RE: Reproductive Rights

RE: Reproductive Rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:17:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NavyDDG54 Again Women are not property, and fetuses are not property. Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it makes you sleep better with your Socialist Urges of Control.

CrimsonMoan -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:23:11 AM)
grabs popcorn and sits back watching Fargle and Navy

RayvenGoddess -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:24:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoan grabs popcorn and sits back watching Fargle and Navy Hand me some of that popcorn will you; I'm just waiting for the blow-up. Right now they both seem like smoking volcanoes to me

domiguy -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:26:26 AM)
I have found that for many "men" that this argument is the only way they will ever actually get into a woman's vagina

onestandingstill -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:27:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Hey I got a question.... Why is it that if you murder a woman who is pregnant, society and the law wants to charge the killer with two counts of homicide. Why is the fetus protected only in certain circumstances? It seems to conflict the 14th amendment that states that all laws must be enforced equally. I think society is trying to have it both ways. And that's unconstitutional in my opinion. A fetus is either protected or not...make up your mind. You also can't help an old infirmed person who consensually chooses to end their life with assisted suicide or it's considered in the eyes of the law murder. Only unborn humans can be murdered and the murder be overlooked. On the matter of consent yes, the mother has the choice with her body , but who asks the child if it's OK to be sucked into a tube and torn apart? If the woman does not want the risk of pregnancy / can't handle a pregnancy she should keep her legs SHUT or be sterilized IMO period!! That's where her right to control her body should be, not in the choice to kill her baby because it's inconvenient or will change her youthful body IMO. Half consent is the only platform these women who support abortion can stand on, as no one gets the babies consent to be murdered now do they??? suzanne

Sub03 -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:27:59 AM)
My personal belief is that a womens body belongs to the women not the government. If we allow the government to say what we can and can't do to our bodies where are they going to go next? Think about it, the more power you give the government the more they are going to take. Do I personally believe in abortions though?? I wouldnt get one, not under normal circumstances, but I think we should have the option of getting one. If a women is raped and gets pregnant from it do you really think she wants to carry that baby for 9 months and give birth to it? Sure it's not the babys fault the women was raped but carrying that baby for 9 months is a constant reminder of what happened. Really think about it and put yourself in that situation. I don't believe a women should get an abortion just because she dosen't want a baby at that time in her life though. There is adoption for that. I don't know of any women that use abortion as birth control, I dont know if I entirely believe that as true. But I think if we make abortions illegal we are going to have some serious problems. Just think about all the teen mothers that have babies in bathrooms and then dump the baby in the trash. We are going to have alot more of that and not just the teen mothers if abortions become illegal. If you really think about it which is worse---abortions or somebody dumping a baby in the trash?? Sure there are hospitals and places that you can take a baby but honestly how many women actually do that? I know I know there's adoption, which is obviously the best option. The option that women should take under normal circumstances. But I think the option of abortion should always be there, whether you personally believe in it or not.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:31:42 AM)
I also think some of these organizations go a bit too far... In California, a Planned Parenthood clinic told a teenager to lie about her birthdate, that way the clinic wont have to contact their parents. They do need some new laws and regulations on this because it is starting to get out of control....

CrimsonMoan -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:32:33 AM)
hand bowl to Rayven Wanna a soda? I got pepsi, coke, and Cherry 7up.

onestandingstill -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:34:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sub03 Just think about all the teen mothers that have babies in bathrooms and then dump the baby in the trash. We are going to have a lot more of that and not just the teen mothers if abortions become illegal. If you really think about it which is worse---abortions or somebody dumping a baby in the trash?? I think throwing the baby away is way less painful than being torn apart and then thrown out as garbage. There's no difference as far as accountability of the mother for her action IMO. At least the baby in a dumpster has a chance of someone finding it and saving it, the fetus is in pieces and just plain dead with no slight chance of survival.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:35:21 AM)
quote: ARE CHILDREN THE PROPERTY OF THEIR MOTHERS OR THE STATE? Depends on the situation. Child disciplined by any physical force - the State inflicts consequence on the mother. (Physical force resulting in termination is NOT penalized by the State when the embryo is in the womb.) Child doesn't go to school - Parent (mother) can be prosecuted. The State decides on the consequence. Child in trouble - The State decides with the monetary penalty (fine) paid by the mother (parent) Driving is legal at 16. Accident liability until 18 - Parent. If the law was consistent, abortion would be legal until 18, or the child is 'emancipation'. At that point the parent no longer has any State mandated, or physical responsibility for the viability of the embryo.

CrimsonMoan -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:37:52 AM)
Ok somethign else i forgot to add to an earlier statement. Everyone brings up having the child and then putting up the child for adoption. Ok nothing wrong there the only problem is the most people who want to adopt want infants or toddlers. Everyone seems to forget the thousands of older kids who are in the system, shuffled from group homes and foster homes until they age out of the system at 18. YEs the parents have every right to want a child but because some of them are so determined to have that little bundle of joy many kids are denied the chance at having a family of their own.

Sub03 -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:39:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onestandingstill quote: ORIGINAL: Sub03 Just think about all the teen mothers that have babies in bathrooms and then dump the baby in the trash. We are going to have a lot more of that and not just the teen mothers if abortions become illegal. If you really think about it which is worse---abortions or somebody dumping a baby in the trash?? I think throwing the baby away is way less painful than being torn apart and then thrown out as garbage. There's no difference as far as accountability of the mother for her action IMO. At least the baby in a dumpster has a chance of someone finding it and saving it, the fetus is in pieces and just plain dead with no slight chance of survival. So you would rather a living, breathing baby be thrown into a dumpster, hungry, cold and on its way to death then have it be aborted before it ever takes a breath? A baby that is born feels pain, a fetus isnt going to feel anything when its aborted. Just imagine a tiny baby in a dumpster somewhere crying and alone and helpless. Sure there is a very very slim possibility it could be found, but there is way more probability that it will die, and suffer before it does.

justplainjava -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:42:06 AM)
the only person or other that children are the propety of, is the good Lord, he bless the mother with them, and he can take them away, they are not property of another person nor the state, and to a mother they are the precious gifts that are to be love cherish and held close to you take care and be safe java

farglebargle -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:42:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onestandingstill quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Hey I got a question.... Why is it that if you murder a woman who is pregnant, society and the law wants to charge the killer with two counts of homicide. Why is the fetus protected only in certain circumstances? It seems to conflict the 14th amendment that states that all laws must be enforced equally. I think society is trying to have it both ways. And that's unconstitutional in my opinion. A fetus is either protected or not...make up your mind. You also can't help an old infirmed person who consensually chooses to end their life with assisted suicide or it's considered in the eyes of the law murder. Only unborn humans can be murdered and the murder be overlooked. The essential point of my entire argument is that a SICK PERSON CAN CHOOSE TO END THEIR LIVES. It's NOT the fucking Government's damn job to tell THEM what they can do, either. And it's not the Government's Job to tell PHYSICIANS what THEY CHOOSE TO DO. If you want an abortion, and find a physician willing to do it, then BY G-D'S GIVEN RIGHT TO CONTRACT FREELY, they should be left alone to do what, IN THEIR OWN JUDGMENT AND CONSCIENCE tells them is the right course. Better THEIR MISTAKES than COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT. quote: On the matter of consent yes, the mother has the choice with her body , but who asks the child if it's OK to be sucked into a tube and torn apart? NO-ONE. And the CHILD DOESN'T GET A VOTE EITHER. You don't get rights until you can defend them. You see, it's THAT HARD OF A DECISION. I don't think that's argued. Better SHE makes it than some fucking GOVERNMENT AGENT.

domiguy -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:45:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onestandingstill quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Hey I got a question.... Why is it that if you murder a woman who is pregnant, society and the law wants to charge the killer with two counts of homicide. Why is the fetus protected only in certain circumstances? It seems to conflict the 14th amendment that states that all laws must be enforced equally. I think society is trying to have it both ways. And that's unconstitutional in my opinion. A fetus is either protected or not...make up your mind. You also can't help an old infirmed person who consensually chooses to end their life with assisted suicide or it's considered in the eyes of the law murder. Only unborn humans can be murdered and the murder be overlooked. On the matter of consent yes, the mother has the choice with her body , but who asks the child if it's OK to be sucked into a tube and torn apart? If the woman does not want the risk of pregnancy / can't handle a pregnancy she should keep her legs SHUT or be sterilized IMO period!! That's where her right to control her body should be, not in the choice to kill her baby because it's inconvenient or will change her youthful body IMO. Half consent is the only platform these women who support abortion can stand on, as no one gets the babies consent to be murdered now do they??? suzanne http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/wwwhuman/Hum10wk/Hum10wk.htm Well what they might be trying to do is ask the "child" it's thoughts.....Hmmm It's about an inch long....It doesn't seem to respond too well to questioning doesn't seem to be able to breast feed all that well either....Is this thing even viable at this point outside of the womb?....Hardly. Who is going to take care of all of these unwanted children...onestandingstill, navyguy? I think not. If you are going to talk about banning abortion then you better have a plan in place for the adoption of all of these unwanted "non-white" children that will soon be upon us....Anyone care to tackle this issue?....Or is it just enough for you to wash your hands of the matter and walk up to a new born and say, " I have done my part now you are on your own....and good luck to you!"

farglebargle -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:45:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: ARE CHILDREN THE PROPERTY OF THEIR MOTHERS OR THE STATE? Depends on the situation. Child disciplined by any physical force - the State inflicts consequence on the mother. (Physical force resulting in termination is NOT penalized by the State when the embryo is in the womb.) Child doesn't go to school - Parent (mother) can be prosecuted. The State decides on the consequence. Child in trouble - The State decides with the monetary penalty (fine) paid by the mother (parent) Driving is legal at 16. Accident liability until 18 - Parent. If the law was consistent, abortion would be legal until 18, or the child is 'emancipation'. At that point the parent no longer has any State mandated, or physical responsibility for the viability of the embryo. My problem is that "State Mandated responsibility" to me sounds EXACTLY LIKE COMMUNISM. The State SAYS you need to do (A) (B) (C) or THEY will TAKE THEIR PROPERTY BACK FROM YOUR TEMPORARY CUSTODY. Include Me Out.

farglebargle -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 11:48:31 AM)
quote: If you are going to talk about banning abortion then you better have a plan in place for the adoption of all of these unwanted "non-white" children that will soon be upon us.. Consider a world where you pay 4.00/gallon for WATER. What's going to happen to infant mortality? Is another mouth to water, at 16.00/day, when you have no income REALLY a viable model for anything but a neo-malthusian crash?

CrimsonMoan -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 12:00:45 PM)
Hey FB take a breather for a bit ok. I think you won to argument for the moment until they reloadruns off to go cash check

onestandingstill -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 12:02:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sub03 quote: ORIGINAL: onestandingstill quote: ORIGINAL: Sub03 Just think about all the teen mothers that have babies in bathrooms and then dump the baby in the trash. We are going to have a lot more of that and not just the teen mothers if abortions become illegal. If you really think about it which is worse---abortions or somebody dumping a baby in the trash?? I think throwing the baby away is way less painful than being torn apart and then thrown out as garbage. There's no difference as far as accountability of the mother for her action IMO. At least the baby in a dumpster has a chance of someone finding it and saving it, the fetus is in pieces and just plain dead with no slight chance of survival. So you would rather a living, breathing baby be thrown into a dumpster, hungry, cold and on its way to death then have it be aborted before it ever takes a breath? A baby that is born feels pain, a fetus isnt going to feel anything when its aborted. Just imagine a tiny baby in a dumpster somewhere crying and alone and helpless. Sure there is a very very slim possibility it could be found, but there is way more probability that it will die, and suffer before it does. No, I'd rather women be more responsible stewards of their pregnancies, children and bodies. No child should have to die because the mother does not want to deal with it.

onestandingstill -> RE: Reproductive Rights (5/18/2007 12:14:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Who is going to take care of all of these unwanted children...onestandingstill, navyguy? I think not. While social services and foster care do leave a lot to be disired it is in place in this country last I checked. I know many many people who can't have kids are on adoption lists over ten years for a newborn child of any color.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125