Author Topic: Wtg Sd!!! (Read 3121 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #75 on:** February 24, 2006, 08:45:52 AM »

Ok... at some point we simply need to comprimise.... throwing them in the dumpster the first time they cry is extreme abortion..

:morning after" pill should be fine with everyone so long as it is as safe as other non perscription drugs or... relatively safe... and no samiam... I do not think that hospitals should be required to tell rape victims about it... they should not have to do anything but treat the injury. If they want to that would be Ok to me.

so... between those two points when is it a form of birth control and when is it just selfish slovenly murder of another human being by some worthless and lazy slut?

Most of us will form our answers I am afraid on either some religious belief or some selfish or lazy one... the ultra religious will base it on all sex being bad and some sort of punishment issue... the ultra stupid and liberal and the selfish will base it on.. "if there is no abortion my girlfriend (if I ever get one) will have a good reason to not put out.

my opinion.... if not done really early.... abortion is simply murder. Test kits are cheap and accurate... there are morning after pills. Maybe they should be more available.. I don't know. Maybe people should be a little more careful in their sex lives... stick with partners longerand one at a time and use a little abstinence when away...

lazs

Samiam · « **Reply #76 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:01:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... at some point we simply need to comprimise....

Compromise is a concept unfamiliar to religious fanatics, be they islamic fundamentalists or christian fundamentalists.

Quote

:morning after" pill should be fine with everyone so long as it is as safe as other non perscription drugs or... relatively safe... and no samiam... I do not think that hospitals should be required to tell rape victims about it... they should not have to do anything but treat the injury. If they want to that would be Ok to me.

This is a reasonable and rational position. One with which a majority of anti-abortionists would strongly disagree - believing that emergency contraception is equivalent to abortion.

Quote

so... between those two points when is it a form of birth control and when is it just selfish slovenly murder of another human being by some worthless and lazy slut?

In many cases, it's not a worthless and lazy slut. It's an ill-informed girl, possibly pressured into sex by some jerkwad feeding her a line.

And the reason she is ill informed is because some religious zelot has decided that it's god's will that she remain ignorant about sex and contraception.

Because we all know that keeping people ignorant about contraception is the best way to prevent them from having sex. Oops, that should read "prevent them from having protected sex."

Sandman · « **Reply #77 on:** February 24, 2006, 01:00:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
thank billyjeff for that. the only good thing to come from that presidency was when the whitehouse staff was finally able to dig up and discard the half buried tractor tires from the driveway on pennsylvania avenue.

This notion has been around longer than Billy Jeff.

Silat · « **Reply #78 on:** February 24, 2006, 01:35:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
this is so silly.... "bleeding and battered rape victim" Isn't there a morning after pill? Why wouldn't she just take that?

lazs

Because the Christian Fanatics are trying to get that pill banned too...

Mighty1 · « **Reply #79 on:** February 24, 2006, 02:21:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
Because the Christian Fanatics are trying to get that pill banned too...

More like they want to have the right not to give it out.

lazs2 · « **Reply #80 on:** February 24, 2006, 02:40:42 PM »

I see... so those who would try to ban the morning after pill are "fanatics" while those who want no impediment to abortion under any circumstances are not?

I say that there are fanatics on both sides.

That you only see the few pro lifers who have extreme views but don't see things like late term abortions or even partial birth abortions as extereme puts you square into the extremeist catagory as far as I can see.

you scare me just as much as the no "morning after pill" people do. maybe worse since at least if they err they err towards the side of life while you would err toward the side of murder.

lazs

Samiam · « **Reply #81 on:** February 24, 2006, 03:04:24 PM »

No. no. I'm with you, Lazs. I think it is also fanatical to have the position that there should be no restrictions whatsoever upon abortion.

But at some point we have to accept that women should have control over their own bodies and that it's in society's best interest to ensure that they are well equiped to handle that responsibility. That's were the anti-abortion crowd become fanatical hypocrites.

Eagler · « **Reply #82 on:** February 24, 2006, 07:10:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Samiam
....But at some point we have to accept that women should have control over their own bodies ...

it's the body inside her body which I think require his/her rights protected as they cannot speak for themselves yet..

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #83 on:** February 24, 2006, 07:14:37 PM »

Well, one of the other problems is the availability of the morning after pill. I think that as long as you're not the only pharmacy in town, you can choose whether or not to carry it.

But recently a lot of places have been getting sued to force them to carry it.

I will concede that women have control over their bodies only if you concede that the fetus at some point is a person that cannot be killed on a whim. Until then I will not agree with you at all.

lazs2 · « **Reply #84 on:** February 24, 2006, 07:30:32 PM »

sami.... you are not saying anything. platitudes and soundbites.... worthless to the discussion... I have no idea about how you think except that you hate fanatics on the pro life side... this is not useful.

You seem to be saying that since there are fanatics on the pro life side that there can be no discussion.... you seem to dismiss the fanatics on the pro abortion side.

saying that women should be able to control their own bodies is silly crap.

Of course they should... get a boob job... die of cancer or get treatment... try some holistic medicine or acupuncture or exercise... get laid or don't... eat cheese till they are so constipated it kills em... I have no problem with women controling their own bodies..

We are not talking about that at some point in an abortion tho... we are talking about them controling life or death for another human being...

we just need to come to some comprimise on when that is... when it isn't a lump of crap that a woman can have removed like so much body fat at a liposuction.... or... when it is no longer her choice.... when it becomes the killing of another human being.

The fact that she had it or, at the very least, carried it to the point that it became a viable human being is enough for me to tell her that she has to tough it out the rest of the way. I have little or no sympathy for her or the father at that point.

Lets get brutaly honest here.... it is not some right wing conspiracy that gets the stupid slut pregnant... more likely a left wing one but... that asside...it most certainly has nothing to do with right wingers that she carry it to the point that it is waving at you in a sonogram.... it is simple slovenly lazyness. She is not a "victim"... she has created a couple tho..

so lets get realistic and set some real guidelines for being somewhat moral human beings.

My guidlines would be that if the thing is vieable outside the womb then it is too friggin late... it's a citizen of the U.S. and it's life needs to be protected.... before that.... killing it is simply repugnant for the most part and maybe.... at the very best.... the best of a bad situation in some cases.

I can not think of any woman who didn't have some deep regrets about any abortion they have had unless they are less than human themselves... there are degrees of course but... I can't think of one of em who felt like they had simply exercised their right to remove a lump of crap from their womb.

Play it anyway you like in your mind but that is what I see and how I feel about it.

lazs

Mini D · « **Reply #85 on:** February 24, 2006, 08:12:24 PM »

Well said lazs. I think we are in complete agreement on this subject.

Toad · « **Reply #86 on:** February 24, 2006, 08:16:40 PM »

Laz usually cuts to the chase and nails it down.

Did it again right there.

Nash · « **Reply #87 on:** February 24, 2006, 08:43:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
We are not talking about that at some point in an abortion tho... we are talking about them controling life or death for another human being...

we just need to come to some comprimise on when that is... when it isn't a lump of crap that a woman can have removed like so much body fat at a liposuction.... or... when it is no longer her choice.... when it becomes the killing of another human being.

I believe Roe v Wade adresses this already, lazs:

Quote

(7) the state's interest in maternal health becomes compelling at three months; (8) the state's interest in fetal life becomes compelling at viability--six months; (9) the state may not regulate abortion at all during the first trimester; (10) the state may regulate abortion during the second three months, but only for the protection of the woman's health; (11) the state may regulate or ban abortion during the third trimester to protect fetal life.

So yeah.... while it seems like such a classic lazsical plain spoken novel idea to finally get down to brass tacks and come to some sort of concensus as to when abortion passes from the realm of the acceptable to the unnacceptable, it turns out that it's already been uhm... considered? What exactly is new about your idea?

The fact is, the pro-choice camps are fine with the existing law wrt when abortion is acceptable and unnacceptable, while the pro-life camps will have none of it. They want zero abortion whatsoever, as evidenced by their support of laws that would make abortion illegal even when it comes to rape or the health of the mother, and no matter any issue of viability as you put it.

Don't believe me? Just ask them.

Quote

"My guidlines would be that if the thing is vieable outside the womb then it is too friggin late." - lazs

..... Go ahead and ask the pro-lifers if they'd accept those terms. Moderation? An agreement as to when a fetus becomes "viable?" Feh... yeah okay.

The reason we're even talking about this is because the pro-lifers consider cells in a petri dish "viable." This is a conversation the pro-choice camp is perfectly willing to have. But go ahead, I'd like to see how far you'd get on this with Eagler and Mighty et al.

It's all or nothing with them, and you're barking up the wrong tree for blaming liberals for this.

Nash · « **Reply #88 on:** February 24, 2006, 09:23:21 PM »

Actually... lazs, I think your idea is brilliant. (mmphht)

So brilliant in fact, that I will stick my neck out and ask the question for you.

Lets, for the sake of argument, say that the overwhelming consensus of health professionals is that a fetus could be considered viable, with a 60% chance of survival outside of the womb at 6 months.

Lets say that those odds drop to 30% at 5 months.

Lets say that those odds drop to 0% at 4 months. Not viable.

Would the pro-lifers here accept abortion at 3 months and prior?

(oops, watch as your little epiphany and "nailed down" entrance into this debate becomes a little less nailed down.)

A question to pro-lifers: Considering the above, would you accept abortion at 3 months and prior, but no later than 3 months? And... what does the term "viability" mean to you with respect to this debate, if anything?

Do you agree with lazs, along with a whole lotta Liberals, that if "the thing is viable outside the womb then it is too friggin late?" And that if it is not, then it isn't too late?

Toad · « **Reply #89 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:11:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
I believe Roe v Wade adresses this already, lazs:

But, of course, you realize the purpose of the SD law is to challenge Roe v Wade at the SC level.