Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2010, 10:07:43 AM

Title: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2010, 10:07:43 AM
This is a better approach to the abortion issue (regardless of how these votes turn out) than relying on some court decision. 

Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
State-by-state campaign aims to cut foundation from Roe v. Wade
Posted: May 30, 2010
9:11 pm Eastern

By Rebekah Falkenstein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

After securing ballot initiatives in Colorado and Mississippi, the nationwide effort to establish state constitutional rights for unborn babies is focused on Montana, where Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are pushing back.

The lead organization in the grass-roots effort, PersonhoodUSA, has until June 18 to secure a spot on Montana's fall election ballot for a state constitutional amendment defining an unborn baby as a person.

The movement that takes aim at the foundation of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision has enjoyed stunning victories, including qualification for an amendment vote in Colorado this fall and in Mississippi in November 2011.

The personhood approach is based on Justice Harry Blackmun's statement in his majority Roe v. Wade opinion. Blackmun said the landmark case would collapse if "the fetus is a person," because the unborn's "right to life would then be guaranteed" by the Constitution.

PersonhoodUSA volunteers are working frantically to collect 48,000 more signatures to meet Montana's June 18 deadline but not without heavy opposition from pro-choice organizations.

Personhood USA co-founder Keith Mason told WND Planned Parenthood has launched a campaign in Montana to call every voter, "telling them this is going to hurt voters and not give women access to healthcare."

It's not the first time PersonhoodUSA has faced opposition in Montana. In 2008, Planned Parenthood staffers came to the state to pass out cards to voters at polling places.

Mason said his group plans to mobilize volunteers for the state's June 8 primary election.

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union "have teamed up," Mason said, to try to keep the personhood amendment off the ballot. "They don't want us to win."

Mason said the abortion-rights organizations have used dubious lawsuits to slow down the Personhood movement in Missouri, Nevada and Alaska.

"For us, if we're in a lawsuit, it's harder for us to mobilize," Mason said.

The personhood activists say their aims are to change laws state-by-state to re-establish the personhood of all Americans, to raise concern over the "dehumanization and murder" of a class of citizens and to encourage state governors and officials to resist federal advocacy for abortion.

WND previously reported Mississippi's Personhood movement overcame Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood's decision to move up the deadline for collecting signatures. Some 130,000 names were submitted to secure a place on the November 2011 ballot.

The Mississippi Personhood Amendment states, "The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof."

Recognition of PersonhoodUSA is skyrocketing across the nation as volunteers seek to gather signatures. As many as 32 states are expected to address some sort of "personhood" vote this year through a constitutional amendment or law.

Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana and Texas are among the states where prolife legislators have signaled their intent to introduce personhood statutes.

In March, Personhood Colorado signature collectors were forced into "overtime," Mason said, after state officials invalidated 20 percent of the names, partly because of an unannounced rule change. But in just 15 days, the activists collected 47,000 additional signatures on top of the 79,000 previously submitted.

The effort in California fell 77,000 signatures short of the 677,000 signatures needed to get on the ballot.

"We are gearing up for 2012," Mason told WND.

"As we look forward to beyond, we are looking forward to a big fight in Mississippi," he said.

An effort also is planned in North Dakota in 2011.

Mason said he is undaunted by the opposition to his movement, noting the power that comes from a grassroots movement the size of Personhood's. "We are getting volunteers on the street, stirring up the pot, and changing the culture," he said.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=160145
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Skip8282 on May 31, 2010, 03:18:45 PM
This is a better approach to the abortion issue (regardless of how these votes turn out) than relying on some court decision. 


I disagree.  I think this is going to cause more problems and just push the issue for endless decades to come.  It essentially suggests that a fetus has rights and those rights may even trump the mothers.  Then there's the whole legal shit that will inevitably follow.  Lawsuits because the mother didn't take the right vitamins or proper supplements or didn't follow proper dietary procedures, etc.  I think it will be a never ending litany of suits, complaints, gripes, and groans.

Why can't they just leave women alone for fucks sake.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: drkaje on May 31, 2010, 04:00:32 PM
People should get more education on Roe vs. Wade before glibly comparing it to stupid causes like this. I realize whoever choses the language usually has the advantage but the case, itself, isn't primarily about abortion like people love to pretend. Without that decision people would lose their decision making rights upon entering the hospital.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: George Whorewell on May 31, 2010, 04:26:13 PM
I agree.

This is a very bad idea.

There is no constitutional right to life for the unborn, nor should there be. This will open up a pandora's box of stupid ideas for equally stupid advocacy groups to seek having the constitution amended for the consitutional right for gay marriage, the right to life of animals/ trees/ rocks, etc. 
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: drkaje on May 31, 2010, 04:30:33 PM
I agree.

This is a very bad idea.

There is no constitutional right to life for the unborn, nor should there be. This will open up a pandora's box of stupid ideas for equally stupid advocacy groups to seek having the constitution amended for the consitutional right for gay marriage, the right to life of animals/ trees/ rocks, etc. 

Maybe the pre-conceived should have rights, too!!

We could legislate financial and health requirements before people are allowed to become parents.  :)
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: George Whorewell on May 31, 2010, 04:35:47 PM
Or chemically castrate and sterilize those with low iq's so they can't reproduce at all.

It's a Brave New World.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2010, 06:09:52 PM

I disagree.  I think this is going to cause more problems and just push the issue for endless decades to come.  It essentially suggests that a fetus has rights and those rights may even trump the mothers.  Then there's the whole legal shit that will inevitably follow.  Lawsuits because the mother didn't take the right vitamins or proper supplements or didn't follow proper dietary procedures, etc.  I think it will be a never ending litany of suits, complaints, gripes, and groans.

Why can't they just leave women alone for fucks sake.

By "they" do you mean the courts, the legislature, or the voters? 

I actually agree with Barbara Bush, who said years ago that there will never be a political solution to the abortion question. 

It's a very complicated issue.  I don't think we should ignore the woman's bodily integrity issue or the fact we're dealing with a baby in the womb.  I'm not sure what the answer is.  But . . . if we're going to pass laws, regardless of what they are, I'd rather have them passed by the voters or our reps, and not by the men/women in black. 
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Skip8282 on May 31, 2010, 06:37:18 PM
By "they" do you mean the courts, the legislature, or the voters? 

I actually agree with Barbara Bush, who said years ago that there will never be a political solution to the abortion question. 

It's a very complicated issue.  I don't think we should ignore the woman's bodily integrity issue or the fact we're dealing with a baby in the womb.  I'm not sure what the answer is.  But . . . if we're going to pass laws, regardless of what they are, I'd rather have them passed by the voters or our reps, and not by the men/women in black. 



Well in my state, the men & women in black are elected by the people so their opinions are just as valid as those of senators, representatives, governors, etc.  I see where you're going with case law, and I'm not typically a fan of judicial activism, but using a constitutional amendment (even at the state level) to define "personhood" will, in my opinion, lead to a plethora of problems and, perhaps, even more case law!

Strange you mention "years ago".  Years ago, I thought the entire debate would be moot due to the continuing advancements in medicine.  Ha, how wrong I was...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: 240 is Back on May 31, 2010, 06:54:03 PM
i'd be okay with paying kids NOT to get pregnant.

If you calculate those most likely to cost society an assload of $ over 19 years.

Pay teenagers $1000 a year to get the 1- year shot, or a clean $6000 to get the 5-year shot/implant they have.

Hell, parents will be lining up those kids to get the free money.  Maybe even offer them $25 grand to be sterilized.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2010, 09:26:38 PM


Well in my state, the men & women in black are elected by the people so their opinions are just as valid as those of senators, representatives, governors, etc.  I see where you're going with case law, and I'm not typically a fan of judicial activism, but using a constitutional amendment (even at the state level) to define "personhood" will, in my opinion, lead to a plethora of problems and, perhaps, even more case law!

Strange you mention "years ago".  Years ago, I thought the entire debate would be moot due to the continuing advancements in medicine.  Ha, how wrong I was...

Even the elected judges are supposed to interpret, not make the law.  But you basically already said that.    

From a practical standpoint, I don't see a problem with defining "personhood."  We already do that.  We have definitions on the books of "person."  We have definitions of death.  Defining when life begins isn't really unusual when you look at it from that angle.  

The debate will never end.  The problem will never be solved.  It will always be a very divisive issue.  
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 01, 2010, 06:39:05 AM

I disagree.  I think this is going to cause more problems and just push the issue for endless decades to come.  It essentially suggests that a fetus has rights and those rights may even trump the mothers.  Then there's the whole legal shit that will inevitably follow.  Lawsuits because the mother didn't take the right vitamins or proper supplements or didn't follow proper dietary procedures, etc.  I think it will be a never ending litany of suits, complaints, gripes, and groans.

Why can't they just leave women alone for fucks sake.

Yes,like the way they leave men alone who may want to enhance their lives with steroids.We should leave women alone the day the filthy government legalises drugs for adults.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 07:55:38 AM
Yes,like the way they leave men alone who may want to enhance their lives with steroids.We should leave women alone the day the filthy government legalises drugs for adults.

great point

I'm sure the day you're allowed to inject steroids at will the anti abortion nut jobs will feel vindicated and stop intimidating women, threatetning and killing abortion doctors, etc...   And of course we all know that taking steroids is basically the same thing as aborting a fetus with severe birth defects
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 01, 2010, 08:02:38 AM
great point

I'm sure the day you're allowed to inject steroids at will the anti abortion nut jobs will feel vindicated and stop intimidating women, threatetning and killing abortion doctors, etc...   And of course we all know that taking steroids is basically the same thing as aborting a fetus with severe birth defects

Please give the stats on what is more dangerous,an abortion or using steroids.So far ZERO deaths EVER directly linked to the use of steroids.Can you say the same for abortions on demand?By the way,just so you know,the estimates I see are that over 85% of abortions are done on perfectly health babies.

How many abortion doctors have been offed by the anti abortion people?I know its two in the last 20 years or so.Wow,3 million abortions a year and two abortion doctors killed over 20 years.Keep trying to jinn up the fear of these scum bag doctors getting shot.You know,those darn tea party people are a soon to be group of McVeighs as well.Lib hysteria gone wild.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 10:28:29 AM
Please give the stats on what is more dangerous,an abortion or using steroids.So far ZERO deaths EVER directly linked to the use of steroids.Can you say the same for abortions on demand?By the way,just so you know,the estimates I see are that over 85% of abortions are done on perfectly health babies.

How many abortion doctors have been offed by the anti abortion people?I know its two in the last 20 years or so.Wow,3 million abortions a year and two abortion doctors killed over 20 years.Keep trying to jinn up the fear of these scum bag doctors getting shot.You know,those darn tea party people are a soon to be group of McVeighs as well.Lib hysteria gone wild.

lol - dude you're utterly clueless

there is no correlation between your access to steroids (and to be clear I don't think there should be any restrictions provided you get them from  a doctor) and a womans access to legal abortion.

btw - aren't you anti abortion and think it's perfectly aceptable to murder doctors who perform abortions
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tu_holmes on June 01, 2010, 10:37:16 AM
More stupid shit... Anyone ever get the numbers for and against pro-choice?

I'm sure it's not 50/50.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 01, 2010, 11:16:33 AM
lol - dude you're utterly clueless

there is no correlation between your access to steroids (and to be clear I don't think there should be any restrictions provided you get them from  a doctor) and a womans access to legal abortion.

btw - aren't you anti abortion and think it's perfectly aceptable to murder doctors who perform abortions

Im anti abortion and celebrate everytime like Slepian or Tiller is gunned down.I find a day to celebrate.But its certainly not aceptable,as those that soot abortion doctors should get the death penalty.

Women can get an abortion ANYTIME she wants.You cant name ONE TIME ever where a women was denied her ability to get an abortion because of anti abortion people.Now,the government has denied my ability to get steroids.Try to get d-bol from a doctor.Try to get winstrol or eq.Our dumb ass government has made these drugs a controlled substance based on nothing.

So,once again,you libs that scream,"WOMEN HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR BODIES" seem to have quite a different view when those rights come to men.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 11:30:46 AM
Billy - pay attention.
I already said I think you should be able to get all the roids you want, provided you get them from a doctor.   

It sounds like in your ideal world all drugs would be legal but abortions would be illegal.

Is that an accurate depiction of your "ideal" world?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Dos Equis on June 01, 2010, 11:37:27 AM
More stupid shit... Anyone ever get the numbers for and against pro-choice?

I'm sure it's not 50/50.

I've posted the numbers numerous times.  The majority of the country is either pro life or favors restrictions on abortions. 
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 01, 2010, 11:44:14 AM
Billy - pay attention.
I already said I think you should be able to get all the roids you want, provided you get them from a doctor.   

It sounds like in your ideal world all drugs would be legal but abortions would be illegal.

Is that an accurate depiction of your "ideal" world?

Sorry,wrong again.NOT ONCE EVER have I said the government get involved in abortion law.I dont want a ban,I dont want a law.You see unlike libs,which love to pick and chose where government can dictate behavior,I dont want government to have a say in ANYTHING of a personal nature as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.So I want:

drugs made legal,NO RESTRICTIONS
abortion legal
gambling legal
prostitution legal
gay marriage legal[frankly I dont care about it]
driving without seat belts legal
no forced helmets for motor cycles
no restrictions on eating,no salt bans etc

etc. etc. I dont want the government to have any say in anything we do as long as the behavior hurts no one else.Abortion ,in the mind of many,kills someone else,but even on that I dont believe in government restrictions.Now,I do a little dance when an abortionist is blasted,but I dont want the government to put them out of buisiness.I want the government to protect the borders[they fail]and fix infastructure [they fail].So the things I want from them they fail at and the things I dont want them to do,they steal our liberty.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 11:48:49 AM
I've posted the numbers numerous times.  The majority of the country is either pro life or favors restrictions on abortions.  

latest Gallup poll is 47% ProLife vs. 45% ProChoice.

They should really change the question to ProLife vs. AntiLife or even better Anti-Choice vs. Pro-Choice.  

I think Anti-Choice vs Pro-Choice would be a more accurate depiction and I'd bet the numbers would then skew toward Pro-Choice

As it stands now the ProLife people are free to not get abortions (and also get one if they change their mind) and the ProChoice people are free to get an abortion (or not get one if they change their mind)

With the current system everyone can get what they want

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128036/new-normal-abortion-americans-pro-life.aspx
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 11:52:02 AM
Sorry,wrong again.NOT ONCE EVER have I said the government get involved in abortion law.I dont want a ban,I dont want a law.You see unlike libs,which love to pick and chose where government can dictate behavior,I dont want government to have a say in ANYTHING of a personal nature as long as it doesnt hurt anyone else.So I want:

drugs made legal,NO RESTRICTIONS
abortion legal
gambling legal
prostitution legal
gay marriage legal[frankly I dont care about it]
driving without seat belts legal
no forced helmets for motor cycles
no restrictions on eating,no salt bans etc

etc. etc. I dont want the government to have any say in anything we do as long as the behavior hurts no one else.Abortion ,in the mind of many,kills someone else,but even on that I dont believe in government restrictions.Now,I do a little dance when an abortionist is blasted,but I dont want the government to put them out of buisiness.I want the government to protect the borders[they fail]and fix infastructure [they fail].So the things I want from them they fail at and the things I dont want them to do,they steal our liberty.


Billy is it possible for you to have an opinion on abortion without dragging anything else into it?

You've already said you're in favor of murdering doctors who perform abortions......YES or NO?

If the answer is YES then why are you in favor of it?

Can you give me a succinct answer to those questions (actually if you answer no then the 2nd question is void)

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 01, 2010, 12:09:46 PM
Billy is it possible for you to have an opinion on abortion without dragging anything else into it?

You've already said you're in favor of murdering doctors who perform abortions......YES or NO?

If the answer is YES then why are you in favor of it?

Can you give me a succinct answer to those questions (actually if you answer no then the 2nd question is void)



Im not sure Id say Im in favor of it.I giggle like a school girl when it happens.However,even pro life people say the only way to end abortions is to change peoples hearts on the issue.Most of these people are religious nuts and think that Jesus will come into the pro abortion peoples heart and change their views.Sorry,Im more realistic.I agree that changing hearts can end abortion,but Im more inclined to think if many abortion doctors are shot to death and clinics are bombed,those doctors that are involved in it,may have a change of heart out of fear that they are next.

So,I wouldnt say Im in favor of people committing murder[and if they do they should get the electric chair],but if they do I wont shed one tear for any abortionist or nurse involved in such a thing,and in the end if they can spread enough terror to the abortion community maybe there wont be anyone left to commit such acts.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 12:16:34 PM
Im not sure Id say Im in favor of it.I giggle like a school girl when it happens.However,even pro life people say the only way to end abortions is to change peoples hearts on the issue.Most of these people are religious nuts and think that Jesus will come into the pro abortion peoples heart and change their views.Sorry,Im more realistic.I agree that changing hearts can end abortion,but Im more inclined to think if many abortion doctors are shot to death and clinics are bombed,those doctors that are involved in it,may have a change of heart out of fear that they are next.

So,I wouldnt say Im in favor of people committing murder[and if they do they should get the electric chair],but if they do I wont shed one tear for any abortionist or nurse involved in such a thing,and in the end if they can spread enough terror to the abortion community maybe there wont be anyone left to commit such acts.

ok, so you "giggle like a school girl" (your own strange depiction - not mine) when a a doctor or nurse is murdered and you're in favor of terorrisms as a tactic against doctors (and presumable you're aware that would included terrorizing woman as well)

will you at least admit that you are against abortion and if so why you are against it.

by "abortion" let's stick with the definition of what is currently legal in the US just to keep the water as clear as possible
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 01, 2010, 12:19:13 PM
ok, so you "giggle like a school girl" (your own strange depiction - not mine) when a a doctor or nurse is murdered and you're in favor of terorrisms as a tactic against doctors (and presumable you're aware that would included terrorizing woman as well)

will you at least admit that you are against abortion and if so why you are against it.

by "abortion" let's stick with the definition of what is currently legal in the US just to keep the water as clear as possible

I believe its the murder of an innocent human being.That starts from the moment of conception.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 12:25:20 PM
I believe its the murder of an innocent human being.That starts from the moment of conception.

ok - I'll ignore the fact that the statement above is merely an opinion and you have no proof when "life" starts.

Let's stick with your belief that abortion is murder.

Are you saying you're OK with murder as long as you also get the following list

So I want:

drugs made legal,NO RESTRICTIONS
abortion legal
gambling legal
prostitution legal
gay marriage legal[frankly I dont care about it]
driving without seat belts legal
no forced helmets for motor cycles
no restrictions on eating,no salt bans etc

Somehow murder is OK as long and you have legal access to all drugs, gay marriage, prostitution etc...?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 01, 2010, 12:36:35 PM
ok - I'll ignore the fact that the statement above is merely an opinion and you have no proof when "life" starts.

Let's stick with your belief that abortion is murder.

Are you saying you're OK with murder as long as you also get the following list

Somehow murder is OK as long and you have legal access to all drugs, gay marriage, prostitution etc...?

The government of the United States and the Supreme Court have determined that abortion is legal.Like you said "you have no proof when life begins".So,I dont think that outlawing it will do any more good then outlawing drugs have done.You would fill jails up with doctors or wannabe doctors and to what end?It still wouldnt stop it just like putting millions in jail for drugs has had done nothing to stop the flow,use or sale of drugs in this country.

So,whats the answer?Change peoples mind on the issue.Im not a religious guy so Im not about to think libs minds can be changed on the issue.I do KNOW for a fact that the only thing people respond to is fear of violence.If enough doctors thought that if they commited abortions their house may be bombed or they will be shot,you would slowly see less and less willing to commit abortions.

Again though,if someone does do violence to someone commting an act that the courts have deemed legal,then they should face the death penalty.But much like death camp doctors in Nazi Germany were commting acts that were perfectly legal and actually forced by the government to commit and were put to death for their crimes,so should abortion doctors doing something the government has called perfectly legal face the same type of end.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 12:42:42 PM
The government of the United States and the Supreme Court have determined that abortion is legal.Like you said "you have no proof when life begins".So,I dont think that outlawing it will do any more good then outlawing drugs have done.You would fill jails up with doctors or wannabe doctors and to what end?It still wouldnt stop it just like putting millions in jail for drugs has had done nothing to stop the flow,use or sale of drugs in this country.

So,whats the answer?Change peoples mind on the issue.Im not a religious guy so Im not about to think libs minds can be changed on the issue.I do KNOW for a fact that the only thing people respond to is fear of violence.If enough doctors thought that if they commited abortions their house may be bombed or they will be shot,you would slowly see less and less willing to commit abortions.

Again though,if someone does do violence to someone commting an act that the courts have deemed legal,then they should face the death penalty.But much like death camp doctors in Nazi Germany were commting acts that were perfectly legal and actually forced by the government to commit and were put to death for their crimes,so should abortion doctors doing something the government has called perfectly legal face the same type of end.

let's save your advocacy of terrorsism for another thread.

You've said that you believe abortion is murder and you've also given a list of things that you think should be legally allowed (some of which obviously already are legal)

Again, are you saying you're in favor of murder as long as you can also have legal access to any drug, prostitution, gay marriage, etc...?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 01, 2010, 01:05:39 PM
let's save your advocacy of terrorsism for another thread.

You've said that you believe abortion is murder and you've also given a list of things that you think should be legally allowed (some of which obviously already are legal)

Again, are you saying you're in favor of murder as long as you can also have legal access to any drug, prostitution, gay marriage, etc...?

The government has spoken on the issue.NONE of the things I said I wanted legal are legal in all 50 states.

I will explain it one more time to you.This is the last time.I dont want the government to pass laws that restrict anyones personal liberty.So even though I and millions believe its murder,there is no way to say with 100% cetainty it is.Therefore for the government to ban it,it becomes an assault on personal liberty.Until they can prove with 100% certainty that it is a viable life then Im not in favor of a law resricting it or any other behavior that doesnt restrict anothers liberty.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 01:21:43 PM
The government has spoken on the issue.NONE of the things I said I wanted legal are legal in all 50 states.

I will explain it one more time to you.This is the last time.I dont want the government to pass laws that restrict anyones personal liberty.So even though I and millions believe its murder,there is no way to say with 100% cetainty it is.Therefore for the government to ban it,it becomes an assault on personal libertyUntil they can prove with 100% certainty that it is a viable life then Im not in favor of a law resricting it or any other behavior that doesnt restrict anothers liberty.

I'm pretty sure abortion is legal in all 50 states and I'm certain you can go to all 50 states and eat as much food and salt as you want.  

So, just to review:   banning abortion is an assault on personal liberty and yet you believe abortion is also murder but then you also believe that murder is OK as long as you also get all the other shit that you want.  

Also, although you personally believe that abortion is murder you also think restricting it is a assault  on anothers liberty but at the same time you advocate terrorizing doctors (and by extension all women) as a way for them to prevent them from exercising that personal liberaty that you're in favor of for yourself

Do I understand your position correctly?

btw - your viable life question is easy - take out the cluster of cells and if it lives then we know that's the viable age but if it dies then we know it's not viable.    Keep doing that until the point where the thing doesn't die and then we'll call that the "viable" age.    If that's too harsh for you then we can just go with our current defintion of viable.  

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tu_holmes on June 01, 2010, 01:29:14 PM
I've posted the numbers numerous times.  The majority of the country is either pro life or favors restrictions on abortions. 

See when you add "favors restrictions", of course that's the majority... If you look at the actual polls though, as far as pro-life or pro-choice, most of the "restriction" people consider themselves pro-choice.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Dos Equis on June 01, 2010, 01:37:56 PM
See when you add "favors restrictions", of course that's the majority... If you look at the actual polls though, as far as pro-life or pro-choice, most of the "restriction" people consider themselves pro-choice.

Gallup Poll. May 3-6, 2010. N=1,029 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
               
"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"

Pro-life:  47 percent
Pro-choice:  45 percent. 
   
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 01, 2010, 01:38:44 PM
I'm pretty sure abortion is legal in all 50 states and I'm certain you can go to all 50 states and eat as much food and salt as you want.  

So, just to review:   banning abortion is an assault on personal liberty and yet you believe abortion is also murder but then you also believe that murder is OK as long as you also get all the other shit that you want.  

Also, although you personally believe that abortion is murder you also think restricting it is a assault  on anothers liberty but at the same time you advocate terrorizing doctors (and by extension all women) as a way for them to prevent them from exercising that personal liberaty that you're in favor of for yourself

Do I understand your position correctly?

btw - your viable life question is easy - take out the cluster of cells and if it lives then we know that's the viable age but if it dies then we know it's not viable.    Keep doing that until the point where the thing doesn't die and then we'll call that the "viable" age.    If that's too harsh for you then we can just go with our current defintion of viable.  



New York city has instituted restrictions on salt in resturaunts so your wrong and that stupid skank Michelle "IM A TRANNY: Obama wants more restrictions.

As far as viable.If thats your definition then I assume your for pulling the plug on anyone thats being kept alive on machines.Because if you unplug those machines then they die.

Your post is foolish.There is a very real difference between the government restricting freedoms and an individual violating laws that he will be found guilty of and punnished for.Even terrorism wouldnt guarantee that they would be restricted from doing anything they wanted.BUT government passing laws which the constitution NEVER gave them a right to pass does gurantee that your liberty is gone.

I dont think abortion is ok.But I also dont want the government taking away personal liberty.If a women wants an abortion then the government says its fine.If I want to use EQ the same government says I cant because...well,they have never actually given a reason.So,just because I think its murder,the courts have ruled its not.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Skip8282 on June 01, 2010, 02:40:42 PM
Yes,like the way they leave men alone who may want to enhance their lives with steroids.We should leave women alone the day the filthy government legalises drugs for adults.


Yes, I agree they should leave men alone.  But, two wrongs aren't going to make it right.  Holding out until men can do with their bodies as they please is not the answer in my opinion.  Give women the right to do with their bodies as they please, and, when the steriod issue comes up, fight for men to get their rights.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 02:45:56 PM
Gallup Poll. May 3-6, 2010. N=1,029 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
               
"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"

Pro-life:  47 percent
Pro-choice:  45 percent. 
   
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

don't you think it would be more fair to pose the question as Pro Choice or Anti Choice.   Aren't those the actual opposite positions?

One group wants women to have a choice and the other group does not want women to have a choice
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 03:23:10 PM
New York city has instituted restrictions on salt in resturaunts so your wrong and that stupid skank Michelle "IM A TRANNY: Obama wants more restrictions.

As far as viable.If thats your definition then I assume your for pulling the plug on anyone thats being kept alive on machines.Because if you unplug those machines then they die.

Your post is foolish.There is a very real difference between the government restricting freedoms and an individual violating laws that he will be found guilty of and punnished for.Even terrorism wouldnt guarantee that they would be restricted from doing anything they wanted.BUT government passing laws which the constitution NEVER gave them a right to pass does gurantee that your liberty is gone.

I dont think abortion is ok.But I also dont want the government taking away personal liberty.If a women wants an abortion then the government says its fine.If I want to use EQ the same government says I cant because...well,they have never actually given a reason.So,just because I think its murder,the courts have ruled its not.

Billy - I've tried to understand your point of view for the last 2 pages and I swear it somehow makes less sense the more you try to explain it.

First, this has nothing to do with salt in restaurants.  You can consume all the salt and food you want in the state of New York and if you can't get what you want in a restaurant there is nothing stopping you from adding your own salt. 

Here's what we know so far:

1.  You're against abortion because you think it's murder
2.  You laugh like a school girl when a doctor who performs abortions is murdered.
3.  You think you (and people who think like you) are justified in terrorizing doctors and women who are exercising their own liberty and taking fully legal actions that you don't agree with but you also agree those people (the murders and terrorist) should be punished ( I think you said given the electric chair in the event of murder)

OK - a bit nutty but so far relatively consistent but then you also seem to believe the following

4.  Until the government can prove with 100% certainty when life is viable then they should not restrict anyone access to abortion 
5.  Here's where I get lost -   #'s 1 thru 4 are all still true ( to you)  but if the government gives you legal access to any drugs (presumably you're mostly intgerested in steroid which you claim to have been on virtually continuously for 20+ yuears) , gay marriage, prostitutes and salt then abortion, though still murder  (to you ) should be allowed/legal .


I think I can sum up your postion as follows:

Abortion (aka "murder" to you) is  legal therefore you should be able to legally obtain any drug you want, get gay married and legally retain the services of prostitutes and also consume as much food and salt as you'd like

until that happens our country is unfair and restricting your liberty
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: drkaje on June 01, 2010, 03:55:16 PM
The pre-pre-born babies swimming around in my nutsack are entitled to a Ferrari and millions of dollars.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 01, 2010, 09:28:30 PM
The pre-pre-born babies swimming around in my nutsack are entitled to a Ferrari and millions of dollars.

I think that's a stretch but they probably deserve some tax cuts once they are viable outside the womb

fetuses are already taxed too much

I know the majority of the fetus vote is against any type of publicy funded healthcare
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: drkaje on June 02, 2010, 03:40:44 AM
I think that's a stretch but they probably deserve some tax cuts once they are viable outside the womb

fetuses are already taxed too much

I know the majority of the fetus vote is against any type of publicy funded healthcare

I want pre-tax credits, dammit!! :)

Why stop foolishness at some arbitrary point? Especially if doing so would rob my pre-half-fetuses of monies and benefits.

They want to vote, too!
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 02, 2010, 08:22:38 AM
Billy - I've tried to understand your point of view for the last 2 pages and I swear it somehow makes less sense the more you try to explain it.

First, this has nothing to do with salt in restaurants.  You can consume all the salt and food you want in the state of New York and if you can't get what you want in a restaurant there is nothing stopping you from adding your own salt. 

Here's what we know so far:

1.  You're against abortion because you think it's murder
2.  You laugh like a school girl when a doctor who performs abortions is murdered.
3.  You think you (and people who think like you) are justified in terrorizing doctors and women who are exercising their own liberty and taking fully legal actions that you don't agree with but you also agree those people (the murders and terrorist) should be punished ( I think you said given the electric chair in the event of murder)

OK - a bit nutty but so far relatively consistent but then you also seem to believe the following

4.  Until the government can prove with 100% certainty when life is viable then they should not restrict anyone access to abortion 
5.  Here's where I get lost -   #'s 1 thru 4 are all still true ( to you)  but if the government gives you legal access to any drugs (presumably you're mostly intgerested in steroid which you claim to have been on virtually continuously for 20+ yuears) , gay marriage, prostitutes and salt then abortion, though still murder  (to you ) should be allowed/legal .


I think I can sum up your postion as follows:

Abortion (aka "murder" to you) is  legal therefore you should be able to legally obtain any drug you want, get gay married and legally retain the services of prostitutes and also consume as much food and salt as you'd like

until that happens our country is unfair and restricting your liberty

Lets say in 2012 we have overwhelming republican majorities in the house and senate and a republican president.They pass a law outlawing abortions that the supreme court up holds.

Do you think that will stop ONE abortion?I dont.You see,I think ANYTHING the government does is a failure.They once banned drinking,there were more drunks then ever.They banned drugs,more drugs then ever.They have a war on poverty there are more poor living in worse situations then ever.If they ban bad foods like Obama wants to there will be more fat people then ever.

The government is a failure.If they ban abortion,there will not be one less abortion,and those getting them will be in more danger then they are now.So,I believe its the killing of an innocent child.But the filthy government cant stop it,make it less prominant just like they cant stop anything else they try to stop.

So,your right,I think the filthy ,disgusting waste of time and money, failed government picks and chooses who gets liberty,what type of liberty and when you get it and its pretty sad that we have allowed it.The very same idiots like Joe Biden who scream that "STEROIDS MUST BE BANNED" are the very same ones that scream "A WOMEN HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT SHE WANTS WITH HER BODY".I find that quite mind numbing.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 08:37:54 AM
Lets say in 2012 we have overwhelming republican majorities in the house and senate and a republican president.They pass a law outlawing abortions that the supreme court up holds.

Do you think that will stop ONE abortion?I dont.You see,I think ANYTHING the government does is a failure.They once banned drinking,there were more drunks then ever.They banned drugs,more drugs then ever.They have a war on poverty there are more poor living in worse situations then ever.If they ban bad foods like Obama wants to there will be more fat people then ever.

The government is a failure.If they ban abortion,there will not be one less abortion,and those getting them will be in more danger then they are now.So,I believe its the killing of an innocent child.But the filthy government cant stop it,make it less prominant just like they cant stop anything else they try to stop.

So,your right,I think the filthy ,disgusting waste of time and money, failed government picks and chooses who gets liberty,what type of liberty and when you get it and its pretty sad that we have allowed it.The very same idiots like Joe Biden who scream that "STEROIDS MUST BE BANNED" are the very same ones that scream "A WOMEN HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT SHE WANTS WITH HER BODY".I find that quite mind numbing.
[/b][/size]

I does appear that your mind is numb

If you truly believe that abortion is murder then how can you be ok with it provided you get your roids and salt and gay marriage?

Is every politial/social issue just a foil for you to argue for unfettered access to all the steroids you want.   

Haven't you taken steroids virtually withouut a break for the last 20 years?

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 02, 2010, 08:54:08 AM
[/b][/size]

I does appear that your mind is numb

If you truly believe that abortion is murder then how can you be ok with it provided you get your roids and salt and gay marriage?

Is every politial/social issue just a foil for you to argue for unfettered access to all the steroids you want.   

Haven't you taken steroids virtually withouut a break for the last 20 years?



Did I say Im ok with it as long as drugs are legal?Drugs aren't legal now and I don't want the filthy government to ban abortion.Not sure why you keep saying it.Abortion CANT BE STOPPED!!!The government went from making steroids a midimeaner,to making d-bol a controlled substance to making all steroids a controlled substance to adding pro hormones as controlled substances .Has it stopped steroid use?In fact,its estimated that as many as 7 million people are using steroids in this country.So,once again,the government bans something,it multiplies the activity.As with everything,the government fails.

Imagine if they banned abortion.We have 3 million a year now,it would jump to 6 million and many would be done by butchers.Sorry,government CANT DO ANYTHING RIGHT.But legalising steroids has nothing to do with abortion unless you mean the total hypocrisy of claiming that your for a women having the right to do what she wants with her body but restrict a man from that same right.

Now,I don't care about gay marriage.I'm married to a women and have been for twenty years.You?But once again,the government banning it makes no sense.YES!!!!!!!!!!I have used steroids since 1987.This is a weight lifting site,is that a shocking revelation that there are guys on here who use steroids?Hey,guess what?People who compete use steroids,I know it may come as a shock to you.But the governments ban has done NOTHING to stop it.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: LurkerNoMore on June 02, 2010, 08:59:38 AM
Billy - I've tried to understand your point of view for the last 2 pages and I swear it somehow makes less sense the more you try to explain it.

First, this has nothing to do with salt in restaurants.  You can consume all the salt and food you want in the state of New York and if you can't get what you want in a restaurant there is nothing stopping you from adding your own salt. 

Here's what we know so far:

1.  You're against abortion because you think it's murder
2.  You laugh like a school girl when a doctor who performs abortions is murdered.
3.  You think you (and people who think like you) are justified in terrorizing doctors and women who are exercising their own liberty and taking fully legal actions that you don't agree with but you also agree those people (the murders and terrorist) should be punished ( I think you said given the electric chair in the event of murder)

OK - a bit nutty but so far relatively consistent but then you also seem to believe the following

4.  Until the government can prove with 100% certainty when life is viable then they should not restrict anyone access to abortion 
5.  Here's where I get lost -   #'s 1 thru 4 are all still true ( to you)  but if the government gives you legal access to any drugs (presumably you're mostly intgerested in steroid which you claim to have been on virtually continuously for 20+ yuears) , gay marriage, prostitutes and salt then abortion, though still murder  (to you ) should be allowed/legal .


I think I can sum up your postion as follows:

Abortion (aka "murder" to you) is  legal therefore you should be able to legally obtain any drug you want, get gay married and legally retain the services of prostitutes and also consume as much food and salt as you'd like

until that happens our country is unfair and restricting your liberty


LOL!!

Let his rant wear off and he will make sense in a minute.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 09:17:44 AM
Did I say Im ok with it as long as drugs are legal?Drugs aren't legal now and I don't want the filthy government to ban abortion.Not sure why you keep saying it.Abortion CANT BE STOPPED!!!The government went from making steroids a midimeaner,to making d-bol a controlled substance to making all steroids a controlled substance to adding pro hormones as controlled substances .Has it stopped steroid use?In fact,its estimated that as many as 7 million people are using steroids in this country.So,once again,the government bans something,it multiplies the activity.As with everything,the government fails.

Imagine if they banned abortion.We have 3 million a year now,it would jump to 6 million and many would be done by butchers.Sorry,government CANT DO ANYTHING RIGHT.But legalising steroids has nothing to do with abortion unless you mean the total hypocrisy of claiming that your for a women having the right to do what she wants with her body but restrict a man from that same right.

Now,I don't care about gay marriage.I'm married to a women and have been for twenty years.You?But once again,the government banning it makes no sense.YES!!!!!!!!!!I have used steroids since 1987.This is a weight lifting site,is that a shocking revelation that there are guys on here who use steroids?Hey,guess what?People who compete use steroids,I know it may come as a shock to you.But the governments ban has done NOTHING to stop it.

Thank Jebus you can still get your hands on steroids

stil though, you believe abortion is murder but you don't think the governement should have any laws against it.

What are your views on post birth abortion.....you know just regular old murder. 
Shouldn't the filthly incompetent government keep out of that too.   Since you're for the legalization of all drugs should the filthy disgusting incompentent government have any say in that at all or should we just allow anyone to sell drugs anywhere and anytime.   Maybe on the playground at school. 
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: drkaje on June 02, 2010, 09:38:05 AM
Thank Jebus you can still get your hands on steroids

stil though, you believe abortion is murder but you don't think the governement should have any laws against it.

What are your views on post birth abortion.....you know just regular old murder. 
Shouldn't the filthly incompetent government keep out of that too.   Since you're for the legalization of all drugs should the filthy disgusting incompentent government have any say in that at all or should we just allow anyone to sell drugs anywhere and anytime.   Maybe on the playground at school. 

I wonder what people here think about abortions done on Muslims?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 02, 2010, 09:40:48 AM
Thank Jebus you can still get your hands on steroids

stil though, you believe abortion is murder but you don't think the governement should have any laws against it.

What are your views on post birth abortion.....you know just regular old murder. 
Shouldn't the filthly incompetent government keep out of that too.   Since you're for the legalization of all drugs should the filthy disgusting incompentent government have any say in that at all or should we just allow anyone to sell drugs anywhere and anytime.   Maybe on the playground at school. 

Hmmm,I thought I said I was against the government taking liberty from people and made it a point to say as long as the behavior doesnt hurt others.Now,Ive also said I BELIEVE ABORTION IS MURDER but you dont and libs dont.So,unlike libs,I dont try to jam my views down others throats.So,since we cant prove when its a life Im not for the banning of it.Its very very simple.

YES I can get steroids but I have to break laws to do it.Why?Does it hurt you or anyone else if I use steroids.Nope,in fact it doesnt even hurt myself,but of course we have experts like Joe Biden and Henry Waxman who are expersts on the subject based on their vast medical training and intense study of steroids so they had to ban them.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 09:51:23 AM
Hmmm,I thought I said I was against the government taking liberty from people and made it a point to say as long as the behavior doesnt hurt others.Now,Ive also said I BELIEVE ABORTION IS MURDER but you dont and libs dont.So,unlike libs,I dont try to jam my views down others throats.So,since we cant prove when its a life Im not for the banning of it.Its very very simple.

YES I can get steroids but I have to break laws to do it.Why?Does it hurt you or anyone else if I use steroids.Nope,in fact it doesnt even hurt myself,but of course we have experts like Joe Biden and Henry Waxman who are expersts on the subject based on their vast medical training and intense study of steroids so they had to ban them.

if abortion is murder then isn't it hurting someone else (the murdered baby).

the current legal structure allows people who are against abortion to choose not to have one so how is that "jamming" views down someones throat.  Anti Choice people are completely free to not get abortions
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 09:55:21 AM
I wonder what people here think about abortions done on Muslims?

they haven't accepted Jebus as their personal saviour so they're all going to hell anyway so I guess it probably doesn't really matter either way
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: BM OUT on June 02, 2010, 10:08:09 AM
if abortion is murder then isn't it hurting someone else (the murdered baby).

the current legal structure allows people who are against abortion to choose not to have one so how is that "jamming" views down someones throat.  Anti Choice people are completely free to not get abortions

Jesus,I said I BELIEVE its murder.Do you?Do your fellow libs?So,should the country base the laws on my opinion?

Libs jam their views down our throats by passing bullshit laws like hate crime legislation.Somehow these lib idiots can read the mind of criminals and know that the crime they are commting are based on racist thoughts.However,they cant quite seem to see black panthers swinging weapons outside of polling places and screaming at whites "now you will know what its like to be ruled by a black man ,cracker".Somehow that doesnt rise to hate crime level.

Thats how libs jam THEIR morals on everyone,not just abortion laws.Anything THEY see as offensive,they make pass a law to stop it.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 10:14:09 AM
if abortion is murder then isn't it hurting someone else (the murdered baby).

the current legal structure allows people who are against abortion to choose not to have one so how is that "jamming" views down someones throat.  Anti Choice people are completely free to not get abortions
actually the current legal structure does not allow ppl to choose abortion or not, it allows women to choose abortion or not...MEN still have no say in matter at all  >:( ;)

straw: "its her body, its her choice"
tony: "I agree its her body, so she should be the only one effected by her choice"
straw: "BLAH BLAH BLAH...jebus, jebus, jebus..."
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 10:16:59 AM
actually the current legal structure does not allow ppl to choose abortion or not, it allows women to choose abortion or not...MEN still have no say in matter at all  >:( ;)

straw: "its her body, its her choice"
tony: "I agree its her body, so she should be the only one effected by her choice"
straw: "BLAH BLAH BLAH...jebus, jebus, jebus..."

find out a way to get pregnant and carry a baby and then you'll get a choice
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 10:23:06 AM
actually the current legal structure does not allow ppl to choose abortion or not, it allows women to choose abortion or not...MEN still have no say in matter at all  >:( ;)

straw: "its her body, its her choice"
tony: "I agree its her body, so she should be the only one effected by her choice"
straw: "BLAH BLAH BLAH...jebus, jebus, jebus..."

you also have the choice to use a condom and also the choice to not have sex.

the choices for both you and the woman begin and end with your own bodies.

pretty simple and easy to understand isn't it?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: kcballer on June 02, 2010, 10:25:08 AM
Soon you won't be able to jack off without some 'ownership' or rights going to the sperm.  You'll be arrested for 'endangering their welfare'  ::)
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 10:29:41 AM
you also have the choice to use a condom and also the choice to not have sex.

the choices for both you and the woman begin and end with your own bodies.

pretty simple and easy to understand isn't it?
I agree and they should only effect the person who decides them not other parties that have no say...

Id say its pretty simple and easy to understand that?

she has all the same options a guy has, why does she get one more? b/c its her body which I can agree with but since its only her body and only her choice, why hold the guy responsible for her choice?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 10:36:41 AM
I agree and they should only effect the person who decides them not other parties that have no say...

Id say its pretty simple and easy to understand that?

she has all the same options a guy has, why does she get one more? b/c its her body which I can agree with but since its only her body and only her choice, why hold the guy responsible for her choice?

I assume you mean why hold the guy financially responsible for his own child?

if you really need an answer to that question you should ask your parents
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 10:48:08 AM
I assume you mean why hold the guy financially responsible for his own child?

if you really need an answer to that question you should ask your parents
LOL well thats something that the guy and girl need to take into account before having unprotected sex and something the women needs to take into account when SHE has the decision to have an abortion or not...holding someone else responsible for another persons decision is assinine...

thats like saying that a women cant have an abortion b/c the man doesnt want her to  ::)

but your idiocy and lack of logic is undoubtedly blocking you from seeing the inequality in rights in this situation...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 10:55:58 AM
LOL well thats something that the guy and girl need to take into account before having unprotected sex and something the women needs to take into account when SHE has the decision to have an abortion or not...holding someone else responsible for another persons decision is assinine...

thats like saying that a women cant have an abortion b/c the man doesnt want her to  ::)

but your idiocy and lack of logic is undoubtedly blocking you from seeing the inequality in rights in this situation...

LOL !

ok Logic Master

whatever you say

you seem to understand it all the way up to the point of having to support the child

if you don't want to support your own child then I guess you want the tax payer to support your kid

like I said, if you really don't understand why you should support your own kid (regardless of the law) then you really should have a serious talk with your parents.   
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: kcballer on June 02, 2010, 10:56:55 AM
A man has no more right to force a woman to get an abortion than a woman does forcing a man to get a vasectomy.

It's that simple.  There is not inequality at all.  Trying to find some basis of one is not only mindnumbingly foolish, it's also incorrect.  What is in a womans body is hers and if you happen to have a genetic say in the child then you will and are legally responsible.  The woman because it's her body can decide what course of action she will take.  

This isn't even an issue of national relevance.  There are far more children abandoned by dead beat fathers in this country.  Lets focus on that issue as it's more widespread and more destructive to our society.  
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 11:01:15 AM
LOL !

ok Logic Master

whatever you say

you seem to understand it all the way up to the point of having to support the child

if you don't want to support your own child then I guess you want the tax payer to support your kid

like I said, if you really don't understand why you should support your own kid (regardless of the law) then you really should have a serious talk with your parents.   
when did I say I wouldnt support my kid? LOL another great leap of logic on your part  ;)

point is if it is her choice then she and she alone should bear the responsibiity of the actions...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tu_holmes on June 02, 2010, 11:04:08 AM
when did I say I wouldnt support my kid? LOL another great leap of logic on your part  ;)

point is if it is her choice then she and she alone should bear the responsibiity of the actions...

Tony is 100 percent correct in my estimate.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 11:04:08 AM
when did I say I wouldnt support my kid? LOL another great leap of logic on your part  ;)

point is if it is her choice then she and she alone should bear the responsibiity of the actions...

way to contradict yourself in only two sentences

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 11:04:37 AM
A man has no more right to force a woman to get an abortion than a woman does forcing a man to get a vasectomy.

It's that simple.  There is not inequality at all.  Trying to find some basis of one is not only mindnumbingly foolish, it's also incorrect.  What is in a womans body is hers and if you happen to have a genetic say in the child then you will and are legally responsible.  The woman because it's her body can decide what course of action she will take.  

This isn't even an issue of national relevance.  There are far more children abandoned by dead beat fathers in this country.  Lets focus on that issue as it's more widespread and more destructive to our society.  
LOL there are more and more law suits every year about this so obviously there is some basis here. I agree she can decide what course of action but you still havent given any good argument for why the man has a say after but not before...you say that its b/c its his genetic contribution...is it still not his genetic contribution while its in her? or does it magically become only his genetic contribution after birth?  ;)

logic its a bitch for morons...

and I agree that this isnt a pressing concern but its just annoying as hell to see hypocrisey...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 11:06:57 AM
way to contradict yourself in only two sentences


LMAO another fail in your logic...just b/c i feel that women who get pregnant should be prepared to bear the entire responsibility of her actions DOESNT mean that I feel that men shouldnt take care of their children...

YOU SEE the difference is I believe they should get a choice JUST LIKE WOMEN DOOOO

I would choose to take care of my children...so how did i contradict myself?

yet again more failed logic from you  ;)
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 11:08:13 AM
LMAO another fail in your logic...just b/c i feel that women who get pregnant should be prepared to bear the entire responsibility of her actions DOESNT mean that I feel that men shouldnt take care of their children...
YOU SEE the difference is I believe they should get a choice JUST LIKE WOMEN DOOOO

I would choose to take care of my children...so how did i contradict myself?

yet again more failed logic from you  ;)

so if you think that men should take care of their children then what is your point?

what exactly are you bitching about?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 11:11:31 AM
so if you think that men should take care of their children then what is your point?

what exactly are you bitching about?
OMG youre dense as shit

my point is they should get a choice...just like women do, this doesnt mean im for men being dead beat fathers

your logic is that its her body and her fetus to do with what she wants, correct?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 11:14:20 AM
OMG youre dense as shit

my point is they should get a choice...just like women do, this doesnt mean im for men being dead beat fathers

your logic is that its her body and her fetus to do with what she wants, correct?

you make all the choices for your body and she makes the choices for her body.

If a child is born then both parents need to be responsible for that kid

what part of that don't you agree with?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tu_holmes on June 02, 2010, 11:19:37 AM
you make all the choices for your body and she makes the choices for her body.

If a child is born then both parents need to be responsible for that kid

what part of that don't you agree with?

Shouldn't the fetus' body should be both of their responsibility?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 11:28:02 AM
you make all the choices for your body and she makes the choices for her body.

