Banning Abortion: Does It Make Sense?

[bandaidwoman]

I totally agree with banning abortion!!! If you are dumb enough to not be responcible for using protection if you do not want a baby, thats your fault. I also agree with making it illegal, its the same thing as murder!!! You should be punished for something that is already against the law!

what about the pregnancies that occur even when the woman is using birth control? The numbers below are the actual failure rates of many of the popular forms of birth control. If you are contesting abortion because only "stupid" people get pregnant then that is not going to fly. If you are contesting it because you believe it is murder is one thing. By the way, my sister had her tubes tied and she got pregnant. (she was the .4%)

Condom 12%

IUD 3%

Oral Contraceptive Pill 3%

Injected Depo-Provera 0.3%

Female Sterilization 0.4%
(Tubal Ligation)

Male Sterilization 0.2%
(Vasectomy)

Levonorgestrel Implants 0.04%

 

[steen]

I totally agree with banning abortion!!! If you are dumb enough to not be responcible for using protection if you do not want a baby, thats your fault.

Just like those smokers. I totally agree with banning lung cancer treatment!!! If you are dumb enough to not be responcible for using not smoking, if you do not want lung cancer, thats your fault.

And I totally agree with banning treatment for traffic accidents!!! If you are dumb enough to not be responcible for using drivingif you do not want an accident, thats your fault.


No? You don't agree? Oh, so you are hypocritical?

I also agree with making it illegal, its the same thing as murder!!! You should be punished for something that is already against the law!

But it is NOT against the law "already."

 

[DeeJayH]

what about the pregnancies that occur even when the woman is using birth control? The numbers below are the actual failure rates of many of the popular forms of birth control. If you are contesting abortion because only "stupid" people get pregnant then that is not going to fly. If you are contesting it because you believe it is murder is one thing. By the way, my sister had her tubes tied and she got pregnant. (she was the .4%)

Condom 12%

IUD 3%

Oral Contraceptive Pill 3%

Injected Depo-Provera 0.3%

Female Sterilization 0.4%
(Tubal Ligation)

Male Sterilization 0.2%
(Vasectomy)

Levonorgestrel Implants 0.04%

great stats, but they are actually meaningless propaganda
the overwhelming majority of abortions are abortion on demand
not out of need to save the mothers life, or abort a fetus with problems
the problem is all the whores using abortion as birth control

Overturn Rowe v Wade because all it did was legalize abortion on Demand
abortion always was legal
and always will be

but its abuse as a form of contraception is appalling and must be stopped

100's of Millions of innocents were lost as a result of this ASSININE Enlightened ruling/idea

 

[steen]

great stats, but they are actually meaningless propaganda
the overwhelming majority of abortions are abortion on demand
not out of need to save the mothers life, or abort a fetus with problems
the problem is all the whores using abortion as birth control

Ah, fascinating hyperbole. More than half of all abortions are per the FAILURE of birthcontrol. So you are now claiming those who use birth control to be "whores"? And does that also include the 25% of abortions to married women, are they "whores" as well?

Overturn Rowe v Wade because all it did was legalize abortion on Demand

It stated that you could not indiscriminately remove a woman's right to control her own body.

abortion always was legal

Your claim is false.

and always will be

yes, we are not going to let the theocratic, misogynistic, fundies oppress women, so yes it will remain legal as it is.

but its abuse as a form of contraception is appalling and must be stopped

When other contraception fails, it is there as a backup. And if you want better contraceoptive use ahead of time, then you should support early, accurate, and specific sex-ed. You should also support cheaper, betterand more available contraceotion.

THEN you would see fewer abourtions.

100's of Millions of innocents were lost as a result of this ASSININE Enlightened ruling/idea

Hmm, there haven't even been 100 mill abortions in the US since Roe vs Wade, so your claim seems outright silly and overblown, almost as if you need to rely on hyperbole instead of facts?

 

[DeeJayH]

Ah, fascinating hyperbole. More than half of all abortions are per the FAILURE of birthcontrol. So you are now claiming those who use birth control to be "whores"? And does that also include the 25% of abortions to married women, are they "whores" as well?
if they think babies are just disposable as tampons, yes i do
It stated that you could not indiscriminately remove a woman's right to control her own body.
that is putting the rights of one life ahead of anothers
what happened to life liberty and justice for all
abortion has always been legal.
all Rowe v Wade did was make Abortion on Demand legal
spin it anyway you like, but those are the facts of the ruling

yes, we are not going to let the theocratic, misogynistic, fundies oppress women, so yes it will remain legal as it is.
it will be overturned by Bushes appointments during his presidency or shortly thereafter

When other contraception fails, it is there as a backup. And if you want better contraceoptive use ahead of time, then you should support early, accurate, and specific sex-ed. You should also support cheaper, betterand more available contraceotion.
go to a socialist country if thats if you want the government to do everything for you.

THEN you would see fewer abourtions.
the best way to result in fewer abortions is for people to start taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS and the CONSQUENCES thereof

Hmm, there haven't even been 100 mill abortions in the US since Roe vs Wade, so your claim seems outright silly and overblown, almost as if you need to rely on hyperbole instead of facts?

go back a page or 2, Phoenix documented the 100's of millions of abortions done
not just in the US which is why i put in ruling/idea

 

[bandaidwoman]

So Deejay, do you personally know these women who seek abortions?

I personally do.

Many, like Steen pointed out, had their contraception fail.

I know the women whose husbands are strict catholics and forbid their wives any contraceptive use and are wallowing in near poverty with four other mouths to feed.

I know the woman "legally" raped by their abusive husbands whom they sought to seperate themselves from until the final divorce could be finalized and did not see any hope of a supportive husband should the child be born.

I know the 14 year old sodomized by her step brother.

I see the 12 year old who thought that if she kissed a boy before sex she would not get pregnant. (came from a home schooled fundamentalist background that did not permit sex education.)

I could go on and on. Anyone who sees a woman who seeks abortions will tell you that the majority have thought long and hard and did not make the decision callously.


As antiabortionists, we should be tackeling the underlying problem, not painting false pictures and statistics. we need to address accessable contraceptive, objective sex ed, good perinatal care and supporting medicaid which provides the majority of perinatal care for the economically disadvantaged who have the most to gain by aborting, think of some kind of way to subsidize childcare so women who don't have the support of a husband do not abort out of financial desperation etc.

 

[steen]

Ah, fascinating hyperbole. More than half of all abortions are per the FAILURE of birthcontrol. So you are now claiming those who use birth control to be "whores"? And does that also include the 25% of abortions to married women, are they "whores" as well?

if they think babies are just disposable as tampons, yes i do

But then, not one person here has said anything about babies, so that is simply just a silly non-answer.

It stated that you could not indiscriminately remove a woman's right to control her own body.

that is putting the rights of one life ahead of anothers

Like when you eat and cause the death of a cow or use antibiotics and kill off parasites and bacteria.

Or when you decide that you don't want to safely give up your extra kidney to somebody dying from kidney failure. Yes, then you put your rights ahead of somebody else's life.

Why shouldn't you be forced to safely give up your extra kidney so a life can be saved? After all, giving that kidney is safer than giving birth.

Huh? Oh, you ONLY want such duties to give of bodily resources to be placed on the woman, YOU want to be free of such duties?

yes, hence the hypocrisy of the prolife is exposed. Talking about life and about forcing women to give of their bodily resources to keep non-sentient, non-sensate life. But if they, themselves, could be forced to do so to save an actual thinking, feeling person, then "uh, no, that wouldn't be right." What hypocrisy.

No? I must have missed where you are advocating for forced organ and blood donation.

what happened to life liberty and justice for all

Other than this not being a law?

abortion has always been legal.
all Rowe v Wade did was make Abortion on Demand legal
spin it anyway you like, but those are the facts of the ruling

Oh, how cute. A "because I say so" false postulation from a prolifer who can't provide evidence for their point yet dishonestly spew the same falsehood as before. Well, golly gee. never seen that before have we :2razz:

yes, we are not going to let the theocratic, misogynistic, fundies oppress women, so yes it will remain legal as it is.

it will be overturned by Bushes appointments during his presidency or shortly thereafter

Ah, so you claim that the theocratic, misogynistic, fundies of the bush administration will push for oppression of women. Well, they probably would like to do that, I imagine. That fits my impression of them.

When other contraception fails, it is there as a backup. And if you want better contraceoptive use ahead of time, then you should support early, accurate, and specific sex-ed. You should also support cheaper, better and more available contraception.

go to a socialist country if thats if you want the government to do everything for you.

And go to a fascist country if you want the government to control people's private lives.

