• 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.

Texas bans abortion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Armitage72 said:
In order to parody the Texas law, Pennsylvania State Senator Chris Rabb released a memo announcing his intent to propose a bill that would mandate vasectomies for men after they turn 40 or have three children. Bear in mind, this is just a memo. There's no actual bill, and he hasn't even really proposed it.
Click to expand...

I heard about that. Silly and stupid. It fails understand the argument against abortion. Some for like me, it isn't controlling women or interfering with their decisions to what they want with their own bodies. Its about the fact the the decision to abort also affects the fetus/zygote/embryo. Whether or not a man gets a vasectomy only affects him. Btw, if anyone attempted to pass a law requiring women to get a Tubal ligation(tubes tied) at age 40, I would definitely oppose that.
 
acbytesla said:
Seriously Warbler? You're leaning on a 1947 movie about Santa Claus to justify believing without and against the evidence?

Faith is the excuse that people use when they don't have a good reason. Because if they had a good reason they would state the reason instead of appealing to faith. You might as well answer you believe "because."
Click to expand...

1. I don't have to justify my faith to you.
2. The line seems to me to be a good one.
 
Warp12 said:
Talk about crazy logic: "You don't care about children, because you won't pay to raise them. We care a lot more, because we advocate killing the bastards-to-be before they are born."
Click to expand...

cosmicaug said:
You are the one advocating for the use of contraception. You hate "children" so much you won't even allow them the chance to become a zygote. :(
Click to expand...

Obviously attempting to prevent conception is very different from killing the result, especially as the term lengthens. Your argument makes no sense, lol.

Just like the "we are more moral because we kill them before they are born" argument makes no sense. "Yeah, I advocate killing them in the womb, but you won't pay to put them through school". :rolleyes:
 
mgidm86 said:
I just can't understand why any man is staunchly against abortion. Why do you care? Is it really about the fetus to you, really? I just can't bring myself to care, especially so much that I would tell women what to do about it.

I think 99% of anti-choice people lie when they explain why they are against it, even to themselves. I think men don't like having zero control over women when it comes to anything.

And I believe a large percentage of these men would be happy to pay for an abortion if the pregnancy wasn't convenient for them and they could keep it secret.

Tim Murphy, for one

A congressman’s unbearable hypocrisy on abortion



Most men who throw this holier than thou crap around as their reason are liars, especially politicians. Politicians don't care, they just want you to care so you will vote for them. What a con.
Click to expand...

If you look at their actions they do not want to protect fertilized eggs or any human life. It is all about control and punishment. From pro-life to law-n-order to the death penalty. It is a straight arrow.
 
Warp12 said:
Obviously attempting to prevent conception is very different from killing the result, especially as the term lengthens. Your argument makes no sense, lol.

Just like the "we are more moral because we kill them before they are born" argument makes no sense. "Yeah, I advocate killing them in the womb, but you won't pay to put them through school". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Dr. Keith said:
Lol, indeed. See IVF clinics.
Click to expand...

The beauty of this is, I am not in favor of restrictions on early-term abortion. However, it seems you might consider something like IVF losses to be the same as a choice to abort at 20-weeks. LOL, indeed.

ETA: None of this has anything to do with the idea that "abortions are more moral than not paying to fund an unwanted child's schooling", as liberals like to argue.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
1. I don't have to justify my faith to you.
2. The line seems to me to be a good one.
Click to expand...

Common sense is faith in the Wisdom of the Common Man, it's not logical to believe in either Common sense or faith.
Common sense is why we had the Salem Witch TTrials.
Belief in Science and logic has nothing to do with Common sense.
The Rights under the Constitution are the Rights of the Native Born American, that was put in place by the founders of this Nation.
If you believe the Nation was God Inspired, as so many people do, then you have too believe the Constitution was also God Inspired including all rights it gives to Women, and the Freedom of their own Bodies.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
If you believe the Nation was God Inspired, as so many people do, then you have too believe the Constitution was also God Inspired including all rights it gives to Women, and the Freedom of their own Bodies.
Click to expand...

Their "own bodies" are not what the debate is about, for the most part. At least for those who favor some restrictions on abortion, as opposed to none.
 
Dr. Keith said:
If you look at their actions they do not want to protect fertilized eggs or any human life. It is all about control and punishment. From pro-life to law-n-order to the death penalty. It is a straight arrow.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, For the leaders it's more about Fleecing the Flock than protecting the Unborn.
 
Warp12 said:
Their "own bodies" are not what the debate is about, for the most part. At least for those who favor some restrictions on abortion, as opposed to none.
Click to expand...

UNTIL the Life Form within them is capable of life outside of them it is their own Body, I remind you men wouldn't like being Super glued shut and forced to preserve sperm internally, because a Religious doctrine says mastibation
or sex without Marrage was a sin.
The only Question is who's rights are more Important the mother or the Child, in Nature we have several examples that Evolution has always favored the Mother.
The Constitution doesn't grant protection until the Fetus passes though the Birth canal and is born. ROE v Wade was in many ways a compromise decision.
 
Warp12 said:
Their "own bodies" are not what the debate is about, for the most part. At least for those who favor some restrictions on abortion, as opposed to none.
Click to expand...

To you and your ilk, it would indeed seem to be NOT about the woman's body, for she is but an ambulatory incubator.

How did the zygote get there? Via combination of sperm and ovum, the product of two humans, which attached to the wall of a uterus to parasitically develop at the expense of the woman. It was she who was involved in the process, and who faces the consequences.

Your attitude is not far unlike saying God directly put the thing inside her, meaning she no longer has agency over her own body because of divine Will.

And that the woman is the focus of all the control, leaving the man largely free of consequence as far as this American Taliban are concerned, reveals the misogyny that is a large part of the fury.

Don't those busybodies have more worthwhile issues to fret over? Especially those one-issue voters for whom battling abortion is their escape from an obviously unfulfilled life of meanness and envy. And when they're men most particularly.
 
Lurch said:
To you and your ilk, it would indeed seem to be NOT about the woman's body, for she is but an ambulatory incubator.

How did the zygote get there? Via combination of sperm and ovum, the product of two humans, which attached to the wall of a uterus to parasitically develop at the expense of the woman. It was she who was involved in the process, and who faces the consequences.

Your attitude is not far unlike saying God directly put the thing inside her, meaning she no longer has agency over her own body because of divine Will.

And that the woman is the focus of all the control, leaving the man largely free of consequence as far as this American Taliban are concerned, reveals the misogyny that is a large part of the fury.

Don't those busybodies have more worthwhile issues to fret over? Especially those one-issue voters for whom battling abortion is their escape from an obviously unfulfilled life of meanness and envy. And when they're men most particularly.
Click to expand...

I am certain that one or more liberals will endorse your argument. After all, there is no other way, around here. At best, they will remain silent. :D
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Looks are Irelevant, to this conversation, if the life form cannot survive on it's own it's still the mothers body.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, are you saying that the life form is another part of the mother's body or that the mother can decide if her body should continue to house the life form?
 
psionl0 said:
Just to clarify, are you saying that the life form is another part of the mother's body or that the mother can decide if her body should continue to house the life form?
Click to expand...

It is another part of her body until it is born by the Constitution.
 
Warp12 said:
I am certain that one or more liberals will endorse your argument. After all, there is no other way, around here. At best, they will remain silent. :D
Click to expand...

I just love how the so called fighters from freedom want to restrict freedom for others.
 
Warp12 said:
Talk about crazy logic: "You don't care about children, because you won't pay to raise them. We care a lot more, because we advocate killing the bastards-to-be before they are born."
Click to expand...

It's not really about caring and feelings. The practical end says that if a person goes into financial trouble raising kids she should decide. And the fate of children given away is not under your control. Nobody should be forced to have babies just so they can be adopted by someone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom