You Don't Own Me

[Si modo]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk]Every Sperm is Sacred - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Si modo]

:eusa_think_:are you in favor of Sex-Selective abortion?

It's nothing I'd have chosen to do.

But wanting government out of our bodies isn't support for it.

Weird, you want government out of your bodies but you want the public to pay for birth control like that flukey woman.

This is the essence of the disconnect. If folks want government involved in their healthcare (rather than keeping it private), and as the government is by the People and for the People, the People are going to want a say in that healthcare.

No thanks, I say. Do a REAL reform of healthcare, but keep it private...none of anyone's fucking business what I do with my body. None of my fucking business what others do, either. Like I would care all that much...

 

[Uncensored2008]

By "deceitful" you must mean all the phony claims that offering STANDARD health insurance policies requires "the public" to "pay for" women to be sex crazed whores.

You mean demands by 36 year old coeds that Obama's fascist care mandate the Catholic church pay for contraceptives and abortions or face prison?

Hey, being a democrat means never having to follow that damned constitution, right? Obama wills it is the only law the party recognizes..

 

[Uncensored2008]

I love the "I win! I win!" argument. It tickles me.

Irrespective of your entertainment value, the word 'human' is an adjective in all this context. I have yet to "murder" my human appendix, though. So, I have that going for me.

But, I have been known to "murder" human sperm on occasion. Oh, and once I used the morning after pills, OTC. Put the cuffs on me...first degree, too.

I see that you sure ran and hid from my post.

I understand, you have no rational response.

 

[Si modo]

I love the "I win! I win!" argument. It tickles me.

Irrespective of your entertainment value, the word 'human' is an adjective in all this context. I have yet to "murder" my human appendix, though. So, I have that going for me.

But, I have been known to "murder" human sperm on occasion. Oh, and once I used the morning after pills, OTC. Put the cuffs on me...first degree, too.

I see that you sure ran and hid from my post.

I understand, you have no rational response.

I ran and hid from what post?

I really don't hang on every word you type. Just so you know.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I ran and hid from what post?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/258225-you-dont-own-me-11.html#post6252790

I really don't hang on every word you type. Just so you know.

Well, you SHOULD, you know?

 

[Si modo]

I ran and hid from what post?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/258225-you-dont-own-me-11.html#post6252790

I really don't hang on every word you type. Just so you know.

Well, you SHOULD, you know?

Can you give me a post number maybe? Your link just takes me to the top of this page, which with my settings, is a post by Val.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can you give me a post number maybe? Your link just takes me to the top of this page, which with my settings, is a post by Val.

Post 156.

The link SHOULD have worked, but you never can tell.

 

[Si modo]

Can you give me a post number maybe? Your link just takes me to the top of this page, which with my settings, is a post by Val.

Post 156.

The link SHOULD have worked, but you never can tell.

Thx much. BRB.

 

[Si modo]

Anyone but a fool can see the resemblance, right?

"Person" is a loaded term. Every holocaust in history has started by designating certain undesirables as "not people." Stalin declared the Kulacks to be "Non-Persons." Hitler declared the Jews to be sub-human, Pol Pot declared the intellectuals to be vermin.

The pro-abortion lobby clearly prefers to frame the debate in emotion, and use the long standing technique of dehumanizing the victim. But what if one looks at this from a medical, or scientific perspective?

The first question is; what species is the intended victim? The human genome is entirely mapped, so a DNA test can conclusively reveal the species.

The second question is whether the intended victim is alive? What is life? Well, a cell is technically living; but we need to know if this is autonomous life? Medical science has existed for 5,000 years or so, and has some idea of what life is. We can look at death, which is the absence of life. What defines death in legal terms? The absence of both brain and heart activity. So life is the presence of brain or heart activity - or for more precision, both. This being the case, when does this occur gestation wise?

{Brain waves have been recorded by EEG (electro- encephalograph) in the human embryo 40 days after fertilisation.5}
Human development from conception to birth

So, from a medical perspective, we have a living human at 6 weeks gestation. To deprive a living human of life, without judicial review violates the 5th amendment to the constitution.

{ nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. }

This is inconvenient for the pro-abortion advocates, but it is irrefutable.

I understand your view, but more questions need answering. For instance, six weeks is not viable.

When the life of a homosapien - if we can agree to call that a human being - is viable to become an independent life form, that's where I draw the line as that life form does not infringe on any other life form to continue being a life form.

So far, it looks like viability is somewhere between 23 and 26 weeks of gestation.

As far as I am concerned, that is the best line to draw legally, morally, ethically, etc. And, let's recall that women of child bearing age are actually human beings.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I understand your view, but more questions need answering. For instance, six weeks is not viable.

For a diabetic, 6 years is not viable. Many humans require assistance to survive, yet most civilized societies still offer legal protection.

This changes the argument to "they are not human" to "they are weak and vulnerable, therefore undeserving of legal protection.

When the life of a homosapien - if we can agree to call that a human being - is viable to become an independent life form, that's where I draw the line as that life form does not infringe on any other life form to continue being a life form.

So a neighbor playing loud music can be killed? (The Mexicans behind me are in for it, when they start blaring that Polka shit at 2 AM, then.)

From a scientific perspective, viable is an utterly nonsensical term. Viable in what way? Able to live without assistance? That would be at about 10 years old. I doubt even Valarie would support a mother killing an 8 or 9 year old at will, with no legal restraint. (Though I could be wrong about this.)

So far, it looks like viability is somewhere between 23 and 26 weeks of gestation.

An arbitrary and meaningless measure. We either protect human life as a society, or we don't. There are times that taking the life of another is justified, in a civilized society, such decisions require judicial review to offer respite to the intended victim. Arbitrary killing is the mark of degradation in a society.

As far as I am concerned, that is the best line to draw legally, morally, ethically, etc. And, let's recall that women of child bearing age are actually human beings.

No one has advocated killing women of child bearing age without judicial review. Killing their offspring appears tre chic, though.

 

[g5000]

It's nothing I'd have chosen to do.

But wanting government out of our bodies isn't support for it.

Weird, you want government out of your bodies but you want the public to pay for birth control like that flukey woman.

I dont want to have to pay for a fat person diabetes medication, but most insurances cover it already.

My wife who had her tubes tied can still use Birth control to regulate her period.
We are done for right now having kids and she Still has a use for it. This idea its for stopping abortion is nothing more than crap.

Trust me i want my wife on Birth control if its gets bad, because im the one who has to be around that if its really bad, Not you, not anyone else.

I don't think a lot of people have a grasp on the full context of what the issue is.

Private insurance covers birth control. It's about an extra $1.50 a month for that option.

.

 

[koshergrl]

Rottweiler, it's a mistake to think they care that it's human. They know it's human, they don't care...they only play with the language because they mistakenly think that if they can convince US then nobody will notice.

Riiight, Allie, only YOU and your ilk really CARE about the Children!

Yes, that's why we willingly donate so much time and energy towards them.

I can't think of any progressive-run orphanages down through the sands of time....unless you want to consider those hell holes in communist china and the near east as "progressive" orphanages.

I can think of a lot of church funded and missionary staffed orphanages and hospitals though, tending to the poor and ill for nothing back to almost the dawn of time.

The meme the libs love about right wingers/christians etc. who object to government funding of human rights violations is that the people who are arguing for the protection of the people the lefties want to kill "don't care".

Apparently, struggling to save a person's life is evidence that you *don't care* about them...while fighting hair, tooth and nail to kill those people, is evidence that you DO care.

 

[mamooth]

"Person" is a loaded term. Every holocaust in history has started by designating certain undesirables as "not people."

Such as the evil dehumanizing pro-lifers, who declare cows are lunch. Obviously, PETA is correct to err on the side of caution and define animals as people.

I don't see any difference between pro-life and PETA. They both fabricate a whacked-out non-historical BS definition of "person", and then sputter that anyone who doesn't agree with their BS is a murderer.

For millenia, "person" has had a simple definition across the world -- human, born and alive. Pro-life/PETA doesn't get to change that by screaming "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" over and over.

 

[Immanuel]

It's nothing I'd have chosen to do.

But wanting government out of our bodies isn't support for it.

Weird, you want government out of your bodies but you want the public to pay for birth control like that flukey woman.

I dont want to have to pay for a fat person diabetes medication, but most insurances cover it already.

