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.
You're still talking about forcing someone to carry a child and give birth. If someone chooses to give up a child for adoption, then that is certainly a valid choice. However, it isn't our place to force people to do what we might wish them to.
I am not forcing anyone to get pregnant, Jillian. And yes, I think carrying a child you don't want, and giving it to a couple that desperately does, is, oh wow, putting a higher value on life than convenience.
That "unprepared" woman, should have thought about how unprepared she was before having sex.
Was the father involved in making this decision as well as the mother and the doctor?
I am not forcing anyone to get pregnant, Jillian. And yes, I think carrying a child you don't want, and giving it to a couple that desperately does, is, oh wow, putting a higher value on life than convenience.
That "unprepared" woman, should have thought about how unprepared she was before having sex.
Who cares? You think the sperm donor should get an overriding vote on a decision that could kill the mother?
You really think so? It reminded me of the typical liberal arguments in favor of things like affirmative action. Let's make the government step in and "protect" people who are too powerless and dumb to protect themselves.
nt250 said:Yeah, we women can't decide anything on our own because we need people like Nienna to help us. Sure. Right. So much for her opinion on women.
I do--thats why I asked the question
See? I said that right to lifers only give lip service to the
"life of the mother" part. I haven't met a right to lifer yet who wouldn't gladly let a mother die if it meant the "baby" would live.
You're looking at it backwards. For the purposes of this discussion, let's clear up, once and for all, just who "government" is, and what constitutes government intrusion.
Our founding fathers distrusted government - particularly CENTRAL government. In the Constitution, they made it expressly clear that central government was to be kept on a short leash - given a few very specific powers and responsibilities - and otherwise instructed - CLEARLY - to butt out of the people's conduct of their everyday lives. A national abortion policy? Nine men in black robes creating new "rights" out of whole cloth? You can't get much further from the constitutional design of self-government than that, without descending into outright tyranny.
Abortion policy is the PEOPLE'S business. This is not "the government stepping in and 'protecting' people"; quite the contrary - it is the people running their own affairs, per the U.S. Constitution. And, before you say "It's nobody's business", remember - the people have a stake in this matter, too. The generalized cheapening of human life - the relentless advance of a barbarianism that places personal convenience and the dodging of consequences above innocent, helpless life - is a state of affairs that society has begun to regard with alarm - and not a moment too soon, I might add.
You've got a blind spot on this, which is strange and interesting. Surely you can see that conservatism is winning the day; that relics of liberal social engineering such as Roe vs. Wade are dead men walking; that this is a good thing. We're taking our country back, and people are going to find out that changing law is a matter of CHANGING MINDS - not running to friendly judges. Might I suggest that angrily snapping at people that their beliefs are stupid is a bad start?
I really wish you people would stop assuming I'm angry just because I find something stupid. I deal with stupid people all day and every day. People, on average, are stupid. That's got nothing to do with my ego, or my politics, or my own intelligence. And with every technological advance we come up with, people get stupider and stupider. When was the last time you had a clerk in a grocery store or fast food restaurant be able to make change without the help of the register?
nt250 said:Because religion is stupid.
Anything else I can help clear up for you?
nt250 said:Abortion is a private medical decision that is none of your business. The Constitution has something called the Bill of Rights, and that was all added to the Constitution because protecting people simply from the abuses of a central government was not deemed good enough by the Founding Fathers. They understood human nature, and they understood concept of tyranny of the majority. If you want to quibble about whether the right to privacy is "implied" in the Constituion, fine. You'll be no different than the liberal idiots who quibble about whether John Kerry admitted to the act of treason. It's called splitting hairs and it's only done by those who let their politics dictate their reasoning.
Abortion is nobody else's business and if you're a man, you don't even have a right to an opinion on the subject. Just as I won't when I am no longer of child bearing age.
Ah - nt250, winning hearts and minds...
Interesting. Alternately pure conjecture and gross inaccuracy, but interesting. Hide and watch, nt250. The people are taking their country back.
I really wish you people would stop assuming I'm angry just because I find something stupid. I deal with stupid people all day and every day. People, on average, are stupid. That's got nothing to do with my ego, or my politics, or my own intelligence. And with every technological advance we come up with, people get stupider and stupider. When was the last time you had a clerk in a grocery store or fast food restaurant be able to make change without the help of the register?
Abortion is a private medical decision that is none of your business. The Constitution has something called the Bill of Rights, and that was all added to the Constitution because protecting people simply from the abuses of a central government was not deemed good enough by the Founding Fathers. They understood human nature, and they understood concept of tyranny of the majority. If you want to quibble about whether the right to privacy is "implied" in the Constituion, fine. You'll be no different than the liberal idiots who quibble about whether John Kerry admitted to the act of treason. It's called splitting hairs and it's only done by those who let their politics dictate their reasoning.
Abortion is nobody else's business and if you're a man, you don't even have a right to an opinion on the subject. Just as I won't when I am no longer of child bearing age.
It's my country, too. Try to remember that.
I do--thats why I asked the question
Wow...didn't realize you were a member of the Taliban.
Hate men much?
I love men. I hate women. Well, hate is probably too strong a word, but I really, really, really dislike women. Women are awful to each other. I'd rather work with, and for, a man any day. I'd rather hang out with men socially.
Women are just way too much work.
Some are well worth the extra effort---you aren't. I can see why you were uninvited at a few places.
she asked a question---I asked for all the details before I answered. That makes me equal to the Taliban---you're fucking crazy.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion.You're welcome. It still doesn't mean I don't strongly, strongly disagree with you.
Please explain how it is not scientific. Seems as if you are declaring it "religious" because that is the angle from which your argument best works.That is not scientific. And I'll tell you something.... MY religion doesn't believe life begins at conception and I find it overbearing when people think their religious beliefs should take precedence over mine.
Still looking for scientific reasons why it is not a human life, not just "nuh-uh, because it isn't."As for your "scientific" determination, a fetus (not in quotes, Nienna, that's what it is ... a FETUS, not a baby), life exists on a continuum and the abortion question turns on nothing more than when the governmental interest in protecting a potential life exceeds that of the individual to make their own determination.
Let me ask you a question. Say you had tried to conceive naturally, but couldn't and ultimately got pregnant by in vitro fertilization. The doctor tells you that three of the pre-embryos implanted in the uterine wall and that means triplets. But he also tells you that you can't, physically, have more than one and if you didn't reduce the pregnancy, either you would die, the pregnancy would self-terminate or all the "lives" in question would be in danger. On the other hand, you're told that if you reduce to one, you can have the wondeful, healthy baby you want and live to raise it.
You think having a selective termination under those circumstances is murder?