But yes, I do note your hypocritical refusal to support measures that actually would lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies and thus would lower the number of abortions. You are confirming that prolife fundie theocrat misogynists don't care about the fetus; they merely use it as an excuse to control and oppress women. Pure misogyny.

THEN you would see fewer abortions.

the best way to result in fewer abortions is for people to start taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS and the CONSQUENCES thereof

As having an abortion is one way of the woman to personally take responsibility for her situation and find a solution, your claim simply is pure nonsense, pure contradiction.

Hmm, there haven't even been 100 mill abortions in the US since Roe vs Wade, so your claim seems outright silly and overblown, almost as if you need to rely on hyperbole instead of facts?

go back a page or 2, Phoenix documented the 100's of millions of abortions done
not just in the US which is why i put in ruling/idea

Ah, yes you are right. My mistake. I apologize. Sorry about that.

 

[DeeJayH]

So Deejay, do you personally know these women who seek abortions?

used to, cut them out of my life afterwards

Many, like Steen pointed out, had their contraception fail.

too bad. women have dealt with it for centuries
this abomination is just a recent "advance' in science
legalized murder

I know the women whose husbands are strict catholics and forbid their wives any contraceptive use and are wallowing in near poverty with four other mouths to feed.
well they knew that when they got married
if they didnt they are fools and should suffer their folly

I know the woman "legally" raped by their abusive husbands whom they sought to seperate themselves from until the final divorce could be finalized and did not see any hope of a supportive husband should the child be born.
no such thing as 'legally raped'
that is a garbage argument

I know the 14 year old sodomized by her step brother.
would have been able to get an abortion prior to Rowe v Wade
therefor it is irrelevant

I see the 12 year old who thought that if she kissed a boy before sex she would not get pregnant. (came from a home schooled fundamentalist background that did not permit sex education.)
Parents choice on how to raise their children
not the governments

I could go on and on. Anyone who sees a woman who seeks abortions will tell you that the majority have thought long and hard and did not make the decision callously.
if that were the case the overwhelming majority of abortions would not be used as contraception
there are many alternatives

As antiabortionists, we should be tackeling the underlying problem, not painting false pictures and statistics. we need to address accessable contraceptive, objective sex ed, good perinatal care and supporting medicaid which provides the majority of perinatal care for the economically disadvantaged who have the most to gain by aborting, think of some kind of way to subsidize childcare so women who don't have the support of a husband do not abort out of financial desperation etc.

women have no right to unilaterally decide what was created by two people
women were oppressed. Deal with it
their pursuit of total freedom should not enable ignorants to become murderers
as far as all the rest, it is up to the parents to instill the values they deem important in their children
it is not to be subverted by the government because they 'know' how to raise our children better than us
and if they are unable to raise the children they have, or will have, maybe they should just die off
you have heard of 'survival of the fittest'?

 

[DeeJayH]

But then, not one person here has said anything about babies, so that is simply just a silly non-answer.
Like when you eat and cause the death of a cow or use antibiotics and kill off parasites and bacteria.

Or when you decide that you don't want to safely give up your extra kidney to somebody dying from kidney failure. Yes, then you put your rights ahead of somebody else's life.

Why shouldn't you be forced to safely give up your extra kidney so a life can be saved? After all, giving that kidney is safer than giving birth.

Huh? Oh, you ONLY want such duties to give of bodily resources to be placed on the woman, YOU want to be free of such duties?

yes, hence the hypocrisy of the prolife is exposed. Talking about life and about forcing women to give of their bodily resources to keep non-sentient, non-sensate life. But if they, themselves, could be forced to do so to save an actual thinking, feeling person, then "uh, no, that wouldn't be right." What hypocrisy.

No? I must have missed where you are advocating for forced organ and blood donation.
Other than this not being a law?
Oh, how cute. A "because I say so" false postulation from a prolifer who can't provide evidence for their point yet dishonestly spew the same falsehood as before. Well, golly gee. never seen that before have we :2razz:
Ah, so you claim that the theocratic, misogynistic, fundies of the bush administration will push for oppression of women. Well, they probably would like to do that, I imagine. That fits my impression of them.
And go to a fascist country if you want the government to control people's private lives.

But yes, I do note your hypocritical refusal to support measures that actually would lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies and thus would lower the number of abortions. You are confirming that prolife fundie theocrat misogynists don't care about the fetus; they merely use it as an excuse to control and oppress women. Pure misogyny.
As having an abortion is one way of the woman to personally take responsibility for her situation and find a solution, your claim simply is pure nonsense, pure contradiction.
Ah, yes you are right. My mistake. I apologize. Sorry about that.

if anything you said had any merit i would reply
if i am so wrong on R v W, than why dont you provide proof to shut me down
everybody with a clue knows what R v W did
IT ONLY LEGALIZED ABORTION ON DEMAND
everything else was available prior to it
get a clue or back it up
but i doubt you will because you will not want to be confronted with reality
because all the poor victims of rape and incest, yada, yada , yada will still be able to get abortions w/o R v W
just the whores who use it as birth control will be affected

the murder of innocents is not justified because it will make the lives of others complicated

SUCK IT UP
people have for centuries
back in the day when people had morals
when people made judgements
prior to this secular/uber liberal position of no judgements, do what you want/ its all good

 

[steen]

if anything you said had any merit i would reply

oh, that is som incredibly lame, this blustering avoidance of yours. I duly note your avoidance of the points I raised, your inability to provide sensible and meaningful answers.

if i am so wrong on R v W, than why dont you provide proof to shut me down
everybody with a clue knows what R v W did
IT ONLY LEGALIZED ABORTION ON DEMAND
everything else was available prior to it
get a clue or back it up

Roe vs Wade was the ruling on a Texas abortion law with numerous restrictions on the access to abortions. The US Supreme Court struck down the restrictions, reporting that the woman has a right to control her own body. That is right there in the ruling
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
"State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. "

So there it is. It did NOT legalize "abortion on demand," your claim is false. Evidence provided against your "because I say so" unsubstantiated wild claim. Are you done fooling around with this and making fasle claims? Are you going to AFURTHER deny facts, deny reality?

but i doubt you will because you will not want to be confronted with reality
because all the poor victims of rape and incest, yada, yada , yada will still be able to get abortions w/o R v W
just the whores who use it as birth control will be affected

Doubt away. Despite your hate mongering misogyny and desire to control and oppress women, the claims you have made here are flat-out false.
YOU ARE WRONG. YOUR CLAIMS ARE FALSE.
Case closed.

the murder of innocents is not justified because it will make the lives of others complicated

Murder is the illegal killing of a person; your claim is nonsense just like the other revisionist linguistic hyperbole that you have spewed.

SUCK IT UP
people have for centuries
back in the day when people had morals

yes, when they had morals that oppose the flagrant oppression of women by rightwing fundie misogynists. Obviously, per your posts, you lack the moral that syas this is wrong.

when people made judgements
prior to this secular/uber liberal position of no judgements, do what you want/ its all good

AH, yes people are having it to easy, they are not suffering enough, but by golly you will make women suffer as YOU see it appropriate. Sure, I have no doubt of your agenda of hate mongering, misogynistic rightwing theocracy, none at all.

 

[DeeJayH]

oh, that is som incredibly lame, this blustering avoidance of yours. I duly note your avoidance of the points I raised, your inability to provide sensible and meaningful answers.
same old same old
Roe vs Wade was the ruling on a Texas abortion law with numerous restrictions on the access to abortions. The US Supreme Court struck down the restrictions, reporting that the woman has a right to control her own body. That is right there in the ruling
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
"State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. "

So there it is. It did NOT legalize "abortion on demand," your claim is false. Evidence provided against your "because I say so" unsubstantiated wild claim. Are you done fooling around with this and making fasle claims? Are you going to AFURTHER deny facts, deny reality?
your quote proves exactly that all it did was legalize abortion on demand, by ruling that a woman has total control over the pregnancy regardless of the fact that a man was involved in the situation. that it is not only some cells in womens body, like boogers, but that it is apart of the woman AND the man

Doubt away. Despite your hate mongering misogyny and desire to control and oppress women, the claims you have made here are flat-out false.
YOU ARE WRONG. YOUR CLAIMS ARE FALSE.
Case closed.
i am sure you believe so, but nothing you posted proves such

Murder is the illegal killing of a person; your claim is nonsense just like the other revisionist linguistic hyperbole that you have spewed.
only because you have been brainwashed into believing that the life growing inside a woman, just like you did before you were born, is nothing but a group of cells. Well if its nothing but a booger, why dont you do like you did when you were a kid, and EAT IT.
Protein Slurpees after all Abortions.

AH, yes people are having it to easy, they are not suffering enough, but by golly you will make women suffer as YOU see it appropriate. Sure, I have no doubt of your agenda of hate mongering, misogynistic rightwing theocracy, none at all.

you are so hung up in your Victim mentality you have no clue how good you have it compared to the past
just as an example, you have been so emancipated that you can murder your offspring at ANYTIME, FOR ANY REASON, WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES
how much more power does one need. Sieg Heil baby butchers

 

[steen]

So Deejay, do you personally know these women who seek abortions?

used to, cut them out of my life afterwards

Your intolerance against those who do not measure up to your ideals is duly noted. What was it Jesus said... Oh yeah: MATT 25:
43 I was homeless and you gave me no bed,
I was shivering and you gave me no clothes,
Sick and in prison, and you never visited.'
44 "Then those "goats' are going to say, "Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or homeless or shivering or sick or in prison and didn't help?'
45 "He will answer them, "I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you failed to do one of these things to someone who was being overlooked or ignored, that was me--you failed to do it to me.'
46 "Then those "goats' will be herded to their eternal doom, but the "sheep' to their eternal reward."

So that's of course what happens to the intolerant self-righteous.

Many, like Steen pointed out, had their contraception fail.

too bad. women have dealt with it for centuries

just like they dealt with cholera and dysentery from dirty water, lethal infections from cuts, and dying from gangrene. Yes, to bad that all these medical treatment for unwanted conditions are available. What a horrible thing that happened to us with medical treatments for unwanted conditions becoming available.

this abomination is just a recent "advance' in science

Your objection to modern medicine is duly noted. Do you deny your kids antibiotics?

legalized murder

Ah, an oxymoron. revisionist linguistic hyperbole. Yes, you have spewed that before with no regard to reality of facts, just like you are now.

I know the women whose husbands are strict catholics and forbid their wives any contraceptive use and are wallowing in near poverty with four other mouths to feed.

well they knew that when they got married
if they didnt they are fools and should suffer their folly[/quote]Ah, so people who make mistakes should be made to suffer for their mistakes. How kind of you. You smoked? To bad, I will deny you treatment for your lung cancer because you knew the risk. THAT is the kind of lack of compassion you are advocating here, isn't it!
I could go on and on. Anyone who sees a woman who seeks abortions will tell you that the majority have thought long and hard and did not make the decision callously.[/quote]
if that were the case the overwhelming majority of abortions would not be used as contraception
there are many alternatives[/quote]"many"? Anyway, as I have shown data previously, most abortions are after the couple DID use contraception. So your claim, as I am sure nobody are surprised over any more, is outright false.

As antiabortionists, we should be tackeling the underlying problem, not painting false pictures and statistics. we need to address accessable contraceptive, objective sex ed, good perinatal care and supporting medicaid which provides the majority of perinatal care for the economically disadvantaged who have the most to gain by aborting, think of some kind of way to subsidize childcare so women who don't have the support of a husband do not abort out of financial desperation etc.

Women have no right to unilaterally decide what was created by two people

They have the right to control their own bodies no mater HOW much you would like to control them.

women were oppressed. Deal with it

Ah yes. By all means don’t do anything Christian like fight the oppression. That would just be wrong because then you can't oppress, control and punish them. THEN what would you plan on those long winter evenings?

their pursuit of total freedom should not enable ignorants to become murderers

And it doesn't.

as far as all the rest, it is up to the parents to instill the values they deem important in their children

Ah, now ignorance is a family value?

it is not to be subverted by the government because they 'know' how to raise our children better than us

Yes, damn the Government and their facts. better dump your own fantasies and lies on them so they are set up to fail the moment they hit the real world, right?

and if they are unable to raise the children they have, or will have, maybe they should just die off
you have heard of 'survival of the fittest'?

Well, I guess we could let the fundie, hate mongering misogynists die off?

Oh, silly me, rather the hatemongering misogynist fundies are doing their best to let the rest of us die:
http://www.armyofgod.com/heroes.html

But I am pleased that you accept the Science of Evolution. There are a couple of treads in the education forum that could use your input

 

[DeeJayH]

Your intolerance against those who do not measure up to your ideals is duly noted. What was it Jesus said... Oh yeah: MATT 25:
43 I was homeless and you gave me no bed,
I was shivering and you gave me no clothes,
Sick and in prison, and you never visited.'
44 "Then those "goats' are going to say, "Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or homeless or shivering or sick or in prison and didn't help?'
45 "He will answer them, "I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you failed to do one of these things to someone who was being overlooked or ignored, that was me--you failed to do it to me.'
46 "Then those "goats' will be herded to their eternal doom, but the "sheep' to their eternal reward."

So that's of course what happens to the intolerant self-righteous.
just like they dealt with cholera and dysentery from dirty water, lethal infections from cuts, and dying from gangrene. Yes, to bad that all these medical treatment for unwanted conditions are available. What a horrible thing that happened to us with medical treatments for unwanted conditions becoming available.
Your objection to modern medicine is duly noted. Do you deny your kids antibiotics?
Ah, an oxymoron. revisionist linguistic hyperbole. Yes, you have spewed that before with no regard to reality of facts, just like you are now.
well they knew that when they got married
if they didnt they are fools and should suffer their folly

Ah, so people who make mistakes should be made to suffer for their mistakes. How kind of you. You smoked? To bad, I will deny you treatment for your lung cancer because you knew the risk. THAT is the kind of lack of compassion you are advocating here, isn't it!
I could go on and on. Anyone who sees a woman who seeks abortions will tell you that the majority have thought long and hard and did not make the decision callously.[/quote]
if that were the case the overwhelming majority of abortions would not be used as contraception
there are many alternatives[/quote]"many"? Anyway, as I have shown data previously, most abortions are after the couple DID use contraception. So your claim, as I am sure nobody are surprised over any more, is outright false.
They have the right to control their own bodies no mater HOW much you would like to control them.
Ah yes. By all means don’t do anything Christian like fight the oppression. That would just be wrong because then you can't oppress, control and punish them. THEN what would you plan on those long winter evenings?
And it doesn't.
Ah, now ignorance is a family value?
Yes, damn the Government and their facts. better dump your own fantasies and lies on them so they are set up to fail the moment they hit the real world, right?
Well, I guess we could let the fundie, hate mongering misogynists die off?

Oh, silly me, rather the hatemongering misogynist fundies are doing their best to let the rest of us die:
http://www.armyofgod.com/heroes.html

But I am pleased that you accept the Science of Evolution. There are a couple of treads in the education forum that could use your input[/quote]

I am an ignorant victim so I should be allowed to commit whatever atrocity i want know because so many were commited against my kind in the past

look in the mirror bitter hatemonger

 

[Visceria]

I don't really know the ins and outs of legal workings and all that, so all I can post in my opinion in simple terms lol. I'm kind of liberal, but I disagree with many of the policies. This is one of them.
I don't believe that killing anything without sufficient purpose is right. Not recreational rabbit hunting, death penalty, or abortion. The only exception I see is if the mother's health is in real danger.
Because though it is unfair that only women should bear the burden of the risk of becoming pregnant and not the men, women should be able to deal with taking a year out of their life to spare another's.
The world will not end
the sky will not fall.
And that is what I think matters. Putting all work/school related complications aside and respecting another life in important and what I believe to be morally acceptable. It has nothing to do with religion. I am not a religious person at all, but I value life.
On a personal note, my birthmother had me when she was about 16. Letting me live I think was a very brave thing to do. But it was the right thing.

 

[steen]

your quote proves exactly that all it did was legalize abortion on demand, by ruling that a woman has total control over the pregnancy regardless of the fact that a man was involved in the situation. that it is not only some cells in womens body, like boogers, but that it is apart of the woman AND the man

I am astonished that when I provided a quote shoing the above to be outright false, you claim that the quote support your falsehood? That really can only mean that you either are illiterate or outright lying. I would hate to think either of you.

Murder is the illegal killing of a person; your claim is nonsense just like the other revisionist linguistic hyperbole that you have spewed.

only because you have been brainwashed into believing that the life growing inside a woman, just like you did before you were born, is nothing but a group of cells..

Nope, it is because "Murder REALLY IS "the illegal killing of a person. The fact is the fact regardless of personal beliefs. Oh, perhaps you didn't know that? perhaps you thought that espousing wishful thinking as if they were facts would automatically make them into facts? Well that sure is a strange belief that you have.

Well if its nothing but a booger, why dont you do like you did when you were a kid, and EAT IT.
Protein Slurpees after all Abortions.

Why should I? The law is clear on biological tissue, it has to be disposed off as medical waste. Why are you encouraging lawlessness?

AH, yes people are having it to easy, they are not suffering enough, but by golly you will make women suffer as YOU see it appropriate. Sure, I have no doubt of your agenda of hate mongering, misogynistic rightwing theocracy, none at all.

you are so hung up in your Victim mentality you have no clue how good you have it compared to the past

ROTFLAMO. I am not a victim regardl;ess of what happens to abortion laws etc. So that's a downright silly claim.

just as an example, you have been so emancipated that you can murder your offspring at ANYTIME, FOR ANY REASON, WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES

AH, now you are back to that silly habit of yours of spewign outright falsehoods again. Don't you ever get tired of doing that?

how much more power does one need. Sieg Heil baby butchers

And this from a hate mongering misogynistic fundie who want to reintroduce slavery for pregnant women.

See there, that was fun, spewing ad hominems. Should we continue, or are you actually going to grow up?

 

[steen]

I am an ignorant victim so I should be allowed to commit whatever atrocity i want know because so many were commited against my kind in the past

Really? What attrocities were committed against you?

look in the mirror bitter hatemonger

By golly, now you are talking to yourself. I am beginnig to worry for you.

 

[steen]

Because though it is unfair that only women should bear the burden of the risk of becoming pregnant and not the men, women should be able to deal with taking a year out of their life to spare another's.
The world will not end
the sky will not fall.
And that is what I think matters. Putting all work/school related complications aside and respecting another life in important and what I believe to be morally acceptable. It has nothing to do with religion. I am not a religious person at all, but I value life.

So if somebody is dying from kidney failure, then he should have the right to have your extra kidney even against your will?

The danger to you is less than that of giving birth, and it is MUCH SHORTER in time than being pregnant. And it will spare a life. So should you be forced to give your kidney? Can your bodily recourses be used against your will if it is to save another life?

After all, this is much less than what you want the pregnant woman to endure.

And how about being forced to give blood against your will? That only lasts 15 minutes, barely a blip in your life? How come that isn't mandatory? Why shouldn't you be forced, be strapped down and a pint of blood extracted from you never mind how much you object?

After all, it could save lives. Or is it only OTHERS that you want to assign duties and burdens on? Is it only OTHERS who should be able to handle the burden? Is it different for you?

 

[purplezen]

I don't see what the big deal is. People die every day. Death is necessary, albeit sometimes premature, but its part of our life cycle. I've got a bigger issue with suffering.

I hear at a certain stage of development within the womb, abortion is actually painful for the unborn. Is there any truth to this?

That would be my cut-off point. Maybe some dickheads would call this a narrowminded view, but its my cut-off point. No abortion permitted after the point where the fetus experiences emotional trauma. If the little guy's not gonna have a life, make it at least that it doesn't have to feel its existence being taken away.

So banning abortion does it make sense? To me: yes and no.

Ciao.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Let's hope he does! At least he is on our side for Darwinism :mrgreen:

I think your thoughts about the sanctity of life and the limits that goverment should impose is a good one. (forced to donate blood, kidneys, (and now partial liver donations to save another's life). And trust me, most physicians who deal with blood loss and the need for blood transfusions probably wish blood donation was mandatory.


I am anitabortion but oppose mandating it illegal in part for this very reason. If a man was told that he must give up a part of his body to save a life, he would resist every effort to have the government control his body in such a manner.

 

[bandaidwoman]

So Deejay, do you personally know these women who seek abortions?

used to, cut them out of my life afterwards

well they knew that when they got married
if they didnt they are fools and should suffer their folly

Should the "fools" that allow themselves to become morbidly obese be denied medical treatment for their complications? Should the "fools" who fall after a rock climbing accident be told that their foolhardiness in scaling a 700 foot sheer wall "suffer their folly?" Should the "fool" who accidently overdosed on medications because they did not read the labels properly "suffer their folly"?
Where do we stop?

no such thing as 'legally raped'
that is a garbage argument

We both agree that there is no such thing as legal rape which is why I put it in quotations. Unfortunately, here in Georgia it is hard to persecute a man for rape when he is still "legally" your husband.

would have been able to get an abortion prior to Rowe v Wade
therefor it is irrelevant

Right, the 12 year old would have gone to a back ally abortionist and probably died of complications of the procedure since many of them were not physicians.

Parents choice on how to raise their children
not the governments

So if the parents did not want their child vaccinated (due to religious or other reasons) we are not obligated to treat the child's tetany, measles, diptheria, pertussis etc?

 

[Grand_Debater]

Sorry, I didn't relize how high the percents were for failed birth control.

I no i forgot to mention about sexual assualt and other forced sex and stuff, in that case i do believe that you should be able to have abortion.

I was talking about that murder is against the law not abortion.

Also, sorry about your relative that had to have abortion.

 

[DeeJayH]

I am astonished that when I provided a quote shoing the above to be outright false, you claim that the quote support your falsehood? That really can only mean that you either are illiterate or outright lying. I would hate to think either of you.
your quote shows that R v W allows a woman to do whatever she wants.
Abortions were always available when the mothers life was in danger
back alley abortions were done for women for abortions of convenience
Nope, it is because "Murder REALLY IS "the illegal killing of a person. The fact is the fact regardless of personal beliefs. Oh, perhaps you didn't know that? perhaps you thought that espousing wishful thinking as if they were facts would automatically make them into facts? Well that sure is a strange belief that you have.
only becuase of the beleifs assumed by the pro-abortioners
Life is life, no matter what stage, and it should not be killed out of convenience.
If the overwhelming majority of abortions was due to rape, incest, or to save the womans life, there would be MUCH less opposition to it
all of these reasons were acceptable BEFORE R v W
RvW only expanded abortions of neccessity to abortion on Demand
facts are facts, as you say

Why should I? The law is clear on biological tissue, it has to be disposed off as medical waste. Why are you encouraging lawlessness?
can you say exaggeration? i think you can.

ROTFLAMO. I am not a victim regardl;ess of what happens to abortion laws etc. So that's a downright silly claim.
it is my belief that WOMEN were victims throughout history until the womens rights movement
however in the quest for equality they have chosen to be just as, if not moreso, barbaric than their oppressors
Certainly killing ones own young is worse than war
AH, now you are back to that silly habit of yours of spewign outright falsehoods again. Don't you ever get tired of doing that?
but it is so much fun
And this from a hate mongering misogynistic fundie who want to reintroduce slavery for pregnant women.

See there, that was fun, spewing ad hominems. Should we continue, or are you actually going to grow up?

reread the thread you started the ad hominems with the 'hate mongering misogynistic fund' :3oops:

 

[DeeJayH]

Really? What attrocities were committed against you?
i was speaking as a recently liberated woman whos history is oppression taking their freedom to extremes
By golly, now you are talking to yourself. I am beginnig to worry for you.

its a two way mirror on my side :lol:

 

[DeeJayH]

So Deejay, do you personally know these women who seek abortions?

quite a few, atleast i used to know them


Should the "fools" that allow themselves to become morbidly obese be denied medical treatment for their complications?

if they have a metabolic disorder? No
if they are lazy pigs? Yes
Should the "fools" who fall after a rock climbing accident be told that their foolhardiness in scaling a 700 foot sheer wall "suffer their folly?"
dont see this as a legitimate comparison
Should the "fool" who accidently overdosed on medications because they did not read the labels properly "suffer their folly"?
yup, and the doctor/pharmacist should suffer consequences as well for not properly explaining the script
Where do we stop?
until i am the only perfect human left on the planet :lol:


We both agree that there is no such thing as legal rape which is why I put it in quotations. Unfortunately, here in Georgia it is hard to persecute a man for rape when he is still "legally" your husband.

and that is a sad statement on the state of affairs in the state of Georgia. They do know its the 21st century up there? dont they?

Right, the 12 year old would have gone to a back ally abortionist and probably died of complications of the procedure since many of them were not physicians.
case of the mothers life being in jeopardy due to her age, therefore it would have been legal, even before R v W, so she could have gone to a regular doctor
and it would remain legal, after R v W is overturned


So if the parents did not want their child vaccinated (due to religious or other reasons) we are not obligated to treat the child's tetany, measles, diptheria, pertussis etc?

too many big words:3oops: :doh

 

[steen]

I hear at a certain stage of development within the womb, abortion is actually painful for the unborn. Is there any truth to this?

Well, the physical connections necessary for this don't occur until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. As for actually feeling pain, the latest review of the data was just published in JAMA, indicating that the ability of sensation comes about at approximately the 29th-30th week.

Now, the number of abortions performed that late in 3rd trimester is miniscule and done for medical emergencies. I hope nobody suggests that women shoudl suffer the permant and life-threatining complications of f.ex. Ecclampsia just because they place the fetus above her health?