Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    Roe versus Wade is pretty clear on when a fetus acquires right.It's called viability.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    What is an acorn but the fondation of a tree?

     

    Exactly: An acorn is not a tree. It may become a tree. It may not become a tree. But it, most certainly, is no tree.

     

     

     

     

     


    "When does a baby aquire their rights?"

    Already answered, whether you like the answer or not.

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it hasn't Ben answered.  All I have read oils all these armchair prognosticators screaming about the rights of the mother.

    chance to educate me.  Tell me when, according to Roe v. Wade, does the baby have rights?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to FaolanofEssex's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Roe versus Wade is pretty clear on when a fetus acquires right.It's called viability.

    [/QUOTE]

    Viability has changed over the years.  Nor does Roe v. Wade address that as an issue of rights for the baby, but simply for the legality/rights for the mother. The Supreme Court was silent on the rights of the baby.

    you liberals have got to sharpen you arguments.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Viability has changed over the years.  Nor does Roe v. Wade address that as an issue of rights for the baby, but simply for the legality/rights for the mother. The Supreme Court was silent on the rights of the baby.

    you liberals have got to sharpen you arguments.

    [/QUOTE]

    The law recognizes a state interest in protecting potential life with viability.  But potential life is not life yet. Therefore no rights expressly belong to the fetus. 

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wonder why skeeter wants all women who suffer miscarriages investigated for homicide. I mean.....to him, a zygote is a human person.

    [/QUOTE]


    What is an acorn but the fondation of a tree?

     

    I feel sorry for you that you need to hide your gilt in words of science, as if they justify your lack of clear thinking about hte morality of this issue.  But, that aisde,

    When does a baby aquire their rights?

    [/QUOTE]

    Biblically speaking it's at birth.

    [/QUOTE



    Man, you are like a stalker.

    I'm talking legal, as in the law.  no one seems to be able to square the circle.

     

    Besides, you are wrong.  look it up.

    God knew you before you wer in your mothers womb.

    But that might not apply to you, as you were likely hatched from some alien pod  that washed up on a beach.

    [/QUOTE]

    I was thinking more along the lines of Jacob vs Esau. But your response  "God knew you before you wer in your mothers womb." gave me a good laugh. So what you're saying is that biblically speaking the fetus has rights before it's even concieved. Nice.

    [/QUOTE]

    Lemme see... take Jeds word, or take God's word?

    Hmmm.  That's a tough one.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Viability has changed over the years.  Nor does Roe v. Wade address that as an issue of rights for the baby, but simply for the legality/rights for the mother. The Supreme Court was silent on the rights of the baby.

    you liberals have got to sharpen you arguments.

    [/QUOTE]

    The law recognizes a state interest in protecting potential life with viability.  But potential life is not life yet. Therefore no rights expressly belong to the fetus. 

    [/QUOTE]

     

    The law does, but Roe v. Wade does not.  The claim was that Roe v. Wade covered the issue, it does not.


    So, viability has been pushed way back. don't know the current number of weeks, but it is a smaller number than when Roe v. wade became law.

    Then why are libs so pro late-term abortion?  Seems to be a violation of the very principle you lay out.

    But, one last thought on viability.  It is not an appropriate measure.  It depends on ripping the baby out of a situation where it WILL survive ( other issues aside) and throws it onto a operating table with a doctor telling the baby that is on its own. 491 babies last year actually survived abortion, only to be left to die in a closet or on a table somewhere.

    Obama calls these babies fetuses outside the womb and thinks they should be left to die.  Obama appears to be a radical, even more radical than you on this issue, wouldn't you agree?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The law recognizes a state interest in protecting potential life with viability.  But potential life is not life yet. Therefore no rights expressly belong to the fetus. 

    [/QUOTE]

     

    The law does, but Roe v. Wade does not.  The claim was that Roe v. Wade covered the issue, it does not.


    So, viability has been pushed way back. don't know the current number of weeks, but it is a smaller number than when Roe v. wade became law.

    Then why are libs so pro late-term abortion?  Seems to be a violation of the very principle you lay out.

    But, one last thought on viability.  It is not an appropriate measure.  It depends on ripping the baby out of a situation where it WILL survive ( other issues aside) and throws it onto a operating table with a doctor telling the baby that is on its own. 491 babies last year actually survived abortion, only to be left to die in a closet or on a table somewhere.

    Obama calls these babies fetuses outside the womb and thinks they should be left to die.  Obama appears to be a radical, even more radical than you on this issue, wouldn't you agree?

    [/QUOTE]

    First, no one is "pro-abortion".  That is like saying pro-life people are "pro-coathanger".  Clean up your thought process.  Late term abortions are quite rare and usually involve gross birth defects or a threat on the mother's life.  And whether you like it or not viability is the standard.  Don't have an abortion if you don't disagree.  But don't be so arrogant so as to impose your moral will on others who have a different view. 

    You would force a rape victim to bear the criminal's child.  And you think that is moral.  Right...

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The law recognizes a state interest in protecting potential life with viability.  But potential life is not life yet. Therefore no rights expressly belong to the fetus. 

    [/QUOTE]

     

    The law does, but Roe v. Wade does not.  The claim was that Roe v. Wade covered the issue, it does not.


    So, viability has been pushed way back. don't know the current number of weeks, but it is a smaller number than when Roe v. wade became law.

    Then why are libs so pro late-term abortion?  Seems to be a violation of the very principle you lay out.

    But, one last thought on viability.  It is not an appropriate measure.  It depends on ripping the baby out of a situation where it WILL survive ( other issues aside) and throws it onto a operating table with a doctor telling the baby that is on its own. 491 babies last year actually survived abortion, only to be left to die in a closet or on a table somewhere.

    Obama calls these babies fetuses outside the womb and thinks they should be left to die.  Obama appears to be a radical, even more radical than you on this issue, wouldn't you agree?

    [/QUOTE]

    First, no one is "pro-abortion".  That is like saying pro-life people are "pro-coathanger".  Clean up your thought process.  Late term abortions are quite rare and usually involve gross birth defects or a threat on the mother's life.  And whether you like it or not viability is the standard.  Don't have an abortion if you don't disagree.  But don't be so arrogant so as to impose your moral will on others who have a different view. 

    You would force a rape victim to bear the criminal's child.  And you think that is moral.  Right...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes too many people are pro-abortion.

    Strict pro-lifers abhore abortion legal and illegal coathanger procedures.

    There are insufficient controls on what warrants a late term abortion; but a mothers health trumps all.

    Realization of late term birth defects being a decider of abortion is one of the most complicated areas. Is it right to abort a severely dispose of a Downs Syndrome child simply due to Downs because its not the perfect child?  What's next wrong sex or hair color?

    In cases of rape the logical pre-emptive measure is the morning after pill, then monitor for pregnancy and abort within the first month.  Seems very logical.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    [/QUOTE]


    First, no one is "pro-abortion".  That is like saying pro-life people are "pro-coathanger".  Clean up your thought process.  Late term abortions are quite rare and usually involve gross birth defects or a threat on the mother's life.  And whether you like it or not viability is the standard.  Don't have an abortion if you don't disagree.  But don't be so arrogant so as to impose your moral will on others who have a different view. 

    You would force a rape victim to bear the criminal's child.  And you think that is moral.  Right...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes too many people are pro-abortion.

    Strict pro-lifers abhore abortion legal and illegal coathanger procedures.

    There are insufficient controls on what warrants a late term abortion; but a mothers health trumps all.

    Realization of late term birth defects being a decider of abortion is one of the most complicated areas. Is it right to abort a severely dispose of a Downs Syndrome child simply due to Downs because its not the perfect child?  What's next wrong sex or hair color?

    In cases of rape the logical pre-emptive measure is the morning after pill, then monitor for pregnancy and abort within the first month.  Seems very logical.

    [/QUOTE]

    No one is pro-abortion.  They are pro-choice.  The fact that you cannot understand this basic concept shows you are no moderate at all.

    If you allow for abortion in rape cases you are in effect pro-choice.  You just want to limit the choices based on your moral viewpoint.  You like your reasons for termination more than someone else's  Quite judgmental...  Why are your reasons better than another's?  The effect is the same.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    First, no one is "pro-abortion".  That is like saying pro-life people are "pro-coathanger".  Clean up your thought process.  Late term abortions are quite rare and usually involve gross birth defects or a threat on the mother's life.  And whether you like it or not viability is the standard.  Don't have an abortion if you don't disagree.  But don't be so arrogant so as to impose your moral will on others who have a different view. 

