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 all want people to stay out your uterus, you stay the hell out of our lives and how WE RAISE OUR CHILDREN, K
By all means start feeding your kids alcohol soon as they're born, and stick a ciggie in their mouths while you're at it....
Personal choice. For the record i am against mothers drinking while pregnant.
Mother who do drink should be held 100% financially responsible for any medical issues to the baby once born.
Idealogically yes, but if she has no money is the baby to suffer?
If she has not money, she has no damn business having a baby in the first place. If she has no money its going to suffer one way or the other.
What's stupid is debating this when abortion is far more lethal to an unborn baby!
You libs going to tell me you want to criminalize smoking while pregnant, but want to keep legal KILLING THE SUBJECT OF THE PREGNANCY??????
Moronic! Deeply Moronic!
This whole thread gets the fail whale!
Psst. I am no liberal, and in fact I morally oppose abortion, but bringing abortion into THIS thread is a strawman to avoid the original issue, which is should it be illegal to smoke or drink alcohol while pregnant?
LIKE HELL IT IS!
IT'S IS THE EXACT ISSUE.
Abortion is "choice" but smoking is not?
Which kills more kids!
Don't tell me you aren't a liberal if you are going to debate like one!
Every time a liberal doesn't want to address a point they can't refute, they always claim it's a "strawman."
BOTH ISSUES DEAL WITH AN UNBORN CHILD! Yet you say they are unrelated?
Did you think that was going to work???????????
PS I morally oppose abortion, but recognize the need to provide safe abortions to those wo don't oppose them at their own expense to prevent back alley abortions which are far more harmful to society. Only a pipe dream will ever end abortion in this country.
And if I had a dime for every liberal who "personally or morally" opposed abortion but knew we needed to keep it legal, I'd be a rich woman.
That's why you are calling it a strawman. Because you don't want to admit, you are JUST AS MUCH A HYPOCRITE as the rest.
What's stupid is debating this when abortion is far more lethal to an unborn baby!
You libs going to tell me you want to criminalize smoking while pregnant, but want to keep legal KILLING THE SUBJECT OF THE PREGNANCY??????
Moronic! Deeply Moronic!
This whole thread gets the fail whale!
Psst. I am no liberal, and in fact I morally oppose abortion, but bringing abortion into THIS thread is a strawman to avoid the original issue, which is should it be illegal to smoke or drink alcohol while pregnant?
LIKE HELL IT IS!
IT'S IS THE EXACT ISSUE.
Abortion is "choice" but smoking is not?
Which kills more kids!
Don't tell me you aren't a liberal if you are going to debate like one!
Every time a liberal doesn't want to address a point they can't refute, they always claim it's a "strawman."
BOTH ISSUES DEAL WITH AN UNBORN CHILD! Yet you say they are unrelated?
Did you think that was going to work???????????
PS I morally oppose abortion, but recognize the need to provide safe abortions to those wo don't oppose them at their own expense to prevent back alley abortions which are far more harmful to society. Only a pipe dream will ever end abortion in this country.
And if I had a dime for every liberal who "personally or morally" opposed abortion but knew we needed to keep it legal, I'd be a rich woman.
That's why you are calling it a strawman. Because you don't want to admit, you are JUST AS MUCH A HYPOCRITE as the rest.
That the statistical outcome for babies born to women who are committed smokers during pregnancy tend to have lower birthweights is a well established fact.
That statistically women who drink serious (perhaps even moderate) amounts of alcohol during pregnancy end up with higher incidents of Acolhol Fetal syndome, ALSO a well established fact.
Suggesting that there is come conspiracy to lie to us about these well understood facts seems sort of silly to me.
That the statistical outcome for babies born to women who are committed smokers during pregnancy tend to have lower birthweights is a well established fact.
That statistically women who drink serious (perhaps even moderate) amounts of alcohol during pregnancy end up with higher incidents of Acolhol Fetal syndome, ALSO a well established fact.
Suggesting that there is come conspiracy to lie to us about these well understood facts seems sort of silly to me.
Thank you and well said, maybe your writing style will get through where mine failed when I tried to say those same things.
So who's getting the reach-around? Y'all are ridiculous.
Really? So you just imagine that congenitive diseases caused by smoking and drinking just go away when mommy and daddy have money?
Further, you realize that you are essentially saying that the law that applies to poor people simply doesn't apply to people with money?
That's sick.
First off what law?
I said personal choice. I also said i do not condone the action.
I am saying that if it is proven that a disease is directly related to a mother smoking and drinking, then she should be held financially responsible for those actions.
And if you look at what i am saying, it works out for the poor...as they would just put their hand out for more entitlements, and someone with money would have to pay up.
