Ever heard of civil disobedience? I'm not sure you're right anyway; does Roe vs Wade have anything to do with WHEN life start or just when the will allow abortions to be performed? I think the latter. <b>rimbaud</b>, why do you continue to be such a jerk?! I try to like you but you make it so hard and get so much pleasure out of it! I ask a simple questiion and all I get is the runaround. Gosh, you're so smart; I'm totally awestruck. Can I sign up for your class?!?!?!? If this is just about my incorrectly substituting <b>dimsie</b> for <b>MrsJB</b>, just go get a life. Mine was a mistake-- yours a twist. Always the insults. <b>All I know is I'd rather be Miss February 2020 than a dead baby in a dumpster behind All Hope is Lost Abortion Clinic.</b> Think about that one all of you pro-Choicers who choose for no one except for the one at the heart of the matter.
Nonresponsive. Now, you can try again. Hint: I was asking giddyup to proof that "life begins at conception" which he has been posting as fact. The Law of the Land disagrees with him, so it is his point to proof.
I am typing really slow and using small words so you can understand this, HS. The argument that I am making is tangential to this issue. You know it (and have known it along), I know it, and Bob Dole knows it. In other words, I am not saying that killing the unborn is OK, until we solve the problem of human inequity. I am questioning pro-lifers who appear more concerned about the unborn than they do about the born. The fact that pro-lifers have more concern about the one than the other gives the appearance of ulterior motives of their part. To repeat, I am not saying that killing the unborn is OK, until we solve the problem of human inequity. Now, you can give me a break.
So you are saying that the case (Roe vs Wade) that the Supremes reviewed had to do about when abortion was OK versus abortion being legal or illegal???
Seriously, do you really want to like me? If so, why - would it make you feel more comfortable? I am not likeable. Sorry, didn't think you were all that serious as you always seem to play at not getting something. OK, you yelled (not literal, of course) at Batman for butting in because you did not address him. Therefore, when I wanted to correct you about the assignment of "precious" I made that lead-in as an "excuse." Obviously, you did not address me, that was the pont. Further, my pointing out your mistake was not an insult, just a defense of Mrs JB...had nothing with me being "so smart" and I don't have a class for which you could sign up. What did I twist? My last post was rude. I am always rude. It is because I am insecure.
You are still typing too fast for me. Tangential is a big word. Why are they mutually exclusive? Why can't you be against abortion and FOR equity? rimbaud, Aren't we all?
Excellent question. The two do seem to go hand in hand. One would think that if one cares about how the unborn are treated in the womb that one would also care about how the born are treated outside of the womb. It seems so plausible!!!
I can "prove" nothing. I've always asserted that, but then I'm not the one wanting to interfere, am I? The onus to "prove" that they are not destroying a human life is on those who seek to do so or to allow it to be done. Since no one can prove anything, I suggest that we be respectfully cautious rather than recklessly usurpful. I don't know about you, but in my lifetime abortion has been unlawful then lawful. I hope it will be unlawful again soon.
My instinct wants me to like people. Sorry. I'll try and change!! I never play at not getting something. You write obtusely for your own enjoyment. Others have pointed this out to you and you just gleefully go on. Batman is a control freak who wants to tell people how to act on this board-- especially those with whom is is philosophically opposed... like me. He wants to tell me when, how and what to post. I don't see that as his job. To top it off, he is pugnacious. Oh, my.
If you use logic, you can see that bad influences, drugs and violence have negative effects on children and adults. You do control what your offspring is exposed to don't you? I don't think anyone has said that if you watch violence on TV that you can't be expected not to murder someone. It's really simple to understand. There are bad influences and there are good influences.
Don't try to change for my sake...just consider me a lost cause and it will probably make your posting life easier. I don't "gleefully go on" in that simple of an explanation as if out of spite or, perhaps, in spite of ____. I am who I am. I cannot nor do I want to change just to fit into other people's whom I do not even know lives. My humor is my humor and "obtuse" is subjective - I actually thought this instance was obvious since it immediately followed your reply to Batman. That is why in real life people who are my friends (or wife) understand me just fine. You do not "get" me or my humor, thus, we would never be friends. Nothing wrong with that. Hayes, That was a joke, of course, because I have heard that before and always find it funny - more indicative of my behavior is the fact that I was told all of my life that I was better/smarter than everyone else, lol, I was bound to believe it. But, truthfully, sure we are. I am really not insecure in the standard definition of it, my major problems is that I abuse myself (not physically, lol) for anything short of genius/perfection in my life yet at the same time can be very lazy creating a kind of viscious circle. It is a long tragic story that all goes back to my childhood and how I was programmed and not really allowed a normal childhood.
I never said one word about being friends! I only muttered something about liking people. Does anyone get all of your humor? The information here is too scant...
My reply was a joke. Who wasn't told that? I thought we were all little John Mills running around. Too advanced too early, refined in intellect and lacking in social graces. But that could just be you ... Or some of the responses on this bbs would be a little less obtuse.
Here's a little fact for you: A baby can live at 5 months, but you can have an abortion up to like 6 months by law. To me that just sounds sick.
To me it sounds wrong. Like, factually wrong. I think the cutoff is 12 weeks when there are no maternal/foetal health issues involved. So that would be, um, three months. Not six. The law simply mirrors customs which were common in all western countries before the Victorian period: abortion was acceptable until 'quickening'. HS: no, it's not better, lameass. Fix the *original* sentence. Giddyup: Elvis and I originally met online, so he actually *likes* my 'dimsie'-ness. Strange, I know, but true. Plus, he rules.
