South Dakota ban's abortion

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Actually I was thinking your brain would turn to mush like a liberal. Have you recently had a sense that you were being followed and someone was tapping your phone?

What do you think the hat is for?

I think all feti should be given social security numbers and be put to work INSIDE the womb. Fuck childrens' rights.

Damn, I am one angry bastard.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

Quote

Yipeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!! I'm from SD and it's awesome news to hear!!!!
So women should have rights huh? What about all the female babies that are being killed; where are their rights???

Simple, just call them fetuses. Like calling a dog a cat, makes it a cat.

it's ironic when people get outraged when a mother (or someone else) does something that harms an unborn child and then the same people claim that an unborn child is "just a fetus, not a person". you can't have it both ways folks. if an expecting father feeds chemicals to a mother that wants to keep the child and it kills the pregnancy, is it murder? if you say yes, then abortion is murder too.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[mnealtx 0]

That's mighty belligerent, right there!!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually I was thinking your brain would turn to mush like a liberal. Have you recently had a sense that you were being followed and someone was tapping your phone?

What do you think the hat is for?

I think all fetus's should be given social security numbers and be put to work INSIDE the womb. Fuck children's rights.

Damn, I am on angry bastard.

OK, you're a fetus. Now get to work.

[wmw999 2,146]

Most people who want to treat the harming of a fetus as murder are anti-abortion. Most pro-choice people consider the assault on the mother's health or body as the offense.

If someone (anyone) surprise-feeds an expectant mother an abortifacient, then the attack on the mother would be the crime. Same as if she were given rohypnol, or made to drink an emetic.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

Most people who want to treat the harming of a fetus as murder are anti-abortion. Most pro-choice people consider the assault on the mother's health or body as the offense.

that's probably true; most are that way. i thought it would be apparent that those are not the people i was referring to.

Quote

If someone (anyone) surprise-feeds an expectant mother an abortifacient, then the attack on the mother would be the crime.

also true; but it wouldn't be murder would it? it would be some form of assault.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[wmw999 2,146]

If you want to base sweeping generalizations (which your first post sounded like) on exceptions, then you have to expect to have them responded to.

There are Americans who believe in the Easter bunny, who believe that Israel is right, that Israel is wrong, and Jews who believe that Israel should not exist.

"They" is a strong word.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Wait!! You're saying there's no Easter Bunny???

[tcnelson 1]

i said, "it's ironic when people...". how is that a sweeping generalization? i know for a fact that at least two people think the way that described in my first post. hence, what i wrote is just fine. i didn't say that most people thought that way.

further point: i never once used the word "they".

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Wait!! You're saying there's no Easter Bunny???

I think I might have killed that thing too.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

i said, "it's ironic when people...". how is that a sweeping generalization? i know for a fact that at least two people think the way that described in my first post. hence, what i wrote is just fine. i didn't say that most people thought that way.

further point: i never once used the word "they".

Oh!!! It was an anecdote! Well, geez then, because it was an example about two people you know (and made no mention of to begin with), we should not take such an ambiguous post as your general interpretation of the matter.

Or maybe next time, be a little more clear.

I have to go punch some dude and fill my brain hole with more pie.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 2,426]

>if an expecting father feeds chemicals to a mother that wants to keep the child . . .

It really makes me mad when people use different words to make it OK to kill a person. It's a person, not a child!

>if you say yes, then abortion is murder too.

When Bush proposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, civil rights leaders were a bit worried. Would that get used to "prove" that abortion was murder? "No, completely different," they were told.

Didn't take long for that reversal.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

what happend to womens rights. This is so wrong would they rather have our girls doing back alley abortions again.

What happened to human rights? I already posted a long stance on abortion in Tinks thread about this.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[hobbes4star 0]

Sorry I still do not see where I stated that was the only choice by my comment.

if fun were easy it wouldn't be worth having, right?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Sorry I still do not see where I stated that was the only choice by my comment said without abortion

Then go back and read what you said again. You said

Quote

This is so wrong would they rather have our girls doing back alley abortions again.

leaving, apparently more than one person, with the impression that would be the only choice. Then you got snippy with me when I asked why you thought this was the only option instead of just saying " I didn't mean to infer that was the only option."

Whatever...I was just asking a reasonable question.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Some people have problems killing babies

Some people have no problem forcing women to have their babies no matter the circumstances.. then they run for the hills away from any responsibility whatsoever of helping the mother to raise the child.

[wmw999 2,146]

I went and re-read your post. The first point really did sound (and still does) sound like it's pointing towards a sweeping generalization. The second does not, and I apologize for misunderstanding what's really pretty clear.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[OATSF14 0]

Quote

So women should have rights huh? What about all the female babies that are being killed; where are their rights???

They do not vote..hence they have no rights.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

They do not vote..hence they have no rights

That is the most crazy response Ive ever heard. My LIVING children do not vote, and they HAVE rights.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[wmw999 2,146]

Quote

They do not vote..hence they have no rights.

When do the rights for the unborn start? When do they get social security numbers? When does Child Welfare begin to pay attention to how the mothers or fathers take care of them? When can you claim them on your income tax?

They have the DNA to make them people from the beginning. However, I don't consider the cake mix in my pantry to be particularly good to eat, even when it does say "just add water."

When it's an embryo, the mother might not even know that she is pregnant. Do we, to ensure that these embryos are given the proper protection, treat all women who have had sex and aren't actually ON THEIR PERIOD as being pregnant? Can't take birth control into account -- it can fail. Really.

Abortion is not the best solution. But it should remain among the options.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Darius11 12]

Hi wind

Just have to ask you a few things. I respect you for your fait and I am not so sure anymore on the issue of abortion my self.

What do you say to the woman who have been impregnated by their rapist?

Who have been impregnated by their fathers?

It is a woman’s body it should be her choice to do with it what she wishes specially in cases where she had no say in the conception.

Why is having the choice makes so many people mad? If you believe it is wrong don’t do it you have the right not to get an abortion. It does come down to belief and when you believe a human is a human. So why not allow people to do as they wish and let God decide if they should pay for their sins if there is a sin being committed.


The reason I am picking on you is I know from your pervious posts that your belief is pure and not jaded by an agenda or at least I feel that way. I am very interested as to what is expected of the woman I mentioned above.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

They do not vote..hence they have no rights

That is the most crazy response Ive ever heard. My LIVING children do not vote, and they HAVE rights.

Minors do not enjoy full rights.

As for the unborn, the appropriate standard is viability. Which pretty much means third trimester.

[lisamariewillbe 1]

Quote

Minors do not enjoy full rights

They do have the right to live though.

Quote

the appropriate standard is viability. Which pretty much means third trimester

Not always true, many babies have been born in the second trimester and have survived with little to no ill effects for the future. At Shands neo-natal department, my Cody was there as a preemie, he was a very strong and healthy one compared to many. There were babies there that were small enough to fit in the palms of hands, some almost transparent still because they were born so early. The baby 2 incubators from Cody was born at 22 weeks. There are MANY stories about babies born around that gestation that have lived.

Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They do not vote..hence they have no rights

That is the most crazy response Ive ever heard. My LIVING children do not vote, and they HAVE rights.

Minors do not enjoy full rights.

As for the unborn, the appropriate standard is viability. Which pretty much means third trimester.

That's under today's medical technology.
But 20 or 30 or 40 years from now, viability may have a different definition due to the evolution of medical technology. I fear that linking an ethical issue to a definition that, by its very nature, is fluid may prove unworkable.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

They do not vote..hence they have no rights

That is the most crazy response Ive ever heard. My LIVING children do not vote, and they HAVE rights.

Minors do not enjoy full rights.

As for the unborn, the appropriate standard is viability. Which pretty much means third trimester.

That's under today's medical technology.
But 20 or 30 or 40 years from now, viability may have a different definition due to the evolution of medical technology. I fear that linking an ethical issue to a definition that, by its very nature, is fluid may prove unworkable.

Won't be an issue in 20, 30 or 40 years. Women won't get pregnant anyway.
www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/iju/vol2n1/sperm.xml

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.