T1B

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:11 pm**

Jsc810 wrote: How sick and disgusting can they be?

They provide a counter balance to the sick, disgusting idiots like yourself who believe abortions (including late term) should be performed on demand... and paid for by the government. Like getting a wart removed.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:39 pm**

I side with Jsc on this one.

I know where the hard core pro-lifers are coming from because I think life begins at conception and our state ought not sanction the taking of life.
I'm also against the death penalty.

But in a case where a woman has been raped, she has already been violated in the worst way imaginable.
Now you're going to further punish her by forcing her to carry the baby for 9 months and deliver it?

No, I can't get with that program.

This one's gotta be her choice.

If she wants to carry and deliver it, fine.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:48 pm**

GOP wrote:If rape is inevitable, you might as well lay back and deliver its baby.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:08 pm**

A few times a year, wags gets it right. This is one of them times.

I think forcing a rape victim to carry the baby to term is wrong, but, i understand the rationale of those for it. What I do not understand is the other end of the spectrum "it's just a choice", nothing wrong with dragging it out by it's feet and sticking a knife in it's dome because, technically, it's still just a fetus.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:11 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
Jsc810 wrote: How sick and disgusting can they be?
They provide a counter balance to the sick, disgusting idiots like yourself who believe abortions (including late term) should be performed on demand... and paid for by the government. Like getting a wart removed.

Really Wags, if your wife was raped and impregnated, you’d want her to have the baby? You gonna raise it? No matter what color it is? At least you’ve got one of the dumbest motherfuckers in this forum on your side.

I think our next bet will be for a $25 donation to a local abortion clinic.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:30 pm**

I eagerly await you folks finally getting this abortion issue figured out. Great thread.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:41 pm**

poptart wrote:I side with Jsc on this one.

Not for the reasons he stated, though. The entire abortion for victims of rape and incest argument is a strawman. It's purely a bitch move. Those procedures don't add up to a single percent of the number of abortions performed every year.

The discussion needs to remain focused on mothers killing their children simply because they don't want the inconvenience.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:14 pm**

poptart wrote:I'm also against the death penalty.

Please show me the verse where you can pick and choose what you believe in. TIA.

Leviticus 24:19-21
Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return:
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.
One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:07 pm**

mvscal wrote: The entire abortion for victims of rape and incest argument is a strawman. It's purely a bitch move.

Exactly, but consider who authored the thread.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:22 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
mvscal wrote: The entire abortion for victims of rape and incest argument is a strawman. It's purely a bitch move.
Exactly, but consider who authored the thread.

The only "bitch move" would be those opposing abortion for rape victims.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:24 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
mvscal wrote: The entire abortion for victims of rape and incest argument is a strawman. It's purely a bitch move.
Exactly, but consider who authored the thread.

I understand those that oppose abortion on demand, but the question is, do you make any exceptions? Seriously, if somebody raped and impregnated your wife, are you opposed to her aborting the fetus? Are either of you even capable of answering the question honestly?

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:31 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Seriously, if somebody raped and impregnated your wife, are you opposed to her aborting the fetus? Are either of you even capable of answering the question honestly?

Would you STOP with the strawman about abortion for rape victims in a thread about abortion for rape victims? Jeeeez.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:32 pm**

IndyFrisco wrote:
poptart wrote:I'm also against the death penalty.
Please show me the verse where you can pick and choose what you believe in. TIA.

Leviticus 24:19-21
Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return:
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.
One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

You're obviously not a Christian. What, exactly, are you?

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:47 pm**

Mikey wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:
poptart wrote:I'm also against the death penalty.
Please show me the verse where you can pick and choose what you believe in. TIA.

Leviticus 24:19-21
Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return:
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.
One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.
You're obviously not a Christian. What, exactly, are you?

Who said I wasn't a Christian? What does it matter whether I am or not? I no longer go to church for the simple reason I pointed out above, hypocricy. pops uses the Bible verses ad nauseum in here to support his beliefs. I simply pointed out his hypocricy. Of course, he'll be back in here saying how he's "against" the stoning of women as has been written in the Bible. He's going to say that certain Bible verses are meant to be taken literally and some not. Leviticus 24:19-21 is cut and dry. My faith or lack thereof is something I don't parade around. However, it won't stop me from calling a spade a spade.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:48 pm**

IndyFrisco wrote:
Mikey wrote:
IndyFrisco wrote:
Please show me the verse where you can pick and choose what you believe in. TIA.

Leviticus 24:19-21
Anyone who maims another shall suffer the same injury in return:
fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the injury inflicted is the injury to be suffered.
One who kills an animal shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.
You're obviously not a Christian. What, exactly, are you?
Who said I wasn't a Christian? What does it matter whether I am or not? I no longer go to church for the simple reason I pointed out above, hypocricy. pops uses the Bible verses ad nauseum in here to support his beliefs. I simply pointed out his hypocricy. Of course, he'll be back in here saying how he's "against" the stoning of women as has been written in the Bible. He's going to say that certain Bible verses are meant to be taken literally and some not. Leviticus 24:19-21 is cut and dry. My faith or lack thereof is something I don't parade around. However, it won't stop me from calling a spade a spade.

Leviticus is cut and dry. It's also Old Testament. Jesus Christ specifically and pointedly repudiated Leviticus. So, you are obviously not following the teachings of Christ. Therefore you must not be a Christian. You want to live by the Old Testament, that's your choice, but don't talk about "picking and choosing what you believe". If anybody is a hypocrite on this subject it's you.

Posted: **Thu Sep 30, 2010 7:13 pm**

How naturally perverse that the hard line anti-abortionists are the very same folks who have no problem with invading a foreign nation and murdering a million or so of its citizens. You know...Iraq? :wink:

Posted: **Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:09 am**

Indy, I used to be in support of the death penalty.
I came to a different point of view.
I can understand both sides of the issue.

Mosaic Law called for the death penalty for murder, rape of an engaged woman, kidnapping, adultery, fornication by women, incest, male homosexuality, beastiality, idolatry, sorcery, false witness in a capital case, cursing one’s parents and rebelliousness on the part of a son.

If you want to stand in support of all that, go ahead.

If not, you might take caution in throwing the "You're a hyporcrite" line out.

God Himself came, as Jesus Christ, and all of the Law, Prophets, Old Testament Scripture - EVERYTHING - is fulfilled and finished in Him.

Think of this.
He was fully innocent, tortured, and being murdered, and He said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."

If you look at the first case of murder in the Bible, Cain killing Abel, God did not impose the death penalty on Cain, but instead banished him, which might be seen as similar to life without parole.

Of course we are all familiar with the incident of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery as told in John 8.
She was going to be stoned to death by the crowd, but Jesus shamed them into realizing that they really had no moral basis or authority to carry out such a death.

There are other Scriptures people can look at surrounding the issue of the death penalty - Genesis 9:6 being one - which I think death penalty proponents take the wrong way and use to support their case, but I don't have the time to go into it.

There are points to be made on both sides of the issue and it's not an easy one.

Posted: **Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:42 am**

poptart wrote:Indy, death penalty sucks.

That's all you had to say.

Posted: **Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:05 am**

88 wrote:Rape is sick. There can be no debate about that. But viewed objectively, the killing of a fetus has nothing to do with how that fetus came into existence. Thus, if you believe it is right and proper to kill a fetus, then it should be OK to kill one no matter how it came into existence. If you believe that it is not right and proper to kill a fetus and that such killing must be prohibited, then it should not be OK to kill one no matter how it came into existence.

Rack that take.

However...

Personally, I am in favor of permitting women abort unwanted pregnancies during the first trimester only. After that, I think the woman has made a choice, and that choice is to allow the fetus she is carrying to exercise its right to attempt to live. Thirteen weeks is enough time for any woman to recognize the pregnancy and to make that decision.

And this decision differs from terminating a pregnancy during the SECOND trimester or the THIRD trimester termination HOW?! A Biology Major wants to know. Per your thinking, why should a woman be "doomed" to carry her pregnancy to term if she changes her mind at fourteen weeks?! At twenty? Would YOU relish the job to tell that woman, "Nope. Sorry... Too late"?

Let's say a single mom gets canned from her job three weeks out before she is scheduled to deliver... Would her decision to abort be any more - or less - reprehensible than it would be at Week Three? If so, why? Why is it Socially Acceptable to legally murder a Life in the first 13 weeks of his or her development and not in the last 26? A Christian wants to know.

It's either Life or it ain't, 88. You can't have it both ways.

Posted: **Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:11 am**

Yeah, blah blah, goose-stepper--what you're saying in your droning fashion is that you support the new improved Morning After pill, which is a hell of a long time coming. Good for you. Welcome to the real world. :wink:

Posted: **Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:05 pm**

I don't think JSC gives women enough credit. We are pretty strong creatures and can withstand a lot of pain and adversity. It would be a pretty easy decision for me if I were in this situation. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt babies.

Posted: **Fri Oct 01, 2010 3:10 pm**

trev wrote:I don't think JSC gives women enough credit. We are pretty strong creatures and can withstand a lot of pain and adversity. It would be a pretty easy decision for me if I were in this situation. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt babies.

I think that's the most sensible take you've ever clacked out with your dick-strokers. Props.

Posted: **Fri Oct 01, 2010 7:36 pm**

trev wrote:I don't think JSC gives women enough credit. We are pretty strong creatures and can withstand a lot of pain and adversity. It would be a pretty easy decision for me if I were in this situation. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt babies.

Even the unholy spawn of a sociopathic criminal and a SoCal drunken hausfrau? Buyer beware.

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:13 am**

Goober McTuber wrote:
trev wrote:I don't think JSC gives women enough credit. We are pretty strong creatures and can withstand a lot of pain and adversity. It would be a pretty easy decision for me if I were in this situation. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt babies.
Even the unholy spawn of a sociopathic criminal and a SoCal drunken hausfrau? Buyer beware.

I'm not a sociopath. Besides it wasn't technically rape. I'm reasonably certain she gave consent. All in all it was a night to remember...I think.

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:22 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
trev wrote:I don't think JSC gives women enough credit. We are pretty strong creatures and can withstand a lot of pain and adversity. It would be a pretty easy decision for me if I were in this situation. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt babies.
Even the unholy spawn of a sociopathic criminal and a SoCal drunken hausfrau? Buyer beware.

Go put your teeth in old man, before you speak.

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 4:29 pm**

OK, perhaps I should’ve suggested that a member of humanitarian society wants to know.

Look, Counselor, I understand how the debate is rationalized, and we could go 20 pages deep beating the same old dead horse. I also appreciate the Developmental Biology refresher, but I can assure you that any organism that has a semblance of a CNS is capable of feeling pain and that the fetus within the womb is indeed human life, regardless of its state of development. The science here is irrefutable. And while we have hundreds of laws abrogating the taking of human life, apparently abortion currently enjoys a free pass. So be it. It’s the law of our land. But that isn’t the point of our discussion, and fwiw, I’m not convinced that half this Board is viable outside the womb either.

I honestly believe the question is best framed by your initial take when you suggested that

…if you believe it is right and proper to kill a fetus, then it should be OK to kill one no matter how it came into existence. If you believe that it is not right and proper to kill a fetus and that such killing must be prohibited, then it should not be OK to kill one no matter how it came into existence.

If we as a benevolent society collectively decide that “it is right and proper to kill a fetus, and ”it should be OK to kill one no matter how it came into existence”, then, by societal caveat, it really shouldn’t matter when the fetus is aborted either. Let me repeat that: If it doesn’t matter how the fetus was created, then it shouldn’t matter when we decide to kill it either. A fetus is a fetus is a fetus, right? I still can’t see how one can arbitrarily draw a line in the sand at 13 weeks and call it good.

Yes, I understand that 90% of abortions take place in the First Trimester, usually because a woman wakes up one morning and discovers, “oh shit, I’m preggers!” But a woman’s life circumstance can change over the course of the ensuing 26 weeks – and she can just flat change her mind. Now, you and I might find a 20 week abortion decision reprehensible, but remember, we as a society decided that it is “right and proper to kill a fetus”. To deny her this right, we will need to change the legal definition of “fetus” at the 14 week mark. “Baby,” anybody?

Another question 88: A woman can walk into an abortion clinic at 18 weeks and abort her baby legally. Yet this same woman could be cut down in a drive-by, resulting in the State charging her killer with TWO murders. Now, how can the life in her womb be simply a fetus in the first scenario, yet considered to be a baby and circumstance to Capital charges filed in the second? Again, I believe the solution lies in your initial take. And it’s a question, I believe, that society as a whole really doesn’t want to address…

Posted: **Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:29 pm**

Truman wrote:Another question 88: A woman can walk into an abortion clinic at 18 weeks and abort her baby legally. Yet this same woman could be cut down in a drive-by, resulting in the State charging her killer with TWO murders. Now, how can the life in her womb be simply a fetus in the first scenario, yet considered to be a baby and circumstance to Capital charges filed in the second? Again, I believe the solution lies in your initial take. And it’s a question, I believe, that society as a whole really doesn’t want to address…

It's pretty much a textbook example of cognitive dissonance.

Posted: **Sun Oct 03, 2010 3:53 am**

trev wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
trev wrote:I don't think JSC gives women enough credit. We are pretty strong creatures and can withstand a lot of pain and adversity. It would be a pretty easy decision for me if I were in this situation. There are plenty of people waiting to adopt babies.
Even the unholy spawn of a sociopathic criminal and a SoCal drunken hausfrau? Buyer beware.
Go put your teeth in old man, before you speak.

Uh, I wasn't speaking, I was typing. Take out your teeth before you suck. Your tips will go way up.

T1B

112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child

Re: 112 GOP candidates want rape victims to bear the child