• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Abortion Ban In South Dakota!

TragicMonkey said:
Yes. I'm so stupid, I think a blasphemy law is a ridiculous thing for a country to have. Especially when someone wants to claim it as a "hotbed of enlightenment".
Click to expand...
Since you are so knowledgable about life in Denmark, perhaps you could enlighten us with how bad, exactly, it is?

Having a useless law that nobody can implement immediately renders everything else moot? We are simply back to the dark ages?

If you consider your own country more enlightened, perhaps you could explain why?

Or do my questions bother you, so you can't be bothered with them?
 
I really can't hold Denmark's blasphemy law against them. Entire books have been written about some of the silly laws and statues on the books in the US.
 
CFLarsen said:
Since you are so knowledgable about life in Denmark, perhaps you could enlighten us with how bad, exactly, it is?

Having a useless law that nobody can implement immediately renders everything else moot? We are simply back to the dark ages?

If you consider your own country more enlightened, perhaps you could explain why?

Or do my questions bother you, so you can't be bothered with them?
Click to expand...

Oh, my, what a pretty series of strawmen!

1. I never claimed to be "so knowledgable about life in Denmark". I merely pointed out the existence of a blasphemy law. Are you denying the existence of this law?

2. Clearly not, because you go on to call it "useless" and say that "nobody can implement immediately", which necessarily implies it does exist. My contention is that having a blasphemy law at all is enough to disqualify a country from running for the title of "Hotbed of Enlightenment". If it's so useless, why don't you get rid of it? Wouldn't a Hotbed of Enlightenment do so?

3. And I didn't claim that my own country was more enlightened, or indeed, enlightened at all.

4. As for your questions "bothering" me, why, dearest Claus, of course they don't. I have among my acquaintance several great aunts, drama queens, and waspish primadonnas, so I am well used to civilized discourse. Speaking of which, I notice that you've stopped swearing at me. How sweet.
 
What goes on inside the woman's body is her business, not some random person's. (Yeah, Paullisone!) If she wants to terminate a pregnancy-fine. If not- no need to force the opinion onto others who are in different situation. I doubt that people who made this anti-abortion crap possible in South Dakota would want to pay child support for all the unwanted kiddies that might result.
 
TimmyBerry said:
What goes on inside the woman's body is her business, not some random person's. (Yeah, Paullisone!) If she wants to terminate a pregnancy-fine. If not- no need to force the opinion onto others who are in different situation. I doubt that people who made this anti-abortion crap possible in South Dakota would want to pay child support for all the unwanted kiddies that might result.
Click to expand...

Dear TimmyBerry,

So, if a mad surgeon stole your newborn baby, and grafted it into the body of a random woman in South Dakota, then it would be "her business" whether she got a ten-minute abortion, or else suffered to carry it for the week (say) the non-mad surgeons would need to extract the child unharmed?

Cpl Ferro
 
CplFerro said:
Dear TimmyBerry,

So, if a mad surgeon stole your newborn baby, and grafted it into the body of a random woman in South Dakota, then it would be "her business" whether she got a ten-minute abortion, or else suffered to carry it for the week (say) the non-mad surgeons would need to extract the child unharmed?

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

What if she was abducted by space aliens and was impregnated by one of their space probes and....
 
CplFerro said:
Dear TimmyBerry,

So, if a mad surgeon stole your newborn baby, and grafted it into the body of a random woman in South Dakota, then it would be "her business" whether she got a ten-minute abortion, or else suffered to carry it for the week (say) the non-mad surgeons would need to extract the child unharmed?

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but the above post doesn't even approach the Outer Borders of the Kingdom of Making Sense.
 
CplFerro said:
Dear TimmyBerry,

So, if a mad surgeon stole your newborn baby, and grafted it into the body of a random woman in South Dakota, then it would be "her business" whether she got a ten-minute abortion, or else suffered to carry it for the week (say) the non-mad surgeons would need to extract the child unharmed?

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...



You know, that is the WORST strawman on the planet.

It doesn't even make sense.

You're banned.
 
Points that are to the left of reality, generally don't do much to further your argument.
 
CplFerro said:
Dear TimmyBerry,

So, if a mad surgeon stole your newborn baby, and grafted it into the body of a random woman in South Dakota, then it would be "her business" whether she got a ten-minute abortion, or else suffered to carry it for the week (say) the non-mad surgeons would need to extract the child unharmed?

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...

Mad surgeon? :rolleyes:

Either way, "grafting" a child into a body of a random (unwilling) woman should be punishable by death! :D (And it would still be her business.)
 
TimmyBerry said:
Mad surgeon? :rolleyes:

Either way, "grafting" a child into a body of a random (unwilling) woman should be punishable by death! :D (And it would still be her business.)
Click to expand...

Dear TimmyBerry,

Okay, now suppose the mad surgeon strikes again and grafts your wife's body onto another woman's body. Which woman has the moral right to murder the other?

Cpl Ferro
 
So much for trying to sleep.

1. What if this "grafting" you're talking about? Last 've heard, it was something done to fruit trees. Not people.
2. One would certainly hope that our "mad surgeon" wouldn't have gotten away from authorities the first time around. Unless by "m.s." you mean "aliens". Which would explain #1 by default.
2a. If I am an alien, wouldn't that make me untouchable?
3. Do not make assumptions about other peoples' sexual orientations, k, lar?
 
CplFerro said:
Dear TimmyBerry,

Okay, now suppose the mad surgeon strikes again and grafts your wife's body onto another woman's body. Which woman has the moral right to murder the other?

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...


I think it should be decided on Pay Per View.
 
CplFerro said:
Dear TimmyBerry,

Okay, now suppose the mad surgeon strikes again and grafts your wife's body onto another woman's body. Which woman has the moral right to murder the other?

Cpl Ferro
Click to expand...


Can we get the mad surgeon to give you a brain?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
If you support the rights of people to make their own choices about when and where they will reproduce, you are pro-choice.
Click to expand...

Do you support that right for me? I'm male.

I've always hated the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" myself. I've never had any problem calling myself pro-abortion.
 
Note to self: There is no point at making elaborately organized arguments when the troll isn't going to reply to them, anyway.
 
Art Vandelay said:
It is dumb only if you accept that abortion is murder.
Click to expand...
No, it's just dumb.

There's nothing dumb about saying that people are free to have opinions about what is murder, but they don't have the right to impose those beliefs on others. If you're Hindu, and you consider killing cows to be murder, you should be free to not kill cows, but you have no right to force others to not kill cows.
Click to expand...
So if you believe killing other humans is murder you should be free to not kill humans but you have no right to force others to not kill humans? Irrational. If Hindu's feel a moral obligation to protect cows then they absolutely should seek to protect cows. This from an avid steak lover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom