Author Topic: Wtg Sd!!! (Read 3111 times)

Nash · « **Reply #90 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:13:05 PM »

Sure. Yeah.

What of it?

lazs2 · « **Reply #91 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:17:19 PM »

I can't speak for the pro lifers any more than I can speak for the pro abortion people.

I am fine with what you say tho. 3 months... I would even give a plus or minus a few weeks if the doctor agreed...

I do know that there are fanatics on both sides... hell... I was raised a catholic and they believe(ed) that any form of birth control was wrong much less abortion.

I have also been around radical feminists (who themselves were in no danger that I could see of ever becoming pregnant in any case) who felt that partial birth abortions were a womans right to choose.

The fact that such diametricaly opposed (politicaly and philisoiphicaly) people as nash and myself can come to an agreement says to me that the vast majority of people would welcome some black and white guidelines that made sense. I believe the majority of us would be relieved to have such guidlines and simply ignore the fantatics on both sides.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #92 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:26:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Sure. Yeah.

What of it?

Well, you pointed out:

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
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

True enough.

However, the whole point of the SD law is to have that concensus uhm.... reconsidered.

Nash · « **Reply #93 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:30:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
I believe the majority of us would be relieved to have such guidlines and simply ignore the fantatics on both sides.

lazs

If only it were so.

You are not going to get even the hardest of hardcore Liberal to support the abortion of a perfectly conceived fetus at like, 7 or 8 months unless the carrying of it to its term meant the serious jeopordizing of the life of the mother at the advice of her doctor.

This is not a matter of pregnant women putting it off until they show signs of fat.

Silat · « **Reply #94 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:34:12 PM »

6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.

Toad · « **Reply #95 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:34:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
You are not going to get even the hardest of hardcore Liberal to support the abortion of a perfectly conceived fetus at like, 7 or 8 months unless the carrying of it to its term meant the serious jeopordizing of the life of the mother at the advice of her doctor.

Right! (mmphht)

In the current "Supreme court to re-visit late term abortion ban " thread

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
Ludrious examples Seagoon. A pregnant woman isnt a communicable disease Sea.
Sea your faith and beliefs are yours. Quit trying to make them law. My daughters body is her own. Until the baby takes a breath outside of my daughters body she is in charge..

Silat · « **Reply #96 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:36:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
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

Anyone who has spoken personally to their God and he/she has told them the answer to the abortion question please raise their hand.

I thought not.
Therefore it is her body and until your GOD clues us in to when life starts the woman is in charge.

Nash · « **Reply #97 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:36:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Well, you pointed out:

True enough.

However, the whole point of the SD law is to have that concensus uhm.... reconsidered.

Right.

And lazs says that it needs to be reconsidered in order to evaluate what "viable" constitutes. You give him a high-five for that.

Yet, Roe v Wade already considers that.

The debate now is about tossing out that "consideration" in order that no consideration take place.

If you support that, then you along with lazs et al need to say exactly on what terms abortion should be acceptable, and what terms it should not.

Because the pro-lifers are in the ZERO camp. Are you in that camp with them?

Toad · « **Reply #98 on:** February 24, 2006, 10:53:19 PM »

Actually, I'm in my camp.

Haven't seen a camp I like better.

I think it's a personal decision up until the baby is a person. Then the state has a duty to protect the new "person".

So far, I haven't seen anyone prove unequivocably when the new entity becomes a "person".

Obviously, and as I've stated before, a fertilized egg becomes a person sometime between fertilization and birth. Again though, there is no definitive proof of the timing of "personhood", no moment the scientists or theologians can point to and say "right there".

Therefore, me in my camp thinks, in the absence of any provable moment of "personhood", the individual state legislatures should decide this issue for their own state. In each state, a woman would decide to abort or not to abort within that state's law. I do not think the state should be involved in funding abortions in anyway shape or form. If one chooses abortion, let one pay for one's abortion. Don't ask the rest of the state's citizens to help you pay for your decision to abort. I don't think the Feds have a place in the argument. Women would be free, of course, to travel to another state if they so chose.

That's pretty much my camp.

What's your camp?

Nash · « **Reply #99 on:** February 24, 2006, 11:04:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Actually, I'm in my camp.

I think it's a personal decision up until the baby is a person. Then the state has a duty to protect the new "person".

So far, I haven't seen anyone prove unequivocably when the new entity becomes a "person".

Therefore, me in my camp thinks, in the absence of any provable moment of "personhood", the individual state legislatures should decide this issue.

That's pretty much my camp.

What's your camp?

LMAO.

You and your reliance on the State legislature to tell you how you should think. At least you're consistent, but it cracks me up every time.

Anyways...

I've seen some good governers, and some pretty horrid ones... verging on tragic comedy. But hey! They are your elected officials so they speak for you. Heh.

Lol..... Kansas....

I wish I were in the same mental and spiritual place as you - leaving everything up to your elected officials, with no voice of your own. I bet you sleep well.

Silat · « **Reply #100 on:** February 25, 2006, 01:59:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.

I have...

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #101 on:** February 25, 2006, 02:47:30 AM »

Abstinence is for the ultimate tool.

Sex among consenting adults is one of the best things in life if not the best. If more people would have good sex and less people would be stuck up with their moral perversions, there would be less violence in this world.

How many agressive thoughts have you had right after having a good sex act?

Now compare it to the amount of agressive thoughts you've had after not having a good sex act for ages.

Toad · « **Reply #102 on:** February 25, 2006, 07:01:48 AM »

LMAO at you chum.

Decisions on this issue are going to be made, either by the Feds or the State.

I prefer decision making as close to the people as possible. The State is closer than the Feds.

Your leap into thinking I rely on the on the State legislature to tell me how I should think shows how out of touch you are, how preformed your predjudices have become.

The people of any State have a far greater chance of convincing the State legislature to reflect their will than they do of making the US Congress reflect their will.

It's not "leaving up to the elected officials", it's quite the opposite. It's bringing the decision down to the level at which the common people of a State might actually be able to influence the decision.

Are you against that?

Oh, and I missed your declarative statement of what "camp" you are in. Please do enlighten us.

lazs2 · « **Reply #103 on:** February 25, 2006, 09:31:35 AM »

We may be straying off the point here.. I am merely saying how I feel about it and how as a people we need to come to some compriomise between no moring after pill and partial birth abortions (or late term).

We are schitzo right now.. it is murder to kill a fetus in the womb by say... kicking a pregnant woman in order to kill her fetus.

To get back to the point.... Roe v wade needs to be addressed... to me... it is a states rights issue and a citizen issue.

does a viable citizen in the womb have the same rights as the rest of us or is their life in the hands of their mother?

does a person on a dialisis machine or iron lung lose his rights as a citizen?

To me, this is all about states rights... RvW should be looked at as a minimum protection for life... not for a womans right to choose but for a babies (humans) right to live.

If RvW says that no abortions after 3 months... that is the minimum federal protection in my opinion.... it is the point that states can not go past... They can not kill past that point for the fun of it.

A state should be able to outlaw all abortions not meant to save the mother if they so desire. Don't like it? move to another state or...

Take a morning after pill. No state could tell you that you were circumventing an abortion ban if you did... it would have to be proved that the egg were fertilized at the time and that you knew it and that would be impossible.

To me... states rights are important... so long as they do not conflict with the constitution... firearms bans for instance, are unconstituional but... a state that observed the letter of the constitution and circumvented all the machine gun laws and "destructive device" laws would help to get the cowardly supremes to rule.... just as what SD has done brings up the issue of when a person is a person.

lazs