Well STud, you are like a thorn in my side. However I enjoy your heartfelt comments. SOme I agree with, some I don't.
What happens when the guy isn't around?? You still have the baby,. If you were stupid enough to bed down with someone that will bail out on you that you deserve what you have coming. You don't have to go to the club and fuck someone you just met.
We both know that the women has control over the situation. They are the problem; they are attracted to creepy men. They make the choice to sleep with the handsome guy that all the girls want and tempt, only to get knocked up and wonder why he isn't there for her. meanwhile there is about 70 % of the male population that she blatantly ignores, who would always be there for her, AND his\her future child. But the good hardworking man isn't glorified, like the good looking dancer is.
Really it is the upper 10% of men that are ruining it for all men. They are the ones using the dumb shallow woman. The chicks just don't get it. These guys can have anyone they want and are taking it cuz the dumb women are lining up and giving it to him. Then they cry and wail about how all men are dogs. No, just the top glorified echelon that you keep picking over the slow and study mr. right.
Ladies bring it upon themselves...
If not, why not?
The question is not whether you think it is a constitutional right or not, but rather whether you think it is morally right or not.
I think the Government should stay the hell out of the abortion issue. The right of self determination over one's body is a no brainer to me. It is one of the many disagreements I have with conservatives. Having said that, I believe that abortion is wrong.
Many years ago, when I was young, selfish and more hard-edged than now, my then girlfriend and I went through with an early term abortion. Years later, after witnessing the miracle of birth three times, I cannot imagine making that decision again. Recently my wife got pregnant with our third son. To call it a surprise is an understatement - it changed all of our life's plans. But the thought of taking the easy way out never entered our minds. Now, when I look into the eyes of my three hard-charging young boys I think back on what a terrible mistake I made in the past, pray for forgiveness, and wonder what might have been.
RLTW
Wow, we have some common ground. I understand your pain in wondering what might have been, but we all do what we feel is best for us and our potential future family.
I myself was not in love with said girlfriend (in fact she was on the pill ?). I now have a beautiful wife (a catholic steadfast against abortion - for herself) and will be starting (God willing) a family soon. If my gf didn't have the abortion who knows if I ever would have found someone I do want to have children with.
So, I guess my point is that when you look into the eyes of your children don't beat yourself up for your past mistakes - your current family may not have come to be if it wasn't for the path you took.
No, they have the right to choose to engage in the act which causes the predicate condition to having an abortion. As noted in a prior post, it should be allowed only in the context of traditional self-defense, i.e., to protect her own life.
Why not? Because life begins at conception.
And thank you for making the distinction on the constitutional issue. A sophistication rarely shown by the pro-abortion lobby, and more than a few in the pro-life movement.
How do you feel about the women who die in clothes-hanger abortions in an "abortion is illegal" environment?
James said it best;
"No, they have the right to choose to engage in the act which causes the predicate condition to having an abortion."
SO i COULD GIVE A SHIT LESS ABOUT THE WOMEN IN AN ALLEY WITH A HANGER. She could have exercised more caution, or had the kid as mother nature intended.
Since you can't get pregnant, but could impregnate others who might not wish to be, perhaps you should get castrated? Would that be a reasonable remedy to insure that YOU don't cause any undesired pregnancies?
-- Modified on 4/28/2004 6:04:11 PM
Since you can't get pregnant, but could impregnate others who might not wish to be, perhaps you should get castrated? Would that be a reasonable remedy to insure that YOU don't cause any undesired pregnancies?
Uh, no STud. I see your point. I will modify my take to allow for rape victims to have an abortion. They don't need the daily reminder that the child would bring of a terrible and painfull act.
Your taking on a big assumption with your take though. I have never raped anyone. Perhaps after someone has raped another the castration process would be warranted.
I have impregnated someone who didn't want to be. She insisted on an abortion. I wanted to be a father, but I had absolutely no say. I was asked to pay for an act that I was against.
Ultimetly, don't do the act unless you can handle what comes next. SEx is meant first and foremost as a reproductive tool. I think you take it to far with the castration comment. Rape leading to castration, sure. The possibility that i could fertilize an egg leading to castration, absolutely not...
It sounds to me like you have more resentment for the woman in question rather than ``you can handle what comes next''.
I do agree that, in the beginning (say 2000 years ago), sex was merely a reproductive tool, however creativity has come with our evolution (well, some have evolved). Nothing is free.
