IDIOT STATEMENT: If you dont want to make it illegal, you support and condone it!

Dixie said:
Prissy, I guess you can't read, otherwise you would have read my explanation. Either that, or you can't comprehend what you read. Regardless, my point was, I am not in charge of deciding what laws the whole of society lives by, and I understand this. Some people don't, they simply think that we should all live our lives the way they think is right, and it doesn't matter if we agree or not.

Yeah, if I were King Dixie, and I got to decide what our laws and rules were, I would outlaw all abortions and punish violators with stoning, as God mandated in the Old Testament, I would also outlaw Liberalism and round you and your pinhead detractors up and shoot you. I would make going to Church and worshiping God a mandatory requirement, there would be no condoms in schools, and our kids would actually be required to study and learn. I would be one hard ass son of a bitch to live under, IF I were in charge! I'm NOT! I will NEVER be! That was my point! Aren't you glad we live in a democracy?
Click to expand...


Regardless, my point was, I am not in charge of deciding what laws the whole of society lives by, and I understand this

I don't care if you're in charge or not. The fact that, in your heart, you feel its justified to stone your daughter to death, or your neighbors teenage daughter to death, if they got an abortion, speaks volumes about you as a human being.
 
I don't care if you're in charge or not. The fact that, in your heart, you feel its justified to stone your daughter to death, or your neighbors teenage daughter to death, if they got an abortion, speaks volumes about you as a human being.

So, in other words, you don't care about the context my comments were presented, you are just going to misconstrue my statement and use it against me anyway? Okay, just so we know what kind of low-life you are.

Again, the comment was not presented as my view of what the law should be. Since I am the one who wrote it, I am the one who can tell you what it meant. You don't have to accept that, it's entirely up to you, but you can't tell me what I meant.

The statement was about what the law might be, if I were the sole arbiter of the rules and laws. In other words, if I were 'King Dixie' and it was completely up to me to decide. Now, in that absurd event, if my own daughter were guilty, I would exercise my power as King to pardon her! Remember, the context of the example means everything, I am the King, I get to decide, no one else.

The point of the argument and statement, was to illustrate how we don't base our laws on what our personal religious beliefs are... but maybe you think we should? I mean, you seem to disagree with my point, so do you advocate we adopt laws based on our personal religious beliefs and make the rest of you abide by them? If so, you are in serious trouble when I get to be King!
 
bravo said:
Haven't visited for awhile but I see Jarod the Clown's posts have become even more stupid and more irrelevant to intelligent debate....
The abortion thread was very, very good....Dix cleaned some clocks as usual....

Have fun girls and boys....
Click to expand...
Damo, I know I said we need to dumb the place down a bit to make it more entertaining but the comic book troll act is just too thin. Ain't nobody buyin' your bullshit, Bubbi.

:pke:
 
Dixie, the very fact that - in your heart - you feel its justified to stone teeange girls to death for getting abortions, says a lot about what a sick twisted human being you are.

If hated black people in my heart - but never did anything publically against them, or argued for discriminatory public policies against them, I would still be a sick twisted human being.
 
Dixie said:
I think that's an understatement. The person who wrote this (*below) left any reason about five stops back.

*“If it were up to me personally, there would be no legal abortion... If any abortion occurred for any reason, it would be a crime of murder, punishable by death, preferably stoning, as God mandated in the Old Testament.”

Uhm, Darla... The context of that statement is very important, we were discussing the issue of whether our personal religious beliefs play a role in what we support as the law of the land. I merely made the point that I don't expect society to live by my personal beliefs, or our laws to be structured around what I personally believe. Now, I realize this is a tough concept for a liberal to grasp, but I really have no desire to force you to live by my moral code.

The particular statement you quote, was in response to someone who was actually calling me to task for my position on an allowance for abortion in case of rape or incest. They called me hypocritical because I made those exceptions, and I responded with the quote you posted. I suppose I could just turn into a complete hard ass right winger, and oppose all abortion under any circumstance and be completely unwilling to budge on that, but unlike you, I can be objective and reasonable.

My exception for rape and incest is a compromise, it doesn't mean I am a hypocrite, my personal view is not important, and I wouldn't expect society to conform to what I personally think, if I thought that was appropriate, I would advocate against all abortion and recommend stoning... IF it were up to me alone to decide. I hope that you can comprehend the context of what I stated, but I am not holding my breath. You have shown no indication of ever trying to understand or respect what I have to say, and every indication that you are a bitter hate filled bitch with nothing better to do than shit on other people.
Click to expand...

Listen Cretin, only a violent woman-hater could ever even begin to imagine that advocating women be stoned to death, could have a “context”.

You are the reason I am out in my community every week, advocating for women’s rights. Because I know what you and your kind have in store for women should you ever get the power.

But you never will get it Dixie. So in order fulfill your fantasies about women being on their knees before you begging for your forgiveness, and the violence you will met out to them, you’ll have to do what the rest of your sick crowd does: view violent porn.
 
Cypress said:
Dixie, the very fact that - in your heart - you feel its justified to stone teeange girls to death for getting abortions, says a lot about what a sick twisted human being you are.

If hated black people in my heart - but never did anything publically against them, or argued for discriminatory public policies against them, I would still be a sick twisted human being.
Click to expand...

Prissy, once again, for the third time... I don't feel it's justified, and never said that it was! If I were King Dixe, a lot of things might not be justified, you might have to wear a pink feather hat everyday... it wouldn't be justified, it wouldn't need to be, I am the King and I order you to do it, and you either do it or die, there doesn't have to be justification. You seem to be completely missing the point I was making.

My views on what society should establish as law of the land, is not always concurrent with my personal religious moral views. They are two completely different things. I don't get to make laws for you to obey, if I did, you would live in a totally different world! In a civilized democratic society, we ALL get a voice, we ALL get to decide, it's not left up to King Dixie to determine what the punishment will be, if it WERE, I would have you stoned to death for general principle and entertainment purposes.

I know it's hard for a pinhead liberal to understand, because you are all about being King Prissy and telling the rest of us how to live, you see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to do this, and actually can't comprehend democracy at all, in that regard. It suits you fine to ram your personal moral beliefs (or lack of) down my throat! This is why you assume that was my position, and you are just plain wrong, as usual.
 
Hi, I'm Ornot, and I'm a Hater!

I can't stand the lies and hypocrisy anymore. I have to come clean: I'm a violent hater. Every once in a while, I have dark fantasies of sewing Richard Perle's eyelids open and forcing him to watch as I burn his toes off with a propane torch, one by one.

*Sob!*
 
Listen Cretin, only a violent woman-hater could ever even begin to imagine that advocating women be stoned to death, could have a “context”.

*sigh*

I fucking GIVE UP! You people are too patheticly stupid to understand! I never advocated any such thing, you shit head idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Dixie said:
Listen Cretin, only a violent woman-hater could ever even begin to imagine that advocating women be stoned to death, could have a “context”.

*sigh*

I fucking GIVE UP! You people are too patheticly stupid to understand! I never advocated any such thing, you shit head idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Of course you've been careful not to "advocate" it as public policy. That's not my issue with your mental health. My issue is that, you believe personally that teenage girls should be stoned to death, in accordance with the bible if they get an abortion.

Regardless of whether or not you desire to see this become the public policy of the united states, the very fact that you hold this feeling in your heart is the sign of a sick mind.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I can't stand the lies and hypocrisy anymore. I have to come clean: I'm a violent hater. Every once in a while, I have dark fantasies of sewing Richard Perle's eyelids open and forcing him to watch as I burn his toes off with a propane torch, one by one.

*Sob!*
Click to expand...

LOL
 
I understand what you were trying to say Dixie and one of your posts up there, I agree with in most part...except the part of making them illegal and I have given my reasons on this...but to reduce them should be a goal of both sides, as Clinton said, legal but rare.

---------------------------------------------------------
I don't want any girl to have to go through having an abortion, it is humiliating.

In an ideal world there would be NO abortion....unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.

I don't agree with the left that this is just a glob of cells that are being discarded, it is an unborn child, a future human being with its own individual identity. The sooner we all can agree on that one thing, the better...because this "truth will set us free" and eventually reduce abortions.

There are steps I personally believe, if taken, would reduce the abortions taking place, which I have mentioned in this thread and the other abortion thread.... one being, limiting abortions to the embryo stage, no later than 10 weeks, second, closing the abortion clinics where you are drawn in like cattle going to slaughter...it should be between you and your doctor with one on one counciling with YOUR DOCTOR, not some clerical hired to hand you a pamphlet of your choices, third, more education on birth control and ABSTINENCE for boys and girls, fourth-have the mother to be before aborting, be shown their sonogram....fifth....make boys take birth control pills too....the male contraceptive is available and out there FDA approved, also....sixth-making the mothers to be feel comfortable in their pregnancy and not made to feel like they are wearing the scarlett letter if they CHOOSE to have their babies out of wedlock, 7th....make MEN feel like shit for dicking these women and not being held accountable in any way... :)

I would love to say that if we just followed what the Bible teaches about premarital sex being fornication would solve all of our problems, but the world is filled with so many MALE hypocrites in the Christian faith who believe that they can ignore this command from God as long as they "take precautions" not to get the woman pregnant....well, we can see how well THAT has done...now can't we? And yes I know the woman has responsibility in this as well, but Hells Bells...the girls have already gotten the short end of the stick with being labeled whores while the men keep their label of being a STUD....

:(
 
I'll bail you out damo ;) Bravo is not Damo's troll.

Bravo is the Bush-whore poster formerly known as Write on fullpolitics. He's posting over there as alpha now. And bravo here.
 
Cypress said:
I'll bail you out damo ;) Bravo is not Damo's troll.

Bravo is the Bush-whore poster formerly known as Write on fullpolitics. He's posting over there as alpha now. And bravo here.
Click to expand...
Oh, that dingdong. Darn, I wish he'd stick around: he's more interesting than Toby.
 
"Should we go find the transcripts to those hearings and see?"

Yes Dixie... you should. Because if the AMA actually said that you would think that they would have amended their position on their own website. Somehow I doubt you will even find one doctor that gave an absolute in a statement to Congress let alone the AMA. But I will be the first to apologize if you show me that I am wrong.
 
There are steps I personally believe, if taken, would reduce the abortions taking place, which I have mentioned in this thread and the other abortion thread.... one being, limiting abortions to the embryo stage, no later than 10 weeks

Then advocate passing this as law, and stop supporting those who are standing in the way of it!

second, closing the abortion clinics where you are drawn in like cattle going to slaughter...

Then advocate passing this as law, and stop supporting those who are standing in the way of it!

it should be between you and your doctor with one on one counciling with YOUR DOCTOR, not some clerical hired to hand you a pamphlet of your choices

Then advocate passing this as law, and stop supporting those who are standing in the way of it!

third, more education on birth control and ABSTINENCE for boys and girls

Then advocate passing this as law, and stop supporting those who are standing in the way of it!


fourth-have the mother to be before aborting, be shown their sonogram

Then advocate passing this as law, and stop supporting those who are standing in the way of it!

....fifth....make boys take birth control pills too....the male contraceptive is available and out there FDA approved

also....sixth-making the mothers to be feel comfortable in their pregnancy and not made to feel like they are wearing the scarlett letter if they CHOOSE to have their babies out of wedlock

7th....make MEN feel like shit for dicking these women and not being held accountable in any way...

Well, you can't really make people feel or do these things, see the 'King Dixie' example. We must focus on what we CAN do from a legal, moral, and ethical standpoint. As you can see, I agree with you on many levels, I would support much of what you propose, but you are mired in your support of a political party who has no intentions of ever going anywhere near what you advocate.

I fear that 2008 will be tough for me, because as it stands, Rudy seems to be who everyone is ready to nominate, and he is pro-choice. I can't support him in good conscience. Unless he somehow modifies his view on abortion, he can't get my vote, I can't support people who endorse abortion, or think it should remain as it is. This is too important an issue to me personally. Now, I've listened to some of my Republican friends tell me how this doesn't really matter, that the president doesn't have much say on the issue, that the only effect he could ever have is in who he appoints to the courts, and that he believes in appointing originalists... blah blah blah... He supports the woman's right of choice over the human rights of the unborn, that's what I know, and that's why I couldn't vote for him. I could 'justify' going against my principles, I could convince myself that abortions are still going to happen, regardless of who I vote for, I could make excuses and be a hypocrite, but then... I'd be a Democrat!
 
