When Does Life Begin ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
AlphaNoN
Well-Known Member
I assume you're being sarcastic, but what do you really expect? A state makes abortion illegal and *poof* nobody has abortions any more? It's not that simple.
If you aren't being sarcastic.. well.. you're a monster. And I hope that others don't share your beliefs.
ccodiane
New Member
Shoulda coulda woulda.....you should have been banned.. months ago.. or at least aborted at birth...
PS- "at birth", huh......an Obamaite, no doubt.
ccodiane
New Member
ccodiane
New Member
Sorry Vi. I did it again............
Spitzered
Well-Known Member
Once the process begins only a natural death or the willful act of the human hand will stop it.
To pick and chose who deserves the willful act deems themselves superior in judgment.
But on the other hand some people are not capable of raising themselves much less a child. Maybe we could take the babies and send them to Obama youth camps to be raised as 'Obamabots'. (I think that place is called 'San Francisco'). That should mollify the libs. (Sorry couldn't resist a little dig there).
My real problem is the argument that the woman has the right to chose because it her body. Don't get caught smoking a joint, that 'your body' argument ceases to be relevant.
Am I mistaken or is that hypocrisy?
To pick and chose who deserves the willful act deems themselves superior in judgment.
But on the other hand some people are not capable of raising themselves much less a child. Maybe we could take the babies and send them to Obama youth camps to be raised as 'Obamabots'. (I think that place is called 'San Francisco'). That should mollify the libs. (Sorry couldn't resist a little dig there).
My real problem is the argument that the woman has the right to chose because it her body. Don't get caught smoking a joint, that 'your body' argument ceases to be relevant.
Am I mistaken or is that hypocrisy?
ZenMaster
Well-Known Member
I am pro responsibility.
If you fucked up, made a baby, you deal with it. Sorry if that little "inconvenience" gets in the way of your fun. A third of my generation is already dead due to abortions, just because soon-to-be mothers didn't want to deal with it. Oh the humanity..
If you fucked up, made a baby, you deal with it. Sorry if that little "inconvenience" gets in the way of your fun. A third of my generation is already dead due to abortions, just because soon-to-be mothers didn't want to deal with it. Oh the humanity..
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
It has everything to do with Roe v Wade, Although I personally am pro-life, many in the Religious Community use this argument to try and overture Roe v Wade.
Nice Try Vi.
Like I said I am Pro-life, but I also recognize that when Roe v Wade was decided, it made Federal Law, it is up to states to decide how far they want to scale back abortions.
I also think that when religious people get out in front of abortion clinics and protest it makes them look like asses and nuts and at the very least judgemental.
This is where they miss Christ teaching (Judge Not lest ye be judged)
Also there are people who are so misinformed and narrow minded that they take it to an extreme. (do abortion clinic Murders ring a bell?)
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Palin was for the Bridge to nowhere before she was against it..... Oh I get it, she's the Republican John Kerry
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
Hopefully she'll reap the same result as Kerry for her flip-flopping too. Even Republicans are getting uneasy about her being cloistered away from having to answer questions about her record and about policy. I mean, are people really confident that she could face down Putin when she can't even handle Wolf Blitzer?
So far, I'm not too impressed. She read a speech someone else wrote. Then she went on the stump, avoiding all questions, and repeated the same speech. She's just executing the programming that others have written for her. Where's the real Sarah Palin? I think that's what McCain is trying to hide, the real Sarah Palin, because she's so far from the mainstream.
All we know are the facts from the record:
* She was greatly for the Bridge to Nowhere, then against it, whichever way the political winds blew her. That shows a lack of morals. She'll take any stance if it advances her career, or brings taxpayer dollars to Alaska.
* She's for excluding all forms of birth-control education except for the demonstrably disastrous abstinence-only method.
* She's for criminalizing abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.
* She's a proponent of creationism.
* She doesn't believe humans have anything to do with global warming.
* She doesn't care about endangered species, even ignoring her own scientific and environmental advisers to try to push the helicopter shooting of wolves and polar bears.
