User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:36:56 AM EDT
[#1]
Thank God!
Hopefully the Good Lord will smile kindly upon us for this! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:42:14 AM EDT
[#2]
What, none of the "Abortion isn't murder, it's a choice" crowd wants to opine about the nonexistant similarity betweeen this and gun control?
Good, the first step is done. Now, if we could only outlaw the wholesale murder of children, that'd be great too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:43:45 AM EDT
[#3]
Yes, thank God that politicans invented an inflamatory word for an [b]extremely rare[/b] and unfortunate medical problem, and how wonderful that instead of highly trained medical professionals making life-or-death decisions when time is short, a bunch of political windbags can make sweeping and general laws.
[rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:48:00 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Yes, thank God that politicans invented an inflamatory word for an [b]extremely rare[/b] and unfortunate medical problem, and how wonderful that instead of highly trained medical professionals making life-or-death decisions when time is short, a bunch of political windbags can make sweeping and general laws. [rolleyes] [rolleyes][rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:48:16 AM EDT
[#5]
How can a law that bans "an extremely rare and unfortunate" medical practice be considered "sweeping and general"?
Didn't think so... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:48:41 AM EDT
[#6]
And it will be stricken by the supreme court.
Plus I can see the lawsuits against the goverment lining up when women die or are injured by this stupidity. Its only done a couple hundred times a year in this country. But when it is performed its needed to save the womans life. So now they are going to die, and the babies are going to die (or be born in a vegatative state) hmm some victory there.. And yes we should all applaud the Christian right for sinking to the same level of STUPIDITY as the anti-gun lobby. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:49:13 AM EDT
[#7]
what possible medical condition would require a baby to be born feet first and have it's brain sucked out and it's skull crushed and extracted just so the mothers vagina is not stretched?
face it. partial birth abortion is equivalent to owning a nuclear device. it's disgustingly unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:52:44 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: How can a law that bans "an extremely rare and unfortunate" medical practice be considered "sweeping and general"? Didn't think so... Your mind shuts off when you talk about this subject don't it? Because its labeled for a rare practice but is drawn to include the widest possible array of abortion procedures, to permit maximum harrassment of abortion providers. You should be used to the concept, same thing the anti-gun lobby has been using. Anti-Abortion advocates never have been interested in saving lives any more than gun-control advocates. All they BOTH want is power to rule over other peoples persons. The "save the children" crap is just propaganda for both sides to play on the week minded who cannot control their emotions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:54:19 AM EDT
[#9]
Couldn't they perform a C-section if the mother/baby are in danger? I don't see what stopping the baby just before it's born and killing it would help?
Of course since I'm not up on the subject I don't lobby for laws on it either way. Wish gun controllers would do the same... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:55:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Thank GOD!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:56:32 AM EDT
[#11]
Anything coming from people who kill doctors to keep them from killing babies because it's murder can't be good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:59:50 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: what possible medical condition would require a baby to be born feet first and have it's brain sucked out and it's skull crushed and extracted just so the mothers vagina is not stretched? face it. partial birth abortion is equivalent to owning a nuclear device. it's disgustingly unnecessary. I would like to own an A-bomb if only for the novelty. I don't really care what peole do to themselves either. I am a libertarian. I shal now wait for the bashing that I will recieve from both sides of the fence. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 11:59:56 AM EDT
[#13]
Unlike gun-control, I generally think that laws preventing the killing of a child to be a good thing.
Does that make me a Nazi? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:04:24 PM EDT
[#14]
If I understand this procedure correctly, the only time it's ever used is if the mother's life/health are in jeopardy, right? If people are afraid that the procedure will be 'abused', just make a law that allows it only where the life/health of the mother are at stake. I would never support any abortion ban that doesn't include this exception. To me, if there's some kind of catastrophic complication, the mother's life takes priority over that of the child.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:04:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Yay!!!! and IBTL!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:05:32 PM EDT
[#16]
another notch
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:09:27 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Your mind shuts off when you talk about this subject don't it? Oh, yeah..... you're so obviously open-minded on the subject... [rolleyes] Because its labeled for a rare practice but is drawn to include the widest possible array of abortion procedures, to permit maximum harrassment of abortion providers. The law bans ONE procedure. How does it affect the legality of "the widest possible array of abortion procedures" or "permit maximum harrassment of abortion providers"? Where in the law does it say it's now OK for an abortion doctor to be harassed, or assaulted, or threatened, or bombed, or shot, or stabbed, or afflicted by a dose of foul language? You should be used to the concept, same thing the anti-gun lobby has been using. Yeah, right. The difference, sir, is that my RKBA has yet to injure so much as ONE person in the 11 years I've been a gun owner. Meanwhile EVERY TIME this "necessary" procedure is performed, a child DIES. If you can't see the difference, then maybe it's YOUR brain that shuts down on this topic... Anti-Abortion advocates never have been interested in saving lives any more than gun-control advocates. See my comment above about the right to "choose" vs. the RKBA. All they BOTH want is power to rule over other peoples persons. Just like YOU want to legislate the power to rule over the baby's person and KILL IT at will, without regard to ITS rights. The "save the children" crap is just propaganda for both sides to play on the week minded who cannot control their emotions. Yeah, and I bet you think people should be incarcerated for 25 years for "disturbing" a baby manatee or a Sea Turtle's nest... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:10:43 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Your mind shuts off when you talk about this subject don't it? No it [I]doesn't[/I] Because its labeled for a rare practice but is drawn to include the widest possible array of abortion procedures, to permit maximum harrassment of abortion providers. You should be used to the concept, same thing the anti-gun lobby has been using. And it's been quite effective hasn't it? Anti-Abortion advocates never have been interested in saving lives any more than gun-control advocates. All they BOTH want is power to rule over other peoples persons. The "save the children" crap is just propaganda for both sides to play on the week minded who cannot control their emotions. BULLSHIT! There's a distinct difference between bun control advocates and pro lifers and you know it. The end result of gun control is NO MORE guns in private hands. It's much easier to control a population when they don't have the means to resist. Their "for the children" is an emotional appeal designed to get votes for anti gun legislation. Pro lifers goal is to prevent the MURDER of children, nothing more nothing less. There is a sanctity of life that everyone is entitled to, including unborn children. There is no other ulterior motive to interfere with someone elses life. In fact if you want to start talking about meddling with someone elses life what about the child? Huh, Huh? What's that? Exactly the child doesn't have a say in it which is why us pro-lifers feel the need to step in and take up the fight for them. Someday you might change your mind, I know I did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:10:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Yes, thank God that politicans invented an inflamatory word for an [b]extremely rare[/b] and unfortunate medical problem, and how wonderful that instead of highly trained medical professionals making life-or-death decisions when time is short, a bunch of political windbags can make sweeping and general laws. [rolleyes] This "logic" is so absurd I don't know where to begin! I hear all the time about how much this procedure is "necessary" - but [b][red] NO ONE[/red][/b] can name or describe the medical condition where beginning deliver, then killing the baby in mid-delivery is the [b][red]ONLY[/red][/b] way to save the life of the mother. [b]THERE IS [size=4]NO[/size=4] MEDICAL CONDITION THAT NECESSITATES A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BEING PERFORMED TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE!!![/b] This is plain infanticide - nothing else. But if the rarity of this infanticide is enough for you to want to keep it legal, howzabout we legalize the killing of random kindergarteners in public school too - just as long as we keep the total body count to under 200 per year. This is sickening that it still has to be debated - but I suppose with the amount of sheer [b]IGNORANCE[/b] on display by supporters of partial-birth abortions I'd be naive to hope for anything else. [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:11:37 PM EDT
[#20]
someone get me a beer while they're up?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:12:10 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Anything coming from people who kill doctors to keep them from killing babies because it's murder can't be good. People who kill doctors because those doctors are killing children are murderers in their own right, and should be treated as such. Don't you dare insinuate that just because I believe that a baby in the womb has a right to live, that I somehow condone the acts of these lunatics. I suppose that the freaks/terrorists over at the Earth Liberation Front are supported by all hunters, since they love the outdoors, too? Please, the lack of logic in such a comparison is laughable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:15:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: If I understand this procedure correctly, the only time it's ever used is if the mother's life/health are in jeopardy, right? If people are afraid that the procedure will be 'abused', just make a law that allows it only where the life/health of the mother are at stake. I would never support any abortion ban that doesn't include this exception. To me, if there's some kind of catastrophic complication, the mother's life takes priority over that of the child. The only problem with including an exception for the life/health of the mother is that in the past, the term "health of the mother" has been interpreted pretty broadly, to include the mental stress of having a child. Additionally, experts in the field of abortion (people who have actually [b]performed[/b] them) have themselves testified that the procedure itself is [b]never[/b] necessary, because there are other, (slightly) less barbaric procedures that are as safe to the mother. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:17:03 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Can someone clarify this for me? Is this ban saying that if the mother is in serious duress that they can not abort the baby or are they saying that you cant abort the baby UNLESS the mother is in serious duress? The latter. Both are still killing a baby, but if the mother is dying i have different feelings about it. I agree. As much as it rends my heart to think this way, it is better to lose one life rather than two. I am thankful that the Lord has not chosen to test my Faith in that awful manner. What a nightmare that must be, especially if the poor child is wanted and loved! If your just an irresponsible Fu#$ head who decided at the last minute you dont want it then tough shit. anyone? Ditto, again. Yes, women have a "choice". They have a choice with whom and when they choose to hop in the sack and spread 'em. If you did that of your own violition, deal wit the responsibilities of your actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:18:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Can someone clarify this for me? Is this ban saying that if the mother is in serious duress that they can not abort the baby or are they saying that you cant abort the baby UNLESS the mother is in serious duress? Both are still killing a baby, but if the mother is dying i have different feelings about it. If your just an irresponsible Fu#$ head who decided at the last minute you dont want it then tough shit. anyone? I can only speak for myself but I support abortion in 2 cases...rape or if the pregnancy seriously affects the life of the mother. That said most times there's a problem the woman's body will miscarry ON IT'S OWN. The way nature intended it to be. Also if it's that late term it has one hell of a chance to survive if born by C-section. My best friends son was born 3 months early and weighed 2lbs. Aside from some issues with his vision he's a happy healthy 20 month old. They can work miracles with little kids these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:19:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: I know I did. [:(] So did I... I am embarrassed to no end that I was once pro-"choice". [puke] Thankfully, late in 1992 my brain engaged and I saw the light, thank God! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:20:38 PM EDT
[#26]
the abortionists are in good company
clinton, schumer, feinstein bwa ha ha ha |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:21:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Yes, women have a "choice". They have a choice with whom and when they choose to hop in the sack and spread 'em. If you did that of your own violition, deal wit the responsibilities of your actions. Which in my basic contention with abortion in general. It's used as a form of birth control and promotes a horrible lack of responsibility. You makes your bed, you gots to lie in it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:22:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Can someone clarify this for me? Is this ban saying that if the mother is in serious duress that they can not abort the baby or are they saying that you cant abort the baby UNLESS the mother is in serious duress? The latter. Both are still killing a baby, but if the mother is dying i have different feelings about it. I agree. As much as it rends my heart to think this way, it is better to lose one life rather than two. I am thankful that the Lord has not chosen to test my Faith in that awful manner. What a nightmare that must be, especially if the poor child is wanted and loved! If your just an irresponsible Fu#$ head who decided at the last minute you dont want it then tough shit. anyone? Ditto, again. Yes, women have a "choice". They have a choice with whom and when they choose to hop in the sack and spread 'em. If you did that of your own violition, deal wit the responsibilities of your actions. THanks Zaphod, I actually deleted my earlier post becuase I didnt want it to show up in my active topics. As the father of an 8mo old boy, this makes me want to friggin puke. Would I choose the life of my wife over the life on an child? I dont know, my faith tells me to risk everything to save the child and mother, especially in the third trimester when the baby could survive outside the womb. My wife feels the same way. If you have an abortion you are ending a life. its simple. Partial birth abortions are a shining example of how sick our society is. I know very few people who wouldnt die trying to save their baby in the 7 or 8th month. I dont really care to know those who wouldnt. Just me though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:26:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: I know I did. [:(] So did I... I am embarrassed to no end that I was once pro-"choice". [puke] Thankfully, late in 1992 my brain engaged and I saw the light, thank God! Without delving into my personal life too far lets just say that in mid 2000 a wayward young soldiers (questioning) faith was tested. Luckily I saw the light and once again accepted the LORD as my savior. I tell you what it's the best damn thing I've done so far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:26:29 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: How can a law that bans "an extremely rare and unfortunate" medical practice be considered "sweeping and general"? Didn't think so... Your mind shuts off when you talk about this subject don't it? Because its labeled for a rare practice but is drawn to include the widest possible array of abortion procedures, to permit maximum harrassment of abortion providers. You should be used to the concept, same thing the anti-gun lobby has been using. Anti-Abortion advocates never have been interested in saving lives any more than gun-control advocates. All they BOTH want is power to rule over other peoples persons. The "save the children" crap is just propaganda for both sides to play on the week minded who cannot control their emotions. Oh, get a clue. Anti-gunners don't compare to anti-abortionists in any logical way. If they were the same, the pro-lifers would be trying to have the tools that kill the babies banned. Or anti-gunners would be crying to make it illegal to shoot someone (DOH, it already is). You're comparing apples to oranges. It's illegal to kill someone, but the anti's want guns banned because some people make the decision to use a gun to (illegaly) murder someone else. It's illegal to kill somoene, but the pro-lifers want to stop the unborn/partially born humans from being killed. There is no cry for banning scalpols, or minerature sized brain vacuume machines (or whatever tools they use to kill the babies). And for all you tools who want to say that that making the murder of unborn babies illegal would cause the ones who were gonna do it anyhow to do it in an unsafe situation (back alley with a coathanger, etc)... GOOD. Let them take a gamble with their life. Heaven forbid we make them take a RISK for killing someone they dont want to be responsible for. Control, bah. Let them do what they want to themselves, if it doesn't effect anyone else. The baby they were responsible for creating IS SOMEONE ELSE'S life they're ending. Or do you think that since the radicals who flew the planes into the WTC on 9/11 saw non muslims as less than them, it was ok to go ahead and kill them? Oh... it's only YOUR view of what constitues a human life that counts, eh? Pro lifers are all about control, not saving unborn children, eh? Just like the gun grabbers? You're a bit flawed thinking that. It's pretty obvious that a fraction of a fraction of a percent of shots fired from a gun kill anyone. Ok... from that we can see guns aren't killing machines. Do you think the percentage of abortions that end in a dead baby are the same as gun shootings that end in death? If they/we were out to control your/everyone's lives, why would the ONE POINT they/we try to control be something as rare in a persons life as an abortion? How about coming up with a REAL argument, moron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:28:18 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: [b]THERE IS [size=4]NO[/size=4] MEDICAL CONDITION THAT NECESSITATES A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BEING PERFORMED TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE!!![/b] You are correct, that there is absolutely no need ever to perform a "partial birth abortion" because [b]there is no such medical procedure[/b]. It's a made-up term that no medical professional would ever use. The trick here is to write the wording of the legislation so broadly and ambigusouly, that once the bill is passed, it can be applied to almost any abortion. If the anti-gunners were as clever and deceitful at their anti-gun strategies, you wouldn't be allowed to own a water-pistol by now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:30:50 PM EDT
[#32]
WHAT IS TAKING THE HOUSE SO LONG TO PASS THIS BAN??
A bab on the murder of children should be priority A1. CRC |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:32:46 PM EDT
[#33]
Any curtailment of any abortive procedure is fine by me.
Don't want to create life? Don't f_ck. If you do, use birth control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:33:06 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: THanks Zaphod, You're quite welcome. Think nothing of it. When I look at my 2- and 3-year-old daughters, their vibrance, their joy, their absolute innocence, I can't help but wonder what kind of monster would defend this "medical procedure". It awes me even more that the Lord hasn't made His displeasure known in no uncertain terms... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:33:35 PM EDT
[#35]
It's for the children, right? [rolleyes]
So what exactly do senators and congressmen know more about than doctors again (in the medical profession, that is)? I certainly hope none of you ever have to lose your wife to prove this kind of legislation wrong... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:33:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: [b]THERE IS [size=4]NO[/size=4] MEDICAL CONDITION THAT NECESSITATES A PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BEING PERFORMED TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE!!![/b] Let me clarify for the simpletons here: [b]THERE IS [size=4]NO[/size=4] MEDICAL CONDITION THAT NECESSITATES SUCKING THE BRAIN OUT OF A FULL-TERM BABY DURING DELIVERY IN ORDER TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE!!![/b] [slap] Quoted: The trick here is to write the wording of the legislation [red]so broadly and ambigusouly[/red], that once the bill is passed, [red]it can be applied to almost any abortion[/red]. Specify, what is so ambiguous that you can't comprehend in this bill? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:35:26 PM EDT
[#37]
[rolleyes]
All these arguments in support of this are purely subjective, emotional drivel rooted in the fantastic notion that some fantasy being creates life at the moment reproductive DNA is fused and starts to divide. Unscientific, emotionally driven arguments rooted in a purely subjective foundation.... hmmmm... sounds like interventionist anti-gunners to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:37:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: You are correct, that there is absolutely no need ever to perform a "partial birth abortion" because [b]there is no such medical procedure[/b]. It's a made-up term that no medical professional would ever use. The trick here is to write the wording of the legislation so broadly and ambigusouly, that once the bill is passed, it can be applied to almost any abortion. Oh, PLEASE! A baby is delivered up to the neck, a needle is used to puncture the skull and suck the brains out, and then the remains are delivered. Are you suggesting that THAT is "almost any abortion"? If so, then THANK YOU for making my point that abortion is MURDER! If not, then what you said is a lie. BTW, if it's not "partial birth abortion", what's the medical (i.e. - PC) term? Does it make the practice any less barbaric? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:42:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: It's for the children, right? [rolleyes] So what exactly do senators and congressmen know more about than doctors again (in the medical profession, that is)? I certainly hope none of you ever have to lose your wife to prove this kind of legislation wrong... Dave, As a few of us have already stated, when the LIFE of the mother is in jeopardy, an abortion may be a disgusting, hurtful, and sad necessity. I don't think most Pro-Lifers will disagree with that (even though some do. I think they're right on principle, but wrong on practicality. So be it.) However, the procedure in question has no medical use whatsoever that would save a woman's life that delivering the child via c-section wouldn't. THAT'S why we on the pro-life side are so adamant that this particular procedure be banned. And as for Senators and such knowing more than doctors, I would normally agree with you, except in this case, EVEN DOCTORS say this procedure is an unecessary barbarity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:43:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: [rolleyes] All these arguments in support of this are purely subjective, emotional drivel rooted in the fantastic notion that some fantasy being creates life at the moment reproductive DNA is fused and starts to divide. Unscientific, emotionally driven arguments rooted in a purely subjective foundation.... hmmmm... sounds like interventionist anti-gunners to me. Then when, in your scientific and non-emotional opinion, does life "start"? When does a human being become a human being? Don't give me the legal response, as that is based on emotion is well. Please give me a SCIENTIFIC answer. [Zaphod sits back to here this one.....] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:48:25 PM EDT
[#41]
Just another example of the gubment legislating morality.
- Morally abortion is wrong! - But it is not an issue for the gubment to dictate. You have to be able to make the wrong decisions in life, you can't have a scenario where the Gubment creates a Nerf world for all to live in, in which all has been pre-thought and pre-decided for you, you are treading on a slippery slope, and letting your religious beliefs dictate laws, these laws effect all people, some of which may be not be religious. Personally I think abortion is a disgusting practice at any stage (absolutely reprehensible at the partial birth stage), but it is worse to have a group of douche bags determining what is best for you, just so they can get votes. Such a difficult issue to for me to think about, honestly I see the merit of both sides of the argument, why can't people be more resposable, I never got a girl pregnant, it wasn't that difficult a task to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:49:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Quoted: [rolleyes] All these arguments in support of this are purely subjective, emotional drivel rooted in the fantastic notion that some fantasy being creates life at the moment reproductive DNA is fused and starts to divide. Unscientific, emotionally driven arguments rooted in a purely subjective foundation.... hmmmm... sounds like interventionist anti-gunners to me. Then when, in your scientific and non-emotional opinion, does life "start"? When does a human being become a human being? Don't give me the legal response, as that is based on emotion is well. Please give me a SCIENTIFIC answer. [Zaphod sits back to here this one.....] <----Gets popcorn and a soda, this ought to be good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:53:42 PM EDT
[#43]
Abortion in general is a terribly hot topic (like God, politics, guns) in which reasonable minds differ. If you can not see this, then you have already closed your mind to any sort of a debate. So there is no need to read the rest of my post or for me to respond to you.
So if reasonable minds differ, why are we making a law? Because 1/2 the population is so convinced about their beliefs, that they insist that the other 1/2 do exactly as they say. This does not seem prudent. I'm of the belief that the government should make as few laws as possible, and I believe they should stay out of my life and choices as much as is feasible. Why is a law really necessary here? It would make more sense for people to try and change each other's minds through genuine debate, or to take care of the problem at it's core. If there were no unwanted pregnancies, then there would be no abortion. Now, let me make one thing clear. I am not saying abortion is right. If I know someone who is pregnant and wants to abort, then I would try and convince her to do otherwise. If someone were "truly" Christian, they would offer to take the child themselves. But I would draw the line at making a law forbidding my friend from making her choice. (I know most men at this point would argue she made her choice when she had sex, even though I am certain ALL of those men have had sex in the past without intending to father a child. But I guess that is a privilege that is only extended to men.) Laws limiting choice are dangerous. More dangerous are laws that push morality. Yes, some immoral behavior is illegal (Murder, Rape), but not all illegal behavior is immoral. (Speeding, Hunting out of Season). I guess then we should make it against the law to have sex, unless you are intending to impregnate your spouse. Hell, why stop there, lets make a law against swimming pools, I heard they kill more children than guns. Or what about a law against masturbation - yes there are some Christians that believe that sperm are children and by men masturbating you are committing mass abortion. But you say that argument is silly, because reasonable minds differ... Hmmmmm |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 12:54:02 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: You are correct, that there is absolutely no need ever to perform a "partial birth abortion" because [b]there is no such medical procedure[/b]. It's a made-up term that no medical professional would ever use. The trick here is to write the wording of the legislation so broadly and ambigusouly, that once the bill is passed, it can be applied to almost any abortion. If the anti-gunners were as clever and deceitful at their anti-gun strategies, you wouldn't be allowed to own a water-pistol by now. DK-Prof, since you seem opposed to the ban, and apparently have some insight, could you please enlighten us as to WHEN this procedure would be necessary? And please, leave out blanket statements like "When the mother's health is in jeopardy." In cases involving the mother's health, a c-section can be performed in a matter of minutes. To clarify, I'm wondering what medical condition exists, that allows the "mother" to push out 90% of a child, and then have to have the brains sucked out of it. Call it what you want (partial-birth abortion, or whatever pro-abortion people feel like caling it), just give me facts in the case. I would REALLY like to see when this is the ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 1:05:23 PM EDT
[#45]
Zaphod, I don't have the answer, nobody does, and I am confident enough in myslef to admit it.
Right-leaning moralists BELIEVE they have the answer which is their stock answer to any and all 'unanswerable' questions. Which is perfectly acceptable for their own basis and intent to govern their own behavior. However, I don't believe they have all the answers because I am skeptical about the fantasy deity figure. Therefore, cramming a subjective legislation down my throat which is entirely constructed on the moral platform of a religious nature.... I GOTTA PROBLEM WITH THAT! See, that's what's wrong with most so-called Christians. Their evangelical nature gives them the ignorant, hyperactive ego, and consequently the belief that their moral solution is better than mine or any other moral solution. When it comes to themselves, they are indeed correct. Try to write it into a law for everyone? You're no better than an anti-gunner pushing nanny government on everyone. I emphatically hold the position that until it can be proven and presented in a court of law, there is not a single basis for legislation. Subjective legislation of morality is what the Taliban does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 1:06:33 PM EDT
[#46]
Funny, in 25 years of debating the abortion issue I've never had one pro-death person ask for scientific proof of "when life begins" as there are stacks 20 feet high of biology books that say life begins at conception. I've never seen a university biology text that doesn't state that.
IBTL! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 1:10:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: Just another example of the gubment legislating morality. - Morally abortion is wrong! - But it is not an issue for the gubment to dictate. You have to be able to make the wrong decisions in life, you can't have a scenario where the Gubment creates a Nerf world for all to live in, in which all has been pre-thought and pre-decided for you, you are treading on a slippery slope, and letting your religious beliefs dictate laws, these laws effect all people, some of which may be not be religious. Personally I think abortion is a disgusting practice, but it is worse to have a group of douche bags determining what is best for you, just so they can get votes. Then why should the government interfere with someone who decides he's gonna kill a few pre-schoolers? After all, that's just as wrong, morally. The government shouldn't have any say on what doesn't (potentially) effect others. The baby the mother conceived is being effected by the proceedure, just as much as the 4 year old would be effected. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that after the first trimester (maybe it's the second) it's past the point where life has (legally) begun, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 1:14:33 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Funny, in 25 years of debating the abortion issue I've never had one pro-death person ask for scientific proof of "when life begins" as there are stacks 20 feet high of biology books that say life begins at conception. I've never seen a university biology text that doesn't state that. IBTL! Well, if you really want to chalk this one up to biology, why don't you trying banning abortions (if you can call them that?) that happen naturally - when an egg is fertalized but the menstrual cycle flushes it away - was that a life too? Did you know: One in six fertilized eggs naturally results in miscarriage, some of which are reabsorbed by the body and the woman is not aware she's been pregnant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 1:15:24 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Zaphod, I don't have the answer, nobody does, and I am confident enough in myslef to admit it. Right-leaning moralists BELIEVE they have the answer which is their stock answer to any and all 'unanswerable' questions. Which is perfectly acceptable for their own basis and intent to govern their own behavior. However, I don't believe they have all the answers because I am skeptical about the fantasy deity figure. Therefore, cramming a subjective legislation down my throat which is entirely constructed on the moral platform of a religious nature.... I GOTTA PROBLEM WITH THAT! See, that's what's wrong with most so-called Christians. Their evangelical nature gives them the ignorant, hyperactive ego, and consequently the belief that their moral solution is better than mine or any other moral solution. When it comes to themselves, they are indeed correct. Try to write it into a law for everyone? You're no better than an anti-gunner pushing nanny government on everyone. I emphatically hold the position that until it can be proven and presented in a court of law, there is not a single basis for legislation. Subjective legislation of morality is what the Taliban does. OOOOOOOkay... NOBODY knows for sure whether this is murder or not. Let's then leave it up to the mother to decide whether she does the maybe-murder or not to her baby. If nobody knows, why would you prefer that we leave it to chance? Shouldn't your thinking be that you'd rather err in the side that doesn't have the chance of murdering someone? If you're shooting your rifle and you're unsure of your backstop... do you just decide that since nobody's sure whether you'd put a bullet thru someone's head, it's ok? After all... you might not actually kill someone. Lets hear the next flawed argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2003 1:15:52 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Zaphod, I don't have the answer, nobody does, and I am confident enough in myslef to admit it. Fine. But if that's the case, don't you think it is PRUDENT (forget morality and religion for now) to err on the side of CAUTION? Do you propose that police snipers fire through a closed door to hit the bad guy, or do you tell them to ACCURATELY identify their target BEFORE pulling the trigger? As such, using logic and a belief that human life is valuable and worth defending (again, not based on religion), how can abortion be defended if you're not sure if the "thing" inside the woman is actually a human yet? Right-leaning moralists BELIEVE they have the answer which is their stock answer to any and all 'unanswerable' questions. Which is perfectly acceptable for their own basis and intent to govern their own behavior. However, I don't believe they have all the answers because I am skeptical about the fantasy deity figure. Therefore, cramming a subjective legislation down my throat which is entirely constructed on the moral platform of a religious nature.... I GOTTA PROBLEM WITH THAT! See, that's what's wrong with most so-called Christians. Their evangelical nature gives them the ignorant, hyperactive ego, and consequently the belief that their moral solution is better than mine or any other moral solution. When it comes to themselves, they are indeed correct. Try to write it into a law for everyone? You're no better than an anti-gunner pushing nanny government on everyone. You know, for someone who rails against Christians being too judgemental, you certainly are full of your own opinions toward THEM... I emphatically hold the position that until it can be proven and presented in a court of law, there is not a single basis for legislation. Subjective legislation of morality is what the Taliban does. I should remind you that the Supreme Court hardly handed down a scientific disertation in Roe V. Wade. Their decision was as subjective as a decision can get. Remember that. Also, if you do not believe in a god, please explain what makes it immoral for a man to walk into his home, rape his 6-month-old son, gut his 12-year-old daughter, and tie up his wife so the dog can eat her alive? What the hell, HE thinks it's OK, and who says the courts or the government can legislate morality against HIS freedom to choose? Hmmmmm? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
