Page 17 of 30 FirstFirst ... 713141516171819202127 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 255 of 438

Thread: Supreme court to mull partial-birth abortion bans

  1. #241
    Gold Member equallydivided's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    YeeHawVille
    Posts
    1,156

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyPool
    I never said hurt- i said arrested and sentenced to hard labor. Sorry if i sound extremist but I would like to see the rights protected of the unborn babies- not baby killers.
    Would it make you feel better if I said although we have the same common interest, I try to be a little less confrontational than you do. When you're confrontational, it puts everyone on the defensive and people just stop listening to what is said...

  2. #242
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyPool
    ..Oh sure if you want to be treated by the lowest form of human trash: abortion personnel.
    Idiocy.

    Planned Parenthood and the like all should be rounded up in each state and forced to stand trial for murder and then sentenced to 40 years hard labor.
    You should be tossed into a detention camp for your ridiculous ideas of having children born into poverty, abuse, neglect and every other horror imaginable.

    You have this stupid vision in your head that every baby is wanted, and every child in an orphanage will be adopted by a loving family.

    Pull your head out of your ass and face reality: 80% of the time, that doesn't happen. So if you feel like condemning said "precious" children to a life of abject misery then you ought to be doing time for crimes against humanity.

    Do you ever think things through? Of course not. For you, right to life ends the second the child is born and then you don't care.

    If you can't be woman enough to have the baby then you have a serious character problem- at least give the baby up for adoption.
    Read above.

    No CHOICE for women. It's a racket to profit off of your hardship.
    Back to nazi germany with you, Frau Blucher.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia
    You can't speak for the entire medical community. You just can't.
    I don't purporte to. You don't speak for your entire gender, yet here you are dealing absolutes.

    I don't give a hoot what they do with their bodies. I'm just politely requesting that they not kill the fetus that they've pulled halfway out. Pull it out if you like, just don't kill it.
    Again, find a doctor that pulls out a perfectly healthy fetus and then kills it at 8 months. They don't exist.

    Makes no sense at all. In my example, the old lady = the fetus, not the mother. In my example, neither the fetus nor the old lady have any control, nor have they paid for anything.
    Right, because women who get abortions are ties and gagged, and have the procedure forced on them.

    The mugger is the one taking the right to choose from her.

    No, but legislations evolve from opinions. All legislators have them. And we very well know that their opinions aren't always moral or ethical or right.
    Removing control of someone's BODY from them is?

    See above comment about not giving a hoot what people do with their bodies. Even so, I'm sure you'll say it again. And again. And again...
    Their bodies, what they choose to do with them, the choice of controlling their reproductive process... their bodies = everything they do with.

    With that broad definition, we should have NO LAWS WHATSOEVER. Every law we have cedes some control of ourselves to others. Every single one. Even the law against rape... you're taking control of the rapist's life.
    Big difference between a rapist forcing himself on someone, and a woman CHOOSING a direction for her body. One involves choice. The other doesn't.

    What if the rapist doesn't believe you should have that control? What if he believes that he is completely 100% justified in raping? Who are you to tell him what to do with his body? You're being a fascist, and making him cede control.
    Read above, that's a silly argument.

    Grimm, you are way off-base here. You won't be able to quote me anywhere to support that first sentence. You're assuming something, to help your argument. I don't think that at all. None of my arguments are based on your erroneous assumption.
    I can cut and paste if you like. It's pretty obvious.

    Human life exists in all forms within the continuum. Some people are well actualized, so to speak- thank you Maslow- and have all the stuff you think is essential to be qualified & validated as a person. Hopes, dreams, intelligence, self-awareness, you name it.

    The poor folks at the other end of the continuum may not have any of that. They may be psychotic, or retarded, or deformed in any conceivable way, or even be a tiny human life form with a long way to go toward the other end of the continuum. But we're all human, and we're all somewhere on the continuum.
    Thanks, Isaac Azimov

    Who are any of us to say that anyone on the continuum doesn't deserve to live?
    Nature doesn't know "rights". They are a human construct. They usually devolve from arrogance or "moral authority". The universe doesn't give 2 shits if a woman flushes her womb or not.

    You may very well be 100% correct in this. I don't have statistics. I'll cede the point. However, if it's not going to live, seems pretty pointless to go to the trouble of plugging in the brain sucker, doesn't it?
    Would you prefer it's neck broken? a bullet? which way is more humane?

    I don't have all the answers, as I've said. I don't have enough wisdom. That's why, despite my vehement arguing on this thread, I'm actually pretty ambivalent regarding abortion in general. This late-term business is pretty much the only part of it that I'll argue with conviction.
    And again, it's something done in emergency situations.. not cuz a woman suddenly decided "hey, i dont want this after all. Break out the wet-vac!"
    Last edited by Grimmlok; June 21st, 2006 at 03:38 PM.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #243
    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

    Do you ever think things through? Of course not. For you, right to life ends the second the child is born and then you don't care.