* As mayor and as governor, she's feasted on earmarks, at the expense of the taxpayers in states other than her own.
* She's lied by omission. She'll happily tell you she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, but doesn't mention she was also for it. She'll tell you she put the private jet on ebay, but neglects to mention that it didn't sell, and she was forced to sell it at loss, with the taxpayers eating the loss. She says she's for reform, yet in the area of gouging the taxpayer with earmarks, her city and her state are the most egregious abusers in the country.
* She doesn't know what the job of VP is. And all she wanted to hear about was how being VP would help Alaska.
* Her husband was/is part of a secessionist group. She's attended their meetings, and seems on good terms with them.
* She has completed 0 terms as governor of any state.
* She's against medicinal marijuana, even though she was willing to try it herself when doing so was merely breaking federal law, not state law.
* She has no national security experience, even if Cindy McCain thinks that that kind of experience floats across seas and seeps spontaneously into her.
And that's about it. Well, now that I look at the list, I guess I see why McCain's keeping her as sequestered from questions as possible. If that's all come out *before* a public vetting, who knows what else is out there. Just too risky to let the public get to hear from her too much, at least not until after the election and it's too late.
So far, I'm not too impressed. She read a speech someone else wrote. Then she went on the stump, avoiding all questions, and repeated the same speech. She's just executing the programming that others have written for her. Where's the real Sarah Palin? I think that's what McCain is trying to hide, the real Sarah Palin, because she's so far from the mainstream.
All we know are the facts from the record:
* She was greatly for the Bridge to Nowhere, then against it, whichever way the political winds blew her. That shows a lack of morals. She'll take any stance if it advances her career, or brings taxpayer dollars to Alaska.
* She's for excluding all forms of birth-control education except for the demonstrably disastrous abstinence-only method.
* She's for criminalizing abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.
* She's a proponent of creationism.
* She doesn't believe humans have anything to do with global warming.
* She doesn't care about endangered species, even ignoring her own scientific and environmental advisers to try to push the helicopter shooting of wolves and polar bears.
* As mayor and as governor, she's feasted on earmarks, at the expense of the taxpayers in states other than her own.
* She's lied by omission. She'll happily tell you she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, but doesn't mention she was also for it. She'll tell you she put the private jet on ebay, but neglects to mention that it didn't sell, and she was forced to sell it at loss, with the taxpayers eating the loss. She says she's for reform, yet in the area of gouging the taxpayer with earmarks, her city and her state are the most egregious abusers in the country.
* She doesn't know what the job of VP is. And all she wanted to hear about was how being VP would help Alaska.
* Her husband was/is part of a secessionist group. She's attended their meetings, and seems on good terms with them.
* She has completed 0 terms as governor of any state.
* She's against medicinal marijuana, even though she was willing to try it herself when doing so was merely breaking federal law, not state law.
* She has no national security experience, even if Cindy McCain thinks that that kind of experience floats across seas and seeps spontaneously into her.
And that's about it. Well, now that I look at the list, I guess I see why McCain's keeping her as sequestered from questions as possible. If that's all come out *before* a public vetting, who knows what else is out there. Just too risky to let the public get to hear from her too much, at least not until after the election and it's too late.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Not every ejaculation deserves a name, to quote George Carlin. Its the children that are already here we should be worrying about.But most republican's interest seems to wane outside of the womb, unless they're recruiting little soldiers for"God's army" And yes, the woman has the right to choose because its her body.Whatever anyone does to their own body is their own business, including smoking a joint.Do you like the government telling you that you can't smoke marijuana with your own lungs?
ccodiane
New Member
Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin! Palin!Palin was for the Bridge to nowhere before she was against it..... Oh I get it, she's the Republican John Kerry
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
It's a question that the government has no right deciding. The supreme court went from interpreting laws to making laws.
Though seems to me that if a person wants an abortion that is their privilege and right. There is no reason why they should be forced to bring a kid into the world if they can not support it, or if it would damage their health, or if it would be brought up in an abusive environment.
It's hard to say that it's moral or immoral when there are so many other variables that HAVE to be looked at. Maybe the kid will have a genetic defect, and the parents decided that they do not think they can meet the needs such a child would place on them.
It's cruel to kill the unborn child, but I think it's even crueler to bring them into a relationship where they will not be loved, or will be abused, or will not get the care that they need.
So, it's not something that the government has any business legislating, it's something for individuals to decide for themselves.
Though seems to me that if a person wants an abortion that is their privilege and right. There is no reason why they should be forced to bring a kid into the world if they can not support it, or if it would damage their health, or if it would be brought up in an abusive environment.
It's hard to say that it's moral or immoral when there are so many other variables that HAVE to be looked at. Maybe the kid will have a genetic defect, and the parents decided that they do not think they can meet the needs such a child would place on them.
It's cruel to kill the unborn child, but I think it's even crueler to bring them into a relationship where they will not be loved, or will be abused, or will not get the care that they need.
So, it's not something that the government has any business legislating, it's something for individuals to decide for themselves.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
+rep.And let me add....by what particular set of morals would a government decide that abortion is wrong?It says nowhere in the bible that abortion is wrong.It's just people who have interpreted it.And if they were to overturn R vs.W, wouldn't that go against the establishment clause of the first amendment, by favoring one set of religious beliefs over another?I'd say most definitely.
ViRedd
New Member
Here's the list of abortion clinic murders:
- March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest.
- June 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside of another facility in Pensacola.
- December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks.
- January 29, 1998: Robert October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York.
Which side is winning the statistical war, Dank?
Vi
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
I thought you said that this thread wasn't about Roe v Wade..... I just love how you take what I say out of context Vi... did you also read the part saying that personally I am Pro-Life?
If your going to quote me, use the whole context of what I said... Typical for you, take what someone says out of context and blow it out of perportion.
So in reality you won no argument Vi.
If your going to quote me, use the whole context of what I said... Typical for you, take what someone says out of context and blow it out of perportion.
So in reality you won no argument Vi.
ZenMaster
Well-Known Member
What a selfish, irresponsible statement. You think its fine to smoke a joint or cig while pregnant because its your body? Its not yours anymore, you are sharing it with another life form. That baby is not your property.
You are classically immoral and you think any humanity expressed to an unborn child its the work of religious vigilantes. I don't like the fact that women think its "their body" when that baby is not wholly theirs. They just don't pop in existence because you willed it, it was a team effort and they should not solely decide its fate because they want to have some more fun. I loath the lack of responsibility and the convenience of it makes it that much more tempting, along with the wave of this new liberal thinking that killing unborn babies is not that bad of a thing.
medicineman
New Member
40,000,000 unborn, innocent lives.
If they never had a choice to be guilty, how could they be innocent???
If they never had a choice to be guilty, how could they be innocent???
ZenMaster
Well-Known Member
They are innocent by default, they did nothing to incur the hand to snuff out their life. Save from the fact they are in the way of mama going and partying.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
You know nothing about me,so you can't make statements regarding my character.If you choose to keep the baby, then take care of your body.Nowhere did I say, gee, go do drugs when you're pregnant.As for being immoral, I bet even by your standards, I couln't be so judged.I don't care if you like it or not that a woman thinks it's her body...it doesn't change the fact that it is.The woman carries to term.The woman goes through labor.The woman's body is irrevocably changed forever.It's easy for a man to bitch and moan about it not being just her choice when all he has to do is ejaculate.You all want to bitch about innocent lives?Then go help some of the children starving, right here in this country.Buy some decent clothing for them...donate...hell, millions of children alive now in India....they're being sold into prostitution....I don't see any of you moral crusaders over there doing anything about it.No, you choose to sit on a high horse on an internet forum and rant about people that don't even exist yet.And ignore the people who do.Yes, it is about religion...mind control if ever there was any...and the want to control women and keep them in their "place"I repeat, you can't stop it.You just want it made illegal so the mothers have to die, too, to satisfy your interpretation of what your god wants.