If a child is born then both parents need to be responsible for that kid

what part of that don't you agree with?
the problem is its not just her body...there is a fetus...now is the fetus hers or both of theirs?

if its hers then she and she alone should bear the responsibility of her choice...if its both of theirs then why doesnt the man get an equal choice?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: kcballer on June 02, 2010, 11:34:57 AM
LOL there are more and more law suits every year about this so obviously there is some basis here. I agree she can decide what course of action but you still havent given any good argument for why the man has a say after but not before...you say that its b/c its his genetic contribution...is it still not his genetic contribution while its in her? or does it magically become only his genetic contribution after birth?  ;)

logic its a bitch for morons...

and I agree that this isnt a pressing concern but its just annoying as hell to see hypocrisey...

Uh it doesn't 'magically' become his, it is his.  Once a child is born it is the legal responsibility of both parents. 
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 02, 2010, 11:35:18 AM
you also have the choice to use a condom and also the choice to not have sex.

the choices for both you and the woman begin and end with your own bodies.

pretty simple and easy to understand isn't it?

I wish most gays who contract aids understood that and stopped going on medicaid and sticking the taxpayer with the tab for the reckless lifestyles.  
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 11:37:13 AM
Uh it doesn't 'magically' become his, it is his.  Once a child is born it is the legal responsibility of both parents. 
if it is his then why doesnt he get any say in it?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 11:40:23 AM
Uh it doesn't 'magically' become his, it is his.  Once a child is born it is the legal responsibility of both parents. 
the problem is its not just her body...there is a fetus...now is the fetus hers or both of theirs?

if its hers then she and she alone should bear the responsibility of her choice...if its both of theirs then why doesnt the man get an equal choice?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 11:48:02 AM
the problem is its not just her body...there is a fetus...now is the fetus hers or both of theirs?

if its hers then she and she alone should bear the responsibility of her choice...if its both of theirs then why doesnt the man get an equal choice?
tony - did you miss health class in middle school ?

The fetus is part of the womans body
If a living kid pops out then its the responsility of both (but we already agree on that right?)
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 11:56:08 AM
tony - did you miss health class in middle school ?

The fetus is part of the womans body
If a living kid pops out then its the responsility of both (but we already agree on that right?)
ok so why is the man repsonsible for something that is soley the womans?

I do not agree its the responsibility of both(i agree that is should be), right now it should only be the responsibility of the women as you pointed out its hers and part of her body...what makes you think the man should have legal responsibility to the child? obviously the woman has a choice to bear legal responsibiity to the child b/c its hers and hers alone

if the man bears legal responsibility to the child why does he not bear legal responsibility to the fetus? is it not half his?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 11:59:49 AM
tony - did you miss health class in middle school ?

The fetus is part of the womans body
If a living kid pops out then its the responsility of both (but we already agree on that right?)
you didnt answer my question...my question was is the fetus hers or does it belong to both of them?

if it is hers than she and she alone should have say over what happens to it and SHE AND SHE ALONE should take responsibility over her property...

if its both of theirs then they should both get a say...

the fetus doesnt magically become both of theirs after birth, it was either hers or theirs all along...which one is it?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 03:22:05 PM
you didnt answer my question...my question was is the fetus hers or does it belong to both of them?

if it is hers than she and she alone should have say over what happens to it and SHE AND SHE ALONE should take responsibility over her property...

if its both of theirs then they should both get a say...

the fetus doesnt magically become both of theirs after birth, it was either hers or theirs all along...which one is it?
sorry Tony, I forgot how easily you get confused
Fetus grows inside the mommies womb and is part of her body which is hers.  Once rhe baby pops out now its the responsibility of the mommy and daddy.   No magic involved but if still confused you should call your own parents
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 06:18:27 PM
sorry Tony, I forgot how easily you get confused
Fetus grows inside the mommies womb and is part of her body which is hers.  Once rhe baby pops out now its the responsibility of the mommy and daddy.   No magic involved but if still confused you should call your own parents
and what logical reason do you have to say that its hers at one point and theirs at another? why does ownership change?

what makes it his responsibility straw?

LMAO this is where you get stupid...stupider  ;)
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 07:51:12 PM
and what logical reason do you have to say that its hers at one point and theirs at another? why does ownership change?

what makes it his responsibility straw?

LMAO this is where you get stupid...stupider  ;)

Classic

you're an adult you appears to not understand how babies are made and you're calling me stupid

how many times are you going to ask me the same questions

seriously man, you should go read a book or ask a doctor these questions if you really don't undersand
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 07:57:29 PM
Classic

you're an adult you appears to not understand how babies are made and you're calling me stupid

how many times are you going to ask me the same questions

seriously man, you should go read a book or ask a doctor these questions if you really don't undersand
answer the question straw...why is it the mans responsibility?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 08:02:52 PM
answer the question straw...why is it the mans responsibility?

sorry Tony no time for dumb questions tonight.

you're not my child and I have not time tonight for you

If you don't know the answer then ask your parents

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: OzmO on June 02, 2010, 08:08:23 PM
you didnt answer my question...my question was is the fetus hers or does it belong to both of them?

if it is hers than she and she alone should have say over what happens to it and SHE AND SHE ALONE should take responsibility over her property...

if its both of theirs then they should both get a say...

the fetus doesnt magically become both of theirs after birth, it was either hers or theirs all along...which one is it?

I know you are talking to straw.  But If i knocked up a woman and she wanted to have an Abortion, I would have a BIG problem with it.  I think the Man has some say in it even though he's not carrying. 
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 08:15:39 PM
I know you are talking to straw.  But If i knocked up a woman and she wanted to have an Abortion, I would have a BIG problem with it.  I think the Man has some say in it even though he's not carrying. 

I can certainly appreciate your point of view but you can't force the chick to carry your child (which I'm sure you know)

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 08:17:56 PM
sorry Tony no time for dumb questions tonight.

you're not my child and I have not time tonight for you

If you don't know the answer then ask your parents


LMAO well when you want to look like a fool come back and bump this thread dumb ass
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 08:18:54 PM
I know you are talking to straw.  But If i knocked up a woman and she wanted to have an Abortion, I would have a BIG problem with it.  I think the Man has some say in it even though he's not carrying. 
I disagree it is her body and she should be the one to make the choice...I do believe that the man should get a similiar choice though...

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 08:20:21 PM
LMAO well when you want to look like a fool come back and bump this thread dumb ass

already came back dipship but just feel no need to take on the role of your parent and teach you the facts of life

If you feel so strongly about your point of view then knock up some chick and then try to force her to keep the baby

when you're in court be sure to tell the judge how stupid he is

don't forget to use your dazzling logic
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: OzmO on June 02, 2010, 08:23:15 PM
I disagree it is her body and she should be the one to make the choice...I do believe that the man should get a similiar choice though...



What do you mean about a man getting a similar choice?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 08:25:29 PM
already came back dipship but just feel no need to take on the role of your parent and teach you the facts of life

If you feel so strongly about your point of view then knock up some chick and then try to force her to keep the baby

when you're in court be sure to tell the judge how stupid he is

don't forget to use your dazzling logic
LMAO im not saying I should be able to force a chick to have an abortion YOU NUMB NUT FUCK!!!!!!!! way to pay attention...

why is the child the mans responsibility straw? say it and ill show you the fallacy of your ways...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: George Whorewell on June 02, 2010, 08:27:06 PM
Straw is just expressing sour grapes over the fact that he can't get pregnant.

Goodness knows he and his partner Terrance have been trying for years now.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 08:27:21 PM
What do you mean about a man getting a similar choice?
the woman gets a choice of abortion or not(basically whether to walk away or not) the man should get an equivilant choice...basically saying either yes he will be in the life of the child or no he doesnt want anything to do with the child and sign over all parental rights(his form of abortion)

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 08:35:37 PM
LMAO im not saying I should be able to force a chick to have an abortion YOU NUMB NUT FUCK!!!!!!!! way to pay attention...

why is the child the mans responsibility straw? say it and ill show you the fallacy of your ways...

you're cracking me up man

you're criticizing me for something I didn't say and then telling me "way to pay attention"?

did I say you should be able to force a chick to have an abortion?

already came back dipship but just feel no need to take on the role of your parent and teach you the facts of life

If you feel so strongly about your point of view then knock up some chick and then try to force her to keep the baby


when you're in court be sure to tell the judge how stupid he is

don't forget to use your dazzling logic
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 02, 2010, 08:37:12 PM
Straw is just expressing sour grapes over the fact that he can't get pregnant.

Goodness knows he and his partner Terrance have been trying for years now.

 ;D  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 08:41:08 PM
Straw is just expressing sour grapes over the fact that he can't get pregnant.

Goodness knows he and his partner Terrance have been trying for years now.

kind of ironic considering your father told me that's how you were conceived
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 08:43:27 PM
you're cracking me up man

you're criticizing me for something I didn't say and then telling me "way to pay attention"?

did I say you should be able to force a chick to have an abortion?
LOL you got me, I was wrong but youre doing the same thing dumb ass...I never said I should be able to force a girl to not get an abortion...did i?

Youre saying that I feel I should be able to keep a girl from having an abortion....I never said that...

way to pay attention... ;)

why dont you just answer the question so I can make you look like the idiot you are?

why does the man have responsibility to the child?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 08:56:32 PM
LOL you got me, I was wrong but youre doing the same thing dumb ass...I never said I should be able to force a girl to not get an abortion...did i?

Youre saying that I feel I should be able to keep a girl from having an abortion....I never said that...

way to pay attention... ;)

why dont you just answer the question so I can make you look like the idiot you are?

why does the man have responsibility to the child?

I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before

It think this is your postion but please clarify where I have it wrong

I think you are saying that.....

if you get a girl pregnant and you (the man) are not given then option to either force her to abort or carry that child then you (the man) are entitled to what you believe is the equivalent option of not being forced to be financially responsible for the child

please clarify any part I've misunderstood
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 09:11:31 PM
I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before

It think this is your postion but please clarify where I have it wrong

I think you are saying that.....

if you get a girl pregnant and you (the man) are not given then option to either force her to abort or carry that child then you (the man) are entitled to what you believe is the equivalent option of not being forced to be financially responsible for the child

please clarify any part I've misunderstood
it has nothing to do with me having a say over her body, I think she should have a say over what happens to her body but that its her choice alone so her responsibility alone...

since though you believe its also the mans responsibility its only fair that he get an equal option...it would probably take the form of no financial responsibility for his legal rights but thats not the point the point is that the MAN SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 09:40:25 PM
it has nothing to do with me having a say over her body, I think she should have a say over what happens to her body but that its her choice alone so her responsibility alone...

since though you believe its also the mans responsibility its only fair that he get an equal option...it would probably take the form of no financial responsibility for his legal rights but thats not the point the point is that the MAN SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yes, I get it .... "equal" choice

you think there is some inequality in pregancy and that (at least in the US under our current laws) that the inequality is in favor of the woman.......correct?

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 02, 2010, 09:53:19 PM
yes, I get it .... "equal" choice

you think there is some inequality in pregancy and that (at least in the US under our current laws) that the inequality is in favor of the woman.......correct?


there isn't a percieved inequality there is an inequality, even the ppl who disagree with my points can agree to that.

Again why is the child the mans responsibility?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 02, 2010, 09:58:06 PM
there isn't a percieved inequality there is an inequality, even the ppl who disagree with my points can agree to that.

Again why is the child the mans responsibility?

what are the inequalities that you perceive ?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: drkaje on June 03, 2010, 03:52:58 AM
kind of ironic considering your father told me that's how you were conceived

Are you calling George an asshole baby? :)

Why is it her choice, not his? And if he can't say no, why can the courts take money?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 07:31:54 AM
what are the inequalities that you perceive ?
weve gone over this before straw...I ask you 5 questions that you refuse to answer then ask me one and get pissed I dont answer it...

since I asked you first its polite for you to answer mine first then I will answer yours...

why is the child the mans responsibility?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: OzmO on June 03, 2010, 07:36:01 AM
the woman gets a choice of abortion or not(basically whether to walk away or not) the man should get an equivilant choice...basically saying either yes he will be in the life of the child or no he doesnt want anything to do with the child and sign over all parental rights(his form of abortion)



Interesting take, I believe they are both morally wrong, but the logic is good.    lol
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 07:44:48 AM
Interesting take, I believe they are both morally wrong, but the logic is good.    lol
thanks and I agree I personally would never marry someone who would abort our child and I personally would never turn my back on a child of mine. I personally think that abortions should be outlawed with exceptions to rape and mothers health not b/c I think its wrong(b/c who am I to tell someone else whats right or wrong) but b/c it is 99.99% preventable in this day in age. Its not though so as long as you give the woman a choice the man deserves an equal choice.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 08:39:43 AM
weve gone over this before straw...I ask you 5 questions that you refuse to answer then ask me one and get pissed I dont answer it...

since I asked you first its polite for you to answer mine first then I will answer yours...

why is the child the mans responsibility?

how many times can I answer the same question.

The child is not the mans responsibilty - the child is the responsibility of both parents.

--------------

now, I think this is a summary of your position.  Please clarify any part that I don't have correct and tell me if there are any other inequalities that you percieve (and presumably that would require some offset to make things fair)

 if you get a girl pregnant and you (the man) are not given then option to either force her to abort or carry that child then you (the man) are entitled to what you believe is the equivalent option of not being forced to be financially responsible for the child
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 08:46:26 AM
how many times can I answer the same question.

The child is not the mans responsibilty - the child is the responsibility of both parents.
LMAO why does the man have responsibility to the child straw?

ill give you credit youre finding many ways to side step the answer...as you know it will show the lack of logical thinking that you have

why does the man have responsibility to the child?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 08:48:20 AM
LMAO why does the man have responsibility to the child straw?

ill give you credit youre finding many ways to side step the answer...as you know it will show the lack of logical thinking that you have

why does the man have responsibility to the child?

I answered yours (many times) now you answer mine
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 08:48:40 AM
it has nothing to do with me having a say over her body, I think she should have a say over what happens to her body but that its her choice alone so her responsibility alone...

since though you believe its also the mans responsibility its only fair that he get an equal option...it would probably take the form of no financial responsibility for his legal rights but thats not the point the point is that the MAN SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 08:49:33 AM
I answered yours (many times) now you answer mine
NOOOO you did not answer the question...

why does the man have responsibility to the child straw?

please post a link to the answer if you have maybe I missed it
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 08:50:58 AM
NOOOO you did not answer the question...

why does the man have responsibility to the child straw?

please post a link to the answer if you have maybe I missed it

answer my question or I'm done wasting my time with you
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 08:53:21 AM
answer my question or I'm done wasting my time with you
its manners straw to answer the question posed first, first...

you havent answered my question...or quote your answer I may have missed it...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: LurkerNoMore on June 03, 2010, 08:56:57 AM


why does the man have responsibility to the child straw?



The child would not exist without the man's contribution to the process.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 08:58:21 AM
its manners straw to answer the question posed first, first...

you havent answered my question...or quote your answer I may have missed it...

his kid = his repsonsibility

that's your answer now answer a question of mine

I'll even give you an easy one

Yes or No

If abortion were illegal and the state forced the woman to give  birth then would be the man still be entitled to the option of walking away from his responsiblity?

First answer Yes or No and then if you want to explain your answer thats fine too
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tu_holmes on June 03, 2010, 09:01:04 AM
his kid = his repsonsibility

that's your answer now answer a question of mine

I'll even give you an easy one

Yes or No

If abortion were illegal and the state forced the woman to give  birth then would be the man still be entitled to the option of walking away from his responsiblity?

First answer Yes or No and then if you want to explain your answer thats fine too

I say no... but that's because then neither has a choice... If you give the choice to one, you have to give it to both.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 09:01:57 AM
The child would not exist without the man's contribution to the process.
THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUU lurker I am very much appreciative for your straight forwardness...

now that we have that piece of knowledge is the mans contribution not there while the woman is pregnant? does his contribution start after birth or after conception?

so why does he only have a say after birth? its still have his in the womb isnt it? so using your logic that its his contribution(its half his) one should agree that he should have some say...

but b/c its her body and he doesnt, HE SHOULD GET AN EQUAL SAY(equal choice) in regards to his envolvement with the unborn child...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 09:04:15 AM
his kid = his repsonsibility

that's your answer now answer a question of mine

I'll even give you an easy one

Yes or No

If abortion were illegal and the state forced the woman to give  birth then would be the man still be entitled to the option of walking away from his responsiblity?

First answer Yes or No and then if you want to explain your answer thats fine too
first off if it b/c its his kid then logically its his fetus as well so why doesnt he get a say over what happens to the fetus?

No the man would not have the option to walk away in your scenario...its about equality like holmes said if you give the option to one you need to give the option to the other...right now we only give one person the option...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 09:08:37 AM
first off if it b/c its his kid then logically its his fetus as well so why doesnt he get a say over what happens to the fetus?

No the man would not have the option to walk away in your scenario...its about equality like holmes said if you give the option to one you need to give the option to the other...right now we only give one person the option...

so in your mind the "walk away" option is predicated upon the man having no say over whether the woman choose to have the baby or have an abortion

correct?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 09:14:35 AM
so in your mind the "walk away" option is predicated upon the man having no say over whether the woman choose to have the baby or have an abortion

correct?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

it has nothing to do with me having a say over her body, I think she should have a say over what happens to her body but that its her choice alone so her responsibility alone...

since though you believe its also the mans responsibility its only fair that he get an equal option...it would probably take the form of no financial responsibility for his legal rights but thats not the point the point is that the MAN SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

now
first off if it b/c its his kid then logically its his fetus as well so why doesnt he get a say over what happens to the fetus?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 09:38:12 AM
first off if it b/c its his kid then logically its his fetus as well so why doesnt he get a say over what happens to the fetus?

your position makes no sense

you claim to not want control over the womans body yet you also claim BECAUSE you dont' have control that you should be given (what you believe is an equivalent option) of not being financially repsonsible for the child.

This makes NO SENSE



Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 09:43:32 AM
your position makes no sense

you claim to not want control over the womans body yet you also claim BECAUSE you dont' have control that you should be given (what you believe is an equivalent option) of not being financially repsonsible for the child.

This makes NO SENSE
LMAO where do I claim I want control over a womans body?  ::)

your stance makes no sense you say b/c its part his kid, well the kid was developed from a fetus that was guess what half his so according to your logic he should have the same say over the fetus as he does the child...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 09:57:03 AM
LMAO where do I claim I want control over a womans body?  ::)

your stance makes no sense you say b/c its part his kid, well the kid was developed from a fetus that was guess what half his so according to your logic he should have the same say over the fetus as he does the child...

if you don't want control then you have no loss and nothing that needs to be compsenated, evened out, etc...

your whole premise is that because you don't have control that you're entitled to some equivalent option and you think that equivalency is being absolved of any financial obligation

first off if it b/c its his kid then logically its his fetus as well so why doesnt he get a say over what happens to the fetus?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 10:01:07 AM
first off if it b/c its his kid then logically its his fetus as well so why doesnt he get a say over what happens to the fetus?
LMAO this is the example of what happens if you follow your logic you dumb fuck!!!!!!!! :o :o ::) FUKING WOW!!!!!!!!!!! seriously wow dude!!!
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 10:03:40 AM
according to you its his responsibility b/c its his child now following that logic the fetus is half his, since he doesnt doesnt get a say in what happens to the fetus he should be presented with another choice...

I dont feel he should have a say over what she does with her body but if she gets a choice so should he.....

but you think that he should take care of the child simply b/c its his, so why do you not give him a say over the fetus b/c after all it is half his and your logic says thats enough to make him responsible for the child but not the fetus?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Colossus_500 on June 03, 2010, 10:04:34 AM
I've posted the numbers numerous times.  The majority of the country is either pro life or favors restrictions on abortions. 
For the first time since the Roe vs Wade decision was handed down, the pro-life community outweighs the pro-choice community.  It's still close, but last I saw (w/in last 4 months) it was 51% in support of life and 48% in support of abortion.  I'll see if I can find some more info. 
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 10:04:50 AM
LMAO this is the example of what happens if follow your logic you dumb fuck!!!!!!!! :o :o ::) FUKING WOW!!!!!!!!!!! seriously wow dude!!!

i.e. you have no response because you either don't understand or you understand and you have no defense of your position

if you don't want to the have some control over the fetus (i.e. the womans body) then why do you keep bringing it up as justification for your beliefe that you should be able to walk away from your financial obligation
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 03, 2010, 10:10:32 AM
i.e. you have no response because you either don't understand or you understand and you have no defense of your position

if you don't want to the have some control over the fetus (i.e. the womans body) then why do you keep bringing it up as justification for your beliefe that you should be able to walk away from your financial obligation

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 10:11:16 AM
i.e. you have no response because you either don't understand or you understand and you have no defense of your position

if you don't want to the have some control over the fetus (i.e. the womans body) then why do you keep bringing it up as justification for your beliefe that you should be able to walk away from your financial obligation
OMG i am showing your the flaws in your logic...you think the man has responsibility to the child b/c its his, the fetus is his correct? so logically according to you b/c its his as well he should have responsibility to it and therefor have a say in it...thats where your logic leads...NOT MINE

I believe the man should have a choice b/c the womans body is her own and has a choice....

Im not justifying my beliefs with that statement you keep quoting im showing you the flaws in yours... ;)
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 10:11:32 AM
I dont feel he should have a say over what she does with her body but if she gets a choice so should he.....

you do get a choice

you get the same choice she does

you get to decide what to do with your own body

I thought we already covered that
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 10:18:37 AM
you do get a choice

you get the same choice she does

you get to decide what to do with your own body

I thought we already covered that
LMAO yes but she then gets another choice in which the man is held accountable for, then the man doesnt have a choice over his own body anymore...

youre going in circles straw....heres a clue when the majority of others disagrees with you they may have a point you should look at  ;)
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 03, 2010, 10:24:38 AM
LMAO yes but she then gets another choice in which the man is held accountable for, then the man doesnt have a choice over his own body anymore...

youre going in circles straw....heres a clue when the majority of others disagrees with you they may have a point you should look at  ;)

Good luck w that Tony.  You are talking to someone who thinks the post office is solvent, the paying for condoms was a good use of stimulus bill money, and that obamacare is fiscally responsible.   
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 10:32:20 AM
LMAO yes but she then gets another choice in which the man is held accountable for, then the man doesnt have a choice over his own body anymore...

youre going in circles straw....heres a clue when the majority of others disagrees with you they may have a point you should look at  ;)

wow - so much nonsense on a few sentences

majority of others?  what are you even talking about ?

how does the woman control the mans body?

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 10:39:22 AM
Tony - what's your personal view on abortion

I assume since you think men should never be required to be responsible for their children that you fully supportive of abortion

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 10:46:11 AM
wow - so much nonsense on a few sentences

majority of others?  what are you even talking about ?

how does the woman control the mans body?
part of his paycheck is determined on whether she has the child or not isnt it? does the woman pay money to the man for having an abortion?

you said they both have control over their own bodies well then they should both take responsibility for those choices since the man doesnt have a choice then he shouldnt be held responsible...

I think women should have a choice but that they and they alone should bear the responsibility of that choice either that or you give the man a choice as well...

dude there are so many inequalities here that its not even funny the fact that you refuse to acknowledge one is just assinine...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 10:50:19 AM
part of his paycheck is determined on whether she has the child or not isnt it? does the woman pay money to the man for having an abortion?

you said they both have control over their own bodies well then they should both take responsibility for those choices since the man doesnt have a choice then he shouldnt be held responsible...

I think women should have a choice but that they and they alone should bear the responsibility of that choice either that or you give the man a choice as well...

dude there are so many inequalities here that its not even funny the fact that you refuse to acknowledge one is just assinine...

I asked you to list the inequalities before and you didn't do it

I assume you're aware of the equalities for woman too right?

Are you Pro Choice.........Yes or No
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 10:55:00 AM
I asked you to list the inequalities before and you didn't do it

I assume you're aware of the equalities for woman too right?

Are you Pro Choice.........Yes or No

did you mean to type inequalities for women?

and socially pro choice, personally pro life...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 11:02:14 AM
did you mean to type inequalities for women?

and socially pro choice, personally pro life...

yes - I meant to type inequalities for woman

so you're personally pro-life and I assume you would never want a woman to have an abortion correct and can we also assume you would support any child of your regardless of whether you wanted it or not
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 11:12:52 AM
yes - I meant to type inequalities for woman

so you're personally pro-life and I assume you would never want a woman to have an abortion correct and can we also assume you would support any child of your regardless of whether you wanted it or not
I would never want a woman carrying my child to have an abortion unless it put her life at risk...i wouldnt try to tell someone else how to live their life...

the only child I would have would be one that I wanted as again pregnancy is 99.99% preventable...
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 11:16:40 AM
I would never want a woman carrying my child to have an abortion unless it put her life at risk...i wouldnt try to tell someone else how to live their life...

the only child I would have would be one that I wanted as again pregnancy is 99.99% preventable...

if pregnancy is preventable then why don't you want to make both man and woman responsible for their own actions.

With your plan any man could go out and knock up a 100 woman and not be financially resonsible for any of those children
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 11:30:36 AM
if pregnancy is preventable then why don't you want to make both man and woman responsible for their own actions.

With your plan any man could go out and knock up a 100 woman and not be financially resonsible for any of those children
I agree that both men and women should be responsible for their actions but you see as of right now the women has the opportunity to shirk hers so the opportunity should also be given to the man to even out the INEQUALITY...

true but in your plan any woman could go get knocked up by 100 men and not be financially responsible as well...why the double standard?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 11:39:12 AM
I agree that both men and women should be responsible for their actions but you see as of right now the women has the opportunity to shirk hers so the opportunity should also be given to the man to even out the INEQUALITY...
true but in your plan any woman could go get knocked up by 100 men and not be financially responsible as well...why the double standard?

again - you keep bringing that so called inequality as the reason why you believe man should get to walk away but when I asked you said "NO"

you can't have it both ways

It makes no sense


so in your mind the "walk away" option is predicated upon the man having no say over whether the woman choose to have the baby or have an abortion

correct?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

it also makes no senses that you say that pregnancy is 99.99% preventable yet don't want to hold the man respnosible for a result which he is fully capable of preventing

Don't you think a society has a right to require both Mother and Father to support their own children regardless of whether they wanted the kid or not?

Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 03, 2010, 11:44:41 AM
Tony  

Let take this simple scenario

man and woman have sex and woman get's pregnant

Ignore for now whether either one wants the kid or not (we'll address that later)

At this point are they equal or does one party have an "unfair" advantage over the other?

In your mind "life" must be made fair but first we need to know all the "unfairness" so list all the inequities and how each one should be offset to make the whole deal "fair" for everyone
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 12:09:24 PM
again - you keep bringing that so called inequality as the reason why you believe man should get to walk away but when I asked you said "NO"

you can't have it both ways

It makes no sense

it also makes no senses that you say that pregnancy is 99.99% preventable yet don't want to hold the man respnosible for a result which he is fully capable of preventing

Don't you think a society has a right to require both Mother and Father to support their own children regardless of whether they wanted the kid or not?
The inequality is that the woman has a choice and the man doesnt...thats why he should be given a choice so it will be equal...The NOOOOOOO part is in reference to your continually falsel accusation that I think the way I do b/c a man should be able to tell a woman what to do with her body

if you want to hold the man accountable for something that is 99.99% preventable like you do, why do you feel its acceptable to let the woman shirk her responsibility?

youre missing the point the law should be equal to men and women

right now women have the right to walk away but men do not, wouldnt you agree?
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: tonymctones on June 03, 2010, 12:12:44 PM
Tony  

Let take this simple scenario

man and woman have sex and woman get's pregnant

Ignore for now whether either one wants the kid or not (we'll address that later)

At this point are they equal or does one party have an "unfair" advantage over the other?

In your mind "life" must be made fair but first we need to know all the "unfairness" so list all the inequities and how each one should be offset to make the whole deal "fair" for everyone
lets concentrate on the main one, not under our laws its not fair b/c both had presumably consentual sex yet only one is given the choice of walking away...the result of that baby was an choice that was given to both equally, now the option to walk away from that pregnancy is now reserved to one person...so now you have a person with 2 choices and a person with 1...there is an inequality there 2 choices to 1 choice.
Title: Re: Pro-life 'personhood' effort advances
Post by: Straw Man on June 04, 2010, 11:11:16 AM
The inequality is that the woman has a choice and the man doesnt...thats why he should be given a choice so it will be equal...The NOOOOOOO part is in reference to your continually falsel accusation that I think the way I do b/c a man should be able to tell a woman what to do with her body

if you want to hold the man accountable for something that is 99.99% preventable like you do, why do you feel its acceptable to let the woman shirk her responsibility?

youre missing the point the law should be equal to men and women

right now women have the right to walk away but men do not, wouldnt you agree?

no I don't agree

It's not like she can "walk away" and the man is still stuck

If you want to call the choice of abortion "walking away" then to be precise she has the right to make the choice for both of them to walk away at that point.  Thats the only differnce

the woman has the sole right to make the choice about whether to abort becaue its her body and she's the one who has the burden of the pregnancy and birth.  

If she chooses to have the child then they are both required to be responsible.

Again, the woman gets to make the choice about the pregnancy because it's her body that's at risk.  She's the one who has to do ALL the work during pregnancy and is even risking death.  Those extra burdens are why she has the choice about abortion.

Since you're all about making things fair maybe you can offer some ideas on how the man can even out the burderns to the woman for preganancy.  Isn't it unfair that only she has to deal with the extreme changes to her body, discomfort, the pain of child birth, the actual potential for death (what is the % of fathers that die during child birth).  

Aside from all those arguments, you've said that pregnancy is 99.99% preventable so why should we as a society not require both adults to be accountable for their decisions.