Abortion bill pass in Kentucky

Delphic Oracle said:
Please enroll yourself in a civics course at your local community college before embarrassing yourself further.
Click to expand...

Take your own advice. Since when is a fetus the sole property of a woman? I don't know of a woman since the virgin Mary who reputedly conceived a child without a dick with sperm involved. Who's rights are involved here? Why do you elevate a woman's right over man who caused that woman to conceive?

Do you see the problem here? The promiscuous nature of the current attitude toward morality is what has caused this to be a problem in the first place. That is what's wrong. It is not a question of women's exclusive right at all except in the case of rape. Seek a guide your own morality before lecturing me on women's rights.
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
Take your own advice. Since when is a fetus the sole property of a woman? I don't know of a woman since the virgin Mary who reputedly conceived a child without a dick with sperm involved. Who's rights are involved here? Why do you elevate a woman's right over man who caused that woman to conceive?
Click to expand...

Oh, I dunno, maybe the fact that she has to carry said fetus for several hard months while he can go and do whatever he wants uninhibited after dumping some genetic material into her body.

I'm not impressed with the effort a man has to put into a making a zygote to consider them to have any rights.
 
Reheat said:
Take your own advice. Since when is a fetus the sole property of a woman? I don't know of a woman since the virgin Mary who reputedly conceived a child without a dick with sperm involved. Who's rights are involved here? Why do you elevate a woman's right over man who caused that woman to conceive?
Do you see the problem here? The promiscuous nature of the current attitude toward morality is what has caused this to be a problem in the first place. That is what's wrong. It is not a question of women's exclusive right at all except in the case of rape. Seek a guide your own morality before lecturing me on women's rights.
Click to expand...

If a man impregnates a woman, and they both agree on an abortion, would you concede their right to make that decision?
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
As far as "like it or leave it" goes, abortion is currently legal, so the people who don't like that are the ones who should leave. I'm sure there are plenty of First World nations that outlaw abortions, they could move to some of those.
Click to expand...

apart from Ireland and Italy? not sure I can think of any as backwards as the u.s.
Women struggled too hard and too long to give up our rights.
 
mikado said:
apart from Ireland and Italy? not sure I can think of any as backwards as the u.s.
Women struggled too hard and too long to give up our rights.
Click to expand...
Actually Ireland's current abortion restrictions are less restrictive than those proposed. And due for further liberalisation.
 
TragicMonkey said:
As far as "like it or leave it" goes, abortion is currently legal, so the people who don't like that are the ones who should leave. I'm sure there are plenty of First World nations that outlaw abortions, they could move to some of those.
Click to expand...


They could, or they could take a trip to a private hospital somewhere that allows abortion.

If they have the money, that is.
What a law like this really does, is to keep the poor in their place. Stop them from getting an education and make sure they have lots of children, that will stay poor too.

Badly timed pregnancy is one of the major ways to screw up the chances of social mobility.

The top of society will have no problems anyway.

Rich white men deciding what poor coloured women should do with their bodies.


I shouldn't worry. I live in a country with free abortion and universal health care.
And the funny thing is, that we have a lower abortion rate and a lower rate of teenage pregnancies.
The answer probably lies in both education and real sex ed in school.
 
Last edited:
Peter i said:
They could, or they could take a trip to a private hospital somewhere that allows abortion.

If they have the money, that is.
What a law like this really does, is to keep the poor in their place. Stop them from getting an education and make sure they have lots of children, that will stay poor too.
Badly timed pregnancy is one of the major ways to screw up the chances of social mobility.

The top of society will have no problems anyway.

Rich white men deciding what poor coloured women should do with their bodies.
Click to expand...

Why do they want to do these things? I'm genuinely curious to know.
 
marplots said:
Why do they want to do these things? I'm genuinely curious to know.
Click to expand...

I would guess they want their own ideas of morality incorporated into the law, regardless of the consequences. You see the same arguments against drug legalization, for those that admit or accept the possibility that it would reduce crime and drug use: "Yes, but we can't make it legal because it's wrong."
 
Reheat said:
Hay, that's an excellent idea. While we're at it maybe the red states should stop the distribution of food to the blue states and also cut off the flow of oil and gas. Does that sound like a good exchange to you?
Click to expand...

I love it when the Ring Wingers throw in false equivalency to try and win points. Lets compare shall we?

When the Federal Government takes money from the Blue States and gives it to the Red ones, the Red States have more money and the Blue less, while getting nothing back in return. They have no choice in what to do with that money. When Blue States buy goods from the Red States, they do have a choice. If the Red States stopped selling good to the Blue States, the Blue States could use the money they aren't spending in the Red States to buy those goods from other sources. The Blue States don't need to buy food and oil and gas from the Red States, there are plenty of Food Producers and Oil and Gas producers that will happily supply those markets.

So basically, yeah, for the Blue States it'd be great. They'd no longer have to subsidize the Red States, and they'd still get what they needed from other sources, possibly cheaper since they could do away with protectionist trade tariffs that do nothing but protect the US Farmer from cheaper overseas competition. This means they'd be better off economically.

You know what, I wouldn't mention it too loud, they might take you up on it.


This is not strictly a religious issue it is a moral one, as well. The US was founded on Judea Christian principles and most of the Country still adheres to those principles.
Click to expand...

Way to contradict yourself. And btw, you're wrong, the US was not founded on Judea Christian principles, but nice try.

If, by the question, one is asking whether the Founding Fathers relied on Protestant Christian principles in drafting the essential documents and in organizing the new governments, then the answer is a resounding "no."

The writings of the period (1765-1790), including speeches, debates, letters, pamphlets, and even sermons, reflect the overwhelming influence of Enlightenment, Whig, and classical republican theories.

The political events of the period also support the conclusion that the founders intended to institute a secular-based form of governance.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/02/living/america-christian-nation/

Some say either like it or leave, but that would not be nice to say here at all. States have the power and authority to do what they just did. End of story...
Click to expand...

I guess when the back lash occurs and liberals take the reins you'll be just as supportive, right?
 
Last edited:
Modified said:
I would guess they want their own ideas of morality incorporated into the law, regardless of the consequences. You see the same arguments against drug legalization, for those that admit or accept the possibility that it would reduce crime and drug use: "Yes, but we can't make it legal because it's wrong."
Click to expand...

That makes more sense. It sounded like these were the objectives of the policy instead of the unavoidable consequences: "What a law like this really does, is to keep the poor in their place. Stop them from getting an education and make sure they have lots of children, that will stay poor too."
 
Reheat said:
Take your own advice. Since when is a fetus the sole property of a woman? I don't know of a woman since the virgin Mary who reputedly conceived a child without a dick with sperm involved. Who's rights are involved here? Why do you elevate a woman's right over man who caused that woman to conceive?
Click to expand...

As was articulated in another reply to this, nature has imposed on women the bulk of the burdens of reproductive responsibility. Get back to me once that disparity has been rectified and not until.

Do you see the problem here? The promiscuous nature of the current attitude toward morality is what has caused this to be a problem in the first place. That is what's wrong. It is not a question of women's exclusive right at all except in the case of rape. Seek a guide your own morality before lecturing me on women's rights.
Click to expand...

That's a mouthful. Too bad there's not a lick of substance to it.

Now I find it interesting that you acknowledge I can have my 'own morality', yet also assert morality is an objective standard that your entire argument rests upon.
 
PhantomWolf said:
And btw, you're wrong, the US was not founded on Judea Christian principles, but nice try.
Click to expand...

Nice try there, indeed. After reading your prose I asked myself. "Hey, maybe he's right." Then I took a dollar bill out of my wallet and examined it closely. After that I began to recall the Pledge of Allegiance and recited the words.

After doing all of that I concluded that what you wrote is just more Full of **** stuff from a Kiwi who doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
Reheat said:
After that I began to recall the Pledge of Allegiance and recited the words.
Click to expand...

14001980244_aafa1a5cee_z.jpg
 
Reheat said:
Nice try there, indeed. After reading your prose I asked myself. "Hey, maybe he's right." Then I took a dollar bill out of my wallet and examined it closely. After that I began to recall the Pledge of Allegiance and recited the words.

After doing all of that I concluded that what you wrote is just more Full of **** stuff from a Kiwi who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

Did an eagle fly into the room, land on the flagpole and shed a single tear?
 
Reheat said:
Nice try there, indeed. After reading your prose I asked myself. "Hey, maybe he's right." Then I took a dollar bill out of my wallet and examined it closely. After that I began to recall the Pledge of Allegiance and recited the words.

After doing all of that I concluded that what you wrote is just more Full of **** stuff from a Kiwi who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

You know, it's kinda sad when a "Kiwi who doesn't know what he's talking about" apparently does know more about the founding of you country than you do.
 
Aren't these the same people who oppose requiring people to buy health insurance?

And yet they think its ok to require women to get an ultra sound and listen to a fetal heartbeat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom