# abortions the real choice



## strollingbones (May 25, 2009)

the real questions in abortion issues:  

1.  can you stop a woman from aborting...

  no

reason:



2.  herbs that induce abortions:



Herbal abortions refer to giving herbs that will induce miscarriage.  Herbal abortions work about 40-45% of the time.  The chances for herbal abortions to succeed occur between the time menstruation is due until menstruation is two weeks late.  The later menstruation becomes the lesser are the possibilities that the herbs will work.  In using herbs for herbal abortions, caution must be exercised and one should not use the essential oils of these herbs internally since these are potent herbs that could cause poisoning if ingested. The following herbs are used for herbal abortions:



Angelica/Dong Quai is a uterine stimulant which is used in herbal abortions due to its ability to strengthen and coordinate contractions to aid the uterus in expelling its contents.



Black cohosh is another herb used in abortions.  This herb aids in relaxing and opening the cervix.  And it has the capacity to &#8216;ripen the cervix&#8217; and prepare it for childbirth.

or just simple web sites:



so the only real question is....do you prefer to shove women into these situations or do you prefer legal abortions?  or do you only care about the pre born?  answer honestly, think about it...there is no masssive need for chidlren to adopted only white infant males, so that is no arguement.  why do you allow it in case of "rape or incest"  that is no more the pre borns faults than being conceived any other way?    if you outlaw abortion it cannot be with exception...even for the mother's life.  It is not one way here and one way there.  if you support the birth of the pre born then you must support them as the born too.  you can not have that both ways either.

let the hell rain down


----------



## TofuDog (May 25, 2009)

Humans are just deluding themselves that our species is some sort of special chosen species by some god. People against abortion should think about it next time they eat eggs, which are aborted animal embryos. Or when they eat veal, which is eating baby cows.
Who cares if a woman aborts, we already have too many unwanted kids in the world today anyways, why do we need more of them?


----------



## HUGGY (May 25, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> the real questions in abortion issues:
> 
> 1.  can you stop a woman from aborting...
> 
> ...



Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick Bones..I'm tryin to have breakfast here!


----------



## 007 (May 25, 2009)

TofuDog said:


> Humans are just deluding themselves that our species is some sort of special chosen species by some god. People against abortion should think about it next time they eat eggs, which are aborted animal embryos. Or when they eat veal, which is eating baby cows.
> Who cares if a woman aborts, we already have too many unwanted kids in the world today anyways, why do we need more of them?



Yeah I'll think about that when I see a city built by chickens, or a space shuttle built by a cow.


----------



## strollingbones (May 25, 2009)

no one answers the questions asks.....


----------



## editec (May 25, 2009)

Women have been allowing men to think they were in charge since time began, Stroll.

And here you come along and spill the beans.

Way to go, sister.


----------



## Jon (May 25, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> so the only real question is....do you prefer to shove women into these situations or do you prefer legal abortions?



I prefer people act responsibly and not get themselves into the situation to have to make this decision. Instead, we're teaching people (children mostly) that it's okay to have unprotected sex because they can fix whatever mistakes may come along. If we talked more about safe sex, not only would it cut down the number of abortions, it would cut down the number of STD's, as well. But hey, let's not do anything that makes too much sense.


----------



## Seraega (May 25, 2009)

God forbid we teach people that they can fix their mistakes.


----------



## jgbkab (May 25, 2009)

We can teach them to fix their mistakes...sure. Just don't teach them to take the easy way out of their mistakes! I don't agree with abortion but I don't think that we can dictate to women what they can do with their bodies. We should at least start working on a proactive solution instead of just being pro or con and going at each other on every abortion conversation.


----------



## Jon (May 25, 2009)

Seraega said:


> God forbid we teach people that they can fix their mistakes.



No, God forbid we teach people not to make them.


----------



## strollingbones (May 25, 2009)

sanders all bc methods seem to fail...look at palin's kid...apparently absensice doest work either...so there has to be a plan b


----------



## Jon (May 25, 2009)

I didn't say abstinence, now did I?


----------



## Care4all (May 25, 2009)

Drugs were the means of abortion for women, up to the time of quickening, when our 'religious' founding fathers created our nation....it wasn't for another 50-100yrs before all states had their own differing abortion laws..

prior to such, as said, women were permitted to abort in early pregnancy, before quickening which was Common Law.  They went to see their drugist, and the pharmacist gave them a concoction of herbs and medicines to induce the abortion.

our LAW/government... was not involved in any manner regarding a women's choice to do such, until the baby made it's first kick, inside the womb...'quickening'...  Our founding fathers KNEW such and did nothing...so were these religious founding fathers EVIL, or did they understand the right to individual freedom up to a certain point?

care


----------



## TofuDog (May 25, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Yeah I'll think about that when I see a city built by chickens, or a space shuttle built by a cow.



LOL, now that's funny! Makes no sense, but it's still funny!

So it's ok to eat other species embryos but we must at all cost protect every human embryo? Like I said, most humans, apparently including you, think we're soooo special. We're not even smart enough not to destroy our own environment, something a lot of the other species can manage.


----------



## JBeukema (May 25, 2009)

TofuDog said:


> People against abortion should think about it next time they eat eggs, which are aborted animal embryos.



How fucking stupid can you be? Apparently, the answer is 'very'. The eggs you buy at the supermarket are unfertilized.




> Or when they eat veal, which is eating baby cows.



I look forward to your demonstration calling for bovine suffrage.




> Who cares if a woman aborts, we already have too many unwanted kids in the world today anyways, why do we need more of them?



_We have enough people. Why should I care if you shoot someone?_

Someone kill Tofu- relax, he won't mind. there are too many people anyway



Seraega said:


> God forbid we teach people that they can fix their mistakes.



By killing their children? Our courts have already ruled on that- the answer is *NO*



jsanders said:


> No, God forbid we teach people not to make them.



then the abortion industry would lose money! 



strollingbones said:


> sanders all bc methods seem to fail...



I know many who can attest that you are wrong



Care4all said:


> prior to such, as said, women were permitted to abort in early pregnancy...until the baby made it's first kick,



So, give them something else to lie about if it keeps the business going, just like being gangraped by clowns?

Stupidity + appeal to tradition (fallacy) = your post


----------



## 007 (May 25, 2009)

TofuDog said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I'll think about that when I see a city built by chickens, or a space shuttle built by a cow.
> ...



Funny? Pointing out that MAN is far and above superior to all other life on this earth is FUNNY? You find FACTS amusing? And then you want to ramble off making some inane point about our environment? What the FUCK kind of PSYCHOBABBLE is THAT?


----------



## Jon (May 25, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Drugs were the means of abortion for women, up to the time of quickening, when our 'religious' founding fathers created our nation....it wasn't for another 50-100yrs before all states had their own differing abortion laws..
> 
> prior to such, as said, women were permitted to abort in early pregnancy, before quickening which was Common Law.  They went to see their drugist, and the pharmacist gave them a concoction of herbs and medicines to induce the abortion.
> 
> ...



Your problem seems to be with religion. When you can make a logical argument for abortions versus responsibility, come talk to us.


----------



## JBeukema (May 25, 2009)

Why do idiot libs assume all who value human life are religious?


----------



## Care4all (May 25, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Drugs were the means of abortion for women, up to the time of quickening, when our 'religious' founding fathers created our nation....it wasn't for another 50-100yrs before all states had their own differing abortion laws..
> ...



I am not making an argument for religion or the religious, I was making a true statement to those that continually use the founding fathers as an example of religious people that founded our country....when it comes to our constitution and our laws.

If the founding fathers were on the up and up religious people as many claim, and which very well may be true, then why weren't there writings or something writen by them speaking against abortion which was NOT AGAINST the law, 

but used by the women of their day....mostly married women of their day that did not want to have that 5th or 8th child because their hands were full with all of their other children or because they did not want to risk dying giving birth at that point because they had so many children at home that needed them?

I understand thoroughly that medical care today is much better and women do not die from child birth as often as they did during their day.

I understand that we have birth control today, so pregnancy can be prevented...(which is also considered a "sin" by one of the largest Christian churches -the Catholic Church from what I have read).

I understand that today it is mostly single women having abortions and not married women for the most part.

I understand that we have more medical science out there that shows that the life of ones offspring begins at conception, though most are naturally aborted before implantation....and before Pregnancy takes place...(one is not "pregnant" with child until the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterus)  you can have a kazillion fertilized eggs, but if they do not attach to the uterus, then a pregnancy DOES NOT OCCUR.

but if we all want to discuss this HONESTLY without hostility and with some intelligence, we should discuss the history of abortion, including the history of its legality and the reasoning behind it, in our early history as Americans and in our history as humans...and how it was thought of during the different times in society....

Like, why were women that even had abortions after quickening not prosecuted, but the person performing it was...?

why?

I read that it was because they considered the pregnant women, with all of her newly producing hormones from pregnancy and with the MOST AT STAKE with the pregnancy, was given COMPASSION.  

and the same with our abortion laws, after they finally came in to place, did not punish the pregnant woman but the person performing the abortion....why?  Because her head was not on straight due to the hormones or circumstance?  

What is it that makes people so cold today?  Where is the compassion that was once given to these women that you call murderers?

Care


----------



## JBeukema (May 25, 2009)

Care said:
			
		

> but if we all want to discuss this HONESTLY without hostility and with some intelligence, we should discuss the history of abortion, including the history of its legality and the reasoning behind it, in our early history as Americans and in our history as humans...and how it was thought of during the different times in society....



No, actually. You're setting up an appeal to tradition- a fallacy that simply shows you have no argument


----------



## Care4all (May 25, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i am doing no such thing, i am prolife...

fyi
you, are someone i really would never want to meet, based on all of your posts!


----------



## Jon (May 25, 2009)

Care4all said:


> but if we all want to discuss this HONESTLY without hostility and with some intelligence, we should discuss the history of abortion



I don't see any logic in this, sorry Care.


----------



## JBeukema (May 26, 2009)

Care4all said:


> fyi
> you, are someone i really would never want to meet, based on all of your posts!



I'm... crushed?


----------



## strollingbones (May 26, 2009)

so we should not pay attention to the historiacal elements of issues and just deal with the in an ad hoc manner?


----------



## Ravi (May 26, 2009)

I believe, historically, women had a right to choose...and that is in keeping with the constitution. Living humans have rights that the unborn do not. Care's so called "appeal to tradition" is valid for those reasons.


----------



## TofuDog (May 26, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Man is the most intelligent species (charlie bass excluded), but if it's not ok to mess with human fetuses, then it shouldn't be ok to mess with other species embryos. If you respect life so much...


----------



## JBeukema (May 26, 2009)

Ravi said:


> I believe, historically, women had a right to choose...



No, they didn't. They historically, women had no rights- especially when religion got involved.



> and that is in keeping with the constitution.



No, it's not. The right to life is protected.



> Living humans have rights that the unborn do not.



Whether one is living and whether one is born have nothing to do with eachother



> Care's so called "appeal to tradition" is valid for those reasons.



Then so is my appeal to traditions calling for n1ggers to get in the fields and care- and all women- to STFU and get in the kitchen.

Yea, that makes sense



TofuDog said:


> Man is the most intelligent species (charlie bass excluded), but if it's not ok to mess with human fetuses, then it shouldn't be ok to mess with other species embryos. If you respect life so much...



Non sequitur. The dishonesty in your posts is astounding


----------



## TofuDog (May 26, 2009)

"The dishonesty in your posts is astounding"

LOL, and why would that be?


----------



## 007 (May 26, 2009)

TofuDog said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > TofuDog said:
> ...



Once again, here's a person equating humans with animals. 

Like I said, when I see a city built by chickens, or a space shuttle built by cows, then I'll consider that argument. Until then, it's just plain idiotic.

But you shoot yourself in the foot with that garbage anyway. Animals don't abort their unborn. Why should humans?

You just been pwnd... you're dismissed.


----------



## Ravi (May 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Then so is my appeal to traditions calling for n1ggers to get in the fields and care- and all women- to STFU and get in the kitchen.


Your opinion is incorrect...slavery is not in keeping with the constitution nor is forced servitude.

Nice try though.


----------



## JBeukema (May 26, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Your opinion is incorrect...slavery is not in keeping with the constitution nor is forced servitude.




The founding fathers knew about slavery and did nothing of it- they even had slaves. Historically, it's been a man's _choice_ whether to have slaves or not. You're interfering with Man's _right to choose_, even though the FF clearly didn't have a problem with it. If you don't want to keep a slave, then don't Noone's forcing you to get a slave.

Nice try, though.


----------



## TofuDog (May 26, 2009)

"Once again, here's a person equating humans with animals. 

Like I said, when I see a city built by chickens, or a space shuttle built by cows, then I'll consider that argument. Until then, it's just plain idiotic.

But you shoot yourself in the foot with that garbage anyway. Animals don't abort their unborn. Why should humans?

You just been pwnd... you're dismissed."

You condescending religionites amaze me with your "we are the chosen ones by god in this whole fucking universe" attitude. If you were really such pro-lifers, you'd be a vegetarian. But it seems that you're just a bunch of hyppocrites. Now go back to eating your big macs.


----------



## JBeukema (May 26, 2009)

TofuDog said:


> "Once again, here's a person equating humans with animals.
> 
> Like I said, when I see a city built by chickens, or a space shuttle built by cows, then I'll consider that argument. Until then, it's just plain idiotic.
> 
> ...



Plants are life, dumbass. If you're going to build straw men, try to at least try to do so with something vaguely resembling skill. Now, since you are anti-life and humans are no different from cattle, why don't you come over to my place? I can shut you up and fill my belly with one shot. Given your posts, you must approve of cannibalism. After all, we're just animals and not special, right?


----------



## TofuDog (May 26, 2009)

Plants aren't sentient beings with families, love for their young... or did you not know that?
Meat eaters have no business taking a stand against abortion, assisted suicide, life support cases like terri schiavo... and are especially hypocritical when they complain about puppy mills, or get bent out of shape because some people eat those cute horses! Just like people who go into the army and argue against abortion and all the rest are TOTAL hypocrites, when their job is to kill.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2009)

Killing another human that is not attempting to kill you, intentionally, is called murder.It doesn't matter if the victim is an old woman or a baby. Our worth is not determined by how much others love us, want us, or care for us. Our worth is innate and sanctioned by God. We defend the human rights of people in third world countries...we defend their right to live, though they are burdensome to those who have to provide for them, generally uneducated, often riddled with disease, frequently fractious and criminal.

But we DIE to protect them. As we should.

But I see assholes here who would bring in a criminal, HIV infected, illiterate con into their homes...but think it's their "right" to kill people in their own family who present a warp in the thread of their lives, or physical discomfort for 9 months, or otherwise a bothersome intrusion. 

They strongly believe it's the right of our own diseased, drug infected, young, stupid and/or minority to slaughter their babies. After all, fewer babies means fewer troublesome people in a population they don't connect to, don't care about, and they wish there were fewer of. Because THOSE babies aren't as valuable as THEIR babies. And by golly, if they have them they'll just be abused little criminals anyway....


----------



## TofuDog (May 26, 2009)

Allie, which people is your country trying to protect the human rights of? I can't think of any.


----------



## Jon (May 26, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Killing another human that is not attempting to kill you, intentionally, is called murder.It doesn't matter if the victim is an old woman or a baby.



This statement is further backed by the fact that Scott Peterson was found guilty of two murders, not one murder and an abortion. Wanna talk Constitution? I have precedent to show that an unborn child is considered human enough to be murdered.


----------



## JBeukema (May 26, 2009)

jsanders said:


> This statement is further backed by the fact that Scott Peterson was found guilty of two murders, not one murder and an abortion. Wanna talk Constitution? I have precedent to show that an unborn child is considered human enough to be murdered.



How far along was the pregnancy?


----------



## Dr Grump (May 26, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Seraega said:
> 
> 
> > God forbid we teach people that they can fix their mistakes.
> ...



We do. So are you saying sex ed classes teach kids to have unprotected sex and damn the consequences? I'd really like to know what school teaches that BS. Any sex ed programmes I've seen ALWAYS include birth control methods (unless you get religious whackos like Bush in charge who will only fund abstinence-only programmes)


----------



## jillian (May 26, 2009)

jsanders said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Killing another human that is not attempting to kill you, intentionally, is called murder.It doesn't matter if the victim is an old woman or a baby.
> ...



FWIW, I really objected to that for just the reason that anti-choicers would clutch onto it. 

SHE wasn't the one who made the choice to terminate though. He made a choice he had no right to make.


----------



## JBeukema (May 26, 2009)

TofuDog said:


> Plants aren't sentient beings




nor are cattle. Thanks for agreeing that your earlier trolling was moronic.




> Meat eaters have no business taking a stand against abortion,



Because people are cattle? Or because cows are people?

Are you really that stupid, or are you just trolling again?


----------



## Dr Grump (May 26, 2009)

jsanders said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Killing another human that is not attempting to kill you, intentionally, is called murder.It doesn't matter if the victim is an old woman or a baby.
> ...



Who made the choice? How far along the pregnancy was she? How many others have been committed for trial and found guilty of such a thing? Is it the norm?


----------



## Care4all (May 27, 2009)

jsanders said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Killing another human that is not attempting to kill you, intentionally, is called murder.It doesn't matter if the victim is an old woman or a baby.
> ...



The Lacy peterson or Connor Law was not in place when scott killed Connor...nothing was retroactive...

Scott was not charged with double murder....he was charged under California law for 1)murdering lacey and 2)killing her fetus which was not considered murder, though a crime....it was NOT double murder, as in 2 breathing, born, people killed.....only after the Peterson case, did the federal government add the Conner law....

care


----------



## strollingbones (May 27, 2009)

jsanders said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Killing another human that is not attempting to kill you, intentionally, is called murder.It doesn't matter if the victim is an old woman or a baby.
> ...



here the law is different...in nc....one murder....they have another charge but it is not murder


----------



## strollingbones (May 27, 2009)

jsanders said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Killing another human that is not attempting to kill you, intentionally, is called murder.It doesn't matter if the victim is an old woman or a baby.
> ...





again depends on the law of the state


----------



## Care4all (May 27, 2009)

scott peterson WAS NOT charged with double murder, to set the story straight....i repeat was not charged with double murder.


----------



## We Are They (May 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> > Plants aren't sentient beings
> ...



Cattle aren't sentient beings? LOL, didn't get out of high school, did you?

Meat eaters eat other species, their young and their fetuses.


----------



## JBeukema (May 27, 2009)

We Are They said:


> Cattle aren't sentient beings?


No, they're not. Only one other species is considered sentient by any number of respected scientists, and that is dolphins.



> Meat eaters eat other species



not always.



> their fetuses.



Rarely and mostly in france


----------



## We Are They (May 27, 2009)

1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient (wouldn't let me post the whole addy)

2. Meat eaters don't always eat other species? lol, you mean like cannibals? Plus, veal is cattle babies.

3. eggs.


----------



## Ravi (May 27, 2009)

*cough*

Fetuses aren't sentient beings either.


----------



## JBeukema (May 27, 2009)

We Are They said:


> 1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient (wouldn't let me post the whole addy)





> In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience entails the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Animal rights advocates argue that anything that can suffer is sentient and that anything sentient is deserving of rights.



All animals feel pain- even spiders. Only idiots think pain= sentience. 



> Adjective
> 
> * S: (adj) sentient, animate (endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness) "the living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage"- T.E.Lawrence
> * S: (adj) sentient (consciously perceiving) "sentient of the intolerable load"; "a boy so sentient of his surroundings"- W.A.White


Princeton university

Why do you think we have SETI looking for _another sentient species_?



> 2. Meat eaters don't always eat other species? lol, you mean like cannibals?



It happens



> Plus, veal is cattle babies.



and?



> 3. eggs.




I went over this before. Shit the fuck up with this bullshit. the eggs most people eat are not fertilized- just like the eggs girls bleed out every month.


----------



## manifold (May 27, 2009)

Ravi said:


> *cough*
> 
> Fetuses aren't sentient beings either.



Some would argue that they're not even alive.


----------



## We Are They (May 27, 2009)

JB, you must be a trekkie or something, sentient does means feeling pain, being aware of themselves and their surroundings, feel a bond with their young... it's not about science fiction you trekkie nerd. Anyways, they're looking for ANY life, not just sentient beings. And SETI is looking for intelligent life, not sentient life... you trekkie dressup fool.

fetuses aren't sentient beings, no they're not, agreed. But meat eaters eat babies of other species, and probably a lot of animals that were pregnant too, so it's hypocritical for them to argue against abortion.
As for the eggs, we're both half right on that, cuz if you didn't eat them, they could be fertilized.


----------



## We Are They (May 27, 2009)

JB, from you're other posts I would have thought that you were not a religious leaning person, boy was I wrong! You're just another one of THOSE people who think that everything that comes out of their ass or their mouth to be pure gold. Too bad to everyone else it still stinks like shit.

"We have enough people. Why should I care if you shoot someone?

Someone kill Tofu- relax, he won't mind. there are too many people anyway"  

Makes no fucking sense. Equating abortion with murdering an adult is infantile.

"then the abortion industry would lose money! "
You just argue any fucking side cuz you like to argue, like my dad. And yes, he's an asshole too.

"I look forward to your demonstration calling for bovine suffrage."
You're just another unscrupulous animal raper.

"Stupidity + appeal to tradition (fallacy) = your post" 
Are you projecting?


----------



## We Are They (May 27, 2009)

JB, from you're other posts I would have thought that you were not a religious leaning person, boy was I wrong! You're just another one of THOSE people who think that everything that comes out of their ass or their mouth to be pure gold. Too bad to everyone else it still stinks like shit.

"We have enough people. Why should I care if you shoot someone?

Someone kill Tofu- relax, he won't mind. there are too many people anyway" 

Makes no fucking sense. Equating abortion with murdering an adult is infantile.

"then the abortion industry would lose money! "
You just argue any fucking side cuz you like to argue, like my dad. And yes, he's an asshole too.

"I look forward to your demonstration calling for bovine suffrage."
You're just another unscrupulous animal raper.

"Stupidity + appeal to tradition (fallacy) = your post" 
Are you projecting?


----------



## We Are They (May 27, 2009)

Sorry, I think I got lost in my postings


----------



## manifold (May 27, 2009)

You know I love you Bones, but this thread is what's known in these parts as a fail.  It's gotta be one of the slowest moving abortion threads I've ever seen.  Heck, Amanda's cry me a river commandeering of Dis' how much of a punk were you thread is generating something like 5 times the volume.  So how you gonna fuck up a slam dunk like abortion anyway?


----------



## Care4all (May 27, 2009)

it is labeled a fetus from about 12 weeks through delivery....in the latter months of pregnancy, from 6 months on, the fetus is sentient or what i have thought of sentient, it is aware of its surroundings and it feels pain if cut or kicked or any of that....and it is viable outside of the womb with today's medicine and technology, from 6 months forward....we have one child on record that survived at 21 weeks gestation and after a long period in the hospital, went home with her mother.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2009)

Seraega said:


> God forbid we teach people that they can fix their mistakes.



God forbid we teach them not to make them in the first place.
God forbid we refer to children as "mistakes".
God forbid we negate the "choice" of those with money and power
God forbid we allow that those who don't look like us or have voices to defend themselves be allowed to be considered before we "fix our mistakes".


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> sanders all bc methods seem to fail...look at palin's kid...apparently absensice doest work either...so there has to be a plan b



Actually, abstinence does work, provided one practices it.

And plan b should always be taking responsibility for your "mistake". Not killing it.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2009)

Care4all said:


> scott peterson WAS NOT charged with double murder, to set the story straight....i repeat was not charged with double murder.



"REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - A judge on Wednesday sentenced Scott Peterson to die for the *murder of his wife and their unborn child, upholding a jury's recommendation and describing the murders *as "cruel, uncaring, heartless and callous." 

Note the use of the plural.

Scott Peterson sentenced to death - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

On Monday, Scott Lee Peterson, 32, was sentenced to death by lethal injection or lethal gas for *murdering his wife, Laci Denise Peterson, 27, and her eight-month-old foetus, named Conner. Charged separately for the murder of the foetus, he will get 15 years to life.*
Let him die | World news | The Guardian


----------



## JBeukema (May 27, 2009)

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > *cough*
> ...



Only stupid people who don't understand what 'processes define life.



We Are They said:


> JB, you must be a trekkie or something



A what?


fetuses aren't sentient beings, no they're not, agreed. But meat eaters eat babies of other species, and probably a lot of animals that were pregnant too[/quote]

What does an earlier pregnancy have to do with anything?


> so it's hypocritical for them to argue against abortion.



No, it's not. You're just stupid.



> As for the eggs, we're both half right on that, cuz if you didn't eat them, they could be fertilized.



So you have a new account? No, we're not and no, they can't unless human intervene. Fertilization occurs before the egg is laid.



We Are They said:


> JB, from you're other posts I would have thought that you were not a religious leaning person, boy was I wrong!



Once again you show how stupid you are. I have shown all the arguments to bew fallacious, and that is your retort? 



> .
> 
> "We have enough people. Why should I care if you shoot someone?
> 
> ...




It makes perfect sense. You said that it didn't matter if we killed someone because there are too many people. 



> "then the abortion industry would lose money! "
> You just argue any fucking side cuz you like to argue,


right... that's why I always argue the same line  


> "I look forward to your demonstration calling for bovine suffrage."
> You're just another unscrupulous animal raper.



So now saying that cows are not people makes me an 'animal raper'? Nice ad hom, I love how you fail to address the point I made. You fail again.





AllieBaba said:


> God forbid we teach them not to make them in the first place.
> God forbid we refer to children as "mistakes".
> God forbid we negate the "choice" of those with money and power
> God forbid we allow that those who don't look like us or have voices to defend themselves be allowed to be considered before we "fix our mistakes".



Mark the date and time! JB agrees with Allie on something


----------



## Care4all (May 27, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > scott peterson WAS NOT charged with double murder, to set the story straight....i repeat was not charged with double murder.
> ...



under California law, he was charged with Murder and for the killing of his unborn child.

but under California law, if lacey had not been killed also and he had just killed the fetus, he could not be charged with the murder of conner.

This is WHY our congress went bazerk over it and a whole issue of the Conner law, that congress passed, was crucial...

so, yes, i misspoke allie....but if lacey had not been killed also, then conner would not have been ''murdered'', was my understanding of the california laws in place at the time of his charge.


----------



## JBeukema (May 27, 2009)

> but under California law, if lacey had not been killed also and he had just killed the fetus, he could not be charged with the murder of conner.



That makes no sense


----------



## Care4all (May 27, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> > but under California law, if lacey had not been killed also and he had just killed the fetus, he could not be charged with the murder of conner.
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense



ok, here is where i say, "I don't understand it"....do a google and read the gobbledygook about the California laws on this....my head is spinning....maybe it has to do with giving him the dealth penalty and what they needed to do such....???

he was found guilty of second degree murder, feticide, for Conner and not first degree murder, yet lacy was first degree murder?  maybe you or someone else can explain it if you get in to researching it....i think it is above my head to understand it....


----------



## JBeukema (May 27, 2009)

I'm saying it makes no sense if he's punished differently for the child's death depending on whether the mother dies...


----------



## Ravi (May 28, 2009)

Care4all said:


> it is labeled a fetus from about 12 weeks through delivery....in the latter months of pregnancy, from 6 months on, the fetus is sentient or what i have thought of sentient, it is aware of its surroundings and it feels pain if cut or kicked or any of that....and it is viable outside of the womb with today's medicine and technology, from 6 months forward....we have one child on record that survived at 21 weeks gestation and after a long period in the hospital, went home with her mother.


That's interesting. What I think of as _sentient_ is _aware_: 2*:* having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge. Some bozo claimed it was okay to eat cows because they aren't sentient...though of course they are to a degree. I don't think you could say a fetus shows realization, perception, or knowledge.


----------



## Neser Boha (May 28, 2009)

Wow... you guys are still at it, huh... 

It's pretty darn obvious by now that some of you have made up your minds and are never going to change it... 

As a side note...

It's just kinda funny that those that seem to be most passionate against abortion are repubs/conservatives who so hate a big government that tells them what the fuck to do...  It's you who should be clamoring for women's right to choose what the hell to do with her body.  No, instead you'll be siding with the  _unborn baby_ */tearful trembling voice* ... How about this - first we take care of those that are already alive and out of a womb and then we worry about such things as zygotes, fetuses, eggs, and sperms?

What else is funny - men claiming that they have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies.  When you have a uterus and the rest that goes with it, then you can open your pie-hole on the matter.  Go fuck yourselves.


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

"Some bozo claimed it was okay to eat cows because they aren't sentient"
Guess who? JB of course.

I won't even argue with you JB, you make no fucking sense at all, then you claim you win the argument, nice try. Now go put on your chewbakka outfit so you can go get your burger king star trek mug and a double whopper.


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > it is labeled a fetus from about 12 weeks through delivery....in the latter months of pregnancy, from 6 months on, the fetus is sentient or what i have thought of sentient, it is aware of its surroundings and it feels pain if cut or kicked or any of that....and it is viable outside of the womb with today's medicine and technology, from 6 months forward....we have one child on record that survived at 21 weeks gestation and after a long period in the hospital, went home with her mother.
> ...



i am not an expert, (nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn), nor am i someone who thinks animals are EQUAL to humans and i never will.....not because of the Bible, but because the evidence surrounds us, that WE ARE NOT the same.

if i ever had a child, my child would never, ever have the same worth as a cow....or a calf, or an American bald eagle or a pig or a dog or a cat though I love my cat as if she were part of our family.

Babies in their latter months, hear and feel....there is even proof that a newborn can recognize both mother and father's voices verses the voice of a stranger, with a reaction....showing that they hear in the womb.  

The development of the brain is complete in the latter months of pregnancy and medical science shows that they REACT to pain due to the brain reacting to pain, equal to a newborn reacting to pain....they can NOT REACT to pain, if their brain was not developed to do such....which is the case with the first 2 trimesters....no pain....because the part of the brain that makes them aware of pain is not developed yet. (sorry to be so repetitive)

To me, this is sentient....it still may or may not be viable and die if delivered prematurely, but the fetus at this stage is no different than a newborn and feels....they are aware of themselves and react to outside pressures and interferences....medical science shows such and has proven such.

the reason why fetuses die, if delivered early in the last trimester is because their LUNGS are not completely developed to the level of a newborn's and we had been unable to deliver medicines to them to keep them alive until the lungs developed completely, primarily due to the overly large needles we had, but this changed a decade or so ago, where technology improved and needles were developed so tiny tiny tiny that we can administer to premature babies the drugs and food they need directly in to their tiny tiny tiny veins, is what I have read.

the late trimester brain in a fetus is equal to the brain of a newborn....no different.

If a fetus in the latter months is NOT sentient as some think, then a newborn baby is NOT sentient either, and we do not go and "off" the newborn if we feel like it.

care


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

Care, you should try to respect ALL of god's creatures, not just some of them.


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> Care, you should try to respect ALL of god's creatures, not just some of them.



I do respect Animals, but I have a God given brain that recognizes that we, are different than all other animals.

Animals are totally disrespected as many animal rights people claim, especially the inhumane way that we slaughter them....the exact opposite of how the Bible tells us to kill them for our food, which is with respect.....Kosher and the midrash.


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

Care4all said:


> We Are They said:
> 
> 
> > Care, you should try to respect ALL of god's creatures, not just some of them.
> ...



Kosher!!! LOL, they cut the animals throat and hang it on a hook to drain all the blood, some respect. You respect animals but you eat them?


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > We Are They said:
> ...



yes, with respect....verses the slaughter house method.

Animals have NOTHING to do with this thread though and is just something to sidetrack the discussion we were having on abortion.


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

Ok, I guess in your fantasy world cutting an animal's throat and hanging it on a hook to bleed to death is total respect. Me thinks you need to buy a dictionary.


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> Ok, I guess in your fantasy world cutting an animal's throat and hanging it on a hook to bleed to death is total respect. Me thinks you need to buy a dictionary.


Are you a vegetarian WeAreThey?


----------



## JBeukema (May 28, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> It's just kinda funny that those that seem to be most passionate against abortion are repubs/conservatives who so hate a big government that tells them what the fuck to do...  It's you who should be clamoring for women's right to choose what the hell to do with her body.



We're not talking about her body, you idiot. Now, go back to sniffing your armpits and thinking you can dance.




We Are They said:


> .r chewbakka.



Are you making up words again?



We Are They said:


> Care, you should try to respect ALL of god's creatures, not just some of them.



What to fairy tales have to do with anything?



Care4all said:


> Animals are totally disrespected as many animal rights people claim, especially the inhumane way that we slaughter them....the exact opposite of how the Bible tells us to kill them for our food, which is with respect.....Kosher.


t....verses the slaughter house method.

Animals have NOTHING to do with this thread though and is just something to sidetrack the discussion we were having on abortion.[/QUOTE]

Slaughter house is more humane. At least the captive bolt knocks them out so they don't feel any more pain afterward- or at least minimizes it.


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2009)

info on fetal development from Wikipedia:



> 26 to 38 weeks after fertilization
> Artist's depiction of fetus at 38 weeks after fertilization, about 20 inches (51 cm) head to toe.
> 
> The amount of body fat rapidly increases. Lungs are not fully mature. *Thalamic brain connections, which mediate sensory input, form*. Bones are fully developed, but are still soft and pliable. Iron, calcium, and phosphorus become more abundant. Fingernails reach the end of the fingertips. The lanugo begins to disappear, until it is gone except on the upper arms and shoulders. Small breast buds are present on both sexes. Head hair becomes coarse and thicker. Birth is imminent and occurs around the 38th week. The fetus is considered full-term between weeks 35 and 40,[32] which means that the fetus is considered sufficiently developed for life outside the uterus.[33] It may be 48 to 53 cm (19 to 21 inches) in length, when born. Control of movement is limited at birth, and purposeful voluntary movements develop all the way until puberty.[34][35]



on viability:



> The lower limit of viability is approximately five months gestational age, and usually later.[38] According to The Developing Human:
> Human fetus, age unknown
> 
> Viability is defined as the ability of fetuses to survive in the extrauterine environment... There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable or beyond which survival is assured, but experience has shown that it is rare for a baby to survive whose weight is less than 500 gm or whose fertilization age is less than 22 weeks. Even fetuses born between 26 and 28 weeks have difficulty surviving, mainly because the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated... If given expert postnatal care, some fetuses weighing less than 500 gm may survive; they are referred to as extremely low birth weight or immature infants.... Prematurity is one of the most common causes of morbidity and perinatal death.[39]
> ...


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

JB, you made 4 comments and none of them make any sense? Especially "Slaughter house is more humane". Using the word humane in the same sentence as slaughterhouse shows that you'll spout anything at all just to see yourself in print so you can pretend that you're right again. 
You're possibly a glue sniffer as well.


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> Ok, I guess in your fantasy world cutting an animal's throat and hanging it on a hook to bleed to death is total respect. Me thinks you need to buy a dictionary.



For your information on Midrash and Kosher:
Jewish Environmental Ethic


> Animal Rights and General Respect for Nature
> 
> 
> Respecting nature is a part of Judaism. Jewish commentator Jonathan Helfand wrote that although "the God of Genesis told man to subdue and master the earth in both content and spirit the Jewish tradition negates the arrogant proposal that the earth is man's unqualified dominion . As part of the divine plan of creation himself, man has the obligation to respect his inanimate and animate counterparts in the world" (1986, 39,45).
> ...


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

You call that respect? Geez, anything goes, I guess. 
All religions are violent and have little or no respect for anyone but their own kind. And animals only rate some lip service like you quote.


----------



## JBeukema (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> JB, you made 4 comments and none of them make any sense?



You're asking me a question? You really are confused, aren't you?


> Especially "Slaughter house is more humane". Using the word humane in the same sentence as slaughterhouse shows that you'll spout anything at all just to see yourself in print so you can pretend that you're right again.



Actually, mr troll, I demonstrated that modern slaughterhouses that use a captive bolt are more humane that simply cutting the animal's throat while it's full able to feel pain. Either refute the facts or stfu.


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> You call that respect? Geez, anything goes, I guess.
> All religions are violent and have little or no respect for anyone but their own kind. And animals only rate some lip service like you quote.



I've catered to you enough....PLEASE start your own thread, regarding the treatment of animals and stop trying to hijack this abortion thread.

thank you in advance.

Care


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

JB, the only thing you "demonstrated" is that you're a jackass who thinks that a bolt gun is humane. LOL.
Keep up the funny posts please, it's amusing.
JB, I noticed that your whinny post got put where it belongs... in the lame zone. LOL.

Care, Judaism is a religion that treats women as second class citizens. Have fun with that.

Yes, I am a vegetarian.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Seraega said:
> 
> 
> > God forbid we teach people that they can fix their mistakes.
> ...



And God forbid that people like Seraega consider how much trouble THEY are in if we start considering killing those who annoy and inconvenience us to be "fixing the mistake".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> You call that respect? Geez, anything goes, I guess.
> All religions are violent and have little or no respect for anyone but their own kind. And animals only rate some lip service like you quote.



All religions are violent?  Oh, yeah, because you can hardly open a newspaper without reading about some Amish guy on a killing spree.  And we all know what murderous nutcakes those Buddhist monks are.

Bigot.


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

Amish abuse children by keeping them ignorant. Forced marriages?

As for buddhism: "Now Buddhism becomes a religion of violence"
Now Buddhism becomes a religion of violence

Any others?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> JB, you made 4 comments and none of them make any sense? Especially "Slaughter house is more humane". Using the word humane in the same sentence as slaughterhouse shows that you'll spout anything at all just to see yourself in print so you can pretend that you're right again.
> You're possibly a glue sniffer as well.



Do they dismember animals prior to death in the slaughterhouse? Do they use big needles to puncture their brains, then scramble them around?

Do they soak them in salt solution until their skin peels off and they eventually die?

I vote the slaughterhouse is more humane. It is also telling you care more about the animals in a slaughterhouse than you do for children who are dependent upon the women who are harboring them, and therefore completely vulnerable.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> Amish abuse children by keeping them ignorant. Forced marriages?
> 
> As for buddhism: "Now Buddhism becomes a religion of violence"
> Now Buddhism becomes a religion of violence
> ...



Ignorance isn't abuse, nutcase. I recommend you try working at child welfare for a bit and see what real child abuse is. Then come back and preach how any philosophy that does not jibe with your own twisted view of the world is "child abuse".

Fruitcake.


----------



## Neser Boha (May 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Ignorance isn't abuse, nutcase. *I recommend you try working at child welfare for a bit and see what real child abuse is. Then come back and preach how any philosophy that does not jibe with your own twisted view of the world is "child abuse".
> *
> Fruitcake.



Yet another argument *against* making abortion illegal.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 28, 2009)

It shouldn't have been legal in the first place. Judges aren't supposed to make laws, that was never part of their job description. In a democracy the people make the laws, and elected officials. NOT appointed judges with agendas, who bypass the will of the people to put into effect their own pet projects.

Murder is never right, and it should never be legal. Abortion is murder. It has nothing to do with my ideas of how children should be brought up, what religion they should be taught, or anything else. It's murder and therefore unacceptable in any form.

You will never see me arguing that the state should support any religion or philosophy. Likewise, you will never see me support the state in creating bogus laws which make murder legal.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 28, 2009)

It's a monumental mistake for any country to give the government control over who lives and who dies, btw..just as it's a monumental mistake for any country to allow the government to take control of health care, reproduction, and commerce.


----------



## manifold (May 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> just as it's a monumental mistake for any country to allow the government to take control of... reproduction...



contradict yourself much?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 28, 2009)

Never. Think China, genius.


----------



## manifold (May 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Never. Think China, genius.



Are you really too stupid to realize your statement that I quoted contradicts your postion on abortion?

Oh wait, nevermind.  Of course you are.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 28, 2009)

Are you really too stupid to understand the difference between murder and reproduction?

Murder is the gov't saying it approves of killing children as a method of reproduction control. That's the government getting involved in reproduction.

Do we need to dumb it down some more for you?


----------



## HUGGY (May 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> It's a monumental mistake for any country to give the government control over who lives and who dies, btw..just as it's a monumental mistake for any country to allow the government to take control of health care, reproduction, and commerce.



So should we abolish the fire departments?.. Or just the parts not associated with purely extinguishing fires.  As in leaving the burn victims just laying there.  

No more medic one?  Let the ambulance drivers just figure it out when they get to grannies house and she is lying on the floor.

If she isn't conscious then NO CAN DO...If there is no way to verify if she has insurance then she is SOL.  Sorry granny this just isn't going to be your lucky day.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 28, 2009)

What the hell are you talking about?

Oh wait, it's Huggy. You're just blathering nonsense again.


----------



## manifold (May 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> Oh wait, it's Huggy. You're just blathering nonsense again.



Oh the irony!


----------



## JBeukema (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> JB, the only thing you "demonstrated" is that you're a jackass who thinks that a bolt gun is humane. LOL.




I never said captive bolts are humane- I said their use is _more humane_ than slitting an animals throat without it. Kinda like how a bullet to the skull is more humane than being burned alive.




> Care, Judaism is a religion that treats women as second class citizens. Have fun with that.



So is christianity, or have the writings of Paul the Homosexual been stricken from the library?



> rYes, I am a vegetarian


Are you a vegan, or do you support keeping animals in captivity in tiny cages for your convenience? Do you only eat organic foods, or do you not care how many animals suffer and die because of pesticides? Is your laptop powered by the sun and made of biodegradable materials, or can Earth and all the animals- and China, where a lot of it gets dumped, go fuck themselves? 



Cecilie1200 said:


> And God forbid that people like Seraega consider how much trouble THEY are in if we start considering killing those who annoy and inconvenience us to be "fixing the mistake".



ZING!



AllieBaba said:


> Do they dismember animals prior to death in the slaughterhouse? Do they use big needles to puncture their brains, then scramble them around?
> 
> Do they soak them in salt solution until their skin peels off and they eventually die?
> 
> I vote the slaughterhouse is more humane. It is also telling you care more about the animals in a slaughterhouse than you do for children who are dependent upon the women who are harboring them, and therefore completely vulnerable.



Holy crap- Allie actually making sense... this must be a sign of the end times...



Neser Boha said:


> Yet another argument *against* making abortion illegal.



Actually, it's an argument for forced sterilization and not only Positive-, but Negative Eugenics.



AllieBaba said:


> It shouldn't have been legal in the first place. Judges aren't supposed to make laws, that was never part of their job description.



Common law has always been recognized, as has legal precedent. Your statement is not accurate.



> In a democracy the people make the laws, and elected officials. NOT appointed judges with agendas, who bypass the will of the people to put into effect their own pet projects.



Lower courts can determine whether they believe a law is applicable




manifold said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Never. Think China, genius.
> ...



Quotemining is an act of desperation. for some reason, your posts are far less interesting with the new avatar...


----------



## Neser Boha (May 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> *It's a monumental mistake for any country to give the government control over who lives and who dies,* btw..just as it's a monumental mistake for any country to allow the government to take control of health care, reproduction, and commerce.



Yet another great argument why abortion SHOULD NOT be illegal. 

Allie, are you sure you're in the right camp?


----------



## Neser Boha (May 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Murder is the gov't saying it approves of killing children as a method of reproduction control. That's the government getting involved in reproduction.



Sweetie, I hate to break it to you, but government would be getting involved in reproduction if it made abortion illegal, not the other way around.  By not criminalizing abortion, the government* gives individuals the right *to decide what to do with their bodies.

Get you facts straight, otherwise you're just embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Tinktink (May 28, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> It shouldn't have been legal in the first place. Judges aren't supposed to make laws, that was never part of their job description. In a democracy the people make the laws, and elected officials. NOT appointed judges with agendas, who bypass the will of the people to put into effect their own pet projects.
> 
> Murder is never right, and it should never be legal. Abortion is murder. It has nothing to do with my ideas of how children should be brought up, what religion they should be taught, or anything else. It's murder and therefore unacceptable in any form.
> 
> You will never see me arguing that the state should support any religion or philosophy. Likewise, you will never see me support the state in creating bogus laws which make murder legal.



In order to call abortion murder you have to Prove with absolutely no doubt when life begins.   So far no one has been able to do that.   Some believe it happens at conception, others believe it happens upon first breath.    So calling it murder is just fear tactics to install guilt, cause outrage and bully women into doing what you want them to.


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

"I never said captive bolts are humane- I said their use is more humane than slitting an animals throat without it. Kinda like how a bullet to the skull is more humane than being burned alive." 
so slitting an animals throat is simply less humane? Ain't NOTHING humane about any of that you fool.

"So is christianity, or have the writings of Paul the Homosexual been stricken from the library?"
That statement has ZERO to do with what I said and why. It barely even makes any sense.

"Are you a vegan, or do you support keeping animals in captivity in tiny cages for your convenience? Do you only eat organic foods, or do you not care how many animals suffer and die because of pesticides? Is your laptop powered by the sun and made of biodegradable materials, or can Earth and all the animals- and China, where a lot of it gets dumped, go fuck themselves? "
I don't eat any animal products, they're just too unhealthy compared to the alternatives. I eat as much organic as possible, not everything can be found organic, but probably still more than your whole family put together and multiplied by 10.
What does a laptop (which, btw, I don't have) have to do with vegetarianism or animals. And China doesn't care about itself, why the fuck should I?

JB, you a funny guy.


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

Anti-abortionists just want to force their morals onto everyone else as a way of validating them. They're also against a free united states, where people are free to decide for themselves. It's moral communism.


----------



## JBeukema (May 28, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > *It's a monumental mistake for any country to give the government control over who lives and who dies,* btw..just as it's a monumental mistake for any country to allow the government to take control of health care, reproduction, and commerce.
> ...



-or murder or manslaughter



Neser Boha said:


> Sweetie, I hate to break it to you, but government would be getting involved in reproduction if it made abortion illegal, not the other way around.  By not criminalizing abortion, the government* gives individuals the right *to decide what to do with their bodies.



first reason you're a dumbass: it is not your body. It is another organism dependent upon the mother in a parasitic relationship. These libertine talking points of your have been torn asunder repeatedly


second reason you're a dumbass: Where is my right to end your life for my convenience? Hypocrite. Can I kill my kid any time I decide I want to get back to clubbin'?

Get you facts straight, otherwise you're just embarrassing yourself.[/QUOTE]



Tinktink said:


> In order to call abortion murder you have to Prove with absolutely no doubt when life begins.   So far no one has been able to do that.   Some believe it happens at conception, others believe it happens upon first breath.    So calling it murder is just fear tactics to install guilt, cause outrage and bully women into doing what you want them to.





We Are They said:


> You heard it here, folks! A chicken egg is wothy of more respect and protection than the yellow man!
> 
> And learn how to use the quote feature before you post any more of your drivel


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

"first reason you're a dumbass: it is not your body. It is another organism dependent upon the mother in a parasitic relationship. These libertine talking points of your have been torn asunder repeatedly"
So in other words, women should be forced to carry a parasite around even if they don't want to? LOL, good one.


"second reason you're a dumbass: Where is my right to end your life for my convenience? Hypocrite. Can I kill my kid any time I decide I want to get back to clubbin'?"
wtf does this have to do if abortion and the point she was making?

That's all you got to respond on all the dumb shit you posted? It's a big deal I don't give a shit about about china cuzI said they would have to care first? Gee, you sooooo won that debate.

And learn how to use the quote function? You first LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## JBeukema (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> So in other words, women should be forced to carry a parasite around even if they don't want to? LOL, good one.



All of humanity is a parasite. There is no truer parasite species than humanity. Don't like it? Kill yourself and help save the planet


> And learn how to use the quote function? You first LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL



See this post. This is how you use the quote button. Try it sometime.


----------



## Neser Boha (May 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> first reason you're a dumbass: it is not your body. It is another organism dependent upon the mother in a parasitic relationship. These libertine talking points of your have been torn asunder repeatedly
> 
> 
> second reason you're a dumbass: Where is my right to end your life for my convenience? Hypocrite. Can I kill my kid any time I decide I want to get back to clubbin'?
> ...



So, are you claiming that once a sperm has connected with an egg inside of a woman's body - the body is no longer hers and she therefore has no autonomy and no control over it?  Does that mean that from that point on - everytime she smokes a cigarette or sips on a martini, she should be charged with a crime of some sort (serving alcohol to a minor, poisoning another person, etc...)?  Should she be under 24 hour surveillance just to make sure she doesn't commit a crime against the growing mass of cells in her uterus?  

I'm not saying it's RIGHT for a woman to drink/smoke during pregnancy, but she can and has the right to do so if she wishes to...

Honestly, think about it... 

In my eyes, that devalues a woman's life and freedom... and makes her in a sense inferior to a man... I think a woman has the ULTIMATE say in whether or not she just wants to spend 9 months of her reduced into an incubator on legs.  I think a woman should have the total and ultimate control over her reproduction and the state or anyone else's lifestyle-choice or opinion should have exactly ZERO influence on that...

The government doesn't have the right to dictate women what to do with their bodies - nor do men or other women.  Democracy doesn't apply to reproduction.  Certain behavior government cannot control and reproduction is one of those behaviors.

Just as a government CAN'T force a woman to have an abortion, it can't force her not to have it.

Even if you succeed in making abortion illegal - it will still be happening.  How will you punish the crime of abortion?  Will you lock a woman up for aborting an unwanted fetus?


----------



## JBeukema (May 28, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> So, are you claiming that once a sperm has connected with an egg inside of a woman's body - the body is no longer hers and she therefore has no autonomy and no control over it?



You're saying that an separate lifeform with a unique genetic code that is not a part of a woman's physical body.. is her body?



> In my eyes, that devalues a woman's life and freedom...



What devalues life is to end it so you can go back to the club and try to nail that hot guy without worryng about taking care of your child or finding an adoptive parent.


> and makes her in a sense inferior to a man...



 All those baby girls that you kill- how much do they matter?



> I think a woman has the ULTIMATE say in whether or not she just wants to spend 9 months of her reduced into an incubator on legs.



right... and I have the final say on whether to pay for your ass for 18 years if I'm your parent, right? So, dumpster babies and beaten children have no rights?


> I think a woman should have the total and ultimate control over her reproduction



She had options and chose not to be smart




> The government doesn't have the right to dictate women what to do with their bodies



Science has spoken- it is not your body, it is another living human. Reapeating your lies will not make them true


> Just as a government CAN'T force a woman to have an abortion, it can't force her not to have it.



You can't force me from killing anyone I please if they're an inconvenience? A lot of libertines are in trouble 



> Even if you succeed in making abortion illegal - it will still be happening



So, your argument is
making X illegal doesn't stop it, so no law should be passed regarding X

-yet you want anti-rape laws, anti-theft laws, anti-arson laws... You cannot use anarchist arguments to support anything but anachy



> How will you punish the crime of abortion?



How do we punish most killers?


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

JB, sorry but I couldn't find even one of your replies to me or Nesser that even made any sense. How old are you? you sound like your 13 or 14.
But I'll say one thing for you, you're a good argument for the pro-abortionists.


----------



## Jon (May 28, 2009)

jillian said:


> SHE wasn't the one who made the choice to terminate though. He made a choice he had no right to make.



Oh, right, I forgot. It's not that the act of killing an unborn child is illegal, so long as the mother is the one making the decision. Fuck the father's opinion. Women don't want equality, they want superiority. If a woman does not want a child, she can abort and wash her hands of the issue. If a man does not want a child, he can still be forced by law to pay child support. The hypocrisy is overwhelming.



			
				Neser Boha said:
			
		

> What else is funny - men claiming that they have any right to tell women what to do with their bodies. When you have a uterus and the rest that goes with it, then you can open your pie-hole on the matter. Go fuck yourselves.



Sorry, but men also are one half of the equation in creating life. Therefore, we should have one half of the say in the matter. You and the rest of your feminazi, gaping-hole vagina brigade can fuck yourselves.


----------



## Neser Boha (May 28, 2009)

jsanders said:


> You and the rest of your feminazi, gaping-hole vagina brigade can fuck yourselves.



You wish.


----------



## Jon (May 28, 2009)

It's no surprise that you can't actually respond to the comments against your bullshit feminist arguments.


----------



## We Are They (May 28, 2009)

jsand, you actually think that men should be able to tell a woman that she can't have an abortion? I bet you wear a loincloth and live in a cave and would like to drag a woman around by her hair (and a woman who's not your mother).
Now go back to eating your big macs.


----------



## Jon (May 28, 2009)

No, I think that people (not just women) should be taught responsibility. One part of responsibility is practicing safe sex. It is irresponsible to have unsafe sex. It leads to more than unwanted pregnancy. But allowing abortions sends the message that unsafe sex is fine because society allows you to wash your hands of any "mistakes." It's the wrong message. We're giving kids the motivation to engage in sex earlier and with fewer precautions. We're allowing the spread of disease and opening the door to more self-esteem issues on a group of young adults that already have more pressures than any of us ever faced.

As was mentioned: abstinence works, if you practice it. Other forms of birth control are more than 90% effective; again, if you use them. The less than 10% risk you take on by engaging in sexual activity is just that: a risk. Don't want to take the risk? Practice abstinence. Want to take the risk? Prepare for the consequences. That's why it's called a risk. Now there is no risk. If people aren't going to take responsibility in something as important as this, why should we trust them to be responsible in any other aspects of their lives?


----------



## JBeukema (May 28, 2009)

We Are They said:


> JB, sorry but I couldn't find even one of your replies to me or Nesser that even made any sense. How old are you? you sound like your 13 or 14.
> But I'll say one thing for you, you're a good argument for the pro-abortionists.





We Are They said:


> jsand, you actually think that men should be able to tell a woman that she can't have an abortion? I bet you wear a loincloth and live in a cave and would like to drag a woman around by her hair (and a woman who's not your mother).
> Now go back to eating your big macs.



Your pathetic dependence on ad homs and personal attacks merely highlights the fact that you can refute any of the points made. And for the record, I know a few women who don't mind having their hair pulled


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2009)

jsanders said:


> No, I think that people (not just women) should be taught responsibility. One part of responsibility is practicing safe sex. It is irresponsible to have unsafe sex. It leads to more than unwanted pregnancy. But allowing abortions sends the message that unsafe sex is fine because society allows you to wash your hands of any "mistakes." It's the wrong message. We're giving kids the motivation to engage in sex earlier and with fewer precautions. *We're allowing the spread of disease and opening the door to more self-esteem issues on a group of young adults that already have more pressures than any of us ever faced.*
> As was mentioned: abstinence works, if you practice it. Other forms of birth control are more than 90% effective; again, if you use them. The less than 10% risk you take on by engaging in sexual activity is just that: a risk. Don't want to take the risk? Practice abstinence. Want to take the risk? Prepare for the consequences. That's why it's called a risk. Now there is no risk. If people aren't going to take responsibility in something as important as this, why should we trust them to be responsible in any other aspects of their lives?



there is no birthcontrol that women can take or use that prevents disease, so i guess the final answer is that MEN should ALWAYS use a rubber, this boils down to men using protection, not women taking a pill, no?

so, if people are not going to be abstinent then the MAN must use a rubber.  the woman can use bc too for her own security as well, but the man must always use a rubber so not to pass disease...


----------



## Jon (May 28, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> > No, I think that people (not just women) should be taught responsibility. One part of responsibility is practicing safe sex. It is irresponsible to have unsafe sex. It leads to more than unwanted pregnancy. But allowing abortions sends the message that unsafe sex is fine because society allows you to wash your hands of any "mistakes." It's the wrong message. We're giving kids the motivation to engage in sex earlier and with fewer precautions. *We're allowing the spread of disease and opening the door to more self-esteem issues on a group of young adults that already have more pressures than any of us ever faced.*
> ...



I see, so it's ONLY the man's responsibility? Is it so hard for women to check to make sure their partner is wearing a condom? Are diaphragm's not a legitimate choice? I wouldn't want women to take action or anything, until, of course, it's too late. Let's not forget how fast they rush to the abortion clinic.

I never thought you would be such a sexist bitch, Care. But, alas, I was wrong. You blame men for all the problems, and you want women to take responsibility for none of them. It's laughable, the frailty of women like you.


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jsanders said:
> ...



duh jsanders, 

LOOK at what I put in BOLD of YOUR statement, that I was answering my post to.....IT WAS YOU that mentioned the spread of disease.... and THE ONLY WAY to stop such is for the MAN to always use a rubber....do you know of any birth control method that women can use to stop the spread of disease AS YOU MENTIONED.

no problems with you thinking I am a bitch....you've always thought such and have treated me in that manner since the election of Obama....even though I didn't even vote for him, but that's life I suppose, there will always be assholes like you around that think that MEN'S shit don't stink.

I am not clueless Jsanders.

care


----------



## Jon (May 28, 2009)

And again, Care, why is it the MAN'S responsibility? It takes 2 seconds to check to see if your partner is wearing protection. If women stopped relying on men, and men stopped relying on women, we wouldn't run into these problems as much.



> do you know of any birth control method that women can use to stop the spread of disease AS YOU MENTIONED.



Yes, abstinence. But I understand that some people just can't keep their legs closed or their dicks in their pants. The least they can do is make sure they are using protection, but I guess that's asking too much, in your opinion.


----------



## JBeukema (May 28, 2009)

Care4all said:


> LOOK at what I put in BOLD of YOUR statement, that I was answering my post to.....IT WAS YOU that mentioned the spread of disease.... and THE ONLY WAY to stop such is for the MAN to always use a rubber...




Condoms can't stop hpv or certain other diseases, which can be spread by skin contact around the pubic region.


----------



## Gunny (May 28, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> > No, I think that people (not just women) should be taught responsibility. One part of responsibility is practicing safe sex. It is irresponsible to have unsafe sex. It leads to more than unwanted pregnancy. But allowing abortions sends the message that unsafe sex is fine because society allows you to wash your hands of any "mistakes." It's the wrong message. We're giving kids the motivation to engage in sex earlier and with fewer precautions. *We're allowing the spread of disease and opening the door to more self-esteem issues on a group of young adults that already have more pressures than any of us ever faced.*
> ...



I disagree.  It might boil down to the man wearing the condom, but the responsibility to ensure he has it on is a shared one.  The woman is the one that will suffer from the end result if the man does not wear it either through getting pregnant or contracting an STD.

Isn't this supposed to be all about "choice"?  The woman has the choice of behaving responsibly or not and since the end result happens to HER, I think the onus is more on her to protect her own body than it is the man.

Granted, ideally, the man would be as concerned, but that's assuming a loving relationship.  Most younger guys will not act responsibly in a casual sexual encounter.  And again, when he disappears out the door forever, the woman is stuck.

If positions were reversed and the man could get pregnant, I'd say the onus was on him for the ultimate responsibility for his own body.  And, men should behave responsibly about some woman giving him an STD.  That's not a one way street.


----------



## Gunny (May 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > LOOK at what I put in BOLD of YOUR statement, that I was answering my post to.....IT WAS YOU that mentioned the spread of disease.... and THE ONLY WAY to stop such is for the MAN to always use a rubber...
> ...



Agreed.  I mean face it, the only foolproof method is abstinence.  Not a very reality-based one though.  

I think hitting the shower and using antibacterial soap immediately after sex is recommended nowadays.  Still not foolproof, but better than nothing.


----------



## JBeukema (May 28, 2009)

Well, Gunny, if someone's not an idiot and actually uses their brain when thinking about whom to sleep with, it sure does help- agreed?


----------



## Gunny (May 28, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Well, Gunny, if someone's not an idiot and actually uses their brain when thinking about whom to sleep with, it sure does help- agreed?



Agreed.  I'm just going out on that limb and saying that works.  Especially when drugs and/or alcohol become involved along with youthful hormones.  Good judgment would be the preferred option.

I know when they first isolated herpes it was bad enough.  Then they came up with HIV and I didn't even want to look at women for fear of catching something.  I just can't imagine being willing to sacrifice my life for sex.  While it's close to the top of the list, it ain't THAT good.


----------



## Care4all (May 28, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jsanders said:
> ...



I think if men are going to bitch about women getting pregnant and having abortions as they do on this board all the time, then these men should put up or shut up....use a condom, all the time...or you all have no room to talk the big talk about what WOMEN should do.....sorry, but it gets a little anoying when all these men complain about this and never seem to think that THEY are even part of the problem.

care


----------



## Jon (May 28, 2009)

Care4all said:


> I think if men are going to bitch about women getting pregnant and having abortions as they do on this board all the time, then these men should put up or shut up....use a condom, all the time...or you all have no room to talk the big talk about what WOMEN should do.....sorry, but it gets a little anoying when all these men complain about this and never seem to think that THEY are even part of the problem.
> 
> care



Typical. Again, blaming MEN. It's all MEN'S fault if women get pregnant or STD's. At least, that seems to be your opinion. But if a MAN gets a woman pregnant and wants to keep the baby, the women can abort with the man's approval. If the woman wants to keep the child and the man doesn't, she can force him to pay child support.

It's the typical "victim" mentality that women have played forever. If you want equality, act fucking equal. Take responsibility and stop shifting blame and expecting men to fix all your problems for you.

Ironically, your little speech was the exact opposite of what Gunny said. He said that responsibility is a TWO WAY STREET. Men and women are EQUALLY responsible for ensuring that sex is done responsibly. If a man doesn't wear a condom, it's just as much the girl's fault as it is his. Like I've said, it's not that hard for a woman to check.


----------



## Gunny (May 28, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



If you read my post, I obviously DO think the man is part of the problem.  He's the part of the problem that doesn't get pregnant.  He also has NO rights nor say in what happens to that child.  Only the woman does.  He either pays for an abortion, or he pays for the rest of his life, or at least to age 18.   

The woman is the one that has to make the ultimate decision and while I am aware there are exceptions, I can't imagine it's an easy decision to have to make.  And you are advocating that your average horndog man should be the one responsible for making sure he has a condom?

Her body.  She suffers the consequences.  She has the ultimate say in whether or not to have an abortion.  She should be equally ultimately responsible for ensuring to the best of her ability that unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen.  Again, it isn't going to happen to him.

In a perfect world, yes, both are equally responsible.  This isn't a perfect world.


----------



## Dis (May 28, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > I think if men are going to bitch about women getting pregnant and having abortions as they do on this board all the time, then these men should put up or shut up....use a condom, all the time...or you all have no room to talk the big talk about what WOMEN should do.....sorry, but it gets a little anoying when all these men complain about this and never seem to think that THEY are even part of the problem.
> ...



In theory it's an equal responsibility if you're only discussing STD's.

In reality, when it comes right down to it, total responsibility for the womans body is hers.   She's the one that gets pregnant. She's the one that carries the baby.  She's the one that gives birth.  If she doesn't want to do any of those things, she'd damned well better make sure she's got all her bases covered.


----------



## Gunny (May 28, 2009)

Dis said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I agree, but I will caveat it with the fact that I DO agree with care as far as those guys who are NOT responsible.  No whining.  We all KNOW the deal.  Get a woman pregnant and you have no say in whether or not she keeps the baby and you better plan on paying for whichever decision she chooses.  

So, while the man can't get pregnant, he's going to suffer one way or the other as a result of irresponsible behavior.

And I think knowingly passing on an STD by not informing the other person calls for castration or sewing up the hole.  That's just wrong.  In all seriousness, there should be some time in the slam to go with that.


----------



## Care4all (May 29, 2009)

I realize times are different now, but in the "old" days, when a guy got a girl pregnant, he knew he would have to marry her...  in fact, most married couples having a child within the first year of marriage, had their child within the first 7 months of marriage, in the fifties, I had read.  So, it isn't like these men and women of the fifties were not having sex themselves....before marriage?

But it does seem to me, that men WERE more responsible back then when it came to their children or children to be and this was because it was FROWNED upon by society to get your girl  or any girl pregnant and walk.

Now, we have near 45% of all children born in America today, born to single mothers...I can't imagine what the statistic would be if all of the women aborting cuz the man walked, decided to go through the pregnancy let alone ALL single women that aborted regardless of their situation being added to the statistic as well...we would probably be as high as 70% of all children born in the united states, are born to single women.  Back in the 50's it was about 10% being born to single mothers.

What happend to change this sense of responsibility to your child?

Now, that 45% of the women that did get pregnant and according to prolifers...did the right thing and had their babies, ARE the same women so many complain about that are getting welfare of some sort, to help them get along, for the most part.  

Seems to me, that many women are holding up to their once  'part of the bargain' and when they got pregnant, they kept their babies, even knowing they were going to have to go it alone...

WHERE are the MEN, where are many of the men that fathered these children and where is their sense of responsibility in these situations?  

I guess most all of this puzzles me....and appears as though IT IS a major problem on the MAN'S PART in these unwanted pregnancy crisis' as well...and not as a second thought or an equal in the guilt, but something more than just that...imo, especially looking at statistics and where the trends have lead.

Much of this comes in to play in the black community, but other communities as well.

I am saying, there is more to this discussion than merely closing ones legs or keeping a zipper zipped  if you don't use protection crapola, and no one ever wants to address those aspects that centrally stand in the middle of a realistic and true abortion/ unwed mother debate, in my opinion. And pointing fingers is not what i mean to do, as it may appear that I am picking on the men of today....but to ignore it?  and not make it a focus of just ONE of these ABORTION debates?

this just could be the problem of the world today....EVERYONE wants to skirt their own responsibility or gender's responsibility and point fingers elsewhere or demand certain behavior of others etc etc etc. and not really themselves....or themselves as a second thought.... is a bit much for me.

care


----------



## JBeukema (May 29, 2009)

Care4all said:


> I think if men are going to bitch about women getting pregnant and having abortions as they do on this board all the time, then these men should put up or shut up....use a condom, all the time...or you all have no room to talk the big talk about what WOMEN should do.....



Check for a condom or stfu. If you're going to bitch about men busting inside of you, then look before you spread your legs 

sorry, but it gets a little annoying when all these women complain about this and never seem to think that THEY are even part of the problem.




> In theory it's an equal responsibility if you're only discussing STD's.




Nope. Pregnancy to. A man can do one thing: wear a condom. That's it. Women can check for a rubber and use foam and/or take the pill or get a cervical cap or get the rods... The women has many more opportunities to prevent pregnancy in the first place- if she fails, then  she needs to own up to it and stop blaming everyone else.



> In reality, when it comes right down to it, total responsibility for the womans body is hers.



yet it's the man fault she gets knocked uop? 



> She's the one that gets pregnant. She's the one that carries the baby.  She's the one that gives birth.  If she doesn't want to do any of those things, she'd damned well better make sure she's got all her bases covered.



and if she fails to be responsible* before* getting pregnant, she needs to step up and taker care of her child.



Care4all said:


> I realize times are different now, but in the "old" days, when a guy got a girl pregnant, he knew he would have to marry her...  in fact, most married couples having a child within the first year of marriage, had their child within the first 7 months of marriage, in the fifties, I had read.  So, it isn't like these men and women of the fifties were not having sex themselves....before marriage?
> 
> But it does seem to me, that men WERE more responsible back then when it came to their children or children to be and this was because it was FROWNED upon by society to get your girl  or any girl pregnant and walk.




That was because at the time America held conservative values dear- before liberals and libertines made any sense of morality or responsibility anathema 



> Now, we have near 45% of all children born in America today, born to single mothers...I can't imagine what the statistic would be if all of the women aborting cuz the man walked, decided to go through the pregnancy let alone ALL single women that aborted regardless of their situation being added to the statistic as well...we would probably be as high as 70% of all children born in the united states, are born to single women.  Back in the 50's it was about 10% being born to single mothers.
> 
> What happend to change this sense of responsibility to your child?




Idiots like you declared war on responsibility




> WHERE are the MEN, where are many of the men that fathered these children and where is their sense of responsibility in these situations?




See above.



> I guess most all of this puzzles me....and appears as though IT IS a major problem on the MAN'S PART in these unwanted pregnancy crisis' as well...and not as a second thought or an equal in the guilt, but something more than just that...imo, especially looking at statistics and where the trends have lead.


A lot of those women have no idea who the father is because they're whores who dn't know how many guys they've banged and were too stupid to take the pill or check for a rubber.


> Much of this comes in to play in the black community, but other communities as well.



Why should they be responsible? The liberal nanny state will take care of everything. Libtards are too stupid to realize that they're the biggest part of the problem.


----------



## Neser Boha (May 29, 2009)

jsanders said:


> It's no surprise that you can't actually respond to the comments against your bullshit feminist arguments.



Oh that was an argument?  Oh I'm sorry... I guess it was so well disguised as BULLSHIT that I couldn't even recognize it...


----------



## We Are They (May 29, 2009)

JB, your posts about sex might be a little more informed if you had ever gotten any.
And you sound like you'd be comfortable with a morality police roaming the streets, like in saudi arabia and elsewhere. Imposing your moral standards on everyone else is condescending and communist.


