Ironic, isn't it? Near as I can tell, abortion is the only situation in which texxx doesn't think it's a super idea to kill a living being.
I'm pro-choice, yes. I'm also anti-abortion. If you do a search you'll find a long explanation of my position on this difficult issue. Consider Meowgi's post a preview. If you do that search, you might also find an explanation of my claim to be more pro-life than most of the so-called pro-lifers here. I am anti-war unless it is clearly self-defense, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-hunting, anti-fur and vegan. If anyone else here is more "pro-life" than that, I would be pleasantly surprised.
Fair enough. Just checking. I'm just about the same in my views towards abortion, although I don't see anything wrong with trying to impede 3rd term abortions as much as possible. But, surely you don't feel animals have the same rights as humans?!? Animals don't equal humans rights, and that includes using them for food. And if you feel that way, what about reptiles? Rodents? Insects? Plants? It's all a shade of gray when it comes to animal's rights. I just find the whole thing silly. Animals are meant for food. Otherwise they'd overpopulate everything. Can you imagine a bunch of pigs, cows, and chickens roaming freely? Talk about a nightmare. Animal hunting is a necessity. That is why there is a certain quota for the amount of deer killed every year. It has to be done.
I love this new approach to arguments you can't win. Every time you're proven a hypocrite (the outrage over the Nazi stuff was gold) just declare yourself the bigger man and split. You guys never get tired of thinking up new ways to avoid an honest debate.
Really? Even in cases where the fetus will not survive after birth or when the mother's very life may be threatened by bringing the fetus to term?
Neither do I. I am about as pro-choice as they come, but I fully support a partial birth abortion ban with the caveat that such a ban needs to have a clause that protects the mother's physical health. I supported the ban passed in '03 and if the GOP had gotten their s*** together and inserted the aforementioned clause, that ban would be in effect nationwide right now. Unfortunately, it came down to politics over doing something good for the country. Go figure.
How would you know? I hadn't seen you try to engage in an "honest debate" until you asked me about my views on drug policy last week.
Yep. Or spending years likening political opponents to terrorists then expressing shock that someone would liken your side to Nazis then claiming to be the bigger man while running away from someone pointing out the hypocrisy. Yeah, you're a real Gandhi, texxx.
the question becomes .. . what is PROTECTING THE MOTHER'S HEALTH Mental Health? [See Andrea Yates . .there is an argument] Physical Health? [I'm getting too fat . .fat leads to heart disease. . blah blah] Emotional Health? Economic Health? The question gets drawn down in tedium I beleive direct physical health beyond that . . . Rocket River
Why not fix those problems. . it is so much easier to just kill the babies than revamp the whole system that creates the poverty and risks of pregnancy oops. . .We Lazy American . .we like quick fixes sex all you want . .we will suck it out of you eat all you want . . we will suck that out of you too Don't worry about working out don't worry about using condoms and prevent just know if you pay your money . . we can suck it out of you Rocket River
I would say the only acceptable way would be if the mother were in a life or death situation as a direct result of the pregnancy.
As I understand it, the law in question makes no provisions for the mother's health. Why is the baby's "life" more important than the mother's?
