http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamas-abortion-absolutism-and-1st-amendment (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamas-abortion-absolutism-and-1st-amendment)
If I had to narrow down the reasons I can't stomach Obama to just one, this would be it....
He is a blood thirsty fake Christian... there is NO WAY in hell this President is a Christian man, he is so pro abortion He probably cried like a newborn the day George Tiller was shot... and Ted Kennedy I hope is burning in hell....
I can't believe that the Westboro (fake) Baptist "Church" can protest outside of our fallen soldiers funerals yet protesting to save a life is going to have to be done from such a distance that these people won't even be affected by the protestors at all... This is my motivation for working towards ousting Obama in 2012... I will do what ever it takes... robo calls, getting people to give donations to the RNC, I'll go door to door or what ever it takes.
Whatever it takes?
Obama really needs to shore up the base...
Quote from: Bert the S O B Barbarian... on September 06, 2011, 07:23:56 PM
Obama really needs to shore up the base...
Vote for Obama and get an Abortion 1/2 off?
Quote from: Josie on September 06, 2011, 07:26:59 PM
Vote for Obama and get an Abortion 1/2 off?
Quote from: Josie on September 06, 2011, 07:26:59 PM
Vote for Obama and get an Abortion 1/2 off?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe157%2FBertspivey%2Fhappy0009.gif&hash=32447cc6cdc6b8f988ff9a5f974cba75addac4e9)
Two for one sake...
Quote from: Josie on September 06, 2011, 07:23:05 PM
Anything that's legal of course
Interesting...
Now here is a hypothetical which applies to this situation.
Let's say you and a friend are playing cards, you strictly observe and follow all the rules of the game. Your friend cheats. Who is going to win?
See what I'm getting at?
-Dr Watt
Quote from: Bert the S O B Barbarian... on September 06, 2011, 07:28:52 PM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe157%2FBertspivey%2Fhappy0009.gif&hash=32447cc6cdc6b8f988ff9a5f974cba75addac4e9)
Two for one sale...
It is a win/lose win/lose situation.
Your friend wins the game but loses your trust. You win the moral victory, but lose a person in your life that you can't depend on. Wait. That means you win.
Quote from: Dr_Watt on September 06, 2011, 09:04:06 PM
Interesting...
Now here is a hypothetical which applies to this situation.
Let's say you and a friend are playing cards, you strictly observe and follow all the rules of the game. Your friend cheats. Who is going to win?
See what I'm getting at?
-Dr Watt
Cheaters never prosper *shrug* idk... I always assume others are cheating, it's just my suspicious nature... I take a QueSera Sera attitude...what ever will be will be, everything happens for a reason and I am not always gunna be in control, so all I can do is give it all I got and leave the rest to a higher power 8-)
Protest in front of a prison to keep the state from executing a convicted murderer- Okay.
Protest in front of military recruiters calling our troops "babykillers"- Go right ahead.
Protest in front of abortion clinics- No way!
First Amendment? What First Amendment?
Too bad the obama administration doesn't follow election and immigration laws so closely and so faithfully.
Nice try bama but taking the high ground on this one is about as sincere as Ike Turner giving marital advice. :P
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 07, 2011, 06:45:28 AM
What a totally disingenuous article. NPR (the Commies!) reports on a single incidence of the legal enforcement
of a law (gasp!), and this pseudojournalist and y'all turn Obama into a bloodthirsty baby killer, and joke about it.
Just more dishonesty and hypocrisy about an issue y'all pretend to care so much about. No surprise.
And yet when conservatives point out there have been
FIFTY MILLION babies murdered under Roe v Wade, the leftists all go utterly silent. The baby killers always DO go silent, protecting infanticide. They don't care about human lives at all, unless it's theirs.
Speaking of hypocrites, you are misrepresenting the positions of people who disagree with you for cheap political points. Do you want to engage in a serious conversation or do you want to just vent your spleen and act like a troll?
It isn't a "fetus," it's a human being.
THAT is the difference between conservatives and the baby butchers.
And you would think the left would care that a disprortionate number of those babies are brown.
If Republicans were for abortions and Democrats were against them then race baiters like Al Sharpton would be screaming genocide.
You are king of the world! Woohoo!!! :P :P :P
Self delusion is funny to watch.
Quote from: Dan on September 07, 2011, 07:59:36 AM
And you would think the left would care that a disproportionate number of those babies are brown.
If Republicans were for abortions and Democrats were against them then race baiters like Al Sharpton would be screaming genocide.
For more on that topic, see http://www.blackgenocide.org/ (http://www.blackgenocide.org/)
Detroit has a 47% functional illiteracy rate. Detroit has been under unbroken rule of Democrats since the 1960s, and its schools are among the nation's worst (controlled by the Democratic Party at every level).
If we re-elect Obama, we are asking America as a whole to become Detroit.
Quote from: Dan on September 07, 2011, 07:59:36 AM
And you would think the left would care that a disproportionate number of those babies are brown.
If Republicans were for abortions and Democrats were against them then race baiters like Al Sharpton would be screaming genocide.
You should understand that Progressives started out
WANTING a disproportionate number of those babies to be brown. Progressivism is the original home of eugenics.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 07, 2011, 08:27:54 AM
You should understand that Progressives started out WANTING a disproportionate number of those babies to be brown. Progressivism is the original home of eugenics.
I remember a conservative sting that was done a while back where a Republican caller pretended to be a racists donor to planned parenthood who said he only wanted his donation to go to the abortion of brown babies and the staffer at planned parenthood assured him that his money would only be used to abort brown babies.
Surprisingly there wasn't much outrage over this in the media. ::)
When are African Americans gonna realize they are being taken for granted by the Democrat party?
Quote from: Dan on September 07, 2011, 09:06:42 AM
When are African Americans gonna realize they are being taken for granted by the Democrat party?
Well if they don't realize with Obama they never will...
QuoteSurprisingly there wasn't much outrage over this in the media. ::)
"Surprisingly"? "The media"? :)) :)) :))
That's a little thing I like to call "sarcasm". :P
Quote from: quiller on September 07, 2011, 07:05:45 AM
And yet when conservatives point out there have been FIFTY MILLION babies murdered under Roe v Wade, the leftists all go utterly silent. The baby killers always DO go silent, protecting infanticide. They don't care about human lives at all, unless it's theirs.
It's really none of your business.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 03:38:31 PM
It's really none of your business.
Actually it is when the law is forced upon me.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 03:56:14 PM
Actually it is when the law is forced upon me.
Which law forced you to have an abortion?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:00:51 PM
Which law forced you to have an abortion?
I have had a federal law forced on me.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 04:15:23 PM
I have had a federal law forced on me.
Was it a law that forced you to have an abortion?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:17:30 PM
Was it a law that forced you to have an abortion?
I can't have an one? why is that?
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 04:19:33 PM
I can't have an one? why is that?
If you can't have an abortion anyway, what's the problem?
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 07, 2011, 06:45:28 AM
What a totally disingenuous article. NPR (the Commies!) reports on a single incidence of the legal enforcement
of a law (gasp!), and this pseudojournalist and y'all turn Obama into a bloodthirsty baby killer, and joke about it.
Just more dishonesty and hypocrisy about an issue y'all pretend to care so much about. No surprise.
But going to "war" with the GOP and "Taking the sons of bitches out" is obviously okay eh?
Billy
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:20:33 PM
If you can't have an abortion anyway, what's the problem?
A mother and father make a baby....
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:20:33 PM
If you can't have an abortion anyway, what's the problem?
Is abortion considered a medical procedure?
Quote from: taxed on September 07, 2011, 04:21:48 PM
A mother and father make a baby....
The law can't force the mother to have an abortion. It only allows her to make a free choice. That's liberty right there.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:23:06 PM
The law can't force the mother to have an abortion. It only allows her to make a free choice. That's liberty right there.
But that's no good for baby.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:23:06 PM
The law can't force the mother to have an abortion. It only allows her to make a free choice. That's liberty right there.
She had free choice before Roe V Wade...
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 03:38:31 PM
It's really none of your business.
Murder is everyones business.
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 04:25:33 PM
Murder is everyones business.
He's playing games but is actually supporting my argument.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:23:06 PM
The law can't force the mother to have an abortion. It only allows her to make a free choice. That's liberty right there.
No it's not, as long as the father has no say on the matter.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 04:23:53 PM
She had free choice before Roe V Wade...
And she still has free choice.
Quote from: taxed on September 07, 2011, 04:23:34 PM
But that's no good for baby.
Lots of things aren't good for babies. Crappy parents are one of them.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:30:02 PM
And she still has free choice.
If she had it all along then the Fed law was not needed. Now I asked you if abortion was a medical procedure. Yes or no.
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 04:25:33 PM
Murder is everyones business.
Murder is a legal definition. So is abortion. They are not the same. If we are to say that killing is illegal then we'll have to do a lot of rearranging in our society.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 04:31:17 PM
If she had it all along then the Fed law was not needed. Now I asked you if abortion was a medical procedure. Yes or no.
Some are. Others are by medication.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
Lots of things aren't good for babies. Crappy parents are one of them.
Crappy parents should not have a baby. Killing the child is not a "wooops! oh well" type solution. Killing should be reserved for stuff like justice, and self defense... not like shaking an Etch-A-Sketch clean and continuing on. We are dealing with little souls and baby lives.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 04:33:32 PM
I asked about freedom to have one as in law. Yes or no.
Yes, women can legally have abortions. Is that what you are asking me?
Quote from: taxed on September 07, 2011, 04:33:38 PM
Crappy parents should not have a baby. Killing the child is not a "wooops! oh well" type solution. Killing should be reserved for stuff like justice, and self defense... not like shaking an Etch-A-Sketch clean and continuing on. We are dealing with little souls and baby lives.
That is a moral opinion.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:32:08 PM
Some are. Others are by medication.
So if a doctor performs an abortion it is considered a medical procedure. Correct.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 04:35:53 PM
So if a doctor performs an abortion it is considered a medical procedure. Correct.
So I am lead to believe.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:34:39 PM
Yes, women can legally have abortions. Is that what you are asking me?
Yes and if a doctor provides said abortion it is a medical procedure. Correct?
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 04:36:43 PM
Yes and if a doctor provides said abortion it is a medical procedure. Correct?
I just answered that question.
Quote from: taxed on September 07, 2011, 04:36:50 PM
How so?
Because it's not an absolute. We do not reserve killing for just those things, and we don't even know if babies have souls. It's your opinion, your moral worldview.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:31:40 PM
Murder is a legal definition. So is abortion. They are not the same. If we are to say that killing is illegal then we'll have to do a lot of rearranging in our society.
Wrong!!!
If you are the father of the child and the woman kills your baby that you wanted to keep, what is it called?
MURDER!!!
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:37:11 PM
I just answered that question.
Where is my Constitutional right to knee surgery.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 04:41:23 PM
Where is my Constitutional right to knee surgery.
Is a law preventing you from getting knee surgery if you want it ok?
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 04:40:50 PM
Wrong!!!
If you are the father of the child and the woman kills your baby that you wanted to keep, what is it called?
MURDER!!!
No, it's not murder. We put people in jail for murder.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:45:30 PM
No, it's not murder. We put people in jail for murder.
Not all the time.
Billy
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:43:46 PM
Is a law preventing you from getting knee surgery if you want it ok?
Don't dodge' I asked you a question. There is a Constitutional right to an abortion which is a medical procedure. I asked you to show me where my Constitutional right to knee surgery. Now don't answer with a question or obfuscate. Just answer.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 04:49:36 PM
Don't dodge' I asked you a question. There is a Constitutional right to an abortion which is a medical procedure. I asked you to show me where my Constitutional right to knee surgery. Now don't answer with a question or obfuscate. Just answer.
There is no constitutional right to a knee surgery. However, if you want to pay for a knee surgery, would you accept a law that prevented you from having one?
You have this situation entirely backwards. There is no constitutional right guaranteeing a woman an abortion, but there is no constitutional reason why a law can prevent her from having one if she wants one. Get it?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:45:30 PM
No, it's not murder. We put people in jail for murder.
So you don't think a woman killing the baby you helped produce, that you wanted to raise, even if it is without her, is not murdering a baby?
You are being extremely dishonest here, you are hiding behind the semantics of the current law.
But no matter how you spell it out, killing is by any definition, murder when the life is wanted.
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 04:51:44 PM
So you don't think a woman killing the baby you helped produce, that you wanted to raise, even if it is without her, is not murdering a baby?
You are being extremely dishonest here, you are hiding behind the semantics of the current law.
But no matter how you spell it out, killing is by any definition, murder when the life is wanted.
Legal definitions aren't up to me. I think a lot of things that aren't legally murder are murder. I am being entirely honest. I think capital punishment is murder. Do you?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:23:06 PM
The law can't force the mother to have an abortion. It only allows her to make a free choice. That's liberty right there.
So let's change a few of the words:
QuoteThe law can't force the mother to have an abortion you to own slaves. It only allows her to make a free choiceyou to own them. That's liberty right there.
Or how about:
QuoteThe law can't force the mother to have an abortionindividuals to operate the death camps. It only allows her to make a free choiceindividuals to volunteer to operate them. That's liberty right there
Strange how the abortionists want to make babies less than people. Subhuman. I think the German term was Untermenschen. Sounds oddly familiar.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 07, 2011, 04:54:33 PM
So let's change a few of the words:Or how about:Strange how the abortionists want to make babies less than people. Subhuman. I think the German term was Untermenschen. Sounds oddly familiar.
Hey, let's talk about popsicles if we are allowed to just change the words around.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:51:19 PM
There is no constitutional right to a knee surgery. However, if you want to pay for a knee surgery, would you accept a law that prevented you from having one?
You have this situation entirely backwards. There is no constitutional right guaranteeing a woman an abortion, but there is no constitutional reason why a law can prevent her from having one if she wants one. Get it?
if there is no Constitutional right to an abortion then the SCOTUS would been involved let alone cite the Constitution in the ruling of which the entire case was based on. They found a right to abortion. Yet I don't have a right to knee surgery. Can you at least tell me what clause is being violated here?
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 04:55:38 PM
if there is no Constitutional right to an abortion then the SCOTUS would been involved let alone cite the Constitution in the ruling of which the entire case was based on. They found a right to abortion. Yet I don't have a right to knee surgery. Can you at least tell me what clause is being violated here?
Wrong. SCOTUS said no law could be made to prevent abortion. Not a right to abortion.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:38:25 PM
Because it's not an absolute. We do not reserve killing for just those things, and we don't even know if babies have souls. It's your opinion, your moral worldview.
Little babies are innocent, and they are little lives. I'm surprised you disagree with that.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:53:32 PM
Legal definitions aren't up to me. I think a lot of things that aren't legally murder are murder. I am being entirely honest. I think capital punishment is murder. Do you?
No!
But don't obfuscate the point, the point is if you are partially responsible for the creation of a child, a child you are willing to raise and nurture and the woman destroys that life, she is murdering a child.
Where is my right as a man in the say of it's future?
If you buy a home with this same woman and split up, does she have all say in what happens to the profits from the sale?
Quote from: taxed on September 07, 2011, 04:57:44 PM
Little babies are innocent, and they are little lives. I'm surprised you disagree with that.
Babies, sure. A fetus cannot express it's will upon the world. It therefore is a part of the mother. IMO. We crush life everywhere and everyday. Life itself isn't special, IMO.
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 04:57:55 PM
No!
But don't obfuscate the point, the point is if you are partially responsible for the creation of a child, a child you are willing to raise and nurture and the woman destroys that life, she is murdering a child.
Where is my right as a man in the say of it's future?
If you buy a home with this same woman and split up, does she have all say in what happens to the profits from the sale?
I don't consider it murder. I think when a man has sex with a woman he doesn't usurp that woman's liberty just because she becomes pregnant.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:01:33 PM
I don't consider it murder. I think when a man has sex with a woman he doesn't usurp that woman's liberty just because she becomes pregnant.
What about usurping his rights?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:57:33 PM
Wrong. SCOTUS said no law could be made to prevent abortion. Not a right to abortion.
Which is a fancy way of saying The Constitution protects the women's right to abortion. What clause does this violate?
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:03:24 PM
Which is a fancy way of saying The Constitution protects the women's right to abortion. What clause does this violate?
There is no "Right TO" anything. There is only protection FROM. SCOTUS made the decision that the woman's right to choose an abortion is protected from lawmakers.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:03:46 PM
Which right is that?
Thats the point, the woman usurps my right to protect life because it's inconvenient.
So much for equal under the law...
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:55:31 PM
Hey, let's talk about popsicles if we are allowed to just change the words around.
Human beings aren't popsicles. Nor are they undifferentiated masses of tissue. You missed your century. In the antebellum South, you would have been talking about how slavery was really "good" for blacks. Or in Nazi Germany, talking about the "right" of the German people to be free of the "Jewish menace". You sound like you'd be good at justifying the unjustifiable
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:04:49 PM
There is no "Right TO" anything. There is only protection FROM. SCOTUS made the decision that the woman's right to choose an abortion is protected from lawmakers.
Okay. I can play funny buggers too. According the SCOTUS the Constitution
guarantees a woman's
access to abortion. Show me where this guarantee is located based on the ruling. And considering i have no guarantees I have asked you to show me what clause this violates...
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:11:45 PM
Okay. I can play funny buggers too. According the SCOTUS the Constitution guarantees a woman's access to abortion. Show me where this guarantee is located based on the ruling.
It's not location based.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:11:45 PM
And considering i have no guarantees I have asked you to show me what clause this violates...
I have no idea what you are talking about. What is "this?"
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 05:10:06 PM
Thats the point, the woman usurps my right to protect life because it's inconvenient.
So much for equal under the law...
You have no right to protect life in general. Only your own.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 07, 2011, 05:11:33 PM
Human beings aren't popsicles. Nor are they undifferentiated masses of tissue. You missed your century. In the antebellum South, you would have been talking about how slavery was really "good" for blacks. Or in Nazi Germany, talking about the "right" of the German people to be free of the "Jewish menace". You sound like you'd be good at justifying the unjustifiable
Nobody's talking about human beings being property here, buddy. Go sell that nonsense somewhere else.
On the contrary, I am good at pointing out what is justified while considered unjustified, and what is unjustified while considered justified. There is no justification for slavery or the Nazi final solution.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:00:07 PM
Babies, sure. A fetus cannot express it's will upon the world. It therefore is a part of the mother. IMO. We crush life everywhere and everyday. Life itself isn't special, IMO.
Well, if you don't appreciate life, then we may be too far apart.... I am pretty extreme on the life side in terms of justice...
Quote from: taxed on September 07, 2011, 05:18:01 PM
Well, if you don't appreciate life, then we may be too far apart.... I am pretty extreme on the life side in terms of justice...
Life is all around us. It's everywhere. I appreciate life.
Justice, though... is a much more difficult concept.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:14:40 PM
It's not location based.
False. the SCOTUS used specific parts of the Constitution. Show with specifics.
QuoteI have no idea what you are talking about. What is "this?"
if a Federal law based on a Constitutional right or guarantee does not cover everyone something has been violated. Tell me what this is...
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:20:07 PM
False. the SCOTUS used specific parts of the Constitution. Show with specifics.
Why are you asking me? You could google it. This does not further the debate at all. Only distracts.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:20:07 PM
if a Federal law based on a Constitutional right or guarantee does not cover everyone something has been violated. Tell me what this is...
Who doesn't this ruling cover? There is no LAW here. The LAW was overturned by SCOTUS.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:15:15 PM
You have no right to protect life in general. Only your own.
Right?
Try again, you have an obligation as a human being to protect life.
If you saw someones life being threatened, are you saying you don't have an obligation to prevent his murder?
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 05:27:44 PM
Right?
Try again, you have an obligation as a human being to protect life.
I'm not sure where you derive that. We kill people all the time. We kill animals all the time. We kill plants all the time.
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 05:27:44 PM
If you saw someones life being threatened, are you saying you don't have an obligation to prevent his murder?
Before I answer this question I want you to tell me whether this is an absolute. Are we obligated to prevent any threat to human life?
I'm not sure where you derive that.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:21:32 PM
Why are you asking me? You could google it. This does not further the debate at all. Only distracts.
I am asking you because you are involved in a thread that is discussing the Constitutional right of Abortion. You have said the constitution has nothing to do with it, Then you said there is no right yet when faced the fact that the SCOTUS ruled based on the Constitution and cited specific sections of the Constitution you suddenly say "Why ask me?"
QuoteWho doesn't this ruling cover? There is no LAW here. The LAW was overturned by SCOTUS.
If there is no law then what guarantees an abortion? THE CONSTITUTION. The Law gives women a right or a guaranteed access to abortion. Now ALL laws based on the Constitution have to protect EVERYBODY. yet men cannot have abortions and no other medical procedure is protected by the Constitution. That violates the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:32:16 PM
I am asking you because you are involved in a thread that is discussing the Constitutional right of Abortion. You have said the constitution has nothing to do with it, Then you said there is no right yet when faced the fact that the SCOTUS ruled based on the Constitution and cited specific sections of the Constitution you suddenly say "Why ask me?"
I didn't say the Constitution has nothing to do with it. I said SCOTUS decided that the law preventing a woman's access to abortion was unconstitutional. That's a simple fact. In no way do I need to prove that by quoting any part of the constitution.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:32:16 PM
If there is no law then what guarantees an abortion? THE CONSTITUTION. The Law gives women a right or a guaranteed access to abortion. Now ALL laws based on the Constitution have to protect EVERYBODY. yet men cannot have abortions and no other medical procedure is protected by the Constitution. That violates the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.
You don't really understand our constitution and the concept of negative and positive rights. Our constitution offer no positive rights.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:29:54 PM
I'm not sure where you derive that. We kill people all the time. We kill animals all the time. We kill plants all the time.
Yes, for food, but we don't kill people for now, do we?
Before I answer this question I want you to tell me whether this is an absolute. Are we obligated to prevent any threat to human life?
I spelled it out quite clearly for you.
So I'll ask again, different circumstance.
If you see someone dying on the street, do uyou not have an obligation to help save their life?
I'm not sure where you derive that.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:19:02 PM
Life is all around us. It's everywhere. I appreciate life.
Justice, though... is a much more difficult concept.
It's pretty simple. If you steal, die. If you are treasonous, die. If you attempt to hurt someone else, die.
Problems solved!
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2011, 05:41:19 PM
Yes, for food, but we don't kill people for now, do we?
Before I answer this question I want you to tell me whether this is an absolute. Are we obligated to prevent any threat to human life?
I spelled it out quite clearly for you.
So I'll ask again, different circumstance.
If you see someone dying on the street, do uyou not have an obligation to help save their life?
I'm not sure where you derive that.
We kill things without the need for food all the time.
And to answer your question, I do feel an obligation to save a person's life if I encounter them on the street. That's because I am a trained EMS responder.
Let me ask you a question. If we all have the obligation to save life everywhere, what do you think about "collateral damage" in war? Are those people exempt?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:36:09 PM
I didn't say the Constitution has nothing to do with it. I said SCOTUS decided that the law preventing a woman's access to abortion was unconstitutional. That's a simple fact. In no way do I need to prove that by quoting any part of the constitution.
Read the ruling. it specifies sections of the Constitution. The suit is based on Clauses. Stop avoiding that.
QuoteYou don't really understand our constitution and the concept of negative and positive rights. Our constitution offer no positive rights.
more dodging. if you disagree explain how it does not violate the equal protection clause.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:43:57 PM
Read the ruling. it specifies sections of the Constitution. The suit is based on Clauses. Stop avoiding that.
Ok. What is your problem with that? do you have some disagreement with SCOTUS? take it up with them.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:43:57 PM
more dodging. if you disagree explain how it does not violate the equal protection clause.
Why have been arguing against a positive right all this time then, if it's dodging?
What does the equal protection clause have to do with what I've said?
Quote from: taxed on September 07, 2011, 05:42:24 PM
It's pretty simple. If you steal, die. If you are treasonous, die. If you attempt to hurt someone else, die.
Problems solved!
I guess then only living would be the problem.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:46:23 PM
Ok. What is your problem with that? do you have some disagreement with SCOTUS? take it up with them.
Why have been arguing against a positive right all this time then, if it's dodging?
why can't you show me?
QuoteWhat does the equal protection clause have to do with what I've said?
What you said has nothing to with the issue. Either it violates it or not. If so explain.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:43:40 PM
We kill things without the need for food all the time.
And to answer your question, I do feel an obligation to save a person's life if I encounter them on the street. That's because I am a trained EMS responder.
Let me ask you a question. If we all have the obligation to save life everywhere, what do you think about "collateral damage" in war? Are those people exempt?
As I said earlier, we do not eat humans, so your point is moot.
If you own a dog and it bites someone, are you not responsible?
If your child hurts someone, no matter how innocent, are you responsible?
Of you make a baby, are you not responsible?
But to give the woman full say in a babies welfare is usurping a mans right!
If you can't see that, then you are either lying, or so damned liberal it has blinded your moral compass and responsibility as a man.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:48:39 PM
why can't you show me?
Why should I show you? Google the ruling yourself. It's got nothing to do with my argument.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:48:39 PM
What you said has nothing to with the issue. Either it violates it or not. If so explain.
Now you are just trying to lead me around into absurdity. I don't even know what you are talking about. The law? The protests? Be specific.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:51:24 PM
Why should I show you? Google the ruling yourself. It's got nothing to do with my argument.
Now you are just trying to lead me around into absurdity. I don't even know what you are talking about. The law? The protests? Be specific.
And scene!
Thank you Tenny for proving Liberals have absolutely no understanding of the Constitution. An thanks for running away like a prom queen on a date with Ron Jeremy. It was hilarious.
Quote from: Jollity farm... on September 07, 2011, 05:54:00 PM
And scene!
Thank you Tenny for proving Liberals have absolutely no understanding of the Constitution. An thanks for running away like a prom queen on a date with Ron Jeremy. It was hilarious.