    Back to nazi germany with you, Frau Blucher.
    Finally, the Prince of Darkness, chimes in.

    I care very much. It takes a villiage not an abortion clinic.

  4. #244
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

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

    There is no village. That's reality.

    In your head, you exist in a place called "what should be" while the rest of us live in "what is".

    What you want vs. Reality.

    By living in this fantasyland you ignore what is actually going on, in favor of a little fantasy of how things should be.

    Abortion clinics exist for a very real set of reasons.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #245
    Elite Member moomies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    pretending to be a lurker but I'm not quiet enough
    Posts
    15,515

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

    the Enlightenment

    An eighteenth century philosophical movement based on notions of progress through the application of reason and rationality. Enlightenment philosophers foresaw a world free from religious dogma, within human control, and leading ultimately to emancipation for all humankind. [Tony Bilton et al., Introductory Sociology, 3rd edition. London, Macmillan, 1996:658]

    http://www.soci.canterbury.ac.nz/res...enlighte.shtml

    If you think it's crazy, you ain't seen a thing. Just wait until we're goin down in flames.

  6. #246
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,800

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

    Ok, we have officially become ridiculously redundant.

    Grimm, your responses to my comments are making me think we're arguing on two different astral planes or something. Several of them aren't even logically connected to what I said at all.

    You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. I would tell you to cut & paste (your above offer) but it's apparent at this point that your perception of reality is so different from mine that it would be pointless. You are wrong, plain & simple about your assumption. Couldn't be more wrong. You see what you want to see, if it helps you to argue.

    I thought we were just debating back & forth, but I'm now getting this pissy nasty insulting vibe from you & I no longer feel like continuing. Please do not feel like you've *won* because all you've done is repeatedly state your opinion, as have I. Your so-called facts don't add up, just like you think mine don't. You can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but I'm not convinced, and I'm sure it's likewise.
    "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.

  7. #247
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

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

    You see what you want to see, if it helps you to argue.
    You *know* I don't argue unless I can back it up.. come on..

    I thought we were just debating back & forth, but I'm now getting this pissy nasty insulting vibe from you & I no longer feel like continuing.
    Now that's reading something that isnt there

    Your so-called facts don't add up, just like you think mine don't.
    You're not arguing with facts, you're arguing with emotionalism. I'm arguing with concepts.

    Personal (meaning own body) choice vs. ceded control of said body to others in matters of reproduction.

    it's not rocket science.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #248
    Bronze Member Bullets In My TuTu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    54

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyPool
    ..Oh sure if you want to be treated by the lowest form of human trash: abortion personnel. Planned Parenthood and the like all should be rounded up in each state and forced to stand trial for murder and then sentenced to 40 years hard labor.
    Murder? Maybe you should contact the authorities and have them arrested.

  9. #249
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,800

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

    You *know* I don't argue unless I can back it up.. come on..
    Several times, you have not backed it up. You've only countered with opinions, as if repeatedly beating me in the head with them makes them fact. It doesn't.


    You're not arguing with facts, you're arguing with emotionalism. I'm arguing with concepts.
    Now see, that's what I think of you. I haven't become emotional during this whole deal. You have been the one flinging names & taunts. I feel quite objective about my stance as stated throughout. I don't even particularly like kids per se (*eek! the horror!*) & I don't have a touchy-feely overflowing love for humanity in general. Kids & people tend to irritate me, which is why I require a lot of alone time. My point is that I'm not in love with mankind, nor do I feel the need to save everyone. I do believe in what I've said about late term abortions because it makes sense to me. That's all.

    Oh, & btw, I have done mental health services with lower socio-economic kids for a dozen years. The ones who have the worst kinds of problems. I've seen such ruined children that I've thought it would be a mercy for all concerned if they would get hit by buses, or spontaeously combust. I've seen people who have no business at all breeding, but do so at an alarming rate. Crack babies, meth babies, FAS babies, you name it, I've dealt with them. Babies who have suffered immeasurably because of their parents & their circumstances, and who probably never should have been born.

    HOWEVER. My point is that I STILL think that late term abortions are wrong. You cannot accurately lump me into the crowd who idealizes fetuses & children in general.

    Now that's reading something that isnt there
    I could say that about several of your responses to me. People just interpret what's in front of them according to their frame of reference. Plus, you put the little winky smilie on there, so now I'm convinced you're being sarcastic.

    it's not rocket science.
    It's not science at all. Maybe it will be someday, but not now.
    "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.

  10. #250
    Elite Member moomies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    pretending to be a lurker but I'm not quiet enough
    Posts
    15,515

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

    OK let's go have some ice cream now children and for the rest I will be assigning reading The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital and some Simone de Beauvoir.

