February 28, 200620 yr And this is all the more reason why both sides need to sit down and figure out when in this nation 'life' is going to be designated as beginning. This would go a long way to solving the abortion issue, but this will not happen anytime soon, one becuase neither side wants to compromise and becuase well its a fun little issue to campaign about. The problem is even if the legislature were to designate a particular time frame for when abortions can happen and when they can't, many people will want in banned altogether and others will want it allowed althogether, so i dont see this issue going away any time soon How about the compromise thats already in place, Roe v Wade? The state's interest in the life of a child becomes stronger and overcomes the right to choose at some point. Obviously judicial actors are imperfect, but here is what the court said on the matter: With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here. Thats the legal proposition. Now, with medical capabilities becoming stronger and stronger, the fetus is more likely to survive outside of the womb. In my mind, abortion can rationally be considered murder where the entity inside the womb can, for lack of a better phrase, walk outside and have a reasonable chance and survival. What if the child has brain defects but can live? I say life. Obviously there is an exception for the life of the mother. The concept of us taking a life to save another is not unheard of. When twins are born in such a manner that one child has to die to save the other, we do it. Im not in support of abortions anytime during the pregnancy, except with the mother health exception. But I dont think the pro-choice groups are fighting to have Roe, which doesnt grant this right, distinguished in such a manner. The debate is between those who think life startsa at conception, hence no abortion at all, and those who think there has to be some leeway, ie viability of life. Here is more of what the court says as background: Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [p160] It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [n56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. [n57] It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [n58] As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. [n59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. [n60] The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [p161] the moment of conception. [n61] The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. [n62] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...10_0113_ZO.html
March 6, 200620 yr The bill was signed into law by the Governor today. PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman's life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest. Planned Parenthood, which operates the state's only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure. Rounds issued a written statement saying he expects the law will be tied up in court for years and will not take effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court upholds it. "In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement. The governor declined all media requests for interviews Monday. The Legislature passed the bill last month after supporters argued that the recent appointment of conservative justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito have made the U.S. Supreme Court more likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. Abortion opponents already are offering money to help the state pay legal bills for the anticipated court challenge, Rounds has said. Lawmakers said an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature set up a special account to accept donations for legal fees. Under the new law, to go into effect July 1, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion. Rounds noted that it was written to make sure existing restrictions would still be enforced during the legal battle. Current state law sets increasingly stringent restrictions on abortions as pregnancy progresses; after the 24th week, the procedure is allowed only to protect the woman's health and safety. Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, said the organization has not yet decided whether to challenge the measure in court or to seek a statewide public vote in November. A referendum would either repeal the abortion ban or delay a court challenge to the legislation. "Obviously, we're very disappointed that Governor Rounds has sided on the side of politics rather than on the side of the women of South Dakota to protect their health and safety," Looby said. She said Planned Parenthood would continue providing services that include family planning, emergency contraception and safe and legal abortions. About 800 abortions are performed each year in the state.
March 7, 200620 yr The funny but hypocritical thing about this is that it is considered murder to terminate the embryo immediatley after fertilization. But this apparent murder is punished as severely as having half a pound of pot. Why not get the death penalty involved? Bill Napoli, the South Dakota legislator who sponsored the state's Rapist's Rights Bill, claims that a human embryo is a "person", which is "totally unique immediately at fertilization." His bill, signed now by the Governor and supported by Republicans like John McCain, Mitt Romey, and George Allen, is meant to "fully protect...the rights, interest, and life of [an] unborn child." An embryo, no matter how many cells it has, deserves just as much protection as a newborn baby, they say. Thus, the bill makes abortion a crime. It makes the "termination of the life of an unborn being" a....a....Class 5 felony. A Class 5 felony, folks. If you want evidence of their hypocrisy, you need look no further than that clause in the bill. For if the bill's supporters truly believed abortion is murder, why didn't they make abortion a Class A or B felony (as "murder" is classified in the South Dakota code)? If they believe that at the moment of an inception that little cluster of cells has just as many rights as a full-fledged human being, why the hypocrisy? Let's look at what else classifies as a Class 5 felony in South Dakota to see just how much Napoli, McCain and others believe abortion is "murder." Convicted of four DUIs? Get caught setting up a second internet gambling site? Place a bug on someone's phone line? Posses a half pound of marijuana? That's what South Dakota thinks a Class 5 felony is about. And it's in that company that they place abortion, which they claim is the killing of a unique "human being." Now, just to make things clear, South Dakota classifies the unlawful killing an unborn child as "fetal homicide", a Class B felony (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. ? 22-16-1.1 22-16-1.1). So if a husband, knowing his wife is a few weeks pregnant, beats her up and causes her to miscarry, he's guilty of fetal homicide, a Class B felony punishable with a very, very long time in jail. Yet if a doctor performs an abortion, he gets a maximum of five years in prison. So the question for Nagoli and McCain and the rest of the bill's supporters is why do they maintain disparate values on "human life"? Why is an embryo more "precious" in the first instance and not in the second? Why don't they put their values where their mouth is and simply make abortion "fetal homicide"? And while we're at it, why didn't the bill's supporters punish a woman who seeks an abortion? sh*t, if they really think abortion is murder, wouldn't asking for an abortion be solicitation for murder? If a woman asks for and gets an abortion, isn't she an accessory to murder? But the bill's supporters don't mention punishment for a woman who seeks to exercise control over her own body. Why? Because they know their position is fundamentally wrong. In their heart of hearts, they know that an embryo is not human life; it's not the same as a two-year old child or an adult. They are hypocrites with murky values who want to present themselves as "staunchly pro-life." In reality, their position produces inconsistent, illogical results. It's a world where protection of "life" varies depending on who causes the termination. It's a world where abortion is a sin unless it's your teenage daughter who is knocked up, or your little girl who was raped. It's a world where they seek to place a baby's smiling face on every blastulae but refuse to follow their claims to the logical conclusion of classifying termination of that blastulae as murder. Incongruous convictions, indeed. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/7/123718/6876
March 7, 200620 yr For all in favor of this hardline decision on abortion consider this... Your 15 year old daughter is raped, beaten, and left for dead in a city gutter. She's found and you're horrified at the treatment of your progeny. It turns out that she's pregnant and able to deliver the child without complications. What's your course of action?
March 7, 200620 yr For all in favor of this hardline decision on abortion consider this... Your 15 year old daughter is raped, beaten, and left for dead in a city gutter. She's found and you're horrified at the treatment of your progeny. It turns out that she's pregnant and able to deliver the child without complications. What's your course of action? Or in the alternative, a sick father decides he is God and must impregnate his 14 year old daughter. He rapes her but she manages to get away. Soon she finds out she is pregnant. She can't do anything in South Dakota.
March 8, 200620 yr I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions. Or OMG get on the pill Dont be naive. If you think the nutjobs that want first trimester abortion gone will stop there, you really need to learn more. You think theyll be ok with teenage girls and boys having access to condoms or contraceptives? You think they are ok with adults getting these? No dice on both counts. And if you think for a second that their solution, ie drilling abstinence and Jesus into everyones heads, will actually stop unwanted pregnancies, then Ive got a bridge to sell you. Guess what, teenage boys and girls DO have access to condoms and contraceptives. Go to mother f***ing Eckerd and buy a box of rubbers. Go to the health center and get on the pill. You can't pay 30 bucks a month for the pill? Get a f***ing part time job. Go figure, it will give you something to do besides having unprotected sex with your pothead classmates. But seriously, if you honestly "can't afford protection or don't have access to it" (oh boo-hoo) keep your f***ing legs closed, or keep your pecker in your pants. WHAT A CONCEPT!!! THANK YOU! Abortions are being taken advantage of and being used as birth control, it's just sick. I knew a few girls back in high school who had an abortion or 2 and were still using the freaking "pull out" method. Oh "Well what if you get pregnant?"... "i'll just get an abortion". No big freaking deal. They don't learn! I'm sorry, but there has to be certain limitations set. If they can't handle the consequences, then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place!... or use a condom!
March 8, 200620 yr I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions. Or OMG get on the pill Dont be naive. If you think the nutjobs that want first trimester abortion gone will stop there, you really need to learn more. You think theyll be ok with teenage girls and boys having access to condoms or contraceptives? You think they are ok with adults getting these? No dice on both counts. And if you think for a second that their solution, ie drilling abstinence and Jesus into everyones heads, will actually stop unwanted pregnancies, then Ive got a bridge to sell you. Guess what, teenage boys and girls DO have access to condoms and contraceptives. Go to mother f***ing Eckerd and buy a box of rubbers. Go to the health center and get on the pill. You can't pay 30 bucks a month for the pill? Get a f***ing part time job. Go figure, it will give you something to do besides having unprotected sex with your pothead classmates. But seriously, if you honestly "can't afford protection or don't have access to it" (oh boo-hoo) keep your f***ing legs closed, or keep your pecker in your pants. WHAT A CONCEPT!!! THANK YOU! Abortions are being taken advantage of and being used as birth control, it's just sick. I knew a few girls back in high school who had an abortion or 2 and were still using the freaking "pull out" method. Oh "Well what if you get pregnant?"... "i'll just get an abortion". No big freaking deal. They don't learn! I'm sorry, but there has to be certain limitations set. If they can't handle the consequences, then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place!... or use a condom! What basis do you have to impose the consequence of becoming a mother on these girls?
March 8, 200620 yr I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions. Or OMG get on the pill Dont be naive. If you think the nutjobs that want first trimester abortion gone will stop there, you really need to learn more. You think theyll be ok with teenage girls and boys having access to condoms or contraceptives? You think they are ok with adults getting these? No dice on both counts. And if you think for a second that their solution, ie drilling abstinence and Jesus into everyones heads, will actually stop unwanted pregnancies, then Ive got a bridge to sell you. Guess what, teenage boys and girls DO have access to condoms and contraceptives. Go to mother f***ing Eckerd and buy a box of rubbers. Go to the health center and get on the pill. You can't pay 30 bucks a month for the pill? Get a f***ing part time job. Go figure, it will give you something to do besides having unprotected sex with your pothead classmates. But seriously, if you honestly "can't afford protection or don't have access to it" (oh boo-hoo) keep your f***ing legs closed, or keep your pecker in your pants. WHAT A CONCEPT!!! THANK YOU! Abortions are being taken advantage of and being used as birth control, it's just sick. I knew a few girls back in high school who had an abortion or 2 and were still using the freaking "pull out" method. Oh "Well what if you get pregnant?"... "i'll just get an abortion". No big freaking deal. They don't learn! I'm sorry, but there has to be certain limitations set. If they can't handle the consequences, then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place!... or use a condom! What basis do you have to impose the consequence of becoming a mother on these girls? Are you KIDDING ME? How about them not using their f***ING brains?
March 8, 200620 yr I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions. Or OMG get on the pill Dont be naive. If you think the nutjobs that want first trimester abortion gone will stop there, you really need to learn more. You think theyll be ok with teenage girls and boys having access to condoms or contraceptives? You think they are ok with adults getting these? No dice on both counts. And if you think for a second that their solution, ie drilling abstinence and Jesus into everyones heads, will actually stop unwanted pregnancies, then Ive got a bridge to sell you. Guess what, teenage boys and girls DO have access to condoms and contraceptives. Go to mother f***ing Eckerd and buy a box of rubbers. Go to the health center and get on the pill. You can't pay 30 bucks a month for the pill? Get a f***ing part time job. Go figure, it will give you something to do besides having unprotected sex with your pothead classmates. But seriously, if you honestly "can't afford protection or don't have access to it" (oh boo-hoo) keep your f***ing legs closed, or keep your pecker in your pants. WHAT A CONCEPT!!! THANK YOU! Abortions are being taken advantage of and being used as birth control, it's just sick. I knew a few girls back in high school who had an abortion or 2 and were still using the freaking "pull out" method. Oh "Well what if you get pregnant?"... "i'll just get an abortion". No big freaking deal. They don't learn! I'm sorry, but there has to be certain limitations set. If they can't handle the consequences, then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place!... or use a condom! What basis do you have to impose the consequence of becoming a mother on these girls? Are you KIDDING ME? How about them not using their f***ING brains? Youre telling me people in this country dont do stupid things every single day? Or everytime someone does something stupid in this country, we impose a burden as immense as raising a child? How many guys have sex all the time, even using condoms, and then knock up a girl? You, dodge, get to tell all those guys that they have to become fathers because they had sex? Youve gotta be really perfect to impose that on others.
March 8, 200620 yr I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions. Or OMG get on the pill Dont be naive. If you think the nutjobs that want first trimester abortion gone will stop there, you really need to learn more. You think theyll be ok with teenage girls and boys having access to condoms or contraceptives? You think they are ok with adults getting these? No dice on both counts. And if you think for a second that their solution, ie drilling abstinence and Jesus into everyones heads, will actually stop unwanted pregnancies, then Ive got a bridge to sell you. Guess what, teenage boys and girls DO have access to condoms and contraceptives. Go to mother f***ing Eckerd and buy a box of rubbers. Go to the health center and get on the pill. You can't pay 30 bucks a month for the pill? Get a f***ing part time job. Go figure, it will give you something to do besides having unprotected sex with your pothead classmates. But seriously, if you honestly "can't afford protection or don't have access to it" (oh boo-hoo) keep your f***ing legs closed, or keep your pecker in your pants. WHAT A CONCEPT!!! THANK YOU! Abortions are being taken advantage of and being used as birth control, it's just sick. I knew a few girls back in high school who had an abortion or 2 and were still using the freaking "pull out" method. Oh "Well what if you get pregnant?"... "i'll just get an abortion". No big freaking deal. They don't learn! I'm sorry, but there has to be certain limitations set. If they can't handle the consequences, then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place!... or use a condom! What basis do you have to impose the consequence of becoming a mother on these girls? Are you KIDDING ME? How about them not using their f***ING brains? Youre telling me people in this country dont do stupid things every single day? Or everytime someone does something stupid in this country, we impose a burden as immense as raising a child? How many guys have sex all the time, even using condoms, and then knock up a girl? You, dodge, get to tell all those guys that they have to become fathers because they had sex? Youve gotta be really perfect to impose that on others. Jesus f***ing Christ dude. Ashley was talking about her friends that use the pull-out method and have had multiple abortions, and you're sticking up for them. You are far left to the point of absurdity. Wake up.
March 8, 200620 yr I think that the people in South Dakota fail to realize that banning abortion doesn't really END it, it just forces people to use "backalley" sources who operate away from the law, which is dangerous. One of the reasons that Roe vs. Wade passed was because the Court wanted to put an end to dangerous back-alley abortions. Or OMG get on the pill Dont be naive. If you think the nutjobs that want first trimester abortion gone will stop there, you really need to learn more. You think theyll be ok with teenage girls and boys having access to condoms or contraceptives? You think they are ok with adults getting these? No dice on both counts. And if you think for a second that their solution, ie drilling abstinence and Jesus into everyones heads, will actually stop unwanted pregnancies, then Ive got a bridge to sell you. Guess what, teenage boys and girls DO have access to condoms and contraceptives. Go to mother f***ing Eckerd and buy a box of rubbers. Go to the health center and get on the pill. You can't pay 30 bucks a month for the pill? Get a f***ing part time job. Go figure, it will give you something to do besides having unprotected sex with your pothead classmates. But seriously, if you honestly "can't afford protection or don't have access to it" (oh boo-hoo) keep your f***ing legs closed, or keep your pecker in your pants. WHAT A CONCEPT!!! THANK YOU! Abortions are being taken advantage of and being used as birth control, it's just sick. I knew a few girls back in high school who had an abortion or 2 and were still using the freaking "pull out" method. Oh "Well what if you get pregnant?"... "i'll just get an abortion". No big freaking deal. They don't learn! I'm sorry, but there has to be certain limitations set. If they can't handle the consequences, then they shouldn't be having sex in the first place!... or use a condom! What basis do you have to impose the consequence of becoming a mother on these girls? Are you KIDDING ME? How about them not using their f***ING brains? Youre telling me people in this country dont do stupid things every single day? Or everytime someone does something stupid in this country, we impose a burden as immense as raising a child? How many guys have sex all the time, even using condoms, and then knock up a girl? You, dodge, get to tell all those guys that they have to become fathers because they had sex? Youve gotta be really perfect to impose that on others. Jesus f***ing Christ dude. Ashley was talking about her friends that use the pull-out method and have had multiple abortions, and you're sticking up for them. You are far left to the point of absurdity. Wake up. Calm the f*** down and stop resorting to idiotically calling me leftist to make yourself feel better. Let me explain this to you in simple terms. The issue is not about how stupid people are. It's about whether the act they choose to commit has resulted in something wrong happening. It's about whether this act is wrong enough to trump their basic right not to have a kid. Take, for example, the morning after pill. A lot of people consider this murder too. So they say that when someone screws up and has sex without a condom, they should live with their consequences and have the child and not be able to murder the fertilized egg. Or take further, the use of contraceptives. A lot of people also think this is a form of murder. So they argue, along the same line ashley does, that if you are stupid enough to have sex, you should have to have a child and not let a contraceptive allow you to commit murder. See how this works? So the issue boils down to whether these girls, or a girl who screwed up once, or a girl who was raped, or a girl who was forced by her father, are committing an improper act by choosing not to continue with a pregnancy IMMEDIATLEY after they find out they are pregnant. So I ask again, what basis do you have, what certainty do you have, that an abortion in the first trimester is too terrible an act that all of those girls should not be able to choose whether to be pregnant? So repeat myself, the debate is not about whether stupid people who stupidly have sex should have to live with their consequences. We all get to be as stupid as possible and we all get to have sex as wild and crazily as possible and we all get to do it without a condom and then take the morning after pill or use contraceptives unless people can affirmitively show that these are terrible acts. Never, in the course of any well thought out logical argument, has anyone claimed that our rights are watered down because of the potential that they can be abused by stupid people. Im not sticking up for these idiotic girls. Im not letting some single example enroach on every women's right to not have a pregnancy. Go ahead, call me a f***in leftist commie freak. If that makes you feel better without having to address the points that are made, then I guess youre no better than most extremists like Ann Coulter and Mike Moore, who do the same exact thing.
March 8, 200620 yr You don't understand that I am not arguing that abortions should be illegal or in any way limited during the first trimester. You know, or ought to know, that I believe that the status-quo on abortion laws is satisfactory to me. I still believe that life begins at conception - cells don't magically come to life the instant a fetus becomes a baby. I'm not calling you leftist to make myself feel better, I'm calling you leftist because it is my opinion that you are extremly liberal to an unhealthy and unreasonable extent. Ironically, we support the same platform for the most part.
March 8, 200620 yr If the issue is whether or not these girls are stupid idiots, I totally agree. They probably dont deserve the rights they have.(hey, they are so stupid, they probably shouldnt be having kids anyway).
March 8, 200620 yr If the issue is whether or not these girls are stupid idiots, I totally agree. They probably dont deserve the rights they have.(hey, they are so stupid, they probably shouldnt be having kids anyway). This post seemed indicative of you not even acknowledging this. Maybe I read too far into that, but it's easy to do when you didn't post much besides that.
March 8, 200620 yr If the issue is whether or not these girls are stupid idiots, I totally agree. They probably dont deserve the rights they have.(hey, they are so stupid, they probably shouldnt be having kids anyway). This post seemed indicative of you not even acknowledging this. Maybe I read too far into that, but it's easy to do when you didn't post much besides that. Saying they are stupid is one thing but saying they should deal with the consequences and not have an abortion, hence have the kid, is another. I guess reading that into her post is what lead to my reply.
March 8, 200620 yr If the issue is whether or not these girls are stupid idiots, I totally agree. They probably dont deserve the rights they have.(hey, they are so stupid, they probably shouldnt be having kids anyway). This post seemed indicative of you not even acknowledging this. Maybe I read too far into that, but it's easy to do when you didn't post much besides that. Saying they are stupid is one thing but saying they should deal with the consequences and not have an abortion, hence have the kid, is another. I guess reading that into her post is what lead to my reply. I think the point that is being made is that abortions are used more by these "stupid people" than by rape victims, etc than you think.
March 8, 200620 yr What gives a kid a right to life anyways? If you're "unborn" you ain't human. I mean, it's not like we have big-time jacked up funerals for fetuses. In my opinion, and Bill Hicks', you ain't a human until you're in my phonebook anyways. I'm not saying it's okay to kill you, but it's an option.
March 8, 200620 yr If the issue is whether or not these girls are stupid idiots, I totally agree. They probably dont deserve the rights they have.(hey, they are so stupid, they probably shouldnt be having kids anyway). This post seemed indicative of you not even acknowledging this. Maybe I read too far into that, but it's easy to do when you didn't post much besides that. Saying they are stupid is one thing but saying they should deal with the consequences and not have an abortion, hence have the kid, is another. I guess reading that into her post is what lead to my reply. I think the point that is being made is that abortions are used more by these "stupid people" than by rape victims, etc than you think. Id say mostly by teenage girls who make one mistake or are pressured, as teenagers usually are, into having sex and get knocked up. Id say these abortion as birth control people are not as common as you think. Abortions arent cheap.