The fact that you bail on the conversation and claim some kind of victory here proves nothing. Any truthful reading of this thread should prove embarrassing to you in your understanding of my country's constitution, our concept of rights, and our legal system.
But whatever. You said you won. It must be true.
After reading through this discussion, I have a few thoughts here:
1- Most states have a fetus protection law, ie if a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with two murders. Example: Scott Peterson. In these cases, what is referred to as "tissue", "a mass of cells", "a body part" etc. in the abortion debate suddenly becomes a life. The pro-choice crowd has no problem with this flexible definition.
2- If a woman can abort a child that the father had a part in conceiving without the father's consent, does the father have the right to not pay child support after the child is born? For example, let's say it's reversed, and the woman wants to have the child, the man doesn't. Can he choose not to pay child support? If not, why should he have less of a choice in what he does with his money (and it is concretely his money) than the woman has in what to do with "her" body (a flimsy assertion).
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 08, 2011, 08:09:14 AM
After reading through this discussion, I have a few thoughts here:
1- Most states have a fetus protection law, ie if a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with two murders. Example: Scott Peterson. In these cases, what is referred to as "tissue", "a mass of cells", "a body part" etc. in the abortion debate suddenly becomes a life. The pro-choice crowd has no problem with this flexible definition.
2- If a woman can abort a child that the father had a part in conceiving without the father's consent, does the father have the right to not pay child support after the child is born? For example, let's say it's reversed, and the woman wants to have the child, the man doesn't. Can he choose not to pay child support? If not, why should he have less of a choice in what he does with his money (and it is concretely his money) than the woman has in what to do with "her" body (a flimsy assertion).
Well said CL.
I don't know why libs are so set on denying equal protection under the law, but then, it was never about fairness, but rather appeasement to garner votes.
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 08, 2011, 08:09:14 AM
After reading through this discussion, I have a few thoughts here:
1- Most states have a fetus protection law, ie if a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with two murders. Example: Scott Peterson. In these cases, what is referred to as "tissue", "a mass of cells", "a body part" etc. in the abortion debate suddenly becomes a life. The pro-choice crowd has no problem with this flexible definition.
Killing a woman and her fetus isn't really her choice, now is it.
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 08, 2011, 08:09:14 AM
2- If a woman can abort a child that the father had a part in conceiving without the father's consent, does the father have the right to not pay child support after the child is born? For example, let's say it's reversed, and the woman wants to have the child, the man doesn't. Can he choose not to pay child support? If not, why should he have less of a choice in what he does with his money (and it is concretely his money) than the woman has in what to do with "her" body (a flimsy assertion).
This is an interesting point, and I'll have to think on it.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:29:28 AM
Killing a woman and her fetus isn't really her choice, now is it.
It's not about choice so much as the sliding definition. It is a life when the mother is murdered, but not a life when the mother chooses to get rid of it. That's what I would like to see sorted out.
Quote
This is an interesting point, and I'll have to think on it.
I have been known to throw out the occasional interesting point here and there :D
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 08, 2011, 08:32:19 AM
It's not about choice so much as the sliding definition. It is a life when the mother is murdered, but not a life when the mother chooses to get rid of it. That's what I would like to see sorted out.I have been known to throw out the occasional interesting point here and there :D
I don't think it matters whether it's a life or not. As I was saying to Solar, we as a society make judgements on when and how it is ok to end a life. In this case we've said it's ok.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:34:45 AM
I don't think it matters whether it's a life or not. As I was saying to Solar, we as a society make judgements on when and how it is ok to end a life. In this case we've said it's ok.
That's all fine, but they don't refer to it as ending a life in the case of abortion. If this definition was carried on, and the scumbag who murders a pregnant woman is convicted of one count of murder, that would be fine. In this case, it seems the fetus is a life when the mom wants it, but a mass of tissue when she doesn't. That seems a bit inconsistent in my opinion.
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 08, 2011, 08:48:05 AM
That's all fine, but they don't refer to it as ending a life in the case of abortion. If this definition was carried on, and the scumbag who murders a pregnant woman is convicted of one count of murder, that would be fine. In this case, it seems the fetus is a life when the mom wants it, but a mass of tissue when she doesn't. That seems a bit inconsistent in my opinion.
I'm not sure, but I don't think that that figured into the SCOTUS case. It was always considered a life. The later refinement had to do with when an abortion could be performed, and it dealt with "viability." I think that is the court decision you are talking about, not the original.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 03:38:31 PM
It's really none of your business.
It's the American Holocaust, and it's EVERYBODY'S business when about
NINE TIMES the victims killed by Nazi Germany are killed in these United States, all thanks to a runaway Supreme Court which did not recognize states' rights to decide the issue individually.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 04:53:32 PM
Legal definitions aren't up to me. I think a lot of things that aren't legally murder are murder. I am being entirely honest. I think capital punishment is murder. Do you?
Nope. You punish the perp. Where did the innocent baby deserve such a fate?
Quote from: Josie on September 06, 2011, 07:19:29 PM
If I had to narrow down the reasons I can't stomach Obama to just one, this would be it....
He is a blood thirsty fake Christian... there is NO WAY in hell this President is a Christian man, he is so pro abortion He probably cried like a newborn the day George Tiller was shot... and Ted Kennedy I hope is burning in hell....
I can't believe that the Westboro (fake) Baptist "Church" can protest outside of our fallen soldiers funerals yet protesting to save a life is going to have to be done from such a distance that these people won't even be affected by the protestors at all... This is my motivation for working towards ousting Obama in 2012... I will do what ever it takes... robo calls, getting people to give donations to the RNC, I'll go door to door or what ever it takes.
From that post, it can be inferred that there is no way that you are a Christian.
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2011, 09:25:41 AM
It's the American Holocaust, and it's EVERYBODY'S business when about NINE TIMES the victims killed by Nazi Germany are killed in these United States, all thanks to a runaway Supreme Court which did not recognize states' rights to decide the issue individually.
No, it's not everybody's business. It's the mother's business.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 09:32:50 AM
No, it's not everybody's business. It's the mother's business.
And the father's. If she kills the child he wants, he should rightfully demand her punishment for murder.
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2011, 09:30:21 AM
Nope. You punish the perp. Where did the innocent baby deserve such a fate?
What does deserve have to do with it?
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2011, 09:35:32 AM
And the father's. If she kills the child he wants, he should rightfully demand her punishment for murder.
What right justifies the father's control of the woman's body?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 09:36:51 AM
What does deserve have to do with it?
If you do something they can kill you for, the law says you deserve it. An innocent unborn child has committed no crime worthy of dying for, but from the moment of conception onward the odds are very good it WILL lead to birth. As an "emerging citizen," the baby deserves full Constitutional protection, the same as after birth.
It
does not deserve to be killed in the heinous name of convenience.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 09:37:36 AM
What right justifies the father's control of the woman's body?
To prevent murdering the child he wants? Every right on earth. If she's a druggie he should also have the right to force her into a 12-step program and detox, to give his child a fighting chance after birth.
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2011, 09:48:32 AM
If you do something they can kill you for, the law says you deserve it. An innocent unborn child has committed no crime worthy of dying for, but from the moment of conception onward the odds are very good it WILL lead to birth. As an "emerging citizen," the baby deserves full Constitutional protection, the same as after birth.
It does not deserve to be killed in the heinous name of convenience.
All that is purely your opinion.
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2011, 09:52:24 AM
To prevent murdering the child he wants? Every right on earth. If she's a druggie he should also have the right to force her into a 12-step program and detox, to give his child a fighting chance after birth.
Every right on earth? How about naming the specific right.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 09:53:21 AM
Every right on earth? How about naming the specific right.
It's his child too.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 09:52:40 AM
All that is purely your opinion.
Is it your opinion that this unborn baby does deserve to be killed in the name of convenience? Just trying to understand your objection to what he said.
Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 10:05:02 AM
Is it your opinion that this unborn baby does deserve to be killed in the name of convenience? Just trying to understand your objection to what he said.
It is my opinion that it's up to the mother.
Liberals always trot out rape and incest cases as justification for abortions, but in truth a huge number of abortions are done because she engaged in unprotected sex and lost her bet on the odds of conception.
Morning-after pills would (and ARE) whittling those cases down to nearly nothing, and Obama's crew are pushing this type of Get Out of Jail Free Card because we can all say it was used before conception occurred. Then there are the first-trimester natural abortions from typical causes (falls, other medical issues, etc.).
But killing a living baby who never harmed a soul, while sniveling over cleaning the gene pool of a convicted killer? There's no justice in that, since the baby NEVER gets the right of appeal that is Constitutionally the right of every U.S. citizen. The baby, when allowed to finish its term, is just that very citizen.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 10:11:35 AM
That's not a right.
Thus far you've managed to COMPLETELY ignore the rights of an unborn U.S. citizen, defended not killing convicted killers, and you simply ignored the part about the Supreme Court INVENTING law when the Constitution specifically says they are not empowered to.
Now it's YOUR turn. Why does the father NOT have the right to be a parent to his child, if he wants to?
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2011, 10:21:45 AM
Thus far you've managed to COMPLETELY ignore the rights of an unborn U.S. citizen, defended not killing convicted killers, and you simply ignored the part about the Supreme Court INVENTING law when the Constitution specifically says they are not empowered to.
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2011, 10:21:45 AM
Now it's YOUR turn. Why does the father NOT have the right to be a parent to his child, if he wants to?
The father has no right to control what the woman does with her body. Plain and simple.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 10:12:10 AM
It is my opinion that it's up to the mother.
And is it your opinion that the innocent child deserves to die in the name of the mother's convenience?
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2011, 10:28:31 AM
And is it your opinion that the innocent child deserves to die in the name of the mother's convenience?
I've already said it is irrelevant.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 10:24:02 AM
The father has no right to control what the woman does with her body. Plain and simple.
So is the fetus a life, or part of the woman's body? This is what I alluded to earlier with the dual murder issue. It seems the definition of life is flexible here. The pro-choice camp should just make up its mind.
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 08, 2011, 10:31:04 AM
So is the fetus a life, or part of the woman's body? This is what I alluded to earlier with the dual murder issue. It seems the definition of life is flexible here. The pro-choice camp should just make up its mind.
It's life and it's part of a woman's body. Most pro-choice arguments are nonsense.
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2011, 10:18:34 AM
Liberals always trot out rape and incest cases as justification for abortions, but in truth a huge number of abortions are done because she engaged in unprotected sex and lost her bet on the odds of conception.
Morning-after pills would (and ARE) whittling those cases down to nearly nothing, and Obama's crew are pushing this type of Get Out of Jail Free Card because we can all say it was used before conception occurred. Then there are the first-trimester natural abortions from typical causes (falls, other medical issues, etc.).
But killing a living baby who never harmed a soul, while sniveling over cleaning the gene pool of a convicted killer? There's no justice in that, since the baby NEVER gets the right of appeal that is Constitutionally the right of every U.S. citizen. The baby, when allowed to finish its term, is just that very citizen.
A fetus is not a US citizen, quiller.
When a pregnant woman is murdered, isn't that considered a double homicide? There was a case in San Francisco where a man killed his pregnant wife and dumped her body in the bay. Scott Peterson is currently in San Quentin on death row.
Quote from: Indy on September 08, 2011, 02:43:24 PM
When a pregnant woman is murdered, isn't that considered a double homicide? There was a case in San Francisco where a man killed his pregnant wife and dumped her body in the bay. Scott Peterson is currently in San Quentin on death row.
Killing a woman's baby without her permission should definitely be a crime. Calling it murder though is probably just a practicality.
Why, because it isn't yet viable outside of the mother? According to that logic a person in a persistant vegitative state on life support can't be killed either.
Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 02:47:45 PM
Why, because it isn't yet viable outside of the mother? According to that logic a person in a persistant vegitative state on life support can't be killed either.
Because she didn't give consent.
And if a fetus does not give consent?
What about a minor on life support? Minor's are not legally able to give consent on most things.
Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 02:49:13 PM
And if a fetus does not give consent?
What about a minor on life support? Minor's are not legally able to give consent on most things.
Yep. The parents can give consent for the minor to be taken off life support.
So are you saying the mother can give consent for the fetus to be terminated?
Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 02:52:58 PM
So are you saying the mother can give consent for the fetus to be terminated?
Uh, yeah.
Somehow I think there is a conflict of interest. :-\
Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 02:54:29 PM
Somehow I think there is a conflict of interest. :-\
What? How.
She wants to look good in her bikini in 2 months so she really doesn't want the baby. The baby has no say. Maybe the baby wants to live. Maybe the baby isn't all that worried about her having morning sickness during fall mid terms. Just a possiblity.
Quote from: Dan on September 08, 2011, 02:57:28 PM
She wants to look good in her bikini in 2 months so she really doesn't want the baby. The baby has no say. Maybe the baby wants to live. Maybe the baby isn't all that worried about her having morning sickness during fall mid terms. Just a possiblity.
The higher functions of the brain don't develop until after the first trimester. But I don't know why you'd assume every woman who has an abortion has one for vanity.
Not saying every woman getting an abortion is doing so for superficial reasons. Are you saying none do it for superficial or selfish reasons?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 02:44:52 PM
Killing a woman's baby without her permission should definitely be a crime. Calling it murder though is probably just a practicality.
And the obverse of that coin?
This is the point I've been trying to get across throughout this entire thread.
Why does she have all the rights and the man gets none?
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 06:43:34 PM
The man has all the same rights he had before he impregnated her.
As does she. Nothing has changed in that regard. He gets to say what
he does or doesn't do with his person, and she gets to do the same with hers.
The notion that a man has a say in what a woman does with her body merely because
he has sexually marked her as his own is no longer acceptable or tolerable in our society.
Were not talking about her body, were talking about his child.
When she decided to have sex with him and got pregnant, that's when it is no longer about her body, but rather a life, their child.
Why are you libs so callous towards life?
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 07:16:16 PM
Your first two sentences are worthy of response. Your last sentence is not.
So in response to your original point . . . if the man in question is that worried about
giving a woman with whom he does not have a stable child rearing relationship the power
of life and death over an embryo or fetus that he has helped to cause, then he should keep
his penis to himself. And if he is not responsible enough to manage that, he has absolutely no
right, nor should he have any expectation, to assume any power or control over that woman's
reproductive and human rights once he has irresponsibly impregnated her. The very notion is absurd.
It's not that black and white, what if she lied and said she couldn't get pregnant, or by no fault of his own, she screwed up on her birth control.
You may think it doesn't deserve a response, but just because it's she doesn't want the baby, does not give anyone the right to kill.
It's still partly his child.
As I asked before, why are you libs so callous when it comes to a babies life, but scream bloody murder over cutting old growth forests?
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 07:26:31 PM
It must be that we hate little embryos and love old trees. There can be no other explanation.
Sad you can't answer seriously, it was a valid question.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 07:38:40 PM
Again, just like the first post, you made a couple more or less valid points which I could respond to,
and then accused me (by association, no less) of not caring whether babies live or die. That's not a valid question.
Then why are you so adamant about the fact that he as a father has no rights?
I ask again, why do you support killing a child over harvesting lumber from old growth forests?
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 06:33:47 PM
And the obverse of that coin?
This is the point I've been trying to get across throughout this entire thread.
Why does she have all the rights and the man gets none?
Because the fetus is within HER body.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 07:47:15 PM
You make toothpicks your way, and I'll make them mine.
From your unwillingness to answer, I can surmise that you know I'm right.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 07:03:21 PM
Why are you libs so callous towards life?
Everybody is callous towards some kind of life or other. People pick their cares.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 07:51:12 PM
Everybody is callous towards some kind of life or other. People pick their cares.
Really? And you base this on?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 07:49:09 PM
Because the fetus is within HER body.
And God creates life. Funny, we will prosecute anyone that destroys the egg of a Bald Eagle and yet abort our own children. Good ole eugenics is a live and well!
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 07:52:58 PM
And God creates life. Funny, we will prosecute anyone that destroys the egg of a Bald Eagle and yet abort our own children. Good ole eugenics is a live and well!
Abortion isn't eugenics. That is just silly.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 07:54:03 PM
Abortion isn't eugenics. That is just silly.
Absolute BULLSHIT. The problem is the idiots who fell for Margarette Sangers intent for PP. You might want to read her own words as to why she was a proponent of abortions and her reasoning for starting PP. The ignorance of our society when it comes to history is simply amazing to witness.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 07:52:57 PM
Really? And you base this on?
The fact that you don't care whether 200 year old trees are killed to make tables or if cows are slaughtered in driveways. Quiller cares for the millions of aborted fetuses but not for children who wind up as collateral damage in wartime.
Everybody picks which life they consider fair game.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 07:56:25 PM
Absolute BULLSHIT. The problem is the idiots who fell for Margarette Sangers intent for PP. You might want to read her own words as to why she was a proponent of abortions and her reasoning for starting PP. The ignorance of our society when it comes to history is simply amazing to witness.
Eugenics used abortion (kind of), but abortion isn't eugenics.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 07:56:26 PM
See, you just did it too. Is it that you realize that your argument is absurd, so you take it to absurdity yourself?
Life is life. A fetus IS life and thus you kill it when you abort it. Only fools see it differently. We weep over the loss of species and their young and throw our children away as if they were nothing more then garbage.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 07:57:26 PM
Eugenics used abortion (kind of), but abortion isn't eugenics.
Again, BULLSHIT. Read Sangers own words. Heck, I'll just post them for you ratehr then watch you ignore my request.
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger,
Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people On sterilization & racial purification:Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization.
Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
On the right of married couples to bear children:Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace."
Birth Control Review, April 1932
On the purpose of birth control:The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the
Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control."
Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger,
Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
On the extermination of blacks:"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc.
Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
On adultery:A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed.
Birth Control in America, p. 11
On marital sex:"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)
On abortion:"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women."
The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm (http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm)
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 07:59:26 PM
Again, BULLSHIT. Read Sangers own words. Heck, I'll just post them for you ratehr then watch you ignore my request.
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech. On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932 On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2) On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107 On adultery:
A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11 On marital sex:
"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)
On abortion:
"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm (http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm)
Completely irrelevant.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:00:39 PM
Completely irrelevant.
Why would I expect anything different from someone who holds no value to life. You can deny it all you want but the facts override your denial. I find it intriguing how infatuated libs are with eugenics,
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:04:12 PM
Why would I expect anything different from someone who holds no value to life. You can deny it all you want but the facts override your denial.
Margaret Sanger's opinion on abortion is meaningless. I can come to my own conclusion on the subject, thank you very much.
As to your final comment added afterwards, I won't dignify it with a response.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 07:54:03 PM
Abortion isn't eugenics. That is just silly.
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
I can't believe you just said that.
Learn some history.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:07:20 PM
Margaret Sanger's opinion on abortion is meaningless. I can come to my own conclusion on the subject, thank you very much.
As to your final comment added afterwards, I won't dignify it with a response.
Of course you will not. It's true. We show more empathy, and mourn over the loss of a species then our own who we see as nothing more then diposable. It is absolutely tragic that to some, birth control is aborting life. God have mercy on us. History will judge us for this.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:00:39 PM
Completely irrelevant.
Where are the majority of abortion clinics located in the U.S.?
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 08:10:01 PM
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
I can't believe you just said that.
Learn some history.
Abortion is as old as man. Eugenics is a 19th-20th century movement. That's history.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 08:10:01 PM
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
I can't believe you just said that.
Learn some history.
I can, they will NEVER admit they are wrong despite the facts. They have been sold a grand lie and instead of simply admitting that they were wrong, the persist in believing a fabrication. Their own behavior betrays them as I stated, they will mourn over the loss of a species then over the loss of our own.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:12:06 PM
Abortion is as old as man. Eugenics is a 19th-20th century movement. That's history.
Right! Disposable children, so modern of us.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:07:20 PM
Margaret Sanger's opinion on abortion is meaningless. I can come to my own conclusion on the subject, thank you very much.
As to your final comment added afterwards, I won't dignify it with a response.
Sanger was the originator of planned parent hood.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:10:52 PM
Of course you will not. It's true. We show more empathy, and mourn over the loss of a species then our own who we see as nothing more then diposable. It is absolutely tragic that to some, birth control is aborting life. God have mercy on us. History will judge us for this.
History will judge of for many things. Dropping gasoline bombs on Tokyo. The atomic bombs. Giving smallpox ridden blankets to native americans.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 08:13:51 PM
Sanger was the originator of planned parent hood.
No kidding. She didn't invent abortion though.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:12:59 PM
I can, they will NEVER admit they are wrong despite the facts. They have been sold a grand lie and instead of simply admitting that they were wrong, the persist in believing a fabrication. Their own behavior betrays them as I stated, they will mourn over the loss of a species then over the loss of our own.
Or you could be wrong.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:14:35 PM
No kidding. She didn't invent abortion though.
She perfected it.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
Where are the majority of abortion clinics located in the U.S.?
I don't know. Poor areas?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:14:00 PM
History will judge of for many things. Dropping gasoline bombs on Tokyo. The atomic bombs. Giving smallpox ridden blankets to native americans.
We have aborted more children then was killed in both bombs. We will prosecute anyone who destroys the eggs of protected species and yet allow the killing of the unborn.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:14:35 PM
No kidding. She didn't invent abortion though.
WOW, you really are dense, aren't you?
Planned parenthood has it's roots in eugenics!
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:15:40 PM
I don't know. Poor areas?
Wow! Did you just make a wild ass guess or could there have been a slight acknowledgement of their intent.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:15:49 PM
We have aborted more children then was killed in both bombs. We will prosecute anyone who destroys the eggs of protected species and yet allow the killing of the unborn.
So it was ok to kill the children with the atom bombs because there were less of them. Ok.
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 08:16:12 PM
WOW, you really are dense, aren't you?
Planned parenthood has it's roots in eugenics!
So what? They only provide abortion, they didn't invent it.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:17:43 PM
So it was ok to kill the children with the atom bombs because there were less of them. Ok.
What did I say? You are looking to justify your reasoning by comparing the atom bomb to the slaughter of millions of unborn children. Both are tragic but are we still lighting off nukes? No. Are we still killing the unborn? Yes.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:16:48 PM
Wow! Did you just make a wild ass guess or could there have been a slight acknowledgement of their intent.
Planned parenthood provides healthcare to people who can't afford it. Why would they be in wealthy areas?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:20:57 PM
Planned parenthood provides healthcare to people who can't afford it. Why would they be in wealthy areas?
Has PP
EVER renounced Sanger, the founder of such an evil organization?
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:20:52 PM
What did I say? You are looking to justify your reasoning by comparing the atom bomb to the slaughter of millions of unborn children. Both are tragic but are we still lighting off nukes? No. Are we still killing the unborn? Yes.
We're still dropping bombs on kids.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:21:48 PM
We're still dropping bombs on kids.
Your attempt to rationalize your obviously distorted view is becoming laughable. You pervert one idea to justify your perverted reasoning to support euginics. Typical of liberals.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:21:30 PM
Has PP EVER renounced Sanger, the founder of such an evil organization?
I don't care. They provide a necessary service now. Evidently this is now an anti-Planned Parenthood argument and not an anti-abortion argument. If PP disappeared we'd still have abortions.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 07, 2011, 05:15:15 PM
You have no right to protect life in general. Only your own.
That's not true. Self-defense encompasses those around you.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:23:05 PM
Your attempt to rationalize your obviously distorted view is becoming laughable. You pervert one idea to justify your perverted reasoning to support euginics. Typical of liberals.
And you are using a logical fallacy to distract from the debate. Your Argument to Emotion is a poor way to debate.
The simple fact is that you choose which killing is acceptable. In both cases the end result is dead kids and dead people.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:23:14 PM
I don't care. They provide a necessary service now. Evidently this is now an anti-Planned Parenthood argument and not an anti-abortion argument. If PP disappeared we'd still have abortions.
It's talking about the intent of PP that you are trying your damnedest to avoid. She started it to rid us of blacks, and the unwanted in society. PP has NEVER once renounced her or her views and yet you think they are somehow doing saintly work. They were started with evil intent and continue to do it to this day.
Quote from: Harry on September 08, 2011, 08:24:39 PM
That's not true. Self-defense encompasses those around you.
Even those who refuse your protection?
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 08:25:55 PM
Those around you would probably have a stronger association than "life in general".
Yes, such as my child?
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:25:31 PM
It's talking about the intent of PP that you are trying your damnedest to avoid. She started it to rid us of blacks, and the unwanted in society. PP has NEVER once renounced her or her views and yet you think they are somehow doing saintly work. They were started with evil intent and continue to do it to this day.
I don't care what the intent was. I don't care for your demand that the group renounce some ridiculous theory that a huge percentage of the population at that time subscribed to.
Quote from: Harry on September 08, 2011, 08:26:40 PM
Yes, such as my child?
And to protect your child you feel its ok to force a woman through 9 months of pregnancy and then a painful birth? You usurp her right to control her own body?
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 08:27:22 PM
So if they renounce Margaret Sanger you will feel better about them? Then what?
That would include a renunciation of their own wasy. Highly unlikely. Sad that we can just throw our children in the trash because a couple were too damn irresponsible to take precautions. These children have a right to life.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:20:11 PM
So what? They only provide abortion, they didn't invent it.
Just back away from the keyboard before you embarrass yourself any further.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:29:37 PM
That would include a renunciation of their own wasy. Highly unlikely. Sad that we can just throw our children in the trash because a couple were too damn irresponsible to take precautions. These children have a right to life.
Only THESE children though, apparently.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:28:43 PM
And to protect your child you feel its ok to force a woman through 9 months of pregnancy and then a painful birth? You usurp her right to control her own body?
Yet you want to put that child through tthe painful horrors of being aborted!? Whatever happened to using birthcontrol rather then using abortion as a means of birthcontrol. The child has to suffer for the ignorance of it's parents. Wow!
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 08:30:21 PM
Yes, you could be expected to feel that way about your child.
Would that give you the right to control the body of a woman with whom
you had sex and impregnated irresponsibly? Not anymore it wouldn't.
Where did we get the right to take the life of the innocent unborn child?
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 08:30:11 PM
Just back away from the keyboard before you embarrass yourself any further.
Could you be more specific? Would you like to counter what I said?
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:30:51 PM
Yet you want to put that child through tthe painful horrors of being aborted!? Whatever happened to using birthcontrol rather then using abortion as a means of birthcontrol. The child has to suffer for the ignorance of it's parents. Wow!
We all have to go sometime.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:31:36 PM
Could you be more specific? Would you like to counter what I said?
I did.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:32:28 PM
We all have to go sometime.
Well, you can make that choice, the child can not. God is the Creator of life, not man.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:28:43 PM
And to protect your child you feel its ok to force a woman through 9 months of pregnancy and then a painful birth? You usurp her right to control her own body?
She should be able to take a life because she has a bad hair day? That's not only idiotic, it's gruesome. People that think like you are no better than Nazis.
This is why I don't discuss abortion. You people are dispicable.
I'm outta here!
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:20:11 PM
So what? They only provide abortion, they didn't invent it.
McDonalds didn't invent the burger and fries...
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:33:25 PM
Well, you can make that choice, the child can not. God is the Creator of life, not man.
A fetus can't make any choices. The mother makes all choices for it. Just like she would until the child is 18 years old. Do you know that a parent can refuse life-saving medical care even if it kills the child? That implies that parents have the power of life and death over their children.
Quote from: Harry on September 08, 2011, 08:33:44 PM
She should be able to take a life because she has a bad hair day? That's not only idiotic, it's gruesome. People that think like you are no better than Nazis.
This is why I don't discuss abortion. You people are dispicable.
I'm outta here!
Actually the Nazis got the idea of euginics form American Progressives like Sanger and was then used on th eJews. Let me guess, you approve the Holocaust.
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2011, 08:33:50 PM
McDonalds didn't invent the burger and fries...
So why blame McDonalds for all the people who got fat from eating burgers? Should I start quoting Ray Kroc?
Quote from: Harry on September 08, 2011, 08:33:44 PM
She should be able to take a life because she has a bad hair day? That's not only idiotic, it's gruesome. People that think like you are no better than Nazis.
This is why I don't discuss abortion. You people are dispicable.
I'm outta here!
Bye Harry.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:35:01 PM
A fetus can't make any choices. The mother makes all choices for it. Just like she would until the child is 18 years old. Do you know that a parent can refuse life-saving medical care even if it kills the child? That implies that parents have the power of life and death over their children.
Does that make it right? You see, you are approving Sanger's view of life despite stating it is irrelevant.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:35:44 PM
Actually the Nazis got the idea of euginics form American Progressives like Sanger and was then used on th eJews. Let me guess, you approve the Holocaust.
Nazis didn't invent baking...
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 08:34:17 PM
We didn't. However, we are not carrying an unwanted, unviable fetus.
And we are not God who is the Creator of all life. There will be an accountability for our behavior.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:36:48 PM
Does that make it right? You see, you are approving Sanger's view of life despite stating it is irrelevant.
Guilt by association fallacy.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:31:36 PM
Could you be more specific? Would you like to counter what I said?
So far you haven't said anything intelligent, and thats not meant as a slam, merely an observation.
But you did say you wanted to learn, so allow me to present some facts on Planned Parenthood.
You may want to read these before you post any further.
Quotehttp://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932
On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
Quotehttp://www.citizenreviewonline.org/special_issues/population/the_negro_project.htm
The Negro Project
Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black Americans
By Tanya L. Green
posted at Concerned Women of America (http://www.cwfa.org/library/life/2001-05_pp_n-project.shtml)
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 08:37:04 PM
Thankfully, you lost me with this one.
Well, that is what happens to the historically illiterate.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:37:57 PM
Guilt by association fallacy.
Nah, your denial does not dilute the facts.
Quote from: taxed on September 08, 2011, 08:36:55 PM
Nazis didn't invent baking...
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 08:38:12 PM
So far you haven't said anything intelligent, and thats not meant as a slam, merely an observation.
But you did say you wanted to learn, so allow me to present some facts on Planned Parenthood.
You may want to read these before you post any further.
Why are you telling me about Planned Parenthood? If it disappeared we would still have abortion. We had abortion before Planned Parenthood. What exactly is the point of even bringing this up? Does it have some bearing on the legality of abortion?
I am sick of the argument that an abortion is a woman's right because it is her body. IMO she gives up that right when she is stupid or careless regarding her own birth control. Suck it up and see it through -you don't want to "mess" up your life having to raise a child then there are plenty of people more than willing to raise that baby as their own. I have had a couple of friends who had abortions encouraged by PP. One of them to this day, almost 25 years later, still lives with the regret.
As to the other point that the man has no say because it is her body...don't agree there either. The man should have the right to say he wants the child. All she has to do is suck up the nine months and hand it over if it is so damn inconvenient for her to deal with.
Some women are just not meant to be mothers. Get fixed and be done with it. Abortion is not birth control it is murder. Again just my opinion...as a woman.
Because you have such a shallow view of life I did not expect the truth of Sanger to alter your perverted view one iota. You have no concept of life and seem ok, despite trying to lay a guilt trip on me with taking the life of our most innocent.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
Nah, your denial does not dilute the facts.
Your facts are irrelevant to the discussion. Even if you manage to discredit PP it means nothing. Abortion would still be legal. There would still be abortions.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:41:15 PM
Because you have such a shallow view of life I did not expect the truth of Sanger to alter your perverted view one iota. You have no concept of life and seem ok, despite trying to lay a guilt trip on me with taking the life of our most innocent.
What exactly are you supposed to feel guilty about? And I have a very distinct concept of life, thanks.
Quote from: Solars Toy on September 08, 2011, 08:40:15 PM
...Some women are just not meant to be mothers. Get fixed and be done with it. Abortion is not birth control it is murder. Again just my opinion...as a woman.
Spot on! If you want to have unprotected sex, then do us all a favor and get fixed. Your callous disregard is not the fault of the child.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:43:38 PM
Spot on! If you want to have unprotected sex, then do us all a favor and get fixed. Your callous disregard is not the fault of the child.
Oh now you want people sterilized. You know who pushed that, don't you? Margaret Sanger!
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:43:10 PM
What exactly are you supposed to feel guilty about? And I have a very distinct concept of life, thanks.
You have a very perverted view of life. You have no compassion for the unborn or even the pain and suffering we inflict on them in their brief period alive. To you, they are nothing but disposable children when you or your other feel inconvienced. If you don't want ot have a child, fix yourself.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:44:32 PM
Oh now you want people sterilized. You know who pushed that, don't you? Margaret Sanger!
Well, if you think having sex and then aborting a child is ok, you should be fixed. This is why you have a very shallow view on life. Sad to see people like this.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:45:25 PM
You have a very perverted view of life. You have no compassion for the unborn or even the pain and suffering we inflict on them in their brief period alive. To you, they are nothing but disposable children when you or your other feel inconvienced. If you don't want ot have a child, fix yourself.
That is entirely untrue. But whatever.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:46:28 PM
Well, if you think having sex and then aborting a child is ok, you should be fixed. This is why you have a very shallow view on life. Sad to see people like this.
So you are a eugenicist. Good to know.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:46:58 PM
So you are a eugenicist. Good to know.
I never once thought having yourself fixed eqautes to euginics. Wow, you are losing this debate. You seek to scratch your itch but want to take zero responsibility for your actions. Seem to me you have a problem. Doig th eright thing is never the easy thing.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:40:10 PM
Why are you telling me about Planned Parenthood? If it disappeared we would still have abortion. We had abortion before Planned Parenthood. What exactly is the point of even bringing this up? Does it have some bearing on the legality of abortion?
YES!!!
Where do you think they get their money and where do you think it's spent?
They have their own lobbyists pushing their corrupt agenda.
Thats right, our tax dollars at work.
And yes, there would always be abortions, but it wouldn't be the conveyor belt for birth control.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
So a woman gives up her rights when she is stupid or careless enough to become pregnant
(interesting way to characterize the supposedly blessed event which results in the sacred embryo)
yet the man who was just as stupid or careless gains the rights which she has forfeited and can
now make and enforce demands on her even though he has just demonstrated that he is not even
capable of handling sex responsibly? Can any of you see how absurd this argument is?
So the sins of the parents should be delivered to the child!? Seems your play on this is pretty distorted. What did this child do to derserve such a horrific death?
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:48:47 PM
I never once thought having yourself fixed eqautes to euginics. Wow, you are losing this debate. You seek to scratch your itch but want to take zero responsibility for your actions. Seem to me you have a problem. Doig th eright thing is never the easy thing.
But Margaret Sanger was a proponent of sterilization. You are a proponent of sterilization. Therefore you are a eugenicist.
See how this kind of fallacious reasoning works? That's what you were doing.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:46:37 PM
That is entirely untrue. But whatever.
Well of course it's untrue when it's about you. You are dishonest and will never admit your are wrong.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:51:01 PM
Well of course it's untrue when it's about you. You are dishonest and will never admit your are wrong.
How can I be wrong about my own personal beliefs? Are yours wrong because I think they are?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:51:27 PM
How can I be wrong about my own personal beliefs? Are yours wrong because I think they are?
If I said it's ok to murder my wife and I feel that is my personal belief you would be ok with that?
Quote from: Solar on September 08, 2011, 08:49:10 PM
YES!!!
Where do you think they get their money and where do you think it's spent?
They have their own lobbyists pushing their corrupt agenda.
Thats right, our tax dollars at work.
And yes, there would always be abortions, but it wouldn't be the conveyor belt for birth control.
Shouldn't that go in the conspiracy theory forum?
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:52:15 PM
If I said it's ok to murder my wife and I feel that is my personal belief you would be ok with that?
Of course not.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:53:26 PM
Of course not.
LOL, yet that is what you are saying about killing children in the womb. ::)
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 08:53:22 PM
Do you even read the posts before responding? I have not yet seriously advocated abortion.
I have continually challenged your or any assertion that a man irresponsible enough to get
a woman pregnant outside of a stable child rearing relationship has the right to demand
that she forfeits her rights so that he can then assume them and force her to bear his child.
You are playing a game BB.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:54:13 PM
LOL, yet that is what you are saying about killing children in the womb. ::)
No. It's nothing like that.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:56:14 PM
No it isn't. Murder is against the law.
Yes it is and we could do this another 13 pages but I have a ride to Cape Hatteras and need to hit the hay. Have a good weekend.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 08, 2011, 08:59:22 PM
Yes it is and we could do this another 13 pages but I have a ride to Cape Hatteras and need to hit the hay. Have a good weekend.
You too man.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 08, 2011, 08:52:33 PM
Shouldn't that go in the conspiracy theory forum?
Ya know, I'm through with you, you are nothing but an uneducated child, and one that is unwilling to learn.
There was nothing in my statement that was false.
But your whole premise is that of a typical ignorant liberal.
Get an education, or open up your mind before you bother responding to me again.
Good night!
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 08:48:41 PM
So a woman gives up her rights when she is stupid or careless enough to become pregnant
(interesting way to characterize the supposedly blessed event which results in the sacred embryo)
yet the man who was just as stupid or careless gains the rights which she has forfeited and can
now make and enforce demands on her even though he has just demonstrated that he is not even
capable of handling sex responsibly? Can any of you see how absurd this argument is?
No I don't. When a woman chooses to have sex outside of a committed relationship she is taking risks with her body and what happens to it. It happened together and should be decided together it is not just her decision because it is her body. My other option if the man is a dog and was just in it for the sex (hasn't society done a great job free love and all) and also doesn't want the responsibility of raising the child there are others who would welcome the opportunity to raise that child as their own.
Just a point I would like to make. You are not a woman so anything you say here is just talking points given to you by the people who want to say this is ok. The physical, emotional, and psychological aspects of having an abortion are devastating. Woman are born nurturers and it goes against everything in us to kill that "fetus". The devastation and guilt are unimaginable because it a part of who we are. That is something as a man you will never understand. I am tired of society trying to make woman and even young women think this is just a simple procedure. In out and it's over... yeah right. Again just my opinion Beau.
I care about 50 million dead AMERICANS before I care about foreign kids, yes. Odd how the leftists snivel about foreigners when we have a genocide program underway right here.
Quote from: quiller on September 08, 2011, 09:20:11 PM
I care about 50 million dead AMERICANS before I care about foreign kids, yes. Odd how the leftists snivel about foreigners when we have a genocide program underway right here.
Case in point.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 09:01:45 PM
Aha! The old "I have to ride to Cape Hatteras and I need to get some sleep" ploy. I didn't see that coming.
Jealous I am spending 4 days at the beach with a hot wife.
Quote from: quiller on September 07, 2011, 07:05:45 AM
And yet when conservatives point out there have been FIFTY MILLION babies murdered under Roe v Wade, the leftists all go utterly silent. The baby killers always DO go silent, protecting infanticide. They don't care about human lives at all, unless it's theirs.
So untrue.
I'm not silent, I'm thankful. That's fifty million less people crowding this nation and planet, to the benefit of all other life both human and non-human.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 09:42:56 PM
I want to make one last point regarding the rights and role of the expectant/irresponsible father in our discussion.
Y'all continue to demonize the expectant/irresponsible mother as if she is a murdering whore and to champion the
rights of the father once he has impregnated said female. Why do I know that you can't really believe that argument,
even though in this instance it is your own? I'll tell you why. In my experience dealing with couples in the very
situation that we are discussing, if the couple are split as to whether to abort or bring the fetus to term, it has
overwhelmingly been the woman who has wanted to keep it and bear a child and it has been the man who has
wanted her to terminate her pregnancy, often so that he could avoid further responsibility. Now in those instances,
and again I can only speak anecdotally as to percentages, would you want the father to have the same say?
Why do I think not?
Yet you and your kind have absolutely no guilt being associated with an organization who's intent at creation is to destroy blacks and the unwanted by a woman who spoke in front of the KKK. It is clear to me that there truly is a sucker born every minute when you can buy into the idea it's a woman's right to kill from an avowed eugenics.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 08, 2011, 09:15:01 PM
Your opinion of me is wholly unfounded. You wouldn't say that about me if I agreed with you.
Valid point she makes.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 09, 2011, 05:28:28 AM
Valid point she makes.
Heres the real issue, if they were to intellectually grasp this concept, it would be more than their warped value system could handle, it would, to their demise, validate the fact that they are supporting racists ideology.
Once this happens, they would be forced to reevaluate their entire being.
So instead of doing the hard work of introspection, they hide behind a bad law and claim they are supporting women, when in reality they see them as chattel.
Wake up libs, this has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with race control.
But then, you knew that and let your intellectual dishonesty be your shield.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 06:07:23 AM
Heres the real issue, if they were to intellectually grasp this concept, it would be more than their warped value system could handle, it would, to their demise, validate the fact that they are supporting racists ideology.
Once this happens, they would be forced to reevaluate their entire being.
So instead of doing the hard work of introspection, they hide behind a bad law and claim they are supporting women, when in reality they see them as chattel.
Wake up libs, this has nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with race control.
But then, you knew that and let your intellectual dishonesty be your shield.
Well stated.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 06:54:47 AM
Hell, can you even ever concede a good point well made?
It's impossible to make a good point when you're condoning murder.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 06:54:47 AM
C'mon, Solar! I have in this thread, without ever defending the practice of abortion,
laid out three unassailable arguments, using the arguments that you all provided,
to prove to you or anyone else that the impregnator gains no legal say in the woman's
decision whether to keep or abort her fetus. You haven't even really addressed those
arguments head on, let alone put a dent in or defeated them. Yet you seem to be claiming
victory. Must all these discussions go this absurd route? Must I constantly be forced into
absurd replies in the hope of pointing out the absurdity of some of your claims? Can you
ever re-evaluate your own position in the light of new evidence, logic or argument?
Hell, can you even ever concede a good point well made? Do you even want real debate?
Good point?
What that men are evil and incompetent, and women are somehow held to a higher standard and deserve more rights?
The right to be judge, jury and hangman, and the man has no recourse in saving an innocent life?
You mean those points?
You libs just don't get it, but then I'm not surprised, you can't think for yourselves.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:21:59 AM
That's sounds good. It isn't true, but it sounds good.
First of all, I'm not condoning murder. I'm not even condoning abortion.
Second, my argument was whether or not the pregnant women loses her rights
and then whether or not her impregnator gains say over her merely by the fact that
he impregnated her. I have yet to hear anyone here adequately address those points.
By couching murder as a "right" you condone it.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:21:59 AM
That's sounds good. It isn't true, but it sounds good.
First of all, I'm not condoning murder. I'm not even condoning abortion.
Second, my argument was whether or not the pregnant women loses her rights
and then whether or not her impregnator gains say over her merely by the fact that
he impregnated her. I have yet to hear anyone here adequately address those points.
WOW, you are so brainwashed, you make this all about rights, yet there is no mention of a babies right to life.
How hypocritical can you libs get, is there no limit to your devotion of eugenics?
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:26:14 AM
Sometimes even I just can't save a bad argument from itself.
And still you somehow managed to make it worse.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:31:46 AM
I'm not discussing the morality of abortion,
nor am I discussing anyone's devotion to eugenics.
I am discussing an argument that y'all made that you
obviously cannot remember, describe or defend. My bad.
Of course you're not discussing those points, facts that happen to be the core of the topic.
But we don't want facts getting in the way of your point, now do we?
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:31:46 AM
I'm not discussing the morality of abortion,
nor am I discussing anyone's devotion to eugenics.
I am discussing an argument that y'all made that you
obviously cannot remember, describe or defend. My bad.
When you refer to murder as a "woman's right" you are discussing morality.
How is making abortion legal for all women racist? That makes absolutely no logical sense. What we have here is a purely emotional, almost hysterical argument.
Quote from: Harry on September 09, 2011, 07:39:54 AM
When you refer to murder as a "woman's right" you are discussing morality.
As soon as you bring the word "murder" into it you are discussing the law, not morality.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 07:46:03 AM
As soon as you bring the word "murder" into it you are discussing the law, not morality.
When I want your worthless opinion, I'll troll for it.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:21:59 AM
That's sounds good. It isn't true, but it sounds good.
First of all, I'm not condoning murder. I'm not even condoning abortion.
Second, my argument was whether or not the pregnant women loses her rights
and then whether or not her impregnator gains say over her merely by the fact that
he impregnated her. I have yet to hear anyone here adequately address those points.
The idea seems to be that a living mass within the woman is a part of the woman's body. If that is the case, then one can argue about abortion as if only the woman's body is affected. Problem is, the living mass inside the woman has an independent DNA code than the woman. Now it's been a while since biology, but last I remember, our body was made up of cells each of which carries the same DNA code. I doubt that a cell taken from the fetus contains the exact same DNA code as a cell from the mother's lungs, stomach, brain, or any other organ which is a part of her body.
Hence the difficulty in reconciling both sides. One side considers the woman is the only one with rights, the other considers the rights of the child.
Quote from: Harry on September 09, 2011, 07:48:26 AM
When I want your worthless opinion, I'll troll for it.
Oh sorry. I thought that's what you were doing. But it's not an opinion. The law decides what is murder and what isn't.
Unless of course you agree with those people who say that "Meat is Murder" and would support their right to make you a vegetarian, that is.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 07:54:56 AM
Even if I accept those facts at face value, if they are irrelevant to the discussion,
then yes, I will reject them out of hand. Throughout this thread, y'all have demonstrated clearly
why it is that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and why you are now and have been for a century
losing this argument. People like me are trying to stop the need for or practice of as many abortions
as possible, while people like you are trying to take away peoples' rights in the name of a misguided cause.
I have constantly, since you have first read any post by me on this topic, argued against the practice of abortion.
However, I have tried to make at least some of you realize the error or your logic, beliefs and methods, while at the
same time defusing the political arguments that have become the screaming points that have replaced the real discussion.
Still, I get ridiculous statements of unsubstantiated opinion stated as if they are precious nuggets of unvarnished truth
and no real discussion of the facts of the matter, so much so, that y'all are still angrily unaware that I am on your side
in this debate, although I am unwilling to allow your hyperbolic rhetoric to stand for me or mine when it comes to this issue.
As I said, the debate can rage on while the abortions continue, and you can claim victory in a discussion which you sadly
were never even truly a participant, while you crazily blame me for preferring abortions to redwood decking or some such.
Rave on!
Defending the executioner is an awful odd way to claim you are against murder.
Learn a little history on the subject, but the only way to do that is to lose the lib blinders and look at it in a clear perspective.
The only, and I mean Only reason the left backs abortions sponsored by the State, is to control the population of minorities and the poor.
This has absolutely nothing to do with rights of women, she is only a tool in their fight for eugenics.
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 09, 2011, 07:49:09 AM
The idea seems to be that a living mass within the woman is a part of the woman's body. If that is the case, then one can argue about abortion as if only the woman's body is affected. Problem is, the living mass inside the woman has an independent DNA code than the woman. Now it's been a while since biology, but last I remember, our body was made up of cells each of which carries the same DNA code. I doubt that a cell taken from the fetus contains the exact same DNA code as a cell from the mother's lungs, stomach, brain, or any other organ which is a part of her body.
Hence the difficulty in reconciling both sides. One side considers the woman is the only one with rights, the other considers the rights of the child.
A transplanted lung or heart is a part of the recipient's body. It has a completely different DNA code.
I've still not gotten a clear answer on what rights a fetus actually has, aside from this vague right to life which doesn't actually exist in our constitution.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 08:02:38 AM
The only, and I mean Only reason the left backs abortions sponsored by the State, is to control the population of minorities and the poor.
This has absolutely nothing to do with rights of women, she is only a tool in their fight for eugenics.
Wait, which abortions are state sponsored?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 08:06:52 AM
Wait, which abortions are state sponsored?
What part of uneducated liberal did you not understand?
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 08:08:38 AM
What part of uneducated liberal did you not understand?
If you can't back up your statement that's ok.
A third of Planned Parenthood funding comes from the government. Only 3% of their services annually are abortion. That does not suggest a high level of correlation between funding and abortion. Especially since they charge hundreds of dollars for abortions. There's no such thing as a free abortion at Planned Parenthood.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 08:05:43 AM
A transplanted lung or heart is a part of the recipient's body. It has a completely different DNA code.
You got me on that one. I Hadn't considered that.
Quote
I've still not gotten a clear answer on what rights a fetus actually has, aside from this vague right to life which doesn't actually exist in our constitution.
The right to life, vague as it may be, is one of the inalienable rights written in the declaration of independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). They didn't specify what constitutes life, though.
What I have always found somewhat puzzling is the "abortion is murder" folks (note to Dan and any other thin skinned folks that might read this, I am not responding to anybody in particular or accusing anybody in particular of having said that on this board; I am only saying they're out there, they exist, I converse with them verbally and via cyber space routinely but don't keep a log, so if the shoe don't fit don't pick it up and put it on, okay?) seem to be satisifed if we would just return to the pre Roe vs. Wade days when abortion, though illegal, was nowhere close to being murder. Rarely was it investigated unless there was a problem. I cannot recall anyone but the abortionist ever being prosecuted, either. Not the woman who hired him or any of those who knowingly aided and abetted, before or after the fact. And the abortionist was never punished for murder. He or she was punished for "abortion," a much lesser crime in the eyes of the law. If I really believed all abortion was murder, I would not be satisfied with that. Would you? And if I don't believe all abortion is murder, then how can I be anything other than pro-choice? At least within certain parameters, which I will be glad to share.
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 09, 2011, 08:21:14 AM
You got me on that one. I Hadn't considered that.The right to life, vague as it may be, is one of the inalienable rights written in the declaration of independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). They didn't specify what constitutes life, though.
Yes, and it's pretty clear that we don't respect any of those rights much in this country right now. However, these are abstract philosophical concepts, and there is a reason they are not codified in law via our constitution. They are too vague.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 08:02:38 AM
Defending the executioner is an awful odd way to claim you are against murder.
Learn a little history on the subject, but the only way to do that is to lose the lib blinders and look at it in a clear perspective.
The only, and I mean Only reason the left backs abortions sponsored by the State, is to control the population of minorities and the poor.
This has absolutely nothing to do with rights of women, she is only a tool in their fight for eugenics.
With all due respect, this is absurd. Yes, I know the talking points about Saenger and PP from the 20's or whatever. No need to link them.
Why do lefties hold the lives of murderers and baby rapers so sacred yet almost seem enthusiastic when it comes to killing unborn babies?
Quote from: Dan on September 09, 2011, 08:39:22 AM
Why do lefties hold the lives of murderers and baby rapers so sacred yet almost seem enthusiastic when it comes to killing unborn babies?
False assertion and loaded question. Like asking a guy when he stopped beating his wife.
Quote from: elmerfudd on September 09, 2011, 08:41:32 AM
False assertion and loaded question. Like asking a guy when he stopped beating his wife.
Not at all fudd. When actions go one way and words go another then you believe the actions and ignore the words. The actions are that they have fought for the right to kill more than 50 million unborn babies. Fact. And the actions are that they fight to give murderes and baby rapers every possible means of avoiding the consequences for their actions. Fact.
You can wrap it up with any platitudes you like, but these are the actions of the left and they mean more than any words ever could.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 08:47:31 AM
Collateral damage is a necessary, and some even say fun, part of illegal invasions and brutal occupations. Why do you so hate our troops?
Can you support your statement better? I get the sarcasm, but you need to improve the clarity of your point if you want a witty response.
Bama, trying to answer what I assume to be the point of your post, I want to pull all of our troops back home. I even want to pull our troops back from Germany, Japan and Korea.
I don't want us fighting any more wars unless we are directly attacked and I don't want us defending countries that are capable of defending themselves.
So I am not really sure how you are trying to tag me with a motive that isn't connected to my views. Weird. :o
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 08:50:31 AM
Don't you know that white American Christians love their children more than dirty, swarthy Muslims love theirs? Why do you so hate America?
This is why liberals shouldn't do so much drugs. I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
You are like a feces throw monkey at the zoo. Just throwing crap around because you are excited. lol
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 08:50:31 AM
Don't you know that white American Christians love their children more than dirty, swarthy Muslims love theirs? Why do you so hate America?
Don't muscums strap bombs on their kids and hide behind them?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 08:09:45 AM
If you can't back up your statement that's ok.
Your response to my comment was proof of your lack of education.
Look up the word State..
Quote from: Harry on September 09, 2011, 07:48:26 AM
When I want your worthless opinion, I'll troll for it.
:)) Pithy
works!......
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 08:50:31 AM
Don't you know that white American Christians love their children more than dirty, swarthy Muslims love theirs? Why do you so hate America?
White American Christians do not volunteer their own children to become suicide bombers for Muslim extremists. Bathed or unbathed, it is
ISLAM that hates America.
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on September 09, 2011, 08:33:57 AM
You can't say that I didn't give you several opportunities to relinquish the low ground.
So posting facts that hurt your liberal sensibilities in your mind, is taking the low ground? :)) :)) :)) :))
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 09:36:08 AM
Your response to my comment was proof of your lack of education.
Look up the word State..
"State" isn't the problem. "Sponsored" is the problem. Which abortions are the State "sponsored" abortions?
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 10:06:16 AM
So posting facts that hurt your liberal sensibilities in your mind, is taking the low ground? :)) :)) :)) :))
Actually all you've done is post unsubstantiated theories and called people stupid or uneducated.
Quote from: quiller on September 09, 2011, 09:39:51 AM
White American Christians do not volunteer their own children to become suicide bombers for Muslim extremists. Bathed or unbathed, it is ISLAM that hates America.
Well, also, unbathed libs.
I see this has degenerated entirely into ad hominem and appeal to ridicule....
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 10:23:22 AM
Actually all you've done is post unsubstantiated theories and called people stupid or uneducated.
So posting facts about the origins of Planned Parenthood in your mind is unsubstantiated theory?
And yet you wonder why I refer to you as uneducated?
Maybe that was wrong, I should stick to ignorant, you have a lot to learn...
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 10:32:19 AM
So posting facts about the origins of Planned Parenthood in your mind is unsubstantiated theory?
And yet you wonder why I refer to you as uneducated?
Maybe that was wrong, I should stick to ignorant, you have a lot to learn...
Your "facts" about Planned Parenthood's founding do not generalize to your argument, that the only reason liberals support abortion is for racist, eugenic reasons. Your argument is not logical.
And again, instead of backing up your point you use an ad hominem attack.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 10:38:42 AM
Your "facts" about Planned Parenthood's founding do not generalize to your argument, that the only reason liberals support abortion is for racist, eugenic reasons. Your argument is not logical.
And again, instead of backing up your point you use an ad hominem attack.
Tenny, I am having trouble following why you don't agree with the premise that libs are more pro-abortion, and libs are more pro-welfare for these kids.
Do we have any common ground on that premise to build from?
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 10:43:30 AM
Tenny, I am having trouble following why you don't agree with the premise that libs are more pro-abortion, and libs are more pro-welfare for these kids.
Do we have any common ground on that premise to build from?
Nobody mentioned any of that. Liberals are more often pro-choice (not the same as pro-abortion. I am pro-choice but anti-abortion) and pro-welfare, yeah. But what does that have to do with all the hyperbole gushing around here?
Also, it's poor logic to generalize people into a false dichotomy of Liberal and Conservative. Many people are a mix of both, depending on the issue.
But we can build from in general liberals are more likely to be pro-choice and pro-welfare state.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 10:46:31 AM
Nobody mentioned any of that. Liberals are more often pro-choice (not the same as pro-abortion. I am pro-choice but anti-abortion) and pro-welfare, yeah. But what does that have to do with all the hyperbole gushing around here?
Also, it's poor logic to generalize people into a false dichotomy of Liberal and Conservative. Many people are a mix of both, depending on the issue.
I understand, and I'm with you and want to explore from there, but would you agree, in general, modern liberals versus modern conservatives, that liberals are, pro-choice let's say, leading to more deaths of unborn babies, murder or not?
Would you say this same group is more prone to support government welfare?
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 10:49:10 AM
I understand, and I'm with you and want to explore from there, but would you agree, in general, modern liberals versus modern conservatives, that liberals are, pro-choice let's say, leading to more deaths of unborn babies, murder or not?
In strict terms of abortion, probably, though we can't say what would have happened if abortion was made illegal.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 10:49:10 AM
Would you say this same group is more prone to support government welfare?
Yes.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 10:29:30 AM
I see this has degenerated entirely into ad hominem and appeal to ridicule....
Extremists on either end, right or left, tend to ad hominem attacks. Those on the right all harbor a desire, consciously or subconsciously. to be the next Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. Those on the left want to be like I don't know who, but I am sure there is an example out there somewhere. Like Keith Olberman, say. Anyhow, that's just human nature.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 11:00:07 AM
In strict terms of abortion, probably, though we can't say what would have happened if abortion was made illegal.
I would agree, as most people stay in bounds of the law as much as possible. Would we agree most of the liberal group would rather make this "choice" totally legal?
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 11:08:40 AM
I would agree, as most people stay in bounds of the law as much as possible. Would we agree most of the liberal group would rather make this "choice" totally legal?
Definitely. It already is totally legal.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 11:09:47 AM
Definitely. It already is totally legal.
It is indeed, but up to a point in the pregnanacy term, right? We agree it is illegal to terminate a baby 30 weeks in, I assume.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 11:12:32 AM
It is indeed, but up to a point in the pregnanacy term, right? We agree it is illegal to terminate a baby 30 weeks in, I assume.
Yes. I don't think that most liberals would push for unrestrained abortion, though. Most are perfectly happy with the first trimester limitation and medical necessity if later.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 11:12:32 AM
It is indeed, but up to a point in the pregnanacy term, right? We agree it is illegal to terminate a baby 30 weeks in, I assume.
I don't think it IS illegal to terminate a pregnancy (kill an unborn baby) after 30 weeks. Isn't that what the partial birth abortion thing is all about?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 11:13:39 AM
Yes. I don't think that most liberals would push for unrestrained abortion, though. Most are perfectly happy with the first trimester limitation and medical necessity if later.
I certainly agree with that.
Do you think if it was 100% illegal, i.e., a murder charge, that it would reduce the number of abortions, and increase protected sex to an extent?
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 11:19:44 AM
I certainly agree with that.
Do you think if it was 100% illegal, i.e., a murder charge, that it would reduce the number of abortions, and increase protected sex to an extent?
It would probably decrease the former but not the latter.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 11:20:27 AM
It would probably decrease the former but not the latter.
If offenders were routinely prosecuted, it wouldn't cause people, in general, to take that extra moment and wrap their rascals?
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 11:24:57 AM
If offenders were routinely prosecuted, it wouldn't cause people, in general, to take that extra moment and wrap their rascals?
I seriously doubt it. We are, for the most part, talking about teenagers here. Teenagers aren't rational and rarely consider even the worst consequences before acting, especially when sex is involved. If AIDS isn't enough to scare kids into using condoms then the distant possibility of being prosecuted for abortion isn't either. I don't think you can say that most young girls assume they will have an abortion if made pregnant either. It is most likely a later decision after the inevitability of having a child is made concrete by pregnancy.
All we'll end up with is more teen mothers.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 11:24:57 AM
If offenders were routinely prosecuted, it wouldn't cause people, in general, to take that extra moment and wrap their rascals?
I think it would. But I don't know that everybody is really willing to do that. The "all abortion is murder regardless" does not adequately address pregnancies that result from assault. Should a woman who is impregnated as a result of a brutal assault be forced to choose between carrying that baby to term and a murder charge? I don't think so, and I don't think there are enough people who DO think so to make it happen. And certainly a return to pre Roe vs Wade status would not do what you want done.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 11:27:45 AM
I seriously doubt it. We are, for the most part, talking about teenagers here. Teenagers aren't rational and rarely consider even the worst consequences before acting, especially when sex is involved. If AIDS isn't enough to scare kids into using condoms then the distant possibility of being prosecuted for abortion isn't either. I don't think you can say that most young girls assume they will have an abortion if made pregnant either. It is most likely a later decision after the inevitability of having a child is made concrete by pregnancy.
All we'll end up with is more teen mothers.
I actually agree here, but would offer comprehensive sex ed as a solution. Comprehensive sex ed being something along the lines of "it's best not to play the game, but if you're going to play anyways, at least wear a helmet".
I also think if parents stopped watching reality TV and focused on raising their kids, that would cut down on teen pregnancy. Education is key. Otherwise we'll end up like the movie "Idiocracy".
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 09, 2011, 11:32:13 AM
I actually agree here, but would offer comprehensive sex ed as a solution. Comprehensive sex ed being something along the lines of "it's best not to play the game, but if you're going to play anyways, at least wear a helmet".
I also think if parents stopped watching reality TV and focused on raising their kids, that would cut down on teen pregnancy. Education is key. Otherwise we'll end up like the movie "Idiocracy".
We've had comprehensive sex ed for decades. Still when faced with that awkward moment when there is no condom present I'd bet the same scene plays out across the nation, "Well it'll just be this one time," or "come on, we love each other. if we get pregnant we'll raise the baby."
But yeah, the dumbing down of society has got to stop. I've pretty much stopped watching tv at this point.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 11:27:45 AM
I seriously doubt it. We are, for the most part, talking about teenagers here. Teenagers aren't rational and rarely consider even the worst consequences before acting, especially when sex is involved.
I agree totally with that, but I think about my personal experience. I was always scared to death, even to this day, of knocking someone up, so as reckless as I was, so I was pretty good about getting armored up.
To spawn a parallel thought that I want to bring back to the main discussion in a bit, I wonder if I was like that because my dad took care of his responsibilities, and I grew up knowing that, i.e., I was so scared to have a kid because I knew I would have to take care of it, where abortion didn't even enter my mind?
Quote
If AIDS isn't enough to scare kids into using condoms then the distant possibility of being prosecuted for abortion isn't either.
I'm with you, but I was never scared of AIDS... I was scared of raising a child. I still get cold sweats at night from the thought. I agree with your point, however, that when it's time for kids to get busy, not a lot of caution enters their brain, and kids having kids would still be too common.
Do we agree less of those kids would have abortions, and more would be forced to raise their kids?
Quote
I don't think you can say that most young girls assume they will have an abortion if made pregnant either.
I agree. That seems to be a game time decision.
Quote
It is most likely a later decision after the inevitability of having a child is made concrete by pregnancy.
Agreed. I also think many people who are pretty set against abortion may end up change their last minute once it hits them.
Quote
All we'll end up with is more teen mothers.
Here, it seems we agree more mothers will be forced to keep their babies, right?
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 11:45:11 AM
I agree totally with that, but I think about my personal experience. I was always scared to death, even to this day, of knocking someone up, so as reckless as I was, so I was pretty good about getting armored up.
To spawn a parallel thought that I want to bring back to the main discussion in a bit, I wonder if I was like that because my dad took care of his responsibilities, and I grew up knowing that, i.e., I was so scared to have a kid because I knew I would have to take care of it, where abortion didn't even enter my mind?
I'm with you, but I was never scared of AIDS... I was scared of raising a child. I still get cold sweats at night from the thought. I agree with your point, however, that when it's time for kids to get busy, not a lot of caution enters their brain, and kids having kids would still be too common.
Do we agree less of those kids would have abortions, and more would be forced to raise their kids?
I agree. That seems to be a game time decision.
Agreed. I also think many people who are pretty set against abortion may end up change their last minute once it hits them.
Here, it seems we agree more mothers will be forced to keep their babies, right?
Your basic point appears to be that if we take away the choice then more babies will live. That may or may not be true, but I am not willing to do that, and neither are many liberals if I might speak for them.
Allowing people choice and liberty often leads to results we don't all approve of, but that's how it goes.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 11:52:41 AM
Your basic point appears to be that if we take away the choice then more babies will live. That may or may not be true, but I am not willing to do that, and neither are many liberals if I might speak for them.
Allowing people choice and liberty often leads to results we don't all approve of, but that's how it goes.
You don't feel a good number of would-be aborted babies would live?
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 11:56:23 AM
You don't feel a good number of would-be aborted babies would live?
It's certainly possible.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 11:59:08 AM
It's certainly possible.
I'm trying to zero in on why you don't feel that is more of a possibility than not...
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 12:06:35 PM
I'm trying to zero in on why you don't feel that is more of a possibility than not...
We have a much more mobile population than we did before Roe v. Wade. For all we know anybody who wants an abortion could go to Mexico or Canada or wherever and have one.
But pretend I agree with you completely. Less babies will be aborted. Where are you going from there?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 12:08:04 PM
We have a much more mobile population than we did before Roe v. Wade. For all we know anybody who wants an abortion could go to Mexico or Canada or wherever and have one.
Of course, that will certainly happen.
What does your gut tell you would happen?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 11:52:41 AM
Your basic point appears to be that if we take away the choice then more babies will live. That may or may not be true, but I am not willing to do that, and neither are many liberals if I might speak for them.Allowing people choice and liberty often leads to results we don't all approve of, but that's how it goes.
Actually, neither are many conservatives. There are more than a few conservatives (maybe none on this board, maybe not even Mary Matlin, but I am not speculating, I have talked to them myself) who believe that woman who has been impregnated via rape should have the legal right to an abortion. Not forced to have one, not recomended to have one, but have one if she chooses to do so. Which makes them pro-choice. They just want to be in charge of the criteria.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 12:11:27 PM
Of course, that will certainly happen.
What does your gut tell you would happen?
I don't make these kind of decisions based on my gut.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 12:13:29 PM
I don't make these kind of decisions based on my gut.
I see...
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 12:08:41 PM
But pretend I agree with you completely. Less babies will be aborted. Where are you going from there?
It wouldn't be a real discussion from there, because we would not be basing a discussion on solid foundation.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 12:19:31 PM
It wouldn't be a real discussion from there, because we would not be basing a discussion on solid foundation.
I don't think the discussion revolves around my personal speculation on a hypothetical situation, does it?
It seemed like you were building an argument piece by piece, I am curious where it was going.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 12:21:05 PM
I don't think the discussion revolves around my personal speculation on a hypothetical situation, does it?
I believe many otherwise aborted babies would be alive, so my view on the entire topic is rooted on that belief.
Quote
It seemed like you were building an argument piece by piece, I am curious where it was going.
It was, but not having a belief of more babies living or dying if abortion was 100% illegal is a critical component, to my way of thinking.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 12:26:05 PM
I believe many otherwise aborted babies would be alive, so my view on the entire topic is rooted on that belief.
It was, but not having a belief of more babies living or dying if abortion was 100% illegal is a critical component, to my way of thinking.
Like I said, go ahead. More babies will live if abortion is illegal. I already said that was entirely possible.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 12:26:05 PM
I believe many otherwise aborted babies would be alive, so my view on the entire topic is rooted on that belief.
It was, but not having a belief of more babies living or dying if abortion was 100% illegal is a critical component, to my way of thinking.
I think you're right. Making something illegal does not eliminate it, but it definitely makes it occur less, depending on enforcement of course. Prohibition even reduced alcohol consumption. Maybe not by as much as making abortion illegal would reduce abortion, but it did have an impact. Where it was enforced more strenously, it had a greater impact.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 12:28:26 PM
Like I said, go ahead. More babies will live if abortion is illegal. I already said that was entirely possible.
Yeah, it's possible...
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 12:43:34 PM
Yeah, it's possible...
So now what? Do you have an argument or is this all dependent upon my own personal opinion?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 12:44:51 PM
So now what? Do you have an argument or is this all dependent upon my own personal opinion?
I do have an argument...
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 12:46:41 PM
So let's hear it.
haha, it's no fun if you don't believe what you will argue or discuss..
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 12:54:13 PM
haha, it's no fun if you don't believe what you will argue or discuss..
That isn't true at all. Debate is a skill. In academic debate one is often asked to defend or promote a position one doesn't agree with just to improve skill.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 10:38:42 AM
Your "facts" about Planned Parenthood's founding do not generalize to your argument, that the only reason liberals support abortion is for racist, eugenic reasons. Your argument is not logical.
And again, instead of backing up your point you use an ad hominem attack.
Of course not, you are loving proof that most libs are clueless to the hidden agenda behind PPH.
As long as you continue to stay in the dark, I will continue to ridicule your lack of intellect.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 12:58:31 PM
Of course not, you are loving proof that most libs are clueless to the hidden agenda behind PPH.
As long as you continue to stay in the dark, I will continue to ridicule your lack of intellect.
If it's a hidden agenda then how can you say that all Liberals support abortion because of racist, eugenic ideals?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 12:58:06 PM
That isn't true at all. Debate is a skill. In academic debate one is often asked to defend or promote a position one doesn't agree with just to improve skill.
You are right, but not as much fun for me...
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 01:01:46 PM
If it's a hidden agenda then how can you say that all Liberals support abortion because of racist, eugenic ideals?
I didn't claim all, just those that understand what is behind it, the rest are just dumb asses.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 01:03:46 PM
You are right, but not as much fun for me...
Since you don't seem to want to share I guess we'll never know.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 12:58:31 PM
Of course not, you are loving proof that most libs are clueless to the hidden agenda behind PPH.
As long as you continue to stay in the dark, I will continue to ridicule your lack of intellect.
Plus it's the easy way out. Ad hominems always are.
It may very well be that Planned Parenthood has a hidden secret agenda to wipe out minorities via publicly funded abortion. I don't believe it, but it's possible. Anything's possible. It's still remotely possible, I suppose, that the Kenyan really is a Kenyan. Heck, I might be a Kenyan. Maybe my birth certificate is forged, too. And it's possible the DaVinci Code is not fiction. Not likely, but remotely possible.
But to assert that the average lib supports publicy funded abortion for the reason they want to reduce minorities and poor folks is patently absurd. Libs LOVE minorities and poor folks. At least the ones around here do. They say we don't do ENOUGH for them. They tell them they're ENTITLED to those food stamps, Medicaid, etc. and don't even need to act grateful for it. When there's a hearing the state capitol about something to do with helping the poor and minorities, they show up en masse to make sure everybody sees them.
And I do not support abortion on demand as an alternative to contraception whether publicy funded or not.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 01:06:19 PM
I didn't claim all, just those that understand what is behind it, the rest are just dumb asses.
You said there was one reason and one reason only that liberals support abortion. I can quote if you'd like. That is pretty black and white.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 01:06:53 PM
Since you don't seem to want to share I guess we'll never know.
Example, if I was in debate class, and I had to make the argument for higher taxes, it would be damn impossible for me. That is in the realm of acting. Sometimes we play "act like a liberal for a day" on the forum, and I last about 2 posts... it would be like trying to kiss another guy.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 01:11:46 PM
Example, if I was in debate class, and I had to make the argument for higher taxes, it would be damn impossible for me. That is in the realm of acting. Sometimes we play "act like a liberal for a day" on the forum, and I last about 2 posts... it would be like trying to kiss another guy.
It's not a matter of acting, but having the ability to form and follow a logical argument from its inception to conclusion. It's a skill that Americans sorely lack.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 01:11:29 PM
You said there was one reason and one reason only that liberals support abortion. I can quote if you'd like. That is pretty black and white.
And I was referring to your representatives!
I said I know not all libs support it for that reason, but if they understood the history behind it, then I'd say most would rethink their position. on it.
Do you not agree?
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 01:06:19 PM
I didn't claim all, just those that understand what is behind it, the rest are just dumb asses.
Well, here's a cut and paste of what you said.
The only, and I mean Only reason the left backs abortions sponsored by the State, is to control the population of minorities and the poor.
This has absolutely nothing to do with rights of women, she is only a tool in their fight for eugenics.
Quote from: elmerfudd on September 09, 2011, 01:16:28 PM
Well, here's a cut and paste of what you said.
The only, and I mean Only reason the left backs abortions sponsored by the State, is to control the population of minorities and the poor.
This has absolutely nothing to do with rights of women, she is only a tool in their fight for eugenics.
And I clarified my point, it's your representatives doing the dirty work.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 01:15:45 PM
And I was referring to your representatives!
I said I know not all libs support it for that reason, but if they understood the history behind it, then I'd say most would rethink their position. on it.
Do you not agree?
No, because you initial assumption is flawed. The reasons liberals support abortion have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood or eugenics.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 01:18:22 PM
And I clarified my point, it's your representatives doing the dirty work.
No, you didn't. You said what you meant. If you had meant only SOME of them, you'd have said so. By using a word that could be construed, by someone with poor reading comprehension, to refer to all, you clearly meant all, right? Otherwise you'd have named the ones you were including or excluding, right? I can show you where you already made that point elsewhere if you like.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 01:14:49 PM
It's not a matter of acting, but having the ability to form and follow a logical argument from its inception to conclusion. It's a skill that Americans sorely lack.
It's no fun for me to argue for what I don't believe in. There are many skills Americans are deficient in, like reading and speaking English.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 01:21:14 PM
It's no fun for me to argue for what I don't believe in. There are many skills Americans are deficient in, like reading and speaking English.
As an academic exercise, it is indeed fun. But we're not having an academic exercise.
Quote from: taxed on September 09, 2011, 01:21:14 PM
It's no fun for me to argue for what I don't believe in. There are many skills Americans are deficient in, like reading and speaking English.
I guess we'll never know whether you had an argument or not then.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 01:19:23 PM
No, because you initial assumption is flawed. The reasons liberals support abortion have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood or eugenics.
So you don't think if liberals were educated on the subject that more might turn away from supporting it?
I do, most wouldn't want their tax dollars going toward PPH, they would most likely want it to support itself.
Would that be such a bad thing?
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 01:22:40 PM
I guess we'll never know whether you had an argument or not then.
There is really no reason for anyone on this forum to take a position contrary to what he or she believes just as an academic exercise, though. There are plenty of folks who believe opposing ideas to do their own work. But those exercises ARE fun and useful educational tools.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 01:23:41 PM
So you don't think if liberals were educated on the subject that more might turn away from supporting it?
I do, most wouldn't want their tax dollars going toward PPH, they would most likely want it to support itself.
Would that be such a bad thing?
It would not. Whether they would want it to happen or not is debatable, but certainly there is nothing wrong with full disclosure. Full disclosure is always a good thing.
Quote from: Solar on September 09, 2011, 01:23:41 PM
So you don't think if liberals were educated on the subject that more might turn away from supporting it?
I do, most wouldn't want their tax dollars going toward PPH, they would most likely want it to support itself.
Would that be such a bad thing?
No. Like I said, Liberals have reasons for supporting abortion that don't involve Planned Parenthood, racism, or eugenics.
I already explained that 30% of Planned Parenthood's funding comes from government grants and only 3% of its annual services are abortions. That implies that Planned Parenthood does a whole lot more of use than abortions, and that government money probably doesn't even pay for those abortions since they charge such a huge amount of money for one.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 01:28:27 PM
No. Like I said, Liberals have reasons for supporting abortion that don't involve Planned Parenthood, racism, or eugenics.
I already explained that 30% of Planned Parenthood's funding comes from government grants and only 3% of its annual services are abortions. That implies that Planned Parenthood does a whole lot more of use than abortions, and that government money probably doesn't even pay for those abortions since they charge such a huge amount of money for one.
The government money frees up more funds to do abortions.
Do you think a woman should have the right to decide if a baby lives or dies once the baby is developed enough to live on it's own?
Quote from: Josie on September 09, 2011, 04:17:15 PM
The government money frees up more funds to do abortions.
Do you think a woman should have the right to decide if a baby lives or dies once the baby is developed enough to live on it's own?
They charge hundreds of dollars for an abortion at PP. Does that make it seem like money is being freed up? No, people are paying for the abortions.
I think the first trimester rule is a good one.
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 04:26:12 PM
They charge hundreds of dollars for an abortion at PP. Does that make it seem like money is being freed up? No, people are paying for the abortions.
I think the first trimester rule is a good one.
All that other stuff is a front... their main focus is abortion, they are the biggest provider of abortions in the U.S... government money should be completely left out of any orginization that provides these women with a service that so many people consider to be murder of the innocent....
If an alcholic has $50 and it isn't enough to buy a weeks worth of food so he asks someone for help and they give him $20 but tell him not to spend it on alchol... he goes and gets $50 worth of food and $20 worth of alchol.... he comes out of the store and runs into the person that gave him $20 and they see him with the alchol and they confront him... so he tells them that he spent his own $20 dollars not the $20 that was given to him.... it just sounds retarded.
Quote from: Josie on September 09, 2011, 04:46:59 PM
All that other stuff is a front... their main focus is abortion, they are the biggest provider of abortions in the U.S... government money should be completely left out of any orginization that provides these women with a service that so many people consider to be murder of the innocent....
If an alcholic has $50 and it isn't enough to buy a weeks worth of food so he asks someone for help and they give him $20 but tell him not to spend it on alchol... he goes and gets $50 worth of food and $20 worth of alchol.... he comes out of the store and runs into the person that gave him $20 and they see him with the alchol and they confront him... so he tells them that he spent his own $20 dollars not the $20 that was given to him.... it just sounds retarded.
lol ok Josie
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 04:47:35 PM
lol ok Josie
Hey, it took me 10 minutes to think of that.... :-\ lol
Quote from: Josie on September 09, 2011, 04:54:33 PM
Hey, it took me 10 minutes to think of that.... :-\ lol
What would 15 minutes have bought me?
Quote from: Josie on September 09, 2011, 05:00:21 PM
Hotpockets?
I think you just threw up Groucho's bat-signal...
Quote from: Tennenbaum on September 09, 2011, 05:01:19 PM
I think you just threw up Groucho's bat-signal...
Why is this idiot still here?
Quote from: Harry on September 09, 2011, 05:06:45 PM
Why is this idiot still here?
Don't talk about Josie that way. We go way back.