I find it hard to believe that some people think they have a right

[melons]

wow more dishonesty

where did I ever say one single time that the out come of sex couldnt be a child? thats right I never did its something you are making up to try and save face but you are just looking more silly

now you are simply trying to CHANGE the argument but sorry I wont let you LOL

ill repeat the facts again since now you are trying to reflect and backpedal


"Sorry a woman consenting to sex is NOT consenting to having a child, this fact will never change" :shrug:

let me know wehn you have any facts at all to prove different because currently you have provide ZERO

I wasn't trying to save face. I have said the same thing the entire time I have talked to you. You are the one who doesn't agree with someone accepting the complete responsibility for their actions and that is okay. There are plenty of people like you in the world but I am not one of them

 

[Donahue]

I don't know of anyone who claims the right “to tell ALL the women in the US when they can have a baby, how many babies they should have and by whom these babies will be fathered”.

What you are writing about, of course, is the assertion that a woman who already has a baby should have the right to have that baby killed, up to a certain arbitrary point, if that baby's existence is inconvenient to her.

I find it very odd that this is widely seen as a religious issue, and that it is religious organizations that primarily take up the cause of defending unborn children. Outside of this one issue, I think nearly everyone agrees that the single most vital and essential of all human rights is the right not to be intentionally killed, unless there are very drastic and extreme circumstances to justify that killing.

I see no rational reason at all why abortion should be treated as any kind of exception to the constraints that any civilized society otherwise places on homicide in general. A human being is a human being, no matter the size, age, or stage of development, and all human beings are certainly entitled to the same basic right to exist.

This might be one of the best posts I have ever seen on a message board.

 

[mac]

I'm still waiting for any documented claims by the Supreme Court saying the the unborn have a right to life. The UNBORN DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE under current laws...state, federal, or otherwise. The unborn's only form of protection falls under the "VIABILITY" clause created in Roe v. Wade...and even that includes exceptions.

I didn't say that the supreme court said they did. What I said is that is not true that they said that they didn't, as you are trying to imply.

 

[mac]

I'm choking by just trying to digest your posts.

Well,there's hope.

 

[AGENT J]

I wasn't trying to save face. I have said the same thing the entire time I have talked to you. You are the one who doesn't agree with someone accepting the complete responsibility for their actions and that is okay. There are plenty of people like you in the world but I am not one of them

nice try but another fail :shrug:

I agree there are many people in this world like me, people that know the difference between fact and opinion

and now you are lying, you said people who agree to sex agree to have a baby and thats not true, then half way through you changed it to possible outcome can be lol

facts still remains consent to sex is not consent to giving birth, crying about this wont change that fact

again if your false opinion disagrees please by all means prove it, you cant and you havent lol

 

[Scrabaholic]

Yes you are exactly right. Smoking is a risk and if you get lung cancer, you are to blame and everyone else will blame you too. A tumor is not comparable to a baby. You can't just a take a pill or do something simple to get rid of the tumor, nor should you be able to kill a baby because you were too thoughtless and irresponsible to accept the risk that you took. If you have sex and get pregnant, you caused it, period! Nothing else causes pregnancy and that is a proven fact. We live in a world of people who don't want to accept responsibility for their actions.

Why are you changing the tangent of the conversation? YOU said that when one has sex one consents to pregnancy, insinuating that that means one has to gestate and give birth. YOU are the one who brought up having to live with the consequences of an action. If that applies to pregnancy, then it also applies to other situations such as lung cancer and smoking and incidentally, tumours CAN be removed surgically, just like a pregnancy can be terminated surgically. In fact, that is the only way to terminate a pregnancy in my country as the abortion pill is not available.

As for responsibility, abortion IS a responsible thing to do if the woman is unwilling/unable to care for a child or unwilling/unable to carry to term and birth. What is NOT responsible is birthing a child you will not/cannot care for or pawning it off on others to raise aka adoption.

 

[AGENT J]

Why are you changing the tangent of the conversation? YOU said that when one has sex one consents to pregnancy, insinuating that that means one has to gestate and give birth. YOU are the one who brought up having to live with the consequences of an action. If that applies to pregnancy, then it also applies to other situations such as lung cancer and smoking and incidentally, tumours CAN be removed surgically, just like a pregnancy can be terminated surgically. In fact, that is the only way to terminate a pregnancy in my country as the abortion pill is not available.

As for responsibility, abortion IS a responsible thing to do if the woman is unwilling/unable to care for a child or unwilling/unable to carry to term and birth. What is NOT responsible is birthing a child you will not/cannot care for or pawning it off on others to raise aka adoption.

Yep she tried that same BS with me and failed. When she realized she was wrong, she tried to save face and back pedal and tweak her statement lol I found it very funny

 

[Jerry]

I don't terribly care about what a woman does with her own body. I care about what she does with her unborn child's body, though. Every child deserves to be loved and wanted, not aborted.

 

[waas]

I don't terribly care about what a woman does with her own body. I care about what she does with her unborn child's body, though. Every child deserves to be loved and wanted, not aborted.

Even in the case of therapudic abortions? Where one aborts a child if they have a hugely crippiling condition.

 

[Jerry]

Even in the case of therapudic abortions? Where one aborts a child if they have a hugely crippiling condition.

Even in cases where there is absolutely nothing wrong at all.

 

[waas]

Even in cases where there is absolutely nothing wrong at all.

Kind of obscure. Please answer the question: Do you support therapeutic abortions?

 

[minnie616]

The government is about regulating the proceedures for settling disputes between people, not telling them how to live. I dont like people meddling in my affairs in fact get rather hostile about it. Having children is the parents and to a lesser dergree the families affair. Certainly not mine or yours. Niether of us should have ANY say in that matter as it does not directly concern us. It would seem in all your arguements so far that you have yet to present a direct concern. Do kindly present one. If you even have one. As I said before you have no skin in the game so you shouldnt be telling people how they should deal with their internal affairs. Its not polite one, and two in some places it aint considered friendly.

Well said.

I agree having children should be the parents and to lesser degree the families choice.
It is a private mattermatter for them to decide.

Here is a part of the Surpreme Court decision:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.
Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved.
Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future.
Psychological harm may be imminent.
Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care.
There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.
In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.

Roe v. Wade: Section VIII

 

[PirateMk1]

Well said.

I agree having children should be the parents and to lesser degree the families choice.
It is a private mattermatter for them to decide.

Here is a part of the Surpreme Court decision:



Roe v. Wade: Section VIII

About the only commandment of Gods that we take absolutely seriously is "Go forth and procreate.". Murdering and Thieving take a back seat to it. Our family has spread far and wide, you can find members on every continate and almost country. You will find us of damn near every race, color and creed. In my family, it is primarily a familiy decision and we choose life. If the mother needs help she gets it, though there are LOTS of strings attached especially if the child is out of wedlock. (the young lovers are strongly encouraged to get married) They know they will get help and the child will most definately be loved, so the decision to abort is not really a viable one for them.

 

[Jerry]

Kind of obscure.

I think you changed your question, is why, so let's take a walk....

First I state 3 general opinions:

I don't terribly care about what a woman does with her own body.

I care about what she does with her unborn child's body, though.

Every child deserves to be loved and wanted, not aborted.

So then you ask me:

Even in the case of therapeutic abortions? Where one aborts a child if they have a hugely crippling condition.

So I'll try to offer clear and direct answers to your question.

• Even when the unborn child may have a hugely crippling condition, I still do not terribly care what a woman chooses to do with her own body.
• Even when the unborn child may have a hugely crippling condition, I care about what the woman does with that unborn child (that does not mean I oppose abortion in that situation, it only means I care about what happens It's basic human decency to not want anyone to needlessly suffer).
• Even when the unborn child may have a hugely crippling condition, even when I would personally sign off and pay for said abortion, that child is no less deserving of love. That it may have to be aborted does not diminish what it deserves. In extreme cases, abortion is the act of loving the child (I support mercy killing).

*****
My response to you...

Even in cases where there is absolutely nothing wrong at all.

...was a reaction to you jumping straight to the rare exception, when everyone knows that this is not the typical situation elective abortions are desired for. You knew or should have known that deformities represent an "unrepresentative sample" of abortion patients. By jumping right to the extreme minority of abortions, ignoring the typical reasons entirely, you were offering a flawed argument. Now maybe you did this wittily, but pro-choice does this all the time on purpose, so as to quickly polarize the issue and divide otherwise sober minds who could have reached compromise and resolved the issue.

You were playing what my 11 y/o calls "silly-games", which is why you got a shady answer redirecting you back to the typical abortion patient.

Please answer the question: Do you support therapeutic abortions?

Not even pro-choice supports all therapeutic abortions. Even pro-choice draws a line. Typically this line is 'viability', and most pro-choice oppose therapeutic abortions after viability. Damn near everyone opposes partial-birth abortion.

I use the term "elective" abortions: abortions for no reason other than the mother just doesn't want a child. Not because there is a deformity. Not because pregnancy may kill the mother. She just doesn't want a child and may have a cocktail or rationalizations supporting her whim and mere desire.

That's what I oppose.

 

[Removable Mind]

Well,there's hope.

While I know we often disagree...I would never have believed that you would wish me personal harm in any respect. Thanks, Mac....

 

[mac]

While I know we often disagree...I would never have believed that you would wish me personal harm in any respect. Thanks, Mac....

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Removable Mind]

What the hell are you talking about?

I might ask you the same...in your post # 279?

 

[JayDubya]

So... "there's hope" that you're trying to understand sensible ideas rather than just posting nonsense?

He's not wishing you choke, he's being more charitable than precedent would suggest to be prudent... and your blatant mischaracterization only serves to confirm that.

 

[Bodi]

The government is about regulating the proceedures for settling disputes between people, not telling them how to live. I dont like people meddling in my affairs in fact get rather hostile about it. Having children is the parents and to a lesser dergree the families affair. Certainly not mine or yours. Niether of us should have ANY say in that matter as it does not directly concern us. It would seem in all your arguements so far that you have yet to present a direct concern. Do kindly present one. If you even have one. As I said before you have no skin in the game so you shouldnt be telling people how they should deal with their internal affairs. Its not polite one, and two in some places it aint considered friendly.

My argument is that you don't have one. I have already thoroughly disproved your "skin in the game" mindless mantra... if you can't even grasp that concept then what hope is there for you in understanding government or the higher dynamics of familial structure? Do you believe that sex with children is OK? Murder? Polygamy? Rape? Beastiality? Then you have a say in matters that do not directly concern you. Jesus Christ dude... this has been explained already. Are you twelve years old or something? If you're a college kid or younger let me know so I am not so harsh.

The government tells us how to live all the time in America. What country do you live in? It says California but surely that can't be... Do you have any grasp of what laws are? The Courts are the only part of the government concerned with disputes. It seems as if you have never heard of Locke or Hobbes or anything about the Enlightenment.

 

[Bodi]

While I know we often disagree...I would never have believed that you would wish me personal harm in any respect. Thanks, Mac....

Seemed pretty clear that he is saying that there is hope that you will digest (understand) what he posted... no idea how you came to this conclusion and NO IDEA why anybody would be so thoughtless as to thank you for this post.

 

[AGENT J]

Seemed pretty clear that he is saying that there is hope that you will digest (understand) what he posted... no idea how you came to this conclusion and NO IDEA why anybody would be so thoughtless as to thank you for this post.

I disagree and I thought the same thing, seemed to me he was hoping he would choke, not saying its true but thats the way it came off. And I thanked him because Ive seen that type of uncivil behavior from mac before on multiple occasions, so the idea was based on thinking about history not thoughlessness :shrug:

so obviously, it was so obvious how he may or may not have meant it

 

[mac]

I might ask you the same...in your post # 279?

That there's hope you'll digest NB's posts, which are usually spot on and flame free. Unlike yours.

Now what they hell did you think I meant?

 

[mac]

Seemed pretty clear that he is saying that there is hope that you will digest (understand) what he posted... no idea how you came to this conclusion and NO IDEA why anybody would be so thoughtless as to thank you for this post.

Yeah, exactly. What the hell is she blabbering about?

 

[minnie616]

I disagree and I thought the same thing, seemed to me he was hoping he would choke, not saying its true but thats the way it came off. And I thanked him because Ive seen that type of uncivil behavior from mac before on multiple occasions, so the idea was based on thinking about history not thoughlessness :shrug:

so obviously, it was so obvious how he may or may not have meant it

I thought it was attack also and one that wished him personal harm.

 

[Removable Mind]

Yeah, exactly. What the hell is she blabbering about?

Uh huh...birds of a feather...