Abortion

Debra_Law wrote:

No, Foxfyre, your arguments are untenable and dishonest. Rather than defend what you claim to be "entirely defensible," you insulted me. You claimed my arguments have no merit because you determined they are the result of a bad mood (rather than logic & reason) due to being too fat to fit into a hypothetical girdle, or whatever.

Accordingly, when you claim to prefer to discuss rather than insult, you're being dishonest again.

If you truly believed that I misrepresented your statements, you would point out those misrepresentations. But you can't do that without digging your hole deeper, so you take flight.

Yes . . . go ahead and flee from the discussion . . . and you have a good day too.

How did I insult you? Where did I say your arguments have no merit? Are your comments to me today expressions of a good mood? And no, I don't take flight. I just don't waste my time in discussions that bore me or are particularly unpleasant. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that, and even more sorry that you don't want to be friends. But hey, everybody isn't going to love me. And that's okay too.

Debra, if you use what I said instead of what you wish for me to have said, and what I intended instead of what you wish for me to have intended, you would arrive at different conclusions.

I suggest a larger girdle or something. You seem to be in an unusually bad mood today.

And yet, when it comes to the individual right to privacy with respect to one's own body and one's own procreative choices, people like Foxfyre think this is an issue for the majority to decide. The people of each state should be allowed to take away an individual woman's right to exercise dominion and control over her own body and her own procreative choices in order to benefit the moral beliefs of the majority. And yet, no compensation is paid to the woman when the people of the state have taken ownership and control of her womb. The Supreme Court is demonized for protecting the individual right to exercise dominion and control over her own body and to make the most private of all decisions for herself.

The hypocrisy of Foxfyre's argument is monumental. . . .


Well, you're insulting our intelligence if you think the hypocrisy of your wishy-washy arguments fail to escape our notice. You are being dishonest, pure and simple. . . .

With respect to individual protection over one's own private person (body and procreative decisions), you DISHONESTLY stated the issue ought to be a STATE issue. You accused the United States Supreme Court of depriving the people of each state of the right to debate the issue and to decide for themselves what laws they will live under. To support your accusation, you set forth an argument that is merely a red herring: . . . . . .

I pointed out the dishonesty of your argument: . . . .

Your dishonest argument about comparing apples and oranges is hilarious. . . .

Accordingly, your wishy-washy attempt to deflect attention away from your true agenda and your attempt to differentiate liberty interests from property interest is HILARIOUS: . . .

I quoted you word for word. I exposed the dishonesty of your argument.

If you cannot counter the exposure of your dishonesty with nothing more than to suggest I'm too fat to fit into some hypothetical girdle, then it is clear that you have no defensible arguments at all. . . .

NOTE FROM FOXFYRE: You do NOT have to be fat in order for your girdle to be too tight. So who's being dishonest?

No, Foxfyre, your arguments are untenable and dishonest. Rather than defend what you claim to be "entirely defensible," you insulted me. You claimed my arguments have no merit because you determined they are the result of a bad mood (rather than logic & reason) due to being too fat to fit into a hypothetical girdle, or whatever.

Accordingly, when you claim to prefer to discuss rather than insult, you're being dishonest again . . . .
I have no doubt that it is unpleasant to have your untenable and dishonest arguments shot down. But you did insult me rather than counter my arguments--make no mistake about that. . . .

Abortion should be 100% up to the individual states to decide,NOT the federal govt.

There is no "right" to an abortion,anywhere in the constitution,unless you believe that it is a "living document" to be interpreted according to the times.

But if you do believe that,then you also must agree that the govt can interpret the constitution to allow their domestic eavesdropping that all of you are so against.

After all,the constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times.

mysteryman wrote:

Abortion should be 100% up to the individual states to decide,NOT the federal govt.

There is no "right" to an abortion,anywhere in the constitution,unless you believe that it is a "living document" to be interpreted according to the times.

But if you do believe that,then you also must agree that the govt can interpret the constitution to allow their domestic eavesdropping that all of you are so against.

After all,the constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times.

Yet another child left behind. Do you think that just being able to read all the words in the Constitution, [and being able to pronounce three fourths of them] makes you a constitutional expert, MM?

It's not helpful to anyone, least of all yourself to just repeat republican/right wing/religious wingnut talking points.

Say what you will, JTT, but sometimes the right wing wackos actually get it right.

JTT wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Abortion should be 100% up to the individual states to decide,NOT the federal govt.

There is no "right" to an abortion,anywhere in the constitution,unless you believe that it is a "living document" to be interpreted according to the times.

But if you do believe that,then you also must agree that the govt can interpret the constitution to allow their domestic eavesdropping that all of you are so against.

After all,the constitution is a "living document" that changes with the times.

Yet another child left behind. Do you think that just being able to read all the words in the Constitution, [and being able to pronounce three fourths of them] makes you a constitutional expert, MM?

It's not helpful to anyone, least of all yourself to just repeat republican/right wing/religious wingnut talking points.

MM is a psychotic little right winger, running aroung in circles biting at his tail. He's ready for a straight jacket, poor little thing has lost it!!

Anon

Well, I have to go prepare dinner. So ya'll play nice.

Well, I have to go prepare dinner. So ya'll play nice.

NOTE FROM FOXFYRE: You do NOT have to be fat in order for your girdle to be too tight. So who’s being dishonest?

you don't approve of food fights ???

Thank you for clearing that up, Foxfyre. I can now see that no insult was intended.

MM is a psychotic little right winger, running aroung in circles biting at his tail. He's ready for a straight jacket, poor little thing has lost it!!

Anon

Almost 3000 posts on A2K and you consider a "tight girdle" comment to be an insult? Are you serious?

I recently read that something like 48% of the women who have had abortions, have had more than one.

This has shaken to the core my belief that a women's decision about continuing a pregnancy is one which is taken with the most profound deliberation.

If almost half of the women having abortions are on their second abortion, in a world where contraceptives are incredibly easy to obtain, what does this tell us about the current societal application of abortion?

If this statistic is valid then I utterly reject the histrionics of Senator Fienstein concerning back alley abortions using rusted hangers.

Anyone who goes back to the abortion clinic for a second time, did not have a life altering experience with the first one.

If this statistic is accurate (and I am researching it as we post) then it has moved a Pro-Choice Conservative to the Pro-Life camp.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

you don't approve of food fights ???

I never got into one of those. Were they fun??

Anon