March 8, 200620 yr What gives a kid a right to life anyways? If you're "unborn" you ain't human. I mean, it's not like we have big-time jacked up funerals for fetuses. In my opinion, and Bill Hicks', you ain't a human until you're in my phonebook anyways. I'm not saying it's okay to kill you, but it's an option. No, you're not a human until you're born. But if you want to take a completely biological (which tends to be the opposite view of the religious-right view), life begins when you have one cell. I'm just throwing that out there to throw as many people off as I can, really. :thumbup
March 8, 200620 yr What gives a kid a right to life anyways? If you're "unborn" you ain't human. I mean, it's not like we have big-time jacked up funerals for fetuses. In my opinion, and Bill Hicks', you ain't a human until you're in my phonebook anyways. I'm not saying it's okay to kill you, but it's an option. No, you're not a human until you're born. But if you want to take a completely biological (which tends to be the opposite view of the religious-right view), life begins when you have one cell. I'm just throwing that out there to throw as many people off as I can, really. :thumbup Not really. One cell can't survive on it's own. One cell can't think or do things contingently. One cell doesn't have free will. One cell ain't human.
March 8, 200620 yr What gives a kid a right to life anyways? If you're "unborn" you ain't human. I mean, it's not like we have big-time jacked up funerals for fetuses. In my opinion, and Bill Hicks', you ain't a human until you're in my phonebook anyways. I'm not saying it's okay to kill you, but it's an option. No, you're not a human until you're born. But if you want to take a completely biological (which tends to be the opposite view of the religious-right view), life begins when you have one cell. I'm just throwing that out there to throw as many people off as I can, really. :thumbup Not really. One cell can't survive on it's own. One cell can't think or do things contingently. One cell doesn't have free will. One cell ain't human. I recommend reading my post instead of pressing the quote button before doing so.
March 8, 200620 yr What gives a kid a right to life anyways? If you're "unborn" you ain't human. I mean, it's not like we have big-time jacked up funerals for fetuses. In my opinion, and Bill Hicks', you ain't a human until you're in my phonebook anyways. I'm not saying it's okay to kill you, but it's an option. No, you're not a human until you're born. But if you want to take a completely biological (which tends to be the opposite view of the religious-right view), life begins when you have one cell. I'm just throwing that out there to throw as many people off as I can, really. :thumbup Not really. One cell can't survive on it's own. One cell can't think or do things contingently. One cell doesn't have free will. One cell ain't human. I recommend reading my post instead of pressing the quote button before doing so. I did. Life does not begin when you have just one cell. That's not even an option. That's counterintuitive because life could not sustain itself on one cell. Life IS human. I recommend you go do some more thinking on the subject before you try and support legislation that tells others what they can or cannot do based on some outdated doctrinal beliefs that, OH YEAH, shouldn't be taken literally anyways. It's amazing how quickly you get offended on these topics lately.
March 8, 200620 yr What gives a kid a right to life anyways? If you're "unborn" you ain't human. I mean, it's not like we have big-time jacked up funerals for fetuses. In my opinion, and Bill Hicks', you ain't a human until you're in my phonebook anyways. I'm not saying it's okay to kill you, but it's an option. No, you're not a human until you're born. But if you want to take a completely biological (which tends to be the opposite view of the religious-right view), life begins when you have one cell. I'm just throwing that out there to throw as many people off as I can, really. :thumbup Not really. One cell can't survive on it's own. One cell can't think or do things contingently. One cell doesn't have free will. One cell ain't human. I recommend reading my post instead of pressing the quote button before doing so. I did. Life does not begin when you have just one cell. That's not even an option. That's counterintuitive because life could not sustain itself on one cell. Life IS human. I recommend you go do some more thinking on the subject before you try and support legislation that tells others what they can or cannot do based on some outdated doctrinal beliefs that, OH YEAH, shouldn't be taken literally anyways. It's amazing how quickly you get offended on these topics lately. I'm offended because you don't understand that I'm pro-choice and I'm just posting things to think about for those of you who are liberal just because you want to be liberal on certain subjects.
March 8, 200620 yr At what point did I say I didn't "understand" you were pro choice? You already said that already, old material. And yet, you keep presenting certain pro-life aspects. Be offended if you want. Just don't baby when you present some pro-life doctrine crap and ask others to "consider it." A teen who has sex shouldn't have to pay for a mistake for the rest of their lives. There are enough unwanted kids in this world without adding others.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.