Superfreak said:
"Should we go find the transcripts to those hearings and see?"

Yes Dixie... you should. Because if the AMA actually said that you would think that they would have amended their position on their own website. Somehow I doubt you will even find one doctor that gave an absolute in a statement to Congress let alone the AMA. But I will be the first to apologize if you show me that I am wrong.
Click to expand...


Super, the AMA maintains a level of professionalism, and avoids getting entangled in political debate. This is a highly-charged political issue, of which they have no interest in becoming the center of. They carefully chose the words they chose, to avoid becoming part of the controversy... they copped out... they should be expected to on highly-charged political issues! This is not unusual, this is perfectly reasonable, given the nature of the issue at hand. They are not about to release a statement of absolute condemnation, unless there is a complete consensus across the political spectrum... In other words, on an issue like 'smoking', they may issue such a statement, it is widely accepted that smoking is bad, and not a political hot-button issue.

Partial birth is a procedure. It is not the only procedure available for aborting a late-term fetus. There are other ways to perform abortions, and all of them are substantially less risky to the health and life of the mother. This is why the procedure is NEVER required for the health or life of the mother, because there are alternative procedures which would ALWAYS be used, if the life or health were an issue.

I agree, at first blush it's easy for a layman to assume that this procedure might be needed at some point to save the mother's life, but that is just not factually accurate, and the medical community has said as much. If the mother's life or health were in jeopardy, an emergency C-section would be less risky than partial birth, and a better medical alternative for the health of the patient. Allowing a 'health/life exemption' for partial birth, is equivalent to saying... you can't drive on the wrong side of the freeway, unless it's a matter of urgency. The risk associated with such an action is far greater than any alternative, and the reasoning is seriously flawed. Driving on the wrong side of the freeway is clearly dangerous to your health and life, and regardless of the situation, there are safer alternatives that can be taken.

I'll be happy to go try and find statements from doctors, if that will satisfy you here, but I think the text I posted is fairly truthful and accurate, or it wouldn't have been included in the bill passed by Congress.
 
"superfreak SAID that if the circumstance is between the life of the mother or the life of the unborn child, the life of the mother supercedes that of the unborn's life, or the choice of the mother supercedes that of the unborn's."

Ok care, try to follow along. AT NO TIME ARE THEIR LIVES of any less importance. None. At no time does the mothers life automatically supercede that of the unborn child. HOWEVER, and do try to pay attention this time. IF it is a situation where one must die... SOMEONE has to make a decision on who to save. The unborn child cannot speak, thus the child cannot be the one to make the decision. The physician can tell the woman his/her medical opinion, but cannot make the decision FOR the woman and child. So who else to make the decision? Unless the mother is also unable to make the decision, then it should be her decision. That doesn't mean she should automatically choose herself. Bottom line, if the situation is one or the other, someone has to choose which to save. That does not mean they are unequal or that one is of lesser value than the other. It simply means a decision is required. That is it.

"he chose a point where they are not on equal footing, if you can't understand that then you get the pinhead award of the month!"

No, I did not. As stated above many times. YOU are the one that keeps trying to put words in my mouth and YOU are the one that is getting so unbelievably confused.
 
"I'll be happy to go try and find statements from doctors, if that will satisfy you here, but I think the text I posted is fairly truthful and accurate, or it wouldn't have been included in the bill passed by Congress."

yes, I want the statements. To act as though passing Congress somehow makes it truthful and accurate is extremely funny.

You call it a copout by the AMA, but in reality it is a lack of arrogance. They are intelligent enough to understand that they may not have seen every possible scenario and therefore leave the door open for that possibility. Which is why they say it should be avoided as a procedure, but that the final discretion should be left to the attending physician.

Go get the statements from the DOCTORS that testified to Congress. I want their exact wording, not what some politician said they said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top