Your comments such as not giving a shit about women dying in an alley do not get you much sympathy (at least from me) against SD's castration suggestion - As you have no tolerance for women who have abortions, drug addicts and (I'll go out on a limb here) Gays, I have no tolerance for such hateful individuals.
BTW, you don't sound like much fun (and I appologize in advance if the anti-Gay remark is unwarranted).
It sounds to me like you have more resentment for the woman in question rather than ``you can handle what comes next''.
I do agree that, in the beginning (say 2000 years ago), sex was merely a reproductive tool, however creativity has come with our evolution (well, some have evolved). Nothing is free.
Your comments such as not giving a shit about women dying in an alley do not get you much sympathy (at least from me) against SD's castration suggestion - As you have no tolerance for women who have abortions, drug addicts and (I'll go out on a limb here) Gays, I have no tolerance for such hateful individuals.
All this care about the mother in the alley and not a thought about the life she is murdering....
-- Modified on 4/30/2004 6:18:26 PM
I have a problem with allowing abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Of course, the pro-abortionists always appeal to these "hard cases" when they are losing the argument, notwithstanding the fact that rape rarely results in pregnancy. It happens even less frequently in light of the "morning-after" pill available to victims who report the crime (and I recognize the moral difficulties with that issue).
I recognize that these are hard cases, and have known too many women friends who were victims of both crimes ('course, even one is too many). 'Course, when prison statistics are included, more men are victims of rape than women. And I associate myself with the proposition that rapists should be subject to castration as a penalty, though I would propose it only for multiple repeat offenders, as there are too many false accusations of rape made.
At the same time, from an ethical perspective, if one begins from the presumption that abortion is the taking of innocent human life, then allowing abortion in these hard cases is visiting the sins of the fathers (literally) upon their offspring.
This is the single area where I would be less hostile to government intervention/welfare to care for the mother and the child. To be sure, a woman who doesn't want to live with a daily reminder of these horrors should be encouraged to give up her child for adoption, and helped if she does not make that choice.
However, a choice that results in the death of an innocent is at the core of appropriate government intervention in a regime founded on the proposition that government's proper role is the protection of "life, liberty, and property."
I begin with the presumption that abortion is the prevention of a FUTURE unwanted life.
And legally, the government has no right to impose it's views on what a woman does with the fetus, prior to it's becoming a sentient being.
Until and unless you can get the Law to state that a fetus is a human life (which, frankly, it has no business doing, since that is completely a spiritual/religious issue).
How do you jive this issue with your belief that the government has no business imposing itself in other people's views?
I grant that you have the right to consider a fetus a human life. And as such, you are more than welcome to revere it, and not to abort it. But how can you claim the right to inflict your own religious views upon my personal religious conviction that life begins when the fetus has the ability to survive outside the mother's womb? That is, plain and simple, unconstitutional. Please answer this specific question.
No, they actually have a choice there, too. And if they're stupid enough to do that (which is even rarer than pregnancies resulting from rape), then they must suffer the consequences, just like the junkie.
And as for a "reasonable remedy," I exercise a little more caution than do, apparently, you and others. And I live with the consequences of my bad choices.
The problem with the radical pro-abortionists is the same as the rest of the radical pro-Left (and sdstud's pretensions to the contrary notwithstanding, his comments here place him firmly in the far Left): their desire to remove from the realm of human existence the negative consequences of bad behavior. It is a desire to make us less human, and both arrogant and futile.
Less badly than I feel about the innocents dying in the current "abortion on demand" regime. They, after all, didn't have a choice.
I probably feel the same way about them that I do about the junkie who dies in an alley with a needle sticking out of his arm. Both had options, and chose a bad one.
Your response goes a long way toward explaining why so many pro-choice women see pro-lifers as anti-female.
-- Modified on 4/29/2004 6:53:22 AM
Yeah, Lefties are very skilled at distorting comments and demonizing their political opponents.
But at least finish the thought: my comment also "goes a long way to explaining why so many [pro-drug activists] see [pro-sober activists] as anti-[junkie]."
The same way that I do about innocent babies dying at the hands of abortionists. That's why I'm happy to see the tightening up of drunk driving laws.
Thanks for the gimme.
I agree with you about innocent babies. A baby, being a human that has been born and is a living thing.
