Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

News about the female body

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    So let me get this straight--you think that we shouldn't have abortions, but they are okay for rape? Are children of rape somehow less of a person than other children?
    If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
    ){ :|:& };:

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
      So let me get this straight--you think that we shouldn't have abortions, but they are okay for rape? Are children of rape somehow less of a person than other children?
      I believe his position is that he personally is against abortion, and would not get one, but he is not willing to force that belief on someone else.

      also known as "Pro Choice, not Pro Abortion"

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
        So let me get this straight--you think that we shouldn't have abortions, but they are okay for rape? Are children of rape somehow less of a person than other children?
        Plomp doesn't want to force his own personal beliefs on other people who believe differently.

        And a fetus cannot ever be a child anyway, if the fetus is aborted.
        A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by The Mad Monk View Post


          Akin needs to go.
          We should beat Akin with cheese sticks until he leaves politics altogether.

          Anyway, I found this article and wanted to share it here when I saw you posted the video clip above.
          A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by MrFun View Post
            And a fetus cannot ever be a child anyway, if the fetus is aborted.
            Yes, that would be my objection to abortion.
            If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
            ){ :|:& };:

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
              So let me get this straight--you think that we shouldn't have abortions, but they are okay for rape? Are children of rape somehow less of a person than other children?
              You forgot to relogin as Ben.
              Graffiti in a public toilet
              Do not require skill or wit
              Among the **** we all are poets
              Among the poets we are ****.

              Comment


              • #37
                I don't see how he is wrong.

                JM
                (Of course, doesn't excuse Akin's craziness and might mean that many of those who think similarly to me do so for the wrong reasons.)
                Jon Miller-
                I AM.CANADIAN
                GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                Comment


                • #38
                  The whole rape/incest thing is a canard. The real question has always been about whether unborn babies count as people or not. If you think that they do, then that should be true regardless of how or with whom the baby was conceived.
                  If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                  ){ :|:& };:

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                    I don't see how he is wrong.
                    I've seen two broad justifications for an "abortion is permissible in the case of rape/incest" clause:

                    1. The person supporting the clause wants to punish promiscuous women with an abortion ban, and since victims of rape aren't at fault for being pregnant then it's okay for them to have abortions. The welfare of the unborn child is irrelevant. For example, on the topic of a rape/incest exception clause, Slowwhand says
                    Originally posted by SlowwHand View Post
                    There are generally medical signs indicating rape. As a pro-lifer, I support [abortion in the case of rape]. Why penalize a woman while also expanding deviant genes/behavior?
                    2. The person supporting the clause is not 100% certain that their opposition to abortion is correct. Just to make some numbers up, let's say that you're only 95% certain that your opposition to abortion is correct - in that case you're willing to allow an exception to a ban if the mother's life is at risk. If you're 80% certain that your opposition to abortion is correct then you're willing to allow an exception for rape. If you're 60% certain then you don't oppose a ban, though you do oppose state insurance coverage for abortion. Etc.
                    <p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      3. The person supporting the clause realizes no ban will pass without the clause, and is willing to compromise on the basis that saving most of the unborn still beats saving none of the unborn.
                      No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I enjoy the correlation of people who are all about FREEEEEDDDDDOM and the people who wish to revoke a woman's right to choose.

                        Sometimes, thinking is hard for some people.
                        "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                        Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Asher View Post
                          I enjoy the correlation of people who are all about FREEEEEDDDDDOM and the people who wish to revoke a woman's right to choose.

                          Sometimes, thinking is hard for some people.
                          Such as you. As I (and many others) have repeatedly explained, this is not about a woman's right to choose but whether or not we consider a fetus to be a moral person. I realize how disingenuous you like to be, so I fully expect you to spend the next five pages raving about how this is the hypocrisy of those who claim to be pro-freedom, but I've now explained it to you for the umpteenth time in the hopes that it will stick eventually.
                          If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                          ){ :|:& };:

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by loinburger View Post
                            I've seen two broad justifications for an "abortion is permissible in the case of rape/incest" clause:

                            1. The person supporting the clause wants to punish promiscuous women with an abortion ban, and since victims of rape aren't at fault for being pregnant then it's okay for them to have abortions. The welfare of the unborn child is irrelevant. For example, on the topic of a rape/incest exception clause, Slowwhand says

                            2. The person supporting the clause is not 100% certain that their opposition to abortion is correct. Just to make some numbers up, let's say that you're only 95% certain that your opposition to abortion is correct - in that case you're willing to allow an exception to a ban if the mother's life is at risk. If you're 80% certain that your opposition to abortion is correct then you're willing to allow an exception for rape. If you're 60% certain then you don't oppose a ban, though you do oppose state insurance coverage for abortion. Etc.
                            Spot on, although I would also add Mad Monk's explanation.
                            If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                            ){ :|:& };:

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View Post
                              Such as you. As I (and many others) have repeatedly explained, this is not about a woman's right to choose but whether or not we consider a fetus to be a moral person.
                              Which is not an absolute sentiment, it is clearly a matter open to interpretation.

                              A sensible, intelligent person recognizes that to force your own beliefs on another person is quite wrong - especially through Big Government.

                              It's a woman's body, it's a woman's choice.

                              I take a utilitarian approach to the matter. If you use contraception, a baby isn't born. If you get an abortion, a baby isn't born. Either way a potential person is not being born.

                              As a utilitarian, I also understand if we outlawed abortions:
                              1) They'd still happen, but in dark backrooms with sketchy "doctors"
                              2) It'd flood the already burgeoning State-run foster homes/orphanages. Children from this background are statistically far more likely to become criminals or other form of societal leaches.
                              3) It'd force people not mature enough or ready enough to raise children. This will lead to more poverty, and children raised in this kind of environment are also far more likely to become a societal leach.

                              So, as you can see, even the economics of the situation back me up on this. Don't you want the government to be smaller, HC? If so, why do you want the government to raise so many children?

                              You can "explain" all you want, but know that it is not a rational explanation. YOU believe that human life begins as soon as sperm fertilizes egg. YOU wish to force YOUR belief on others using the GOVERNMENT. This is not a logically consistent argument with someone who favours less government intervention.
                              "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                              Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                You know, if you want to engage in masturbatory activities, the internet also features a great abundance and variety of pornography...
                                1011 1100
                                Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X