    If you think it's crazy, you ain't seen a thing. Just wait until we're goin down in flames.

  11. #251
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

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

    You marxist feminazi!
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  12. #252
    Gold Member Delphinium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Land of the Free, Home of the Brave
    Posts
    778

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

    I've read most of this thread, and I do take issue with Grimm's statement that no doctor exists who preform late-term abortions. They do indeed exist. All one has to do is a Google search and there are plenty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita
    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.
    If a woman is healthy enough to go through labor (which is what she must do to move the infant down the birth canal so it's body can be delivered first) she is healthy enough to give birth period. The whole argument behind the "need" for late term abortion is a smokescreen for infanticide.

    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
    oh such bull Grimm! The feminazis of today are NOT speaking for the majority of women. All feminism has done in MANY ways is hurt us women, not help us. There are SO many instances of things actually being worse today for women than before these upper-crust, ivory tower spoiled women started "speaking for" women. I wish Gloria and her ilk would have just SHUT UP!

    here is an interesting tid-bit which explains that one doesn't have to kill their offspring to be a "feminist", AND the mother of all feminist, Susan B. Anthony was anti-abortion.

    Pro-life feminism is the opposition to abortion based on feminism. It asserts that abortion is not a necessary right but has instead served to hurt women more than it has benefited them. Further, it states that abortion does not empower women but creates a disempowered body of women who are seen by society to only profit off a violent act against their bodies and their offspring. Early feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, considered abortion to be an evil forced upon women by men. Feminist pro-life groups claim to continue the tradition of Anthony and see abortion as a tool used by patriarchal culture to keep women in submission: a feminist culture, in contrast, would adapt its structure to encompass mothers and reward mothering

  13. #253
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

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

    I've read most of this thread, and I do take issue with Grimm's statement that no doctor exists who preform late-term abortions. They do indeed exist. All one has to do is a Google search and there are plenty.
    Where, Mexico? Crooked doctors sure. The majority adhere to ethical standards of medical practices.

    If a woman is healthy enough to go through labor (which is what she must do to move the infant down the birth canal so it's body can be delivered first) she is healthy enough to give birth period. The whole argument behind the "need" for late term abortion is a smokescreen for infanticide.
    Labor is INDUCED.. it's not like she sat there, waiting to give birth naturally and then had the thing offed.

    Gawd.

    oh such bull Grimm! The feminazis of today are NOT speaking for the majority of women. All feminism has done in MANY ways is hurt us women, not help us. There are SO many instances of things actually being worse today for women than before these upper-crust, ivory tower spoiled women started "speaking for" women. I wish Gloria and her ilk would have just SHUT UP!
    Really? Like what.

    You're able to hold a job, own your own property, decide the fate of your womb (for now, until you fascists get control), decide who you marry, etc.

    Looks good to me. Define what a "feminazi" is, and then explain HOW such advances have hurt you?

    You have the same freakish, female masochistic complex DirtyPool does. You'd like nothing better than to go back to 1756 and be OWNED by men. Wtf is wrong with you?

    here is an interesting tid-bit which explains that one doesn't have to kill their offspring to be a "feminist", AND the mother of all feminist, Susan B. Anthony was anti-abortion.
    Who said anything about earning their feminist badges by having an abortion? Wtf?

    Having the CHOICE, and fighting to retain that choice for yourself and other women (despite weirdos like you, who'd rather cede control of your own body to some old white man in washington) is what makes a feminist. Not the resulting actions.

    Why do I have to draw diagrams?

    It asserts that abortion is not a necessary right but has instead served to hurt women more than it has benefited them.
    Again, how? Explain yourself.

    Further, it states that abortion does not empower women but creates a disempowered body of women who are seen by society to only profit off a violent act against their bodies and their offspring.
    Profit? are you clinically insane? What woman has PROFITED by an abortion? Again, if you want to disempower anybody, you take choice away from them. Wtf do you call a woman without control of her body, and without the ability to make choiced regarding her own body... free as a bird?

    Your logic is ass backward.

    Early feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, considered abortion to be an evil forced upon women by men.
    Back then, it was. Welcome to 2006 where it isnt.

    Feminist pro-life groups claim to continue the tradition of Anthony and see abortion as a tool used by patriarchal culture to keep women in submission: a feminist culture, in contrast, would adapt its structure to encompass mothers and reward mothering
    Encompass mothers and reward mothering.. after removing the choice to be one or not.

    Very progressive.

    It's 2006. Abortion is no longer (and hasn't been for a long time) a tool of the "patriarchy". It has been taken from men, by women, as control of their own bodies.

