|
Supreme Court bans "partial-birth" abortions (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
You need a vacation man ;). |
yeah, i was thinking i could come to austin, we could go by some assault rifles and shoot zionists together? :p |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, i was thinking i could come to austin, we could go by some assault rifles and shoot zionists together? :p |
LOL, except Yoepus, he's our TA homie :D.
EDIT:
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, i was thinking i could come to austin, we could go by some assault rifles and shoot zionists together? :p |
Haha! PKC made a spelling mistake/typo :p. You really need a vacation now man! |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, i was thinking i could come to austin, we could go by some assault rifles and shoot zionists together? :p |
Or we could go cow tipping ;) |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| I'm curious. What would be preferable - a very short life, or no life at all? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I'm curious. What would be preferable - a very short life, or no life at all? |
If you're being serious, that's a hard one... |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I'm curious. What would be preferable - a very short life, or no life at all? |
No life at all........ |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no, its like saying that a man, who CHOSE to engage in sexual behaviour and ACCEPT all the risks associated with it, has no right to force a woman to term nor force her to abort. when we are growing babies in vats and theres no human incubator, THEN you can talk about 50-50 rights. as it stands youre out of luck.
if a guy is willing to stick his dick in, he should be willing to face any and all consequences.
i think its laughable how you men complain about the supposed "unfair" nature of biology, when its been making women second-class citizens for centuries. get a clue. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
How many men would you know who'd willing have something the size of a golf ball which eventually swells to roughly the size of a bowling ball wedged around their lower intestine for 9months, the obligatory sickness, days off work, inconvenience of fluid retention, stretch marks, weight gain and then... you pass it! (or have it hacked out)
You'd have to be pretty great friends at the very least wouldn't you? If you're not, I doubt there's many takers on the offer from someone you met that just let you stay over for the night once |
Yes, I know these are from two different posters, but they seem to be on the same side of the issue. One is urging men to take responsibility for their actions of heaving sex and all the consequences that go with it. Whereas for some reason the "consequence" that a woman faces, of getting pregnant, is somehow of no meaning. The woman must have responsibility when it comes to having sex, and pregnancy is the ultimate consequence.
So, men must take responsibility for a pregnancy, or be quiet if the woman has an abortion, whereas a woman may defer the consequences of sex by an abortion. I agree that most men are the ones wanting abortions, but there are cases when the male is looking for a child as much, or more so, than the mother.
I just don't see how we can argue that men must take responsibility in the case of a pregnancy, yet be complacent in the event of an unwanted abortion, yet women can opt out of the responsibility when it comes to pregnancy and have the sole decision making power when it comes to abortion. It takes two to tango, and I don't know why it apparently only takes one in the aftermath.
I'll also stick by my original point. 99.9% of people, if given the choice would chose a "rough life" over no life at all. If we had a time machine, and could go back however many years to a person's conception, how many would say "yeah, go ahead, abort me?" I'd even choose a short life over no life. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
I disagree with your assessment.
I wasn't the one who coined the phrase "chipping away at abortion rights". The fact that this phrase is mentioned ubiquitously by both pro- and anti-abortion activists means that there is something to "chip away at". This contradicts your statement that most Americans have some well-defined boundaries of what will or won't change. |
Well I don't believe I said that Americans have certain boundaries on what they believe will or will not change. What I did say was this:
| quote: | | The majority still wants Roe v Wade upheld, still tends to be pro-choice, BUT does not mind holding restrictions on abortion. |
Which polls clearly show. For example, here's the Washington Post poll back in February:
| quote: | "Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"
Legal in all cases: 16%
Legal in most cases: 39%
Illegal in most cases: 31%
Illegal in all cases: 12%
Unsure: 2%
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm |
Or the one below that poll by CNN/Opinion Research:
| quote: | "Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?"
Would: 29%
Would Not: 62%
Unsure: 9% |
Clearly the majority of Americans want to protect the woman's right to choose. These polls taken merely show their beliefs in a given topic or policy, which in the case of the first poll taken was allowing abortion in all cases or with restrictions. The second poll reflects the majority still wants Roe upheld. The fact that a pro-choice group mentions that laws are going to be chipped away does not entail they are taking part in the chipping, nor does that contradict anything I said earlier. How is acknowledging a very powerful group who has the means to go against the majority sentiment in the country somehow contradict this or what I said earlier? I'm a bit confused.
| quote: | | Why is it that the smallest change in abortion laws has the pro-choice lobby up in arms? Maybe because they have reason to be concerned? I can't imagine such a small reform having a thunderous reaction in, say, Germany, where people are a lot more confident about the overall status of this issue. |
Well you're exactly right, and it's for the exact reasons I mentioned earlier. I'm unfamiliar with the politics in Germany, but as for here in America the pro-life group is a very powerful group that has a heavy political influence with all the pipeline connections in the Republican party that I mentioned earlier, PLUS in addition to all of that we have a conservative-leaning majority SCOTUS. I think that last part of our judicial is what really scares the pro-choice people the most, because that's what it all ultimately comes down to. And coincidentally, the judicial system is EXACTLY what the ardent pro-life group is focusing on the most. They have a very strong lobbying group in the White House that leans heavily on this Administration for its judicial appointees, which is precisely what they did with both Roberts and Alito. Laws in conservative majority states are deliberately being made to challenge Roe in the hopes of reaching the conservative-leaning SCOTUS. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I just don't see how we can argue that men must take responsibility in the case of a pregnancy, yet be complacent in the event of an unwanted abortion, yet women can opt out of the responsibility when it comes to pregnancy and have the sole decision making power when it comes to abortion. It takes two to tango, and I don't know why it apparently only takes one in the aftermath. |
Maybe in some idealistic world, but unwanted pregnancy amongst the very young and very immature is a big problem, they are not suitable for either being a mother along with a whole heap of other people. Drug addicts, chronically ill, alcoholics, the insane and all manner of just social deviances which are quite possible to affect the well being and health of a child.
It's more than just the maternal thing, it's the fact that if a child is going to be being brought up in an environment which is not conducive to their well being and health, then you're going to end up with all sorts of problems. Emotional, psychological and their welfare. Life is hard enough without starting so far behind the 8ball you've got no damn chance and that is a very close thing that mothers and children share, for better or worse, there is no 'amicable divorce' or anything from this situation, children are immensely reliant on the mother from conception until they're weened.
Anyone can fill a father role.
Some better than others, but hey, that's luck of the draw too when you're a kid, you might never know who your father is, but mum's a pretty sure bet.
So why do we persist in making our society and it's members suffer unnecessarily more than they should?
Why do men see a need to be a part and a very intrusive part of women's lives? Wasn't it enough that more or less up until the last 100 or so years you got your say in everything we did and now desperately butting in all the damn time on the last bastion of reproduction which should be our decision because its in our damn body, NOT yours, no one owns me.
Alright, I'll butt into your world.
Medical science can keep those little wiggly wonders on ice, so come the age of responsibility, lets say 18. You're old enough to vote, old enough to be put to death, join the army and assumed to be a responsible member of society. Stick a few gallons down on ice for later use, IVF is pretty good and it's quite refined now.
After that.
In for the snip.
Yes, hand em over!
"But they're my balls!"
You're not liking this idea one bit are you?
Oh no, not the nuts... that stuff isn't funny!
No, it isn't, acts of responsibility are frequently unfunny and things which go against the grain, but it's cheaper, surgically safer and generally all round easier to do a vasectomy than it is to tie tubes in a girl. Doesn't take long, pain goes away after a week and then you're shooting blanks, no one will ever know.
No fiddling around with slippery condoms that can break and get holes, no horrible hormone pills that give some girls headaches and other plugs, sprays and goo to prevent pregnancy in your responsible relationship with someone else.
Because basically, without 100% effective contraception, accidents will happen and there needs to be a recourse and what could be better than being hit with a paternity suit from some skank you went rolling with that claims 'its yours'? You can hold up proudly that letter from the doctor which says 'not bloody likely ma'am!'
Don't like my idea of responsibility?
Fine, then don't take away the last recourse for me.
| quote: | | I'll also stick by my original point. 99.9% of people, if given the choice would chose a "rough life" over no life at all. |
Back it up with some solid, factual research and I'll even listen. :) |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
But women do have control of their bodies. It's consenting to sex in the first place. If we lived in an era where rape was legal, than I'd totally agree with what you're saying. But as long as a woman saying "no" holds up in court, then that is the ultimate control over both her body and becoming pregnant. However, once she says "yes" and a developing mass of cells that is only 1/2 hers genetically begins to grow, it becomes a 2-person affair.
As I've said, a man is forced to take responsibility for that growing cell mass, regardless of whether he wants it or not, but the woman is free to make a decision to keep or kill it. As I've said, the ultimate goal of sex is reproduction. If a man or woman does not want a kid, the ultimate way to stop that is by not having sex. I'm not preaching abstinence, but I am advocating that people know full well the consequences of what they are going to do. If you want to have sex, that's great, but be ready for all the possible results.
I still don't buy the argument that abortion is some "humane" way of saving a kid from a life of hell. There is no way to predict what kind of life someone will have, regardless of the home they are born into. It is also impossible to say that given a choice, that kid would rather have their Mom abort them then live in a single parent household.
I'll try to get to the vasectomy argument later...I have to go teach dental students anatomy. :confused: |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
If you're being serious, that's a hard one... |
Oh I don't think it's simple at all. Is life always better than no life, regardless of how short that life is? Or does life have to reach a certain point in order to be preferable to no life? If so, what is it? 10 years? A year? A month? A nanosecond? |
|
|
| Moongoose |
Well that's an easy one of course. You only have to live until you are babtised. If you die before that its down to the fiery pits of hell for you. But when you get baptised it doesn't matter if you die a second later because then your soul will be able will go to heaven, saint peter will carry you personally trough the pearly gates and jesus will nurse you himself until its time for your parents to come and meet up with you and then you can spend an eternity as a baby in heaven being cared by your loving parents.
Bleah |
|
|
|
|