And I'm saying it IS proven that drinking and or smoking during pregnancy are proven dangers whether mommy and daddy have money or not. YOU are saying that if mommy and daddy have money they should be able to risk a babies health.
That's stupid.
Personal choice. For the record i am against mothers drinking while pregnant.
Mother who do drink should be held 100% financially responsible for any medical issues to the baby once born.
I could not have said it better myself, syrenn. Let them do whatever they want, but if they knowingly drink, smoke, do drugs, etc... during the pregnancy, THEY should be required to pay for any care their child needs after birth due to those choices.
You do realize that the vast majority affected by this will be the poor... don't you? Are we arguing that the poor should be held responsible for their choices?
Psst. I am no liberal, and in fact I morally oppose abortion, but bringing abortion into THIS thread is a strawman to avoid the original issue, which is should it be illegal to smoke or drink alcohol while pregnant?
LIKE HELL IT IS!
IT'S IS THE EXACT ISSUE.
Abortion is "choice" but smoking is not?
Which kills more kids!
Don't tell me you aren't a liberal if you are going to debate like one!
Every time a liberal doesn't want to address a point they can't refute, they always claim it's a "strawman."
BOTH ISSUES DEAL WITH AN UNBORN CHILD! Yet you say they are unrelated?
Did you think that was going to work???????????
PS I morally oppose abortion, but recognize the need to provide safe abortions to those wo don't oppose them at their own expense to prevent back alley abortions which are far more harmful to society. Only a pipe dream will ever end abortion in this country.
And if I had a dime for every liberal who "personally or morally" opposed abortion but knew we needed to keep it legal, I'd be a rich woman.
That's why you are calling it a strawman. Because you don't want to admit, you are JUST AS MUCH A HYPOCRITE as the rest.
You're as insane as I have heard, and as stupid. I clearly am not a liberal.
LIKE HELL IT IS!
IT'S IS THE EXACT ISSUE.
Abortion is "choice" but smoking is not?
Which kills more kids!
Don't tell me you aren't a liberal if you are going to debate like one!
Every time a liberal doesn't want to address a point they can't refute, they always claim it's a "strawman."
BOTH ISSUES DEAL WITH AN UNBORN CHILD! Yet you say they are unrelated?
Did you think that was going to work???????????
And if I had a dime for every liberal who "personally or morally" opposed abortion but knew we needed to keep it legal, I'd be a rich woman.
That's why you are calling it a strawman. Because you don't want to admit, you are JUST AS MUCH A HYPOCRITE as the rest.
You're as insane as I have heard, and as stupid. I clearly am not a liberal.
Yeah, yeah yeah!
You can't see the hypocrisy in being for abortion AND CRIMINALIZING SMOKING while pregant.
And don't give me any BS about "morally" being against abortion.
If you want to keep abortion "safe" yet "morally" oppose it . . . .
It's the same as saying, "I'm against the holocaust, but I want to keep it "safe" for the Nazis to kill the Jews.
IT RESULTS IN THE SAME THING. It's just doubletalk to assuage YOUR conscience.
Abortion is like pregnancy itself. You can't have it both ways. You either ARE pregnant or you are not.
You either ARE for abortion, or you are NOT. Your "personal" feelings haven't a damn thing to do with it.
Your personal feelings don't keep a baby from being ripped out of the womb.
AND WHAT THE HELL IS A "SAFE" ABORTION, anyway?
It sure as hell isn't "safe" for the baby, you moron?
And you libs say, I'm the one that's insane.
You libs are talking about "safely" ripping a baby out of the womb. You are all IDIOTS!
Yeah, I'm "insane" yet you libs make stupid arguments about "safe" abortions. Morons!
Psst. I am no liberal, and in fact I morally oppose abortion, but bringing abortion into THIS thread is a strawman to avoid the original issue, which is should it be illegal to smoke or drink alcohol while pregnant?
LIKE HELL IT IS!
IT'S IS THE EXACT ISSUE.
Abortion is "choice" but smoking is not?
Which kills more kids!
Don't tell me you aren't a liberal if you are going to debate like one!
Every time a liberal doesn't want to address a point they can't refute, they always claim it's a "strawman."
BOTH ISSUES DEAL WITH AN UNBORN CHILD! Yet you say they are unrelated?
Did you think that was going to work???????????
PS I morally oppose abortion, but recognize the need to provide safe abortions to those wo don't oppose them at their own expense to prevent back alley abortions which are far more harmful to society. Only a pipe dream will ever end abortion in this country.
And if I had a dime for every liberal who "personally or morally" opposed abortion but knew we needed to keep it legal, I'd be a rich woman.
That's why you are calling it a strawman. Because you don't want to admit, you are JUST AS MUCH A HYPOCRITE as the rest.
I'm morally against doing drugs, but am 100% against the War on Drugs.
It's an easy thing to see, you're morally against something, but more morally against government getting involved.
That the statistical outcome for babies born to women who are committed smokers during pregnancy tend to have lower birthweights is a well established fact.
That statistically women who drink serious (perhaps even moderate) amounts of alcohol during pregnancy end up with higher incidents of Acolhol Fetal syndome, ALSO a well established fact.
Suggesting that there is come conspiracy to lie to us about these well understood facts seems sort of silly to me.
Thank you and well said, maybe your writing style will get through where mine failed when I tried to say those same things.
So who's getting the reach-around? Y'all are ridiculous.
I see, there's no off switch to the childish rants.
It's called agreeing, not reaching around son.
I want the same number of abortions and drinks and cigarrettes used by pregnant women as you do, zero, I just dont' have blind faith in government regulation.
You're as insane as I have heard, and as stupid. I clearly am not a liberal.
Yeah, yeah yeah!
You can't see the hypocrisy in being for abortion AND CRIMINALIZING SMOKING while pregant.
And don't give me any BS about "morally" being against abortion.
If you want to keep abortion "safe" yet "morally" oppose it . . . .
It's the same as saying, "I'm against the holocaust, but I want to keep it "safe" for the Nazis to kill the Jews.
IT RESULTS IN THE SAME THING. It's just doubletalk to assuage YOUR conscience.
Abortion is like pregnancy itself. You can't have it both ways. You either ARE pregnant or you are not.
You either ARE for abortion, or you are NOT. Your "personal" feelings haven't a damn thing to do with it.
Your personal feelings don't keep a baby from being ripped out of the womb.
AND WHAT THE HELL IS A "SAFE" ABORTION, anyway?
It sure as hell isn't "safe" for the baby, you moron?
And you libs say, I'm the one that's insane.
You libs are talking about "safely" ripping a baby out of the womb. You are all IDIOTS!
Yeah, I'm "insane" yet you libs make stupid arguments about "safe" abortions. Morons!
You have officially been moved into TheBrain's file of quacks to be mocked but not engaged in serious debate. Joining such illustrious alum as TruthBeDamned,The Pirate guy (I can't remember his name), Blu, Mr SHaman, and RDean. I'm sure membership will grow over time, but for now congratulations on being one of the elite.
I mock thee for your stupidity and partisanship.
LIKE HELL IT IS!
IT'S IS THE EXACT ISSUE.
Abortion is "choice" but smoking is not?
Which kills more kids!
Don't tell me you aren't a liberal if you are going to debate like one!
Every time a liberal doesn't want to address a point they can't refute, they always claim it's a "strawman."
BOTH ISSUES DEAL WITH AN UNBORN CHILD! Yet you say they are unrelated?
Did you think that was going to work???????????
And if I had a dime for every liberal who "personally or morally" opposed abortion but knew we needed to keep it legal, I'd be a rich woman.
That's why you are calling it a strawman. Because you don't want to admit, you are JUST AS MUCH A HYPOCRITE as the rest.
I'm morally against doing drugs, but am 100% against the War on Drugs.
It's an easy thing to see, you're morally against something, but more morally against government getting involved.
Drock, the government got involved with ROE V. WADE.
Prior to that, EACH STATE, had it's own laws regarding abortion.
Roe v. Wade WAS ABOUT SUING THE STATE OF TEXAS regarding abortion law.
If you are against the government getting involved AND ARE NOT BEING A HYPOCRITE, then you SHOULD BE AGAINST ABORTION, because it WAS the federal government getting involved.
Now I know damn well this won't deter you a bit in your support of abortion, because it isn't about the government getting involved.
Because any person who "personally" opposes abortion but wants to keep it legal, might as well "personally" oppose murder, but want to keep that legal, too. It makes about as much sense, and the result is the same. Somone dies
The government argument was just a convenient prop you thought would deter my argument.
Bad news, it didn't.
I'm morally against doing drugs, but am 100% against the War on Drugs.
It's an easy thing to see, you're morally against something, but more morally against government getting involved.
Drock, the government got involved with ROE V. WADE.
Prior to that, EACH STATE, had it's own laws regarding abortion.
Roe v. Wade WAS ABOUT SUING THE STATE OF TEXAS regarding abortion law.
If you are against the government getting involved AND ARE NOT BEING A HYPOCRITE, then you SHOULD BE AGAINST ABORTION, because it WAS the federal government getting involved.
Now I know damn well this won't deter you a bit in your support of abortion, because it isn't about the government getting involved.
Because any person who "personally" opposes abortion but wants to keep it legal, might as well "personally" oppose murder, but want to keep that legal, too. It makes about as much sense, and the result is the same. Somone dies
The government argument was just a convenient prop you thought would deter my argument.
Bad news, it didn't.
The first half of the post was a great one, second half not so much.
I agree it should be a state's right, and I think most states would end up being pro-choice so it would have almost no affect on # of abortions performed.
Wanting to keep something legal has nothing to do with morally favoring it, not even close. Like I said with my point on the war on drugs. I'm morally opposed to hitting my dog, I don't think government should regulate how they discipline their pets. I was against Saddam, but also against the Iraq War. I'm against Qaddafi, but am against the action against Libya. I could come up with examples of this all day long that go hand in hand with being against abortions but not wanting government intervention.
No attempt to derail, just showing you parallels to your argument.
Drock, the government got involved with ROE V. WADE.
Prior to that, EACH STATE, had it's own laws regarding abortion.
Roe v. Wade WAS ABOUT SUING THE STATE OF TEXAS regarding abortion law.
If you are against the government getting involved AND ARE NOT BEING A HYPOCRITE, then you SHOULD BE AGAINST ABORTION, because it WAS the federal government getting involved.
Now I know damn well this won't deter you a bit in your support of abortion, because it isn't about the government getting involved.
Because any person who "personally" opposes abortion but wants to keep it legal, might as well "personally" oppose murder, but want to keep that legal, too. It makes about as much sense, and the result is the same. Somone dies
The government argument was just a convenient prop you thought would deter my argument.
Bad news, it didn't.
The first half of the post was a great one, second half not so much.
I agree it should be a state's right, and I think most states would end up being pro-choice so it would have almost no affect on # of abortions performed.
Wanting to keep something legal has nothing to do with morally favoring it, not even close. Like I said with my point on the war on drugs. I'm morally opposed to hitting my dog, I don't think government should regulate how they discipline their pets. I was against Saddam, but also against the Iraq War. I'm against Qaddafi, but am against the action against Libya. I could come up with examples of this all day long that go hand in hand with being against abortions but not wanting government intervention.
No attempt to derail, just showing you parallels to your argument.
See, I knew it.
Didn't make a damn bit of difference to you, because all you care about is it being legal.
And you know how I know?
Because I already proved to you, ABORTION IS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, but you just went right on with the same failed argument.
You CLAIM returning the issue to the states won't make any difference BUT UNTIL YOU HAVE EVIDENCE, that's a RATIONALIZATION, and an unprovable hypothesis.
So nice try, but you are still trying to double talk.
Roe v. Wade IS the government intervention, YET your "moral" quandries didn't bother you a bit to learn that.
Which makes you a moral phony.
Alcohol is a cleaning fluid. Nicotene is one of the deadlieast chemicles known to science.
If you smoke tobaco, you are a fool. Getting sick on alcohol is also for fools and loosers!
All pregnancies should required by law to be registered with, and monitored by, local government health agencies and the couple should be charged for the service.
Any woman who drinks alcohol, smokes tobaco or usees recreational drugs should be prosecuted. I am for removing children from homes where excessive alcohol cigarettes and drugs are used and prosecuting the parents.
Each and every child must be granted full citizen rights and those rights shoud be protected by law.
The first half of the post was a great one, second half not so much.
I agree it should be a state's right, and I think most states would end up being pro-choice so it would have almost no affect on # of abortions performed.
Wanting to keep something legal has nothing to do with morally favoring it, not even close. Like I said with my point on the war on drugs. I'm morally opposed to hitting my dog, I don't think government should regulate how they discipline their pets. I was against Saddam, but also against the Iraq War. I'm against Qaddafi, but am against the action against Libya. I could come up with examples of this all day long that go hand in hand with being against abortions but not wanting government intervention.
No attempt to derail, just showing you parallels to your argument.
See, I knew it.
Didn't make a damn bit of difference to you, because all you care about is it being legal.
And you know how I know?
Because I already proved to you, ABORTION IS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION, but you just went right on with the same failed argument.
You CLAIM returning the issue to the states won't make any difference BUT UNTIL YOU HAVE EVIDENCE, that's a RATIONALIZATION, and an unprovable hypothesis.
So nice try, but you are still trying to double talk.
Roe v. Wade IS the government intervention, YET your "moral" quandries didn't bother you a bit to learn that.
Which makes you a moral phony.
I agree with you that it should be a state issue. Calm down.
We're both just trying to predict what a hypothetical future would bring, in my opinion it would bring the same thing we have now in # of abortions.
I never said I have a moral issue with early abortions I don't, I said I wish there were never abortions.
Again, settle down, these abortion debates are a lot better when people don't let their emotions overtake their intellectual side.
