Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 3:56:13 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Maybe the right to life idiots have the morning after pill confused with a punch in the stomach?


That will probably become the standard abortion procedure in Mississippi...
Actually, I betcha that about 4 shots of whiskey would do the job, and if it didn't, repeat until either it does, or the kid counts as a birth defect baby from FAS...
Lotsa low level toxics you can consume that will kill a fetus long before they kill the mom, including a lot of "herbal remedies," in sufficient doses.
Certain vitamins taken in large quantities will become poisons, this will kill the fetus before the mother, and the vitamins will then be used and exit the system, which is a pretty safe way to go.
Guess what Righties, there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry Moonhead, realize that quote may be offensive with your profile pic...)



The problem with your solutions, softbonds, is that women across the country have already been arrested for using such methods. One women, I can't remember the state (I'll have to look it up) was arrested after she miscarried following a fall. She admitted to hospital staff to having been suicidal.

< Message edited by erieangel -- 4/8/2012 4:05:45 PM >

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 3:58:37 PM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

Funny how as soon as I show that the constitution means any woman forced not to have an abortion can sue the state for the cost of her body, the desire to make abortion illegal is no longer worth discussing? Do the pro-lifers not want to pay higher taxes to pay women for their wombs?

Nah, they're not responsible, god is supposed to take care of all that.

The check is in the mail.

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:03:27 PM   
Truthness


Posts: 81
Joined: 4/8/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

After all, doesn't the 5th amendment to the constitution say:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

You see, if a state doesn't allow a woman to get an abortion, the state has taken her womb for public use, and she has the right to sue the state for the value of that property!



By that logic, of course, if a woman decides she no longer wants her 5 year old kid, by not being allowed to kill the kid the government is "seizing" her food/money/housing space. So she'd be allowed to sue the state for that if they don't allow her to murder the kid.

Since apparently it's time to be silly and all.

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:13:34 PM   
SoftBonds


Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthness


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

After all, doesn't the 5th amendment to the constitution say:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

You see, if a state doesn't allow a woman to get an abortion, the state has taken her womb for public use, and she has the right to sue the state for the value of that property!



By that logic, of course, if a woman decides she no longer wants her 5 year old kid, by not being allowed to kill the kid the government is "seizing" her food/money/housing space. So she'd be allowed to sue the state for that if they don't allow her to murder the kid.

Since apparently it's time to be silly and all.



If a woman decides she no longer wants her 5 year old kid, she can take him to an adoption agency, or in many states a hospital or social services office. There are many ways for an overwhelmed parent to give a child to the state's care temporarily or perminently.
Explain to me how a woman could give her 2nd trimester fetus to the state and I will accept your argument...

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to Truthness)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:14:40 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline 		Here are just a few links to stories about women who have been jailed after having miscarriages:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/06/27/miscarriage-is-a-crime

http://news.change.org/stories/pregnant-iowa-woman-arrested-for-falling-down

http://news.change.org/stories/doctor-gets-court-order-to-confine-pregnant-woman-against-her-will

http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/issues/prmcknight.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges/print


(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:15:50 PM   
Truthness


Posts: 81
Joined: 4/8/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

Explain to me how a woman could give her 2nd trimester fetus to the state and I will accept your argument...



After you explain how a woman loses possession of her body upon having a child. :p

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:17:45 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
If you have car insurance your premiums pay to fix somebody else's wreck.


Your premiums go into the Insurer's bank account. At that point it's not your money, and what the insurer does with it isn't any of your problem. AND if an insurer needs to spend MORE than they've collected in premiums for any particular insured, 1) Their actuaries suck, and they get no sympathy because they fail to compete effectively, and 2) Their investment income sucks, and again, they get no sympathy. They're SUPPOSED to be taking premium dollars and INVESTING THEM so that their investment income covers any losses.

If they're actually tapping into reserves, they suck, and again get no sympathy because they fail to compete effectively.

See Also: Fungible.


< Message edited by farglebargle -- 4/8/2012 4:19:08 PM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:21:22 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthness


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
. It's to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where these Neanderthals think they belong.


So you're claiming almost 50% of women are Neanderthals who want women pregnant and in the kitchen?


Stockholm Syndrome. They've been effectively brainwashed by their cult.

See Also: Mormon Polygamy.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Truthness)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:22:48 PM   
SoftBonds


Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthness


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

Explain to me how a woman could give her 2nd trimester fetus to the state and I will accept your argument...



After you explain how a woman loses possession of her body upon having a child. :p


I think Erieangel just did.
If a woman is not pregnant, she can drink alcohol until she pukes, fall down a flight of stairs, and go to an abortion clinic. If she is pregnant, and someone tries to stop her from doing any of those things because of the "risk to the fetus," then they have "taken," her body, taking portions of her freedom.
Also, a woman who is pregnant has significant restrictions on her activities because of body changes, has to buy extra, specialized, clothing, eat extra food, etc.
If a woman does not wish to do that, then either she can end her pregnancy at will, or you are taking aspects of her life away.
Would you be OK with me coming to your house and locking a metal gauntlet over your right hand which had no fingers, rendering that arm useless except to hold a door open? I'd take it off after only 9 months after all...

Edit: What is the cost to hire a surrogate mother? If a woman wants an abortion, and the state is preventing her from having one, the state is forcing her to be a surrogate to the child.
If you can show that surrogate mothers are available at no cost to people with no relation to the genetic parents, then the cost the state should have to reimburse is zero. However I am pretty sure the going rate is in the 5 figures, maybe low 6 digits now...

< Message edited by SoftBonds -- 4/8/2012 4:25:49 PM >

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to Truthness)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:33:09 PM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthness


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

After all, doesn't the 5th amendment to the constitution say:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

You see, if a state doesn't allow a woman to get an abortion, the state has taken her womb for public use, and she has the right to sue the state for the value of that property!



By that logic, of course, if a woman decides she no longer wants her 5 year old kid, by not being allowed to kill the kid the government is "seizing" her food/money/housing space. So she'd be allowed to sue the state for that if they don't allow her to murder the kid.

Since apparently it's time to be silly and all.


Uh, no, we all pretty much agree a viable fetus is protected unless that fetus is attempting to kill the mother, nobody is asking to change that, you're just trying to change the definition of "viable".

And there is nothing silly about it: is the uterus private or public property? No other person has the right to invade my home, they are going to be evicted regardless of how "viable" they are, much less given the right to demand my full time material and social support for the next 18 years and beyond, what makes a mass of cells different?

How absurd is it, really?

< Message edited by xssve -- 4/8/2012 4:34:12 PM >

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to Truthness)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:46:15 PM   
Truthness


Posts: 81
Joined: 4/8/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
No other person has the right to invade my home, they are going to be evicted regardless of how "viable" they are, much less given the right to demand my full time material and social support for the next 18 years and beyond, what makes a mass of cells different?


What makes a "mass of cells" different?

Sex (ya know, the act that generally leads to pregnancy) is typically a consensual act, so it can be argued that the "mass of cells" was invited; not invading.

(And that's the rationale for pro-lifers making an exception for rape, since then the creation of the fetus was not due to a consensual act).

(in reply to xssve)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:51:43 PM   
SoftBonds


Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthness


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
No other person has the right to invade my home, they are going to be evicted regardless of how "viable" they are, much less given the right to demand my full time material and social support for the next 18 years and beyond, what makes a mass of cells different?


What makes a "mass of cells" different?

Sex (ya know, the act that generally leads to pregnancy) is typically a consensual act, so it can be argued that the "mass of cells" was invited; not invading.

(And that's the rationale for pro-lifers making an exception for rape, since then the creation of the fetus was not due to a consensual act).


So if you invite me over to your house, I don't have to leave for 9 months??? Not sure that works well for you...
You still haven't told me how a woman turns a 2nd trimester baby over to the state if she doesn't want her body used by the state to incubate the fetus...

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to Truthness)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 4:55:51 PM   
Truthness


Posts: 81
Joined: 4/8/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds


So if you invite me over to your house, I don't have to leave for 9 months??? Not sure that works well for you...
You still haven't told me how a woman turns a 2nd trimester baby over to the state if she doesn't want her body used by the state to incubate the fetus...



Well I don't accept your premise that having a child caused by a consensual act is the "government seizing her assets" so I guess we're even.

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 5:01:16 PM   
SoftBonds


Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthness


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds


So if you invite me over to your house, I don't have to leave for 9 months??? Not sure that works well for you...
You still haven't told me how a woman turns a 2nd trimester baby over to the state if she doesn't want her body used by the state to incubate the fetus...



Well I don't accept your premise that having a child caused by a consensual act is the "government seizing her assets" so I guess we're even.


OK, then I should be able to restrict what you can do with your property, specifically your gun wielding hand, for the protection of people who you might shoot. It may cause you some inconvenience, but it isn't like I am "seizing," it, you still have it...
We are not talking about how the fetus got there, we are talking about whether a woman can kick an unwelcome guest out.
Now maybe if you agreed that any woman can tell the state the father of her child, and have his winkie locked up in one of those weird curved chastity devices for the same 9 months, I could meet you halfway at that point. Of course, as soon as women have that right, abortion would be sacrament... (after all, what woman wouldn't choose to exercise that right)...

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to Truthness)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 5:02:20 PM   
Truthness


Posts: 81
Joined: 4/8/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

OK, then I should be able to restrict what you can do with your property, specifically your gun wielding hand, for the protection of people who you might shoot. It may cause you some inconvenience, but it isn't like I am "seizing," it, you still have it...



Those restrictions already exist, and if I violate them by shooting someone, guess what happens?

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 5:34:19 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Well I don't accept your premise that having a child caused by a consensual act is the "government seizing her assets" so I guess we're even.


How consensual is it if birth control is used but fails?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Truthness)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 5:53:33 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthness


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds


So if you invite me over to your house, I don't have to leave for 9 months??? Not sure that works well for you...
You still haven't told me how a woman turns a 2nd trimester baby over to the state if she doesn't want her body used by the state to incubate the fetus...



Well I don't accept your premise that having a child caused by a consensual act is the "government seizing her assets" so I guess we're even.


If the uterus is her property, and the fetus her own creation of her own property , don't PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS require that we respect whatever decisions she makes about her property?

What so we call people who think they're in control of other people's property?

Thieves.

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Truthness)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/8/2012 5:59:54 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

There are many "medicinal herbal" abortion remedies.


quote:

Do any of them work?


30,000 years ago, Ayla was successfully using herbal contraception for herself and knew of abortifacients

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/9/2012 8:27:53 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
quote:

ORIGINAL: pghays04
As for someone being anti women because they oppose taxpayers paying for a woman's birth control just doesn't fly with me.

As a practicing agnostic, today is my day to be a Christian Scientist.
I want to protest the use of taxpayer dollars paying for anything my religion does not support. If medicare dollars are going to any treatment other than a "cleansing," I demand it stop immediately on the grounds of violation of my first amendment right to freedom of religion!!!


I object taxpayer money shouldn't be spent on cleansing, peg leg and eye patch coverage is all there should be!

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception - 4/9/2012 8:29:40 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		Hang on, does that mean that as a practicing pastafarian I can't get free spaghetti at the tax payer's expense?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Personhood Amendment vs Contraception Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   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

0.094