    Your argument has just been destroyed.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  14. #254
    Elite Member moomies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    pretending to be a lurker but I'm not quiet enough
    Posts
    15,515

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

    Further, it states that abortion does not empower women but creates a disempowered body of women who are seen by society to only profit off a violent act against their bodies and their offspring
    Not all women see it that way. Many do consider having the choice to have abortion as empowering indeed and they don't consider abortion as a violent act against their bodies.

    Without known exception, the early American feminists condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms. In Susan B. Anthony's newsletter, The Revolution, abortion was described as "child murder," "infanticide" and "foeticide." Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who in 1848 organized the first women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, classified abortion as a form of infanticide and said, "When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
    Susan B. Anthony is from the 1820's. Her definitions of child murder and infanticides are not very fitting to the ones we are dealing with in this day and age with the scientific/medical advancement and difference in our lifestyles etc.

    Ironically, the anti-abortion laws that early feminists worked so hard to enact to protect women and children were the very ones destroyed by the Roe v. Wade decision 100 years later - a decision hailed by the National Organization for Women (NOW) as the "emancipation of women."
    The goals of the more recent NOW-led women's movement with respect to abortion would have outraged the early feminists. What Elizabeth Cady Stanton called a "disgusting and degrading crime" has been heralded by Eleanor Smeal, former president of NOW and current president of the Fund for a Feminist Majority, as a "most fundamental right."
    http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/commonw.htm

    Last edited by moomies; June 21st, 2006 at 05:34 PM.

    If you think it's crazy, you ain't seen a thing. Just wait until we're goin down in flames.

  15. #255
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia
    As far as my birthday, duh, it's BIRTH - day. The day of my birth. It is the day I was BORN. It's a stretch of logic to say that it explains anything more than that.



    Again, I refer to the numerous posts that were made before you jumped in. I already explained my position on this several times. If you're that interested, go back & read it. But to respond to you now...

    I don't believe that it's true that women are going in & casually requesting & receiving late term abortions. However, for the fifteenth freakin' time, if they get one to save their lives or health, why the hell does the baby have to die? Why not just take it early?
    I guess we will have to just agree to disagree, as you said. although I should point out we agree on alot. We don't like abortion, really do not like late term/partial birth abortions, and we agree that if a woman is going to have a fetus removed late term because of some medical reason(and the fetus could live on it's own outside the womb)..then why not just 'deliver it' alive or remove it in a way that it can survive? I really don't know why in this circumstance that you brought up..why anyone would be against just delivering the fetus so it would then be a person-why 'kill' it? Why would any woman who needed to have a late term abortion for medical reasons WANT the fetus to die, if it could otherwise be 'born' through a medical procedure and be a life???? I think we can agree on that much, huh?

    And Sojita, back to our discussion, there are countless babies in cemeteries who were stillborn, and on their tombstones is the birth & death date. So they really do have dates, for what it's worth.

    Sure we all have dates associated with us. That does not validate our existance as humans. There were humans back before calendars were even invented. They didn't have dates, and they were human.

    I don't understand how a fetus couldn't be considered alive. It's not dead. Is there some alternate form of existance reserved only for embryos & fetuses?

    I don't understand how a fetus couldn't be considered a human life. It's just an undeveloped form of a human being. It is not its own species.

    We're just going to have to disagree on this one, Sojita, but that's ok. I think the laws are wrong on a lot of things, and yes, you may be correct in saying that life begins with birth in this country (legally) but gays are people without the right to marry. I think both classifications are dead wrong.
    Oops I messed this up..the bolded part is my response! ( I have had a rough day..)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobelia
    .



    That makes no sense considering the text of mine that you were responding to. I attributed NO characteristics to anything. I was trying to make a point that a being that is alive in an incubator is the same identical being it was 5, 10, 15 minutes earlier, before it came out of a womb. Identical, except for the umbilical cord, etc. Now it can live on its own. Except if you kill it, it would not have the chance to live on its own. In both cases, it's capable of living. The decision to kill it is based on personal preference.
    You say it is 'identicaL'..but then 'except'..you then give examples of how a fetus in the womb is NOT identical to a newborn in an incubator. The newborn is no longer connected to another human being by an umbilical cord. It is no longer an extension of that other life, completely dependent solely on that life to which it is physically connected ..for existence. After it is born it is still dependent(like the newborn in the incubator) but can receive assistance from any number of people-it is not solely and exclusively dependent on a physical connection(being in the womb, physically attached by an umbilical cord) on the person inside of whom it has existed. There are great differences between a fetus and a newborn. One is a baby, and the other is a fetus. There is a reason they have the term fetus as it is not the same thing as a child. Of course this changes nothing and we will just have to agree to disagree...such a difficult subject to deal with.

    Quote Originally Posted by DirtyPool
    Why don't you go scoop yourself an extra helping of dumb.
    umm..moomies is NOT DUMB and is one of the most favored posters on this board! Dammit I so want to tell you off in the most vicious way possible..but I won't...against board rules. shit!
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •