Sign the petition send a coat hanger..

i find it richly ironic that PiMP says that you are strange and admire how you just neatly sidestepped him.

lol....of course you can "neatly sidestep" if you completely ignore the issue.....apple believes society is incapable of deciding when an abortion should be permitted due to the mother's health......that was the standard throughout America's history up until Roe v Wade....it should amaze us all that civilization did not crumble over the inherent uncertainty.......
 
lol....of course you can "neatly sidestep" if you completely ignore the issue.....apple believes society is incapable of deciding when an abortion should be permitted due to the mother's health......that was the standard throughout America's history up until Roe v Wade....it should amaze us all that civilization did not crumble over the inherent uncertainty.......

We know why civilization didn't crumble. People obeyed authority regardless of the asinine dictates. People were conditioned to believe they didn't know, or were incapable of understanding, the reasons.

Those days are gone. I would say the turning point was the 60s. From a reality where a person refusing to fight for their country was summarily shot to thousands refusing to obey government enlistment the people stood up and started to question government/authority on everything, including abortion.

Woman's rights. Gay rights. The people wanted answers, not dictates from authority.

The clock will never turn back. There was a change of consciousness no less than the 1600s coming out of the Dark Ages.

As for believing "society is incapable of deciding when an abortion should be permitted due to the mother's health" the point is health should not be a consideration unless we're talking about certain death and even in those cases if the fetus can survive with the woman on life support until the birth occurs what makes the woman's life more important than the life of the fetus, assuming of course, both are human beings?

To kill an innocent human being so as to prevent damage to another individual, an individual who, directly due to their already defective body, may sustain further damage, is the most absurd conclusion one can draw.

Unfortunately, that is the conclusion society has drawn and expects rational people to accept. That, too, shall pass.
 
We know why civilization didn't crumble. People obeyed authority regardless of the asinine dictates.

no, those decisions were made by doctors and patients in hospitals all over the country on an individual basis......they didn't need a dictating authority....in truth, the only thing authority "dictated" prior to Roe v Wade was that abortion was not legal......
 
no, those decisions were made by doctors and patients in hospitals all over the country on an individual basis......they didn't need a dictating authority....in truth, the only thing authority "dictated" prior to Roe v Wade was that abortion was not legal......

Do you really believe people with money/connections couldn't get an abortion if they wanted one?

Maybe that's the reason every mother wanted her son to be a doctor???
 
It's much more than conflicts of interest. It's the necessity of exceptions. It's the valuing of a human being's life against a body part of another human being. It's society's lack of concern in investigating and determining the cause of death of those whom society classifies as human beings. It's those practices and lack of actions that, in any other circumstance, we would find most abhorrent.

It cheapens what it means to be a human being. Rather than raise the value of an embryo or fetus by insuring it has the same protections as any other human being we end up adding it to the human being family while treating it less than any other human being. That ultimately results in devaluing all human beings.

The conflicts, the exceptions, the bizarre situations that arise followed by the illogical remedies/solutions clearly show us the premise is bizarre and illogical.

Yes, it cheapens the meaning of humanity, just as the presence of non-white races does. And Irish, Manchus, etc.
 
Yes, it cheapens the meaning of humanity, just as the presence of non-white races does. And Irish, Manchus, etc.

I doubt the death of any of them would not be actively investigated.

When it comes to abortion if a woman is permitted to kill an innocent fetus because her faulty body's kidneys are failing why shouldn't she be allowed to kill her 15 year old daughter if she requires a kidney? Assuming the kidneys are a match the death of both the fetus and the 15 year old will prevent her death.

If she is allowed to kill her offspring in order to save her own life what difference does it make how old they are? Pro-life folks keep telling us there is no difference between a born human being and a fetus so why would birth make a difference?

When are people allowed to kill an innocent human being in order to save their own life? If a boat is sinking and a father places the only floatation device they have on his child is the mother permitted to remove the device and use it herself in order to save her life? If she is allowed to kill the "child"
before it's born so as to save her life why wouldn't it follow she is allowed to kill it after it was born if birth doesn't make a difference?

I've offered a number of possible scenarios whereby the mother killing her child will result in the saving of her life. If she is permitted to kill a fetus and a fetus is considered an unborn human being then it must follow the same rules apply to born human beings unless, of course, there is a difference. A big difference.
 
I doubt the death of any of them would not be actively investigated.

When it comes to abortion if a woman is permitted to kill an innocent fetus because her faulty body's kidneys are failing why shouldn't she be allowed to kill her 15 year old daughter if she requires a kidney? Assuming the kidneys are a match the death of both the fetus and the 15 year old will prevent her death.

If she is allowed to kill her offspring in order to save her own life what difference does it make how old they are? Pro-life folks keep telling us there is no difference between a born human being and a fetus so why would birth make a difference?

When are people allowed to kill an innocent human being in order to save their own life? If a boat is sinking and a father places the only floatation device they have on his child is the mother permitted to remove the device and use it herself in order to save her life? If she is allowed to kill the "child"
before it's born so as to save her life why wouldn't it follow she is allowed to kill it after it was born if birth doesn't make a difference?

I've offered a number of possible scenarios whereby the mother killing her child will result in the saving of her life. If she is permitted to kill a fetus and a fetus is considered an unborn human being then it must follow the same rules apply to born human beings unless, of course, there is a difference. A big difference.

Well, you've hit upon an argument Lincoln made about slavery. Why would it stop with enslaving black people? Why not ethnic minorities, the intellectually inferior, and the poor? Most people today would call that a lame argument, but for the fact that it came from Lincoln's mouth, because I don't think most people believe that we will step beyond abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and assisted suicide, and outright kill minors, seniors, etc.
 
Well, you've hit upon an argument Lincoln made about slavery. Why would it stop with enslaving black people? Why not ethnic minorities, the intellectually inferior, and the poor? Most people today would call that a lame argument, but for the fact that it came from Lincoln's mouth, because I don't think most people believe that we will step beyond abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and assisted suicide, and outright kill minors, seniors, etc.

The problem is there isn't any logical reason not to step beyond abortions IF embryos and fetuses are classified as human beings.
 
The imbeciles who are against abortion are also against comprehensive sex education in our school system....they claim that it promotes sexual promiscuity and leads to the spread of STD's and out of wedlock pregnancy, as well as abortions.

Pity the little dimbulbs don't realize how they contradict history, because all those little nasties were headed off the charts BEFORE Roe vs. Wade and the watered down versions of sex ed were introduced.

And here's a thought: if you can get MADD to pass laws that raised the drinking age to 21 (well send you to Iraq, but we don't trust you to drink), maybe we can start an organization called MAUP that will have contraceptives available with proof of age and parent signed license....like driver's licenses? Couldn't hurt.
 
The imbeciles who are against abortion are also against comprehensive sex education in our school system....they claim that it promotes sexual promiscuity and leads to the spread of STD's and out of wedlock pregnancy, as well as abortions.

Good thing you're just talking about the imbiciles. I was worried I would have to explain that I actually support sex education, such as it is. I will say that I found nothing enlightening about 5 straight years of sex ed (5th-9th), plus the class I took in Basic Training, and some seminar bullshit in college, but apparently there are a lot of morons running around who do actually need sex ed to keep from fucking up their lives, so...
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The imbeciles who are against abortion are also against comprehensive sex education in our school system....they claim that it promotes sexual promiscuity and leads to the spread of STD's and out of wedlock pregnancy, as well as abortions.

Good thing you're just talking about the imbiciles. I was worried I would have to explain that I actually support sex education, such as it is. I will say that I found nothing enlightening about 5 straight years of sex ed (5th-9th), plus the class I took in Basic Training, and some seminar bullshit in college, but apparently there are a lot of morons running around who do actually need sex ed to keep from fucking up their lives, so...

The 5th - 9th grade sex ed was what, pretty clinical in nature and not that realistic on the emotional level? Didn't quite cover all the bases? And by the time you were in Basic and college, you were old enough to know more than the pablum in grade school, and as you yourself stated, the college seminar was BS (from what my cousin tells me, the Basic Training stuff is just that, basic....and a day late, dollar short for the vast majority of America).

As I stated earlier, I'm talking about idiots who are against sex ed even at this limited scope. My previous statements stand.
 
Good thing you're just talking about the imbiciles. I was worried I would have to explain that I actually support sex education, such as it is. I will say that I found nothing enlightening about 5 straight years of sex ed (5th-9th), plus the class I took in Basic Training, and some seminar bullshit in college, but apparently there are a lot of morons running around who do actually need sex ed to keep from fucking up their lives, so...

Off topic, but did El Jerko Ib1yysguy really say what is on your signature?
 
Back
Top