Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Acceptable Murder


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Acceptable Murder Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 9:00:11 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

And while I support less controls on guns for example, I think they should do one thing before actually performing the abortion; try to find the biological Father. I would favor that he be given the option to take on the responsibility alone, and she could sign off all Parental rights. He would not be allowed any public assistance whatsoever, because of course if he exercises that option he incurs all expenses. So he either has to get her on his insurance or pay out of pocket. Maybe 99% of the time he says no, but what of the other 1% ?



Would she get paid for her efforts, or should she act as an incubator for free? Surrogacy doesn't come cheap.

_____________________________



(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 181
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 9:19:54 AM   
PapaJohnQ


Posts: 24
Joined: 2/28/2009
Status: offline
All this goes to show is that there are better ways to spend your youth than talking to your girfriend while you are young.  Do it!  Do it now! Later when you are old:
1) you may not be physically able.
2) you may be allergic to the little blue pill.
3) you may not remember doing it.
4) you may not remember what "it" is.

The answers to your three questions are quite simple:
1)  Ask any pro choicer if they could have made the decision for abortion for their mother, what are they waiting for?   It is not too late to overrule their mother now.  I guess that answers Q. #3 also. Euthenasia, like youth should not be wasted on the young.
2)  Life is cheap.  My Uncle George is still killing folks in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Why?  To stop the killing of course!  Georges Daddy, George, had been there, done it, and did not want to go back. He had a little war where except for an overturned landing craft and some trigger happy field grade, practically none of our people got killed. JFK killed 50,000 Americans.  Joe Stalin, that was a man who understood killing.  He accounted for 20-30 million of his own folks.  Killing aboriginies has been a way of life for us and our European cousins.  We won the west that way.  I still can't figure out how we lost Korea, Vietnam, and Irag.  I guess it was because we did not open those countries for settlement.  Man could we have dealt with the oil problems if we had just wiped out the Iraq people.Oh Yeah, Uncle Addi and his perverted Death camps.  Slowly but surely the propaganda folks of the Big Lie will tell everyone, "It never happened." I know folks who survived, and it just goes to show the Germans are not as perfect as their propaganda claimed.  We don't care anyway.  We took Willy von Braun and made him a National Hero.We arranged for many to escape from their past by convincing Argentina to take them in.  We left US Soldiers to their fate at the end of every war we have ever been involved in.  And like every young patriotic American boy, I stood up and cheered when Uncle Sam marched US troops through ground zero to prove that a little radioactivity could not harm the strongest of the strong.  We just proved that when the tough get going, the going gets tough.  Later when survivors of these A-Bomb tests were caled upon to testify if they had been harmed, none of the dead replied.  Today we make tanks of depleted Uranium, and bullets of the same materiel.  Why not?  Soldiers die of lead poisoning, and Uranium has the advantage of being molre dense.  It does have a stealth disadvantage in that everyone and thing glows blue in the dark.  The geiger counters are a sure detection device.  And they said Gulf War syndrome was made up.  Why does the West get angry with Putin for feeding a little radioactivities to his polital enemies?  We are fair!  We kill everyone with it, friend and foe alike. 
Our system of Criminal justice is not perfect.  What man made device or procedure is?  Nor is our health care system.  I knew a woman who was operated on at the age of 94½ for a total removal of both breasts, because she had developed breast cancer.  Then they operated on her for a long and complex procedure to replace the tissue holding her intestines in place.  The second operation was one which she had avoided since she was in her late 5O's.  What was the difference in the two time periods?  She had a stroke just before her 90th birthday.  She was no longer able to voice her objections.  At least the Doctors were happy.  The operations went perfectly and the government paid the bill.  Despite a living will specifying no extraordinary procedures to prolong life, the judge said, the will didn't count.  These were "normal" procedures.  Besides which they did not prolong her life.  You guessed it!  The lady died.

I think we ought to require the survivors of a drunk driver who kills while driving drunk to attend the funeral of the victims and to devote the rest of their lives to supporting the victim's survivors.  Wouldn't that be a kick in the head.

I do like the priorities of the opinions expressed in these forums.

Really cool!

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 182
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 9:31:32 AM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

And while I support less controls on guns for example, I think they should do one thing before actually performing the abortion; try to find the biological Father. I would favor that he be given the option to take on the responsibility alone, and she could sign off all Parental rights. He would not be allowed any public assistance whatsoever, because of course if he exercises that option he incurs all expenses. So he either has to get her on his insurance or pay out of pocket. Maybe 99% of the time he says no, but what of the other 1% ?



Would she get paid for her efforts, or should she act as an incubator for free? Surrogacy doesn't come cheap.


I really don't want to get in debate on this thread as it's not about that for me. Just looking for opinions for the most part, but ya know, that incubator thing just isn't right. The man didn't keep it zipped and the woman didn't keep her legs closed. Now you want to enact a fee for not killing what was created.

Congrats. There's a market that hasn't been fully explored yet and here I was thinking you weren't a capitalist at all.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 183
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 9:38:06 AM   
hlen5


Posts: 5890
Joined: 3/2/2008
Status: offline
As an aside -

On the previous page someone said women are excluded from combat.  Wrong. The women in Afghanistan and Iraq are getting shot at the same as the men. Their job despcription may not be labelled as such, but don't pretend they are not in as much danger.

Back to the OP:  pro-choice, anti- murder by the state, yes to death with dignity, don't think I could pull the plug.

_____________________________



My fave Thread: http://www.collarchat.com/m_2626198/mpage_1/tm.htm

One time "Phallus Expert Extraordinaire"

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 184
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 9:39:36 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
Actually, I was making a wry joke at Term's suggestion that men should be able to continue a pregnancy, without him even considering whether the women should have a say in the matter or not  .

_____________________________



(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 185
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 9:40:50 AM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
I don't know what unit they're in but every active member I've spoken to tells me that in active combat zones female soldiers are not allowed to participate in the mission.

The official policy of the United States military (specifically Army units and Marine units) is to not allow females to serve in close combat situations. In March 2006 there was a formal inquiry as to the reports that "female soldiers were being placed in
certain combat-collocated support units that are required to be all male".

http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/CMRPA0907.pdf

1992 was the LAST time there was a review of the military's policy of putting women in the line of combat. At that point in time, the Presidential Commission provided "some of the reasons why a majority of commissioners voted against the use of women in close combat units on land, sea, in the air, and special operations forces."

http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=237

I'll put it out there in yet another reference...

In 2005, the House Armed Services Committee signed into LAW that women could not serve in combat or combat support units as a reaction to the United States Army neglect of official policy.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1407453/posts

I do not support this policy at all...it just happens to be fact.


< Message edited by BoiJen -- 3/5/2009 9:54:37 AM >


_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to hlen5)
Profile   Post #: 186
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 10:18:30 AM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Au contraire, BoiJen. The two stances are pro-abortion and anti-abortion.


Wrong: I have yet to meet a single invidual who is pro-abortion: nobody promotes abortion. It would be like promoting  appendectomies: are you pro-appendectomy? The stance is pro-choice and anti-choice: BoiJen is 100% correct on this one.


Not picking on you, Kitten, and while I'll acknowledge there are many people who are more accurately "choice" than pro-abortion, it's not entirely true that there are no people that are pro-abortion.

I can't speak for the U.K. but I do know in the United States on the political liberal end you can still hear people stating the Eugenics principle that to cure poverty poor women and black women should have more abortions. Some people, fairly intelligent and talented people, who are liberals will state quite flatly that by aborting would be black children, U.S. society benefits from a reduction in crime (e.g. black children have greater odds of becoming criminals as they age).

In fact U.S. policy for giving aid to "third world" nations (a term that carries ethnocentric connotations today, and a concept no longer tenable with the fall of Cold War politics against Communism and socialist states) tends to link or attempt so, a requirement of "population control" (e.g. contraception and abortion). Strong nations require lots of people. Cuba will never become as powerful as the United States, China, India, or Brazil because they lack enough people. Of course other things contribute to national strength also such as infrastructure and industry et cetera. China has always had lots of people but without strong infrastructure and industrial capacity they were never able to maximize their resource of people (land, labor, and capital are defined as "resource" in the jargon of economics).

Make no mistake, India, China, and Brazil will rise to challenge White World Supremecy within my life time, and this is partly (I don't claim totally) due to the large populations in each nation. Take for example Sao Paulo in Brazil. That city alone has more people than many nations on earth and economy larger than many nations. Sao Paulo's economy is something like the size of Mexico's national economy and something like twice as large as Chile's national economy. New York, Chicago, L.A., London, Sao Paulo are economically powerful cities partly because they have large population sizes. Tomah, Wisconisn with roughly 5,000 people could never achieve productivity and an economy like New York (placing per capita personal incomes aside).

Much of Western Europe is distined to be eclipsed by India, China, and Brazil (Russia by some accounts, may collapse as a culture and national economy if abortion and alcoholism maintains its rate of destruction - depoluation - in that nation) because you all have to low of birth rates. The United States can maintain strength through low birth rates because we can always open up the boarders for massive immigration flooding by Mexicans.



http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html  
quote:

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."


(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 187
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 10:23:09 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
I don't know how to start responding to this post, UPSG  .

_____________________________



(in reply to UPSG)
Profile   Post #: 188
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 10:26:23 AM   
sirsholly


Posts: 42360
Joined: 9/7/2007
From: Quietville
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

I don't know how to start responding to this post, UPSG  .
the only thing i can do is shake my head.


_____________________________

PICKED UPON
TECHNO-DOLT
MEMBER OF THE SUBBIE MAFIA
GRACEFULLY CHALLENGED :::::splat:::::
BOOT WHORE
VAA/S FAN

GIVES GOOD HEART (Lushy)

CREATOR OF MAYHEM (practice)


(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 189
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 10:51:21 AM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
Thank you for the reply, Rainyday, dated: 3/5/2009 4:20:58 AM  

I think it's probably fair to say that while some men would shoulder total responsibility for a child - like your Dom would do - many if not most men would not do it. Many men try to flee taking care of children - just look at how many women have to chase down working men for child support.

And like I stated earlier, for the most part I pretty much take the Catholic view points on these issue. So, in general I'm anti-abortion and while I accept the state's right to protect it's citizenry (as the Catholic argument goes), I tend to disfavor the death penalty on one hand due to the Catholic Church's positioning on it articulated by former Pope John Paul II: In modern societies where the technological capabilities allow for competent incarceration for life, the death penalty loses reasonable and moral purpose. The Church on life support issues says that extraordinary life support is not morally required. However, there is debate within the Church if assisted nourishment is extraordinary life support or not. I'm not sure. Although I would tend to think it is and plug should be pulled and the person allowed to die - especially if the situation is approaching more than a year.

That said, I'm very much crossed on abortion when it comes situations like the child being born significantly physically or mentally disabled. Sweet Jesus! What a toll on both the child and the parents. The Dali Lama's Buddhist points of "least harm" resonates with me in situations like those.

I also wonder if life in prison - hell 20 years in prison - if it is more compassionate or ethical than the death penalty. By-and-large I don't like the way our sentencing laws and prisons and jails operate in the U.S. anyway. Most people in U.S. prisons are non-violent criminals (or innocent but found guilty) but we subject them to an archaic form of punishment that amounts to throwing them in a violent world of predators - in which they in turn can become predatory. And we wonder why the U.S. has so many violent people.  

(in reply to RainydayNE)
Profile   Post #: 190
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 11:00:22 AM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
Eh... I should also point out I don't see the need to call women or girls that have abortions "murders." That's a term that carries a lot of emotional charge and a sinister connotation. There are many young women that come to regret their abortions anyways, many do not always do it under a full understanding of what they are doing.

I hear women on Murray Pauvich (spelling?) show about DNA paternity testing frequently making arguments like, "That baby does not even look like my husband or boyfriend" or "That baby is dark skinned and my boyfriend is light skinned so that can't be my boyfriend's baby." All this suggests there are women out there more clueless about babies (creating them at least) than me.

(in reply to UPSG)
Profile   Post #: 191
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 11:26:50 AM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: UPSG

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

"Legislatively. And essentially that's all that matter. It's similar to charging interests on loans or state and or federal taxes, regardless of what anyone feels on the matter morally or ethically one way or the other that these things are legal grants them a presumed innocence of right, especially in a U.S. culture which typically views morality through the prism of what's legal or illegal (e.g. alcohol vs cocaine)."

OK- I'm doing this a little differently because we have a weird thing going on with the quotes.

What kind of legislation are you talking about? Legally men can be porn stars too. Legally men can have 12 lovers and Legally men don't need abortions. So what are you talking about?


The choice to become a parent.

It's fair to say you don't know that that is what Roe vs Wade judicial decision is about? The Supreme Court determined it a right of privacy issue.

Abortion is declining obligation to parenthood. No 15 year old boy having sex with his 34 year old female teacher receives such protection under the law. Any female porn star can have as many abortions as she wants to decline parenthood because the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that to become a parent is such a significant change in a person's life that unless the person is male they ought not be obligated to become a parent.

I don't think most people in the U.S. understand how the United States work. We hear the word "democracy" and think that means "equal" and ethical. It does not. First of all the United States is representative democracy and not a pure democracy and most laws in the nation come through lobbying efforts of interest parties e.g. Mother's Against Drunk Drivers.

(the United States is also regarded as the nation that puts out the most propaganda on earth)  



I have no idea what your response has to do with my question. Is this how you discuss things?

A womans' right to have an abortion has nothing to do with inequality under the law. It has to do with the fact that woman have pregnancies not men. That's nature, talk to God if you don't like it.

If a man gets a woman pregnant, he is now at her mercy as to whether he will have an obligation to a child or not. If he doesn't want that kind of stress and responsibility in his life then KEEP IT ZIPPED! It's very simple. I know a lot of 15-16 year olds get in over their heads and make babies before they are ready but unfortunately that is one responsibility that doesn't just "go away" because he or she was too young to know better.

So do you think it would be better if 15 year olds were permitted to go around impregnating woman and then just throw up their hands and say "well I just didn't know what I was doing, I was too young" and have no obligation under the law for supporting and raising a child (A HUMAN LIFE THEY CREATED). I know you can't be saying that because you also stated that human life begins at conception. So you think it's important to protect and nurture an embryo, but it's not important to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, love and nurture a human being if the father was too young to be responsible at the time of conception?  Does that make sense to you? If so, I will go beat my head on the wall right now because it will be more productive than continuing this exchange.



TN,

I don't say this as a personal attack or to try and brow beat, but if you were to take a course on Government (U.S.), you would better understand what I'm saying.

Abortion is legal in the United States based upon Supreme Court judicial rulings (which takes it out of the hands of states, or stated another way it takes it out of the hands of voters in each individual state - a not so democratic thing one might argue). And it has zero to do with the reasoning you have given, "It has to do with the fact that woman have pregnancies."

While Supreme Court justice wrote in their opinions, that they could not conclude when human life began, the real decision came down to a person being allowed the choice when to become a parent, and it was based upon privacy issues (I would admittedly need to go back and look up how that all relates to "privacy" and what is understood by that in law jargon, because I have forgotten). This whole thing, and essentially Roe vs Wade, sets "precedent" in U.S. laws.

What I'm arguing - as one lawyer argued in an essay I once read - which you are not understanding because you don't grasp how law and the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government works, is that said precedent can reasonably open up the door for future lawyers (and interest groups paying them) to one day win a ruling in favor of a "Roe for Men."

I never argued it was ethically justifiable for men or 15 year old boys not to take care of their children. I did however suggest that a 15 year old or young man that flees from his parental obligation is no more sinister than a 25 year old porn actress that has one or more abortions.

To understand that, one would have to take their head from out of the cloud of propaganda that results in the wars of feuding politics and interest parties.

What I think, is that I agree fully with the Catholic Church that the people are not here to serve the economy but the economy is here to serve the people, and within relation to that I agree with Catholic Social Justice Teaching which states that nation-states should provide financial support for young mothers for a period of time, if jobs and such are not readily available.

It might be noted in all of this that Margret Sanger that great feminist and racist, was astute enough to realize that in a competitive capitalist society like the United States, that for women to compete with men for workforce positions, they would need to be freed from obligations of motherhood (if women were to be free to enjoy non-committal sex as a feminist as Sanger wanted).

Women can keep their legs closed too - males are not the only ones with the cognitive power to "keep it zipped up" or refrain from sex. Your conservative mores seem to only have the male sex in mind.

(in reply to TNstepsout)
Profile   Post #: 192
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 11:34:58 AM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

But Rainyday, men are at a disadvantage when it comes to conception and pregnancy, precisely because it doesn't happen inside their bodies. It's a fact: who can argue otherwise *shrug*? Men don't get pregnant.

This 'Roe for men' thing is just a poor attempt at regaining the power some men feel they have lost over the past few decades of feminism and societal progress. I'm surprised you can't see that...


Kitten,

The issue per U.S. Supreme Court (I'm not speaking about the U.K. in this instance) is about parenthood not about pregnancy per se.

It does women no favor for women (at least in the U.S., maybe not you) not even to know what Roe vs Wade was about - from the judicial perspective enabling legislation - and not from the emotive propaganda spewed by feminist interest parties.

Or let me put it another way, Roe vs Wade ruling was about as much to do with the hallowness of the female vagina and her ability to get pregnant as the U.S. Civil War was about "freeing the slaves."

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 193
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 11:36:52 AM   
UPSG


Posts: 331
Joined: 1/22/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

No I don't think men should abstain.

However, if more straight women swallowed or were willing to take it in the ass, then I think we wouldn't be having as many problems. Use all the loop holes possible to this.



Holy hell! You're my new hero! LOL

(in reply to BoiJen)
Profile   Post #: 194
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 11:48:08 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29515505/

Do you agree or disagree with the Catholic Church on this matter?

(in reply to UPSG)
Profile   Post #: 195
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 11:48:48 AM   
RainydayNE


Posts: 978
Joined: 10/21/2008
Status: offline
boijen's solution is pretty functional, even if it is gross =p (well i dont personally think it's gross, but some people might). i imagine it would work pretty well. =p

anyway UPSG brings up yet another good point (and part of the difference between "black" and "white" feminism. atleast early on.
does anybody else remember that thing that came out a  few years ago where people called into planned parenthood and said "hey, if i wnated to donate money specifically for a black woman to get an abortion, could i do that?" and they were told they could. and the person would go on to say "there are way too many blacks having kids and those kids are committing crimes and if we could just get rid of them, we'd have alot less problems" or somethign to that effect, and the P.P. person essentially agreed! =p

planned parenthood took the stance that omgz the answerer was blindsided and that in no way do they believe such things, but you CAN walk into a planned parenthood and donate money specifically for a person of a certain race to get an abortion =p it's weird.
not to mention... oh what was the name of that woman who was giving black women hysterectomies, claiming it was to prevent crack-addicted babies. not all crack babies are black. =p and what about meth and heroin babies? =p

anyway, what i was arguing initially was NOT whether abortion should or shouldn't be legal, but that men should have the right to opt out of financial responsibility for a baby that they don't want. if women can opt out of their responsibility in getting themselves pregnant in the first place, why can't a man do somethign similar.

and yeah right, kittin, like you ever cared about derailing a thread BEFORE. =p "apologies" to the OP =p
hehe :)

(in reply to UPSG)
Profile   Post #: 196
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 11:52:54 AM   
BoiJen


Posts: 2608
Joined: 3/7/2007
Status: offline
Roe v. Wade was about the sovereignty a woman has to her body in relation to the abortion issue. Such issue should be regarded in a similar light was the legal acknowledgment of marital rape (for most states) in the late 70's and early 80's (though currently some states still have martial rape as an exception to their rape laws on books).

A woman has a right to with her own body as she wishes within the confines of the law. Roe v. Wade was about changing what the confines of the law were. Until that point, the law acknowledge a woman's right to her own body up until she got pregnant, then it was the potential child's body that was given precedence. Let's be clear, the feminist agenda with Roe v. Wade was about a woman's right to do what she wants with her body in regards to abortion, not anything else. It had nothing to do with holiness of the vag (though I worship daily).

I do believe there is an issue of father's rights in the abortion debate though I'm not sure how to meet a father's needs without trampling on a woman's right to her own body. A man can always choose to have another child with another woman or adopt...which I think is a better choice. If a man is clear that he doesn't want to be a father he should also take the necessary precautions in his sex life...just as women should (I did make a suggestion on that). I also think that if a man were clear and specific about that, that he should go do the right thing and get a vasectomy and wait the 60 days before fuckin a chick's cunt without a condom on. I don't have any other suggestions on this issue.


anyways...
UPSG there's a boiJen fan club on the polls and random stupidity section...feel free to join...just don't expect much ;-)

boiJen
who's in favor of objectifying women so long as they want it

< Message edited by BoiJen -- 3/5/2009 11:58:06 AM >


_____________________________


Clips of MsKitty doin' stuff to me. Support the fan club, buy a clip today.

(in reply to UPSG)
Profile   Post #: 197
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 11:59:26 AM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: UPSG

The issue per U.S. Supreme Court (I'm not speaking about the U.K. in this instance) is about parenthood not about pregnancy per se.

It does women no favor for women (at least in the U.S., maybe not you) not even to know what Roe vs Wade was about - from the judicial perspective enabling legislation - and not from the emotive propaganda spewed by feminist interest parties.

Or let me put it another way, Roe vs Wade ruling was about as much to do with the hallowness of the female vagina and her ability to get pregnant as the U.S. Civil War was about "freeing the slaves."



I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.



_____________________________



(in reply to UPSG)
Profile   Post #: 198
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 12:15:27 PM   
Maya2001


Posts: 1656
Joined: 8/22/2007
From: Woodstock ONT,CANADA
Status: offline
quote:

Abortion. If you are a pro-choice person, is there a point where you view the process as murder or is it until birth, a choice?

If   an abortion is to take place should be in the first trimester, I do believe in medical exceptions.. 

Executions: Regardless of whether or not they deter criminals, do you think executing someone for the murder of another to be an acceptable form of punishment? If not, are there instances where it would be?


if there is  proof  where no doubt can possibly exist ..eg eye witnesses than I would consider acceptable


Right to die: How do you view right to die laws that exist for the terminally ill? Should it be a right in your view? Or do you believe that medical science has evolved to a point where one can die in peace without suffering? If you were the person making the decision, what would drive that process, fear? Economics? What?

I am having to make that choice right now and I am not necessarily terminal
I have lung cancer  ... right off the bat before any  ttesting and  staging  to know how severe I was given my possible options.  
Refusal to treat, test  and begin end of life care right away.... I could take one or all possible treatments, trials and testing to try and save myself.
once all the pre surgery  testing was completed, I was given the option again, when I go  for my pre-op  I while be asked again and also what should be done in the event of complications such as heart stopping .  I appear to be at stage 1b which means it was caught early and there is no radiological detectable mestasis occuring  so my odds are actually fairly good ... what did bother me and felt very weird  being asked what my choice was  even before I know how serious the cancer is... I would much rather be asked for the first time once all the facts about are gathered so I could weigh my chances in on making a decision... I had went thru ovarian cancer surgery 27 years earlier and than I was told I had a mass an needed emergency surgery right away(no options) it was after the surgery I was informed I had cancer ... I guess the big problem    I think for many that choose end of life has to do with losing hope  and the fear of the treatment  eg  many people are very terrrified of chemo due to rumours not current info



Pulling the plug: One of the areas in which I've always found pro-lifers to be inconsistent in defending life is removing others from life support. Aside from Terri Shaivo (sp), it is a common practice done in hospitals every day that generates little if any uproar. But in a technical sense, it is taking the life of another person. A few months ago a story ran on the front page of Yahoo about a man who had been brain dead, or at least thought to be, for 17 years who suddenly woke and came back with most if not all of his mental faculties. If you were called upon to make that decision, do you feel it to be one that could haunt you?


I have talked to family members about their view on, in front of other members... this way if I had to make the decision it will according to their views to help ease the burden of possible guilt


_____________________________

Lead me not into temptation - I can find the way myself

(in reply to StrangerThan)
Profile   Post #: 199
RE: Acceptable Murder - 3/5/2009 12:16:33 PM   
kittinSol


Posts: 16926
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RainydayNE

planned parenthood took the stance that omgz the answerer was blindsided and that in no way do they believe such things, but you CAN walk into a planned parenthood and donate money specifically for a person of a certain race to get an abortion =p it's weird.



You are doing nothing but regurgitating a smear campaign orchestrated by a pro-life group, The Advocate, based in UCLA, against Planned Parenthood that tried to make it sound like it accepts racist donations for the purpose of "aborting black babies". They even hired an actor to impersonate the racist donor, if memory serves me well (a seriously fucked-up method, if you ask me). I think the PR disaster happened once in Idaho when a poorly-trained PP employee said 'whatever, we'll accept the money' It's surprising you should quote it de facto from this isolated incident like that, but I suppose you have an agenda.

_____________________________



(in reply to RainydayNE)
Profile   Post #: 200
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Acceptable Murder Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141