DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on February 09, 2008, 02:16:59 AM
-
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Lawmakers_uses_slut_to_refer_to_0208.html
GOP lawmaker apologizes for calling unwed teen parents 'sluts'
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Friday February 8, 2008
A Republican state representative in Colorado has apologized for calling unmarried teenage parents "sluts."
Larry Liston of Colorado Springs was talking at a GOP caucus meeting about teenagers who have babies and expect the government to support them.
"In my parents' day and age, they were sent away, they were shunned, they were called what they are," Liston told the caucus. "There was at least a sense of shame." He then used the word "slut," adding, "I don't mean just the women. I mean the men, too."
Rep. Stella Garza-Hicks, who was at the meeting, said she was "disturbed' and "offended" by Liston's use of the word. Other Republican women in the Colorado House of Representatives also called it inappropriate.
"A slut is a whore, that's the same word," one former unwed mother told a local news channel. "I'm a survivor, I made it. I raised my children, I was a good mother. ... He needs to talk to some young women, he needs to have some compassion."
"I regret using the word," Liston says now. "It was an inadvertent comment."
This video is CBS News 4 Denver, broadcast February 8, 2008.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Lawmakers_uses_slut_to_refer_to_0208.html
-
tsk tsk
-
Unfortunate, but it's in these "slips" that we can see Republicans for what they are - - greedy white men with significant compassion deficits. But a great enthusiasm for Sunday afternoon football. Do you really want to be led by people like this? Who needs 'em?
-
Unfortunate, but it's in these "slips" that we can see Republicans for what they are - - greedy white men with significant compassion deficits. But a great enthusiasm for Sunday afternoon football. Do you really want to be led by people like this? Who needs 'em?
Sez MT as he generalizes about an entire group of people exactly the same way Liston did.
-
It's not GOP.
Attitudes like this towards women have been very deeply ingrained in us.
One good thing about living in Appalachia, I got to see families who did NOT shun and shame their daughters when they got pregnant outside of marriage. It was very refreshing. They still loved them, they didn't send them away.
There is poverty but it isn't poverty of spirit.
-
I was unaware of anyone ever calling men "sluts".
-
I was unaware of anyone ever calling men "sluts".
Believe me, it does happen.
-
called slut toward a man so far is a very minor offense
sometime a complement
my ex called a guy on the real world a slut but in the same sentence said he`s hot.
not a very effective word on guys
I`m not even sure anydude will even get angry by it
-
<<It's not GOP.
<<Attitudes like this towards women have been very deeply ingrained in us. >>
Sure, of course, but only one party panders to them.
-
<<It's not GOP.
<<Attitudes like this towards women have been very deeply ingrained in us. >>
Sure, of course, but only one party panders to them.
Rep. Stella Garza-Hicks, who was at the meeting, said she was "disturbed' and "offended" by Liston's use of the word. Other Republican women in the Colorado House of Representatives also called it inappropriate.
Do you mean that a Democrat could have gotten away with saying the same thing?
?Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody?s going to believe them.? ?Hillary Clinton
You may have a point there ,the Democrats have done well before by showing litle respect to women .
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/hillaryclinton/a/hillaryquotes.htm
-
<<Do you mean that a Democrat could have gotten away with saying the same thing?>>
No, I mean the odds of a Republican saying that are a hundred times the odds of a Democrat saying it. Why? Because the Democrats care about these people, the Republicans don't. The Republicans are more into public displays of their ignorant religious fanaticism and Victorian moral values, where "fallen women" are pariahs and responsible for their own predicament.
<<Quote
<<?Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody?s going to believe them.? ?Hillary Clinton
<<You may have a point there ,the Democrats have done well before by showing litle respect to women.>>
IF she ever said that, it's easily excused as the ire of a deceived spouse. What's Larry Liston's excuse? How was this personal to him? Why should the plight of unwed teenage mothers get under his skin the way her husband's paramours got under Hillary's?
-
No, I mean the odds of a Republican saying that are a hundred times the odds of a Democrat saying it. Why? Because the Democrats care about these people, the Republicans don't. The Republicans are more into public displays of their ignorant religious fanaticism and Victorian moral values, where "fallen women" are pariahs and responsible for their own predicament.
Hahahahahahaa
So Bill who felt so many women's pain ,is not a true Democrat?
-
<<So Bill who felt so many women's pain ,is not a true Democrat?>>
Bill and these many women had mutually satisfactory sexual encounters which as far as I know were entirely painless for both parties. In that regard, he's very different from Republicans who seem to find their sexual outlets in sexual harassment of women or consensual relations with male pages. Yes, he's a true Democrat or at the very least, a true non-Republican. The Anti-Republican, one might say.
-
<<So Bill who felt so many women's pain ,is not a true Democrat?>>
Bill and these many women had mutually satisfactory sexual encounters which as far as I know were entirely painless for both parties. In that regard, he's very different from Republicans who seem to find their sexual outlets in sexual harassment of women or consensual relations with male pages. Yes, he's a true Democrat or at the very least, a true non-Republican. The Anti-Republican, one might say.
And the women that sued him ? Are they the minority of the vast number of women Bill has ... felt ?
I guess their being unappreciative is good reason for calling them Bimbos and haveing staff deal with insureing the media knew that they were Bimbos.
A freudian slip might have reveiled something about the attitude of this Republican at the head of the thread , but for the Clintons disrespect for Women is institutional.
-
I guess the larger question is whether unwed teenage motherhood is a good thing, for the mother and the offspring.
-
<<And the women that sued him ?>>
Who apart from Paula Jones ever sued him anyway? Most of them seemed pretty happy with the relationship. It was only due to the manipulation of that bitch Linda Tripp that Monica's story ever surfaced. Gennifer Flowers wrote a lovely piece in Penthouse Magazine about Bill's talents and she sure sounded to me like one satisfied customer. If he had as many women as you guys seem to believe, a handful of lawsuits indicates a very high customer satisfaction rate and moreover tends to make me feel that the few who did sue (if in fact there were others than Jones) were just trying to cash in their lottery ticket.
-
I think the traditional view is that men who sleep around are STUDS, and women who do this are SLUTS.
As for teenage mothers, there was a time when you could push all the blame on the men, but except in the relatively rare instance of rape, it can also be considered the fault of the woman.
In my college, a student came to my colleague and friend, the religion professor and told him that she was dropping out of college because she was pregnant. He told me that he told her that she should have rejected the smooth-talking boyfriend, that men were not to be trusted. I told him that I agreed that she certainly could have done this, but if temptation was too great, that she also certainly could have gone to the doctor or even the drugstore and prevented her becoming pregnant.
I think that most of the time, they get knocked up because they either think that a baby will cause the guy to marry them or just because they want a baby.
There is also the slim possibility that they are just stupid.
-
I think that most of the time, they get knocked up because they either think that a baby will cause the guy to marry them or just because they want a baby.
There is also the slim possibility that they are just stupid.
I'd guess that it's split evenly between the two options
-
I think that most of the time, they get knocked up because they either think that a baby will cause the guy to marry them or just because they want a baby.
There is also the slim possibility that they are just stupid.
I'd guess that it's split evenly between the two options
==================================================
Actually that would really be three options:
1. He will marry me if I make him a daddy. (This has been known to work.)
2. I am lonely and I want a baby.
3. Duh. Why am I throwing up every morning? RRRRALLLLPH!
I don't think we will ever have exact statistics here.
-
hmm
I`m might be wrong here
but I think a real slut would be the least likely to get pregnant
the description above doesn`t seem to fit slut
isn`t a slut a person who likes having sex alot
whether if it is 1 or many partners isn`t even a factor
-
I think that most of the time, they get knocked up because they either think that a baby will cause the guy to marry them or just because they want a baby.
There is also the slim possibility that they are just stupid.
I'd guess that it's split evenly between the two options
==================================================
Actually that would really be three options:
1. He will marry me if I make him a daddy. (This has been known to work.)
2. I am lonely and I want a baby.
3. Duh. Why am I throwing up every morning? RRRRALLLLPH!
I don't think we will ever have exact statistics here.
Wow, just think of all those poor men, having sex and not knowing that it could lead to fatherhood! Man, we really need to educate these kids....
-
Wow, just think of all those poor men, having sex and not knowing that it could lead to fatherhood! Man, we really need to educate these kids....
Well, according to Terra, men are too stupid to figure it out; if women didn't tell us, we'd never know.
-
Wow, just think of all those poor men, having sex and not knowing that it could lead to fatherhood! Man, we really need to educate these kids....
===========================================================
I think that men know this pretty well, but as they say, 'A powerful God is the Great God Horn", and wild hormones push this possibility to the very back of their minds.
It is also true that pretty much all men know that there is zero chance of them getting pregnant, and in some cultures and subcultures, knocking up women is concrete evidence to the rest of society that one is a true manly man, hjust as producing offspring is a sign of the womanly woman.
I agree that education for the unknowing is a great idea, as are condoms for the hormone driven.
As Mark Twain commented, it is a lot easier to have responsible sex when one is sixty than when one is twenty. Lust is a vice that affects mankind differently at different ages of life.
-
Well, according to Terra, men are too stupid to figure it out; if women didn't tell us, we'd never know.
=====================
I doubt that this is true of anyone above the grade of Imbecile in this culture. However, I did read once that certain aboriginal tribes did not associate sex with pregnancy.
Some also had a custom of slitting their manly parts to better resemble a kangaroo's equipment, which seems to me to be painful and largely useless.
-
Once again I'm reminded of the term, pretentious thumbsuckers.
But hey, why don't you people tell these sluts to get abortions for goodness sake! You folks have made this suggestion before. Think how much of the government's money it would save .... right? I'm sure if Mrs. Clinton gets in she's get abortion money to the inhabitionally impaired. We could use all that money we're wasting in Iraq to keep sluts from being called sluts!
-
It would be cheaper for the taxpayer in the long run to make abortions free to any woman that requests one.
Unwanted children should not be the result of irresponsible sex. Children should not be punished for having lame parents.
I agree with Kimba that a woman who really did want to screw around a lot would use birth control.
-
However, I did read once that certain aboriginal tribes did not associate sex with pregnancy.
Lions know it; when did men lose this knowledge?
-
if you look at culture with more free sex atitudes the population growth is kinda small
it seems that more frequent sex kinda lowers fertility
ex.sweden
so slut no matter what is the wrong word.
I`m not saying sluts don`t get pregnant
just less than we think they do.
-
Lions know it; when did men lose this knowledge?
First, if it is indeed true that lions know this, that does not follow that all men would know it, since we are descended from primates, not felines. Why would we assume that all humans know everything that a lion knows.
Second, I question the idea that lions do, in fact, know this. How does one interview a lion?
Also, I did not claim that this was true, I merely was commenting that I heard that some aboriginal tribes believed that babies were caused by activities other than sex. I have not personally interviewed them. It does seem plausible. The Jews had some weird reason for deciding that some locusts were kosher and others were not. I doubt that there is any real reason for this, like someone eating the wrong sort of insect and getting sick or dying.
-
So it's back to the ole "quality of life" garbage.
The left wants to put people in place (more likely they will simply seize power like Mao) who would make a decision regarding the potential "quality" of a persons life.
I suppose this kind of decision would cut down on Mrs. Clinton's potential election opponents. I wonder how the Black community will feel about this? Afterall, Oprah wouldn't be with us. Her quality of life was certainly in question prior to her birth. I can also see the mentally challenged community being against this sort of thing also. Potential homosexuals? Wait, wasn't there a certain fascist who advocated this sort of thing?
Ah yes, there was .... now who's a fascist?
(http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00198/Adolf_Hitler_198963c.jpg)
-
Actually, Herr Hitler and Il Duce were in favor of women (at least 'Aryan' women in Germany and Italian women in Italy in producing as many children for the Fatherland and Patria as possible. Hitler had a program where the most exemplary of German soldiers (tall, blue eyes, blonde hair, and what was regarded as the most German of features) were matched up with the most Aryan of women, with the objective of improving the German race, in the same way that people have traduitionally bred dogs and livestock. No marriage was necessary, and this was rewarded with the best and comfiest of rooming houses and maternity hospitals, with awards and ribbons for all.
This is not at all the same as what Liberals advocate, which is that any woman not wishing to have a child has a right to an abortion. No liberal that I have ever heard of favor selective breeding, or favor forced abortions in any way: women, married or not, should have the perfect right to have their babies.
The traditional rightwing view and the view of the Holy Mother Church is that the woman be forced to have the child and to live ever after in shame. Illegitimate children have been denied admission into religious schools, cemetaries and in many countries are forbidden to inherit their father's estates by law.
To the traditional Catholic, the wages of sin is people. Illegitimate birth stresses the sinfulness into which we are all born, and emphasizes that there is only ONE worthy combo of unwed mother and Child, Mary and Jesus, and even then, there needed to be a Joseph to make this look right.
We are eternally corrupt, from the stench of the diaper to the reek of the funeral shroud, and those who were born out of holy matrimony are especially corrupt, the spawn of lust, sin and perhaps Satan as well.
This is one reason why Mussolini got along so well with the Church. The Fascists of Italy and the Falagists of Spain (and similar Fascist organizations in Portugal, Rumania, Ireland and France) agreed with the Church on nearly every aspect of sexual mortality and the proper (subservient) role of women in society.
Hitler had a number of beliefs that ran contrary to traditional Catholic beliefs and Germany is split between Protestants and Catholics, anyway. The Roman Catholic Church was certainly not pro-Jewish or pro Romany, but it has never been in favor of genocide, to its credit.
-
I might agree that a woman who wished to avoid pregnancy should have the right to avoid pregnancy with contraception and abstinence. Contraception or Abstinence if she doesn't like both.
But Abortion is a killing and deserves limits jusrt as other sorts of killing have.
-
But Abortion is a killing and deserves limits jusrt as other sorts of killing have.
=================================================================
So what do we do?
Pass a death penalty for any woman who has an abortion?
We could execute her doctor too.
Sounds about right for offing an innocent baby.
But it costs a lot of government moola to replace a doctor, so maybe we'd just make him a prisoner for a few years.
=========================================
How about we have a penalty for masturbation? Every one of those wasted sperm is a potential innocent human life.
I figure about five minutes' sentence for every wasted sperm would be about right.
Women, on the other hand, waste no eggs when they masturbate, so they could get off scot-free.
-
but that`s what makes it wierd
no matter how people say about it
abortion is a radical procedure.
it`s never ever a birth control on the same level as contraceptives
nothing simple about it
I never understood why pro-lifers rather says it`s murder than just point out how traumatic it is.
it looks like pro-lifers are on purpose doing everything halfass .
ex. no aggressive move to sell adoption as a alternative
just the murder talk,which make them look non-credible
-
>>Actually, Herr Hitler and Il Duce were in favor of women (at least 'Aryan' women in Germany and Italian women in Italy in producing as many children for the Fatherland and Patria as possible.<<
Nice try, but Hitler certainly did like your argument about quality of life. The FIRST people to die were the retarded, the insane, and the physically handicapped. You see, like you, he was concerned about their quality of life. Who would want to be retarded, or crippled, or insane? We'd be doing them a favor, right? Then there's the poor ... nobody wants that. It's hard on the poor, and expensive for the State. No real quality there, is there. Thankfully we have people like XO to decide these things for us. Well, XO and...
(http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00198/Adolf_Hitler_198963c.jpg)
-
But Abortion is a killing and deserves limits jusrt as other sorts of killing have.
=================================================================
So what do we do?
Pass a death penalty for any woman who has an abortion?
We could execute her doctor too.
Sounds about right for offing an innocent baby.
But it costs a lot of government moola to replace a doctor, so maybe we'd just make him a prisoner for a few years.
=========================================
How about we have a penalty for masturbation? Every one of those wasted sperm is a potential innocent human life.
I figure about five minutes' sentence for every wasted sperm would be about right.
Women, on the other hand, waste no eggs when they masturbate, so they could get off scot-free.
Why don't we quit bothering murderers? If they kill someone who is miserable especially, perhaps murderers should be encouraged to shorten the ives ofthe unwanted and poverty stricken.
I didn't suggest the death penalty and I don't , I am just tired of there being no limit to the right to kill .
My right to free speech or to own a gun or to Habeas Corpus are limited , why is it that thre is no reason or circumstance in which Abortion is inappropriate?
-
<<But Abortion is a killing and deserves limits jusrt as other sorts of killing have.>>
It's certainly not a homicide.
It's as much a killing as masturbation is, when the guy flushes live sperm down a toilet. It may be as much a killing as a biopsy is, when live cells are cut out of a host's body to die in the lab. And it may be as much of a killing as the death of an amoeba would be if someone spills it out of a jar to dry up and die.
Just to call it a killing gets you nowhere, plane. It's not the killing of a live, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling human being with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity.
-
It's not the killing of a live, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling human being with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity.
How do you know?
-
(http://www.abort73.com/HTML/AbortionPictures/images/abortion-09-03.jpg)
-
You gotta be kidding me. The brain wasn't even the size of a fucking dime. I've seen hummingbirds with bigger brains. That's your version of a "live, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling human being with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity?"
Try again.
-
that picture proves my point
the it`s murder tactic is a all consuming obsession
will not even consider other ways which may work better in stopping it
not noticing it`s still legal for decades
-
that picture proves my point
No, actually it doesn't. There are lots of groups that work towards helping the mothers with medical needs during pregnancy and placement of the child for adoption after birth. As a matter of fact, most pro-life groups spend more time and money on these activities than protests. We've had this discussion before; I guess you forgot.
-
About 30% of all births in the US are by Caesarian section. There might be a need for as many as a tenth that amount. That's one helluva more radical procedure than abortion. No one ever seems to do anything about preventing doctors from performing unnecessary C-sections. They do it because it's more convenient for them, less time-consuming, and they get paid more, at least much of the time. And all future birth MUST be by C-section after the first.
I have never said that I am in favor of anyone having or not having an abortion. I just think that a woman who has to raise a child for the next 20 years or so should have the right to choose. That has absolutely nothing to do with Nazis or Fascists, all of whom thought the government had a greater right to decide about abortions than the pregnant woman.
-
I do remember it just those folks are not very public
i acknowledge they exist but exception for you
i truely don`t recall anyone really talking about it
this means those protester are giving pro-lifers a really bad name
seriously the programs you talked about are not that well known
meaning a teen mother will less likely consider other alternatives.
-
About 30% of all births in the US are by Caesarian section. There might be a need for as many as a tenth that amount. That's one helluva more radical procedure than abortion. No one ever seems to do anything about preventing doctors from performing unnecessary C-sections.
Care to cite how its KILLING of an unborn child via the c-section approach?? Last time I checked, abortion directly caused a death, the c-section didn't. And the killing is the issue, not some procedure. A Mastectomy is far more radical than a lumpectomy. The point being......you have none. Want a do-over?
I have never said that I am in favor of anyone having or not having an abortion. I just think that a woman who has to raise a child for the next 20 years or so should have the right to choose.
And they can absolutely chose ADOPTION, if they don't feel ready to invest for 20+yrs. That removes the woman from having to raise the child, and still keeps the innocent child, who has no choice in the matter, living & breathing
-
And they can absolutely chose ADOPTION, if they don't feel ready to invest for 20+yrs. That removes the woman from having to raise the child, and still keeps the innocent child, who has no choice in the matter, living & breathing
========================================
Now see, you think you somehow have the right to choose. I say you don't. According to the Holy Mother Church, there are no innocent children, since everyone is born in sin. Except when they start blathering about how they want to butt into someone else's life.
Fetuses are not children, anyway. It's really none of your business, unless it's you that is having the abortion.
Hitler and Mussolini were on your side.
-
And they can absolutely chose ADOPTION, if they don't feel ready to invest for 20+yrs. That removes the woman from having to raise the child, and still keeps the innocent child, who has no choice in the matter, living & breathing
========================================
Now see, you think you somehow have the right to choose. I say you don't
That's strange....somewhere, somehow, you took my comments that indicated that the woman could choose x, or y, or z --> sirs will demand she do x. I say that's complete feldercarb
That was pretty nifty, if not completely false. I believe its called projecting what you think I'm thinking, without actually reading whats been written. Tee has that tactic down to an artform. Doesn't make it anymore valid however, just because he does it as well.
Hitler and Mussolini were on your side.
Yea, yea, standard leftest dren, call anyone that doesn't agree with them, fascists and nazis, yada, yada. And people wonder why those terms, and the term evil, have become so diluted in their true meanings
-
actually adoption in the U.S. is a maybe option depending on the race of the child
it`s harder for a minority child to get adopted than a caucasian child
even the laws no purpose make it harder.
so the baby may get a not so stable life.
-
About 30% of all births in the US are by Caesarian section. There might be a need for as many as a tenth that amount. That's one helluva more radical procedure than abortion. No one ever seems to do anything about preventing doctors from performing unnecessary C-sections. They do it because it's more convenient for them, less time-consuming, and they get paid more, at least much of the time.
Most doctors do it because the risk of complications for many women is less with a C-section than with a vaginal birth. Therefore, they are less likely to be sued.
And all future birth MUST be by C-section after the first.
This statement is not true.
-
actually adoption in the U.S. is a maybe option depending on the race of the child it`s harder for a minority child to get adopted than a caucasian child even the laws no purpose make it harder. so the baby may get a not so stable life.
A possibility of a not-so stable life vs the certainty of no life? Hmmmm, not such a tough choice there, to be honest, Kimba. Perhaps the laws can be tweaked so it is easier to adopt. Or is that facilitating a greater chance of exploitation and abuse?? You see, there are arguements for all sides of an issue. The the foundation to any arguent is the life itself. Minus the asanine attempt by Tee to claim masturbation was some twisted form of abortion, are you advocating that a life be extinguished because it might be hard growing up as an adopted child? a foster child? No chance, what-so-ever, for it to get out of its mess, so best kill it 1st?
-
<<But Abortion is a killing and deserves limits jusrt as other sorts of killing have.>>
It's certainly not a homicide.
It's as much a killing as masturbation is, when the guy flushes live sperm down a toilet. It may be as much a killing as a biopsy is, when live cells are cut out of a host's body to die in the lab. And it may be as much of a killing as the death of an amoeba would be if someone spills it out of a jar to dry up and die.
Just to call it a killing gets you nowhere, plane. It's not the killing of a live, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling human being with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity.
So what is a Human being?
If you are sure what one is not you must be a good one to ask what one is.
A human being must be alive, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling -----------with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity.
You can't mean that all of these qualitys must be present elese tha autistic , the amneisiac and the very recently born don't qualify as human beings , neither I suppose would the rather stupid.
So which of these qualitys are the ones that must be present for a creature to be considered a human being ?
-
You can't mean that all of these qualitys [alive, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling -----------with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity] must be present elese tha autistic , the amneisiac and the very recently born don't qualify as human beings , neither I suppose would the rather stupid.
I believe the autistic meet each and every one of the criteria stated.
The amnesiac as well, to a limited degree, but certainly more than the fetus.
The very recently born meet the test of independence (existing ex utero) and sentient and alive as well. Once the little guy is out of the womb and on his own, he's somebody's baby and he or she has related to other humans, who have a memory of him or her as a viable human being.
-
You can't mean that all of these qualitys [alive, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling -----------with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity] must be present elese tha autistic , the amneisiac and the very recently born don't qualify as human beings , neither I suppose would the rather stupid.
I believe the autistic meet each and every one of the criteria stated.
No some of the Autistic are not handicapped much , but there are severe cases in which interaction with other people is impossible.
The amnesiac as well, to a limited degree, but certainly more than the fetus.
I don't under stand that.
The very recently born meet the test of independence (existing ex utero) and sentient and alive as well. Once the little guy is out of the womb and on his own, he's somebody's baby and he or she has related to other humans, who have a memory of him or her as a viable human being.
So a creature that meets just one of these criteria is Human?
-
The very recently born meet the test of independence (existing ex utero) and sentient and alive as well. Once the little guy is out of the womb and on his own, he's somebody's baby and he or she has related to other humans, who have a memory of him or her as a viable human being.
I hate to break this to you Tee, but the "little guy" in the womb is also someone's baby. so much so, that if he dies prematurely, they even have *gasp* a funeral, complete with other related humans.
-
I meant even the amnesiac has short-term memory.
I think the just-born are in the same category as late-term abortion victims. Certainly there's no difference between the baby one minute before and one minute after birth. Except that we're being dragged pretty far afield here. Most abortions aren't last-minute.
I'd look at it like this. The mother's right has priority over the baby's right, expecially when the baby is just a ball of cells. No thinking, no feeling, no nothing except raw potential.
I extend the mother's right one or two trimesters - - the last-minute abortions are pretty grim, but I regard them as a necessary sacrifice to protect the woman's right to choose what happens to and with her own body.
Once you get past birth, I say, OK, this is obviously too far to extend that protection. It's murder because you see a viable living breathing infant outside the mother's body. So it's an arbitrary line but so what? Pre-meditation in murder is an arbitrary line too, and it lets off a lot of people with violent tempers who are a continuing menace to the public, as opposed to a pre-meditated murderer who may have planned and carried out a once-only operation, for revenge. There are lots of arbitrary cut-offs in law - - age of consent for example.
-
<<I hate to break this to you Tee, but the "little guy" in the womb is also someone's baby. so much so, that if he dies prematurely, they even have *gasp* a funeral, complete with other related humans.>>
Don't know what planet you've been living on, sirs, but I've had personal family experiences with miscarriage and even stillborn babies. A funeral would have been bizarre in either case. As a matter of fact, in the Jewish religion, the baby doesn't get a funeral unless it's lived outside the womb for thirty days.
-
Don't know what planet you've been living on, sirs, but I've had personal family experiences with miscarriage and even stillborn babies. A funeral would have been bizarre in either case.
Strange, I've been on the same planet and have actually gone to some of these apparent bizarre acts. I'll be sure to pass on your conclusions of how bizarre their mourning and grief really were. >:(
-
<<Strange, I've been on the same planet and have actually gone to some of these apparent bizarre acts. I'll be sure to pass on your conclusions of how bizarre their mourning and grief really were. >>
I didn't say the mourning and grief were bizarre. Been there, done that. It was the ritual that was bizarre. Never seen it happen in my entire life. Never even heard of it.
-
Personally, I think that a funeral for a miscarriage is rather weird, but I believe that whether to have a funeral or flush (or anything in between) a miscarriage is up to whomever the parents might be. I think that it is none of my business how or if a couple reproduces. It's entirely up th them.
You can name the unborn fetus or wait to name the baby for as long as you wish. It's not up to me.
I have no problems with not intruding on other people's behavior so long as it does not infringe on me.
-
>>It's not the killing of a live, independent, sentient, thinking, feeling human being with its own memories of interactions with others and its own internalized identity.<<
Fathers often speak to their children in the womb and their voices are recognized by their children upon birth. Of course the same is true of mothers. Doctors have tested children who have been read to in the womb and find that they can read much earlier than children who were not read to. Experts also suggest playing music to your child in the womb relaxes them and can lead to musical ability.
Nor sentient? Not thinking? Your brain is still developing into your twenties. Are you not sentient until then?
So your little comment about humans in the womb is nothing more than bullshit designed to support killing them for your own selfish reasons.
-
>e been on the same planet and have actually gone to some of these apparent bizarre acts. I'll be sure to pass on your conclusions of how bizarre their mourning and grief really were.<<
As have I. I suppose some people don't have enough feelings for the life inside them to show it proper respect. I guess if your willing to flush it at a whim, why would you care what happens to it afterwards?
-
<<Strange, I've been on the same planet and have actually gone to some of these apparent bizarre acts. I'll be sure to pass on your conclusions of how bizarre their mourning and grief really were. >>
I didn't say the mourning and grief were bizarre. Been there, done that. It was the ritual that was bizarre.
As I said, I'll be sure to pass on your assessment of how bizzare and twisted these people were in how they mourned the loss of their child. Pretty pathetic Tee, even for you >:(
-
Ami:<<Therefore, they are less likely to be sued.>>
That's quite true. I worked for an OB-GYN years ago, and heard plenty of awful stories of bad deliveries. Lengthy and resulting in nerve damage to one baby I remember...a forceps delivery injured her nerves on one side of her cheek and mouth. She couldn't smile on one side. One delivery, they had to dislocate the poor baby's shoulder to get him out....and so on.
You take the baby from the womb, you don't have these things. The mom is at greater risk, I believe, because it's major surgery. But then again, i've been away from it for years.
-
<<As I said, I'll be sure to pass on your assessment of how bizzare and twisted these people were in how they mourned the loss of their child. Pretty pathetic Tee, even for you >>
What's pathetic is your ludicrous posturing here, sirs, nothing else. That, and the bizarre equating of the loss of a fetus to the loss of "their child." You are not helping these folks one bit by encouraging their maudlin, outlandish displays, sounds like they could use a good healthy dose of realism, not that they'd ever get that from you.
-
So your little comment about humans in the womb is nothing more than bullshit designed to support killing them for your own selfish reasons.
==================================================
This is not an argument about supporting anything other than the right to choose an abortion.
Pretty much all of your comments are little, Richie. Side little asides, mindless attacks, spurious yet malicious rumors.
Imagine if all the babies were to grow up to be Democrats. Liberal Democrats, who favored socialized medicine. Bwahhahhahh!
-
So BO, is your brain developed enough to actually answer some of the questions concerning your idiotic quality of life argument? Or perhaps you could really address your bizarre idea that humans aren't sentient until you decide they are? I notice you skip them entirely.
No need to bother BO. Go grade some papers or something. I wonder if your students parents know what a hateful little toad they have presiding over their children. Tell me BO, can you stop drooling with hatred long enough to conjugate a verb?
-
<<As I said, I'll be sure to pass on your assessment of how bizzare and twisted these people were in how they mourned the loss of their child. Pretty pathetic Tee, even for you >>
What's pathetic is your ludicrous posturing here, sirs, nothing else. That, and the bizarre equating of the loss of a fetus to the loss of "their child." You are not helping these folks one bit by encouraging their maudlin, outlandish displays, sounds like they could use a good healthy dose of realism, not that they'd ever get that from you.
Ahh, I'll be sure to tell those same friends of mine as well, how they really shouldn't be grieving at all. It was just a fetus after all. >:( And where's your outrage when someone is convicted of a double homicide, when a pregnant woman has been murdered? It was just some mass of cells.
You ready for that shovel yet?
-
<<Ahh, I'll be sure to tell those same friends of mine as well, how they really shouldn't be grieving at all. It was just a fetus after all. >>
Tell 'em whatever you like, I'm sure it will be as pointless and stupid as most of your other posts in any event. But if you want to tell them what I think, I think it's normal for them to grieve and really bizarre to have a funeral for a fetus. And be sure to tell them, if you feel they need my thoughts on the subject, I've never seen it done in my life. By anyone.
I wouldn't have commented at all, since it's really none of my business, but when you chose to interject your friends into this discussion and to set up their bizarre conduct as proof of how "human" the fetus is, I had to tell you how self-indulgent and maudlin the whole display seemed to me and I'm sure to many others who have lost fetuses, had miscarriages, suffered the tragedy of stillbirth and yet never put their private grief to such a weird and unsettling display, as if a real person had died.
-
<<Ahh, I'll be sure to tell those same friends of mine as well, how they really shouldn't be grieving at all. It was just a fetus after all. >>
Tell 'em whatever you like
Naaa, I'll tell them what you have made abundantly clear....that their way of mourning the loss of their "fetus" is apparently totally bizarre. As I said, pretty pathetic, even for you. Which is saying something
-
TRY to be honest, sirs. Make the effort. You'll gain something in self-respect. Tell 'em the funeral service for a fetus is truly bizarre. Just because you're morally bankrupt and your ideas are totally idiotic and your logic is that of a six-year-old is no reason to lie about what others are saying. And I couldn't make what I'm saying any plainer - - there's nothing bizarre about mourning a lost fetus We've done it ourselves. Holding a funeral for it is REALLY bizarre. That's what I said. Get it straight if you can. I recognize your intellectual limitations, but this one is really within your grasp. You can do it.
-
TRY to be honest, sirs.
Been there, done that
Quote from: Michael Tee on February 12, 2008, 06:12:09 PM
Don't know what planet you've been living on, sirs, but I've had personal family experiences with miscarriage and even stillborn babies. A funeral would have been bizarre in either case....Holding a funeral for it is REALLY bizarre..
Your words Tee, not mine.
-
<<A funeral would have been bizarre in either case....Holding a funeral for it is REALLY bizarre..
<<Your words Tee, not mine.>>
Yes. Thank you sirs. Now, let's look at those words: I see "HOLDING A FUNERAL" is really bizarre.
Tell your friends that 's what I said. In fact, it IS what I said.
I DON'T see "mourning it" is bizarre.
I DON'T see "grieving for it" is bizarre.
So . . . DON'T tell your friends that I said either of those things - - - because I didn't.
sirs, I believe you actually got it this time. Been a struggle, but you came through and actually understood what I said and what I didn't say. I'm very impressed.
-
Ahh, so in Tee's world, a funeral isn't in any way an act of mourning or showing respect to a life that has been lost. It's some bizarre act of..........mental imbalance apparently.
Great Tee. Even more pathetic >:(
-
<<Ahh, so in Tee's world, a funeral isn't in any way an act of mourning or showing respect to a life that has been lost. It's some bizarre act of..........mental imbalance apparently.>>
A funeral is a ritual, sirs. In the hundreds of funerals that I have attended personally, not one was concerned with showing "respect" to the life of a fetus. Are you fucking insane? What life did the fetus have, actually?
Most funerals reunite the people who knew the deceased. They get together and remember him or her collectively, console the mourners for the loss of their companion in life and pray for the soul of the departed. As I've said, not a single one of my relatives, friends or business acquaintances have ever seen fit to conduct a funeral for a fetus. That is the weirdest fucking thing I could imagine or anyone else that I know could imagine.
I guess one of the benefits of a group like this is that it brings me into contact with some of the weirdest individuals on this planet, people whom I would never encounter in real life, and I have to tell you sirs, you are one of them - - and I'm not saying that in complaint, more in wonder than anything else. If I mentioned to anyone I know that I know a guy who has been to funerals for fetuses, I am positive I would get reactions ranging all the way from "You're putting me on" to "That is REALLY sick."
But hey, whatever turns their crank. What's next, birthday parties for fetuses to mark their first trimester, second trimester, etc.? Photo albums of their ultrasounds?
-
<<Ahh, so in Tee's world, a funeral isn't in any way an act of mourning or showing respect to a life that has been lost. It's some bizarre act of..........mental imbalance apparently.>>
A funeral is a ritual, sirs.
Yes, AND a manner of MOURNING for the loss of a life. Again, apparently to you anyone that has one in mourning the life of their pre-born child is acting in some bizarre manner. Mental instability perhaps. Or now Tee wants to refer to these parents as just weird. I'm sure that'll be nice for them to know as well
Boy, doncha just love that liberal compassion. Best quit digging, Tee >:(
-
Apparently sirs, they don't respect your choice.
Big surprise there.
I can understand their confusion. To them, their son or daughter, niece or nephew, grandson or granddaughter can be flushed down the toilet or thrown in the dumpster without so much as a tear because to monsters like them, it not sentient, or a person ... you get the idea. To you and I, it's just that, your son or daughter. It is deserving of respect at every stage of development. It's a product of our love and God's love, so we treat it that way. We mourn the loss. A funeral is part of that loss and that love.
-
<<Yes, AND [a funeral is] a manner of MOURNING for the loss of a life.>>
Everyone who loses a life mourns for it. Funerals are ritual FAREWELLS to the departed, not ritualized mourning. The mourning goes on with or without the funeral. It's something that is felt. Friends and family console. But the funeral itself is a farewell to the departed. They don't all cry together, they talk about the life of the deceased ("He had a great second trimester!! His nasal cavities were fully delineated!") and remember him or her fondly ("Remember when he said "[stethoscope recordings are played here]")
I mean, holy fucking shit, how bizarre do you want to make it? The ritual is NOT an aspect of the mourning for any normal, sane, healthy individual. You want to keep defending these fucking weirdos, you can do it all day and all night but at the end they come out just as fucking weird as when they went in. Repetition doesn't make it more normal. They mourn, of course, but they don't need a funeral to mourn. Nobody I ever heard of needed a funeral to mourn. They mourn, they get over it, they get on with their lives. Do you think your friends were the first people on earth to have a miscarriage? Get a fuckin' grip.
Why don't you and your wacko friends mourn for the 150,000 Iraqis blown to smithereens by U.S. shot and shell in the insane quest for oil? Those were REAL HUMAN BEINGS whose lives were deliberately sacrificed in a war that no one needed to have begun (oh, yeah, I know, the geniuses were "misled" by "all the intel on earth from all the intel agencies on earth") only it was all "one big unavoidable mistake." Well how about a little mourning for the victims of that "one big unavoidable mistake?" instead of phony funerals for fetuses? You guys are so fucking deranged and so totally devoid of any real human values that I sometimes question what is the point of even trying to get through to you.
-
>>Everyone who loses a life mourns for it. Funerals are ritual FAREWELLS to the departed, not ritualized mourning. ... (manic rant deleted) ... <<
You really do like the sound of your own voice don't you. Your ridiculous dribble doesn't mean a fucking thing.
See a doctor, get some help.
-
<<You really do like the sound of your own voice don't you. >>
I like what I write.
<<Your ridiculous dribble doesn't mean a fucking thing.>>
It does to me. It makes a lot of sense. Since I'm a lot smarter than you, it makes a lot more sense than any of the crap you write, but I always try to respond even to your moronic drivel with some kind of reason and explanation so that there is always the possibility for you to see why I am almost always right and you are almost always wrong.
<<See a doctor, get some help. >>
Rich, I'm not even going to respond to that. What would be the fucking point? You don't have to agree with anything I posted. You don't even have to post a logical rebuttal. But childish and time-worn retorts like these only demonstrate to the whole group what a fucking moron you really are. Remarks like that add absolutely nothing to the discussion. They're on a par with your earlier "Beat his fuckin' brains out" comments, although marginally superior since this time you've eliminated the gratuitous violence. Nevertheless, I advise you to stop embarrassing yourself like that. Sometimes, when you've nothing intelligent to say, the best course is just: silence.
-
<<Yes, AND [a funeral is] a manner of MOURNING for the loss of a life.>>
Everyone who loses a life mourns for it. Funerals are ritual FAREWELLS to the departed, not ritualized mourning.
Yea, you just keep telling yourself that, Tee. Whatever makes you feel better. For the rest of us who actually mourn our loved ones, especially at funerals, we'll be sure to acknowledge to each other how bizarre, twisted, and weird we're really acting
(I swear, I don't even think he reads his own postings before hitting enter) >:(
-
WHATever, sirs.
Next, I suppose you'll be telling us that it's the norm for fetuses to have funerals just like all other deceased people, and that it's only a few nutcases, not even one or two per cent of the population, that don't have fetus funerals.
What about obits? Do they publish fetus obits in the daily papers too? Or is that sirs' Next Big Thing?
-
Next, I suppose you'll be telling us that it's the norm for fetuses to have funerals just like all other deceased people
Wrong again, but we've lost track of counting how often that's happened. The point never was is the perceived "norm", the point was how some chose to mourn their loss. Obviously you could care less, since its only a "fetus"
Weak misdirection effort, BTW
-
Well, we've established that fetus funerals are not for the masses, so I guess that's a partial victory. When these fringe groups are recognized as the oddball fringes that they are, I guess that's the end of using them as examples of how "human" their fetuses were.
So thanks for your admissions, and as far as I am concerned, case is closed. If the holding of funerals is an indication of the "humanity" of the fetus, it's a "humanity" that is seen through very, very, very few eyes in your country or anywhere else.
-
Well, we've established that fetus funerals are not for the masses, so I guess that's a partial victory.
How is that a "victory", when no one ever claimed it was "the norm"?? Oh yea, it's Tee. He needs to feel like he was right, in some way, even if he has to make it up.
When these fringe groups are recognized as the oddball fringes that they are, I guess that's the end of using them as examples of how "human" their fetuses were.
Who's this "fringe group"? Parents who mourn for the loss of thie child, going so far as to actually have a *gasp*...funeral? Wow, now these friends of mine are not only bizarre, not only weird, they're now part of some oddball fringe group. Frellin amazing >:(
-
Well, we've established that fetus funerals are not for the masses, so I guess that's a partial victory.
Have we established that having an abortion is something "the masses" do? I thought we were being told that it was a rare procedure, only done after the mother's careful consideration. Are you somehow implying that it's a common procedure, done as birth control?
-
And they can absolutely chose ADOPTION, if they don't feel ready to invest for 20+yrs. That removes the woman from having to raise the child, and still keeps the innocent child, who has no choice in the matter, living & breathing
Blather blather blather...
Look around sometime at some of the 'unwanted' children in foster care, orphanages or other facilities that for whatever reason have not been able to be adopted. Can you guarantee that every child put up for adoption will be given a loving home? Every child, regardless of race, color, physical or mental health and development, AIDS babies, crack babies, every single one? No, you can't. And who is going to pay the cost of childbirth - the mother who doesn't want the child, or can't afford to raise the child and probably can't afford to have it anyway? Come on, you can spout a simple-sounding solution, but let's get down to specifics here.
-
And they can absolutely chose ADOPTION, if they don't feel ready to invest for 20+yrs. That removes the woman from having to raise the child, and still keeps the innocent child, who has no choice in the matter, living & breathing
Blather blather blather...
Way to go H. Dive right into a debate with demeaning commentary.
Look around sometime at some of the 'unwanted' children in foster care, orphanages or other facilities that for whatever reason have not been able to be adopted. Can you guarantee that every child put up for adoption will be given a loving home? Every child, regardless of race, color, physical or mental health and development, AIDS babies, crack babies, every single one? No, you can't.
Of course not. Who would say such a thing?? Are you saying that the alternative is that we kill them because there's the possibility they won't have a loving home?? Sorry, doesn't work for me. Life far outweighs the alternative of death, since death is a guarantee with an abortion
And who is going to pay the cost of childbirth - the mother who doesn't want the child, or can't afford to raise the child and probably can't afford to have it anyway? Come on, you can spout a simple-sounding solution, but let's get down to specifics here.
Maybe you've heard of it. It's called adoption.
-
<<Who's this "fringe group"? Parents who mourn for the loss of thie child, going so far as to actually have a *gasp*...funeral? >>
Yeah, THAT fringe group. The "funerals for fetuses" bunch. Go ahead, tell me they're not a bunch a wackos.
<< Wow, now these friends of mine are not only bizarre, not only weird, they're now part of some oddball fringe group. >>
You got THAT right.
<<Frellin amazing>>
"Sick" is probably closer to the mark.
-
<<Who's this "fringe group"? Parents who mourn for the loss of thie child, going so far as to actually have a *gasp*...funeral? >>
Yeah, THAT fringe group.
Ahh, kinda what I've already referenced. I'll be sure to pass on your reference to how bizarre and twisted they are for how they mourn the loss of their child
Just keep digging, Tee
The "funerals for fetuses" bunch. Go ahead, tell me they're not a bunch a wackos.
Ok, they're not. Yea, you're right, sick really does do a better job of describing your level of "compassion" for their loss >:(
-
<<Yea, you're right, sick really does do a better job of describing your level of "compassion" for their loss>>
Ohh, bullshit, sirs, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "compassion for their loss." I've been there myself, more than once. Most folks have. This has got more to do with their exhibitionism and their political point-making (or your making political points off of their foolishness) by holding funerals for fetuses. A more twisted, weird and bizzarro display I have rarely if ever seen.
-
<<Yea, you're right, sick really does do a better job of describing your level of "compassion" for their loss>>
Ohh, bullshit, sirs, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "compassion for their loss."
It has everything to do with compassion for their loss. YOU'RE the one claiming how bizzare some are who dare have a funeral for that loss. And apparently it's because it's a fetus, and not a "human", (in order to dehumanize the unborn child, neing the likely rationalization). Funny how that "fetus" looked just like an premature infant little girl, arms, legs, eyes, ears, the works. But what do you care, it's "just a fetus" to you.
I've been there myself, more than once. Most folks have. This has got more to do with their exhibitionism and their political point-making (or your making political points off of their foolishness) by holding funerals for fetuses.
Ahh, let's add another Tee adjective to these grieving parents. Now they're fools. Keep digging Tee. On 2nd thought, best stop now
-
<<Funny how that "fetus" looked just like an premature infant little girl, arms, legs, eyes, ears, the works. But what do you care, it's "just a fetus" to you.>>
Barbie dolls look human too. What's next for these wack jobs, funerals for broken Barbie dolls? I'm guessing you don't have babies, don't have much experience with babies, never raised a child and like most typical conservatives don't know what the fuck they are talking about, when they attempt to pontificate on real-life issues, but here from my limited experience of life I will attempt to clue you in:
A baby is a lot more than something, some lump of tissue, which "looked just like a premature infant little girl."
A baby is a tiny little person you hold in your arms, heartbeat to heartbeat, cradle, kiss, wash, feed, change diapers for, lie down next to, rock to sleep, take outside for fresh air, listen to her crying, dress, undress, take the temperature of, bring to the paediatrician, show off to your friends and family, try to interpret the meaning of whatever sounds she is making, marvel over each stage of development, compare with friends' and neighbours' children, try to decipher family traits in her ever-changing features, show her to herself in the mirror cheek-to-cheek with you, put your finger in her tiny little grip to feel her close on it, watch her attempts to communicate vocally with her own fingers or with the mobile hung over her crib, wonder if those cries are teething pains, talk to, sing to, make funny noises for and about ten thousand other things.
Anyway, that IMHO is the difference between a baby and a fetus, and it is also an indication of why it is so much more awful to lose a baby than a fetus. You cannot compare the two and your friends should not. Most people will grieve and mourn the death of a fetus. It's normal. Very few will hold a fetus funeral - - not only is it not normal, it is sick, weird and bizarre, as is any comparison by which fetuses are made to appear as anything near the equivalent of a child in terms of humanity or in terms of loss.
You seem to think that all truth in these matters is subjective - - that if one couple is so grief-struck by the loss of a fetus or in such deep mourning that only a funeral will give proper expression to that grief or that mourning, then this "proves" that the fetus was really a human being. But the issue of the humanity of the fetus is really much more objective - - the argument for the humanity of the fetus would be if it were universally or near-universally accepted, or common in civilized parts of the world, for funerals to be held for fetuses, you might be able to argue that mankind accepts fetuses as humans. That those who don't are the wackos and weirdos. But in fact experience teaches otherwise - - very few fetuses receive funerals. So few in fact that it appears that what we are witnessing at a fetal funeral is not a proof of the humanity of the fetus but of the craziness and weirdness of the people conducting the funeral.
-
<<Funny how that "fetus" looked just like an premature infant little girl, arms, legs, eyes, ears, the works. But what do you care, it's "just a fetus" to you.>>
Barbie dolls look human too. What's next for these wack jobs, funerals for broken Barbie dolls?
You've seriously gone off the deep end. I tried to warn you to stop, but no, you had to go right on and make a complete ass of yourself. Your "funeral"
-
On the contrary, sirs, your defence of the utterly absurd idea of fetus funerals leaves you open to ridicule, simply because what you are promoting is ridiculous. The Barbie doll analogy was appropriate to the lameness of your claim that the fetus "looked like a little girl with little arms and little legs" (some of us can tell the difference) and it was also apt to question whether your wack-job friends would have posted an obit for their "baby" in the local press.
I really don't know how you can continue to defend such an asinine practice as fetus funerals, all the time screaming at how irrational and far-out your critics are. You defend a stupid idea, and in so doing, get trapped in one stupidity piled on another, and claim that anyone who opposes this sick, morbid display is somehow embarrassing himself. Doesn't work, sirs. Readers will decide for themselves which of us is right. Your "predictions" on that score are meaningless.
-
suggest that if adoption is such a splendid solution to an unwanted pregnancy, that some of you fetuslovers put your money where your large, flapping mouths are and start an organization to advertise to pregnant women that childbirth and adoption is available, and then link up the mothers with the prospective adopting parents.
This would require no laws at all and could eliminate a huge number of the fetus 'murders' you claim to hate.
-
suggest that if adoption is such a splendid solution to an unwanted pregnancy, that some of you fetuslovers put your money where your large, flapping mouths are and start an organization to advertise to pregnant women that childbirth and adoption is available, and then link up the mothers with the prospective adopting parents.
That's been going on for a large number of years.
-
Precisely
-
Then spend your efforts on that, and after you get the word out to prospective women, just leave them to make their own decision.
There isn't going to be an anti-abortion amendment. The people don't want one.
-
Who's pushing for some amendment? Personally, I'm pushing to allow the states to decide for themselves, and get the Fed out of it, all together
-
but that mean a person who wants one will have to go to the next state to get one.
quite few prolifers will not like this
remember the druggist that not only refuse to fill the prescription for the morning after pill but stop the girl from getting the pill anywhere else.
so maybe a ban on teenage girls crossing stateline will be made
sounds crazy but not impposible to be done
-
Let the states decide. The Constitution clearly indicates anything not specifically to be addressed by the Fed, is to be addressed by the State. Simple as that. Same applies to UHC
-
remember the druggist that not only refuse to fill the prescription for the morning after pill but stop the girl from getting the pill anywhere else.
How does a pharmacist prevent someone from getting a prescription filled at another store? Chain her up in the back?
-
the pharmacist keep the prescription so she`ll may get delayed enough to not be able the take the pill
this case is funny because nobody ever take about the fact the prersciption was kept
just about the right of the pharmacy to refuse
-
the pharmacist keep the prescription so she`ll may get delayed enough to not be able the take the pill
this case is funny because nobody ever take about the fact the prersciption was kept
just about the right of the pharmacy to refuse
I don't think it was ever documented that any prescriptions were kept.
Regardless, it's trivial to call the doctor's office and have them fax a copy of the prescription to the drug store. I've done it before, when I lost the original prescription. And the delay would only be a matter of minutes.
-
for you it`s trivial to get a prescription on the phone
but that does mean everybody else has the same option.
in fact i never even heard of calling a doctor for a new prescription
meaning not a common thing to be generally known .
and that article was posted here which stated the prescription was withheld
that store went the extramile to not have her get those pills
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm
this article state some refuse to give the presription back
-
for you it`s trivial to get a prescription on the phone
but that does mean everybody else has the same option.
If the doctor has already written the prescription, why would it be an issue to send another copy?
-
this article state some refuse to give the presription back
The article states that one refused to give back the prescription. And he's facing disciplinary charges. And at the time we were discussing this originally, another article disputed that he kept the prescription.
In addition, your claim was about the "day after" pill, not regular contraceptives.
-
no idea
I didn`t know people had access to their doctors 24/7 to do this
-
no idea
I didn`t know people had access to their doctors 24/7 to do this
Why would someone go to the doctor during the day, then wait to middle of the night to fill their prescription? If it wasn't important enough to get filled right away, what's the big deal with waiting until the next morning to call the doctor?
Besides, I never knew of a doctor's office that doesn't have a night service, complete with the ability to page a doctor in an emergency.
-
Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill>
that one was a example of people refusing and the day after pill from the original incident article
-
I didn`t even know night service existed till you link me that clinic awhile back.
I think your health plan is abit more extensive than the average out there.
emergency page is common but nights is new to me
-
that one was a example of people refusing and the day after pill from the original incident article
So, you go to another pharmacy. I don't see any big deal here. It's not like pharmacies are a rare thing in this country, there are plenty of places where a street intersection with a pharmacy has two or three pharmacies. Everywhere there is a Walgreens, I almost always see a CVS and / or Eckerds and / or Revco within eyesight. And a few grocery stores with pharmacies, as well. And if enough people stop using a pharmacy because the pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions, it will go out of business.
-
I didn`t even know night service existed till you link me that clinic awhile back.
I think your health plan is abit more extensive than the average out there.
emergency page is common but nights is new to me
It's nothing new. I've seen them all my life, everywhere I've lived. And every doctor's office has emergency service at night. And every insurance plan I've ever had supported the 24 hour clinics.
-
that one was a example of people refusing and the day after pill from the original incident article
So, you go to another pharmacy. I don't see any big deal here. It's not like pharmacies are a rare thing in this country, there are plenty of places where a street intersection with a pharmacy has two or three pharmacies.
It's literally getting to ridiculus proportions around here. Within 2 square miles of my home, there's at least 5 Pharmacies. It got so bad, that when a Tower Records store went out of business, a sign came up within a month celebrating the coming new Walgreens. The community outrage was so great, they stopped the project, and the sign there is no longer.
In other words, the lack of Pharmacies is definately not a problem
-
>>In other words, the lack of Pharmacies is definately not a problem<<
Children around here can say the letters CVS at 3 months old.
-
Who's pushing for some amendment? Personally, I'm pushing to allow the states to decide for themselves, and get the Fed out of it, all together
Not to attack anyone over what is a difficult issue, but that appears to me to be a true cop-out.
If abortion is the taking of a human life then stop it in all cases. If it is not the taking of a human life then it truly should be a choice.
It should not matter at what level of government that decision is made. In fact, it is generally left up to the states so you should be overall satisfied. If a state were creative enough they could write laws to remove abortion procedures at a practical level (and indeed some states have nearly no abortion clinics).
That seems like a very weak position to me.
-
If abortion is the taking of a human life then stop it in all cases. If it is not the taking of a human life then it truly should be a choice. It should not matter at what level of government that decision is made.
Yes, it should. At least to those who believe in our constitution, and what powers have been delegated to which level.
In fact, it is generally left up to the states so you should be overall satisfied.
If it were, I would. But it's not. Are you advocating a repeal of RvW Js?
-
If abortion is the taking of a human life then stop it in all cases. If it is not the taking of a human life then it truly should be a choice. It should not matter at what level of government that decision is made.
Yes, it should. At least to those who believe in our constitution, and what powers have been delegated to which level.
In fact, it is generally left up to the states so you should be overall satisfied.
If it were, I would. But it's not. Are you advocating a repeal of RvW Js?
I advocate the removal of abortion as an option entirely.
Those who believe in our constitution realize that the illegality of taking a life is a foundation within common law and therefore it shouldn't be necessary to be debated by the states.
-
I'll stick with the constitution, that any act not specifically delegated by the Fed is to be handled by the states
-
I`m not sure that`s possible
remember abortions is a no guilt way to solve a family situation
adoption will make the problem public
abortion will make it go away
by making the pregnancy a shameful act abortion is only solution
abstinence only policy tends to encourage this thinking
remember these are teenager(adult`s I refuse to defend) some of them some will slip
and something few will believe ,not know it`s sex
they`re a good chance some of these abstinence girl will not know that special game sven taught her really is
-
Maybe you've heard of it. It's called adoption.
Maybe you missed where I said you can't guarantee every child will be adopted. Which is why I said you can mouth a simple solution, but when it comes to specifics, such as how to guarantee each child goes to a loving home, etc, you are sadly lacking in planning.
When the anti abortion folks and the churches can guarantee that every mother to be who does not want her child will have her medical care and expenses taken care of through her pregnancy, and that every child will be placed in a loving home, then they still won't have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body, but at least they'll have a more convincing argument.
-
When the anti abortion folks and the churches can guarantee that every mother to be who does not want her child will have her medical care and expenses taken care of through her pregnancy, and that every child will be placed in a loving home, then they still won't have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body, but at least they'll have a more convincing argument.
Well, the only block to this currently is that the government interferes with the adoption process. Things like not allowing white couples to adopt black children, etc, prevent a lot of adoptions from happening. But the support for woman during her pregnancy is already in place.
-
your gonna have to give the loving home part up
regular families can`t guarantee that.
so why should orphans have it better.
-
Maybe you've heard of it. It's called adoption.
Maybe you missed where I said you can't guarantee every child will be adopted.
Maybe you missed where I referneced that wasn't in dispute. And never will be. Where as an abortion GUARANTEES a death of every child.
-
Maybe you missed where I referneced that wasn't in dispute. And never will be. Where as an abortion GUARANTEES a death of every child.
=========
No, it guarantees the nonbirth of every fetus. This is not the same thing.
The difference between a fetus and a child has been explained to you many times. YOu appear to be incapable of learning.
Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
-
Maybe you missed where I referenced that wasn't in dispute. And never will be. Where as an abortion GUARANTEES a death of every child.
=========
No, it guarantees the nonbirth of every fetus. This is not the same thing.
Precisely the same thing, no matter how semantically you try to CUT him or her up.
-
I repeat:
The difference between a fetus and a child has been explained to you many times. YOu appear to be incapable of learning. OUTSIDE the body=child.
INSIDE=fetus
if you actually can see the child without x-ray equipment, it is a child. Otherwise, you have a fetus.
Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
-
Precisely the same thing, no matter how semantically you try to CUT him or her up.
-
I repeat:
The difference between a fetus and a child has been explained to you many times. You appear to be incapable of learning. OUTSIDE the body=child.
INSIDE=fetus
if you actually can see the child without x-ray equipment, it is a child. Otherwise, you have a fetus.
Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I don't understand the logic , Inside not a person , outside a person.
Imagine an operation to correct a problem on a Fetus surgically , the Fetus is lifted out , undergoes surgery and is placed back in to continue her required development. This person would become a person and then return to nonperson?
That is quite hypothetical tho , how about a case that actually has happened , after a botched (but leagal) abortion a girl was born with an arm missing , her twin died in the Abortion but her survival was accidental, should we call he "no-one" because when she was hurt she was a non -person? becoming a person only later?
Logic is absent from Pro abortion assertions of the nature of humanity , there is nothing that I can go into and cease to be myself . Having a Self is the essence of humanity notbeing above a certain size or being within or without any kind of container nor being dependent or not. These arguments are as ridiculous and free of logic as the requirement that a person be white to be a real person .
-
ok lets go another direction
abortion maintains honor
adoption doesn`t
meaning until you totally make the teenage mother live her life without hassle and no be called a slut
your gonna have abortions
-
ok lets go another direction
abortion maintains honor
adoption doesn`t
meaning until you totally make the teenage mother live her life without hassle and no be called a slut
your gonna have abortions
I think that's true.
Are boys, the teen fathers I mean, "damaged goods," "ruined" "easy" etc.?
I don't think they're called that, or treated like that. You planted a seed, wahoo! You're a big man!
The girl...she's growing the seed inside her. Whatta slut.
-
ok lets go another direction
abortion maintains honor
adoption doesn`t
meaning until you totally make the teenage mother live her life without hassle and no be called a slut
your gonna have abortions
I think that's true.
Are boys, the teen fathers I mean, "damaged goods," "ruined" "easy" etc.?
I don't think they're called that, or treated like that. You planted a seed, wahoo! You're a big man!
The girl...she's growing the seed inside her. Whatta slut.
Is it the abortion that maintains the honor or the secrecy that the Abortion enables?
This is the difference between private and public shame , not a freedom from shame.
I won't have to deal with this particular one personally , but I hope that when I am offered a choice between a smaller public shame or a larger private shame that I choose the lesser shame , not the greater privacy.
-
Let's just leave it up to the woman and her doctor. No forced abortions like they have in CHina, and no forced pregnancies like some people want women to undergo here. Men don't have to make the decision because they don't suffer the consequences.
-
And women can simply say "no", and suffer no consequences either
>:(
-
That's so true.
Unless they're raped.
Men can also say no.
-
but I hope that when I am offered a choice between a smaller public shame or a larger private shame that I choose the lesser shame , not the greater privacy.>
I wasn`t just talking about the girl
I was also talking about the family
in a strict religious family
would the girl risk being thrown out of the house or have abortion
I`ll go even further
it doesn`t even have to be a strict religuious family
most families don`t exactly raise thier kids to be ok with teen pregnancy
I`m not saying it`s ok to be a teen mother ,but it does mean a hit to the family rep
ex. jamie lynn spears
quite afew parenting jokes are floating around the spears clan
-
That's so true. Unless they're raped.
Which accounts for a mere fraction of abortions, and one of the areas that's generally accepted as justified
Men can also say no.
Absolutely. But it takes 2 to tango, so don't try putting this on the man and claiming how there's no consequences for him, and with the child who's privy to the worst consequence of all in an abortion..... DEATH
-
Kimba--
I had a junior high principal who made his daughter get an abortion. I learned this years later. Shame was a huge factor.
That's why it just blew me away to come to this part of the country, where many mothers of pregnant teen girls were themselves teen moms. They were accepting and practical. What's done is done; now, focus on what comes next. That was their attitude. Far healthier than shame, sending the girl away, etc.
-
Which accounts for a mere fraction of abortions, and one of the areas that's generally accepted as justified
================================================
So you are in favor of abortions of pregnancies caused by rape?
-
Which accounts for a mere fraction of abortions, and one of the areas that's generally accepted as justified
================================================
So you are in favor of abortions of pregnancies caused by rape?
Yes, I've been on record long ago about my hypocritical position of allowing a woman who was forcibly assaulted & raped, and had no option to say "no" on this one minisule area, compared to the vast majority of all other abortions
-
Which accounts for a mere fraction of abortions, and one of the areas that's generally accepted as justified
================================================
So you are in favor of abortions of pregnancies caused by rape?
Yes, I've been on record long ago about my hypocritical position of allowing a woman who was forcibly assaulted & raped, and had no option to say "no" on this one minisule area, compared to the vast majority of all other abortions
That is a step twards middle ground , eventually we must find middle ground or continue to fight it out.
-
Which accounts for a mere fraction of abortions, and one of the areas that's generally accepted as justified
================================================
So you are in favor of abortions of pregnancies caused by rape?
Yes, I've been on record long ago about my hypocritical position of allowing a woman who was forcibly assaulted & raped, and had no option to say "no" on this one minisule area, compared to the vast majority of all other abortions
That is a step twards middle ground , eventually we must find middle ground or continue to fight it out.
I doubt seriously Plane you'll get any concession from the pro-abortion faction, on this one. Hopefully, I'm wrong
-
There is no "pro-abortion" faction. What there is is a faction that thinks that you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. She should be free to do as she chooses.
This is why it is called "pro-choice".
-
There is no "pro-abortion" faction. What there is is a faction that thinks that you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. She should be free to do as she chooses.
This is why it is called "pro-choice".
We could call it "anti-life" since it is against "pro-life".
-
There is no "pro-abortion" faction.
Yes, there is.....those that support Abortion. And then there are those that don't. THAT's the issue, that's ALWAYS been the issue
What there is is a faction that thinks that you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body.
Been there, done that. She's free to do whatever and to whomever she wants, until a 3rd party life is involved, that has no CHOICE in the matter
This is why it is called "pro-choice".
That's the PC attempt at trying to nuance the debate, and redirect the subject to something less egregious. Those that are anti-abortion are ALSO pro-choice of everything and anything, EXCEPT abortion, which is why it's actually called pro-abortion vs anti-abortion
-
<<Yes, I've been on record long ago about my hypocritical position of allowing a woman who was forcibly assaulted & raped, and had no option to say "no" on this one minisule area, compared to the vast majority of all other abortions>>
Once you come up with that position, you've lost the ball game.
Either the anti-choice fanatics are protecting innocent human life or they're punishing the mother for a bad choice she made. When the issue comes down to the "guilt" or "innocence" of the mother, then the mother claims the right to treat her body as she pleases, and the anti-choicers don't have a leg to stand on because they're infringing her freedom.
Sure, it's hell to carry and deliver the child of a rapist, but it's hell on earth to live without a good pair of kidneys. If I can't justify taking innocent human life for a pair of kidneys to make my life easier, how does the mother justify taking innocent human life to make her life easier? The fetus isn't responsible for the sins of the father.
-
<<Yes, I've been on record long ago about my hypocritical position of allowing a woman who was forcibly assaulted & raped, and had no option to say "no" on this one minisule area, compared to the vast majority of all other abortions>>
Either the anti-{abortion} fanatics are protecting innocent human life or they're punishing the mother for a bad choice she made.
When was rape considered a "bad choice"?? ::)
-
Been there, done that. She's free to do whatever and to whomever she wants, until a 3rd party life is involved, that has no CHOICE in the matter
No, you are wrong. You have never been there. You have never been pregnant. You have never done that. You have never had to choose to have an abortion or choose not to have one. You seem to be a nosy meshugganeh who wants to stick your nose into other people's reproduction. Why are you so concerned about someone else's blastocyte? If you were to find a living blastocyte in your fridge tomorrow morning, would you be willing to take it to the hospital and pay all the expenses to help it develop into a baby?
Perhaps you are just not thinking with a full deck.
=========================
Those that are anti-abortion are ALSO pro-choice of everything and anything, EXCEPT abortion, which is why it's actually called pro-abortion vs anti-abortion
Are anti-abortionists in favor of drugs on demand without prescriptions? Are they in favor of transvestites, gay marriage, and polygamy?
What the hell are you blathering about? This makes zero sense. Zilch, bupkiss, niente, nada, none.
People who are pro-choice are for a woman making her own choice with no intervention from the government (or people such as yourself). It's not an attempt to "nuance" anything, it is a valid term for their position. A pro-abortionist would want abortions to be compulsory, and no one advocates that.
-
Those that are anti-abortion are ALSO pro-choice of everything and anything, EXCEPT abortion, which is why it's actually called pro-abortion vs anti-abortion
Are anti-abortionists in favor of drugs on demand without prescriptions? Are they in favor of transvestites, gay marriage, and polygamy?
What the frell?? Purposely trying to muddy the debate? Apples & oranges, Xo. Let me know when you're going to back to the apple, that of the topic on abortion. and if you want to start a completely different debate on all those oranges, by all means, start a new thread.
-
What the frell?? Purposely trying to muddy the debate? Apples & oranges, Xo. Let me know when you're going to back to the apple, that of the topic on abortion. and if you want to start a completely different debate on all those oranges, by all means, start a new thread.
--------------------------------------
Observe please that YOU brought up the topic of "everything".
To wit:
Those that are anti-abortion are ALSO pro-choice of everything and anything, EXCEPT abortion, which is why it's actually called pro-abortion vs anti-abortion
The fact remains that no one is pro abortion, as in abortions should be mandatory.
Those who favor the right of the woman to choose, are not pro-abortion or anti-abortion, they are simply saying that it is not their decision. The woman should choose. Hence the term "PRO-CHOICE".
-
What the frell?? Purposely trying to muddy the debate? Apples & oranges, Xo. Let me know when you're going to back to the apple, that of the topic on abortion. and if you want to start a completely different debate on all those oranges, by all means, start a new thread.
--------------------------------------
Observe please that YOU brought up the topic of "everything".
Everything in relation to the topic of ABORTION and the birthing of a child. Kind of thought that was a given
gads. ::) You can't be that dense, so it again must be a concerted effort to completely derail the dicussion into some completely outlandish tangent, such as transvestites. Here's a hint, Xo. Next time you want to spearhead a completely comical tangent, do what i did.....add a smiley face on the end, so you don't look so ridiculus
-
<<When was rape considered a "bad choice"?? >>
I'll type real slow so that you can understand this.
Rape is not a choice. A woman who has been raped has not made any choice. Not a good choice, nor a bad choice. The fetus was FORCED upon her.
So, sirs is willing to allow her the privilege of abortion. She did not get into her predicament through bad choices, so she gets the right to kill the fetus.
A girl who has unprotected sex made a bad choice, according to you. Right? So, not being raped, she does not get the right to kill the fetus. She is forced to keep the fetus to full term and deliver it.
In effect, sirs really sees the granting or withholding of abortion rights as dependent on the conduct of the mother. A blameless mother (e.g., a rape victim) can kill the fetus if she wants to. A blameworthy mother (e.g., one who chose to have unprotected sex) can not. She has to live with the consequences of her bad choices.
Well, the problem with that kind of thinking, of course, is that it is totally destructive of the key idea of the fetus as a fully human life form. If a fetus really is a human being in every sense of the word, then NOBODY has the right to kill it for any reason, neither the blameless mother, much less the blameworthy mother, the maker of "bad choices."
Once you assign to some people (blameless mothers) the right to kill the fetus, then you have automatically signed on to the idea that the fetus is something less than a full human being, that killing a fetus can not be murder. Because nobody on this earth has the right to take innocent human life, no matter how much easier things might thereby become for the killer's mind and/or body.
-
Actually, to tack one more idea onto my last post - - the theory I just articulated there is probably the reason why the religious right will not concede the right of abortion to rape victims. Because they see that fetus as innocent human life regardless of how engendered.
-
In effect, sirs really sees the granting or withholding of abortion rights as dependent on the conduct of the mother. A blameless mother (e.g., a rape victim) can kill the fetus if she wants to. A blameworthy mother (e.g., one who chose to have unprotected sex) can not. She has to live with the consequences of her bad choices.
Well, the problem with that kind of thinking, of course, is that it is totally destructive of the key idea of the fetus as a fully human life form. If a fetus really is a human being in every sense of the word, then NOBODY has the right to kill it for any reason, neither the blameless mother, much less the blameworthy mother, the maker of "bad choices."
Once you assign to some people (blameless mothers) the right to kill the fetus, then you have automatically signed on to the idea that the fetus is something less than a full human being, that killing a fetus can not be murder. Because nobody on this earth has the right to take innocent human life, no matter how much easier things might thereby become for the killer's mind and/or body.
Does the status of a being as human depend on your or my acnoledgement?
-
<<Does the status of a being as human depend on your or my acnoledgement?>>
No, only on mine. :)
-
I`m gonna trivilize the rape talk here alittle
there is a trick that aging prostitutes do in vegas
I saw this in CSI so it gotta be true
as a retirement package they get a used condom from a rich john and inseminate themselve so they will be finacially secure with child support
true no sex was involved but doesn`t this shadow somewhat the rape scenerio?
men can be victims too
we talk about the women being unwilling victims
but what about men
remember even men who are not biologically the father can still be responsible for the child
-
<<When was rape considered a "bad choice"?? >>
Rape is not a choice. A woman who has been raped has not made any choice. Not a good choice, nor a bad choice. The fetus was FORCED upon her. So, sirs is willing to allow her the privilege of abortion....
Based on the fact, currently conceded, that she had no choice in getting pregnant. An extremely small fraction of those who do get abortions, BTW. The rest are.....well, it goes without saying. And if you hadn't grasped it the 1st time around, it is a hypocritical position
A girl who has unprotected sex made a bad choice, according to you. Right? So, not being raped, she does not get the right to kill the fetus. She is forced to keep the fetus to full term and deliver it.
Her choice in having unprotected sex. Her choice to risk getting pregnant. Her choice....her repercussions, once a 3rd party innocent life, with NO choice, is involved
-
<<Her choice in having unprotected sex. Her choice to risk getting pregnant. Her choice....her repercussions, once a 3rd party innocent life, with NO choice, is involved>>
Oh, I got THAT alright. That's the strong side of your argument.
But the weak side is the rape victim - - she's blameless, but that life that she's terminating is innocent. Now being blameless does not give anyone the right to terminate an existing innocent human life. So once you concede that she has that right, then logically what she is terminating has to be something less than a fully human life.
For example, a nice young lady through no fault of her own, gets terminal liver cancer but some poor guy in the slums of Calcutta has a liver that's a perfect match. Now as blameless as she is, she can't kill the guy and take his liver, no matter how much it benefits her. But you're saying she can, for her own benefit, terminate the fetus. The fetus is less of a human being than the Calcutta slum-dweller.
-
<<Her choice in having unprotected sex. Her choice to risk getting pregnant. Her choice....her repercussions, once a 3rd party innocent life, with NO choice, is involved>>
Oh, I got THAT alright. That's the strong side of your argument. But the weak side is the rape victim - - she's blameless, but that life that she's terminating is innocent.
Absolutely.........did you AGAIN miss that fact that my position on this is a hypocritical middle ground, and only affecting a minute fraction of all abortions performed?? ::)
Now being blameless does not give anyone the right to terminate an existing innocent human life. So once you concede that she has that right, then logically what she is terminating has to be something less than a fully human life.
No, quite the contrary in fact. It's called nuance. You'd a thunk that you leftists would have been on top of that one
-
"The fetus is less of a human being than the Calcutta slum-dweller."
Is that supposed to be the bottom of the human spectrum?
If you are going to resort to logic , then we will just be returning to what it is that makes any human being human in the first place , and why any of them should be protcted from any other.
Sirs is looking for a compromise that might soften the presently drastic law. Saveing some lives perhaps by allowing some others to be thrown off the sleigh.
Logicly all of these people are people no less than any each other , but a hugeclass of us have no protection of law from being killed in great pain. If the unrotected class could be reduced and more protected this mnight be the best we can get.
For the product of conception that is still going to be sacrificed , we could mandate some pain killing medication before their dismemberment. Perhaps the same for the convicted rapist too.
-
<<Absolutely.........did you AGAIN miss that fact that my position on this is a hypocritical middle ground, and only affecting a minute fraction of all abortions performed?? >>
Did you really mean "hypocritical" or were you thinking "hypothetical?"
In any event, the whole anti-choice argument is founded on the sanctity of human life. Once you compromise that sanctity, the whole thing falls apart. A value like human life is absolute. It is or it is not sacrosanct. You can't say of a supposedly sacrosanct life form, well sometimes it's sacrosanct, and sometimes it's not. It's kind of like being "a little bit pregnant." If the fetus is not 100% sacrosanct as precious human life, then there's no point at all in it standing in the way of any human ambition, be it the innocent rape victim's or the careless party girl's. And obviously if the degree of reverence that fetal life is entitled to is dependent upon the conduct of the mother, then you have admitted once and for all that it is not anything about the fetus that makes it a life form entitled to the same reverence as normal human life, but the fetus will live or die depending on how you, sirs, have judged the mother. And THAT, my friend, is totally fucked.
<<No, quite the contrary in fact. It's called nuance. >>
You lost me with that one, sirs. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
-
<<Absolutely.........did you AGAIN miss that fact that my position on this is a hypocritical middle ground, and only affecting a minute fraction of all abortions performed?? >>
Did you really mean "hypocritical" or were you thinking "hypothetical?"
As in what I typed.....hypocritical.
-
You're admitting your position is hypocritical?
-
MT is right on the money here. If aborting any fetus is murder, and all murder is wrong, then it is just as much murder in the event of rape as it is in any other scenario.
Otherwise, you are admitting that abortion is only SOMETIMES murder, and your buns are sliding rapidly down that slippery slope.
-
You're admitting your position is hypocritical?
YES, for crying out loud
oy ::)
If aborting any fetus is murder, and all murder is wrong, then it is just as much murder in the event of rape as it is in any other scenario. Otherwise, you are admitting that abortion is only SOMETIMES murder, and your buns are sliding rapidly down that slippery slope.
NOT if your position is hypocritical. It's ALWAYS murder, and the unborn life is as prescious and as innocent as any other one. It's simply in the event of a rape, I'm giving more leeway to the woman, since she had no choice in getting pregnant. But the life, if she chooses to terninate it, is just as much an innocent life as any other abortion
-
It's simply in the event of a rape, I'm giving more leeway to the woman, since she had no choice in getting pregnant. But the life, if she chooses to terninate it, is just as much an innocent life as any other abortion
===============================
The thing is, that you want to tell that woman when it's okay and when it's not.
Who the Hell are you to put your opinion before the woman, who is much more concerned with this than you. You wil never be pregnant, you don't know what it's like to be pregnant, and yet there you are, cliaming that in MOST cases, but not all, this woman has no right to decide and you do.
It is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
Let people manage their own lives. Butt out.
You would not know freedom if it bit you mightly on the schlong.
Which it really should do.
-
It's simply in the event of a rape, I'm giving more leeway to the woman, since she had no choice in getting pregnant. But the life, if she chooses to terninate it, is just as much an innocent life as any other abortion
===============================
The thing is, that you want to tell that woman when it's okay and when it's not.
I'm not "telling her" anything, no more than you're "telling her" go have sex with anyone and anything, and screw the consequences.
Who the Hell are you to put your opinion before the woman, who is much more concerned with this than you.
Apparently the person much more concerned about the innocent life involved, than you. It's their FREEDOM I'm focused on, that you care squat about. Talk about not having any grasp of what freedom is ::)
-
There is no reason to continue this.
Go get pregnant.
-
Yea, and while I'm not doing anything that has nothing to do with the issue.....don't dare criticize anything to do with the war. Afterall you've never been in the military, and probably can't now, even if you wanted to
-
MT is right on the money here. If aborting any fetus is murder, and all murder is wrong, then it is just as much murder in the event of rape as it is in any other scenario.
Otherwise, you are admitting that abortion is only SOMETIMES murder, and your buns are sliding rapidly down that slippery slope.
So when is a killing not a murder? When it can't be avoided?
Right now the children are killed whether they are the result of rape or bad risk assesment.
Can we stop killing some of them?
-
Who is this "WE"?
I have never performed an abortion in my life.
It's not murder anyway.
-
I got a question
how many abortions are a result of faulty birth control?
remember no birth control is 100% effective
-
Who is this "WE"?
I think it common understanding, much like Brass was trying to reference, in that it's "we" as in a society. Your personal exploits are for you and you alone
It's not murder anyway
Best talk to the Judicial system, since they seem to consistently count the numer of deaths in the homicide of a pregnant woman as 2
-
Who is this "WE"?
I have never performed an abortion in my life.
It's not murder anyway.
I hav neve performed an abortion , and I have never voted for anyone who thinks abortion is a good thing.
-
and I never will.