Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
You are one extremely disturbed and potentially dangerous person. It is creepy that there are things like you slithering the streets.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...
My middle... in cases of incest and rape abortion should be legal...
You know your on the wrong side of the issue... just admit it...
you wont lose anyones respect... but you do stand a good chance at gaining some... shogn was right... we have to find a middle ground on the issue...
My middle... in cases of incest and rape abortion should be legal...
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.
Of all the positions on abortion, that's the most idiotic one anyone can adopt. If it is true that abortion is murder of a baby, as you've suggested before, then it is no less murder of a baby in a case of rape or incest.
I'm not on the wrong side of the issue at all. The middle ground *was* Roe v Wade. It balanced the rights of the individual with the governmental interest. What other middle ground? Rape? Incest? That's the bare minimum and shouldn't be up for discussion.
Here's the thing. The law now *is* a middle ground. First trimester on demand for any reason, after that where life and health of the mother at stake or in conjunction with a physician's judgment that there will never be a viable birth.
I figure it's only fair that you make life decisions for yourself; I'll make life decisions for myself. Some each of us make will be wrong. Hopefully, most will turn out ok.
like me, reach a point when we find it perfectly understandable when some crazy bastard kills a couple of the sons of bitches doing the dirty work....ON DEMAND... FOR ANY REASON... AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT... AS OFTEN AS YOU WANT....middlground?
No way...
you call.... "I'm getting headaches" or "my back hurts" middlleground?
Because that is how far out of context you frigging liberal assholes have taken
the words "health of the mother" section of that decision...
Dont feed me your bullshit ...
Then you wonder why
I have no sympathy for the garbage killed in clinic bombings...
As far as I'm concerned momen should A) use birth control,B) keep your legs closed, or C)get back in the closet with a hanger and a trash bag and put your own life on the line if it means that much to you...
Considering they are my terms... do you really think I will ever consider what you people tuned the RvW decision into middleground?
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.
We are talking about rape.... The woman didnt choose to have sex...
As far as incest goes... if some sick bastard talks his neice into having sex, and she gets pregnant.. I think the girl should be able to opt out and not be forced to carry that child... Either way if the mother decides to abort the baby and the childs is killed .. The men in both cases should be charged with the taking of the life and put to death themselves...
Well at least now we know that your pretense about caring about an unborn "child" is BS. In rape and incest scenarios, the child is still innocent. Assuming, of course, it is a child rather than an unviable fetus. Your position is pretty obscene - you claimed earlier you thought the unborn child was a person, now you're saying that it is nevertheless OK to kill that person due to circumstances that are no fault of the child. Nice.
BS....Fuck You, BS...
You wanted a middleground thats my middle ground....
I disaprove under any conditions... But if I had to concede any ground that would be it...
1 out of every couple of hundred abortions is a result of rape or incest, and 8 out of 10 of those women that choose to kill regret the decision.... I can live with those numbers... Most find the abortion harder to live with.. than the trauma of the rape...
It's a middle-ground that makes no sense. If an unborn fetus is really a child, really a person, then there's no excuse for abortion.
I don't consider it a person, personally. But if you do then your position makes no sense at all.
Is this RGS with a new screen name?
I told you my position... hanger and a trash bag...
It's a middle-ground that makes no sense. If an unborn fetus is really a child, really a person, then there's no excuse for abortion.
I don't consider it a person, personally. But if you do then your position makes no sense at all.
Sure it does. What the fetus is, and justification for abortion are not mutually exclusive.
IMO, in cases of medical necessity where the life of the mother is endangered by carrying or delivering the baby, it's a no brainer, IMO.
Likewise if it is determined the child will have no quality of life due to birth defect.
In the cases of rape and incest, I would rather see the child put up for adoption, but I certainly can see where one would consider termination over the psychological damage of carrying the child to term and delivering.
None of those justifications however diminishes the fact in any way that it is STILL terminating the life of an unborn human.
Again, IMO.
I agree...........and there have been 50,000,000 terminated, when does conscience get realized........................
What conscience? You are confusing members of today's society with WHO, exactly? They make "right and wrong" a relative argument to suit whatever it is that suits their fancy.
Kind of amusing to me that the very same voices that think abortion and euthenasia are just fine-n-dandy can be seen apply morals to our military in Iraq and Afghanistan that Christ himself would be hard-pressed to keep up with. The amusing part would be that they do it with a straight face and don't realize how billboard obvious they are.
What conscience? You are confusing members of today's society with WHO, exactly? They make "right and wrong" a relative argument to suit whatever it is that suits their fancy.
Kind of amusing to me that the very same voices that think abortion and euthenasia are just fine-n-dandy can be seen apply morals to our military in Iraq and Afghanistan that Christ himself would be hard-pressed to keep up with. The amusing part would be that they do it with a straight face and don't realize how billboard obvious they are.
One might reverse that argument and say that the moralistic, religious right who thinks they're more moral than I am because they want to protect zygotes has no problem with letting real people, living people die. This BS about people being pro-life is an absolute sham. It isn't pro life, it's pro birth. Being pro-life requires some concept of quality of life. But nah... does the religious right want to provide for unwanted kids? Nope... they say we live in "nanny state" if we even discuss it. Do they want single moms (white single moms being the largest group on welfare and the largest group of unwed moms, too, I believe) to get daycare? Nope. Job training? Nope. And why? Because it has nothing to do with protecting life. It has everything in the world to do with punishing the harlots for getting knocked up in the first place.
