So according to rush limbaugh, the republican party stands for...

[crazybbwgirl]

Doesn't anybody read my threads?

Rarely does anyone respond to my points about abortion. That it will ALWAYS be here - whether legal or not.

If you thought about those points - your points about 'when does life begin' or 'is it really murder' become less important.

Why not make is RARE instead of illegal? I think that's a nice goal everyone could agree with.

 

[Slowlane]

Does it make it easier for you to vilify a person by using the phrase "kill an unborn child" or "murder"?

You answer my question and I'll answer yours. You see, I actually have an answer.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Most people, especially democrats, think that if Roe Vs Wade were overturned it would somehow outlaw abortions. The fact is that if it were overturned it would just mean that it couldn't be federally controlled and that the issue would be decided state by state. So, some states, like in the South, could outlaw it while more liberal states like California, New York, and the like would still allow abortions and there would be nothing that anyone could do about it.

And that would be the worst political disaster for the Republican Party since . . . well, since W took office. The reddest states' Democratic parties would become resurgent.

I think most voters, even if they're a bit squeamish about abortion, still want the clinics to be there in case their teenage daughters get pregnant.

 

[Aliea]

You answer my question and I'll answer yours. You see, I actually have an answer.

I simplify things. I use the term abortion or abort a fetus. Since that is, you know...accurate.

 

[Slowlane]

I simplify things. I use the term abortion or abort a fetus. Since that is, you know...accurate.

So is your answer yes or no? Remember, "abortion" wasn't one of the terms allowed by the question.

 

[Ishmael]

I simplify things. I use the term abortion or abort a fetus. Since that is, you know...accurate.

Let's call it what it is, murder.

You can jump out your ass if you want, but you'll find that my history on this board is pro-choice. Pre-birth you can do as you please. But I don't mince any words about it, it's murder. It is the premeditated termination of a human life. You can sugar coat the verbage in anyway you want and it won't change the facts.

Ishmael

 

[richard_daily]

The question isn't complex. Well, for most people.

Let me rephrase it for you. Does it make talking about abortion easier for you if you use the term "reproductive freedom" than if you were to use the term "kill an unborn child"?

Does it make it easier for what?

For me to sleep at night? I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.

Does it make it easier for you to pretend that you have some sort of moral superiority because you'd deny a woman her right to choose what to do with her own body?

If you don't want a woman to have an abortion, don't fuck one.

 

[Aliea]

So is your answer yes or no? Remember, "abortion" wasn't one of the terms allowed by the question.

I don't care if the question is yes or no. I'm not going to be boxed in by your question. I don't use any of the terms you pose. I answered the question.

I don't debate based on the terms chosen by other people. If you're going to use murder as a term when talking about abortion, then you've already disqualified yourself from the debate. It's just a power play via words. It accomplishes nothing in furthering any worthwhile debate.

 

[Slowlane]

Let's call it what it is, murder.

You can jump out your ass if you want, but you'll find that my history on this board is pro-choice. Pre-birth you can do as you please. But I don't mince any words about it, it's murder. It is the premeditated termination of a human life. You can sugar coat the verbage in anyway you want and it won't change the facts.

Ishmael

In fairness to all concerned murder is a legal term. Since abortion is legal a more correct term might be homicide.

 

[Ishmael]

In fairness to all concerned murder is a legal term. Since abortion is legal a more correct term might be homicide.

I stand corrected.

Ishmael

 

[Slowlane]

Does it make it easier for what?

For me to sleep at night? I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.

Does it make it easier for you to pretend that you have some sort of moral superiority because you'd deny a woman her right to choose what to do with her own body?

If you don't want a woman to have an abortion, don't fuck one.

AS I said the question is simple enough. Can you answer it or not? I

 

[Slowlane]

I don't care if the question is yes or no. I'm not going to be boxed in by your question. I don't use any of the terms you pose. I answered the question.

I don't debate based on the terms chosen by other people. If you're going to use murder as a term when talking about abortion, then you've already disqualified yourself from the debate. It's just a power play via words. It accomplishes nothing in furthering any worthwhile debate.

Sorry, you answered another question that you made up. As I said I can answer the question as stated without stuttering or defending my position. I am asking if you can do that as well.

Use the second question that doesn't use the term "Murder".

Does it make talking about abortion easier for you if you use the term "reproductive freedom" than if you were to use the term "kill an unborn child"?

 

[richard_daily]

I stand corrected.

Ishmael

Now there's a first.

 

[richard_daily]

AS I said the question is simple enough. Can you answer it or not? I

There is no murder, or homocide, as you'd prefer to call it, involved.

Abortion isn't wrong, it isn't amoral, and it isn't a problem for anyone but those who want to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

 

[Aliea]

Sorry, you answered another question that you made up. As I said I can answer the question as stated without stuttering or defending my position. I am asking if you can do that as well.

Use the second question that doesn't use the term "Murder".

Does it make talking about abortion easier for you if you use the term "reproductive freedom" than if you were to use the term "kill an unborn child"?

I don't use the phrase "reproductive freedom" so how the fuck should I know? Ask someone who does.

I use the actual term Abortion. Abort a fetus. That is the procedure and that is what is being done, so why not just simplify the whole word debate and use those terms. If you want to play word games, enjoy.

 

[Ishmael]

There is no murder, or homocide, as you'd prefer to call it, involved.

Abortion isn't wrong, it isn't amoral, and it isn't a problem for anyone but those who want to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

Well, as weasle as it is, there's your answer slow. Tumor removal 101.

Ishmael

 

[crazybbwgirl]

Nope - not one response. Because people would much rather bicker about the details than deal with the REAL issue.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It's so rediculous for abortion to even be a topic of political discussion...

Abortion as a political concern is wholly appropriate because the State has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from each other. Laws prohibiting theft, assault, trespass and other personal injuries are the very foundation of tort law.

The fact that a mother and her unborn child would BOTH have INDIVIDUAL rights and protections under the laws of the society in which they live is hardly a radical concept. In fact, it may be the only issue in the abortion question that is self-evident.

What is ridiculous is pretending that no complexity exists in regard to those rights and protections or that the State has no interest in addressing the complexity of conflicting rights between two individuals. What is ridiculous is for either side in this debate to pretend that the issues are so clear cut in its favor as to render the debate meaningless.

If that were true, we wouldn't be having the debate to begin with, would we?

You're right about one thing, CBG. A social policy and accompanying societal values that would make abortions rare would be far superior than our current policy of parsing the question "when does life begin" in order to mitigate the moral implications inherent in terminating a pregnancy.

 

[Harbinger]

It's an issue on which reasonable people can disagree. The real issue for me is whether it is the proper role of government, in this case the Federal government specifically, to be the power that decides. My long experience with human beings in general makes me very wary of allowing others to make my decisions for me against my will.

 

[crazybbwgirl]

Abortion as a political concern is wholly appropriate because the State has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from each other. Laws prohibiting theft, assault, trespass and other personal injuries are the very foundation of tort law.

The fact that a mother and her unborn child would BOTH have INDIVIDUAL rights and protections under the laws of the society in which they live is hardly a radical concept. In fact, it may be the only issue in the abortion question that is self-evident.

What is ridiculous is pretending that no complexity exists in regard to those rights and protections or that the State has no interest in addressing the complexity of conflicting rights between two individuals. What is ridiculous is for either side in this debate to pretend that the issues are so clear cut in its favor as to render the debate meaningless.

If that were true, we wouldn't be having the debate to begin with, would we?

You're right about one thing, CBG. A social policy and accompanying societal values that would make abortions rare would be far superior than our current policy of parsing the question "when does life begin" in order to mitigate the moral implications inherent in terminating a pregnancy.

I knew I spelled ridiculous wrong...
But I think the issue is that clear cut.
I don't think abortion should just be for the rich.

 

[phrodeau]

What to do with all the unwanted infants if abortion is eliminated?

We could always bring back slavery.

 

[KingOrfeo]

What to do with all the unwanted infants if abortion is eliminated?

Covered.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

But I think the issue is that clear cut.

Just to make certain I understand you....

At what point, in your opinion does the issue become clear cut? When do the legal rights embodied in the Constitution and the protections of state law flow to a child? At the moment he or she takes the first breath after being slapped on the ass?

If so, then I would assume that it would be equally clear cut in your mind that a fetus only seconds from descending the birth canal, does NOT enjoy those rights or protections.

If that is your position, fine. I am not here to argue with that conclusion or the clarity with which you hold it.

I am simply here to take issue with a separate and distinct opinion which I thought you also held that said that government has no legitimate role in considering these same issues and perhaps arriving at the same conclusion as you did.

Is that not your opinion? Have I stated it unfairly?

The fact that you have arrived at your conclusion ahead of others (including your government) does not make their deliberative process any less valid than the one you experienced.

When it comes to the legal rights of children -- whether born or unborn; whether in theory or in practice -- on what rational, logical basis do you deny the right of the government to be a party to that discussion?

The delineation and administration of LEGAL rights is simply what governments do.

The evidence of life as displayed by a fetus (heartbeat, brain activity, thumb sucking, kicking) may or may not be definitive in terms of justifying the extension of full legal rights to that fetus, but for someone to suggest that these same evidences are insufficient to justify the very consideration of the question itself and that the government has no proper role in that consideration is truly the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard of.

 

[Faneros]

Unwanted kids, the worst plague known to man.