| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
People are physically incapable of controlling their bodies? There is an urge for violence but there are countless laws against committing acts of violence. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
you're reading into what i said. didn't say they can't just pointed out the obvious that they won't | ||
| Pammy |
I hope you read all of this even though I really don't care what your judgment towards me might be. Normally, I don't get involved in these discussions, especially on motorcycle boards....but I find it interesting if not infuriating that a bunch of penis bearing mammals with not one uterus among you, feel there is absofreakinglutely no responsibility whatever on the male counterpart to this equation. "I get it, it's an annoying lump in her belly, like an unwanted tumor, she just wants to get on with her life." Who are you to dictate or judge what may be going through the minds of these women? Unless you're hiding some ovaries somewhere, I am pretty sure you have no idea. "There are more than enough adoptive parents to go around. There are simply not enough babies. " Maybe not babies, but there are plenty of children that need homes and loving parents. Only 1.5 percent of the 1.21 million abortions each year, or about 18,000, occur later than 20 weeks after conception, and many of these involve medical emergencies, said Ms. Nash of the Guttmacher Institute. Still, the new laws also place stricter, and what some say are unconstitutional, limits on medical exceptions as well. They permit abortions after 20 weeks only to avert the death or “serious physical impairment of a major bodily function” of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape or incest, none for less dire medical threats or mental health. Nor, under the laws, is an abortion allowed after 20 weeks when a fetus is discovered to be catastrophically impaired but still living, as is sometimes discovered by routine ultrasounds in midpregnancy. Last fall, Danielle and Robb Deaver of Grand Island, Neb., found that their state’s new law intruded in a wrenching personal decision. Ms. Deaver, 35, a registered nurse, was pregnant with a daughter in a wanted pregnancy, she said. She and her husband were devastated when her water broke at 22 weeks and her amniotic fluid did not rebuild. Her doctors said that the lung and limb development of the fetus had stopped, that it had a remote chance of being born alive or able to breathe, and that she faced a chance of serious infection. In what might have been a routine if painful choice in the past, Ms. Deaver and her husband decided to seek induced labor rather than wait for the fetus to die or emerge. But inducing labor, if it is not to save the life of the fetus, is legally defined as abortion, and doctors and hospital lawyers concluded that the procedure would be illegal under Nebraska’s new law. After 10 days of frustration and anguish, Ms. Deaver went into labor naturally; the baby died within 15 minutes and Ms. Deaver had to be treated with intravenous antibiotics for an infection that developed. Ms. Deaver said she got angry only after the grief had settled. “This should have been a private decision, made between me, my husband and my doctor,” she said in a telephone interview. How can you on one thread talk about shooting people who may take your stuff without any concern other than legal ramifications and on this thread, judge a person you don't know about a circumstance you are clearly unfamiliar with for making what must be an incredibly difficult decision that will alter their very being forever and always no matter what they choose? Sorry for the run-on sentence but this is hypocrisy to the nth degree. That's a big ol' net you are casting over womanhood....} | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The uterus vs. penis argument is a complete cop out. So if I've never "xyz" I can't have an opinion on it? Really, that is the standard? It takes TWO people to make a decision to engage in the activities that create fetuses. Unfortunately, due to biology, one of the two bears greater responsibility of the outcome of that activity. It isn't a mystery what causes pregnancy. CHOICES are made to create babies. CHOICES are also made on what to do with those babies. The law currently allows a choice that terminates, what his the highest probability outcome, a human being. One doesn't have to have a uterus to believe that terminating 50m unborn children is a poor choice. What is really interesting is that 50% of those babies have uteruses. Sad that women's rights don't include them. I'm pretty sure their viewpoint would be clear. Anecdotal stories aside. | ||
| Hootowl |
"so for one night of whatever she did it's cool with you to force her to keep them?" It's cool with you if she murders them? "who are you or anyone else to say what's right for someone elses body?" I agree. No one should be able to decide whether to murder that baby. It isn't their body, it is the baby's. "bottom line it's her choice not yours mine or anyone else." If her choice is to murder someone, she should be arrested for it. "sadly what that'll do is what it did when it was illegal which is drive women to take matters into their own hands and or go see some sketchy dr nurse etc." Great. Charge them with murder. It'll stop fairly quickly. Pammy, just because I have a penis doesn't mean I don't know right from wrong. Abortion is murder. Simply because I will never bear a child is no reason to throw my hands up and claim I can not take a moral position on a matter of life and death. A baby is innocent. A criminal out to do me harm is not. I really don't understand how you can embrace such logic. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
but guys it's not murder and it's her choice. that's the law. good luck getting it changed. | ||
| Hootowl |
It is murder. Killing an unborn baby is murder. Go ahead and try it, see what happens to you. The crime is simply not prosecuted if it is the mother who decides to hire a murderer to kill her baby for her because some idiot found a right to privacy that no one had noticed before in a 200 year old document. Hypocrisy at its finest. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
show me where the law says it is murder. | ||
| Hootowl |
Like I said, go ahead and kill an unborn baby. Write back from prison if they let you have Internet access. | ||
| Hootowl |
It is illegal for you to kill an unborn baby, but somehow if its mother wants to kill it, it's OK because it is her choice? WTF kind of sense does that make? The value of that life is hingent upon the opinion of one other person? It has conditional value? | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
according to the law yes it does. it is perfectly legal for a woman to choose whether or not she has a baby. don't like it? get it changed. | ||
| Notpurples2 |
Hoot can't be bothered to back-up his claims but he actually is right. Though the laws are new and as far as I can tell only at state level so it's probably a matter of where you are. Texas passed a law in 2003 and North Carolina in 2011 to make it a murder charge if you cause the death of an unborn child (however this doesn't apply to abortions) There might be more states that have similar laws. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I say let anybody do anything they want. Let God judge them. While I find abortion, gay marriage, murder, theft and other crimes reprehensible, it's not my job to say whether the person or persons involved should be condemned. My opinion is my own, and nobody can kill it the way a "doctor" murders an infant. | ||
| Hootowl |
I can't be bothered to cite the specific law that says murder is illegal, no. Some things require no additional evidence. | ||
| Pammy |
Mr. Bastard....did you even read my post? I can assure you that nowhere in my post was a cop out. Your comment about the woman's decision " when she put her legs in the air" or some such is what elicited the penis/uterus response from me. If the upstanding citizen that got the low life ••••••, pregnant was wearing a condom and if said condom worked as designed, there would be no problem.( I am paraphrasing, of course) You are welcome to have an opinion on whatever you wish....you should not, however, be able to dictate to me nor anyone else what must or must not happen with our bodies. I am not saying that I agree with all abortion, but I find it ridiculous, the broad brush you are stroking over the whole problem. I added a whole other chapter but I have decided to extricate myself from this as you really have no bearing on what I think and visa versa. I left the beginning because it pisses me off to be maligned. Don't try to interpret meaning into my posts which simply isn't there. | ||
| Hootowl |
"be able to dictate to me nor anyone else what must or must not happen with our bodies." No one is talking about YOUR body, we're talking about the BABY and whether a mother has the right to kill it if it inconveniences her. The 'choice' argument has no merit whatsoever and is a deflection from the real issue. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
It is a choice. Your refusing to. See reality for what it is truly baffels me. By your definition it's murder, lucky for everyone else your definition doesn't matter. Now again I ask you to cite in current US law that abortion = murder. Until you can your arguement that it's murder is null and void. Find another talking point or concede. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
"I get it, it's an annoying lump in her belly, like an unwanted tumor, she just wants to get on with her life." Who are you to dictate or judge what may be going through the minds of these women? Unless you're hiding some ovaries somewhere, I am pretty sure you have no idea. I am just trying to understand the reasoning of this particular woman, not EVERY woman, I would blow a fuse if I tried. I do not know either way but I have every right to speculate. And really, it is not what is going on in the mind of the mother I really care about. She has 3 choices: abortion/death to the unborn child, birth then adoption, birth and raise her child. What does it matter what is going on in the womans head anyways?? Compare the mother of Dimitri and this mother, in both cases the babies are dead. Thoughts in the womans brain make no difference whatsoever. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
One woman wants to raise a child, and the other doesn't. the one who wants to raise the child, has tragic accident and baby dies.. it was an ACCIDENT... and the baby died. The person who caused it, is now in jail possibly manslaughter/murder charges pending... because the baby died. Another words, it was killed. The woman in pic killed her babies by direct choice and via clinic/doctor. she chose the abortion and the doctor did it. If you kill a baby by accident you go to jail for murder but if you CHOOSE to kill your own baby.. you are praised for doing the right thing. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Now again I ask you to cite in current US law that abortion = murder. Until you can your arguement that it's murder is null and void. Find another talking point or concede." That is not the law, and I never said it was. Congratulations, you won your straw man argument. My point, which I have made abundantly clear, is that the law is hypocritical and flat our immoral. Abortion is murder (though not in the eyes of the law). See my post about ridiculous court rulings above. I have a hard time understanding how otherwise bright individuals fail to comprehend the reprehensible duality that exists in this country surrounding the murder of the innocent. | ||
| Pammy |
"No one is talking about YOUR body" Really? So we are what? incubators? Last time I was at the Dr., my uterus was still in MY BODY... Here is an example of the broad brush scenario that I mentioned only it has bearing on men, not women... I say all males should have their penises removed as they might rape a child a woman or another man..... Now not all men are going to do this, but it happens...ALOT. Should all men have to pay the price? What do you think? Do you think the innocent males should endure the same penalty for low life scumbags that make this law necessary? But what about all the children that are molested, kidnapped and killed every day due to the penises? Don't you want those children to live? Don't you want the ones who DO live through the trauma not to have had to endure the life altering event? My opinion is( and it's just my opinion) that abortion should not be used as birth control. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. But there is a need for the service. There are many reasons for it....And not one of them is any of our business unless it affects us directly. So take your bigass brush and put it back in your self righteous pocket. And as we say in the south...you better hope those chickens don't come home to roost. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I say all males should have their penises removed as they might rape a child a woman or another man..... Now not all men are going to do this, but it happens...ALOT. Should all men have to pay the price? What do you think? Do you think the innocent males should endure the same penalty for low life scumbags that make this law necessary? But what about all the children that are molested, kidnapped and killed every day due to the penises? Don't you want those children to live? Don't you want the ones who DO live through the trauma not to have had to endure the life altering event? " What does ANY of that have to do with killing unborn children? Your uterus, fine. Is your baby similarly yours to do with as you please? Does its life depend on your opinion of its worth? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
My opinion is (and it's just my opinion) that redrum should not be used as birth control. The taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for redrum. But there is a need for redrum. There are many reasons for redrum....And not one of them is any of our business unless it affects us directly. fixed. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
You are the one labeling it murder that is a legally significant word. Life isn't fair... Do you want a cookie or something? Like I've said many times also if you don't like it change it. | ||
| Pammy |
"What does ANY of that have to do with killing unborn children? " It absolutely doesn't have anything to do with unborn children. It has to do with the torture and/or death of born children, sometimes teenagers, sometimes fully grown children....The way I am reading all the posts above, a non-viable fetus is exactly like a post birth child. Wouldn't that make it the same as a fully grown child? I know my babies are fully grown and I love them just as much if not more than before they were born. Are you saying it's okay to abort a child who is 10, 16, 18, 30? I simply mapped out an absurd scenario where all were punished due to the offenses of the few. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
Its not the penis... its the shooter. | ||
| Pammy |
Xd, those are your words not mine. But if you read your silly sentence, it is still more logical than the crap you spout. But you men have changed my mind. We should go back to the days of coat hangers and suicide. What was I thinking. Women are incubators and whether the child is viable or not....whether the child is dead already and is going to cause the death of the incubator. Hell, pregnant children are putting babies in dumpsters and leaving them in toilets now. What's the difference? That's post birth...it's okay then right? What about the pregnant 10 year old? Yep...her life means nada. I don't know what I was thinking....I see the light now. Thank you oh enlightened ones... | ||
| Pammy |
Same broad brush....hell you guys are using fire hose to paint this picture. | ||
| Fast1075 |
My birth mother didn't want me. Thank God she didn't have the opportunity to abort me. My adoptive parents loved me till the day they died. | ||
| 99savage |
Pammy . . . children are putting babies in dumpsters and leaving them in toilets now. What's the difference? OK, I give up. You asked the question, you answer it. Patiently waiting. |
