortion to be "legalized," Congress would have to put up a bill saying that abortion is an inherent reproductive right of women. I would oppose this bill, but pro-abortionists should, instead of using the Roe v. Wade argument, support it. Roe v. Wade was merely an opinion and doesn't legalize anything -- the Courts do not make law.

Courts interpret the law. And the law in the US? The constitution. The role of SCOTUS? To decide what it says. So, there is indeed a law that legalises abortion - the US constitution.

Really, it's basic civics. Why I as a Swede know this better than you, who I assume is from the US, I have no explanation to.

Taken from
http://dictionary.com

Murder:The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

1To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.

yup, legal Murder

This subject is a slippery slope.
one of the 10 commandments says "Thou shalt not murder"
That is what abortion is- murder. No matter that the baby isn't born yet, isn't fully developed, it is still a life.
also, even if the doctors find something wrong with the baby, it still gives you no right to have an abortion.
Same thing with the chance that the mother could die- as long as there is a chance for the baby to live, do not kill it.

However, I shall not express my views for circumstances in which both the mother and the child would most likely die. I have already gone through a serious discussion with my friend's youth pastor over the whole abortion thing and he even considered that (^) a incredibly slippery slope.

I'd like to clarify two things:
(1) Abortion was not "legalized" by Roe v. Wade.
(2) Planned Parenthood is, and I am not BSing you, a fascist organization.
1. Not all of us are american so Roe v Wade doesn't mean anything to everyone here anyways.
2. You're not bullshitting me, you're just full of shit. If one person helps found something and they are a racist, it doesn't make it a racist organization.

yup, legal Murder

Which part of "unlawfully" do you not understand?

Courts interpret the law. And the law in the US? The constitution. The role of SCOTUS? To decide what it says. So, there is indeed a law that legalises abortion - the US constitution.

Really, it's basic civics. Why I as a Swede know this better than you, who I assume is from the US, I have no explanation to.
The SCOTUS does not decide what it says. It says what it says; read it. It's not in an alien language only understandable by liberal Supreme Court justices. Their job is to use their interpretation to make court opinions for each individual case -- but these opinions were not intended by the Founders to have any legislative power.

And to say that the Constitution is a law that legalises abortion is more absurd than anything that I've heard yet from a pro-abortion liberal.

I was replying to one of the immediate replies after my last post. But the time it takes for me to write the post usually allows people to post a whole new page of replies.

Fair enough. I would still like to know how you explain that the Bible seems to care considerably less (as in: not at all) about the life of the future child than you do.

It is relevant in that abortionists support Planned Parenthood -- they shouldn't -- and abortionists support Roe v. Wade, which didn't under the Constitution "legalize" abortion since it was just a court opinion and not a law.

But neither of these things says anything about abortion being good or bad.

Murder:The unlawful killing

Dumbass. It's the Unlawful killing. As in, NOT LEGAL killing. It has to be illegal to be murder.

This subject is a slippery slope.
one of the 10 commandments says "Thou shalt not murder"

Religion is, as always, irrelevant.

This subject is a slippery slope.
one of the 10 commandments says "Thou shalt not murder"
That is what abortion is- murder. No matter that the baby isn't born yet, isn't fully developed, it is still a life.
also, even if the doctors find something wrong with the baby, it still gives you no right to have an abortion.
1. Look up murder in the dictionary.
2. It's not a life.

Same thing with the chance that the mother could die- as long as there is a chance for the baby to live, do not kill it.
3. Yes, women are worthless and expendable. Make sure you include that in your mother's day card.

The SCOTUS does not decide what it says. It says what it says; read it. It's not in an alien language only understandable by liberal Supreme Court justices. Their job is to use their interpretation to make court opinions for each individual case -- but these opinions were not intended by the Founders to have any legislative power.

Wow, I guess you really do have no grasp of basic US civics, and stare decisis et non quieta movere.

And to say that the Constitution is a law that legalises abortion is more absurd than anything that I've heard yet from a pro-abortion liberal.

Read Roe vs. Wade. It clearly states that abortion is indeed protected by the US constitution. And that is the role of SCOTUS, to interpret what the constitution says, and they have interpreted.

Wow, I guess you really do have no grasp of basic US civics, and stare decisis.



Read Roe vs. Wade. It clearly states that abortion is indeed protected by the US constitution. And that is the role of SCOTUS, to interpret what the constitution says, and they have interpreted.
No, that's not what Roe v. Wade says. Roe v. Wade says that the Constitution protects abortion during the first trimester. Where they pulled that limitation out of anywhere but their own opinions is a mystery to me.

No, that's not what Roe v. Wade says. Roe v. Wade says that the Constitution protects abortion during the first trimester. Where they pulled that limitation out of anywhere but their own opinions is a mystery to me.

It should not remain one, if you truly read RvW.

The SCOTUS does not decide what it says.That's what "interpret the law" means. And that is the constitutionally assigned role of the courts.
It's not in an alien language only understandable by liberal Supreme Court justices. Their job is to use their interpretation to make court opinions for each individual case -- but these opinions were not intended by the Founders to have any legislative power.Legislation is not the only source of law in our system. Or are you forgetting about the common law which still applies to all situations that don't have specific legislation addressing them?
And to say that the Constitution is a law that legalises abortion is more absurd than anything that I've heard yet from a pro-abortion liberal.Here, let me help you think straight then. The Constitution, and especially the Amendments, secure certain rights to the states and to individuals. When SCOTUS strikes down a law, as they did in Roe v. Wade, they do so because that particular law violates those constitutionally secured rights in some way. See? No legislation involved. States could theoretically pass abortion legislation (and they have, they have) as long as such legislation doesn't violate the secured rights as outlined in the Constitution and noted in Roe v. Wade.

Simple, no?

Fair enough. I would still like to know how you explain that the Bible seems to care considerably less (as in: not at all) about the life of the future child than you do.
As you said yourself, this is irrelevant:
But neither of these things says anything about abortion being good or bad.

However I think it's okay to talk about things even if they're slightly off-topic. I've read that passage in the Bible, but I am not a fundamentalist. Certain words in the passage seem to suggest that it has a less-than-literal meaning. Also I need to spend more time on it comparing different translations of the passage to see if there are any discrepancies. But it's an entirely different discussion from the issue of abortion, so we'll leave it for another time.

Religion is, as always, irrelevant.
You ought to have more respect for people who feel otherwise. True tolerance, which is something most liberals don't have, requires that you tolerate intolerance. "Intolerance" in this context refers to religion, as my religion is (rightfully so) quite intolerant.

Wow, I guess you really do have no grasp of basic US civics.

Read Roe vs. Wade. It clearly states that abortion is indeed protected by the US constitution. And that is the role of SCOTUS, to interpret what the constitution says, and they have interpreted.
You think that I have no grasp of US civics, but this is wrong. I have a grasp of the US civics system that was originally instituted by the Founding Fathers. However, this system has been heavily distorted by the public school system. Whatever you think you know about US civics is probably wrong. But I don't blame you -- it's the doing of the US federal government, not yourself.

It should not remain one, if you truly read RvW.
As I understand it, yes, there are other shades of grey involved in the decision. Regardless, it still has no Constitutional basis. It's either that abortion falls under the right to privacy/general liberty, or that the fetus is protected by the right to life. Anything in between is an exerting of legislative power on the part of the court.

1. Look up murder in the dictionary.
2. It's not a life.


3. Yes, women are worthless and expendable. Make sure you include that in your mother's day card.

1. I don't care about the freaking definition
2. Yes, it is. Unborn or not.
3. I am a freaking woman you idiot.

You ought to have more respect for people who feel otherwise. True tolerance, which is something most liberals don't have, requires that you tolerate intolerance. "Intolerance" in this context refers to religion, as my religion is (rightfully so) quite intolerant.

Your religion has no place in law, or deciding anything in any other person's life. It is irrelevant, as are cries to it. No one but you is bound by your religion - it is by its very nature irrelevant to others.

You think that I have no grasp of US civics, but this is wrong. I have a grasp of the US civics system that was originally instituted by the Founding Fathers. However, this system has been heavily distorted by the public school system. Whatever you think you know about US civics is probably wrong. But I don't blame you -- it's the doing of the US federal government, not yourself.

So, now you're a psychic who says "I say they thought so, so that's the way it is." Sorry, bub, but that's not how this works.

However I think it's okay to talk about things even if they're slightly off-topic. I've read that passage in the Bible, but I am not a fundamentalist. Certain words in the passage seem to suggest that it has a less-than-literal meaning. Also I need to spend more time on it comparing different translations of the passage to see if there are any discrepancies. But it's an entirely different discussion from the issue of abortion, so we'll leave it for another time.

Actually I consider it highly relevant. Because it shows that God does not care if the fetus dies or not.

Which means:
1. God does not care if the embryo/fetus dies or not (Deuteronomy)
2. The embryo/early fetus itself does not care if it dies or not (it does not have that capacity in the first trimester)
3. The mother cares (she either wants an abortion or not)
4. Other people care (you, me, etc.)

I personally believe that person 3 has more right to decide than group 4.

1. I don't care about the freaking definition

*shrug* Cool...Now I don't have to care for your opinion

2. Yes, it is. Unborn or not.

Woohoo! Look at me not caring! *dances the don't-care jig*

3. I am a freaking woman you idiot.

Bwahaha! :D

3. I am a freaking woman you idiot.

A traitor to your own gender, who would see women degraded to incubators?

That's what "interpret the law" means. And that is the constitutionally assigned role of the courts.
You cannot interchange the two ideas of interpreting the law and knowing what the says. "Interpreting the law" refers more to deciding how the law ought to be applied in circumstances where what the law actually says is unclear. But it is not unclear what the Constitution says.

Here, let me help you think straight then. The Constitution, and especially the Amendments, secure certain rights to the states and to individuals. When SCOTUS strikes down a law, as they did in Roe v. Wade, they do so because that particular law violates those constitutionally secured rights in some way. See? No legislation involved. States could theoretically pass abortion legislation (and they have, they have) as long as such legislation doesn't violate the secured rights as outlined in the Constitution and noted in Roe v. Wade.
You're right, that the SCOTUS strikes down laws that violates particular rights, but you make the mistake of thinking that abortion is a constitutionally secured right. It was invented by the court. If the Constitution actually did protect the "right" to abortion, I would sympathize with you.

Should definetly be legal, o ya and while were at it lets legalize murder, robbery, etc. in case you couldn t tell that was sarcasm

ILLEGAL

Your religion has no place in law, or deciding anything in any other person's life. It is irrelevant, as are cries to it. No one but you is bound by your religion - it is by its very nature irrelevant to others.


My country was founded on religion. So it may have no place in Sweden, but it should have a place in the US. If we separate it, we are losing sight of what this country was first created to be.

Should definetly be legal, o ya and while were at it lets legalize murder, robbery, etc. in case you couldn t tell that was sarcasm

Oh, we totally see what you did there. Said something, but then, like, went, "no I didn't!"

Such rapier wit. :rolleyes:

Should definetly be legal, o ya and while were at it lets legalize murder, robbery, etc. in case you couldn t tell that was sarcasm

ILLEGAL
I couldn't really tell what that was in general.

A traitor to your own gender, who would see women degraded to incubators?
The true traitors to the female gender are the feminists, the whores, the sluts, etc. Real women ought to join Ladies Against Feminism (http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/) and advocate a return to the days of beautful womanhood rather than going for the undignified whore-house of abortion advocacy and other such feminist endeavors.

My country was founded on religion. So it may have no place in Sweden, but it should have a place in the US. If we separate it, we are losing sight of what this country was first created to be.

Actually...No. It was not founded on religion. So Fass' basic message of "screw you" to your religion still applies.

My country was founded on religion. So it may have no place in Sweden, but it should have a place in the US. If we separate it, we are losing sight of what this country was first created to be.

God is *indifferent* towards the death of embryos. Therefor religion is still irrelevant, regardless of how you falsify history.

My country was founded on religion. So it may have no place in Sweden, but it should have a place in the US. If we separate it, we are losing sight of what this country was first created to be.
Sigh...Do you want to be barraged with thousands of quotes from the founding fathers, Constitutional texts, Supreme Court decisions, etc.? It'd do you best to retract that fallicious statement.

A traitor to your own gender, who would see women degraded to incubators?

I see a woman who has an abortion as a ignorant, inconsiderate scoundrel that has no respect for herself.

I see a woman who has an abortion as a ignorant, inconsiderate scoundrel that has no respect for herself.

And I see you as the same. What exactly does this have to do with law?

I see a woman who has an abortion as a ignorant, inconsiderate scoundrel that has no respect for herself.
I see a person who voices your opinions as an ignorant, inconsiderate scoundrel who lacks even the most basic groundings in an education.

My country was founded on religion.

You know so little about the US? Heavens, the ignorance you show proof of with that comment.

So it may have no place in Sweden, but it should have a place in the US. If we separate it, we are losing sight of what this country was first created to be.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Yup, Jeffersson wrote that. You seem to have no idea what your country was "created to be."

The true traitors to the female gender are the feminists, the whores, the sluts, etc. Real women ought to join Ladies Against Feminism (http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/) and advocate a return to the days of beautful womanhood rather than going for the undignified whore-house of abortion advocacy and other such feminist endeavors.
So you'd rather not have the right to vote, get a job, and choose to live your life differently than what your husband wants? If you answered "no", you have the feminists to thank for your having the option to being able to say so.

And I see you as the same. What exactly does this have to do with law?

I apologize for getting of subject, but I refuse to take back what I said.

I see a woman who has an abortion as a ignorant, inconsiderate scoundrel that has no respect for herself.

On the contrary, she has more respect for herself as a woman than you seem to have.

The true traitors to the female gender are the feminists, the whores, the sluts, etc. Real women ought to join Ladies Against Feminism (http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/) and advocate a return to the days of beautful womanhood rather than going for the undignified whore-house of abortion advocacy and other such feminist endeavors.

You...


You jest...surely?

I apologize for getting of subject, but I refuse to take back what I said.

Eh, sure.

Sigh...Do you want to be barraged with thousands of quotes from the founding fathers, Constitutional texts, Supreme Court decisions, etc.? It'd do you best to retract that fallicious statement.
The lie is not coming from her. She was telling the truth. It's the public school system that has been waging the war against Christianity and religion in general by revising history to its liking. The Christians have not revised history by saying that America was Christian it the time of its founding -- it's the secularists who have erased that essential part of history in favor of a secular political agenda. The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, intent on creating a Christian country.

On the contrary, she has more respect for herself as a woman than you seem to have.

Maybe I should add coward? How can someone who runs away from birthing a new life have respect for herself? Pain?

*sets up kiddy pool to soak feet in*

The true traitors to the female gender are the feminists, the whores, the sluts, etc. Real women ought to join Ladies Against Feminism (http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/) and advocate a return to the days of beautful womanhood rather than going for the undignified whore-house of abortion advocacy and other such feminist endeavors.

Such delusion. No wonder you're religious.

If the Constitution actually did protect the "right" to abortion, I would sympathize with you.

"In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of ‘liberty' must be broad indeed." Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572. The Constitution nowhere mentions a specific right of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life, but the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights. [410 U.S. 113 Roe v. Wade]

The lie is not coming from her. She was telling the truth. It's the public school system that has been waging the war against Christianity and religion in general by revising history to its liking. The Christians have not revised history by saying that America was Christian it the time of its founding -- it's the secularists who have erased that essential part of history in favor of a secular political agenda. The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, intent on creating a Christian country.

Wow. And the republicans allowed this widespread conspiracy ?

*sets up kiddy pool to soak feet in*

Bwa? That's...odd...>_>

*eats nachos* It's a never-ending bowl...

Maybe I should add coward? How can someone who runs away from birthing a new life have respect for herself? Pain?

You have no respect for yourself as a woman at all if all you see of yourself is your uterus, reduce yourself to a glorified incubator. I'd like to believe you're more than that. Perhaps you shall mature enough to think so of yourself, as well, some day.

1. I don't care about the freaking definition
2. Yes, it is. Unborn or not.
3. I am a freaking woman you idiot.
1. Of course you don't care about the definition, you'll just use words inappropriately because they make your point sound more important and you sound more righteous.
2. No, it isn't biologically.
3. And you consider yourself expendable... wonderful what they'd get you to believe, isn't it?

Bwa? That's...odd...>_>

*eats nachos* It's a never-ending bowl...
*gets salsa*

The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, intent on creating a Christian country.

That is completely wrong. Most of the Founding Fathers believed in a god but that does not make them Christian or "intent on creating a Christian country".

The lie is not coming from her. She was telling the truth. It's the public school system that has been waging the war against Christianity and religion in general by revising history to its liking. The Christians have not revised history by saying that America was Christian it the time of its founding -- it's the secularists who have erased that essential part of history in favor of a secular political agenda. The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, intent on creating a Christian country.

Not only are you deficient in US civics, but you also know so little about these founding fathers whose thoughts you were just claiming to be able to read with your psychic abilities. Sad, if it weren't so hilariously ignorant.

The lie is not coming from her. She was telling the truth. It's the public school system that has been waging the war against Christianity and religion in general by revising history to its liking. The Christians have not revised history by saying that America was Christian it the time of its founding -- it's the secularists who have erased that essential part of history in favor of a secular political agenda. The Founding Fathers were, for the most part, intent on creating a Christian country.
I hope you're sarcastic, because your ignorance is astounding.

