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

[busybody..]

You want to stand with others such as busybody,ishmael, and the cap'n, be my guest... I can't make you choose your company. However, it will end up reflecting poorly on you in the long run.

The answer to your first question; at ANY point up to viability. The point at which it can live outside of it's mother's body. After that time, I think that there should be limitations placed on abortion, but only then.

Taking your example of the baby that was to be taken out of a mother at the "size of a coke can"... who would pay for that? The taxpayers? Where is the republican fabricated outrage? These are the same people who think that ANY public service is inherently "socialist". Yet they will scream and yell about moral issues, and waste millions of taxpayer dollars investigating a blowjob...

Makes perfect sense.

DIRTBAG

A BABY IS NOT A REPOH OR DUM-CRAP ISSUE

ITS A MATTER OF KILLING A BABY OR NOT

 

[Tungwagger]

Again; don't want a woman to have abortion, stop fucking women. Simple really.

Conversely, couldn't the argument ALSO be made that should a child NOT be wanted, then "don't fuck"? As science has repeatedly proven that without intercourse, pregnancy is impossible to acheive without medical intervention.

The choice should be made before the legs are spread.

Or is that too narrowminded of an approach?

Mulligan anyone?


I agree with BBW...rarity is the better "choice" than just creating another "brand" of criminal.

 

[Tungwagger]

until the baby is viable, there is no other body... it's a microbe, or a growth. The only difference is it's potential... I don't see you worrying about spilt sperm, or a woman flushing her period down the toilet...

Once that other "body" can live on it's own, you may have a valid argument... until that point, it's none of your business.

Ya know, when my wife miscarried our first child, it strangely resembled a human being.

Even had little fingers, toes, and a face.

I guess Ish was right...

Tumor removal 101 (avery chisholm) ...

 

[Ham Murabi]

or rather against, abortion.

According to rush, that's the most important issue of the day, and the one that will decide if the GOP base will support or reject Mccain...

More proof that the republicans are ancient in their values, and out of step with progress and society.

Abortion = Progress.
Fascinating.

 

[phrodeau]

Zygote = Baby.

Fascinating.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Cowardly fuck, why don't you open wide and go out and try to blow some more Marines.

Tsk, I go through the effort of trying to help you through your ignorance of the difference between "dependency" and "viability", and this is the thanks I get?

Small wonder your children are such chronic underachievers.

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

Conversely, couldn't the argument ALSO be made that should a child NOT be wanted, then "don't fuck"? As science has repeatedly proven that without intercourse, pregnancy is impossible to acheive without medical intervention.

The choice should be made before the legs are spread.

Or is that too narrowminded of an approach?

Mulligan anyone?


I agree with BBW...rarity is the better "choice" than just creating another "brand" of criminal.

While "don't fuck" would work perfectly well for the older gentlemen on the board who can't get any without paying for it... most people, both men and women, enjoy sexual intercourse.

Pregnancy is a risk that is taken, but let's say your condom breaks, and some of that precious manseed makes it's way into a the woman and manages to impregnate the egg...

Should I somehow be expected to believe that we would be morally obligated to carry that mistake to term?

And if so... What then? What are your solutions for the children that are born to mothers who were guilted into having a child that they didn't want? What are your solutions for that?

What about poor women who can't afford to have babies? I know how you republicans... excuse me... independents are on those horrible welfare mothers...

Are you then implying that a poor woman shouldn't be allowed to have sex?

Birth control and abortion are about fundamental sexual rights. You can scream and should "bloody murder", quite literally in fact, but that doesn't change that this is about controlling a woman and her choices... whether through pressuring her into not having sex, or through attempting to force her to carry a pregnancy to terms that she doesn't want.

And all this on a sex board no less...

Last time I checked everyone on here had at least a passing interest in intercourse...

If not, perhaps you should be signing off, and take the "good fight" elsewhere.

 

[crazybbwgirl]

If the anti-abortionists would take up the cause of wanting to take better care of the children that are ALREADY born...

think how nice that would be for those children?

 

[Slowlane]

I know

thats NOT how they operate

BOTTOM LINE:

BAM voted to KILL BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and when confronted last weekend

HE LIED AND SAID HE DIDNT AND THOSE THAT SAID HE DID WERE LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No argument from me.

