Abortion

Debra_Law,

Excuse me?! You don't have to get nasty, do you? So, I missed a statement. So, sue me! I made a mistake.

He sounds selfish to you and others. To me he does not. To me he sounds willing to take care of the child. So what? The world would be a pretty boring place if every one of us agreed with everything, wouldn't it?

Throwing mud is the answer? Dang! Nothing like being open-minded is there?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

DTOM,

If John Creasy is speaking of a situation that he might be in, how else would you expect him to respond? Why wouldn't he use I and me and my? It is ALSO his child. It is not just HER child.

MOAN, but this would only apply if it was a child indeed, but it isn't.
It is a fetus and as such the woman herself has the right what will happen
to this fetus. It is his DNA he's supplied, nothing else thus far.

DTOM Laughing

0 Replies

FreeDuck,

I have my opinion and you have yours. Nothing wrong with that.

Calamity Jane,

To me it's a child, to you it is not. Your opinion and my opinion. That's the way it is.

0 Replies

Well, there's your opinion, and then there's your rather sexist double standard. If you had the opinion that women belonged to their husbands and as such shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property, would I have to respect that? As such, I don't respect your opinion regarding the rights and responsibilities of men vs. women in the case of pregnancy.

0 Replies

FreeDuck,

I have never asked you to respect my opinion, only my right to have one.

0 Replies

Well, you certainly have that.

0 Replies

And I cannot and will not ask for more. Thanx!

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

FreeDuck,

I have my opinion and you have yours. Nothing wrong with that.

Calamity Jane,

To me it's a child, to you it is not. Your opinion and my opinion. That's the way it is.

Yes of course, I don't deny you your opinion MOAN, but mine is clearly
better Smile

Not only that, the law clearly defines what is a fetus, embryo
and a child. So, my opinion is not only better, it is also backed up judicially.

0 Replies

Well thank God! Someone finally honest enough to finally just say it right out loud! Someone finally told me they had to be right and someone else had to be wrong!

Calamity Jane, I respect the heck out of you for that! I mean it. I respect your honesty so much. Thank you so very much for that.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Right back at ya girl!

0 Replies

Re: Abortion

joefromchicago wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
My view, and I believe it is consistent with the majority of my fellow Americans, is that an abortion is a horrible thing, and should not be considered lightly. Having some understanding of the tremendous impact an unwanted pregnancy can have on a woman's life, I do not, contrary to your argument, want to impose my beliefs on women who find themselves faced with such a problem. This does not mean that I do not personally believe that abortion is wrong, because except under certain limited circumstances, I do think it is wrong. However, if a woman after struggling with her concious decides to have an abortion, I'm not prepared to condemn her morally or legally.

I do not understand how something can be wrong but not condemnable. If something is wrong, then it deserves condemnation for its very wrongness, if nothing else.

Do you condemn every wrong you come upon Joe? I doubt it.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I fully appreciate that my position can be criticized by both extremes of the issue, for inconsistent application of principle, but that is the lousy nature of this issue, and why it is so polarizing and so seemingly intractible

It is only intractable for those whose own moral standards are confused and self-contradictory.

Then the moral standards of the majority of Americans must be confused and self-contradictory, because the problem is intractable. The debate would not be raging for decades otherwise. How fortunate for you that your mind and heart are so firm and clear on this difficult issue.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
I will always err on the side of giving the life to the child.

Err is an appropriate word. Why would you automatically choose to side with new life against existing life? Why should that new life be more valuable?

It's not even "new" life. It is potential life and nothing more. The mere joining of a sperm with an egg and the subsequent but incomplete development (blastocyst, embryo, fetus) of that POTENTIAL life does not quarantee "new life" capable of being born. It's POTENTIAL life that faces termination for thousands of reasons or causes with elective or therapeutic abortion being only one possible cause. A woman's body naturally flushes potential life from the womb all the time. Search: "spontaneous abortion."

Momma Angel wrote:

John Creasy seems willing to stand up to what he feels is his responsibility in this hypothetical situation. I see nothing wrong with that.

FreeDuck wrote:

What John Creasy seems to believe is that he has the right and the power to force a woman to have his child. Creepy.

What is CREEPIER? A man that declares he won't allow any woman to abort HIS baby or Momma Angel's statement of approval:

Quote:

I think you are all being pretty hard on John Creasy. I admire his stance. I wish more men in this world would step up the way he is willing to. He is concerned about the life of what would be his child. What's wrong with that? He would love his child and protect it even at the expense of breaking the law to keep his child safe. And anyone would find fault with that?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1797590#1797590

YES: I find FAULT with any neanderthal thug that thinks he can break the law in order to exercise dominion and control over a woman's body. But, Momma Angel believes it's admirable and acceptable for John Greasy and his ilk to break the law to prevent an abortion. How could that goal be accomplished? Kidnapping the woman and keeping her chained and unlawfully imprisoned until she gives birth? What laws may Greasy break in order to achieve his goal without offending Momma Angel to the point where she would find fault with that?

It is CREEPY that MA finds no fault with Greasy's willingness to break the law in order to assert dominion and control over a woman's body. It is CREEPY that MA admires his stance. CREEPY, CREEPY, CREEPY.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

DTOM,

If John Creasy is speaking of a situation.....It is ALSO his child. It is not just HER child.

yup, i understand that. although i guess that we differ on when a fertilized egg becomes a child.

the part that is not cool, is the adamant "NO WAY I WOULD ALLOW" stuff. it's seems evident that "his word is law".

i've shared my opinion, about how the right to choice comes with responsibility, with you earlier. but, the right to bring children into the world has it's responsibilities too. right ?

there is such a thing as quality of life.

so you see, the debate is wider than "his baby", "her baby" and "i want" and "my baby".

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

way cool emoticon, cj !

0 Replies

Thank you! Wink

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Nothing like being open-minded is there?

Try it sometime, you might like it. But until you actually display some open-mindedness, I'm at liberty to believe that your narrow-minded opinions are CREEPY.

0 Replies

Quote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
I will always err on the side of giving the life to the child.

Err is an appropriate word. Why would you automatically choose to side with new life against existing life? Why should that new life be more valuable?

It's not even "new" life. It is potential life and nothing more. The mere joining of a sperm with an egg and the subsequent but incomplete development (blastocyst, embryo, fetus) of that POTENTIAL life does not quarantee "new life" capable of being born. It's POTENTIAL life that faces termination for thousands of reasons or causes with elective or therapeutic abortion being only one possible cause. A woman's body naturally flushes potential life from the womb all the time. Search: "spontaneous abortion."

Legally it may not be new life. However, for those that believe that life begins at conception it is.

Quote:

Momma Angel wrote:
John Creasy seems willing to stand up to what he feels is his responsibility in this hypothetical situation. I see nothing wrong with that.

FreeDuck wrote:
What John Creasy seems to believe is that he has the right and the power to force a woman to have his child. Creepy.

What is CREEPIER? A man that declares he won't allow any woman to abort HIS baby or Momma Angel's statement of approval:

I have no idea as to how John Creasy would accomplish this. He didn't say. I did not automatically think he was going to do some horrendous crime as you seem to think. Don't you think the thing to do would be to ask him just how far he would go? I admire the fact that he would care so much for his child. If you find fault with that, then I am sorry that you do.

Quote:

I think you are all being pretty hard on John Creasy. I admire his stance. I wish more men in this world would step up the way he is willing to. He is concerned about the life of what would be his child. What's wrong with that? He would love his child and protect it even at the expense of breaking the law to keep his child safe. And anyone would find fault with that?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1797590#1797590

And anywhere in there did I say that I would approve of him breaking the law? No, I did not. I admired the fact that he would care enough for the life of his child that he would be willing to risk his own freedom for it. I do admire anyone that would risk their life and freedom to keep a child alive. So what?

Quote:

YES: I find FAULT with any neanderthal thug that thinks he can break the law in order to exercise dominion and control over a woman's body. But, Momma Angel believes it's admirable and acceptable for John Greasy and his ilk to break the law to prevent an abortion. How could that goal be accomplished? Kidnapping the woman and keeping her chained and unlawfully imprisoned until she gives birth? What laws may Greasy break in order to achieve his goal without offending Momma Angel to the point where she would find fault with that?

You look at it as he is exercising dominion and control over a woman's body. I think you will find John Creasy and others are looking at it as saving the life of a child and not trying to exercise any dominion or control.

Quote:

It is CREEPY that MA finds no fault with Greasy's willingness to break the law in order to assert dominion and control over a woman's body. It is CREEPY that MA admires his stance. CREEPY, CREEPY, CREEPY

Read my answer above. I did not mean I wouldn't find fault with his breaking the law. I do not find fault with his wanting to save his child. I find it kind of creepy that when a man stands up and would take care of his responsibility that anyone would find that creepy. There are plenty of legal ways he can go about doing this and I am quite sure that he would check into those options first. I believe his willingness to do anything was more of a statement of how important this is to him than an actual admittance that he would commit a crime. At least that is how I viewed it.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I have no idea as to how John Creasy would accomplish this. He didn't say.

Actually, he did:

John Creasy wrote:

....... trust me, if that is MY baby in the womb, I would do whatever is necessary to stop her from killing it, laws be damned.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
I didn't see the part where John Creasy called DTOM selfish. I will have to go back and check that out.

LOOK UP. Be observant. Look past your own self-serving agenda and take notice that DTOM highlighted Neanderthal Greasy's words in RED: "If you stopped obsessing about men trying to control you, you might see how incredibly selfish you sound."

As an EXERCISE in "seeing" how selfish someone sounds, DTOM then SHOWED us time after time after time where the Neanderthal Greasy SELFISHLY asserted his dominion and control over the fruit of the woman's womb: I, I, I, I, I, won't allow, won't allow, won't allow, mine, mine, mine, my, my, my, my, my.

NOW, HERE'S THE POINT: As an exercise in "seeing how incredibly selfish" someone sounds, Neanderthal Greasy wins the "incredibly selfish" distinction by a landslide. However, the obvious import of DTOM's post clearly soared over you narrowly-wired mind that works to willfully blind you to the things you refuse to see.

HENCE your statement: "I didn't see . . . "

Oh I know, any man that refuses to be feminized by you twinkletoed freaks is a neandrathal. I'm actually flattered that femi boy spent all that time on my quotes. You can turn it all around on me if you want, but the fact remains, Any woman that insists on getting an abortion against the will of the father is incredibly selfish.

The difference between my selfishness, is that I'm looking out for the baby. Who is the woman looking out for?? Oh that's right, her lazy f*cking self. If I want the baby then it just comes down to her not wanting to take responsibility and carry the child for nine months. And by the way, that fruit of her womb wouldn't exist without MY nectar.

Is that neanderthal enough for you???

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know