The Political View of Abortion

[Gadawg73]

When this country was founded and the Constitution was written abortion was legal, practiced and never prosecuted.
Along with slavery, legal to beat one's wife if she refused to give head, fucking one's slaves, selling the offspring of fucking those slaves, smuggling, free sale and consumption of alcohol anywhere and a legal drug trade.
The great Christian and religious men our founders were!

 

[Gadawg73]

Intercourse is compulsory?

For people with a pulse.

Now, this is of interest to me.
Even someone like you....those who are missing a few layers of insulation in his attic....open a door worth investigating.


The colleges and universities, the conservatories of Liberalism, teach the young that they are no different from any animal...and it is perfectly correct to behave as such.

Therefore, for folks like you and reptilelady, it is beyond imagination that one would forego sexual relations under the view that pregnancy would occur.
After all, one can simply kill the baby.
Isn't that your view?

Isn't that the logical implication of "For people with a pulse."?

What college or university did you go to that taught that?

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, PC..be sure to tell him where you went to school, so he can look you up.

What a cretin.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

You're an idiot. You don't make laws to make something legal. You make a law to make it illegal.

Abortion before the time of quickening was generally not against the law in the colonies at the time of framing of the Constitution. Now stop annoying me with your stupidity.

Well, now. If we're going to follow this logic, then gay marriage used to be legal in the U.S (because, you know, if there's no law against something, then it must be legal). I live in Florida. Tell me, when was gay marriage ever legal here? Furthermore, if you don't make laws to make something legal, then what is up with all these politicians trying to pass laws making gay marriage legal?



Take your own advice and stop spouting stupidity.

Wait. So pregnancy happens spontaneously? For people who go on about "choice", you sure do discount the choice to engage in an action which results in pregnancy. Banning abortion doesn't make women "slaves to biology"; it holds them responsible for their choices.

Aborting a fetus you cannot afford to bring into the world IS taking responsibility for your choices. Forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want or can't afford isn't "holding women responsible for their choices", it's punishing them for having sex.

Forcing women to bear children agains their will. So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I guess you think only men are entitled to that.

Fatal flaw in your logic; by the time a woman is pregnant, she has already brought a child into the world.

 

[Borillar]

To conservatives, anything not compulsory is forbidden.

Intercourse is compulsory?

For people with a pulse.

"It is better to copulate than not." - Robert Heinlein

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're an idiot. You don't make laws to make something legal. You make a law to make it illegal.

Abortion before the time of quickening was generally not against the law in the colonies at the time of framing of the Constitution. Now stop annoying me with your stupidity.

Well, now. If we're going to follow this logic, then gay marriage used to be legal in the U.S (because, you know, if there's no law against something, then it must be legal). I live in Florida. Tell me, when was gay marriage ever legal here? Furthermore, if you don't make laws to make something legal, then what is up with all these politicians trying to pass laws making gay marriage legal?
.

Civil marriage requires licensing or some equivalent government sanction of the marriage contract in order to be legal. Your analogy is nonsensical.

 

[Borillar]

Oh, wow... what the law doesn't touch is by definition not illegal

To conservatives, anything not compulsory is forbidden.

Intercourse is compulsory?

Well, you seem to think that things which aren't specifically labeled as "legal" are automatically illegal. But then, conservatives seem to have this binary thought process. If not A, then B. You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. You're either a God fearing, gun loving, fetus protecting conservative, or you're a commie.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

You're an idiot. You don't make laws to make something legal. You make a law to make it illegal.

Abortion before the time of quickening was generally not against the law in the colonies at the time of framing of the Constitution. Now stop annoying me with your stupidity.

Well, now. If we're going to follow this logic, then gay marriage used to be legal in the U.S (because, you know, if there's no law against something, then it must be legal). I live in Florida. Tell me, when was gay marriage ever legal here? Furthermore, if you don't make laws to make something legal, then what is up with all these politicians trying to pass laws making gay marriage legal?
.

Civil marriage requires licensing or some equivalent government sanction of the marriage contract in order to be legal. Your analogy is nonsensical.

LOL! How funny.

You come with two absurd assertions ("if it hasn't been made illegal, then it must be legal" and "the law doesn't make things legal"). I respond countering that and you turn around and further disprove your own original assertions.

If, as you assert, something is legal before it's made illegal (and vice versa), then gay marriage-- much the same way you claim with abortion-- must have been legal since the founding of this nation, because there were no laws against it until twenty or so years ago. But, funny thing here. You reject your own argument when it's applied to a position you happen to agree with. I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Liberals have a penchant for trying to change the rules of the proverbial game midway through once they find it doesn't suit them.

But here... I'll make it easy on you. Do you agree that something is illegal before it's legal or legal before it's illegal? It doesn't really matter which way you answer, simply because either way you're going to contradict your own argument placed forth.

Edit: By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why, if laws don't make things legal, why the hell liberals are busy trying to pass laws legalizing gay marriage?

 

[PoliticalChic]

For people with a pulse.

Now, this is of interest to me.
Even someone like you....those who are missing a few layers of insulation in his attic....open a door worth investigating.


The colleges and universities, the conservatories of Liberalism, teach the young that they are no different from any animal...and it is perfectly correct to behave as such.

Therefore, for folks like you and reptilelady, it is beyond imagination that one would forego sexual relations under the view that pregnancy would occur.
After all, one can simply kill the baby.
Isn't that your view?

Isn't that the logical implication of "For people with a pulse."?

What college or university did you go to that taught that?

1. "It is very difficult for many people to acknowledge the low intellectual and moral level to which many professors and universities have fallen. On Feb. 21, the 600 Northwestern University students enrolled in the popular Human Sexuality course taught by professor John Michael Bailey were told that if they wished to stay after class -- it was clearly made optional -- they would see a live demonstration of female ejaculation, the subject of that day's class. A naked young woman (not a student) would demonstrate a "f---saw" and come to orgasm in front of the students. About 120 students stayed.When word came out about this contribution to young people's understanding of life, the university defended it.

Its official spokesman, Al Cubbage, released this statement: "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge." …In Bailey's class and Mr. Cubbage's statement, we have reached the logical culmination of the '60s and '70s.

Instead of studying Dead White European Males, students get to study a young white living female ejaculating with a f---saw…. For four years, the American college student is taught that human beings are animals…. the exhibition is no different than watching a female baboon having sex. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2011/03/08/the_$50,000_orgasm/page/2



2. Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians.
Dennis Prager

a. “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.

 

[Gadawg73]

Now, this is of interest to me.
Even someone like you....those who are missing a few layers of insulation in his attic....open a door worth investigating.


The colleges and universities, the conservatories of Liberalism, teach the young that they are no different from any animal...and it is perfectly correct to behave as such.

Therefore, for folks like you and reptilelady, it is beyond imagination that one would forego sexual relations under the view that pregnancy would occur.
After all, one can simply kill the baby.
Isn't that your view?

Isn't that the logical implication of "For people with a pulse."?

What college or university did you go to that taught that?

1. "It is very difficult for many people to acknowledge the low intellectual and moral level to which many professors and universities have fallen. On Feb. 21, the 600 Northwestern University students enrolled in the popular Human Sexuality course taught by professor John Michael Bailey were told that if they wished to stay after class -- it was clearly made optional -- they would see a live demonstration of female ejaculation, the subject of that day's class. A naked young woman (not a student) would demonstrate a "f---saw" and come to orgasm in front of the students. About 120 students stayed.When word came out about this contribution to young people's understanding of life, the university defended it.

Its official spokesman, Al Cubbage, released this statement: "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge." …In Bailey's class and Mr. Cubbage's statement, we have reached the logical culmination of the '60s and '70s.

Instead of studying Dead White European Males, students get to study a young white living female ejaculating with a f---saw…. For four years, the American college student is taught that human beings are animals…. the exhibition is no different than watching a female baboon having sex. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2011/03/08/the_$50,000_orgasm/page/2



2. Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians.
Dennis Prager

a. “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.

You went to a university where they taught you to cut and paste the work of someone else and never to think for yourself.
Where was that?

 

[Gadawg73]

Yeah, PC..be sure to tell him where you went to school, so he can look you up.

What a cretin.

How could that happen?

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, again we have the moronic assertion that you're dumb if you provide evidence that supports your stance.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ah, again we have the moronic assertion that you're dumb if you provide evidence that supports your stance.

No one here needs any evidence to know you are dumb.

 

[koshergrl]

How convenient...since none exists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, now. If we're going to follow this logic, then gay marriage used to be legal in the U.S (because, you know, if there's no law against something, then it must be legal). I live in Florida. Tell me, when was gay marriage ever legal here? Furthermore, if you don't make laws to make something legal, then what is up with all these politicians trying to pass laws making gay marriage legal?
.

Civil marriage requires licensing or some equivalent government sanction of the marriage contract in order to be legal. Your analogy is nonsensical.

LOL! How funny.

You come with two absurd assertions ("if it hasn't been made illegal, then it must be legal" and "the law doesn't make things legal"). I respond countering that and you turn around and further disprove your own original assertions.

If, as you assert, something is legal before it's made illegal (and vice versa), then gay marriage-- much the same way you claim with abortion-- must have been legal since the founding of this nation, because there were no laws against it until twenty or so years ago. But, funny thing here. You reject your own argument when it's applied to a position you happen to agree with. I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Liberals have a penchant for trying to change the rules of the proverbial game midway through once they find it doesn't suit them.

But here... I'll make it easy on you. Do you agree that something is illegal before it's legal or legal before it's illegal? It doesn't really matter which way you answer, simply because either way you're going to contradict your own argument placed forth.

Edit: By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why, if laws don't make things legal, why the hell liberals are busy trying to pass laws legalizing gay marriage?

If you can produce evidence of the laws in the colonies in the 1700's that made abortion before quickening a crime,

then by all means do so. Otherwise shut up and accept the fact that such abortions were generally LEGAL then.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What college or university did you go to that taught that?

1. "It is very difficult for many people to acknowledge the low intellectual and moral level to which many professors and universities have fallen. On Feb. 21, the 600 Northwestern University students enrolled in the popular Human Sexuality course taught by professor John Michael Bailey were told that if they wished to stay after class -- it was clearly made optional -- they would see a live demonstration of female ejaculation, the subject of that day's class. A naked young woman (not a student) would demonstrate a "f---saw" and come to orgasm in front of the students. About 120 students stayed.When word came out about this contribution to young people's understanding of life, the university defended it.

Its official spokesman, Al Cubbage, released this statement: "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge." …In Bailey's class and Mr. Cubbage's statement, we have reached the logical culmination of the '60s and '70s.

Instead of studying Dead White European Males, students get to study a young white living female ejaculating with a f---saw…. For four years, the American college student is taught that human beings are animals…. the exhibition is no different than watching a female baboon having sex. http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2011/03/08/the_$50,000_orgasm/page/2



2. Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians.
Dennis Prager

a. “The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible.” The University's Part in Political Life” (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.

You went to a university where they taught you to cut and paste the work of someone else and never to think for yourself.
Where was that?

The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

To be fair, PC did stick her toe in the water of thinking for herself in this thread. It did not go well for her...

...she's back on dry land.

 

[koshergrl]

It's so funny that these are the same loons who claim the right is "anti-education".

 

[Dragonlady]

It's so funny that these are the same loons who claim the right is "anti-education".

The right opposes education which teaches science and factual history. They want their children taught that the US is a republic not a democracy and they want history texts to portray the Founding Father as conservatives. They want creationism taught, not evolution. They even oppose Einstein's theory of relativity because it disproves creationism.

It is no accident that in every country where right wing dictators have taken over a country, the first thing they do is kill all of the university professors and the lawyers - those who both think for themselves and understand the laws and how they work, and those who teach others to do so.

IOW, conservatives don't want their children taught facts or how to think for themselves, they want their children raised to be good little conservatives. They fear that the liberals will pollute their little darlings' mind and turn them gay, or worse, Democrat.

Liberals are not afraid to teach children to think for themselves. We don't fear that meeting gay people will turn our kids gay. We don't think that exposing our children to the world's religions will turn them away from God, although that is always a risk. We believe that if we instill good values and live our lives according those values, our kids will be fine.

Some of my conservative friends have commented that my methods of child rearing have taught my children to question authority. I raised children to think for themselves. Oh the horror!

 

[NYcarbineer]

"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."

Those are the words of James Wilson, one of the framers of the Constitution and one of the judges on the 1st Supreme Court appointed by Washington.

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, now. If we're going to follow this logic, then gay marriage used to be legal in the U.S (because, you know, if there's no law against something, then it must be legal). I live in Florida. Tell me, when was gay marriage ever legal here? Furthermore, if you don't make laws to make something legal, then what is up with all these politicians trying to pass laws making gay marriage legal?
.

Civil marriage requires licensing or some equivalent government sanction of the marriage contract in order to be legal. Your analogy is nonsensical.

LOL! How funny.

You come with two absurd assertions ("if it hasn't been made illegal, then it must be legal" and "the law doesn't make things legal"). I respond countering that and you turn around and further disprove your own original assertions.

If, as you assert, something is legal before it's made illegal (and vice versa), then gay marriage-- much the same way you claim with abortion-- must have been legal since the founding of this nation, because there were no laws against it until twenty or so years ago. But, funny thing here. You reject your own argument when it's applied to a position you happen to agree with. I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Liberals have a penchant for trying to change the rules of the proverbial game midway through once they find it doesn't suit them.

But here... I'll make it easy on you. Do you agree that something is illegal before it's legal or legal before it's illegal? It doesn't really matter which way you answer, simply because either way you're going to contradict your own argument placed forth.

Edit: By the way, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why, if laws don't make things legal, why the hell liberals are busy trying to pass laws legalizing gay marriage?

If abortion wasn't legal in the 18th century, why were states passing laws to make it illegal in the 19th?