Kill More Babies !

[LedZap]

Oh boy...now we can kill even more babies !

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban

[ballzack]

Oh boy...now we can kill even more babies !

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban

Debate on Abortion aside, Zapper, it is amazing to me that some Liberals condone abortion, YET, would drag your ass to court in a heartbeat if you used the "N" word in public.

[LedZap]

You can KILL a baby....but not a spotted owl.

[Hobo Kombat]

You can KILL a baby....but not a spotted owl.

Spotted Owl's are endangered, human's are numerous.

[hitekredneck]

Spotted Owl's are endangered, human's are numerous.

so this makes them more important than humans?...get a clue

[yee-haw]

Debate on Abortion aside, Zapper, it is amazing to me that some Liberals condone abortion, YET, would drag your ass to court in a heartbeat if you used the "N" word in public.

The people around here ... AKA "The hood"
Call each other niggers all the time, White, Black, puerto rican...
Don't seem to bother 'em. :confused:

I know that was'nt your point, Just thought i'd add to it. :p

[LedZap]

The people around here ... AKA "The hood"
Call each other niggers all the time, White, Black, puerto rican...
Don't seem to bother 'em. :confused:
:p

Right On my Niggah!

[General Septem]

"The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office."

Political football sums it up nicely - I like how it accurately describes politics as a game.

[freakazoid]

"The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office."

Political football sums it up nicely - I like how it accurately describes politics as a game.

Yep, that is true. Its a damn ping pong game...

Vatican attacks US abortion move
President Barack Obama
Mr Obama lifted the controversial funding ban in his first week in office

The Vatican has condemned President Obama's move to restore US funding for family planning clinics abroad that give advice on or carry out abortions.

One Vatican official warned against the "arrogance" of those in power who think they can decide between life and death.

See - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7849600.stm

[microman]

Yep, that is true. Its damn ping pong game...

Vatican attacks US abortion move
President Barack Obama
Mr Obama lifted the controversial funding ban in his first week in office

The Vatican has condemned President Obama's move to restore US funding for family planning clinics abroad that give advice on or carry out abortions.

One Vatican official warned against the "arrogance" of those in power who think they can decide between life and death.

See - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7849600.stm


That will be one hell of a meeting with the Pope spit will be flying.

[Hammerhead]

That will be one hell of a meeting with the Pope spit will be flying.

i hope the pope calls out obama for what he truely is.
a microcosim of what is wrong with america

[ballzack]

Here's the rub, Hammer et al.

Pierce a new-born baby's skull with Metsenbalm scissors and suck the infant's brains out with a catheter, That's a CHOICE!!!!!

Throw a glass of water in the face of a TERRORIST at Gitmo, and THAT'S a TRAVESTY????

Get real. Obama has his priorities so far out of wack on this one, it's ridiculous and not worth debating.
And no one can defend what I just posted above. Try as they might. It's outrageous to do so. It would only show their true ignorance.

[microman]

Here's the rub, Hammer et al.

Pierce a new-born baby's skull with Metsenbalm scissors and suck the infant's brains out with a catheter, That's a CHOICE!!!!!

Throw a glass of water in the face of a TERRORIST at Gitmo, and THAT'S a TRAVESTY????

Get real. Obama has his priorities so far out of wack on this one, it's ridiculous and not worth debating.
And no one can defend what I just posted above. Try as they might. It's outrageous to do so. It would only show their true ignorance.

Thats right Zack not even the most hard core liberal could protect his ideas on this site. Kill some babies just throw the Terrorists up in Pa.

[Hobo Kombat]

Get real. Obama has my priorities so far out of wack on this one


Fixed for you.

[ballzack]

Fixed for you.

So you're defending THIS, P? ;)

Pierce a new-born baby's skull with Metsenbalm scissors and suck the infant's brains out with a catheter, That's a CHOICE!!!!!

Throw a glass of water in the face of a TERRORIST at Gitmo, and THAT'S a TRAVESTY????

[General Septem]

What's a travesty is how quickly this got passed but how long it's inevitably going to take for Obama to do anything productive, like prevent a depression.

[ballzack]

Yea, General, that IS a travesty. :(

[MrJim]

What's a travesty is how quickly this got passed but how long it's inevitably going to take for Obama to do anything productive, like prevent a depression.

I heard that Obama admitted he can't bring the economy out of recession in four years...

...but he can nigger-rig it! HA! :D

[ballzack]

I heard that Obama admitted he can't bring the economy out of recession in four years...

...but he can nigger-rig it! HA! :D

Holleeee CRAP that is funny!
:D

[MrJim]

It's fucking hilarious, dude.

First assignment in English Composition was to write a journal entry about the election, then discuss it. MM-kay... so she wants to open this can of worms? I'm game! The entire class down to me (second to back row) wrote about this amazing opportunity and how we finally rose above racial barriers, blah blah blah.... then it comes to me. I told it like it was. You should see the jaws dropping on these 18-year-old kids. No one wanted to comment, though. :cool:

The teacher was black too. I guess I pissed in her corn flakes pretty good. :D

[hitekredneck]

It's fucking hilarious, dude.

First assignment in English Composition was to write a journal entry about the election, then discuss it. MM-kay... so she wants to open this can of worms? I'm game! The entire class down to me (second to back row) wrote about this amazing opportunity and how we finally rose above racial barriers, blah blah blah.... then it comes to me. I told it like it was. You should see the jaws dropping on these 18-year-old kids. No one wanted to comment, though. :cool:

The teacher was black too. I guess I pissed in her corn flakes pretty good. :D

next time ya do that, jim, have a cam hidden somewheres so's we can watch the fun!...my 17 year old daughter has a habit of pissin off her civics teacher the same way... :cool:

[MrJim]

next time ya do that, jim, have a cam hidden somewheres so's we can watch the fun!...my 17 year old daughter has a habit of pissin off her civics teacher the same way... :cool:

I might consider it. I'd probably even want to play it in slow motion... looks like they saw Satan for the first time! :cool: Poor kids. :D

[ballzack]

Well, the tables have finally turned IMO. Our President is Black. I'm White. So I can say ANYTHING I want to, and speak my mind. If not, it's DISCRIMINATION! WAHHHH! I'm WHINING! :D My turn to be the poor oppressed one!

I would have loved to have been in your classroom! ;)

[MrJim]

Well, the tables have finally turned IMO. Our President is Black. I'm White. So I can say ANYTHING I want to, and speak my mind. If not, it's DISCRIMINATION! WAHHHH! I'm WHINING! :D My turn to be the poor oppressed one!

Haha, that's freakin' great! :Dhttp://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

More fuel for my fire! Love it!

[ballzack]

Haha, that's freakin' great! :Dhttp://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

More fuel for my fire! Love it!

WAHHH! That's right. 18 percent of America is BLACK and they NOW control the COUNTRY! WAHHHHH!!!!! UNFAIR! :D DISCRIMINATION! EQUAL OPPORTUNITY RUN AMOK! WAHHH! :D

[MrJim]

You're killing me, dude. I better get off and do my report before I piss myself! :D

[aslan]

the most unsafe in this country is in the womb

[LedZap]

And just out of the womb also.....http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

[aslan]

what is the world coming to when people are throwing away babies in cardboard boxes and such but they complain when its a cat or a dog

[freakazoid]

And just out of the womb also.....http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/570428.html

I can't tell you how disgusting that is LZ, there aren't any words. People have no respect for unborn innocent human life.

[LedZap]

You would think he would be charged with murder....but he just got his license revoked.

[SykoParsley]

You know, it's funny. A human life is taken in a womb and people piss and moan. A human life is taken in jail and its an easy pill to swallow. A life is a life, regardless of what they have done.

Every person deserves to live their life. I'm not happy about abortion, but, there are cases where it is merited. Rape, a woman is forced to have sex with a man, or vice-versa, there was no choice. A woman either forced by rape and became pregnant should have the right to deny having that child. A woman who forces herself on a man, and becomes pregnant, well that man should have the right to have her abort. That is the only occasion where it is alright to kill. Even though it is a human life being aborted, it was a life that should have never been.

We live in a kingdom of nature, and cannot control anyone's emotions, thoughts or physical needs. That means, there are uncontrollable events that bring up situations where hard decisions arise. Which should be handled with compassion and not hatred. God help us if we ever are in that situation.

[microman]

You know, it's funny. A human life is taken in a womb and people piss and moan. A human life is taken in jail and its an easy pill to swallow. A life is a life, regardless of what they have done.

Every person deserves to live their life. I'm not happy about abortion, but, there are cases where it is merited. Rape, a woman is forced to have sex with a man, or vice-versa, there was no choice. A woman either forced by rape and became pregnant should have the right to deny having that child. A woman who forces herself on a man, and becomes pregnant, well that man should have the right to have her abort. That is the only occasion where it is alright to kill. Even though it is a human life being aborted, it was a life that should have never been.

We live in a kingdom of nature, and cannot control anyone's emotions, thoughts or physical needs. That means, there are uncontrollable events that bring up situations where hard decisions arise. Which should be handled with compassion and not hatred. God help us if we ever are in that situation.

Yeah well event though the person was forced upon to have sex then the child should still not be aborted since it can go to foster care. Even though that child should have never existed it does now and it should have a chance at life it doesn't matter how it was made it just matters on how it lives it's life. Things pop up unexpectantly so you roll with the punches you shouldn't be able to kill a kid because you don't want it thats selfish that kid is belonging to more than you.

[Carrot]

You know, it's funny. A human life is taken in a womb and people piss and moan. A human life is taken in jail and its an easy pill to swallow. A life is a life, regardless of what they have done.

Every person deserves to live their life. I'm not happy about abortion, but, there are cases where it is merited. Rape, a woman is forced to have sex with a man, or vice-versa, there was no choice. A woman either forced by rape and became pregnant should have the right to deny having that child. A woman who forces herself on a man, and becomes pregnant, well that man should have the right to have her abort. That is the only occasion where it is alright to kill. Even though it is a human life being aborted, it was a life that should have never been.

We live in a kingdom of nature, and cannot control anyone's emotions, thoughts or physical needs. That means, there are uncontrollable events that bring up situations where hard decisions arise. Which should be handled with compassion and not hatred. God help us if we ever are in that situation.

No, it really isn't that funny at all.

If a person chooses to kill/rape someone then goes to jail and are killed by a fellow inmate then it may be somewhat unfortunate but they got what was coming and they were only put in that position through their own actions.

What's so severly ironic about your post is "Everyone deserves to live their life" and then you go on talking about how we have a right to abort a "human life".

Even more so you say everything should be handled with compassion! But fuck the aborted human life, yea? "They never should have been".


A woman who forces herself on a man, and becomes pregnant, well that man should have the right to have her abort. That is the only occasion where it is alright to kill.

The only occasision it is alright to kill is when it is a completely innocent undorn child which you yourself admit and acknowledge is a human life?

You disgust me.

[General Septem]

You know, it's funny. A human life is taken in a womb and people piss and moan. A human life is taken in jail and its an easy pill to swallow. A life is a life, regardless of what they have done.

To be fair, at least the man on death row did something to damn well deserve death. To be equally fair, I don't think any red blooded American would support the death penalty in most of the cases often seen in the middle east. The death penalty is completely unwarranted in the case of almost all crimes, but I have no qualms whatsoever with getting rid of a few rabid dogs.

Abortion isn't murder, it's a medical procedure by which the bodies of two human beings are separated from one another which were previously joined against the will of one of those human beings. The other one usually dies in the process. That's life. If a landlord evicted a shitty tenant and that tenant later died of exposure, that's life too.


But honestly, I 100% understand why a person would be against abortion and in favor of the death penalty. It's the whacked out liberals who are the other way around that I don't get.

[Carrot]

Abortion isn't murder, it's a medical procedure by which the bodies of two human beings are separated from one another which were previously joined against the will of one of those human beings. The other one usually dies in the process. That's life. If a landlord evicted a shitty tenant and that tenant later died of exposure, that's life too.

By that logic it should be alright to leave babies out in the cold to die.

[General Septem]

By that logic it should be alright to leave babies out in the cold to die.

No, because there is already a legally sanctioned method by which an unwanted baby can be remove from the house after it has already been born. A baby can be placed in adoptive or foster care. If there should ever be a method by which a woman can have a fetus removed from her body without harm, then that should become the accepted method of abortion other than in cases in which such a procedure would present a risk to the woman.

[Carrot]

There is, it's called natural birth.

[General Septem]

There is, it's called natural birth.

Childbirth should happen with the consent of the woman, and not be forced on her against her will.

[microman]

Yet again thats where the stop being a whore close your legs and then you won't worry about having a kid.

[MrJim]

Childbirth should happen with the consent of the woman, and not be forced on her against her will.

I'm so sorry that nature offends you. Amazing how a society that goes to such great lengths to preserve nature can be its greatest foe.

[Carrot]

Childbirth should happen with the consent of the woman, and not be forced on her against her will.

Child birth should happen with the consideration of all parties involved taken into account, rather than killing a human life.

She wasn't forced to get pregnant, in fact she got pregnant as a direct result of her actions. 'Free will' and 'rights' should only go as far as to not encroach on another's.

I suppose next thing you'll say is the feutus has no 'rights' given by law, so no 'rights' are really taken away. That's the problem with getting your morals from a set of laws drawn up by a government.

[MrJim]

Child birth should happen with the consideration of all parties involved taken into account, rather than killing a human life.

She wasn't forced to get pregnant, in fact she got pregnant as a direct result of her actions. 'Free will' and 'rights' should only go as far as to not encroach on another's.

I suppose next thing you'll say is the feutus has no 'rights' given by law, so no 'rights' are really taken away. That's the problem with getting your morals from a set of laws drawn up by a government.

Would it surprise any of you that I firmly support Euthanasia? It baffles me that Euthanasia is illegal while abortion is legal. Someone living in pain and misery should be able to decide if he wants a doctor to assist him in ending what he considers is a tortuous existence. Abortion would be acceptable to me *if* the same criteria were met, that is, if the unborn child were to have the capacity to interpret the information about his/her impending life and could make a choice based on such information.

Since an unborn child cannot possibly do so, those criteria are impossible to meet, and therefore, I cannot support such an act.

[Carrot]

I would also want doctors to "force" information on patients condisering euthanasia, so that ANY serious descion is taken with due consideration (or would that be akin to coercion aswell?:rolleyes:), rather than just saying 'ok' and shooting people on the spot.

[microman]

I do agree with this euthanasia it is a thing though that can't and shouldn't be done by doctors but by a trained operator for it with about the same criteria as a doctor that would specialize in it but don't take the Hippocratic oath but have their own version.

[General Septem]

Child birth should happen with the consideration of all parties involved taken into account, rather than killing a human life.

She wasn't forced to get pregnant, in fact she got pregnant as a direct result of her actions. 'Free will' and 'rights' should only go as far as to not encroach on another's.

I suppose next thing you'll say is the feutus has no 'rights' given by law, so no 'rights' are really taken away. That's the problem with getting your morals from a set of laws drawn up by a government.

Show me where exactly it states that ANY human being - born or unborn - has the inalienable RIGHT to be attached to another person against their will. I can't go up to someone and attach myself to them, and if I did, I'd be cut free as well. It doesn't matter if a person's actions led to that or not, if a person is attached to another person who doesn't want the other person attached to them, then they have the right to sever that attachment.

[microman]

Excuse me did you ever hear the word consequences?

[General Septem]

Excuse me did you ever hear the word consequences?

Being pregnant in the first place is already a consequence. Fortunately, we have abortion in case your number happens to come up.

Not allowing a viable solution to a problem just because "it wouldn't have happened if you didn't do that in the first place" is dumb. Having a bad liver can be a consequence of drinking, but I don't see people protesting liver transplants either.

[microman]

Well it's good having it around just in case but pregnancy is not just the consequence it is also having the kid so you should not skip out on your consequence for that action because something can take it away. That's the point of consequences so that you can learn a lesson if you get pregnant and have a kid it switches your perspective more than just getting pregnant and making scrambled eggs out of your vagina.

[General Septem]

Well it's good having it around just in case but pregnancy is not just the consequence it is also having the kid so you should not skip out on your consequence for that action because something can take it away. That's the point of consequences so that you can learn a lesson if you get pregnant and have a kid it switches your perspective more than just getting pregnant and making scrambled eggs out of your vagina.

You don't "learn your lesson" once you reach the age of about 16. Honestly, that shit is what parents tell their kids when they suffer some lame-ass two week grounding for cussing in school or something.

The government isn't our Big Daddy, and shouldn't be making sure we all "learn our lesson". There's no lesson to be learned. Sex is good, and birth control measures are almost foolproof, but not always. Abortion is a pain in the ass and hurts like hell. Forcing a woman to have a kid just because she followed her natural urges is ridiculous, as it is to claim that a human being has the right to be attached to another human being's body against their will.

[microman]

Okay so I follow my natural urge for blood and kill another human being so I shouldn't learn the lesson that murder is wrong by getting stuck in jail. But I mean we should just get away with it because I mean the government isn't our Big Daddy.

[General Septem]

Okay so I follow my natural urge for blood and kill another human being so I shouldn't learn the lesson that murder is wrong by getting stuck in jail. But I mean we should just get away with it because I mean the government isn't our Big Daddy.

First off, that's not a natural urge. Second, a murderer poses a threat to society. Third, nobody has a right to commit murder. Fourth, all human beings have a right to life.

The only reason abortion is different is because no human being has the right to be attached to someone against their will. Abortion simply removes that attachment. The consequences of that removal of attachment are both unfortunate and irrelevant.

[microman]

Well the urge for violence is natural and if the women wants an abortion that is murder so she has no right. Also a fetus is a human so he must have a right to life. See but it removes somebody with killing them because saving the person is the exception not the rule. That's like saying well since you are conjoined twins we will have to kill one of you to make sure the other one no longer has to stand being attached to you.

[General Septem]

Well the urge for violence is natural and if the women wants an abortion that is murder so she has no right. Also a fetus is a human so he must have a right to life. See but it removes somebody with killing them because saving the person is the exception not the rule. That's like saying well since you are conjoined twins we will have to kill one of you to make sure the other one no longer has to stand being attached to you.

The intent of abortion is to separate the two, not to kill one of them. It just happens to be impossible with current technology to do so without the fetus dying in the process. The death of the fetus is justified because it has no right to be there. It would be like a cop shooting an escaping felon. Sure, the felon has a right to live, but he doesn't have the right to resist arrest.

[microman]

It has a right to be there because the mother did the action to make it so consequences takes it's action which in turn gives lessons and if it doesn't you are fucked up and shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion or birth just probably don't bother on kids.

[Carrot]

Show me where exactly it states that ANY human being - born or unborn - has the inalienable RIGHT to be attached to another person against their will. I can't go up to someone and attach myself to them, and if I did, I'd be cut free as well. It doesn't matter if a person's actions led to that or not, if a person is attached to another person who doesn't want the other person attached to them, then they have the right to sever that attachment.

You said exactly what I expected you to say, the law hasn't gotten round to writing down it has the right to be there, so in your eyes it doesn't full stop.

That's the problem with basing your morals on a set of laws drawn up by a government.


The intent of abortion is to separate the two, not to kill one of them. It just happens to be impossible with current technology to do so without the fetus dying in the process. The death of the fetus is justified because it has no right to be there.

They can be seperated for life, just wait 9 months and no one dies. The feutus didn't break into the mother, it was concieved there through her own actions.

So are you saying killing someone is always justified if they have no right to be there? Before you said it was an unfortunate side effect, now it's justified.


Fourth, all human beings have a right to life.
no human being has the right to be attached to someone against their will

Again, that's the problem with basing your morals on what somebody else has written down, you seem to treat the law as a religous text. At least religious people beleive it's the divine.

I would add in that an unborn feutus' right to live overrides the woman's right to remove it if it would result in the death of the feutus if it poses no threat to the woman's life.

Say you go on a climbing expedition, then your buddy is dangling below you, noone is in any danger of dying. You get a bit tired and don't feel like supporting them anymore, so you cut the rope.

They had no right to be attached to you, you didn't kill them you just made sure they weren't attached to you. If he dies falling 100 metres or so then that's unfortunate, but at least my right's weren't infringed.

Sure, I could have waited till we got to the top, on flat ground and then unhooked them, but that just wouldn't be convenient enough for me.

[General Septem]

You said exactly what I expected you to say, the law hasn't gotten round to writing down it has the right to be there, so in your eyes it doesn't full stop.

That's the problem with basing your morals on a set of laws drawn up by a government.

I said INALIENABLE right, a right which cannot be given nor taken away by force. A legal right is another matter. If the ruling government decides that a human being does have the right to be attached to another human being without their consent, then that would be a legal right - albeit one that would infringe upon the non-consenting party's inalienable right to be secure in their person.

As it is right now, a human being has neither the inalienable right nor a legal right to be attached to another human being against their will.


They can be seperated for life, just wait 9 months and no one dies. The feutus didn't break into the mother, it was concieved there through her own actions.

So what if the woman's plans don't include giving up the majority of her next few months to have a kid, even if she'd just adopt it anyway? What if she couldn't afford to miss the work (assume she does something important and it's not just about the money, which could be made up for by workman's comp)? What if she just doesn't want to carry the baby to term? Just because you picked up a hitchhiker doesn't mean you don't have the right to kick him out of the car whenever you feel like it.


So are you saying killing someone is always justified if they have no right to be there? Before you said it was an unfortunate side effect, now it's justified.

It IS unfortunate. It is also justified. Our government is not the Vatican. Sometimes bad shit happens that the government has no business preventing. Another instance is when someone CHOOSES to destroy their life with addiction. We can offer services to help people with their addictions, but there's nothing legally that can be done unless the addiction is to some illegal substance.


I would add in that an unborn feutus' right to live overrides the woman's right to remove it if it would result in the death of the feutus if it poses no threat to the woman's life.

Not anymore than a bum's right to life overrides a landlord's right to remove him from the house even if it means he'll die from exposure.


Say you go on a climbing expedition, then your buddy is dangling below you, noone is in any danger of dying. You get a bit tired and don't feel like supporting them anymore, so you cut the rope.

They had no right to be attached to you, you didn't kill them you just made sure they weren't attached to you. If he dies falling 100 metres or so then that's unfortunate, but at least my right's weren't infringed.

Sure, I could have waited till we got to the top, on flat ground and then unhooked them, but that just wouldn't be convenient enough for me.

Well no, you could have either secured his rope to the rock or let him down slowly. In your scenario, death isn't a direct consequence of being separated, it's a consequence of being dropped 100 meters. It's not even the same situation.

Just because you want someone to go away doesn't absolve you of all responsibility. Even an abortion requires significant time, money, and discomfort, as would cutting a rope. All it means is that any options you have to remove that person from your property are justified so long as the other person's rights are taken into consideration. However, if someone is infringing upon your rights, their rights are secondary to yours.

It's similar to a landlord evicting a tenant. He can't just shoot the tenant, because there exists a legal channel through which the tenant may be removed from the premises should he be unwilling to leave. That tenant may still die of exposure because he has nowhere to live. That is also unfortunate but justified. Abortion is the exact same thing, a woman evicting a fetus from her body. If there was a way to do it without the fetus dying, then great, but since there isn't, whatever options we do have will have to do.

[MrJim]

They can be seperated for life, just wait 9 months and no one dies. The feutus didn't break into the mother, it was concieved there through her own actions.

Wow, you'd better stop this logical reasoning. It seems to offend Mr. Septem somehow.


So what if the woman's plans don't include giving up the majority of her next few months to have a kid, even if she'd just adopt it anyway? What if she couldn't afford to miss the work (assume she does something important and it's not just about the money, which could be made up for by workman's comp)

The latest and greatest retort: Baby deserves to die because mom's job is too important. :rolleyes:

[bullfighter]

[QUOTE=General Septem;69876]I said INALIENABLE right, a right which cannot be given nor taken away by force. A legal right is another matter. If the ruling government decides that a human being does have the right to be attached to another human being without their consent, then that would be a legal right - albeit one that would infringe upon the non-consenting party's inalienable right to be secure in their person..........................and you know it..stop the killing.and do not wait for the bullshit laws that abid to many ways of killing...you sound PATHITIC the girls have to take responciblety and so does the fathers .teach your kids about sex...every thing on tv ect.promotes sex and all boys are driven by it and girls use it and on and on...just do something to stop the killing..you people do not stand for anything but blab blab ..

[Carrot]

I said INALIENABLE right, a right which cannot be given nor taken away by force. A legal right is another matter. If the ruling government decides that a human being does have the right to be attached to another human being without their consent, then that would be a legal right - albeit one that would infringe upon the non-consenting party's inalienable right to be secure in their person.

As it is right now, a human being has neither the inalienable right nor a legal right to be attached to another human being against their will.

Who decides what is and isn't an inalienable right?


So what if the woman's plans don't include giving up the majority of her next few months to have a kid, even if she'd just adopt it anyway? What if she couldn't afford to miss the work (assume she does something important and it's not just about the money, which could be made up for by workman's comp)? What if she just doesn't want to carry the baby to term? Just because you picked up a hitchhiker doesn't mean you don't have the right to kick him out of the car whenever you feel like it.

She should have thought about that before she had unprotected sex which would result in pregnancy. If I pick up a hitchhiker I can't kick them out the car going at 100mph, what I can do is MAJORLY inconvenience myself by stopping and letting them get out.



It IS unfortunate. It is also justified. Our government is not the Vatican. Sometimes bad shit happens that the government has no business preventing. Another instance is when someone CHOOSES to destroy their life with addiction. We can offer services to help people with their addictions, but there's nothing legally that can be done unless the addiction is to some illegal substance.

It's their life they're destroying, not someone elses. And even then we offer support and encourage them to stop. Anti drug campaigns are ongoing too.



Well no, you could have either secured his rope to the rock or let him down slowly. In your scenario, death isn't a direct consequence of being separated, it's a consequence of being dropped 100 meters. It's not even the same situation.

Securing his rope to the rock would inconvenience me far to much, and encroach on my free will. I don't want him attached, I cut the rope, it's no longer my problem. Their might be an airbag, there might not be. It's a very similar situation, moe so than your bum in a house crap.


Just because you want someone to go away doesn't absolve you of all responsibility. Even an abortion requires significant time, money, and discomfort, as would cutting a rope. All it means is that any options you have to remove that person from your property are justified so long as the other person's rights are taken into consideration. However, if someone is infringing upon your rights, their rights are secondary to yours.

The mother is infringin on the feutus rights by killing it. Oh I'm sorry, the feutus has no right given to it by any laws/constitutions.


It's similar to a landlord evicting a tenant. He can't just shoot the tenant, because there exists a legal channel through which the tenant may be removed from the premises should he be unwilling to leave. That tenant may still die of exposure because he has nowhere to live. That is also unfortunate but justified. Abortion is the exact same thing, a woman evicting a fetus from her body. If there was a way to do it without the fetus dying, then great, but since there isn't, whatever options we do have will have to do.

No, because upon entering the property there was a legal agreement between the tenant and landlord that if they could not pay they would be evicted. If feutuses were waiting in line to live somewhere for 9 months, signed a contract with a woman then refused to get a job and pay for their accomodation then I would support abortion, since feutuses would be lazy, ungrateful bastards.

However if you want to use the tenant example.
You agree to take someone out on your boat (getting pregnant).
You're out in the middle of the ocean, and you're getting sick of your companion.
He's on your property so you have the right to get him off it THIS INSTANT, so you push him off, no longer your problem.
You could have waited until you got back to port, but he was just too damn inconvenient to have on your boat.

[General Septem]

She should have thought about that before she had unprotected sex which would result in pregnancy. If I pick up a hitchhiker I can't kick them out the car going at 100mph, what I can do is MAJORLY inconvenience myself by stopping and letting them get out.

Which would be akin to having an abortion, which is more than a major inconvenience. Kicking them out at 100MPH would be like having the pregnancy magically end altogether, which isn't even possible. The point is, you don't have to carry the hitchhiker to their destination just because you let them on in the first place.


Securing his rope to the rock would inconvenience me far to much, and encroach on my free will. I don't want him attached, I cut the rope, it's no longer my problem. Their might be an airbag, there might not be. It's a very similar situation, moe so than your bum in a house crap.

That's a load of shit. Nobody has a free ride. But the point is, there are always options. In the case of being pregnant, there aren't really any options if you want to end it. You either get an abortion or you don't.


The mother is infringin on the feutus rights by killing it. Oh I'm sorry, the feutus has no right given to it by any laws/constitutions.

The fetus does have the same rights that all human beings have, but none of those rights include the right to live inside of and be attached to another human being. It doesn't have the right to be there, and if it dies upon being removed, too fucking bad.


No, because upon entering the property there was a legal agreement between the tenant and landlord that if they could not pay they would be evicted. If feutuses were waiting in line to live somewhere for 9 months, signed a contract with a woman then refused to get a job and pay for their accomodation then I would support abortion, since feutuses would be lazy, ungrateful bastards.

It doesn't matter if you had a legal agreement or not, if you own the property you have the final say as to who is allowed on that property.


However if you want to use the tenant example.
You agree to take someone out on your boat (getting pregnant).
You're out in the middle of the ocean, and you're getting sick of your companion.
He's on your property so you have the right to get him off it THIS INSTANT, so you push him off, no longer your problem.
You could have waited until you got back to port, but he was just too damn inconvenient to have on your boat.

In such a case if you wanted someone off your boat, you could always call for the coast guard to have that person removed. That is why abortion is a special case, there is no option to terminate a pregnancy that doesn't result in the fetus dying. If there were, then that would be the more acceptable method of terminating a pregnancy. But there isn't.

[Carrot]

In such a case if you wanted someone off your boat, you could always call for the coast guard to have that person removed. That is why abortion is a special case, there is no option to terminate a pregnancy that doesn't result in the fetus dying. If there were, then that would be the more acceptable method of terminating a pregnancy. But there isn't.

Exactly. There is no coast guard, there are no life jackets.

But I still have the right to get them off my boat right now, so off you get.

Also with the hitchhiker, you can't make them get out somewhere where they will definatley die, like the middle of a desert nowhere near a road.

Pregnancy only has two options, cut the rope or don't and be inconvenienced which do you choose?


The fetus does have the same rights that all human beings have, but none of those rights include the right to live inside of and be attached to another human being. It doesn't have the right to be there, and if it dies upon being removed, too fucking bad.

You need to stop treating the law like religious text. When asked if someone/something has the right I can see you leafing through a legal book to check. Someone had to come up with these fucking rights based on morals!

It has the FUCKING RIGHT TO LIVE, and a right to life far outwieghs 9 months of being inconvenienced! Especially when they knowingly engaged in actions and didn't take precautions to stop it in the first place. "Too fucking bad" when it dies? How about get fat for 9 months Boo fucking hoo, then no one fucking dies.

At the end of the day you keep scuttling back to what someone else has determined what certain rights are, even when you acknowledge that it's human. You would make a very good lawyer who had to veiw things in a 'certain light'.

[Carrot]

Also, while we're on the subject of rights, minors have different rights to adults and responsibilities of the parents are somewhat intertwined with their actions kid's.

So legally (since that's what you obviously need, the right 'given' to them by a peice of text') their right to live might finally prevail.

[General Septem]

Exactly. There is no coast guard, there are no life jackets.

But I still have the right to get them off my boat right now, so off you get.

Now you're bordering on the absurd. No coast guard anywhere? I think you'd have better things to worry about in that situation, like the end of the world.

And yes, there are times when a person has to be thrown off the boat (often in cases of lifeboats where there's too much ballast).


Also with the hitchhiker, you can't make them get out somewhere where they will definatley die, like the middle of a desert nowhere near a road.

It would make you an asshole, but you could do it, particularly if the guy was being an ungrateful pain in the ass. But you could just be a dick and do it anyway.


Pregnancy only has two options, cut the rope or don't and be inconvenienced which do you choose?

Whatever your opinion, the choice is for the woman to make, not you or anyone else. You don't have to agree with it.


You need to stop treating the law like religious text.

Really? See, I learn something new about civics every day. I always figured that it was our LAW that made us a republic and not a dictatorship.

I don't know if you've ever read 1984, but Oceania had no laws. Just a police force that arrested anyone that demonstrated independent thought.


It has the FUCKING RIGHT TO LIVE, and a right to life far outwieghs 9 months of being inconvenienced! Especially when they knowingly engaged in actions and didn't take precautions to stop it in the first place. "Too fucking bad" when it dies? How about get fat for 9 months Boo fucking hoo, then no one fucking dies.

Like I said, you don't have to agree with it, but it's the woman's body, and that makes it her own choice.

[General Septem]

Also, while we're on the subject of rights, minors have different rights to adults

That's the difference between legal rights and inalienable rights, inalienable rights are rights that ALL humans have regardless of whether the government chooses to honor them or not. Minors and adults have different legal rights, that's entirely different.

[Carrot]

[QUOTE]Now you're bordering on the absurd. No coast guard anywhere? I think you'd have better things to worry about in that situation, like the end of the world.

It's for the purpose of the metaphor.:rolleyes:
With abortion there is no "coastguard" or "life jackets", ther is only "get off" (abortion) or "letting them stay on until you get to shore" (giving birth)


And yes, there are times when a person has to be thrown off the boat (often in cases of lifeboats where there's too much ballast).

In cases where the woman's life is at risk, I support abortion, not where it jus "slows the boat down a little for a bit".


It would make you an asshole, but you could do it, particularly if the guy was being an ungrateful pain in the ass. But you could just be a dick and do it anyway.

Would his death due to dehydration be on my shoulders? So now taking someone out into the middle of the desert with no chance of survival is just being an asshole is it?


Whatever your opinion, the choice is for the woman to make, not you or anyone else. You don't have to agree with it.

It's my choice to save the feutus's life. It's my choice to stop a mugging, even if I don't agree with the mugger's choice.



Really? See, I learn something new about civics every day. I always figured that it was our LAW that made us a republic and not a dictatorship.

I don't know if you've ever read 1984, but Oceania had no laws. Just a police force that arrested anyone that demonstrated independent thought.

The law makes a country/communtity function, but to base all your morals on it is ridiculous (some may be fine), It's almost like you're treating the lawmakers like phrophets. Many areas are overlooked/grey ares in the law, does this mean they don't really matter, and all outcomes are moral, no!

it's almost as if you're trying to fill the void made when you decided you were no longer christian.


Like I said, you don't have to agree with it, but it's the woman's body, and that makes it her own choice.

No, it doesn't, because there is another life involved.

[Carrot]

That's the difference between legal rights and inalienable rights, inalienable rights are rights that ALL humans have regardless of whether the government chooses to honor them or not. Minors and adults have different legal rights, that's entirely different.

Again! Who decides what inalienable rights are? Who? Who sat down, and listed them one by one?

God? I thought you weren't religous? Fairly sure it's generally accepted he's against abortion anyway?
Who then? Who had the wisdom and ultimate authority to make these inalienable rights that can be viewed as such to allow the killing of an unborn child?

[microman]

General people don't get to escape responsibilites doesn't matter if you don't want it attached to you it's how nature works get over it.

[General Septem]

Again! Who decides what inalienable rights are? Who? Who sat down, and listed them one by one?

God? I thought you weren't religous? Fairly sure it's generally accepted he's against abortion anyway?
Who then? Who had the wisdom and ultimate authority to make these inalienable rights that can be viewed as such to allow the killing of an unborn child?

Inalienable rights are those that apply to everyone. If a fetus has the right to be attached to another human being against their will, then every human being has the right to be attached to another against their will.

Nobody "decides" on these inalienable rights, they simply exist. Among them is also the right to life. So if your intention is to devalue the idea of inalienable human rights, you only hurt your own position by devaluing the right to life.

[General Septem]

It's for the purpose of the metaphor.:rolleyes:
With abortion there is no "coastguard" or "life jackets", ther is only "get off" (abortion) or "letting them stay on until you get to shore" (giving birth)

And I also answered your question, many sailors would throw a passenger off their boat in a heartbeat if push came to shove, particularly if there were no government to question them over it.

It all comes down to what's reasonable. Your own body is more than just your property. If you have something growing inside of you and you want it gone, that's your choice. Having to wait nine months and then go through a lengthy and painful labor just to get your own body back is not acceptable.


The law makes a country/communtity function, but to base all your morals on it is ridiculous (some may be fine), It's almost like you're treating the lawmakers like phrophets. Many areas are overlooked/grey ares in the law, does this mean they don't really matter, and all outcomes are moral, no!

I'm not talking about morality. I don't need to know why you think it's wrong. Sometimes I think it's wrong (depending on my mood, usually I could care less honestly). That is not relevant. What is relevant is that it's not my choice or anyone else's choice but the person whose body is being invaded. Whether or not it's legal doesn't change whether it is right or wrong, and whether it is right or wrong doesn't change whether it should be legal.


No, it doesn't, because there is another life involved.

A life that is there at the discretion of the body it's invading. If someone invites you over for dinner and then decides to throw you out, it's not their problem that you can't find anything else to eat.

[MrJim]

Inalienable rights are those that apply to everyone. If a fetus has the right to be attached to another human being against their will, then every human being has the right to be attached to another against their will.

Nobody "decides" on these inalienable rights, they simply exist. Among them is also the right to life. So if your intention is to devalue the idea of inalienable human rights, you only hurt your own position by devaluing the right to life.

Really...? they "simply exist" in this hierarchy which values the rights of one person over the rights of another?

Let me get this straight... you claim that as a human being, a baby has the same rights as every other human being... so when a woman aborts it, isn't she inflicting upon his/her right to live? Of course she is! Now when you say that no one "has the right to be attached" to another human being, let's analyze how an unborn baby is infringing the mother's rights...

Did the baby willfully create the situation that begat the attachment? (No)
Who did? (Mom and Dad)
So whose actions ultimately infringed upon Mom's rights? (Dad and herself)

If your primary intention is to preserve rights (which I doubt) then the logical method is for no party to take any kind of action which infringes on anothers' rights. So the baby takes no action (never did), and the mother also takes no action.

[Carrot]

Feutus has no right to live, no one has the right to live.
Murder has no right to live, no one has the right to live.
Nope they don't work in that situation.

Besides, these inalienable rights are more a concept than anything else, and can be taken away oh so easily, just like the feutus's right to life.

Why don't you list off these rights for me?

One is definately the right to life.

What I don't see is the the right to NOT have someone depend on you for staying alive.


Even by that reasoning one VITAL and INTEGRAL right that is given without a doubt is overruled by a 'read between the lines' right, just because it inconveniences the woman for a limited time period.

Even then, these rights aren't divine or anything, from what I've seen they are philisophical ideas whose initial idea was come up with by some philosophers. Maybe you would have been better off with the bible rather than grasping at straws and 'lawyering'.

[General Septem]

Really...? they "simply exist" in this hierarchy which values the rights of one person over the rights of another?

Let me get this straight... you claim that as a human being, a baby has the same rights as every other human being... so when a woman aborts it, isn't she inflicting upon his/her right to live? Of course she is! Now when you say that no one "has the right to be attached" to another human being, let's analyze how an unborn baby is infringing the mother's rights...

Did the baby willfully create the situation that begat the attachment? (No)
Who did? (Mom and Dad)
So whose actions ultimately infringed upon Mom's rights? (Dad and herself)

If your primary intention is to preserve rights (which I doubt) then the logical method is for no party to take any kind of action which infringes on anothers' rights. So the baby takes no action (never did), and the mother also takes no action.

It doesn't really matter who put it there, it doesn't have the right to be there. Your rights are secondary if you are in violation of another person's rights. In the same manner, a criminal may be justifiably shot if he is attempting to evade arrest.

[Carrot]

And I also answered your question, many sailors would throw a passenger off their boat in a heartbeat if push came to shove, particularly if there were no government to question them over it.

So then, many women are murdering bastards due to the lack of consequences, I see your point. Finally coming round.


It all comes down to what's reasonable. Your own body is more than just your property. If you have something growing inside of you and you want it gone, that's your choice. Having to wait nine months and then go through a lengthy and painful labor just to get your own body back is not acceptable.

It's human.
It's there due to your actions.
If removed it dies.



I'm not talking about morality. I don't need to know why you think it's wrong. Sometimes I think it's wrong (depending on my mood, usually I could care less honestly). That is not relevant. What is relevant is that it's not my choice or anyone else's choice but the person whose body is being invaded. Whether or not it's legal doesn't change whether it is right or wrong, and whether it is right or wrong doesn't change whether it should be legal.

Sometimes you think it's wrong, but then when you look for it's rights in a book you can't find anything to back it up. You have to have something written down to make up your mind.

Murder is wrong, it's illegal.
Theft is wrong, it's illegal.
Rape is wrong, it's illegal.

Besides, first we have to establish whether something is wrong, then its legality follow on from there. You are denying it's wrong.



A life that is there at the discretion of the body it's invading. If someone invites you over for dinner and then decides to throw you out, it's not their problem that you can't find anything else to eat.

How many metaphors do we have to use?

If they promise to feed me for a week, they have plenty of food and we are in the middle of nowhere and I have no other options then throwing me out kills me then my death is on their shoulders

[Carrot]

It doesn't really matter who put it there, it doesn't have the right to be there. Your rights are secondary if you are in violation of another person's rights. In the same manner, a criminal may be justifiably shot if he is attempting to evade arrest.

Can they be executed though?

They aren't shot to kill them, but where an innocent's life is in danger.Where one person's right to live is being infringed on by another.

You can't justifiably shoot to kill an unarmed fleeing theif wo doesn't pose a threat no matter what. Shooting at all would be a grey area.

I think what gets so many of you people is the 'anti choice' line. "Ooh, anti choice, I don't want to do that, isn't that like slavery or something?"

[MrJim]

It doesn't really matter who put it there, it doesn't have the right to be there. Your rights are secondary if you are in violation of another person's rights. In the same manner, a criminal may be justifiably shot if he is attempting to evade arrest.

And how is it determined which person's rights are secondary when there are two 'violators'? (Actually, the only violator would be the mother, since she is the only one making a violating action.)

[General Septem]

You can't justifiably shoot to kill an unarmed fleeing theif wo doesn't pose a threat no matter what. Shooting at all would be a grey area.

A cop can fire upon a suspected felon if he is evading arrest.


Sometimes you think it's wrong, but then when you look for it's rights in a book you can't find anything to back it up. You have to have something written down to make up your mind.

Murder is wrong, it's illegal.
Theft is wrong, it's illegal.
Rape is wrong, it's illegal.

Besides, first we have to establish whether something is wrong, then its legality follow on from there. You are denying it's wrong.

I'm not denying it's wrong, I'm saying the government has no business getting involved in it. Whether it is right or wrong is immaterial.

Correlation does not imply causation. Some things which are illegal are not wrong. Likewise, some things that are wrong and illegal shouldn't be illegal, namely drugs. And some things are wrong that aren't illegal.

The law exists to protect our rights, not to protect morality.

[General Septem]

And how is it determined which person's rights are secondary when there are two 'violators'? (Actually, the only violator would be the mother, since she is the only one making a violating action.)

The mother isn't violating anyone, unless the fetus likewise wishes for its mother to not be attached to it, in which case having an abortion would be in the best interest of both parties.

The violation is that a fetus is attached to the mother against her will. Who is to blame is irrelevant, what is relevant is correcting the violation.

[Carrot]

A cop can fire upon a suspected felon if he is evading arrest.



I'm not denying it's wrong, I'm saying the government has no business getting involved in it. Whether it is right or wrong is immaterial.

Correlation does not imply causation. Some things which are illegal are not wrong. Likewise, some things that are wrong and illegal shouldn't be illegal, namely drugs. And some things are wrong that aren't illegal.

The law exists to protect our rights, not to protect morality.


It isn't protecting the feutus's right to live now is it?

You shouldn't get your morals from the law, but laws should (and usually do) derive from morals, otherwise why protect children from child abuse?
Why protect women from rape?
Why have animal cruelty laws?

Besides, the law will prevent unborn children dieing!

If it's wrong, infringes on rights, and is resulting in the death of innocents then it that really should qualify it to be outlawed.

Side note, the cop cannot shoot to kill, and any case of unwanton shooting is taken into consideration.

At least we've established it's wrong, now it's just a matter of you willinglly allowing it to happen when it involves the deaths of unborn human life.

[Carrot]

The violation is that a fetus is attached to the mother against her will. Who is to blame is irrelevant, what is relevant is correcting the violation.

That's rich, now the feutus is "violating" the mother.

I'm not going off with yet another metaphor, I think the boat one worked well enough.

[microman]

General the consequences have to be dealt with if not then you are getting off scotch free. Now how many times do we have to pound this into your damn head if they did the action then the fetus has every right to life and living inside the mother till she gives birth to the child. Because the child did not progress into the situation like a hitchhiker nor like any other loaner. It was put there as a result of an action made by those people who want to expel it. So it's their duty to take care of the child till it is born. Now get that through and stop trying to widdle your way in an inevitable fight.

[Rise Up]

I'm not going to get into this category because I might react to this like reporters did to the Johnson Treatment....... I'd rather not be curled up in the fetal position..... but anyways.

I'm pro-choice on the matter of abortion. I think hey if you want to have it, have it! Abortions help keep retards, who think it's a easy last ditch birth control, busy. It does have it's disadvantages, namely killing an unborn child but if the parent is stupid enough to want an abortion the kid might have been just as stupid. Just my thoughts.

[bullfighter]

I'm not going to get into this category because I might react to this like reporters did to the Johnson Treatment....... I'd rather not be curled up in the fetal position..... but anyways.

I'm pro-choice on the matter of abortion. I think hey if you want to have it, have it! Abortions help keep retards, who think it's a easy last ditch birth control, busy. It does have it's disadvantages, namely killing an unborn child but if the parent is stupid enough to want an abortion the kid might have been just as stupid. Just my thoughts.

your brain is getting worped

[Carrot]

For once, I can fully understand and agree with bullfighter.

[Paisleyspeaker]

Yep, that is true. Its a damn ping pong game...

Vatican attacks US abortion move
President Barack Obama
Mr Obama lifted the controversial funding ban in his first week in office

The Vatican has condemned President Obama's move to restore US funding for family planning clinics abroad that give advice on or carry out abortions.

One Vatican official warned against the "arrogance" of those in power who think they can decide between life and death.

See - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7849600.stm

wait, wait I have to get back up off the chair, I nearly spit my drink all over the screen falling down laughing over that one,
The Vatican talking about the arrogance of those in power who think they can decide between life and death,
the VATICAN...Does the man who made that statement know ANYTHING about the history of the organization he represents???????

[bullfighter]

wait, wait I have to get back up off the chair, I nearly spit my drink all over the screen falling down laughing over that one,
The Vatican talking about the arrogance of those in power who think they can decide between life and death,
the VATICAN...Does the man who made that statement know ANYTHING about the history of the organization he represents???????

but the truth as far as i understand they are both fucked up and they make calls that has lots of collateral damage[mainly lifes].To see what there agandas are would be the thing to look for not just get caried away with the thing that hurts..Even tho stopping that pain is to be stopped or dealt with..where are they going with all this bullshit ,that they make us fight for ..its like angels on both shoulders and they both wear bad energy

[Rise Up]

but the truth as far as i understand they are both fucked up and they make calls that has lots of collateral damage[mainly lifes].To see what there agandas are would be the thing to look for not just get caried away with the thing that hurts..Even tho stopping that pain is to be stopped or dealt with..where are they going with all this bullshit ,that they make us fight for ..its like angels on both shoulders and they both wear bad energy

Excuse me but what the fuck do you mean by energy? :confused:

[bullfighter]

Excuse me but what the fuck do you mean by energy? :confused:

from one to the other ,just bad stuff they carrie on about.

[Rise Up]

from one to the other ,just bad stuff they carrie on about.

Ahh...okay.

[bullfighter]

Ahh...okay.

the thing is here you get to pick from two evil agendas,what ever evil means to you..that is why i said energy.not to get into that debate.

[Rise Up]

I'm finally taking a stand on abortions. I blame a girl in my English class who did a project on abortion. Horrible pictures. And believe me. Aborted children DO look like children. Just bloody tiny babies with their heads caved in and in some cases with the head SEVERED. For those that are pro-choice with children. Imagine you child with it's head chopped off and covered in blood with a caved in skull. Now try to act indifferent to my point. Hard isn't it? :mad:

[Carrot]

I'm finally taking a stand on abortions. I blame a girl in my English class who did a project on abortion. Horrible pictures. And believe me. Aborted children DO look like children. Just bloody tiny babies with their heads caved in and in some cases with the head SEVERED. For those that are pro-choice with children. Imagine you child with it's head chopped off and covered in blood with a caved in skull. Now try to act indifferent to my point. Hard isn't it? :mad:

I've said this before, I'll say this again.

It shouldn't matter how they'e killed, the problem is that they are killed.

[Rise Up]

I've said this before, I'll say this again.

It shouldn't matter how they'e killed, the problem is that they are killed.

I totally agree.

[General Septem]

I'm finally taking a stand on abortions. I blame a girl in my English class who did a project on abortion. Horrible pictures. And believe me. Aborted children DO look like children. Just bloody tiny babies with their heads caved in and in some cases with the head SEVERED. For those that are pro-choice with children. Imagine you child with it's head chopped off and covered in blood with a caved in skull. Now try to act indifferent to my point. Hard isn't it? :mad:

You are describing partial-birth abortions. Partial-birth abortions are extremely rare and almost always only ever done in cases where the mother would die from the pregnancy, and usually in these cases the unborn is going to die anyway. I am sorry you do not have the stomach for it, but to let two people die because you didn't have the stones to kill just one of them is unacceptable.

Most abortions are done before the fetus is even recognizable as a fetus.

[Carrot]

You are describing partial-birth abortions. Partial-birth abortions are extremely rare and almost always only ever done in cases where the mother would die from the pregnancy, and usually in these cases the unborn is going to die anyway. I am sorry you do not have the stomach for it, but to let two people die because you didn't have the stones to kill just one of them is unacceptable.

Most abortions are done before the fetus is even recognizable as a fetus.

And I'm sorry you don't have the stomach for it, but to let one die when both could live (where the mother's life isn't in danger) because you didn't have the stones to confront the mother is unacceptable.

What the feutus looks like shouldn't matter.

[bullfighter]

And I'm sorry you don't have the stomach for it, but to let one die when both could live (where the mother's life isn't in danger) because you didn't have the stones to confront the mother is unacceptable.

What the feutus looks like shouldn't matter.

maybe they will just debate the legality of it ,and bitch [thats not nice]

[General Septem]

What the feutus looks like shouldn't matter.

Obviously it matters to "Rise Up" or he wouldn't have brought it up.

[Carrot]

Obviously it matters to "Rise Up" or he wouldn't have brought it up.

That point applies ot both of you.

[beelzebub]

Its also called the GLOBAL GAG RULE.

Of the 80 million unintended pregnancies each year, sixty percent end in abortion. The Global Gag Rule ties the hands of trained reproductive health care providers because family planning organizations receiving U.S. funds can neither perform abortions for their clients nor advise women on where to seek the procedure. As a result, women often cannot turn to trained doctors and nurses for safe medical care. They are therefore left to find their own care, which often means an unsafe, illicit abortion. Globally, eight woman per hour die from unsafe abortion.

Restrictive government laws on abortion often force the practice underground, contributing to the morbidity and mortality rates associated with unsafe abortion. Instead of fostering civil society's participation in government and promoting democratic values, the Global Gag Rule undermines rights such as freedom of speech and assembly rights Americans enjoy by prohibiting international organizations from working with their governments to create less restrictive abortion laws and ensure safer medical practices.

Furthermore, the Global Gag Rule infringes on patients right to make informed decisions about their health by barring doctors and health care workers from telling women about all pregnancy options available to them.

So in reality... What Obama did is SAVE lives.

I hate the misinformation you guys spread. Why is it that this seems to always occur in the Republican camp?

[freakazoid]

Its also called the GLOBAL GAG RULE.

Of the 80 million unintended pregnancies each year, sixty percent end in abortion. The Global Gag Rule ties the hands of trained reproductive health care providers because family planning organizations receiving U.S. funds can neither perform abortions for their clients nor advise women on where to seek the procedure. As a result, women often cannot turn to trained doctors and nurses for safe medical care. They are therefore left to find their own care, which often means an unsafe, illicit abortion. Globally, eight woman per hour die from unsafe abortion.

Restrictive government laws on abortion often force the practice underground, contributing to the morbidity and mortality rates associated with unsafe abortion. Instead of fostering civil society's participation in government and promoting democratic values, the Global Gag Rule undermines rights such as freedom of speech and assembly rights Americans enjoy by prohibiting international organizations from working with their governments to create less restrictive abortion laws and ensure safer medical practices.

Furthermore, the Global Gag Rule infringes on patients right to make informed decisions about their health by barring doctors and health care workers from telling women about all pregnancy options available to them.

So in reality... What Obama did is SAVE lives.

I hate the misinformation you guys spread. Why is it that this seems to always occur in the Republican camp?

http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gifhttp://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif My God, what a load of absolute ignorant crap! beelzeDUMB, are you so blind and lacking in common sense that you now actually believe that abortion saves lives? Ergo: "What Obama did is SAVE lives." And are you uninformed and stupid enough to believe that abortion is equal to "fostering civil society's participation in government and promoting democratic values,?" I see; now the wholesale mass murder of unborn children is equal to democracy.

I have to believe that you didn't even think over what you posted; you probably just copied some crap out of some left winged loonie pro-abortion website and vomitted it here. You and your hatred for life disgust me.

Look on the face of your belief in abortion, beelzeDUMB. Observe it's reality. Look at it, beelzeDUMB...notice the eyes, the nose, the hair on it's head, the blood on its face. That WAS a human being who deserved to live. At one time this was a human being close to being born until it was murdered by an abortionist...

http://amightywind.com/abortionf/abortion06.jpg

You and hitler would have gotten along famously, beelzeDUMB. He believed just about the same life destructive bullshit as you do. beelzeDUMB, you are a mindless idiot,

And...

remember, we're mensa...we're smarter than you!

[beelzebub]

You always choose to ignore the truth to prove your view to yourself. Keep it up and you will remain ignorant. You shock tactics have no effect on me.:rolleyes:

[Carrot]

So your basic point beelze is that if made illegal then the amount of women dieing will increase because they choose to carry out illegal abortions at potentially unsafe clinics, so it would not be saving lives at all?

[beelzebub]

... if made illegal then the amount of women dieing will increase because they choose to carry out illegal abortions at potentially unsafe clinics...

I am talking about the Global Gag here. The lifting of the Global Gag did not make abortion legal in other countries nor when it is in play abortions are not suddenly illegal. The legality of the practice is dependent on the laws in that country.


... so it would not be saving lives at all?

All I am saying When the global gag is in play women die when going to get an abortion because they do not have access to a safe and proper abortion. Therefore not only does the fetus die but also the woman. When the Gag is not in play women in countries where they can have abortions have safe and proper abortions and do not die.

BTW - The Global Gag is also bad for other practices that does not include abortion as well.

[Carrot]

these restrictions mandate that no U.S. family planning assistance can be provided to foreign NGOs that use funding from any other source to: perform abortions in cases other than a threat to the woman’s life, rape or incest; provide counseling and referral for abortion; or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country.

To be perfectly honest this part of the GAG policy (which is essentially what it revolvs around) seems perfectly reasonable whatever your view on abortion is.

You want money to be spent on giving abortions (which arent rape/incest/life threatning related) or actually promoting it abroad rather than providing food for starving people and to cure disease?

Seems perfectly reasonable.

[freakazoid]

You always choose to ignore the truth to prove your view to yourself. Keep it up and you will remain ignorant. You shock tactics have no effect on me.:rolleyes:

RE: "You always choose to ignore the truth to prove your view to yourself."

You posted no truth no facts no resources no references, what you did post was a few unverified claims and so-called statistics you copied from some website, a website you simply believed to be true with no reason to do so, beelzeDUMB.

Post some verified facts and then I will address them.

...remember, we're mensa...we're smarter than you!

[beelzebub]

To be perfectly honest this part of the GAG policy (which is essentially what it revolvs around) seems perfectly reasonable whatever your view on abortion is.

You want money to be spent on giving abortions (which arent rape/incest/life threatning related) or actually promoting it abroad rather than providing food for starving people and to cure disease?

Seems perfectly reasonable.

I am not sure of your stance. I think you are saying that this aspect of the Global Gag:

"perform abortions in cases other than a threat to the woman’s life, rape or incest; provide counseling and referral for abortion; or lobby to make abortion legal or more available in their country."

Is reasonable. If so... I personally don't see the reasonable part of it. Abortion should be safe for all women all over the world. I really think there should be every effort to reduce the numbers of abortions (as having abortions can be detrimental as well).

However, to stop funding a family planning agency because they discuss abortion as an alternative or providing a safe abortion when the woman makes that decision is not reasonable.

[Carrot]

Too late at the moment so i'll make this quick.

The support removal is just one part of the GAG, it's main thinng is just saying that it wont pay for uneccesary abortions.

Why should the US fund abortions which aren't even life threatening, especially when they're outside it's own country?

[beelzebub]

Too late at the moment so i'll make this quick.

The support removal is just one part of the GAG, it's main thinng is just saying that it wont pay for uneccesary abortions.

Why should the US fund abortions which aren't even life threatening, especially when they're outside it's own country?

The agencies the Global Gag stop funding are not abortion clinics. Lifting the Global Gag does not mandate that these facilities MUST START doing abortions. They are family planning institutions that provide a wealth of assistance to people. If one aspect of their assistance is the abortion part they will not receive any money. Why must they be forced to adopt our policies? Its as if we are saying YOU MUST obey what we say!

[freakazoid]

You always choose to ignore the truth to prove your view to yourself. Keep it up and you will remain ignorant. You shock tactics have no effect on me.:rolleyes:

I noticed that you refused to answer my post and avoided the facts that I posted, and as I said before...

You posted no truth no facts no resources no references, what you did post was a few unverified claims and so-called statistics you copied from some website, a website you simply believed to be true with no reason to do so, beelzeDUMB.

...so I will continue.

beelzeDUMB, I'm going to show you and the rest of this forum how ignorant and stupid you are with one simple comment. Enjoy...

The conditions surrounding pregnancies as you discuss in your post above you named "Stop the misinformation" are clearly moral, medical, governmental and social problems in this country and the countries you site as being under the "Global Gag Rule." These conditions do indeed exist. No one is debating the information. Your answer to the problem, however, is the same life destructive and evil answer as has been employed by some of the most genocidal maniacs in history including hitler, stalin, khmer rouge, and others. Their answer? Simple...have a social problem, simply kill the society that is the problem (hitler...the Jews, stalin, the "enemies of the people"), in the case of unwanted pregnancies...kill the unborn human being rather than seek a life affirming answer. Its that simple, people who are a problem...simple kill them. They call it abortion and "reproductive rights." In reality, its just another name for genocide. In short; your answer to the "problem" (in case you haven't figured it out yet) is death.

You, beelzeDUMB, are clearly an ignorant idiot and a supporter of wholesale murder. No surprise here; most left winged lunatics are supporters of wholesale murder. They just put a nice sounding spin on it like "family planning." Sound familiar? It should, marxist's call it the (or) a "five year plan."

...remember, we're mensa, we're smarter than you!

http://lalutheransforlife.org/images/prolife3.jpg

My answer, beelzeDUMB...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2615629974_e256a1a855.jpg

Your answer, beelzeDUMB...

http://www.hyscience.com/FetusHeadonSide.JPG

[beelzebub]

[B]I noticed ... Bla bla bla more nonsense bla bla bla..."five year plan."

I noticed you failed to recognize that I am ignoring you.

I don't like the way you debate in fact I am not sure if I like you at all. Therefore I choose not to talk to you. It has nothing with your diatribe it has everything to do with your ignorance and arrogance.

Tone it down and perhaps we can talk.

[freakazoid]

I noticed you failed to recognize that I am ignoring you.

I don't like the way you debate in fact I am not sure if I like you at all. Therefore I choose not to talk to you. It has nothing with your diatribe it has everything to do with your ignorance and arrogance.

Tone it down and perhaps we can talk.

You're not ignoring me, you just answered me as seen in the quote. Funny how you feel compelled to do so. Tone it down? Sorry, no can do; facts and common sense have a way of speaking loudly and clearly. If you can't handle it, than I would say it is best that you bow out of the debate, beelzeDUMB.

Your answer...

http://www.hyscience.com/FetusHeadonSide.JPG

My answer...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2615629974_e256a1a855.jpg

I like my answer better. So do living children.

...remember, we're mensa...we're smarter than you!

[ShadoWolf]

Yahoo!!! 404.

[yee-haw]

Yahoo!!! 404.


wtf?:confused::confused::confused::confused: