Author Topic: House Passes Protections for the Unborn (Read 1229 times)

Sturm · « **Reply #30 on:** April 27, 2001, 03:24:00 PM »

Oh and sandman I apologize I thought you were posting those pictures because you were pro life my bad. I guess sometimes you should read before acting. My bad...

Sandman_SBM · « **Reply #31 on:** April 27, 2001, 03:38:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sturm:
Ever notice the people who are Pro life are the ones you wouldn't want to sleep with anyway!

Hehe... no kidding... same rule applies to women that are anti-porn. Don't want to see them naked either.

NP Sturm, no apology necessary... gonna have to re-read your posts because now I'm completely confused.

Krusher... yeah, your point is valid. No argument. I guess that as a man, I can only expect a voice in the decision if I'm in a committed relationship with the woman. Bring this point up to a woman... you'll definitely get a hostile reaction. It is, afterall, her womb.

[This message has been edited by Sandman_SBM (edited 04-27-2001).]

SOB · « **Reply #32 on:** April 27, 2001, 03:56:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler:
not pressing my opinion/view on anyone as I realize most ppl are just too stupid to comprehend right from wrong. I feel abortion is murder 98% of the time as it is used as a method of birth control.

here's a tame site, there are many more gruesome on the net if you dare: http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/pba.html

And drop the "she was raped and deserves an abortion" line as this % of annual abortions is so low as not to be a factor either way. The majority of abortions are performed on "women" 17 to 28 years old and is done as an after the fact birth control. Self control on her part would have prevented the situation in the first place. Shame we are promoting a generation of sluts.

Eagler

Well, first I'd like you to point out where I said anything about abortions in the case of rape...I purposely left that out, because it's a very small part of the bigger argument and since I'm pro-choice, my opinion on that is pretty much covered without mentioning it.

Also, I agree with most of what you said there (except I think it's wrong...not murder), and looking at a site about partial-birth abortions does nothing for me and doesn't change the issue. People should be more responsible and abortions should be the exception and not the norm. However, the solution to this is not limiting someone's access to quality care should they choose to have an abortion. The solution is quality parenting, and while this won't solve the problem completely, it can go a long way.

You don't have to like abortion to be pro-choice, you just have to have an open mind.

SOB

-edit- I agree with everything except the 'sluts' comment...that was just dumb.

[This message has been edited by SOB (edited 04-27-2001).]

StSanta · « **Reply #33 on:** April 28, 2001, 02:21:00 AM »

Heh. Guys. Read what it's about.

This particular bill isn't about abotion. It's probably an attempt to get there by sneaking in by the back door.

It's about, say, if someone kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills the fetus. That kinda thing.

Of course, in Roe vs Wade, the conclusion was that a fetus was not a person. I suspect this one could go all the way to the highest courts.

For you people who are very fond of your constitution, it's the 14th amendment. Start messing with this, and yer 2nd amendment isn't far away. If you are adament about the defense of the 2nd amendment, and yer constitutional rights, you should be equally adament about this one.

Unless, of course, you're hypocrites. This is an excellent time to find out

Don't count yer eggs...

------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 04-28-2001).]

loser · « **Reply #34 on:** April 28, 2001, 04:19:00 AM »

k there are two sides to this bomb...

k i know a girl who is 21 and she has been preggo 6 times, all outside wedlock, and probably on the bathroom floor.. each time she has aborted the child...i mean true enough the fathers were prolly porked too but that is still not excuse...abortion is not birth control in hindsight...

however those poor girls inpgreganted through rape, sexual assualt or through forced incest should not be forced to bring a child to term against there wishes...

but what really sucks, and what many of you have never thought about is that poor guy left on the outside..

i myself know a guy who pregoed a girl and he wanted to keep it.. but it was outside his control and she had a free choice abortion..poor guy...

oh well, no answer on this one anytime soon

Sandman_SBM · « **Reply #35 on:** April 28, 2001, 06:27:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by StSanta:
This particular bill isn't about abotion. It's probably an attempt to get there by sneaking in by the back door.

It's about, say, if someone kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills the fetus. That kinda thing.
For you people who are very fond of your constitution, it's the 14th amendment...

Exactly, Santa... On the surface, this bill is not about abortion... it's about prosecuting criminals for inflicting harm upon fetuses during attacks on pregnant women. Of course, it can be viewed as a threat to Roe v Wade as well.

WRT 14th Amendment... I'm an idiot... How does it apply to this situation?

------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs
The SBM's are hiring!

mora · « **Reply #36 on:** April 28, 2001, 07:58:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding:
It's ok sandman. Because back-street abortions are less visible, the 'pro-life' people can pretend that the problem is solved.

What's out of sight, is out of mind.

Not a problem, you just need to give bigger penalties for those who break the LAW. It has worked very well in your "war on drugs"

[This message has been edited by mora (edited 04-28-2001).]

newguy · « **Reply #37 on:** April 28, 2001, 10:52:00 AM »

this is a hot issue that ends up getting emotiional, so I aint about to argue one way or the other over the internet. It just gets too nasty here

For those that are worried about it passing, however, it seems very unlikely that it will, even if it does get through the senate. The article states that the supreme court has held that a fetus is not a person under the 14th amendment and has ruled accordingly for the last 3 decades. So it seems unlikely to me that this bill would ever make it through the judical branch of the government. Unless there was a major change in thinking, they would label this bill as unconstitutional and it would be dead. Am I wrong here? Perhaps they worded the bill so that it doesn't target abortions specifically?

newguy

Fatty · « **Reply #38 on:** April 28, 2001, 12:27:00 PM »

That ruling is only for the first part of the pregnancy Newguy. I think up to the 3rd trimester, not sure offhand.

The wording of the ruling is that in that last (I think trimester, again not sure) no state may violate the rights of the unborn. IOW all those furious over the potential personification of the fetus should argue the very decision they hold dear.

For the record, I'm actually for free abortions on demand, but this argument always goes so far from any shred of truth it's a chore even to follow one, much less take part in it.