Dick Cheney Was Right

Why are men allowed to decide women's issues?

I have never understood this?

Why is the government involved in issues that should between a woman, her doctor, and if she believes, her god, and no one else.
 
froggie said:
Pheeeeewwwww! Thank goodness, I thought you had lost you mind and I was going to have to jump a plane! and rescue you...

You are right. I wrote a letter or two to certain networks and their pundits.
Click to expand...

I just have two questions for you ladies. If you're gonna go Dick Cheney on us and get midevil, then;

#1. Can I be first?

#2 and do I have to pay extra? ;)
 
froggie said:
Why are men allowed to decide women's issues?

I have never understood this?

Why is the government involved in issues that should between a woman, her doctor, and if she believes, her god, and no one else.
Click to expand...

Now be fair my fine amphibian friend. This is not just a womans issue, it's a human issue. Besides, women do it to men too. You have a vote (a say) about drafting young men and sending their ass of to war to get shot, don't you?
 
Threedee said:
Its funny, as a student of early American history, the pro-abortion arguments seem all-too-familiar, yet abortion was not even an issue back then...
Click to expand...

Note in this case that darla puts forth that it was not the mother's life that was in danger, but that they faced difficult choices for the conjoined twins...So, what was the solution? Why it was simple don't have them kill them while they are still in the womb!

""In 1994 my wife and I found out that she was pregnant. The pregnancy was difficult and unusually uncomfortable but her doctor repeatedly told her things were fine. Sometime early in the 8th month my wife, an RN who at the time was working in an infertility clinic asked the Dr. she was working for what he thought of her discomfort. He examined her and said that he couldn’t be certain but thought that she might be having twins. We were thrilled and couldn’t wait to get a new sonogram that hopefully would confirm his thoughts. Two days later our joy was turned to unspeakable sadness when the new sonogram showed conjoined twins. Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants. We were advised that our options were to deliver into the world a child who’s life would be filled with horrible pain and suffering or fly out to Wichita Kansas and to terminate the pregnancy under the direction of Dr. George Tiller."
 
Superfreak said:
So, just to understand their situation.... Had their conjoined twins (which could not be detected until the eigth month) been born:

1) One of the twins would die
2) That should the other survive, it would be likely to have to go through multiple surgeries and even then it may die.
3) The second twin, should it survive, would most likely have experienced 'horrible pain and suffering'

so the parents solution was to fly to Kansas and:

Scramble the brains of both of their kids... so that they could both die while experiencing 'horrible pain and suffering'.

Such good parents.... they saved money by not having surgeries.... total class
Click to expand...

But they killed them before they had to see them all nice and tidy like. Not to mention that late term abortions are specific to the safety of the mother. The caveat? Mental distress can be used as a reason to obtain late term abortions.
 
Superfreak said:
Ah yes, the ignorance of the left. The difference dumbass is that a toe is a body part. It is not a human being. The child is a unique life. A toe is not.

The very fact that you have to PICK some arbitrary time should tell you how moronic your proposal is. You do not arbitrarily assign a time as to when someone 'turns' into a human being.

the argument is.... should an unborn child be entitled to basic human rights.? THAT is the argument that can be discussed with at least some legitimacy.

Trying to pretend the child isn't a human being is just ignorance at its finest.
Click to expand...

You mean if a man cuts off his toe and sticks it in a womans womb a baby won't be born 9 mos later? You mean it won't have brain development at 3 weeks and a heart beat too? Say, I wonder how a toe sucks its thumb at 8 weeks? I bet a toe looks pretty funny while it has hiccups in the womb while doing summersaults!
 
froggie said:
Why are men allowed to decide women's issues?

I have never understood this?

Why is the government involved in issues that should between a woman, her doctor, and if she believes, her god, and no one else.
Click to expand...

Why did the Northern states but into the issues of the Southern states? Because jurisdiction must sometimes fall to certain egregious crimes.
 
Superfreak said:
Side note... I am pro-LIFE... you are pro-abortion/death. At least get your positions stated correctly. :)

Side note 2.... at no time did I think you would agree with the correct positions I presented. You are a denialist. I get that. You are too stubborn to admit you are wrong. I get that too. I have presented a legitimate argument for the pro-abortion crowd time and again and yet they always seem to come back to the idiocy of 'well da kid ain't a human being yet' or some such nonsense. Why can't they simply say... I do not support giving basic human rights to unborn children? Why resort to such idiocy?
Click to expand...

