Page 14 of 30 FirstFirst ... 410111213141516171824 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 438

Thread: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

  1. #196
    Hit By Ban Bus! DirtyPool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    639

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita
    So if you are so "Pro Life" and want to use that term and not (the more appropriate) anti-choice...what is your opinion regarding the death penalty..given that you hold life so sacred????
    I know you weren't talking to me but I would like to say my opinion of the death penalty is its a waste. A waste to society. They should replace the illegals in the fields and work sun up to sun down with chains for 40 years - this goes for all prisoners convicted of violent crimes.

  2. #197
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Then what's the problem? If said pregnancy is killing the mother, the baby obviously has to be terminated early and the threatening parasite removed before she succumbs.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #198
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    If it's a late term abortion, then the only reason the baby dies is because someone WANTS it to die.

    If you remove a late-term fetus to save the mom, you're only killing it because someone wants it dead.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  4. #199
    Hit By Ban Bus! DirtyPool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    639

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita
    Sorry Lobelia but your whole argument is based on a flawed premise..that 'babies' are being killed. Because some people believe 'babies' are being killed does not mean that babies are actually being killed. Not including late-term abortions, these aborted 'babies' are not babies at all..and I think your example of the baby and the golf putter is absurd. How about someone standing over a small barely visible to the human eye lump of cells with a golf putter?..Would that look like murder? Why do the 'pro lifers' always picture the 'unborn' as a smiling little toddler rather than a lump of cells? Which would most resemble the end result of your average abortion?
    You have no problem with the aborted fetus ending up in the hands of so called private research labs? Your heart must be charred since you can speak of unborn children as a lump of cells.

  5. #200
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Prove it.

    No really.. how do you know the actual induced labor and early disgorgement, not to mention whatever was wrong in the first place, wouldnt produce a child that would be horribly screwed up, spending its days suffering as a result?

    I look on it as the most humane option available.

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyPool
    You have no problem with the aborted fetus ending up in the hands of so called private research labs? Your heart must be charred since you can speak of unborn children as a lump of cells.
    If said fetus can help doctors, or molecular biologists cure say.. PARKINSONS or some other horrible wasting disease.. whynot?

    The fucking thing is already dead. Whynot make use of it? Do you object to surgeons learning from cadavers too?

    Why don't we just set the wayback machine to 1756 where people just bled you and gave you a violent emetic to cure what ails ya?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  6. #201
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia
    I don't think I'm either, I don't know. I believe that life starts at conception, therefore abortion is killing a human life, but then again, I'm not 100% sure of this. I'm really not. I'm hesitant to commit either way regarding the issue of legislation.

    My *thing* is that people need to stop vilifying the opposing side.

    If pro-lifers would just take a moment & consider that pro-choice folks don't believe in killing human beings any more than they do....

    And pro-choice people need to stop pigeon-holing pro-lifers as meddling controllers. We justifiably legislate against harming children in lots of ways (regardless of how sickos feel their "rights" are being infringed upon) & pro-lifers feel that this is just another way to protect children.

    All I'm saying is, give peace a chance.
    Pro choice people don't give a damn about being vilified by anti choice people. All of the anti-choice people can vilify away all they want. That is their right. The problem is that they do not stop their: they proceed to than attempt to take away the rights of other people to have abortions. that is going beyond vilifying or having an opinion..it is taking direct action to deny the rights of other people-that is what pro-choice people have a problem with. Think what you will, but don't legislate to others what to do with their own bodies! And you cannot justify the broad leap from unborn fetus to 'legislating for children. First it is something beyond conception that is considered 'life'..then all of a sudden it is 'children'..pretty huge and unfounded leap IMO. Children by definition does not include anything unborn, and certainly not a mass of undifferentiated cells.! You cannot just lump in abortion with 'protecting children' as if we are all talking about kiddies playing on swingsets and teeter-totters!
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  7. #202
    Hit By Ban Bus! DirtyPool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    639

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok
    Prove it.

    No really.. how do you know the actual induced labor and early disgorgement, not to mention whatever was wrong in the first place, wouldnt produce a child that would be horribly screwed up, spending its days suffering as a result?

    I look on it as the most humane option available.
    If you believe in reincarnation you would see that most of us had to overcome a serious handicap. That might be too esoteric for you. You don't have the right to get in nature's way.

  8. #203
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita
    Sorry Lobelia but your whole argument is based on a flawed premise..that 'babies' are being killed. Because some people believe 'babies' are being killed does not mean that babies are actually being killed.
    Just because some people don't believe it, it doesn't make it so, either.

    Not including late-term abortions, these aborted 'babies' are not babies at all..and I think your example of the baby and the golf putter is absurd.
    It's not absurd, if you give the other viewpoint any kind of respect at all. My whole post that you quoted was all about giving each side respect for its views.

    How about someone standing over a small barely visible to the human eye lump of cells with a golf putter?..Would that look like murder?
    It would look like murder to some people. That's my whole point. People have different viewpoints for very valid reasons.

    Why do the 'pro lifers' always picture the 'unborn' as a smiling little toddler rather than a lump of cells? Which would most resemble the end result of your average abortion?
    That's stereotyping, and it's not accurate or fair. It does nothing to promote any kind of understanding.

    Pro choice people don't give a damn about being vilified by anti choice people.
    You can't speak for everybody, and my point stands even if you were right. Which I don't think you are.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  9. #204
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    You don't have the right to get in nature's way.
    Oh really? How interesting for you! Then, the next time there's something wrong with you, you're forbidden to go to the doctor. If you get a wasting disease, you're to be denied treatment because that would get in nature's way and interrupt the natural progression.

    You're not allowed to wear glasses either, because that would interrupt nature's gift of shitty eyesight to you.

    You're not allowed to bring your CHILD to see a pediatrician when he has a burning 105F fever, and if you stop him from dying.. well! you just interrupted nature!

    That's a fucking RETARDED argument. We interrupt nature constantly. We're ALIVE as a species because we interrupted nature, otherwise your ass would be getting eaten by wolves right now. Wouldn't want to interrupt nature, now would we?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  10. #205
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok
    Prove it.

    No really.. how do you know the actual induced labor and early disgorgement, not to mention whatever was wrong in the first place, wouldnt produce a child that would be horribly screwed up, spending its days suffering as a result?

    I look on it as the most humane option available.
    I dunno if you're talking to me, but babies are born way early every single day. And saving (i.e., killing) people from "suffering" such as retarded, handicapped or mentally ill people, is what proponents of genocide have started out saying in the past.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  11. #206
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok
    You need another history lesson.

    The feminists who fought so you could have the choices you have now would spit on you for trying to have them removed.

    Without them, you'd just be another hausfrau, cooking for her man.

    to me, you're like any number of self loathing fags who are selling out their own kind by working for the republican party, actively participating in a government that would see them reduced to second class citizens, forever riding in the back of the bus.

    I think you have some serious female issues
    OMFG..your signature! LOL!!!
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  12. #207
    Hit By Ban Bus! DirtyPool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    639

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok
    Oh really? How interesting for you! Then, the next time there's something wrong with you, you're forbidden to go to the doctor. If you get a wasting disease, you're to be denied treatment because that would get in nature's way and interrupt the natural progression.

    You're not allowed to wear glasses either, because that would interrupt nature's gift of shitty eyesight to you.

    You're not allowed to bring your CHILD to see a pediatrician when he has a burning 105F fever, and if you stop him from dying.. well! you just interrupted nature!

    That's a fucking RETARDED argument.
    Those are your words. Medicine has its place but not when it plays a hand in murder of an unborn child unless the woman's life is in danger.

  13. #208
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    i didn't say retarded. Retarded people don't suffer. In fact, retards are some of the jolliest people on the planet.. why?

    BECAUSE THEY'RE RETARDED AND DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyPool
    Those are your words. Medicine has its place but not when it plays a hand in murder of an unborn child unless the woman's life is in danger.
    Yeah, in YOUR OPINION.

    Keep YOUR OPINION out of other peoples private lives. Their private lives don't concern you.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  14. #209
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Well, then I guess you need to define "horribly screwed up" because that, in your opinion, is not worthy of life.
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  15. #210
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default Re: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia
    Sojita, dakodas original comment was directed at me, and insinuates that I thought late term abortions are provided on demand for no reason. I responded to that. I stated something to the effect that, if a baby is being "aborted" at 8 months to save the mother, why does the baby have to be killed?

    Do you have a problem with my stance here?
    Not so much on the late term thing. But the issue is being used (the issue of late term abortions, or partial birth abortions) to cloud the greater abortion issue and to take away women's reproductive rights. I do feel there is a difference when the 'fetus' is able to live outside of the womb..that is just my personal opinion..and in that case there should be a removal of the ffetus as in a 'birth' unless there are other health/etc. issues with the woman, and then her life would have to come first.
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court to hear abortion rights case.
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: December 1st, 2005, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •