Thousands protest Roe v. Wade decision

[jillian]

Edit

 

[Shogun]

edit.

 

[Taomon]

Here is the problem in a nutshell. Our bodies are our own property. If we want to sell ourselves for sex, take drugs, have an abortion in the first trimester, commit suicide, eat ourselves into oblivion or starve ourselves into frail twigs...that should be our right to do so.

For all of you religious fanatics, God gave us freewill and no government or religious caste should be allowed to undemine that.

For you secularists, why should we be allowed to drink alchohol and smoke cigarettes but not take drugs or commit suicide? Why is one better than the other?

It is a crime to commit suicide, take drugs without a prescription, sell ourselves for sex (in most states) and so on. And now people like alucard demand that abortion be taken away as well. When are we allowed to choose for ourselves?

The irony is that the conservative right demands that there be less government intrusion into our lives and yet want to repeal the decision in Roe V Wade, add an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and so on.

Hypocrits.

 

[Bern80]

I think you're misstating. What you're really describing is men no longer being allowed to treat women like chattel -- like they did 75 years ago. Is that a liberal value? I think it's a human value.

Women don't murder babies. If a woman has an abortion, that's certainly terminating potential life, but its no more a child than an egg is a chicken. Is it a good thing. Of course not. But women don't make that decision lightly and if the relationship with the man is a good one, they're going to make those decisions together. Thing is, I respect people who choose not to exercise their right to choice. What I don't respect is people trying to foist that choice on others who may not agree with them. I do not believe a fertilized ovum is a child. My religion does not dictate that belief. My morals do not dictate that belief.

So if I understand you correctly you believe baby is not a baby as long as it is still in the womb. Is it somehow less human a minute before it is born?

And government can't dictate relationships by forcing women to get the consent of a man over what she does with her body. Men no longer own or control women and it is a feminist issue as well as a moral one. No man has to ask a woman's permission if he has a vasectomy. That's potential life, too. Or should sperm be protected as well?

What your missing is at some point in the womb a fetus isn't potential life. It IS A LIFE.

 

[Shogun]

at some point in the womb

I wonder if the pros and cons can agree on a compromise at the heartbeat in order to finally move past this contentious issue. There will always be hardliners on both sides. I think that we've moved beyond the initial arguments far enough to start collecting people from both sides on a little place we call common ground.

 

[jillian]

at some point in the womb

I wonder if the pros and cons can agree on a compromise at the heartbeat in order to finally move past this contentious issue. There will always be hardliners on both sides. I think that we've moved beyond the initial arguments far enough to start collecting people from both sides on a little place we call common ground.

No. Because when someone's carrying multiples and it's dangerous to complete the pregnancy, the reduction is done after the heart starts beating. Not a good thing, but fact.

 

[jillian]

So if I understand you correctly you believe baby is not a baby as long as it is still in the womb. Is it somehow less human a minute before it is born?



What your missing is at some point in the womb a fetus isn't potential life. It IS A LIFE.

It isn't nearly as simplistic as you try to make it. Life exists on a continuum. At some point in the pregnancy, I think we can all agree the potential life becomes life. But... that shouldn't prohibit a doctor from making a decision to terminate a pregnancy later if it endangers the mother or if the child is going to die of something like hydrocephalus anyway (which is the reason for most D&X procedures, btw).

And, yes, at some point it's a life. That's why the Court decided that at some point during the pregnancy, the governmental interest in protecting the unborn life begins to exceed the woman's right to reproductive choice. Don't you know that's where they got the mess that's Roe v Wade? In reality, it was an effort to balance interests. It took a long and ponderous way of getting there, but that was, essentially, the point.

 

[Gunny]

1st trimester 3rd trimester I dont care...

If it looks like a duck.... and it quacks like a duck... Ita a duck!

When a woman gets an abortion they should remove her reproductive organs at the same time as part of the process...

If I was sure I could get away with it... I would kill a doctor that murders those poor innocent little babies, or the nurse that assists, or even the front desk receptionist at the clinic, as a matter of fact even someone that supports the baby killing ideology... with a smile on my face and love in my heart...

I'm getting psyched up just thinking about it!

If there are any abortion clinic bombers out there... just so you know... you have alot of support... and some of us appreciate the wonderful work you do...keep it up!

Committing murder to protest murder makes about as much sense as loony lefties committing violence to protest violence.

You lose much credibility when you are the very thing you are protesting.

 

[Gunny]

LOL , you are aware we have a rating system run by the posters on this board? And your claims are proven false by simply looking at my peer rating. So much for THAT claim.

You are a legal authority, REQUIRED to uphold ALL laws as it is your FUCKING job. You do not like those laws? Then quit. And racist always like to claim they are not because they have a couple friends that are of some group they hate.

I hope your ass gets caught breaking some of those laws your SWORN to uphold. Guess what? Your job ensures YOU will be punished for that worse than a joe off the street.

NO one gets to pick and chose the laws that apply. And you have no right claiming to be Judge Jury and executioner. Your not only a bigot your a disgrace to every honest cop that upholds every law no matter personal opinion.

Come on now, Guns ... don't tell me you agreed with every order you carried out. I sure as Hell didn't. I still carried them out, no matter how dumb or pointless I thought they were.

 

[onedomino]

1st trimester 3rd trimester I dont care...

If it looks like a duck.... and it quacks like a duck... Ita a duck!

When a woman gets an abortion they should remove her reproductive organs at the same time as part of the process...

If I was sure I could get away with it... I would kill a doctor that murders those poor innocent little babies, or the nurse that assists, or even the front desk receptionist at the clinic, as a matter of fact even someone that supports the baby killing ideology... with a smile on my face and love in my heart...

I'm getting psyched up just thinking about it!

If there are any abortion clinic bombers out there... just so you know... you have alot of support... and some of us appreciate the wonderful work you do...keep it up!

You need to get some psychiatric help immediately before you act out your sick fantasy and hurt somebody. Seriously, hurry and get help before it is too late.

 

[Gunny]

Here is the problem in a nutshell. Our bodies are our own property. If we want to sell ourselves for sex, take drugs, have an abortion in the first trimester, commit suicide, eat ourselves into oblivion or starve ourselves into frail twigs...that should be our right to do so.

For all of you religious fanatics, God gave us freewill and no government or religious caste should be allowed to undemine that.

For you secularists, why should we be allowed to drink alchohol and smoke cigarettes but not take drugs or commit suicide? Why is one better than the other?

It is a crime to commit suicide, take drugs without a prescription, sell ourselves for sex (in most states) and so on. And now people like alucard demand that abortion be taken away as well. When are we allowed to choose for ourselves?

The irony is that the conservative right demands that there be less government intrusion into our lives and yet want to repeal the decision in Roe V Wade, add an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and so on.

Hypocrits.

You must not quite understand the Roe v Wade argument. The decision made at the Federal level usurped the authority of states to make their own laws.

Oh, and if all us conservatives supported an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage, there was NOTHING to stop it from passing. Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House at the time.

 

[jillian]

You must not quite understand the Roe v Wade argument. The decision made at the Federal level usurped the authority of states to make their own laws.

Oh, and if all us conservatives supported an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage, there was NOTHING to stop it from passing. Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House at the time.

No. It didn't usurp the authority of the States. If there's a constitutional right of privacy over one's body, then the states wouldn't have any right to give lesser protections anyway.

 

[Alucard]

I think you're misstating. What you're really describing is men no longer being allowed to treat women like chattel -- like they did 75 years ago. Is that a liberal value? I think it's a human value..

No... what I'm saying is we have allowed the rights of women to out weigh the rights of fathers... Fathers are now treated like second hand citizens in the family unit by the courts due to assinine liberal rulings giving women absolute power in terms of custody and or murder of children that years ago would have rightfully favored the father...