Any abortionist that kills a baby (as opposed to disposes of a fetus that cannot live outside the womb), is, plain and simple, a murderer.
Drunk Drivers have, by their actions, demonstrated a wanton disregard for other humans, and immense irresponsibility in committing this crime. Therefore, they ought to be barred from public office, as their demonstrated inferior human traits makes them unfit. Certainly, this holds true for the current President.
but somehow when it comes to such blatant flaws in the character of their boy they don't seem to be privy.
Yes, I know Kerry (as do we all) has flaws. I just would like to hear James86 or Bribite admit that Bush leaves something (much) to be desired (to say the least in many of our eyes).
There will always be an abortion debate, but hopefully we can someday hold the office of President to a higher standard than someone with DUI's to their credit.
James86 you can bash Kerry or Clinton or whoever - it does not make GWB any better. The fact remains, he is a spoiled rich kid who used his Daddy's influence to avoid serving in Vietnam and is now sending others to war - Do you really not see the hypocrisy here ???? Hey, I don't blame him for avoiding Vietnam, but then I would not ask anyone to do something I wouldn't do myself.
I can respect your support of the war, but to carry on like GWB is such a fearless leader is (IMHO) pathetic.
Puh-lease! The author here, as is his wont, demonstrates leaps of illogic that give the reader whiplash.
Ignoring, for a moment, the fact that "the current President" reformed himself and went on the wagon long ago, he speaks of an offense more than a quarter century ago, when drunk driving was not treated nearly as seriously as it is today. Additionally, it is not at all clear from the record that the then-31-year-old GWB was "drunk"; my recollection is that he was citing while driving impaired, which can be a far sight from "legally drunk" under any circumstances.
Of course, one doubts that the author would apply his [il]logic in a non-partisan manner, since he has never been known to utter a word of criticism here against the Hero of Chappaquiddick, Teddy Kennedy. And Kennedy's continued abuse of alcohol after he killed Mary Jo Kopechne in 1969 is well-documented.
You are right that TK is a piece of work - of course there are hypocrits to the highest order throughout politics.
Still, do you not believe that Bush's ``driving while impaired citation'' says something about his [lack of]character - regardless of his dramatic reformation ?
If Kennedy were running for President, you can bet your rear that I would be as uncomplimentary to his efforts as I am for Bush. In fact, I consider Kennedy and Bush to be equally worthy for the job.
Although, right now, Bush has gotten well over 700 more Americans killed in Iraq than Edward Kennedy did in his car, and his lead in American corpses is growing daily.
The fact that we aren't allowed to see the coffins doesn't mean that they aren't piling up at an alarming rate.
And you don't KNOW what the Bush DUI charges were, because Bush had them sealed when he was Governor of Texas. How's that for moral character? And, BTW, DUI was CERTAINLY viewed as a serious crime 2 decades ago, just as it is now. Maybe a party-boy like Dumbya didn't think it was serious, but certainly any thoughtful person did and does consider it serious.
Any abortionist that kills a baby (as opposed to disposes of a fetus that cannot live outside the womb), is, plain and simple, a murderer.
Life begins when the sperm implants itself in the egg. Any form of abortion is murder. It is funny when you pro choicers try to determine when life begins to justify the actions of murderers...
And what gives YOU the right to impose that RELIGIOUS BELIEF on other people? I personally believe that life begins at birth. And I would not give a fetus (which, to me, is just a pile of cells, no different from when I whack off) any rights at all until it would be a viable living entity outside the womb - which is roughly toward the end of the 2nd trimester.
After all, my sperm has the POTENTIAL to be a living human, but it CAN'T become a living human until several things happen to it: It must join an egg, ,it must implant in the woman's uterus, it must be carried to term by a woman, and it must be birthed by the woman. That's no different from a fetus, except that the fetus has already had ONE of those things happen, but not the other three. So I don't see why my view of life is any less valid than yours is. Certainly, there is no LEGAL determination that a fetus is life at the point of conception. It is only a religious/philosophical determination, and as such, you have no right to impose YOUR view on ME.
That being said, I agree with you that abortion should be illegal once life begins. However, neither you, nor I actually KNOW, in a legal, factual manner, when life begins. We each have our own beliefs. I won't impose mine on you, if you don't impose yours on me. BTW, CERTAINLY, a conservative reading of the Constitution would not have any finding of life beginning at conception. So, by virtue of that, you have no CONSTUTIONAL right to regulate what a woman does with a mass of cells in HER BODY. She has the right to clip her toenails, and get her hair cut, and have liposuction, and get her unwanted fetus removed. These are all just masses of cells, according to my own religious beliefs.
-- Modified on 4/28/2004 7:19:13 PM
I don't consider a beating heart to warrant the legal protections of a human life. A Tree Slug has a beating heart. It does not have a legal right to life, however.
You are perfectly welcome to your beliefs on this, just as I am welcome to mine. You have no right to impose your beliefs on me, however. No legal right, and no moral right. Fortunately, the Supreme Court was quite clear on this.
And before you start complaining, provide me a count on the number of times Lefties have called Conservatives "stupid," or variations on that theme, on this Board.
As I have said any number of times, I am a socially moderate, economically conservative Libertarian. My recent Presidential choices included McCain (albeit I had no choice but to vote for Gore when Bush won the nomination, as I could never vote for any member of the Evangelical Religious Right) and Dole in '96.
Libertarian is NOT Liberal. It is Economically conservative, and Socially moderate (as in, the Government has no business regulating our lives, in nearly all cases).
The fact is, my dislike of Bush is because he is the single most UN-Libertarian President in history. Evangelicals believe that they have the mission in life of regulating the way everyone lives. This is Bush's view, and it is Ashcroft's view. Bush adds to this by promoting wanton Government spending in pursuit of both his social agenda, and Regime building around the world. There is no requirement to be a Liberal to be against everything Bush stands for.
You see in a prior post, that I dissed Jimmy Carter. Carter was a very fine human being, but a terrible President, because he was unable to reign in his Liberal spending and taxation policies, and he was also presided over the complete degradation of U.S. Military capability, to the degree that he was unable to project U.S. force in a time where it was needed (in the situation of the Iran Hostages). Carter's problem was he believed naively in the basic goodness of all other people.
I supported Clinton in term 1, but not in his re-election campaign vs. Bob Dole, because I was disappointed that Clinton allowed his pecadillos to get in the way of his effectiveness as President, and also, because he botched Health Care by allowing Hillary to drive the most liberal agenda imagineable on that issue. And Dole, like McCain is a consistent conservative with personal character and courage, whom I have no problems with at all despite there being a few social issues on which I disagree with them.
This post itself "doesn't support a Libertarian view." You confess your support for "Clinton in term 1," saying that he "botched health care."
The only legitimate Libertarian view is that government should get the Hell out of health care. And that includes for the old farts, especially, since Medicare constitutes a socialization of virtually half of the health care "system." Furthermore, anyone who thought that Slick Willie was going to propose anything other than socialized medicine is either an idiot, or just not paying attention.
I am a Libertarian. I am an economic conservative. My pre-disposition would be to support a Republican candidate, so long as that Republican is NOT beholden to the Religious Right. I consider the Ashcroft/Evangelical wing of the Republican Party to be no different from the radical mullahs of the Moslem world, and they are the single greatest threat to American Freedom that exists in the world.
If I had to make a choice between a candidate that taxes and spends too much, and one that favors increased government controls over our civil liberties, especially with respect to private conduct, I would hold my nose and vote for the one who taxes and spends too much. Because while that is bad, it is nowhere NEAR as dangerous to our well being as a nation than allowing the religious right to create our laws and dictate our behavior.
Bush is the WORST POSSIBLE candidate for anyone who contends that they are a Libertarian. Because he is BOTH a WILD spender, and a true believer of the Religious Right.
My IDEAL candidate would be John McCain, if only McCain were pro-choice.
Not that he botched implementing Health Care, but BECAUSE he and Hillary tried to implement a socialized medical program. In that sense, I was glad he failed.
And virtually every OTHER aspect of the Clinton Presidency besides the health care program that they tried to implement was MORE libertarian in it's programs than the Bush Presidency that preceded him.
For example, your religious belief that life begins at conception
and my religious belief that life begins when a fetus could actually survive outside the womb.
Any legitimate Constitutional reading would have to conclude that these viewpoints are equally valid. I can't inflict mine upon you and yours, and similarly, you can't inflict your view on me and mine.
And please, be sure to be consistent.
At that point, it is life. And I would agree that the state has a right to regulate the timing of Abortions such that we make certain that they are not happenning so close to viability that we might be making mistakes and crossing that frontier. So, at some point, late 2nd trimester abortions become problematic.
However, I cannot see ANY WAY that a 1st trimester termination is the prerogative of ANYONE other than the woman who is carrying the fetus.
So leeches don't have a right to live. If you had the courage of your convictions, you'd advocate euthanizing those dependent upon government.
I'd really be interested in how you define "human," since unborn children are undeniably human.
A fetus is human, in the same way that a human Sperm cell is human, a transplanted human kidney is human, and a human blood or bone marrow donation is human. None of these things has any rights, because none of them is a sentient being.
My point is simply this: Your viewpoint is a valid BELIEF. That is all that it is. You have no LEGAL nor MORAL right to impose it on those who do not share it.
I think all parties should be informed and have a choice on the decision, as it should be of mutual consent to abort. I know most ladies feel it's their body therefore it should be their decision, but it takes both parties to conceive therefore both parties should make the decision.
Carlee gave the best answer in the world. You are a wonderful woman who understands that it takes TWO to procreate, therefor two people should be involved in the decision.
Well STud, you are like a thorn in my side. However I enjoy your heartfelt comments. SOme I agree with, some I don't.
What happens when the guy isn't around?? You still have the baby,. If you were stupid enough to bed down with someone that will bail out on you that you deserve what you have coming. You don't have to go to the club and fuck someone you just met.
We both know that the women has control over the situation. They are the problem; they are attracted to creepy men. They make the choice to sleep with the handsome guy that all the girls want and tempt, only to get knocked up and wonder why he isn't there for her. meanwhile there is about 70 % of the male population that she blatantly ignores, who would always be there for her, AND his\her future child. But the good hardworking man isn't glorified, like the good looking dancer is.
Really it is the upper 10% of men that are ruining it for all men. They are the ones using the dumb shallow woman. The chicks just don't get it. These guys can have anyone they want and are taking it cuz the dumb women are lining up and giving it to him. Then they cry and wail about how all men are dogs. No, just the top glorified echelon that you keep picking over the slow and study mr. right.
Ladies bring it upon themselves...
You are complaining so much about dumb shallow women only going for the attractive shallow men. So, are you saying all women are dumb and shallow - If not, then why don't you just worry about the women of substance.
Why the hell would you want a dumb shallow woman anyways ????
I guess ladies bring it upon themselves when they are raped also ? Being that they are out there scantily clad tempting all the men but only picking the attractive guys.
You must be a real hit with all the ladies.
You are complaining so much about dumb shallow women only going for the attractive shallow men. So, are you saying all women are dumb and shallow - If not, then why don't you just worry about the women of substance.
No. All women are not shallow. It's tough to ignore all the shallow ones. There everywhere...
Why the hell would you want a dumb shallow woman anyways ????
I don't. That is why i am single. I am still holding out that there are some strong willed women who don't fall for all societies BS.
I guess ladies bring it upon themselves when they are raped also ? Being that they are out there scantily clad tempting all the men but only picking the attractive guys.
Those are your words. Don't try and impose them on me.
-- Modified on 4/30/2004 6:17:27 PM
Your own posts tell anyone all that they need to know about you. And I think that it's extraordinarily telling how much you seem to agree with James86. Birds of a feather, I guess.
Your own posts tell anyone all that they need to know about you. And I think that it's extraordinarily telling how much you seem to agree with James86. Birds of a feather, I guess.
Well Stud, you would be surprised how much I agree with you on some subjects. We have disagreed about some things, and we will continue to. We will also agree with somethings.
Same with james86. I agree with some of his stuff and disagree with other points of his.
We are all different. Birds of a feather james and I are not. I am actually closer to you politically then james. I am also a socially moderate fiscally conservitive libertarian. Sort of. I disagree with the libertarian views on immigration and free trade. I am also pro life. I wasn't earlier in my life, but as i have aged my values and awareness have changed.
Where we will differ most is that i am pro white. I care about the future of the meager 8% of the world population. I am not ashamed of my heritage, of my european roots. I speak openly and willingly of whites and of causes that are a detriment to the future of whites.
I also stick up for men. As unpopular as it is....
Perhaps my posts don't tell all that people would need to know of me. I bet you didn't think that I respected as many of your posts as I do.... Just because I am pro-life doesn't make me pro republican. Also because i am extremely pro environment doesn't make me pro democrat.
You will be reading this much later after i have posted it since I have been censored again. I made a very truthfull comment about the entertainment industry that resulted in my posts needing to be checked for content.
... before you found out you were pregnant? Of if he walked out on you? ... How would you like to be in the position of wanting to have an abortion and being forced to wait while the SOB made up his mind about whether he wanted you to keep the baby? How would you feel if he decided you should keep it but he would not support it?
A woman absolutely has a right to have an abortion, legally, morally, metaphysically.
That being said, I do not believe that abortion should be used instead of contraception.
Who would you have able to veto her decision? I am not comfortable with any agent able to decide for her unless they stand ready to deal with the consequences of the decision (and "mom" gets to decide what the consequences are).
Cllinton's line - "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare" sounds like a sound social policy to me.
an abortion. Good to see that we are all at least in agreement on that.
A read of just a few of the titles above should tell you otherwise.
I'm not sure that it is morally right or not. I myself have had an abortion (of course, not me) and so I cannot be a hypocrit and tell others not to.
There are many of us that could afford raising a child but there are SO many more that cannot (be it financially or emotionally). I understand how some feel it is murder (I personally do not), but when it comes down to it NOBODY has the right to tell someone else how to live.
As stated so often, if you are against abortion then don't have one.
So, my answer is that it may be morally wrong (for some) but it is (even more so) morally wrong to try and impose your beliefs on others.
I hold your beliefs on this also.
I have been through several abortions while in my twenties. All different girlfriends. I was not certain it was the right thing to do at the time but seeing how my life and some of theirs have turned out, I now know it was the best option. I also know for a fact if it were not legal at the time, we would have gone through with the illegal abortion.
No, that's what democratic republics do.
Liberals impose their views of morality on me whenever they pass socialist welfare legislation imposing their idea of what government should do on me.
And all criminal law is based on morality.
And we, as a matter of principle, allow freedom of religion. And I have a religious conviction that an unborn 1st Trimester Fetus is NOT a sentient being. And it is a reasonable belief, even if you do not share it. Constitutionally, my right to that belief is protected.
Of course, your right to believe whatever you want is protected.
But that your belief is protected does not mean that it can trump the power of the State to legislate in areas where legislative action is not constitutionally prohibited, nor for passing legislation reflecting the beliefs (religious or otherwise) in areas where legislative action is not constitutionally prohibited.
But if your standard is that legislation reflecting a particular moral or religious viewpoint is invalid, then most of the socialistic welfare legislation of the last 100 years is void.
I suspect that your standard is simply to condemn moral and religious viewpoints that differ from your own, while making pretensions to objective criteria. And that, dear sir, is hypocrisy and dishonesty of the highest order.
... come on! Legislaters can pass any law they like? Have you heard about the constitution? Courts strike down laws all the time because they are unconstitutional.
Abortions are legal in the US because courts said the constitution gave people rights that implied abortion was a decision for them, not for legislatures, Ever since then, right-to-life people have tried to pick away at a woman's ability to make this most peresonal of decisioins without their interference. There is absolutly no reason for anybody else to get involved in any woman's decision other than their discomfort with decisions woman make. RIght to life people find it MUCH too easy to make a law than to pursuade and help women with problems.
and of course these points of view (``definitions'') depend on which side you are on. In my view, these ``definitions'' are equivalent to the arrogance/empathy of the individual.
I can at least respect the conviction (pun intended) of the pro-lifer who blows up abortion clinics - at least they do something about ``saving these unwanted children''. The most tiresome is the pro-lifer who on the one hand wants to ``save the children'' yet on the other bitches about how their tax dollars are going towards social programs.
I agree that the commitment of the abortion clinic bombers (what few there have been) is worthy of respect, though that does not mitigate their crime. However, it is ethically consistent.
And you find pro-lifers who oppose socialism tiresome because you fail to understand the proper role of government. The only proper function of government is its duty to protect "life, liberty, and property." It is not the role of government to "promote welfare generally." If you refuse to understand the distinction between not killing someone and giving them a nice, fluffy warm bed to sleep in, then you just haven't been paying attention. In any case, do it with your own money, not mine. But spare use the sanctimony of some kind of moral superiority because you want to steal it from them who earned it to buy the votes of them who didn't. It ain't charity when it's not voluntary, and when it's someone else's money.
So, you want to impose your beliefs and that's just it. I may fail to understand many things. For example, it seems to me that ``liberty'' is what is being protected by the legality of abortions. Or, is the role of government to protect ``life, liberty, and property'' in that order.
I can understand your resentment of paying for social programs you do not support. However, if you don't feel forms of welfare do not serve to protect you then I submit that you haven't been paying attention to history. What would happen if the poor and uneducated received no welfare - I mean, let them eat cake. Well senore Chavez, you may go the way of Marie (not me though - I'm Robin Hood).
So, you want to impose your beliefs and that's just it. I may fail to understand many things. For example, it seems to me that ``liberty'' is what is being protected by the legality of abortions. Or, is the role of government to protect ``life, liberty, and property'' in that order.
I can understand your resentment of paying for social programs you do not support. However, if you don't feel forms of welfare do not serve to protect you then I submit that you haven't been paying attention to history. What would happen if the poor and uneducated received no welfare - I mean, let them eat cake. Well senore Chavez, you may go the way of Marie (not me though - I'm Robin Hood).
How about not letting the poor an uneducated into the country?
Since when does "liberty" give one the right to commit murder on the unborn?
Keep feeling good about yourself,,,robin hood...What a laugh...
-- Modified on 5/1/2004 10:13:17 AM
I ``want to steal it from them who earned it to buy the votes of them who didn't''.
I'm sorry that my sense of humor can be a bit juvenille at times. In the future I will try to make any connections more clear.
At any rate, I am glad that I made you laugh (even at my expense) - it seems to me that you need it. I do wish I found anything to laugh about in your posts. I do laugh at James86 but yours leaves me feeling only sorrow for you.
Some people think that a revolution in America would be crushed, but I'm not so sure.
you might actually discern it's meaning.
What I said was that people who "condemn moral and religious viewpoints that differ from your own, while making pretensions to objective criteria," practice "hypocrisy and dishonesty of the highest order."
There are plenty of pro-abortionists who are neither dishonest nor hypocrites. Those who pretend that it's a constitutional issue, or who deny imposing their own morality, are not among them.
Neither did I say that "Legislaters can pass any law they like." I said that "that your belief is protected DOES NOT not mean that it can trump the power of the State to legislate in areas where legislative action is NOT constitutionally prohibited, nor for passing legislation reflecting the beliefs (religious or otherwise) in areas where legislative action is NOT constitutionally prohibited."
Please read the post more carefully, lest you misrepresent it.
You also said "There is absolutly no reason for anybody else to get involved in any woman's decision other than their discomfort with decisions woman make." Actually, there is: CHILDREN ARE BEING MURDERED!
I simply refuse to allow them to impose THEIR morality and religious beliefs upon ME and MY actions. And of course, I grant that I certainly have no right to impose my views on them. We must each conduct our lives the way we believe is appropriate, so long as we do not over-step the boundaries of the rights of others. That is not hypocrisy. That is consistency.
ROFLMFAO. Who do you think your kidding?
Certainly no one who's read any of your posts here.
and so you can put your money where your mouth is - seeing as how your so against abortion. They can call you uncle James86.
... Unless you have an overly broad definitioin of morality. There are issues about property rights, public safety, maintaining good order in a society, reducing or eliminating private vendettas, ...
through the barrel of a gun or a few well placed home made bombs?
Please keep us amused James.
My question is to the Gentlemen here.... if the shoe was on your foot wouldn't you want to be in charge of taking it off? Given the premise that men bear children.....
Should the woman (co-conspirator) be given an equal legal voice as you - the man carrying the baby?
Would this be the advent of drive-thru abortions? (Joking,,, Just a Joke on this one) I had to joke because I really think if it was then man's body which carried the child - then more men would say 'Abortion is an individual choice and govt. should stay the hell out of it. End of Discussion.'
For the record, I personally don't believe abortion is the best answer 99% of the time.
manage to convince themselves that it's true):
"It's an irrelevant question, because if I were a woman, that could never happen to me".
LOL!
No, I don't think so. But you posit an impossible happenstance, so one can never be sure what one's answer would be.
regardless of whether the question is possible or not, I was under the impression that you were against abortion because it is murder. For arguments sake, if you could get knocked up wouldn't it be murder for you to have an abortion ?
Why are you no longer sure of what is right ?
I'm paying attention and absorbing as much as my little mind can handle - So please, go slowly (if you would be so kind).