[Kernal]

  (waves little white flag)
I`m a little scared now.   

Riiiight, because we're living in the middle-ages when sex is not fun, it's shameful, and it should only be done on sparse occasions when we want to bring another kid into this world. Shame on all of you for even thinking of having sex, especially those of you who are thinking of it right now as you read this sentence. Shame, shame, shame.

I never said that.

See, the problem I see with you, is that you believe the life of the baby still inside the womb is more important than everything else going on around it. You're effectively saying that the mother should be stripped of her rights when she is pregnent, ignore any physical or mental issues that may complicate the situation, and be condemned to a role not as the giver of life, but simply a vessel for this sacred child. Then, when the child is born, you don't care about it any more, your interest is gone. You don't care that this kid will be born into abject poverty, or into a war-torn landscape, or into the hands of abusive or neglective parents, or the countless other situations when that child is better off dead. And if you believe there isn't a situation like that, then there's no helping you. Stop thinking of that thing in her belly as a sacred being that should be protected at all costs, and starting thinking about the rights of the mother, and of the child once it is born.

Um....  if you can`t afford the child give to the government or close family to watch it. If you get better financhally(sp?) simply take it back.


I totally lost this arguement.
sigh........ 

[Turambar]

so, as a result, you should change your beliefs, and argue in favor of freedom, the right to do whatever the frak you want.  even for women.

[Taristin]

Well at least somehere here has similer morals I have.

Making abortions illegal will not stop them.

The government has no right to make this decision.

The parent will find other ways to deal with the child. Whether it be adoption (which will likely lead to a child in a foster home, since there are way more children than there are people looking to adopt), abandonment, abuse, infanticide, or what have you.
If the parents truly dont want the child, they will get rid of it, whether you like it or not. Allowing abortion only makes it so that one life is lost, rather than risking two.

You must have missed it. In about every constitution it states "Murder is illegal".

You begin with the assumption it's murder. Stop forcing your opinions on others.

My view allows the individual to choose. If the person thinks it's murder, then they won't have an abortion, will they? Your side denies anyone that right, and makes up their mind for them.


The government has no right to make that decision.

Should we consider jews people too? Hitler didn't.

My point exactly. Hitler was the government of Germany. And therefore, the government decreed that the Jews should be eliminated. No government should have the right to define what is and what isn't worthy of life.

Should we consider people with missing arms or legs people?

Should we consider people with missing limbs people? Or are they not "whole" people.

The ability to dream is not human? A baby starts dreaming and forming thoughts in only about 70 days.

Dreaming does not make an entity human. My dog dreams.

[Mefustae]

EDIT: Raa's post sums it up, DB.

I never said that.

You had the tone of a catholic, implying that a woman shouldn't have sex for pleasure, and if she gets pregnant it's her own damn fault.

Um....  if you can`t afford the child give to the government or close family to watch it. If you get better financhally(sp?) simply take it back.

That statement is testament to the fact that most people like you don't really care what happens to the kid after it's born, just as long as it is born.

Have you any idea of the psychological damage that will be inflicted upon the child if it's given to another family, only to be taken back at an arbitrary point by its crack-whore mother because she now wants it?

[Kernal]

so, as a result, you should change your beliefs, and argue in favor of freedom, the right to do whatever the frak you want.  even for women.

No....
Just because I lost one arguement doesn`t mean i`m going to change my views on life.

[Turambar]

drat *kicks dirt*

i thought i had one.  oh well, another loss for the cause of freedom

[Deepblue]

I feel like killing someone. And since you convinced me to believe to doing whatever the frak I want, I think I'll start now, especially since I don't believe its murder. People who don't believe in murder don't do it, simple as that, but they shouldn't stop me from my right to jab a knife in someones face.
...

..

.

Ooookaaay. Does anyone know how to get stains out of rugs?

[Kamikaze]

The ability to dream is not human? A baby starts dreaming and forming thoughts in only about 70 days.

The Supreme Court ruled that fetuses are not valid people when considering the Constitution.

From Wikipedia

When weighing the competing interests the Court also noted that if the fetus was defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment. However, given the relatively recent nature of abortion criminalization, the Court determined that the original intent of the Constitution up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not include the unborn.

Biologically speaking, until the 8th week of gestation it is still an embryo. Not even a fetus. Comparing embryos and fetuses to Jews is a bit of a poor comparison, to say the least.

[Deepblue]

I think I'll blow up Washington DC because their it has been proved that politicians and lawyers aren't really people so therefore they have no right to live.

[Turambar]

lol, go ahead, you'd be doing this country a big favor

[Deepblue]

Next, I'd move on to the UN and the European Union. Soon the world will be free from all evil.

[Mefustae]

Oh, stop being so melodramatic DB. How about actually making a good counterpoint rather than just laying in the sarcasm and pouting.

[Kernal]

drat *kicks dirt*

i thought i had one.  oh well, another loss for the cause of freedom

Wait!
I see a light shining through my window!
I feel cleansed! I totally have a different view of life!
Wait! It was just a car never mind.

[Deepblue]

Oh, stop being so melodramatic DB. How about actually making a good counterpoint rather than just laying in the sarcasm and pouting.

Sarcasm is a much more effective tool than angry words.

The point is, it should be up to the states to decide the issue.

Personally, I believe this law goes too far. However, I believe someone who willingly has intercourse and is impregnated should take responsibility for their actions. I also believe the father should have some say in the matter.

[Kamikaze]

The point is, it should be up to the states to decide the issue.

Why? This is a matter of freedom, bodily rights, and the legal definition of personhood. I think it is most definitely a national issue. Why should a state be able to remove the rights of women for the sake of some non-person fetus?

Or are you saying that the definition of personhood under the Constitution is subject to the interpretation of the states? That doesn't make any sense at all. It isn't the job of state legislatures to interpret the Constitution.

[phatosealpha]

You know, something's occured to me.

If we're gonna allow exceptions for rape, what particularly, is gonna be required to get that exception?

I ask because it takes 3 months here to get a trial date for a speeding ticket.  And that doesn't require an investigation, search, trial, and it's rarely ever going to be
appealed.  Seems that if we wait to grant the exception until rape is proven....well, so much time will have passed that abortion isn't going to be an option.

The alternative is to take the woman's word for it - which just makes me wonder how many women will yell rape just to get that abortion, even if it was completely consensual.

Is there going to be a penalty for women falsifying (or even just smudging a bit) rape for the sake of abortion?  What's about in cases where they were both completely drunk and did the nasty without thinking?  I suspect that may be technically rape as is, and I wonder if perhaps such a law would create a situation where women are faced with calling it rape (even if they were drunk and awfully into it) or being denied an abortion?




Edit:  Well, to the above, as far as I remember, if it's not national security or interstate commerce, it's supposed to be left to state and local.   Not that that's every stopped fedgov, but that was the general plan.


Man, no wonder politicians use this to their advantage.  So many complications that finding loopholes and excuses is almost a sure thing.

[Goober5000]

The point is, it should be up to the states to decide the issue.

Why?

According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortion.

Edit:  Well, to the above, as far as I remember, if it's not national security or interstate commerce, it's supposed to be left to state and local.   Not that that's every stopped fedgov, but that was the general plan.

Precisely.

[Kosh]

However, I believe someone who willingly has intercourse and is impregnated should take responsibility for their actions.

"Crikey, look at me leg! It's gangrenous!"

"How'd'you do that, then?"

"Long story, mate - bit of a tangle with the local wildlife, own stupid fault."

"What are you gonna do about it?"

"Gonna get rid of it. Get the doctor to 'ack it off. Have it 'put to death', sorta, you know?"

"What?! You can't do that! That's the easy way out, just getting rid of it like that! You gotta keep it, that's what taking responsibility is all about!"

"Alright, alright, I'll keep the bloody leg. This'd better work out, though."

Blaise rules.

[Dough with Fish]

To quote the Simpsons:

Kang: "Abortions for all!"
[crowd boos]
Kang: "Very well, Abortions for none!"
[crowd boos]
Kang: "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for the others!"
[crowd cheers]

About sums it up.

[Mefustae]

I wonder if they've considered that they're acually endangering lives by outlawing it. I mean, the need for abortion is still there, they just can't do it legally. So by outlawing legal abortion, they're not only handing over money to shady "doctors" [I use that term loosely] who give back-alley abortions that are extremely dangerous to the mother, but also a likely rise in self-abortion, y'know the kind with a bathtub and a coathanger, which is also extremely dangerous to the mother. I honestly can't see the good thing about this bill other than playing to the agenda of politicians who want the fundy vote.