Good post Care: guys, wear a condom or stfu.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2009)

jsanders said:


> No, I think that people (not just women) should be taught responsibility. One part of responsibility is practicing safe sex. It is irresponsible to have unsafe sex. It leads to more than unwanted pregnancy. But allowing abortions sends the message that unsafe sex is fine because society allows you to wash your hands of any "mistakes." It's the wrong message. We're giving kids the motivation to engage in sex earlier and with fewer precautions. We're allowing the spread of disease and opening the door to more self-esteem issues on a group of young adults that already have more pressures than any of us ever faced.
> 
> As was mentioned: abstinence works, if you practice it. Other forms of birth control are more than 90% effective; again, if you use them. The less than 10% risk you take on by engaging in sexual activity is just that: a risk. Don't want to take the risk? Practice abstinence. Want to take the risk? Prepare for the consequences. That's why it's called a risk. Now there is no risk. If people aren't going to take responsibility in something as important as this, why should we trust them to be responsible in any other aspects of their lives?


Here's some advice. Don't have unsafe sex. That way you'll have full control of your reproductive choice.


----------



## Gunny (May 29, 2009)

We Are They said:


> JB, your posts about sex might be a little more informed if you had ever gotten any.
> And you sound like you'd be comfortable with a morality police roaming the streets, like in saudi arabia and elsewhere. Imposing your moral standards on everyone else is condescending and communist.
> 
> 
> Good post Care: guys, wear a condom or stfu.



Did I miss something?  I don't recall seeing where JB stated anything about wanting morality police.  He stated it as a response to a question and is quite correct.  Society, people and individuals as a whole held themselves more responsible for their actions back then.

And what is the bottom line here?  Individual responsibility, is it not?  We as a society, people and individuals have made an art form of not accepting responsibility for our actions.  Abortion itself is just a means of escaping the consequences of one's irresponsible behavior.  When abortion wasn't really a mainstream option, men had no choice but step up.  Not doing so would bring the enmity of their peers down on them.  It no longer does so.

At the same time, while people were still having sex back then, it wasn't as casual and the FEMALES in general didn't feel the need to spread their legs so quickly to be accepted by some guy. 

I've made logical arguments from BOTH POVs.  The reason is simple ... if individuals behave responsibly, the whole will take care of itself.  The male has reason to fear getting a woman pregnant every bit as much as the woman should fear getting pregnant, and EACH should feel solely responsible. 

The bottom line though, no matter the reasoning and arguing and namecalling anyone wants to toss out is that in the end, the guy ain't pregnant ... the woman is.  That's not just HIS fault.  

And btw ... wearing a condom is no more a guarantee against pregnancy than the pill, foam, IUD or whatever.  The more precautions taken, the more the chance of pregnancy is lessened.   In that regard, JB is also quite correct.  Women have FAR more options available than a man does.


----------



## Dis (May 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > I think if men are going to bitch about women getting pregnant and having abortions as they do on this board all the time, then these men should put up or shut up....use a condom, all the time...or you all have no room to talk the big talk about what WOMEN should do.....
> ...



I know it's early, I'm still sick, and I haven't had my coffee yet, but the little comment in bold annoyed me.

Where the HELL did I say anything of the sort, JB?  *I* place more of the responsibility on the female than I do the man.  I have never ONCE even implied it's a man's fault a woman gets pregnant.


----------



## We Are They (May 29, 2009)

"That was because at the time America held conservative values dear- before liberals and libertines made any sense of morality or responsibility anathema "
"Idiots like you declared war on responsibility"
"Why should they be responsible? The liberal nanny state will take care of everything. Libtards are too stupid to realize that they're the biggest part of the problem."

Is that enough Gunny? And that's only from the one post.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> > No, I think that people (not just women) should be taught responsibility. One part of responsibility is practicing safe sex. It is irresponsible to have unsafe sex. It leads to more than unwanted pregnancy. But allowing abortions sends the message that unsafe sex is fine because society allows you to wash your hands of any "mistakes." It's the wrong message. We're giving kids the motivation to engage in sex earlier and with fewer precautions. We're allowing the spread of disease and opening the door to more self-esteem issues on a group of young adults that already have more pressures than any of us ever faced.
> ...




No guarantees with any birth control. Two of my kids were conceived using "safe sex" and my best friend was on the pill (and never missed a dose).

You don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex.


----------



## JBeukema (May 29, 2009)

We Are They said:


> JB, your posts about sex might be a little more informed if you had ever gotten any.



More personal attacks, my dear troll? Really, it''s quite pathetic. If you have no response to the points made, do us all a favor and 










> Good post Care: guys, wear a condom or stfu.



girls, check for a condom and use other protections or stfu. The guys are not the only ones fuckin' up, here




Ravi said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> > No, I think that people (not just women) should be taught responsibility. One part of responsibility is practicing safe sex. It is irresponsible to have unsafe sex. It leads to more than unwanted pregnancy. But allowing abortions sends the message that unsafe sex is fine because society allows you to wash your hands of any "mistakes." It's the wrong message. We're giving kids the motivation to engage in sex earlier and with fewer precautions. We're allowing the spread of disease and opening the door to more self-esteem issues on a group of young adults that already have more pressures than any of us ever faced.
> ...





Dis said:


> I know it's early, I'm still sick, and I haven't had my coffee yet, but the little comment in bold annoyed me.
> 
> Where the HELL did I say anything of the sort, JB?  *I* place more of the responsibility on the female than I do the man.  I have never ONCE even implied it's a man's fault a woman gets pregnant.



It's possible, if your post resembled the others, that I thought you were agreeing with them. If I misrepresented your position, I apologize.


----------



## We Are They (May 29, 2009)

"girls, check for a condom and use other protections or stfu. The guys are not the only ones fuckin' up, here"
But the guys are the only ones whining about how they should have a say.

So JB, when you don't respond to my whole post and just pick at the joke like a troll (I guess that calling someone a troll isn't a personal attack), does that mean that you agree with the rest of it?
And the aggressive guy going beserk, is that you?


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2009)

Care4all said:


> But it does seem to me, that men WERE more responsible back then when it came to their children or children to be and this was because it was FROWNED upon by society to get your girl  or any girl pregnant and walk.



You know, it was also FROWNED upon by society to have abortions in those days, too. But I agree 100%, BOTH genders should be acting more responsibly, not just women and not just men. I just get tired of people like you pointing the finger across the aisle.



Ravi said:


> Here's some advice. Don't have unsafe sex. That way you'll have full control of your reproductive choice.



I'm not sure if that was a stab at me or if you were agreeing with me, but it's exactly what I've been saying.



			
				We Are They said:
			
		

> Good post Care: guys, wear a condom or stfu.



Girls, close your snatch or shut the fuck up.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2009)

No, it wasn't a stab at you, jsanders. Just some advice.

You've lost the battle for control of a woman's body. Bones posted herbal ways to abort, someone else posted how to do it with birth control pills.

If you want control of your reproductive rights, as a man, choose your partner wisely.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2009)

We Are They said:


> Amish abuse children by keeping them ignorant. Forced marriages?
> 
> As for buddhism: "Now Buddhism becomes a religion of violence"
> Now Buddhism becomes a religion of violence
> ...



Sorry, asshole, but "abuse" is not defined as "raising children differently than We Are They thinks they should be".

And am I supposed to be impressed that you can find someone on the Internet to support your prejudices?

You're a bigot.  Own it and deal.  That is all, because I don't waste time talking to peabrains in sheets.  FLUSH!


----------



## AllieBaba (May 29, 2009)

A woman has no right to use ownership of her body as an excuse to kill a life she harbors within it.

Doesn't matter how you do it, it's still murder. Just because a man takes control of his body and beats the shit out of his girlfriend doesn't mean that "right" is protected. It is murder to kill even using your hands, and your body can be considered a weapon if you are using it as the instrument to hurt or kill another.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > It shouldn't have been legal in the first place. Judges aren't supposed to make laws, that was never part of their job description. In a democracy the people make the laws, and elected officials. NOT appointed judges with agendas, who bypass the will of the people to put into effect their own pet projects.
> ...



You didn't take biology in high school, apparently, let alone college.  The question of life - from a scientific standpoint, if not the fuzzy emotional one leftists want to use - is covered.  It's not a matter of "belief".

Biological science tells us that a thing must meet seven criteria to be considered alive:  growth, stimulus response, metabolism, homeostasis, reproduction, mutation, and autonomous motion.  Certain of these, of course, apply more in terms of type than specific organisms, since not all humans can reproduce for example, but humans _as a species _certainly can.

For those things that apply on an individual level, such as growth, stimulus response, metabolism, etc., an embryo certainly qualifies, let alone a fetus.  The definition of life only becomes complicated at the point where we try to wiggle and squirm our way away from hard science in order rationalize and justify.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > jsanders said:
> ...



I'm with you there.  I myself was a condom baby (they made such wonderful condoms in the late '60s, I guess) and two of my sister's children were conceived on the Pill.  That's why we both went straight for tubal ligation.


----------



## Jon (May 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> No, it wasn't a stab at you, jsanders. Just some advice.
> 
> You've lost the battle for control of a woman's body. Bones posted herbal ways to abort, someone else posted how to do it with birth control pills.
> 
> If you want control of your reproductive rights, as a man, choose your partner wisely.



So yes, it was a stab. See, you and others miss my point entirely. I don't want control of a woman's body. I want women to take control of their own bodies and stop letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry fuck them to make them feel better. If women would have the same responsibility you're preaching to me, abortions wouldn't be necessary. You, like Care, need to stop pointing fingers across the aisle.


----------



## Gunny (May 29, 2009)

We Are They said:


> "That was because at the time America held conservative values dear- before liberals and libertines made any sense of morality or responsibility anathema "
> "Idiots like you declared war on responsibility"
> "Why should they be responsible? The liberal nanny state will take care of everything. Libtards are too stupid to realize that they're the biggest part of the problem."
> 
> Is that enough Gunny? And that's only from the one post.



I'm sorry Mr Chihauhau ... are you attempting to nip at my heels?  I wear fucking boots, so give it up.

I can go LOTS of places with this argument and your Romper Room response.

One, liberalism does not condone dodging personal responsibility.  The left in this country however, does.

LEFTtards ARE the biggest part of the problem.  

Problem here is, you've made absolutely no contribution to the discussion.  You just knee-jerked at the word "libtards" -- a misnomer -- and started spouting off ignorant shit.

I'm a liberal.  I'm NOT a leftist.  I firmly believe in personal responsibility.  That's the whole fucking problem with leftwing hillbillies -- they've turned "liberal" into a dirty word claiming ot be something they aren't.

Your knee jerk reaction opposed something that is fact.  Accountability to society for one's actions.  You just chose to denigrate it with "morality police."  

Fact is, if you're too stupid and too much of a pussy to accept the responsibility of your actions, then you suck.  You suck as a human, and as a member of our society.

Questions?


----------



## Gunny (May 29, 2009)

We Are They said:


> "girls, check for a condom and use other protections or stfu. The guys are not the only ones fuckin' up, here"
> But the guys are the only ones whining about how they should have a say.
> 
> So JB, when you don't respond to my whole post and just pick at the joke like a troll (I guess that calling someone a troll isn't a personal attack), does that mean that you agree with the rest of it?
> And the aggressive guy going beserk, is that you?



NO, according to my wife, it's me.  You have an issue with that?


----------



## Gunny (May 29, 2009)

Ravi said:


> No, it wasn't a stab at you, jsanders. Just some advice.
> 
> You've lost the battle for control of a woman's body. Bones posted herbal ways to abort, someone else posted how to do it with birth control pills.
> 
> If you want control of your reproductive rights, as a man, choose your partner wisely.



And I deleted them.  This isn't a home remedy abortion clinic.  

The inequality of rights exists, no matter how much you don't want to hear it.


----------



## Gunny (May 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> A woman has no right to use ownership of her body as an excuse to kill a life she harbors within it.
> 
> Doesn't matter how you do it, it's still murder. Just because a man takes control of his body and beats the shit out of his girlfriend doesn't mean that "right" is protected. It is murder to kill even using your hands, and your body can be considered a weapon if you are using it as the instrument to hurt or kill another.



Playing Devil's Advocate (I know that's stepping down from my role as Satan), what if someone takes EVERY precaution and still ends up pregnant but has no business with a child?

How about rape or incest?

Medical necessity to save the life of the mother?

Just trying to get exactly where you stand.


----------



## JBeukema (May 29, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I'm sorry Mr Chihauhau ... are you attempting to nip at my heels?  I wear fucking boots, so give it up.



With or without the steel shank to protect the sole of the foot?




> One, liberalism does not condone dodging personal responsibility.  The left in this country however, does.



Modern day leftist 'liberals' seem to fully embrace Libertinism It is they whom I was addressing. As something of a right-leaning libertarian (not Libertarian), I have no issue with Classical Liberalism (what later became the 'conservatism' of the GOP back in the day) as a whole.


> I'm a liberal.  I'm NOT a leftist.  I firmly believe in personal responsibility.  That's the whole fucking problem with leftwing hillbillies -- they've turned "liberal" into a dirty word claiming ot be something they aren't.



You mean like neo-cons who co-opted  'conservatism' and began calling for a return to the status quo ante circa the Dark Ages?





Gunny said:


> Playing Devil's Advocate (I know that's stepping down from my role as Satan), what if someone takes EVERY precaution and still ends up pregnant but has no business with a child?
> 
> How about rape or incest?
> 
> ...



I know that was towards Allie, but I will volunteer my own responses.

If someone is an unfit parent, we have CPS investigate and, if appropriate, find a foster home (I understand that our current system is jacked- we need  to invest much time and effort into making the system work as it was envisioned)

Rape/Incest: Help her find counseling, lock up the attacker, and help the woman find or provide a good home. The Left (as a whole) doesn't care about rape victims- they showed that when they had Norma McCorvey lie about being raped in order to get Roe V. Wade decided in their favor.

Medical Emergency: I don't understand how this is even an issue. Doctors are there to preserve life and health. If, as with an ectopic pregnancy that does not self-abort, the options are letting two+ persons  (woman + cild) die or saving one life, the only moral and ethical option is to preserve the life that can be saved. To me, it's just like pulling someone out of a burning car- if only one can be pulled out, then the moral thing is to do so, not to let both people in the car burn to death. While the exact circumstances may at first appear different, the choice is the same: save one life, or let both lives perish.


----------



## Dis (May 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry Mr Chihauhau ... are you attempting to nip at my heels?  I wear fucking boots, so give it up.
> ...



Seriously?  What about the foster homes that are so overloaded now?  What about all the children that remain wards of the state NOW because there's no room for them?

Also, a woman raped should have to relive that every day for the next 9 months, all the while not knowing what she's going to end up with?  And then what?  Give yet another child to the already overcrowded foster system, and government agencies?

What would you choose in the case of saving the life of the mother vs. saving the life of the child?  Should the mother carry to term, and give birth, the child will likely live, but she will die. Which one do you choose to kill at that point?


----------



## JBeukema (May 29, 2009)

Dis said:


> Seriously?  What about the foster homes that are so overloaded now?  What about all the children that remain wards of the state NOW because there's no room for them?



First off, only quote what you are responding to. You're getting fucking annoying with the whole being too stupid to use the backspace key.

secondly, I already addressed that. 

So, where I said we need to fix the system, dis has said we should kill babies because the system's jacked and fixing it is too hard.



> Also, a woman raped should have to relive that every day for the next 9 months, all the while not knowing what she's going to end up with?



1) She doesn't 'relive that every day for the next 9 months'

2)Your rape does not justify  murder. if ricardo Ramirez not liable for his crimes because he was victimized?

3)'Not knowing what she's going to end up with'? So, all women are mentally retarded and too stupid to contact a doctor?



> And then what?  Give yet another child to the already overcrowded foster system, and government agencies?



As I said: fix the system


> What would you choose in the case of saving the life of the mother vs. saving the life of the child?



That's for all parties involved to decide, like rare forms of conjoined twins. If you only have time to oull one person from that burning car, do you grab whoever you can and try to your damnest to save the other, or just let them both die because you're making up hypos to justifiy murder?

  However, such a condition almost never occurs, thanks to modern neonatal care and medical advances.



> Should the mother carry to term, and give birth, the child will likely live, but she will die. Which one do you choose to kill at that point?




doesn't happen. If the birthing is the issue, you can do a C-Section. Otherwise, the doctor must make a decision- unless the woman is willing to be a hero, he'll likely save the woman as it has a higher probability of success than a child whose medical condition at birth cannot yet be known


----------



## del (May 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously?  What about the foster homes that are so overloaded now?  What about all the children that remain wards of the state NOW because there's no room for them?
> ...



we'll let you know when we want you to make the posting rules here, fuckroast. when the phone don't ring, your time will have come


----------



## Dis (May 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously?  What about the foster homes that are so overloaded now?  What about all the children that remain wards of the state NOW because there's no room for them?
> ...



First off, I will respond in any manner I see fit.  So far, you aren't worth the time and effort to edit out everything except that which I'm replying to.  You ARE worth the effort for me to have bolded it, however.  You should be happy with what you get.  If you're not, fuck you.

Second, who the hell died and made you God?  Tho, while you're God, I suggest you get to fixing that already severely broken system prior to throwing more children into it.  In fact, how many of those children have YOU taken on?  

Your burning car scenario is a load of complete shit and has nothing to do with abortion.  A woman raped should not be forced to carry a child she had zero intention of conceiving.  She was not a willing partner.  She was FORCED.  It damn well justifies an abortion, or the morning after pill.

I'm probably one of the most anti-abortion/take fucking responsibility for your actions or keep your god damned legs closed people I know, and even I have the sense to see that as much as *I* might disagree with it, there just MIGHT be some reason for abortion.  If it's not my body, it's not my choice to make.  

Personally, if I were raped, and became pregnant as a result of it, I think I'm strong enough to carry the baby to term, and actually keep it.  But that's me, personally, based on other things in life I've endured.  I damned sure don't have the right to tell someone else they need to just suck it the hell up and keep it.

Oh, and by the way... You're getting fucking annoying, being too god damned stupid to reply without insult.


----------



## JBeukema (May 29, 2009)

Dis said:


> First off, I will respond in any manner I see fit.



In other words, you enjoy being irritating.




> Second, who the hell died and made you God?


Jesus


> A woman raped should not be forced to carry a child she had zero intention of conceiving.  She was not a willing partner.  She was FORCED



and?



> I'm probably one of the most anti-abortion/take fucking responsibility for your actions or keep your god damned legs closed people



evidently not, as you're looking so hard for an excuse to kill an unborn child


> If it's not my body, it's not my choice to make.



that's actually an argument for the pro-life movement, if you understand the slightest bit about biology and reproduction




> Oh, and by the way... You're getting fucking annoying, being too god damned stupid to reply without insult.



I respond to all point and debunk morons like you all the time. The observations regarding your  lack of intellect and education are simply there as helpful criticism so you can better yourself


----------



## Tinktink (May 29, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > > Also, a woman raped should have to relive that every day for the next 9 months, all the while not knowing what she's going to end up with?
> ...


----------



## jeffrockit (May 30, 2009)

TofuDog said:


> Who cares if a woman aborts, we already have too many unwanted kids in the world today anyways, why do we need more of them?



Perhaps they should have thought about overpopulation before they had unprotected sex.


----------



## jeffrockit (May 30, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > By not criminalizing abortion, the government* gives individuals the right *to decide what to do with their bodies.
> ...


----------



## Jon (May 30, 2009)

Dis said:


> Also, a woman raped should have to relive that every day for the next 9 months, all the while not knowing what she's going to end up with?  And then what?  Give yet another child to the already overcrowded foster system, and government agencies?



They make pills that prevent women who have been raped from getting pregnant. Any woman with common sense should know if she's raped to take the goddamn thing. If you don't have that much sense, you're a waste anyway.


----------



## JBeukema (May 30, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> You are right, most relive it everyday for years, sometimes forever.



That's simply not true. You're trying to use emotionally-laden rhetoric to avoid reason. It's a classic Leftist tactic when you have no argument.


Now, since you made the assertion: PROVE that 'most "relive it"  for year'. Demonstrate that most women spend years 'reliving'; their rape every time they see their child. Prove it or stfu.


----------



## Jon (May 30, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> By having an unwanted pregnancy, that person has proven she has no clue as to what to do with her body. Some people are just too stupid to make decisions on their own.



Exactly, but this isn't limited to just women. Men are the same way.

If you women don't see the hypocrisy in a "woman's right to choose," you can go fuck yourself. If women can choose, so should men be allowed to. If a man gets a woman pregnant and doesn't want the kid, he shouldn't be forced to pay child support. Again, though, women don't want to be treated equally. They want to be treated special. But when they are treated as such, they throw hissy fucking fits.


----------



## Tinktink (May 30, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> Tinktink said:
> 
> 
> > You are right, most relive it everyday for years, sometimes forever.
> ...



First tell me about your rape experience, and how you survived it.   Considering once again you know so much about it.   

Once you do I will be happy to make the effort to provide you with links on the long term effects of rape, and pregnancy and rape, with a congrads on being one in the minority. 

If you are talking strictly from your own opinion verses any knowledge on the subject.   Then you do all the work to get educated.   

Waiting.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 30, 2009)

Dis said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



What about it?  Are you seriously suggesting that you advocate killing children in the womb out of compassion for THEM, because death is better than state care?



Dis said:


> Also, a woman raped should have to relive that every day for the next 9 months, all the while not knowing what she's going to end up with?  And then what?  Give yet another child to the already overcrowded foster system, and government agencies?



So an innocent child should die on the off-chance that it will somehow make having been raped less traumatic?  And cripes, what woman entirely knows what she's going to end up with when she's pregnant, other than that it's going to be a baby?



Dis said:


> What would you choose in the case of saving the life of the mother vs. saving the life of the child?  Should the mother carry to term, and give birth, the child will likely live, but she will die. Which one do you choose to kill at that point?



If I were the mother, I'd choose to risk my life for my child's.  I was brought up to believe that that's what parents do.  Would I legislate that choice?  No, but I'll tell you honestly that while I would sympathize with any woman who chose otherwise, I wouldn't respect her.

But let's be completely honest here.  Do you have any idea how seldom the pregnancy itself is actually a danger to the mother's life?  More usually - which is still thankfully rare - the mother's life is endangered by something else, and the pregnancy stands in the way of her treatment for that condition.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 30, 2009)

I know this question won't be answered, no one ever does, but it happens:

What if the woman who is pregnant will die, resulting in the death of the fetus as well? Would you think abortion is okay to save at least ONE life?


----------



## JBeukema (May 30, 2009)

jsanders said:


> If a man gets a woman pregnant and doesn't want the kid, he shouldn't be forced to pay child support.



But men are evil sperm banks who must be punished because women were oppressed in the past!





Tinktink said:


> ]
> *deflection*



In other words, you can't back up your assertions...




Cecilie1200 said:


> What about it?  Are you seriously suggesting that you advocate killing children in the womb out of compassion for THEM, because death is better than state care?




yep, because the Leftist Nanny State is so great that death is better... it's called hypocrisy...



Dis said:


> So an innocent child should die on the off-chance that it will somehow make having been raped less traumatic?



Then they can spend years wondering what their child would have been like- or maybe that's just the women the APA knows about and all the libertines who love killing babies live with Dis.



Dis said:


> I wouldn't respect her less so much as I would respect the women who was willing to risk her life for her child a whole lot more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JBeukema (May 30, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> I know this question won't be answered, no one ever does, but it happens:
> 
> What if the woman who is pregnant will die, resulting in the death of the fetus as well? Would you think abortion is okay to save at least ONE life?



Actually, I already addressed that


JBeukema said:


> Medical Emergency: I don't understand how this is even an issue. Doctors are there to preserve life and health. If, as with an ectopic pregnancy that does not self-abort, the options are letting two+ persons  (woman + cild) die or saving one life, the only moral and ethical option is to preserve the life that can be saved. To me, it's just like pulling someone out of a burning car- if only one can be pulled out, then the moral thing is to do so, not to let both people in the car burn to death. While the exact circumstances may at first appear different, the choice is the same: save one life, or let both lives perish.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 30, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > I know this question won't be answered, no one ever does, but it happens:
> ...



Haven't bothered keeping up with your position so forgive me if my assumption is wrong. But then that means abortion itself has to remain legal or the doctors are viable for murder. If made illegal then they would have to kill something or let something die, a no win situation.


----------



## JBeukema (May 30, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Haven't bothered keeping up with your position



Gee, thanks. I can feel the love.



> so forgive me if my assumption is wrong



What did you assume?


> But then that means abortion itself has to remain legal or the doctors are viable for murder



Abortion = homicide. Not all homicides are murder. That is why the terminology used by both sides in regards to this issue can oft be misleading. 



> If made illegal then they would have to kill something or let something die, a no win situation.


Very few seem to call for the outright ban of all abortions under all circumstances- just as noone with a brain calls for all homicides to be illegal. We all understand that there are times when ending another life (by definition homicide) is justifiable, such as self-defense, non-self-terminating ectopic pregnancies, or (some but not all believe) in the case of execution of people convicted of certain crimes. The cases are all homicides, but few would declare them unjustifiable- and we can generally discount those few with a little touch of reason.


----------



## KittenKoder (May 30, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Haven't bothered keeping up with your position
> ...



Most of those who are anti-abortion rant and rave that it should just be illegal and when faced with any possibility that would force the hands of the doctors they ignore it or just repeat the "abortion is wrong" catch phrase.


----------



## JBeukema (May 30, 2009)

Well, KK, I certainly hope you don't still group JB with the unreasonables you have described. 

Of course, you also have those on the either side, who rant and rave about 'a woman's right to choose' whether to to spend her life caring for a child and ignore or discount out of hand any mention of adoption, safe sex, or -god forbid- personal responsibility.  There are those who would have killing any child under 18 legal, judging by their rants about being 'punished with a baby'

neither side is without their idiots, which is not surprising as I've found that reason leads to neither extreme


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > No, it wasn't a stab at you, jsanders. Just some advice.
> ...


I'm sorry that you see it as a stab...it is just the facts of life.


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2009)

I see the issue all boiled down to money again.


----------



## Dis (May 30, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > Also, a woman raped should have to relive that every day for the next 9 months, all the while not knowing what she's going to end up with?  And then what?  Give yet another child to the already overcrowded foster system, and government agencies?
> ...



I trust you actually know HOW to read, and just skipped over my reference to the morning after pill, and it's acceptability for this particular instance in an effort to just get your post out there so you could see your name in lights?


----------



## Dis (May 30, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Actually, JB WILL just repeat the "abortion is wrong" phrase - his ONLY exception is the death one you reference above.  A woman raped?  Too fucking bad.  Carry that baby, bitch!  Someone who has taken ALL precautions to NOT become pregnant, and is knowingly an unfit mother?  Too fucking bad.  Carry that baby, and throw it into the already overcrowded adoption pool!

JB has yet to state just how many of those unwanted and uncared for children HE is caring for, however.

Oh, and JB - Are you too fucking stupid to know how to use the quote function?  A few of your posts are messed up now.


----------



## We Are They (May 30, 2009)

cut JB some slack, he thinks he's a hot shot lawyer, even though he probably never argued a case in court. This is his chance to shine as a debater... or at least try to.
Ya JB learn how to use the quote tool... you tool. (Is that an acceptable word to use, or should I stick to "troll" so that it's not a personal attack?)


----------



## Jon (May 30, 2009)

Dis said:


> Someone who has taken ALL precautions to NOT become pregnant, and is knowingly an unfit mother?



If you are referring to someone who does not EVER want to become pregnant, then there are solutions to fix that. If she NEVER wants to become pregnant, and she does, then she has NOT taken all precautions.


----------



## JBeukema (May 30, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Dis said:
> 
> 
> > Someone who has taken ALL precautions to NOT become pregnant, and is knowingly an unfit mother?
> ...