Women don't murder babies. If a woman has an abortion, that's certainly terminating potential life, but its no more a child than an egg is a chicken. Is it a good thing. Of course not. But women don't make that decision lightly and if the relationship with the man is a good one, they're going to make those decisions together. Thing is, I respect people who choose not to exercise their right to choice. What I don't respect is people trying to foist that choice on others who may not agree with them. I do not believe a fertilized ovum is a child. My religion does not dictate that belief. My morals do not dictate that belief...

Again we will have to agree, to agree to disagree... The choice a women is faced with is, should I or shouldnt I kill this child for my own selfish reasons?
To compare a child to a chicken is absolutely ludicrous, but a good example of how liberals view the value of life which is pretty sickning... As far as when life begins science has proven without doubt it is immediate... which I will admit was not as evident at the time of the RoevsWade ruling.... But now we know so its time to admit we were wrong and overturn a ruling decided without all the facts we have today...

And government can't dictate relationships by forcing women to get the consent of a man over what she does with her body. Men no longer own or control women and it is a feminist issue as well as a moral one. No man has to ask a woman's permission if he has a vasectomy. That's potential life, too. Or should sperm be protected as well?

Wrong... Government can dictate that men have equal rights regarding their children... women can do whatever they want with thier body until it effects the life of others which in this case the women has the right to destroy two lives(fathers and Childs)... Again like above you analogy is rediculous a mans sperm is not a life...A vasectomy does not kill an existing life... no one is saying a woman needs permission to get her tubes tied.. as a matter of fact I suggested the opposite... I believe it should be, and always should of been part of the abortion process...

Mostly, I'm troubled that you think murdering real human beings is an appropriate response for terminating a potential life in its early stages. I hope that was a few extra drinks talking. But it's horrifying that someone would support and encourage the nutcases who do that kind of thing.

I condone the killing for men and women that have taken the lives of, and or abused children... abortionists, child molesters/rapists and so on... you may think this is extreme... I believe it is our duty to ensure the protection of children and to send a message to possible abusers... If you hurt a child you will die... very simple...

I never claimed to be pro life... liberals have given me that label... What I am is pro child... there is a big difference...

 

[Alucard]

Committing murder to protest murder makes about as much sense as loony lefties committing violence to protest violence.

You lose much credibility when you are the very thing you are protesting.

I condone and support the murder of those GUILTY of killing children...

Which is no comparisom to condoning the murder of INNOCENT defensless children...

Your comparing apples to oranges gunny...

As far as my credibility goes... I never had any!

 

[Alucard]

You need to get some psychiatric help immediately before you act out your sick fantasy and hurt somebody. Seriously, hurry and get help before it is too late.

If the fact that I get great pleasure hearing of the killing of people that have taken the lives of millions of innocent children... Then I'm glad to be a psycotic "death Roe" advocate...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Come on now, Guns ... don't tell me you agreed with every order you carried out. I sure as Hell didn't. I still carried them out, no matter how dumb or pointless I thought they were.

Not the point. The argument being made is that Alucard is claiming a serving Officer or SNCO can just refuse to carry out orders they do not agree with. That they can do as he does on the job and call others racial derogatory names. That serving officer and SNCO's do not have to follow orders they do not believe in and there will be no consequence to that action.

READ what Alucard has said now and in the past. he is a current police officer or in law enforcement. he feels he does not have uphold laws he does not agree with, that he can use his badge to declare someone guilty and then mete out punishment he feels ok with.

He thinks it is ok to physically abuse people he detains, that he can call them racial derogatory names. To let people go for committing crimes he does not agree with.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No. It didn't usurp the authority of the States. If there's a constitutional right of privacy over one's body, then the states wouldn't have any right to give lesser protections anyway.

Ahh so when it comes to Abortion you DO get the distinction. But when it is some pet peeve of yours it is usurping State's rights. Remind us again how drug laws usurp State's Rights.

 

[Gunny]

No. It didn't usurp the authority of the States. If there's a constitutional right of privacy over one's body, then the states wouldn't have any right to give lesser protections anyway.

Nah ... it was the Fed usurping the authority of the state. And using that "right to privacy" as the basis is lame. If that's the case, how come we can't commit suicide, shoot heroin, etc? How do the states have the right to give lesser protections on those or any other thing one wants to do to one's own body?

You can make whatever argument you like, and label an unborn human being whatever you want, but the fact is abortion is taking the life of an unborn human being and tossing it in the trash can in most cases for the convenience of the woman, and THAT is just BS no matter which way you want to look at it.

The whole argument is a one-way argument for the woman's convenience. Instead of talking about rights, maybe someone ought to focus a bit more on responsibility. You know, like if you know you cannot for whatever reason raise a child don't spread your legs?

Oh, but then THAT would inconvenience the woman too because then she could cater to her sexual desires.

It's a bunch of selfish bullshit, plain and simple.

 

[jillian]

Nah ... it was the Fed usurping the authority of the state. And using that "right to privacy" as the basis is lame. If that's the case, how come we can't commit suicide, shoot heroin, etc? How do the states have the right to give lesser protections on those or any other thing one wants to do to one's own body?

You can make whatever argument you like, and label an unborn human being whatever you want, but the fact is abortion is taking the life of an unborn human being and tossing it in the trash can in most cases for the convenience of the woman, and THAT is just BS no matter which way you want to look at it.

The whole argument is a one-way argument for the woman's convenience. Instead of talking about rights, maybe someone ought to focus a bit more on responsibility. You know, like if you know you cannot for whatever reason raise a child don't spread your legs?

Oh, but then THAT would inconvenience the woman too because then she could cater to her sexual desires.

It's a bunch of selfish bullshit, plain and simple.

First. I think we should be able to commit suicide. We should be able to take drugs. The only difference between Methadone and Heroin in terms of effect ono your body is methadone doesn't make someone high. (gee... how puritanical of us. you can be a junkie as long as it doesn't make you feel good.)

Women's convenience?

You do know that women don't go out and get knocked up on purpose just so they can terminate the pregnancy, right?

This goes back to that balance thingy... when do you get to tell me what to do? Answer, somewhere along the line between conception where clearly a zygote isn't a baby and the stage at which the fetus clearly is.

That's just what it is. You're certainly entitled to whatever pov you have on the subject. But it's one of those things where you don't get to tell others what to do, which is really what we're talking about.

 

[Alucard]

Not the point. The argument being made is that Alucard is claiming a serving Officer or SNCO can just refuse to carry out orders they do not agree with. That they can do as he does on the job and call others racial derogatory names. That serving officer and SNCO's do not have to follow orders they do not believe in and there will be no consequence to that action

Wrong again your Assness .... never have I said I refuse to uphold the law ....and I never said I would not carry them out....

I dont know how you came to that conclusion...or when you decided to take it in that direction... I will chalk it up to your typical lack of understanding of the text...

I'm not going to bust a 15 year old kid for having 3 grams of weed, and destroy his future because its the law... On the other hand if I cought a 25 year old selling 3 grams of weed to a 15 year old kid, I would arrest him, if he resisted I would take him down and intentionally inflict pain while doing so (as trained jackass) and if I dropped a racial slur or two in there while doing so it is intimidation, and when I throw him in the can I'm not going to be upset or loose sleep over the fact that I called Him a stinky boon while cuffing him ... I do not believe that is a crime... calling anyone man or woman a derogatory name for absolutely no reason is wrong....

.READ what Alucard has said now and in the past. he is a current police officer or in law enforcement. he feels he does not have uphold laws he does not agree with, that he can use his badge to declare someone guilty and then mete out punishment he feels ok with..

repetative blabber... see above...

I an not a uniformed police officer... and I never said I was...

He thinks it is ok to physically abuse people he detains, that he can call them racial derogatory names. To let people go for committing crimes he does not agree with.

more repetative blabber.... see above....