My wife who had her tubes tied can still use Birth control to regulate her period.
We are done for right now having kids and she Still has a use for it. This idea its for stopping abortion is nothing more than crap.

Trust me i want my wife on Birth control if its gets bad, because im the one who has to be around that if its really bad, Not you, not anyone else.

I don't think a lot of people have a grasp on the full context of what the issue is.

Then find an insurance company that does not cover obesity.

That is really all the church is looking for the right to do, buy insurance policies for their employees that do not cover birth control. They should be allowed to do so.

No one is asking the government to forbid insurance companies from offering coverage of birth control. They are asking for the right to purchase insurance that does not offer it. The left on the other hand is seeking to force all insurance policies to cover it, just like they want to force all insurance companies to cover the ultimate form of birth control: abortion.

The left speaks a lot about their belief in "choice", but when you get right down to it, they do not come close to defending any other choice except abortion.

Immie

 

[WorldWatcher]

You mean demands by 36 year old coeds that Obama's fascist care mandate the Catholic church pay for contraceptives and abortions or face prison?

That is really all the church is looking for the right to do, buy insurance policies for their employees that do not cover birth control. They should be allowed to do so.

1. Churches are already exempt from the contraceptive requirements of the law.

2. In reference to the "Coeds", you realize that at the time Georgetown University was ALREADY offering contraceptive coverage for employees.

3. There are already 28 states that require contraceptive coverage, some exempt only the Church themselves - are there no Catholic Universities and Hospitals in those states?



[DISCLAIMER: I'm a Republican and want ObamaCare repealed. The argument shouldn't whether Churches should be exempt (they should), the argument ought to be that whats included or excluded should be between the insurance carrier and the individual owner of the policy (in the vast majority of cases that being employer who contracts for the policy and pays the vast majority of premiums).]



>>>>

 

[Si modo]

I understand your view, but more questions need answering. For instance, six weeks is not viable.

For a diabetic, 6 years is not viable. Many humans require assistance to survive, yet most civilized societies still offer legal protection.

....

Thanks. You'll let me know when a syringe and porcine insulin are life forms.

TIA.

 

[Si modo]

Weird, you want government out of your bodies but you want the public to pay for birth control like that flukey woman.

I dont want to have to pay for a fat person diabetes medication, but most insurances cover it already.

My wife who had her tubes tied can still use Birth control to regulate her period.
We are done for right now having kids and she Still has a use for it. This idea its for stopping abortion is nothing more than crap.

Trust me i want my wife on Birth control if its gets bad, because im the one who has to be around that if its really bad, Not you, not anyone else.

I don't think a lot of people have a grasp on the full context of what the issue is.

Then find an insurance company that does not cover obesity.

That is really all the church is looking for the right to do, buy insurance policies for their employees that do not cover birth control. They should be allowed to do so.

No one is asking the government to forbid insurance companies from offering coverage of birth control. They are asking for the right to purchase insurance that does not offer it. The left on the other hand is seeking to force all insurance policies to cover it, just like they want to force all insurance companies to cover the ultimate form of birth control: abortion.

The left speaks a lot about their belief in "choice", but when you get right down to it, they do not come close to defending any other choice except abortion.

Immie

Exactly. And, you and I disagree about Choice/Life.

 

[P@triot]

I love the "I win! I win!" argument. It tickles me.

Not half as much as you trying to convince yourself that killing babies is not murder tickles me

Irrespective of your entertainment value, the word 'human' is an adjective in all this context. I have yet to "murder" my human appendix, though. So, I have that going for me.

Do you really believe you can draw attention away from your major gaffe of acknowledging that an embryo is, in fact, a human by babbling on?

But, I have been known to "murder" human sperm on occasion..

Your swallowing load after load of sperm is not "murder" because sperm is not a human life. However, a fetus/embryo/etc. is unquestionably human life.

 

[Dr Grump]

Prostitution is legal in NZ and Australia...both countries have yet to to hell in a handbasket..

So, you've never had sex without having to pay for it? That's not surprising.

Is it true that Tijuana hookers who do donkey shows still charge double to let you at 'em? (Some things, a girl just won't do...)

Never been to Tijuana. Never been to Mexico. Sounds like you're speaking from experience....