Come on J, you know libertines are allergic to reason and thinking. They just said that being raped is a valid excuse for killing a third party and that the leftist nanny state and social programs they fought so hard to get are worse than death.


----------



## Tinktink (May 30, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> jsanders said:
> 
> 
> > Dis said:
> ...



How does a cluster of cells being extracted sum up to death?   

Still waiting to hear about your knowledgable experience with rape.    Or are you ready to be honest enough to say you haven't, therefore you know nothing of it.


----------



## JBeukema (May 30, 2009)

How does ending the pseudo-random movement of particles in your body equal a crime?


----------



## Tinktink (May 30, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> How does ending the pseudo-random movement of particles in your body equal a crime?



Is this who you are?   Just curious.   You make outrageous statements like you are an expert on issues, then when asked for your experience with the issues after you so blantently expressed what seemed like knowledgable statements to them, you divert/ignore, squirm.   

Please answer my questions, then I would be more then happy to respect you enough to answer yours.  

Should I recap them for you?


----------



## We Are They (May 31, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> Should I recap them for you?



Yes please!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > jsanders said:
> ...



Could you possibly spare us the outdated and obsolete euphemisms that only serve to demonstrate how very uneducated you really are?  They make me depressed over the pathetic state of public school in this nation.

YOU are "a cluster of cells".  The fact that you are a bigger cluster of cells than a fetus does not in any way make you more of a living organism than he is.  Life is not dependent on size.

You can demand "knowledgeable and honest" when you can provide it.


----------



## Yukon (May 31, 2009)

Abortion is a woman's choice. Hers and hers alone.


----------



## JBeukema (May 31, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > How does ending the pseudo-random movement of particles in your body equal a crime?
> ...



You have asked no questions regarding the matter at hand and you refuse to respond to my points because you can't. Stop evading- or has Google not given you a ready-made post yet?



Cecilie1200 said:


> Tinktink said:
> 
> 
> > How does a cluster of cells being extracted sum up to death?
> ...




You know libertines despise logic and reason, cecile



Yukon said:


> Abortion is a woman's choice. Hers and hers alone.



Hey, our cathoprotestant child molester is back!@


----------



## We Are They (Jun 2, 2009)

"You know libertines despise logic and reason, cecile" Ya, just like you debating Adam and Eve, two people of whom there is ZERO proof that they even existed. Very logical.


----------



## Jon (Jun 2, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Abortion is a woman's choice. Hers and hers alone.



I only wish your mother had made that choice differently.


----------



## Tinktink (Jun 2, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Tinktink said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



It isn't a as obsolete as you claim.   The human body naturally destroys living thriving cells every minute.  Which begs the question I asked earlier, when does life truly begin... considering each time I menustrate I am killing a living bunch of cells called my egg.


----------



## Tinktink (Jun 2, 2009)

jsanders said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion is a woman's choice. Hers and hers alone.
> ...



Gotta love the posts like this.  Folks fighting for "Pro-Life" and hoping for pro choice.   Hysterical.


----------



## strollingbones (Jun 2, 2009)

sanders a friend of mine had her tubes tied after 3 kids.....the doctor said it wasnt his fault when she had the fourth..the tubes had grown back together...get over your moral righteous.....shit happens ...with tubals and vas'


----------



## caterpillar (Jun 2, 2009)

TofuDog said:


> Humans are just deluding themselves that our species is some sort of special chosen species by some god. People against abortion should think about it next time they eat eggs, which are aborted animal embryos. Or when they eat veal, which is eating baby cows.
> Who cares if a woman aborts, we already have too many unwanted kids in the world today anyways, why do we need more of them?



No, there aren't too many "unwanted kids", but based on your post it does seem that we have an overabundance of dumbass posters on message boards.


----------



## caterpillar (Jun 2, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> It isn't a as obsolete as you claim.   The human body naturally destroys living thriving cells every minute.  Which begs the question I asked earlier, when does life truly begin... considering each time I menustrate I am killing a living bunch of cells called my egg.



A fertilized egg has all the DNA necessary for a full lifespan, conditions permitting, your unfertilized egg obviously does not.  For whatever reason this basic fact seems a little difficult for some folks to comprehend, but its really not that complicated.


----------



## caterpillar (Jun 2, 2009)

Yukon said:


> Abortion is a woman's choice. Hers and hers alone.



No, it is not.  So there.


----------



## Tinktink (Jun 2, 2009)

caterpillar said:


> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> > Humans are just deluding themselves that our species is some sort of special chosen species by some god. People against abortion should think about it next time they eat eggs, which are aborted animal embryos. Or when they eat veal, which is eating baby cows.
> ...



Do you do any research before you speak?   Just curious.   Aren't too many unwanted kids?   Google is a wonderful thing, I suggest you use it to research the inadaquit foster care system in this country.


----------



## Tinktink (Jun 2, 2009)

caterpillar said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion is a woman's choice. Hers and hers alone.
> ...



Yes it is.   So double there.


----------



## caterpillar (Jun 2, 2009)

People who think so-called abortion is ok are scum.


----------



## caterpillar (Jun 2, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> caterpillar said:
> 
> 
> > TofuDog said:
> ...



Lets kill them after they are born then.  Wouldn't that be justified?  There's too many of them.  Put them out in the snow to die perhaps?  Why not?


----------



## caterpillar (Jun 2, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> caterpillar said:
> 
> 
> > Yukon said:
> ...




That's just so creative.


----------



## Care4all (Jun 2, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Tinktink said:
> ...



TT,

The human body naturally destroys its own various cells and replaces them completely...over and over again, like our skin cells...tis very true.

But what I don't think you have recognized it that this particular cluster of cells are not YOUR cells, they are the cells of your future offspring, with completely separate DNA identifying them as an individual and not with the same DNA map that you have uniquely to yourself and your skin cells that you shed....as example.

Your skin cells or the cells in your toenails, can not produce a separate, individual human being, as the unique cells in this cluster of cells that you speak about can do...they ARE something special and refusing to accept these facts is denying Science and Medical Science out there today.

There are plenty of other reasons out there to support or deny the legality of abortion, such as the woman's health...mental and physical, the woman still being the HOST body of the offspring she must carry for 9 months, her own right of privacy, her right to make her own medical decisions with her doctor, or even the aspect of whether an embryo has the same worth as a viable fetus or newborn....

BUT to say that this cluster of cells in a mother's womb is nothing but merely a cluster of cells of nothingness or of the mother's cells that die and replenish every day, is simply not the case....my husband and I being childless....I have and he has, prayed every day for the near last twenty years for that "cluster" of cells of ours, in my own womb, but no such luck....  

No one says you are terminating your toenail when you cut it or terminating your skin when you shed it, but an abortion is a Termination of Pregnancy and a Pregnancy is a woman with her offspring, in her womb....not herself cloned in her womb, but her offspring...a separate individual than herself....and an abortion "terminates" this other offspring, it does not terminate the woman, in any manner....and to argue prochoice from that aspect does not represent the scientific facts....imo.

care


----------



## caterpillar (Jun 2, 2009)

Even if you think it should be legal, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN.  If its going to be legal, it has to be a shared "choice" between BOTH the mother and father of the child.

There is no excuse to allow half the species to monopolize reproductive decision making.  Its ludicris.


----------



## Tinktink (Jun 2, 2009)

caterpillar said:


> Even if you think it should be legal, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN.  If its going to be legal, it has to be a shared "choice" between BOTH the mother and father of the child.
> 
> There is no excuse to allow half the species to monopolize reproductive decision making.  Its ludicris.



Apparently the excuse seems to come from the creator, considering only the females were made to give birth.


----------



## Tinktink (Jun 2, 2009)

caterpillar said:


> Tinktink said:
> 
> 
> > caterpillar said:
> ...



And what does this have to do with your claim that there isn't too many unwanted children out there?


----------



## Bootneck (Jun 2, 2009)

caterpillar said:


> People who think so-called abortion is ok are scum.



People who think that those who are ok with abortion are scum...are scum. 

Seems your rather childish remark can work any way you want it to.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jun 2, 2009)

caterpillar said:


> Even if you think it should be legal, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN.  If its going to be legal, it has to be a shared "choice" between BOTH the mother and father of the child.
> 
> There is no excuse to allow half the species to monopolize reproductive decision making.  Its ludicris.



It is not your right, as a man, to commit and act of conversion upon the womb of a woman and convert it to your uses during the term of the pregnancy.

Therefore, your input may or may not be requested or listened to, but it is of little moment.


----------



## Tinktink (Jun 2, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Tinktink said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I now understand where you thoughts are coming from.   I am sorry you are having a hard time having a child.   And in understanding that, I can see how unfair this whole abortion debate would be to you.   I don't think anything I could say would change how you feel.   And totally understand your perspective on it.   

I will have to admit I am surprised that you aren't familar with the stats on foster care and how many children out there are unwanted and sentenced to life their lives going from home to home, or in institutions.   You know there are kids out there hoping someone like you may come around.   And if I were to believe in "God", maybe god made couples like you because of the prayers of those very kids.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jun 2, 2009)

I think Justice O'Connor struck the proper balance with regard to abortion. Basically, she said if the fetus is not to the point of viability, then you may abort it. If it is past the point of viability, you may not, absent some exigency, abort the fetus.

This seems to me like solid, plain, pragmatic thinking so I've adopted it.


----------



## Tinktink (Jun 2, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> I think Justice O'Connor struck the proper balance with regard to abortion. Basically, she said if the fetus is not to the point of viability, then you may abort it. If it is past the point of viability, you may not, absent some exigency, abort the fetus.
> 
> This seems to me like solid, plain, pragmatic thinking so I've adopted it.



I absoultely agree.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 2, 2009)

caterpillar said:


> Even if you think it should be legal, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN.  If its going to be legal, it has to be a shared "choice" between BOTH the mother and father of the child.
> *
> There is no excuse to allow half the species to monopolize reproductive decision making.*  Its ludicris.


Why not? Only half the species is capable of giving birth.


----------



## jillian (Jun 2, 2009)

Ravi said:


> caterpillar said:
> 
> 
> > Even if you think it should be legal, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN.  If its going to be legal, it has to be a shared "choice" between BOTH the mother and father of the child.
> ...



I know... they want there to be no government unless it's governing their personal relationships....

and some of these guys just so can't stand not having veto power. someone should tell them that if they have any kind of relationship, they WOULD participate in decision-making... they just wouldn't get a veto.

oh no... the horror... the horror.


----------



## Yurt (Jun 2, 2009)

Ravi said:


> caterpillar said:
> 
> 
> > Even if you think it should be legal, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN.  If its going to be legal, it has to be a shared "choice" between BOTH the mother and father of the child.
> ...



yes and you can get pregnant all by yourself


----------



## We Are They (Jun 2, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > caterpillar said:
> ...



Actually, at a sperm bank, you can get preggo by yourself.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 2, 2009)

We Are They said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Or a bar.


----------



## Yurt (Jun 2, 2009)

We Are They said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



WHERE does the sperm come from, from the woman all by herself....


----------



## Yurt (Jun 2, 2009)

Ravi said:


> We Are They said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



actually no, only if you wear a two piece, itsy bitsy teenie weenie polka dot bikini, in a neighbor's swimming pool after 12 noon on saturday


----------



## We Are They (Jun 2, 2009)

Yurt said:


> We Are They said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



But at the sperm bank, she gets preggo by herself, that's all I said.


----------



## Yurt (Jun 2, 2009)

We Are They said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > We Are They said:
> ...



have you ever had sex ed?  a man had to give his sperm....now go ask somebody about the birds and bees...

and for the sake of this discussion, men who give their sperm at a bank have no clue if their sperm will produce a child, and don't give their sperm to raise a child with the woman who gets the sperm donation.... IOW, they don't matter for the issue of both parties consenting


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 2, 2009)

caterpillar said:


> Lets kill them after they are born then.  Wouldn't that be justified?  There's too many of them.  Put them out in the snow to die perhaps?  Why not?



You mean like the Spartans?
It is not your right, as a man, to commit and act of conversion upon the womb of a woman and convert it to your uses during the term of the pregnancy.
[/QUOTE]

It is not your right to kill my child so you can still be a cheerleader and go to the club on fridays



Yurt said:


> yes and you can get pregnant all by yourself



\Technically, it is possible


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 6, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Tinktink said:
> ...



Okay, Biology Girl, try to stay with me.  During class, while you were out smoking behind the boys' gym, they taught us the difference between cells, tissues, organs, and organisms.  Just as your "cluster of cells" hoo-ha is outdated bullshit, so is your inane comparison of a complete and separate organism - a fetus - to a single cell that is part of a larger organism - the ovum.

I am NOT going to sit here and give you a Bio 101 primer just because you either played hookey or didn't bother to do the homework umpteen years ago.  Go do your homework and get informed before opening your mouth, because my original point still stands:  the more you talk, the more you reveal how woefully uneducated and unqualified to address this topic you truly are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 6, 2009)

Tinktink said:


> caterpillar said:
> 
> 
> > TofuDog said:
> ...



YOU are chastizing someone for lack of research?  YOU, Miss "I never bothered to listen in high school"?  While you're advocating the wonders of Google, see if you can find an online course in basic human biology.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 6, 2009)

Yurt said:


> We Are They said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Actually, they DID consent to have their sperm possibly create a child.  It's part of the paperwork they have to fill out when becoming sperm donors.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 6, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > We Are They said:
> ...




Isn't that kinda the whole point of sperm banks?


----------



## Yukon (Jun 11, 2009)

Pizza pie was once described as an abortion on toast.


----------



## "b0xcar*girl* (Jun 19, 2009)

jsanders said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > so the only real question is....do you prefer to shove women into these situations or do you prefer legal abortions?
> ...



That, and maybe teach them that keeping "pants on" is even a better method to "safe sex." I personally think folks live by their emotions too much of the time. Not by common sense and logic.


----------



## Yukon (Jun 20, 2009)

Abortion is legal, will remain legal and will continue to drive the anti-free choice wackjobs crazy.


----------