 

[Slowlane]

Let me try to change up the subject a bit - since no one on the pro abortion side has the balls to give me a straight answer to my question.

Why are the father's wishes totally ignored? Shouldn't he have a say? If he wants to abort and she says she wants the baby shouldn't he be relieved of financial responsibility, he didn't want it after all? If He wants to keep it and she does not shouldn't he be allowed to have it and she be relieved of financial responsibility.

I know the women are going to say "my body, my decision" But it was your decision to spread your legs in the first place knowing the risks you were taking.

Accidental pregnancy is not an argument. You are responsible for every other accident you cause, this one should be no different.

 

[crazybbwgirl]

Let me try to change up the subject a bit - since no one on the pro abortion side has the balls to give me a straight answer to my question.

Why are the father's wishes totally ignored? Shouldn't he have a say? If he wants to abort and she says she wants the baby shouldn't he be relieved of financial responsibility, he didn't want it after all? If He wants to keep it and she does not shouldn't he be allowed to have it and she be relieved of financial responsibility.

I know the women are going to say "my body, my decision" But it was your decision to spread your legs in the first place knowing the risks you were taking.

Accidental pregnancy is not an argument. You are responsible for every other accident you cause, this one should be no different.

My answer to that is - if you're afraid one of your sperm might get aborted - don't leave it laying around...

 

[Slowlane]

My answer to that is - if you're afraid one of your sperm might get aborted - don't leave it laying around...

Obviously the woman has no responsibility in your mind. And you chose to ignore the financial aspect.

My first non-answer.

 

[Tungwagger]

While "don't fuck" would work perfectly well for the older gentlemen on the board who can't get any without paying for it... most people, both men and women, enjoy sexual intercourse.

Pregnancy is a risk that is taken, but let's say your condom breaks, and some of that precious manseed makes it's way into a the woman and manages to impregnate the egg...

Should I somehow be expected to believe that we would be morally obligated to carry that mistake to term?

And if so... What then? What are your solutions for the children that are born to mothers who were guilted into having a child that they didn't want? What are your solutions for that?

What about poor women who can't afford to have babies? I know how you republicans... excuse me... independents are on those horrible welfare mothers...

Are you then implying that a poor woman shouldn't be allowed to have sex?

Birth control and abortion are about fundamental sexual rights. You can scream and should "bloody murder", quite literally in fact, but that doesn't change that this is about controlling a woman and her choices... whether through pressuring her into not having sex, or through attempting to force her to carry a pregnancy to terms that she doesn't want.

And all this on a sex board no less...

Last time I checked everyone on here had at least a passing interest in intercourse...

If not, perhaps you should be signing off, and take the "good fight" elsewhere.

How about the concept of taking responsibility for one's own actions?

Or would that be too "progressive"?


You know, you could have simply answered that you felt it was too narrowminded of me to advocate abstinence as a form of birth control rather than incorporating the mulligan system.

But I understand your narcissistic desire to educate us "ignorant" people.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Let me try to change up the subject a bit - since no one on the pro abortion side has the balls to give me a straight answer to my question.

Why are the father's wishes totally ignored? Shouldn't he have a say? If he wants to abort and she says she wants the baby shouldn't he be relieved of financial responsibility, he didn't want it after all? If He wants to keep it and she does not shouldn't he be allowed to have it and she be relieved of financial responsibility.

I know the women are going to say "my body, my decision" But it was your decision to spread your legs in the first place knowing the risks you were taking.

Accidental pregnancy is not an argument. You are responsible for every other accident you cause, this one should be no different.

You were right in two sentences of this post.

It's her body, she gets to decide if she wants to remain pregnant or not. You get to have a say when you are the one carrying a fetus inside of your body and not before.

If the father does not want the child and the mother insists on carrying to term then he should be absolved of all responsibility, financial and otherwise, and all rights to, the child in question.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

How about the concept of taking responsibility for one's own actions?

Or would that be too "progressive"?


You know, you could have simply answered that you felt it was too narrowminded of me to advocate abstinence as a form of birth control rather than incorporating the mulligan system.

But I understand your narcissistic desire to educate us "ignorant" people.

How well has the "abstinence education" form of birth control worked over the past few years that it's been pushed by this administration?

The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world. The Center for Disease control says that one-third of girls get pregnant before the age of 20. Teenpregnancy.org, a site managed by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, states that there are "750,000 teen pregnancies annually. Eight in ten of these pregnancies are unintended and 81 percent are to unmarried teens."

Teaching abstinence is fine, as PART of sexual education. Teaching only abstinence and no other forms of birth and STD control is ludicrous, dangerous, and ineffective.

 

[richard_daily]

How about the concept of taking responsibility for one's own actions?

Or would that be too "progressive"?


You know, you could have simply answered that you felt it was too narrowminded of me to advocate abstinence as a form of birth control rather than incorporating the mulligan system.

But I understand your narcissistic desire to educate us "ignorant" people.

Having an abortion if you're not ready to care for and raise a child IS the responsible thing to do.

You might as well be saying "damn those filthy sluts for enjoying sex!"

 

[naughtycakes]

You might as well be saying "damn those filthy sluts for enjoying sex!"

Mmmmm, yes, might as well!
*rubs legs together*

 

[richard_daily]

If the anti-abortionists would take up the cause of wanting to take better care of the children that are ALREADY born...

think how nice that would be for those children?

That would involve asking for consistency...

 

[richard_daily]

Mmmmm, yes, might as well!
*rubs legs together*

I was imagining it said with more of a "damn you wippersnappers!" sort of voice and perhaps the shaking of a cane or something...

but since you're already worked up...

 

[naughtycakes]

I was imagining it said with more of a "damn you wippersnappers!" sort of voice and perhaps the shaking of a cane or something...

but since you're already worked up...

Haha, I just saw you posting and had to come inject some slutitude to your thread.

 

[richard_daily]

Haha, I just saw you posting and had to come inject some slutitude to your thread.

I'll inject some sluttiness into you.

 

[naughtycakes]

I'll inject some sluttiness into you.

I'll go into slutiac arrest and have skanksures.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Pregnancy is a risk that is taken, but let's say your condom breaks, and some of that precious manseed makes it's way into a the woman and manages to impregnate the egg...

Should I somehow be expected to believe that we would be morally obligated to carry that mistake to term?

And if so... What then? What are your solutions for the children that are born to mothers who were guilted into having a child that they didn't want? What are your solutions for that?

What about poor women who can't afford to have babies? I know how you republicans... excuse me... independents are on those horrible welfare mothers...

Are you then implying that a poor woman shouldn't be allowed to have sex?

Birth control and abortion are about fundamental sexual rights. You can scream and should "bloody murder", quite literally in fact, but that doesn't change that this is about controlling a woman and her choices... whether through pressuring her into not having sex, or through attempting to force her to carry a pregnancy to terms that she doesn't want.

There are practically a limitless number of human activities that can result in serious mistakes or accidents that may have moral, legal or personal consequences. Driving, building construction, frying greasy meat over an open flame.

Are you seriously suggesting that a person's right to sex is so sacrosanct that he or she should be absolved from any negative consequences that might result from engaging in that activity?

As I am certain you are aware, the government FORCES you and I to give it a specific percentage of OUR money in taxes and then uses that money to fund activities that you and I might find morally objectionable. Is there any serious question about the government's RIGHT to do that?

How about the draft? The government has in the past (and may in the future) required able bodied men to place themselves in harm's way and perhaps give their very LIVES irrespective of whether they believed in the specific political issues and causes for which they were fighting. Despite the history and tradition of war protests, I have never heard a groundswell of public opinion that suggests the government has no RIGHT to make that demand of its citizenry.

And yet you're fine with the idea that the expectation of a woman carrying an unwanted baby to full term and putting it up for adoption may be swept aside by the "I-don't-wanna" defense.

Why are her rights to protect HER body from government intrusion, greater than my rights to protect MY money or MY body from that same intrusive government?

Answer: Because it is not an unwarranted intrusion to REQUIRE people to live up to those social responsibilities they lack the character to embrace on their own.