![]() |
€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides. |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Kink of Swank
|
Boy, you are really missing my point Moonliner. And I'm not going to restate it, since I already stated it as clearly as I can.
My apologies if that's not working for you, but you are way off base on expressing my opinion. If those are your legitimate questions, great. But they have zero to do with my point. |
|
|
Submit to Quotes
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust.
|
Quote:
So rather than my muddying things up by trying to generalize this issue to all points of law as I did earlier I'll keep the focus on Abortion. Just for background, here is my view on the issue of abortion: 1. I hate it. It's a violent end to what could have been a beautiful child. 2. I am rabidly pro-choice. While I would hope no one would opt for an abortion I really don't want the Government deciding the issue. It should be a matter of personal responsibility. Right now the majority has spoken and abortion is in most cases legal. However the opposition has the right to free speech and I believe a duty to fight for what they believe is right on this or any other issue. The idea that one side or the other should give up and go home because they are in the minority (or on a side that you perceive as less liberal) at any given moment is unAmerican and that is what the position you stated sounded like to me. Give up and go home.
__________________
- Taking it one step at a time.
|
|
|
|
Submit to Quotes
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Kink of Swank
|
Quote:
I wish they would give up deciding what OTHER women can do with their bodies, and who OTHER people can marry. I'm not advocating taking away their free speech rights. I'm advocating them MINDING THEIR OWN FVCKING BUSINESS. That's pretty darn American right there. I'm advocating them figuring in a contest between what's Christian and what's American ... what's American should carry in America, and what's Christian should carry in the Vatican. And I said I'm not expecting "them" to see that light. But I fully expect legislators and judges to adhere to that standard. As to those two groups of people, yes, I'm saying they SHOULD. |
|
|
|
Submit to Quotes
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
8/30/14 - Disneyland -10k or Bust.
|
Quote:
So while I would stop short of calling those who views are different from mine unAmerican, I think I can agree with you I wish they would shut the F up and crawl back under their rocks.
__________________
- Taking it one step at a time.
|
|
|
|
Submit to Quotes
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
I throw stones at houses
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Location: Location
Posts: 9,534
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
The problem is, they think that the other women are harming a 3rd party - the unborn child. Because the fundamental problem with the debate is that the two sides disagree on whether the baby is a third party with its own rights or not (in which case, the pregnant woman would be imposing her desires on the rights of the baby to do what it wants with its body... theoretically). For me, I'll call a baby a person when it can survive outside the womb. It's not a perfect definition, but a working one. I don't think a perfect definition can be made. I mean, a fertilized egg, if brought outside the womb, does not become a human being. And a fetus at 8 1/2 months could be born that day and survive into adulthood. So we know the line is somewhere between the two. (Well, except for the fundies who think a fertilized egg is a baby.) But as to where the actual line between part of the mom's body or individual being actually is, that's much harder to say.
__________________
http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge |
|
|
|
Submit to Quotes
|