Sign in to follow this  
Chavez

YOU WANT SOME OF THIS?

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to pursuade anyone anyways. I was just throwin in my 2 cents.

 

1493922[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

If you keep that in mind here you'll be fine.

 

Isn't it, at a minimum, intellectually dishonest, and at its worst, hypocritical, to be against abortion except in the case of rape/incest?  If killing an unborn fetus is equivalent to the murder of a human life, how is it okay to commit this murder because the life was conceived through rape?

 

1493923[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I see yer point. My only problem with the current "abortion rights" women have is that it, IMO, they can be abused and are. To me having sex on the weekend with some chick you just was (for the record...very happily married) is fun and I'd bet 95% of single men's goals that hit the clubs is to slay arss...I'd bet 99% of single guys would slay if they could. Women...obviously much lower however the point is, there is a moral decision that is made and a chance that is taken that the gut bashing duo could conceive a child totally irresponsibly and fortunately for the chick...if she doesn't want the child...she'll have it killed and removed. I know it isn't that easy physically and I'd hope mentally too.

 

On the contrast if a 14 year old girl was raped by her Uncle Skins the effects of bearing that child not only are physically scarring but the mental aspect would be devastating...I am sure you'd know more about that than I. I think you are a Psychologist...right? :D I swore I read that or something of that nature.

 

The current laws leave a hole that is abused (nice play on the word hole) ...that's why I call it a luxery procedure. I don't want the gubbamint telling Bushwankers wife what to do with her organs. I am asking that we respect the life we create. If you can't have a child...maybe you should make him cover his weasel before the spleen gets bruised.

 

 

 

What about the rights of this fetus?

 

1493934[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow...nice skins... :D way to go.

Edited by SuperBalla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since yer so touchy and sensitive, I will add this, doush:  :D

 

1493768[/snapback]

 

 

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(or "legally defined 'persons'" to keep wedgie from freaking out again)

so question 2) isn't really an issue at all, the only question here is 1) and when

 

1493782[/snapback]

 

 

 

Ï'm just trying to make sure you b@stards don't think it is ok to kill my wife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How was the horse last week?

 

1493815[/snapback]

 

 

 

:D

 

The best thing is that you can buy dried (cured) horse meat at pretty much any grocery store. Tasty! :D

 

(Didn't see any horse fetus meat for sale though.) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow.  Looks like this thread has legs and will be carried to full term.

 

1494230[/snapback]

 

 

 

perhaps--although maybe one of the legs will get broken along the way and the thread will have to be shot (and then me and my wife's European friends can grill it up and eat it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
perhaps--although maybe one of the legs will get broken along the way and the thread will have to be shot (and then me and my wife's European friends can grill it up and eat it)

 

1494234[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

I like hoof wrapped in bacon. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't want the gubbamint telling Bushwankers wife what to do with her organs.

 

1494223[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yes you do. You dont get it both ways. You either respect individual freedoms or you dont. You dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should establish that to be consistent:

 

1) People who are pro-life must be against abortion in every case in which the mother would not die as a result of the pregnancy.

 

2) People who are pro-choice must be for allowing abortion up until the moment the umbilical cord is cut (or the afterbirth is ejected from the woman's body) (since up until that time the "baby" is obviously still part of the woman's body).

 

Any positions besides these are intellectually dishonest.

Edited by wiegie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to note how many times abortion does this to any thread about killing someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's interesting to note how many times abortion does this to any thread about killing someone.

 

1494262[/snapback]

 

 

 

[H8]This thread got converted to the religion of peace and love? :D [/H8]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we should establish that to be consistent:

 

1)  People who are pro-life must be against abortion in every case in which the mother would not die as a result of the pregnancy.

 

if they're saying that abortion is murder, yeah. if they're saying abortion is a bad thing which the law should try and limit to extreme circumstances, then they're not really dishonest.

 

2)  People who are pro-choice must be for allowing abortion up until the moment the umbilical cord is cut (or the afterbirth is ejected from the woman's body) (since up until that time the "baby" is obviously still part of the woman's body).

 

1494256[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

not necessarily. not at alll, in fact. a 3 week embryo is VERY different, in almost every imaginable way, from a full term fetus. there is no inherent reason why the law can't differentiate between them and say the mother's right to control her own body overrides in one circumstance but not in the other.

 

your argument here would hold that the birth control pill, which works in some instances by causing a fertilized egg not to attach, is morally exactly equivalent to, say, a late-term partial birth abortion. i think that is preposterous, and i'm pretty sure 90% of the population agrees with me.

Edited by Azazello1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not necessarily.  not at alll, in fact.  a 3 week embryo is VERY different, in almost every imaginable way, from a full term fetus.  there is no inherent reason why the law can't differentiate between them and say the mother's right to control her own body overrides in one circumstance but not in the other. 

1494306[/snapback]

 

 

 

If the argument is that abortion should be legal because the government can't tell a woman how must use her body, then it is absolutely consistent to equate the abortion of a 3 week old embryo with the abortion of a full-term fetus. You are saying that the whether abortion should be legal or not depends upon the status of the fetus, but the pro-abortion (pro-choice, pro-whatever) people define their argument based on the mother and her rights, not with regard to the fetus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it does not force that question.  in an abortion, the mother's life is not in danger.

 

1493706[/snapback]

 

 

 

wrong....... but you know that.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your argument here would hold that the birth control pill, which works in some instances by causing a fertilized egg not to attach, is morally exactly equivalent to, say, a late-term partial birth abortion.  i think that is preposterous, and i'm pretty sure 90% of the population agrees with me.

 

1494306[/snapback]

 

 

 

that's because you and 90% of the population are intellectually dishonest. :high fives myself:

 

If you make the argument that a woman has the right to control her own body and that the fetus is part of her body, then it is inconsistent to say that she loses the right to her body somewhere along the way.

Edited by wiegie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you make the argument that a woman has the right to control her own body and that the fetus is part of her body, then it is inconsistent to say that she loses the right to her body somewhere along the way.

 

1494321[/snapback]

 

 

 

correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babies should be able to be killed by the parents up till the age of 14...

 

1494375[/snapback]

 

 

 

retroactive abortion :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the argument is that abortion should be legal because the government can't tell a woman how must use her body, then it is absolutely consistent to equate the abortion of a 3 week old embryo with the abortion of a full-term fetus.  You are saying that the whether abortion should be legal or not depends upon the status of the fetus, but the pro-abortion (pro-choice, pro-whatever) people define their argument based on the mother and her rights, not with regard to the fetus.

 

1494316[/snapback]

 

 

 

no, bullchit wedgie. my argument is specifically that i DO NOT KNOW where to draw the line between the mother's right to control her own body and the "interests" of the budding life within her. i am quite certain that the government has absolutely no business whatsoever outlawing the birth control pill. i am not sure at all that the government has no interest proscribing the circumstances when a partial birth abortion should be allowed. which means, in my opinion, the fetus obtains moral agency sufficient to justify government protection sometime AFTER fertilization but BEFORE birth. there is absolutely nothing intellectually dishonest about that position whatsoever, but i admit the question of where to draw that line and how, and under which moral and political principles, is an incredibly difficult one. in any case, this weak "all-or-nothing" bullchit is more worthy of spain's crude intellect than someone carrying a PhD, wedgie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread rules..I cannot believe it has not been killed yet..congrats everyone on not going overboard.

 

1494492[/snapback]

 

 

 

agree

 

Our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millennia ago. They were...more trouble than they were worth.

-Worf,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight, the mother who was killed in this heinous crime was considering an abortion??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, let me get this straight, the mother who was killed in this heinous crime was considering an abortion??

 

1494500[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Sounds more like the baby should of wanted to abort the mother in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.