You don't get to set the language. Not with me anyway. Republicans often do get to set it in the public sphere, but not here with me. There's no reason for you to be so sensitive anyway. You, quite literally, call me a murderer every time you post about abortion. Have I ever said anything about it? No. Because I know that you are fanatical and emotive, and that it's not true.

There is one fanatic in this debate and it's not me. I certainly do not believe that third trimester terminations should be available on demand, but I don't believe that they are. I know that fanatics claim that they are, but fanatics claim a lot of things. I know that Dr. Tiller was accused of providing them when they were not medically recommended and necessary, but I also know that a Kansas jury, a Kansas jury, (and you are going to have quite a case convincing anyone that this Kansas jury consisted of 12 wide-eyed flaming leftist radicals) found him not guilty on all charges.

I know that i have read of tragic situations that I hope no one here ever finds themselves in. A woman near the end of her 2nd trimester diagnosed with aggressive cancer, the doctor says the chemo will kill the fetus, but if they don't do it now, she will not live to give birth, a termination is deemed medically necessary. A couple who discover in the third trimester that the child they believe they are having has no brain. Imagine forcing a couple to go ahead and give birth to a child with no brain. My God, who are the monsters in this again? With the conjoined and deformed twin pregnancy, a medical doctor deemed that one would die, and the second would also die but only after a very short "life" of terrible pain. As Mottley pointed out, you have no idea what the woman going through with that kind of delivery entails. You are not in the room. Pray you never are, and let those people be.

I think that fanatics who dare to judge in these cases and put themselves in that room are outrageous. Legally I am satisfied that they are told by the courts to STFU and keep out of that room.

I am vehemently for abortion on demand during the first trimester. The idea that if one night a condom comes off and an egg is fertilized, removing that is "murder" is so absurd that I actually find it funny.

In other words; I'm right in the mainstream on this.

Are you? No.
 
Threedee said:
Why did the Northern states but into the issues of the Southern states? Because jurisdiction must sometimes fall to certain egregious crimes.
Click to expand...

Threedee stay off my abortion threads. You are a virgin who hasn't even begun to live yet, you have no fucking clue what you would do should you ever meet a girl who is drunk enough to give you the chance to get her pregnant, and you are posting about abortion being slavery which usually makes me laugh because it's so fucking retarded and Pat Robertson emo, but coming from someone in your demographic begins to annoy, and I don't want to get nasty here.
 
Darla said:
Threedee stay off my abortion threads. You are a virgin who hasn't even begun to live yet, you have no fucking clue what you would do should you ever meet a girl who is drunk enough to give you the chance to get her pregnant, and you are posting about abortion being slavery which usually makes me laugh because it's so fucking retarded and Pat Robertson emo, but coming from someone in your demographic begins to annoy, and I don't want to get nasty here.
Click to expand...
Go on Darla! Get midevil on his ass...and the crowd chants "DARLA, DARLA, DARLA!" LOL
 
Onceler said:
That's silly. Your position is just as extreme, simplistic & stupid as the one you are presenting for the pro choice side. You just don't realize it. You say you have presented a "legitimate argument," but that's your characterization & your characterization only. You say that the science is settled on the topic, but what are you basing that on? You filter the information that supports your position, and nothing more.

The right to choose is the law of the land, and that is unlikely to change. The Supreme Court STILL disagrees with you, decades into this thing...
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Science dictates that the product of a human sperm cell and human egg cell is.... wait for it.... HUMAN. I assume you are not ignorant enough to proclaim that the child isn't alive as if that were the case there would be no need for an abortion.

Science further dictates that it is a UNIQUE human life based on our ability to map the human genome. To pretend that Science isn't 100% on this is nothing short of idiocy.

But please, if you dispute any of the above, please tell us what it is that you dispute and explain why.

I KNOW the current LAW. That does not change one thing I stated. Just because something is the LAW doesn't make it RIGHT.
 
Mottleydude said:
Before you become to judgemental maybe you should look up the mortality and morbidity rates for women who deliver conjoined twins.
Click to expand...

I am judging based on the information that Darla was using as justification. If you have something that shows the womans life was in danger, then that changes the situation.
 
froggie said:
Why are men allowed to decide women's issues?

I have never understood this?

Why is the government involved in issues that should between a woman, her doctor, and if she believes, her god, and no one else.
Click to expand...

Why are women allowed to decide whether a child lives or dies?

Also, no one is saying that men alone should decide 'women's issues'. In addition, this is not just a 'woman's issue'. (at least for those intelligent enough to comprehend that there is also a child involved)

From my point of view, someone should be looking after the rights of the CHILD. You may disagree that the child is entitled to basic human rights, but that doesn't mean that men should have no say in this issue.
 
"Science dictates that the product of a human sperm cell and human egg cell is.... wait for it.... HUMAN"

Really? Science is unanimous that, once a sperm cell and egg cell merge, the result is a fully functional, viable, cognizant human being?

It's amazing all of the stuff I don't know. If science has unanimously concluded that, they by all means, zygotes should have full rights, and women should have absolutely no say in the matter.
 
Darla said:
" You don't get to set the language."

You are correct. But Science does. Unless one of you pro-abortionists would care to show where Science is wrong.

"Not with me anyway. Republicans often do get to set it in the public sphere, but not here with me. There's no reason for you to be so sensitive anyway. You, quite literally, call me a murderer every time you post about abortion. Have I ever said anything about it? No. Because I know that you are fanatical and emotive, and that it's not true. "

Actually, while I do beleive it is murder, technically it is still legal for you to kill kids at will.

"There is one fanatic in this debate and it's not me. "

Lets see... one who wishes to kill kids at will, the other who wishes to protect the life of an innocent child. Yeah, the fanatic must indeed be me. You crack me up with your idiocy sometimes.

"I certainly do not believe that third trimester terminations should be available on demand, but I don't believe that they are. I know that fanatics claim that they are, but fanatics claim a lot of things."

They are definitely not. Which is why your couple had to go to Wichita to have it done. Even the most ardent of pro-abortionists realize how wrong it is by the third trimester.

"I think that fanatics who dare to judge in these cases and put themselves in that room are outrageous. Legally I am satisfied that they are told by the courts to STFU and keep out of that room."

Yeah, who are the 'fanatics' to care whether or not a woman kills a kid. If the womans life is in danger, that is one thing. But when an abortion is done for convenience or birth control, that murder on demand must stop.

"I am vehemently for abortion on demand during the first trimester. The idea that if one night a condom comes off and an egg is fertilized, removing that is "murder" is so absurd that I actually find it funny. "

Yes, we know. You think women should be able to kill kids early on. Congrats. Baby killer.

"In other words; I'm right in the mainstream on this. "

You obviously haven't been paying attention lately.

Are you? No.
Click to expand...

Like other issues, the sentiment is shifting to protecting the equality of life.

I doubt it will be changed legally anytime soon. But eventually it will change.
 
Onceler said:
"Science dictates that the product of a human sperm cell and human egg cell is.... wait for it.... HUMAN"

Really? Science is unanimous that, once a sperm cell and egg cell merge, the result is a fully functional, viable, cognizant human being?

It's amazing all of the stuff I don't know. If science has unanimously concluded that, they by all means, zygotes should have full rights, and women should have absolutely no say in the matter.
Click to expand...

Wow... strawman working well for you?

"Really? Science is unanimous that, once a sperm cell and egg cell merge, the result is a fully functional, viable, cognizant human being?"

Is THAT what I said you idiot?

Calling a human being by different stages of its development doesn't change the fact that it is human.
 
"Calling a human being by different stages of its development doesn't change the fact that it is human."

Really? By your reckoning, is an acorn a tree?

You turn crazy on these kinds of threads, and resort to all kinds of emo, charged language, like "baby killer." There is no rationality to your arguments; only zealotry.

You're wrong on this one...
 
Onceler said:
"Science dictates that the product of a human sperm cell and human egg cell is.... wait for it.... HUMAN"

Really? Science is unanimous that, once a sperm cell and egg cell merge, the result is a fully functional, viable, cognizant human being?

It's amazing all of the stuff I don't know. If science has unanimously concluded that, they by all means, zygotes should have full rights, and women should have absolutely no say in the matter.
Click to expand...

We obviously now have your definition of who should qualify for human rights protections. so anyone not fully functional is able to be aborted? Is that the criteria we are using?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top