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072). -- John Adams

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury to my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Dumas Malon, Jefferson The President: First Term 1801-1805. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191) -- Thomas Jefferson

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." -- First Amendment to the Consitution of the United States

Maybe I should add coward? How can someone who runs away from birthing a new life have respect for herself? Pain?

Fine. that is *your* opinion.
Now please tell me why the mother in question should give a damn, when both God and the embryo itself do not.

You have no respect for yourself as a woman at all if all you see of yourself is your uterus, reduce yourself to a glorified incubator. I'd like to believe you're more than that. Perhaps you shall mature enough to think so of yourself, as well, some day.

That's not all I see of myself. If an incubator can save me or my baby, then let it. It may be glorified, but if it helps, it helps.

Wow. And the republicans allowed this widespread conspiracy ?
Yes. The Republicans are far more liberal than you think. Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.org/)

I see a person who voices your opinions as an ignorant, inconsiderate scoundrel who lacks even the most basic groundings in an education.
You were talking to a woman when you said that. I'm male, and to defend women I would slap you hard right now if you were in front of me. Chivalrous manhood requires that men protect women rather than ridicule them. Any women who has an abortion is highly undignified, and women who refuse to join the pro-choice movement are quite bold to defend their morality and dignity in a world of scoundrels like you.

The true traitors to the female gender are the feminists, the whores, the sluts, etc. Real women ought to join Ladies Against Feminism (http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/) and advocate a return to the days of beautful womanhood rather than going for the undignified whore-house of abortion advocacy and other such feminist endeavors.
Oh yes, we should be chained to the oven and not be allowed to hold opinions of our own. Men should be allowed to beat us and treat us as property. Our fathers should be allowed to sell us to our husbands. We don't have minds or thoughts of our own. The only thing we're good for is popping out offspring, that's right.

HOw about you're going on ignore.

You were talking to a woman when you said that. I'm male, and to defend women I would slap you hard right now if you were in front of me. Chivalrous manhood requires that men protect women rather than ridicule them.

So much for treating 'em as equals then...

That's not all I see of myself.

That's all you see of other women. That's all you'd like them reduced to. So, which is it, you do not view yourself as that, and are a hypocrite, or you do view yourself as that, in which case, you truly are in an even sadder state?

If an incubator can save me or my baby, then let it. It may be glorified, but if it helps, it helps.

You have no place in the uteri of other women. Barely even, it seems, in the one you define yourself by.

You were talking to a woman when you said that. I'm male, and to defend women I would slap you hard right now if you were in front of me. Chivalrous manhood requires that men protect women rather than ridicule them.

So, when you call women whores, you're not ridiculing them? :rolleyes:

Hypocrite, slap thyself.

You cannot interchange the two ideas of interpreting the law and knowing what the says. "Interpreting the law" refers more to deciding how the law ought to be applied in circumstances where what the law actually says is unclear. You create a false dichotomy. Judicial interpretation of the law includes determining what is meant by the language contained in the law. The courts are an equal branch to the legislature and executive, not a mere administrative body.

But it is not unclear what the Constitution says.That's the smartest thing you've said all day. Yes, the Constitution is quite clear on the rights that are retained by the individual and that those rights include the right to determine the course of their own pregnancy up to the point of viability (i.e., when the rights of the fetus then equal those of the mother).

You're right, that the SCOTUS strikes down laws that violates particular rights, but you make the mistake of thinking that abortion is a constitutionally secured right. It was invented by the court. If the Constitution actually did protect the "right" to abortion, I would sympathize with you.You've been getting your talking points from Rush, haven't you. This is the old, 'if the Constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it' argument. And it's fallacious. The Constitution doesn't have the word "speeding ticket" or "automobile" in it either, but laws concerning them have been deemed Constitutional. With nary a peep out of Conservatives or Christofascists either one.

You were talking to a woman when you said that. I'm male, and to defend women I would slap you hard right now if you were in front of me. Wheee! Note the violence inherent in the system. :cool:

Wheee! Note the violence inherent in the system. :cool:

Note how this man so filled with "chivalry" calls women whores. Should we slap him?

So, when you call women whores, you're not ridiculing them? :rolleyes:

Hypocrite, slap thyself.
I do it because when they sell themselves, they lose their womenhood. I'm not really ridiculing women; I'm ridiculing men who have female reproductive organs.

You've been getting your talking points from Rush, haven't you. This is the old, 'if the Constitution doesn't have the word abortion in it' argument. And it's fallacious. The Constitution doesn't have the word "speeding ticket" or "automobile" in it either, but laws concerning them have been deemed Constitutional. With nary a peep out of Conservatives or Christofascists either one.
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot. Laws concerning automobiles or speeding tickets are not constitutional. Why haven't I complained about them? Because abortion kills 4,000 children per day, but while automobiles do kill people, the legislation prevents it.

So much for treating 'em as equals then...
Equals? Women != Men. Just look at them; do they look the same to you? I hope not. They ought to be treated for who they are, not who you think they ought to be.

Oh yes, we should be chained to the oven and not be allowed to hold opinions of our own. Men should be allowed to beat us and treat us as property. Our fathers should be allowed to sell us to our husbands. We don't have minds or thoughts of our own. The only thing we're good for is popping out offspring, that's right.
No, that's disgusting. I'm not like that.

Note how this man so filled with "chivalry" calls women whores. Should we slap him?Slappage begins at 09:30. Line forms to the left. :)

Note how this man so filled with "chivalry" calls women whores. Should we slap him?
Most people aren't as hypocritical as you think. The source of all hypocrisy in the Universe is the United States Congress.

You were talking to a woman when you said that. I'm male, and to defend women I would slap you hard right now if you were in front of me. Chivalrous manhood requires that men protect women rather than ridicule them. Any women who has an abortion is highly undignified, and women who refuse to join the pro-choice movement are quite bold to defend their morality and dignity in a world of scoundrels like you.
You, my dear "gentleman", are all the more ignorant and foolish. You represent that aspect of the Middle Ages I happen to hate rather than long for. Go crawl back to that cave you call an abode.

I do it because when they sell themselves, they lose their womenhood. I'm not really ridiculing women; I'm ridiculing men who have female reproductive organs.

You keep telling yourself that, and we'll continue seeing you for the hypocrite that you are. "Chivalery," hah! Your ilk are a disgrace to manhood more than any woman you in your imbecile rants defile yourself with calling a whore are to anyone or anything. The wretchedness of your rhetoric speaks volumes about you, and nothing of these women who are your betters.

However, I shall not express my views for circumstances in which both the mother and the child would most likely die. I have already gone through a serious discussion with my friend's youth pastor over the whole abortion thing and he even considered that (^) a incredibly slippery slope.

this is a case where i am not against abortion. If the mothers life is threatened she has a right to life as well

Most people aren't as hypocritical as you think.

I wouldn't call your ilk people, but if I didn't, I'd be no better than you, which, of course, is no arduous task.

I do it because when they sell themselves, they lose their womenhood. I'm not really ridiculing women; I'm ridiculing men who have female reproductive organs.
So you're ridiculing women.

Equals? Women != Men. Just look at them; do they look the same to you? I hope not. They ought to be treated for who they are, not who you think they ought to be.
So of course men deserve more rights than women, thanks.

No, that's disgusting. I'm not like that.
That's what you want if you want to get rid of the progress of the feminist movement.

You, my dear "gentleman", are all the more ignorant and foolish. You represent that aspect of the Middle Ages I happen to hate rather than long for. Go crawl back to that cave you call an abode.
You hate it because, back then, people had a decent respect for women, and women had a decent respect for themselves. Today, that's all washed away and feminised and perverted.

Yes, the Constitution is quite clear on the rights that are retained by the individual and that those rights include the right to determine the course of their own pregnancy up to the point of viability (i.e., when the rights of the fetus then equal those of the mother).
No, the Constitution is not clear on the rights to end one's pregnancy. Where is it stated when "viability" is reached? What is the legal basis for determining when a fetus is "viable" and when it is not? Why does the right to privacy/liberty end at a certain point, and why does the right to life begin at a certain point? There are no Constitutional principles to support any of these points as addressed in Roe v. Wade and rulings thereafter.

You hate it because, back then, people had a decent respect for women, and women had a decent respect for themselves. Today, that's all washed away and feminised and perverted.
Had a decent respect for women? Locking them up in their homes, never to see the light of day is some form of respect? So, out of respect, may I incarcerate you on the charge that your mind is too fragile to frequent areas of public circulation?

You hate it because, back then, people had a decent respect for women, and women had a decent respect for themselves. Today, that's all washed away and feminised and perverted.
I have respect for myself and I have respect for other women and guess what...

I'm not married and I have sex on a regular basis! :shocked:

You sir, are the pervert.

Also, what you call respect I call oppression.