Frank will return. He has to take these breaks because he and his adversaries are so energetically emotional. He knows how angry they get at his manner of posting.
Yeah, but that is his appeal.
real life wrote:edgarblythe wrote:real life wrote:edgarblythe wrote:You can't win at this by twisting my meanings about. Nowhere did I say something so stupid as "up to the moment of birth," or even hint at that. I don't know of anybody who advocates that.
Then at EXACTLY what point do you think that it is no longer the woman's 'right' to decide?
And on what basis does she lose that 'right' at the point you cite?
I told you, the doctors and laws have set some guidelines already. I am no doctor, and neither are you.
Third trimester abortions are illegal in some areas, legal in others.
Which one is right?
Have you ever seen a fetus, delivered during the third trimester? Do you know how immoral it is to kill a fetus during the third trimester? Only the Godless would do such a savage act.
edgarblythe wrote:I enjoy it.
Just like a warm colonic.
Was the pregnancy the result of rape of a 10-year old?
How many 10 year olds are physiologically capable of becoming pregnant? 1%, 0.1%, or 0.001%?
edgarblythe wrote:You know as well as I do that third trimesters are done in case of medical emergencies and not a matter of normalcy.
As a matter of record, edgar (?), you aren't an MD and really know little about either medicine or science.
Screw off, rabble rouser.
I'm not sure what the probability is for 10-year olds to become pregnant, but here's one that will surprise most.
Peruvian five-year-old Lina Medina, accompanied by her 11-month-old-son Gerardo, and Doctor Lozada who attended her son's birth, are shown in this 1940 file photo taken in Lima's hospital.
When her child was born by Caesarean section in May 1939, Medina made medical history, and is still the youngest known mother in the world.
Lina Medina's parents thought their 5-year-old daughter had a huge abdominal tumor and when shamans in their remote village in Peru's Andes could find no cure, her father carried her to a hospital.
Just over a month later, she gave birth to a boy.
Medina was born on September 27, 1933 in the small village of Paurange. She was only 5 years 8 months old at the birth of her child on Mother's Day, May 14, 1939.
Chaplin wrote:Abortion is wrong for who? Why must people impose their personal religious, moral, ethics on other's lives/choices? If they are so concerned about "life," why aren't they spending more of their efforts, money and time to help the starving people of this world?
Are starving people any more deserving that an unborn fetus? Who makes the judgement as to who deserves help and who does not?
Chaplin seems to be an odd moniker, unless you are referring to Charlie.
A recent one in the US.
Abbeville man accused of impregnating 10-year-old stepdaughter
Jan 28, 2006 | The Beaufort Gazette
The stepfather of a 10-year-old girl was charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor after she became pregnant, police said.
glitterbag wrote:Intrepid wrote:glitterbag wrote:Intrepid wrote:glitterbag wrote:Intrepid wrote:Those unwilling women should get educated on birth control and disease prevention or stay off their backs. Since they are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.
OK, maybe we can reach an agreement. If willing women in the prone position are the problem, lets get the drug companies to make a pill that men will BE FORCED TO TAKE to prevent any possibility of sireen (that's the way they pronounced it in "Oh Brother where Art Thou")induced erections and they must take this pill starting at 9 years of age in front of a family values government official to guarantee that they don't go around with the ability to wave their willies. Once they are married and able to support the willing women (who refuse to get off their backs), and any offspring that might occur, they will no longer be forced to take the anti-erection pill. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like a plan.
One more thing, if the marriage is in trouble or the wife suspects the husband is cheating, it's back on the pill for the weak-willed sap.
For some reason, you are getting awfully defensive. I am NOT saying that it is the fault of the woman. Both parties must take responsibility. I am saying that since it is the woman, not the man, who has the potential to become pregnant it is the woman who must be the one to say no.
When it comes to rape, you would probably yell hard and long that it is the woman's right to say no. I think your plan is actually rather silly. It is not the erection that causes pregnancy....it is the ejaculation. Just as it is not guns that kill....it is the bullets.
You think it is silly, thats because the pill for men is something you would find intrusive. If it clarifies anything, I think your position is silly.
And for the adolescent who didn't understand the complexity of my remarks, please check with your doctor, he/she might be able to shed some light. You must be very, very young.
First, how would you know what I find and do not find intrusive. You are making some mighty big assumptions for one who purports to thinik with reason.
Secondly, you did not respond at all to what I said. You conveniently changed to something about adolescent and being very young.
I don't know who you were referring to. It couldn't have been me or Neo. Unless, of course, you are in an age bracket all by yourself. In which case you should be congratulated for your ability to still function at your high and advanced age.
:wink:
I was not addressing comments to you, and I don't remember what question you asked me, unless of course it was the asinine assumption that women get pregnant because they can't stay off their backs.
I suppose 8 year old girsl get raped because they are wearing provocative undergarments.You stated your belief for the reason women have children, why would I want to comment on that?
Why do you keep changing the topic to suit yourself? What do 8 year old girls have to do with what we were talking about? If you are trying to equate women who can't stay off their backs with innocent 8 year old girls being raped by fiends.....you may want to see outside advice.
You obviously only read and comprehend what you want to comprehend and go off on a tangent.
Intrepid wrote:
Are starving people any more deserving that an unborn fetus? Who makes the judgement as to who deserves help and who does not?
No. The issue is people who would impose their personal opinions on others through laws they don't even know about abortion rights. If they are so concerned about "life," they should worry about those already here and starving. The pregnant woman and her doctor should be the final arbiter, not public opinion or laws.
Chaplin wrote:Intrepid wrote:
Are starving people any more deserving that an unborn fetus? Who makes the judgement as to who deserves help and who does not?
No. The issue is people who would impose their personal opinions on others through laws they don't even know about abortion rights. If they are so concerned about "life," they should worry about those already here and starving. The pregnant woman and her doctor should be the final arbiter, not public opinion or laws.
If it is ok to kill a fetus, is it ok to kill a one day old baby that is not wanted?
It is quite interesting that you say that the final arbiter should not be the law. Do you pick and choose which laws you will obey?
Your confusing the issue; it's about abortion - not somebody that's already born.
They keep tossing in fake issues, because they have run out of legitemate arguments.
Scott777ab wrote:Eorl wrote:Scott, what do you define as murder?
The "logic" of scott's statement should become evident by his/her answer.
Murder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Murder is the unlawful killing of one human being by another through any action intended (or in some countries also being recklessly indifferent) to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
My Change to this statement for you answer.
Murder is the
Immoral killing of one human being by another through any action intended (or in some countries also being recklessly indifferent) to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
I see. Wiki's definition of murder does not fit, so you need to make your own. So what, then, is immoral killing Scott? Killing that you, personally, find immoral? But not killing that I find immoral?
You are saying it's moral for you to kill a doctor or a woman that has an abortion...but it's immoral for them to kill a foetus? What do you base that reasoning on Scott?
Those who were defending Scott's sound "logic" are also encoraged to reply.
glitterbag,
I thought I'd post this again, since you seem to have missed it.....or are you still wailing moral indignation and condescension in my direction, my opinion is so far beneath you? I understand that the opinion's of some men on this matter are misogenistic and even cruel, but I really think you are misjudging me in this matter. I would like to hear your answers to the following.....
.............
What am I not getting glitterbag? I'll fight long and hard to defend a woman's right to choose an abortion. I suspect we are in complete agreement in that regard.
What I don't understand is why having a penis disqualifies my opinion on the moral issues of abortion. Do you apply the same logic to women who are unable to conceive?
Surely you can see that a woman does not have the right to knock a six-week-old child on the head. Who denies her that right? Society in general, regardless of sex. The same applies to the abortion debate.
The "pro-life" camp claims a "child" exists at conception, and therefore deserves the same protection as six-week-old or a six-year-old....., which makes complete sense if they are correct about a foetus being a complete person due full human rights....but they are not. This is where I see the real issue, and while I may (or may not) be younger and less female than you, it is possible you could be wrong about what the real issue is here.
As for being insensitive, you brought your personal story of miscarriage into a debate about abortion. Did you think that means you "win" because nobody will dare to call you on it?
I think your husband has EVERY right to be upset at your miscarriage....but I think your other position (that he has NO SAY AT ALL about whether you choose to have abortion) is at odds with that. I'm trying to understand how you justify these seemingly contrasting positions.
I have stated here before that if my wife told me she was having an abortion, I would do my best to talk her out of it, and I would feel absolutely justified in trying....BUT if she insisted, I would support her decision and help her through it, no matter how painful for me, because ultimately, it is her body.... (she is 6 months pregnant right now, with what we hope will be our second child)
edgarblythe wrote:They keep tossing in fake issues, because they have run out of legitemate arguments.
Since when is life a fake issue?
