I enjoyed this:

 

Lol, you two are becoming Balta - SS2K5 part deux.

I wouldn't say that. I like Brian a lot and we've talked a lot. I've been pissy lately (see sig) and Brian doesn't like pissy b****es.

Lol, you two are becoming Balta - SS2K5 part deux.

 

Nah (imo) this is just 2 people who have to much time on their hands because they cant discuss the Bulls due to an injury. Unfortunately my reaction to such an event is to get annoyed/angry and thus become a b**** when I post, Steve's response was to be melancholy which didnt go well with my mood and so we fight each other instead of accepting the reality.

 

 

Nah (imo) this is just 2 people who have to much time on their hands because they cant discuss the Bulls due to an injury. Unfortunately my reaction to such an event is to get annoyed/angry and thus become a b**** when I post, Steve's response was to be melancholy which didnt go well with my mood and so we fight each other instead of accepting the reality.

And my response is to wind up overwhelmed with statistics.

No way. It'll be the same as it is now, just reversed. 80% of the country doesn't give a s***, 10% really wants it to be legal, 10% doesn't (people that would actually talk about it publicly versus just their wish in a perfect world).

 

That 10% is doing a great job passing every possible bill they can to defund reproductive health clinics, throw up barriers for abortions and shame those who may seek them.

That 10% is doing a great job passing every possible bill they can to defund reproductive health clinics, throw up barriers for abortions and shame those who may seek them.

 

Except in cases of incest, rape or health to the mother, I see no issue with this. Why is it so difficult to be responsible if you don't want a kid?

That 10% is doing a great job passing every possible bill they can to defund reproductive health clinics, throw up barriers for abortions and shame those who may seek them.

WHy should something that is elective be taxpayer funded? if medically needed to save the mother, that is one thing. If just because they don't think the time is right, well then, why can't they pay for it themselves? I for one don't care what you do to yourself, just stop trying to get me, in the form of taxes, to pay for it.

Except in cases of incest, rape or health to the mother, I see no issue with this. Why is it so difficult to be responsible if you don't want a kid?

 

I have no desire to argue about abortion with you. My contention was against your claim that "nothing will change" when it pretty demonstrably will change and you openly support this change.

WHy should something that is elective be taxpayer funded? if medically needed to save the mother, that is one thing. If just because they don't think the time is right, well then, why can't they pay for it themselves? I for one don't care what you do to yourself, just stop trying to get me, in the form of taxes, to pay for it.

 

Many of these new regulations and rules have nothing to do with public funding.

I have no desire to argue about abortion with you. My contention was against your claim that "nothing will change" when it pretty demonstrably will change and you openly support this change.

 

I meant from the standpoint of how people view the issue wouldn't change. You'd have a small minority that would be put into action (or inaction) and everyone else would say "i don't care, this doesn't involve me."

I meant from the standpoint of how people view the issue wouldn't change. You'd have a small minority that would be put into action (or inaction) and everyone else would say "i don't care, this doesn't involve me."

But that is irrelevant.

lol, ok God of All Thought.

Except in cases of incest, rape or health to the mother, I see no issue with this. Why is it so difficult to be responsible if you don't want a kid?

 

Why should we be giving the govt the power to regulate what we do with our body?

 

Potential life is not life.

 

/shrugs

 

To each their own, but I think our understanding of responsibility includes paying to fix your mistakes, so if you want to spend $500 on an abortion, why should the govt get to intervene?

Why should we be giving the govt the power to regulate what we do with our body?

 

Potential life is not life.

 

/shrugs

 

To each their own, but I think our understanding of responsibility includes paying to fix your mistakes, so if you want to spend $500 on an abortion, why should the govt get to intervene?

 

Well, that's part of the problem...WE end up paying for a lot of them in one way or another.

 

All i'm gonna say is that as early as about 7 months ago I was in 100% agreement with you. Then I went through the process and i'm about 7 weeks away from having my son, and it's completely changed my opinion. You spend hours and hours and hours reading up about your kids' development and all the various things that have to happen just right so that on delivery day you get a healthy baby. After a while it really starts to sicken you that people consider that a mistake and flush it away without a second thought.

Edited May 4, 201213 yr by Jenksismybitch

lol, ok God of All Thought.

We were discussing the impact of supreme court appointments and laws that may be overturned.

 

Talking about how much the public cares isn't relevant to that.

After a while it really starts to sicken you that people consider that a mistake and flush it away without a second thought.

 

What about people who carefully consider all of the options and after thinking about it determine that what is best for all parties is to not have a baby. Everything is a miracle, that doesnt mean that the govt should get to control what people do. I do not believe in protecting non-life, I think that it sets a terrible precedent and gives the govt far to much power. You cant protect something that is not alive and as long as the something is dependent on the host and cant survive even with our current technology, it can not be protected.

 

We have to impose some limits on the govts power. Since the inception of the United States govt has consistently taken away our right to make decisions about what we do with our body, what we consume, what is good for us, etc. This is one of the few cases that puts a limit on the govts interference.

 

We cant let the govt control our choices, at least not in my opinion. Im going to continue to fight for personal freedom, and you may think that I am callous or that I have not put a second of thought into these decisions, but its just not true.

 

Like I said, Im tired of fighting this battle because there is a subset of Americans who are perfectly willing to have govt involved in every aspect of your personal life, I just hope that it doesnt happen.

What about people who carefully consider all of the options and after thinking about it determine that what is best for all parties is to not have a baby. Everything is a miracle, that doesnt mean that the govt should get to control what people do. I do not believe in protecting non-life, I think that it sets a terrible precedent and gives the govt far to much power. You cant protect something that is not alive and as long as the something is dependent on the host and cant survive even with our current technology, it can not be protected.

 

There are documented cases of survivability as early as 19 weeks, so can I put you on record of being against all abortions at or after 19 weeks?

We were discussing the impact of supreme court appointments and laws that may be overturned.

 

Talking about how much the public cares isn't relevant to that.

 

No, we were discussing whether this issue is really the single most important issue in America (politically) as Balta claimed. I said it's not because nothing would change in terms of the low number of people that care enough about this issue/would ever be affected by a rule change. So....yeah, it was relevant to what was being discussed.

What about people who carefully consider all of the options and after thinking about it determine that what is best for all parties is to not have a baby. Everything is a miracle, that doesnt mean that the govt should get to control what people do. I do not believe in protecting non-life, I think that it sets a terrible precedent and gives the govt far to much power. You cant protect something that is not alive and as long as the something is dependent on the host and cant survive even with our current technology, it can not be protected.

 

We have to impose some limits on the govts power. Since the inception of the United States govt has consistently taken away our right to make decisions about what we do with our body, what we consume, what is good for us, etc. This is one of the few cases that puts a limit on the govts interference.

 

We cant let the govt control our choices, at least not in my opinion. Im going to continue to fight for personal freedom, and you may think that I am callous or that I have not put a second of thought into these decisions, but its just not true.

 

Like I said, Im tired of fighting this battle because there is a subset of Americans who are perfectly willing to have govt involved in every aspect of your personal life, I just hope that it doesnt happen.

 

The whole life stuff is a nonsense argument to me. Again, once you look at a heartbeat of your 10 week old bundle of cells your opinion will most likely change. Mine certainly did.

 

 

There are documented cases of survivability as early as 19 weeks, so can I put you on record of being against all abortions at or after 19 weeks?

 

Sure if you can take it out of the mother and have it survive at 19 weeks, go for it. I assume you will be willing to write the check for all of its medical bills?

 

Because I really have no problem with it being removed from the mother, put in an incubator and no one is bothered. I am not a scientist, so I dont know the feasibility of this.

 

Jenks,

 

Again, once you look at a heartbeat of your 10 week old bundle of cells your opinion will most likely change. Mine certainly did.

 

So what you are saying is that there is a moment in time when it becomes "life", to which I agree. I just do not believe "life" begins at conception, which means that until it is "alive" it can be terminated.

 

It kind of seems like you are agreeing with me, but not wanting to admit it...

 

Youre acting like 10 weeks is some short period of time, thats almost a quarter of the entire gestation period. I am refering to people who find out they are pregnant and immediately want to terminate. I do believe that medically they ask them to wait a certain amount of time because it is safer, but that merely just working out the medical/scientific kinks.

 

Unless you are saying that at the moment of conception, it is alive, and therefore the govt has the right to protect it. Because if that is the case, what is next, arresting mothers who dont eat healthy, arresting mothers who make risky life decisions?

 

Because after all, we have to protect the valuable cells inside of them, even at the expense of the free choice of the host. This is the same arguments to get rid of alcohol, to ban cigarettes, to ban drugs. The govt is protecting you, the govt knows best.

 

We each have our own anecdotal evidence, at 10 weeks you see something living, at 10 weeks I see something that could possibly survive if all of the correct conditions are present, and one of those is the host agreeing to carry it to term.

Sure if you can take it out of the mother and have it survive at 19 weeks, go for it. I assume you will be willing to write the check for all of its medical bills?

 

Because I really have no problem with it being removed from the mother, put in an incubator and no one is bothered. I am not a scientist, so I dont know the feasibility of this.

 

Jenks,

 

 

 

So what you are saying is that there is a moment in time when it becomes "life", to which I agree. I just do not believe "life" begins at conception, which means that until it is "alive" it can be terminated.

 

It kind of seems like you are agreeing with me, but not wanting to admit it...

 

Youre acting like 10 weeks is some short period of time, thats almost a quarter of the entire gestation period. I am refering to people who find out they are pregnant and immediately want to terminate. I do believe that medically they ask them to wait a certain amount of time because it is safer, but that merely just working out the medical/scientific kinks.

 

Unless you are saying that at the moment of conception, it is alive, and therefore the govt has the right to protect it. Because if that is the case, what is next, arresting mothers who dont eat healthy, arresting mothers who make risky life decisions?

 

Because after all, we have to protect the valuable cells inside of them, even at the expense of the free choice of the host. This is the same arguments to get rid of alcohol, to ban cigarettes, to ban drugs. The govt is protecting you, the govt knows best.

 

We each have our own anecdotal evidence, at 10 weeks you see something living, at 10 weeks I see something that could possibly survive if all of the correct conditions are present, and one of those is the host agreeing to carry it to term.

 

Yeah i've said before the morning after pill or whatever is fine. But life, to me, certainly begins much earlier than the current deadline for legal abortions (24 weeks in some states). I think your "it's not alive unless it can live on its own" is a pretty crappy standard to go by.

 

And the 10 weeks is the first time you normally go in to see the doctor. Heartbeats can be heard in 5-6 weeks.

Because after all, we have to protect the valuable cells inside of them, even at the expense of the free choice of the host. This is the same arguments to get rid of alcohol, to ban cigarettes, to ban drugs. The govt is protecting you, the govt knows best.

 

There's a pretty clear difference between the two.

Sure if you can take it out of the mother and have it survive at 19 weeks, go for it. I assume you will be willing to write the check for all of its medical bills?

 

So if I can't afford medical bills for my 2 year-old, I can just have her killed also? Since that's the litmus test here and not whether or not she is a human being with a right to live?

So if I can't afford medical bills for my 2 year-old, I can just have her killed also? Since that's the litmus test here and not whether or not she is a human being with a right to live?

 

I'm not sure that's the point he was trying to make...at all.

study finds babies are racist.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/9-month-olds-show-ra...-135132410.html