    You would force a rape victim to bear the criminal's child.  And you think that is moral.  Right...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes too many people are pro-abortion.

    Strict pro-lifers abhore abortion legal and illegal coathanger procedures.

    There are insufficient controls on what warrants a late term abortion; but a mothers health trumps all.

    Realization of late term birth defects being a decider of abortion is one of the most complicated areas. Is it right to abort a severely dispose of a Downs Syndrome child simply due to Downs because its not the perfect child?  What's next wrong sex or hair color?

    In cases of rape the logical pre-emptive measure is the morning after pill, then monitor for pregnancy and abort within the first month.  Seems very logical.

    [/QUOTE]

    No one is pro-abortion.  They are pro-choice.  The fact that you cannot understand this basic concept shows you are no moderate at all.

    If you allow for abortion in rape cases you are in effect pro-choice.  You just want to limit the choices based on your moral viewpoint.  You like your reasons for termination more than someone else's  Quite judgmental...  Why are your reasons better than another's?  The effect is the same.

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no pro-choice.  That is a non sequitur.  Pro-choice means you are pro-abortion, period.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no pro-choice.  That is a non sequitur.  Pro-choice means you are pro-abortion, period.

    [/QUOTE]

    So if you simply repeat something over and over it must be true.  Stupid argument.  No one advocates abortion except as a choice.

    Are you pro-coathanger?  There is no pro-life there is only pro coathanger...  Just as stupid a statement.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no pro-choice.  That is a non sequitur.  Pro-choice means you are pro-abortion, period.

    [/QUOTE]

    So if you simply repeat something over and over it must be true.  Stupid argument.  No one advocates abortion except as a choice.

    Are you pro-coathanger?  There is no pro-life there is only pro coathanger...  Just as stupid a statement.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Stop hiding behind owellian doublespeak.

    Just what does "pro-choice" mean?  sometimes you are for abortion, sometimes you are against it?  Are you for the baby being involved in the "choice"?

    As a term, it just doesn't make sense.  You are either for something, or against it.  You also need to include all parties on the "choice" if it is truly a choice.

    It is never an informative label to say you are for what ever a 3rd party decides about aborting another 3rd party (i.e. pro-choice).  That's a non-position at best, at worst, you are for abortion as a possible outcome.  It is like saying I don't care if you get fat.  

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

     

    First, no one is "pro-abortion".  That is like saying pro-life people are "pro-coathanger".  Clean up your thought process.  Late term abortions are quite rare and usually involve gross birth defects or a threat on the mother's life.  And whether you like it or not viability is the standard.  Don't have an abortion if you don't disagree.  But don't be so arrogant so as to impose your moral will on others who have a different view. 

    You would force a rape victim to bear the criminal's child.  And you think that is moral.  Right...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes too many people are pro-abortion.

    Strict pro-lifers abhore abortion legal and illegal coathanger procedures.

    There are insufficient controls on what warrants a late term abortion; but a mothers health trumps all.

    Realization of late term birth defects being a decider of abortion is one of the most complicated areas. Is it right to abort a severely dispose of a Downs Syndrome child simply due to Downs because its not the perfect child?  What's next wrong sex or hair color?

    In cases of rape the logical pre-emptive measure is the morning after pill, then monitor for pregnancy and abort within the first month.  Seems very logical.

    [/QUOTE]

    No one is pro-abortion.  They are pro-choice.  The fact that you cannot understand this basic concept shows you are no moderate at all.

    If you allow for abortion in rape cases you are in effect pro-choice.  You just want to limit the choices based on your moral viewpoint.  You like your reasons for termination more than someone else's  Quite judgmental...  Why are your reasons better than another's?  The effect is the same.

    [/QUOTE]

    So I note you clip away an uncomfortable discussion point of mine.

    Realization of late term birth defects being a decider of abortion is one of the most complicated areas. Is it right to abort a severely dispose of a Downs Syndrome child simply due to Downs because its not the perfect child?  What's next wrong sex or hair color?


    Well I believe that I address the hot button arguments that the pro abortion rights advocates stress that are important.   While I also recognize that a life is developing and I'm not so cavalier about terminiating it.  So where I don't fully embrace unfettered abortion that makes me not a moderate in your opinion.  Well campared to some of the BDC commenters my positions would be considered far to liberal for them, doesn't that become the definition of moderate?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    Only in America

    Choose Life license plates ruled unconstitutional in North Carolina

    By Joe Sutton, CNN

    (CNN) - A federal judge ruled that North Carolina's new 'Choose Life' license plates are unconstitutional because the state does not offer a pro-choice alternative.

    The State's offering a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice alternative constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, U.S. District Court Judge James Fox wrote in the ruling Friday.

    The ruling was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed a lawsuit in 2011 to stop the specialty plates.

    "This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom," said Chris Brook of the ACLU."  The government cannot create an avenue of expression for one side of a contentious political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with the opposite view.

    Republican state Rep. Mitch Gillespie, who sponsored the bill for the Choose Life plates, said he would push for an appeal of the judge's decision, CNN affiliate WRAL reported.

    The bill for the license plates passed in 2011, and the legislation also mandated that money raised from the sale of the specialty plates would go to a nonprofit that supports crisis pregnancy centers, WRAL reported.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Only in America

    Choose Life license plates ruled unconstitutional in North Carolina

    By Joe Sutton, CNN

    (CNN) - A federal judge ruled that North Carolina's new 'Choose Life' license plates are unconstitutional because the state does not offer a pro-choice alternative.

    The State's offering a Choose Life license plate in the absence of a pro-choice alternative constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, U.S. District Court Judge James Fox wrote in the ruling Friday.

    The ruling was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had filed a lawsuit in 2011 to stop the specialty plates.

    "This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom," said Chris Brook of the ACLU."  The government cannot create an avenue of expression for one side of a contentious political issue while denying an equal opportunity to citizens with the opposite view.

    Republican state Rep. Mitch Gillespie, who sponsored the bill for the Choose Life plates, said he would push for an appeal of the judge's decision, CNN affiliate WRAL reported.

    The bill for the license plates passed in 2011, and the legislation also mandated that money raised from the sale of the specialty plates would go to a nonprofit that supports crisis pregnancy centers, WRAL reported.

    [/QUOTE]

    Opinions that run contrary to the secular progressive religion are now illegal.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    [/QUOTE]


    So if you simply repeat something over and over it must be true.  Stupid argument.  No one advocates abortion except as a choice.

    Are you pro-coathanger?  There is no pro-life there is only pro coathanger...  Just as stupid a statement.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Stop hiding behind owellian doublespeak.

    Just what does "pro-choice" mean?  sometimes you are for abortion, sometimes you are against it?  Are you for the baby being involved in the "choice"?

    As a term, it just doesn't make sense.  You are either for something, or against it.  You also need to include all parties on the "choice" if it is truly a choice.

    It is never an informative label to say you are for what ever a 3rd party decides about aborting another 3rd party (i.e. pro-choice).  That's a non-position at best, at worst, you are for abortion as a possible outcome.  It is like saying I don't care if you get fat.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you are the Orwellian.  You lie about what the opposition to your views believe and just keep repeating it over and over.  You have both sides of the debate already marked out in ideological terms and simply disregard any evidence to the contrary. 

    Semantics aside.  The pro-choice people favor individual freedom.  You and other social conservatives favor state power.  You are a statist.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    So if you simply repeat something over and over it must be true.  Stupid argument.  No one advocates abortion except as a choice.

    Are you pro-coathanger?  There is no pro-life there is only pro coathanger...  Just as stupid a statement.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Stop hiding behind owellian doublespeak.

    Just what does "pro-choice" mean?  sometimes you are for abortion, sometimes you are against it?  Are you for the baby being involved in the "choice"?

    As a term, it just doesn't make sense.  You are either for something, or against it.  You also need to include all parties on the "choice" if it is truly a choice.

    It is never an informative label to say you are for what ever a 3rd party decides about aborting another 3rd party (i.e. pro-choice).  That's a non-position at best, at worst, you are for abortion as a possible outcome.  It is like saying I don't care if you get fat.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you are the Orwellian.  You lie about what the opposition to your views believe and just keep repeating it over and over.  You have both sides of the debate already marked out in ideological terms and simply disregard any evidence to the contrary. 

    Semantics aside.  The pro-choice people favor individual freedom.  You and other social conservatives favor state power.  You are a statist.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Where am I lying?

    You are presenting a weak argument, so you accuse me of lying.  Please define pro-choice.  Show me how it is a valid term.

    You can't, because it means nothing. it is a term that defines a particular lukewarmedness about abortion at best.

    If you are pro-choice, by definition you are pro-abortion, because you don't oppose it.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    Opinions that run contrary to the secular progressive religion are now illegal.

     

    The state suppressed pro-choice opinions. Try reading.

    [/QUOTE]

     

    The "state"?  Is that the same as "the man"?

    Your statement is nonsensical, as pro-choice is undefined.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    So if you simply repeat something over and over it must be true.  Stupid argument.  No one advocates abortion except as a choice.

    Are you pro-coathanger?  There is no pro-life there is only pro coathanger...  Just as stupid a statement.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Stop hiding behind owellian doublespeak.

    Just what does "pro-choice" mean?  sometimes you are for abortion, sometimes you are against it?  Are you for the baby being involved in the "choice"?

    As a term, it just doesn't make sense.  You are either for something, or against it.  You also need to include all parties on the "choice" if it is truly a choice.

    It is never an informative label to say you are for what ever a 3rd party decides about aborting another 3rd party (i.e. pro-choice).  That's a non-position at best, at worst, you are for abortion as a possible outcome.  It is like saying I don't care if you get fat.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you are the Orwellian.  You lie about what the opposition to your views believe and just keep repeating it over and over.  You have both sides of the debate already marked out in ideological terms and simply disregard any evidence to the contrary. 

    Semantics aside.  The pro-choice people favor individual freedom.  You and other social conservatives favor state power.  You are a statist.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Where am I lying?

    You are presenting a weak argument, so you accuse me of lying.  Please define pro-choice.  Show me how it is a valid term.

    You can't, because it means nothing. it is a term that defines a particular lukewarmedness about abortion at best.

    If you are pro-choice, by definition you are pro-abortion, because you don't oppose it.

    [/QUOTE]


    You are wrong. You can oppose something and still respect that others feel differently and make different decisions. Also, if you read the original posting, you must understand that they situation is not either/or. Nor is it as black and white as you attempt to paint it.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to FaolanofEssex's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]


    So if you simply repeat something over and over it must be true.  Stupid argument.  No one advocates abortion except as a choice.

    Are you pro-coathanger?  There is no pro-life there is only pro coathanger...  Just as stupid a statement.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Stop hiding behind owellian doublespeak.

    Just what does "pro-choice" mean?  sometimes you are for abortion, sometimes you are against it?  Are you for the baby being involved in the "choice"?

    As a term, it just doesn't make sense.  You are either for something, or against it.  You also need to include all parties on the "choice" if it is truly a choice.

    It is never an informative label to say you are for what ever a 3rd party decides about aborting another 3rd party (i.e. pro-choice).  That's a non-position at best, at worst, you are for abortion as a possible outcome.  It is like saying I don't care if you get fat.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think you are the Orwellian.  You lie about what the opposition to your views believe and just keep repeating it over and over.  You have both sides of the debate already marked out in ideological terms and simply disregard any evidence to the contrary. 

    Semantics aside.  The pro-choice people favor individual freedom.  You and other social conservatives favor state power.  You are a statist.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Where am I lying?

    You are presenting a weak argument, so you accuse me of lying.  Please define pro-choice.  Show me how it is a valid term.

    You can't, because it means nothing. it is a term that defines a particular lukewarmedness about abortion at best.

    If you are pro-choice, by definition you are pro-abortion, because you don't oppose it.

    [/QUOTE]


    You are wrong. You can oppose something and still respect that others feel differently and make different decisions. Also, if you read the original posting, you must understand that they situation is not either/or. Nor is it as black and white as you attempt to paint it.

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny.  I have a point of view, and I'm called hysterical.

    you have a different point of view, and you are enlightened.

    still, your argument is weak.  You are anti abortion yourself, but ok with someone being pro abortion, and that's your definition of pro choice?

    That's just silly.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Fifty Shades of Grey...another conversation about abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    The "state"?  Is that the same as "the man"? Your statement is nonsensical, as pro-choice is undefined.



    Are you drunk already? What are you trying to blab about?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Working on it.  It's conversation is driving me to drink. You liberals are such cowards.  Just admit that you are pro killing babies and we can all move on.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share