Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Where did Joseph go?

He's indicated to us before that he MAY be a father.

I find it - inconsistent - for a man to wail on about bringing little children into the world and then not being around for their upbringing.

The story that I have a child and I am not there for its upbringing is a fantasy you cooked up in your own mind.

So why don't you clear it up for us?

No obligation to.

You can't reason with someone whose logic is rooted in biblical morality. There world is one of absolutes and there is no interpretation, you either adhere to their belief system, or you are simply wrong, no deviation whatsoever.

On this there is no deviation. Your world is one of relativism, and that must be applied across the board, or you have a double standard (which you do in this case)

Anyway - Pike or Gene - You saying "it isn't" doesn't change reality. Its a baby. If i call a newborn not a baby, it doesn't change what it is, and it doesn't change what it was 1 month ago or 6 months ago. A baby. The fact is, that the terminology was changed so that people can justify the death.

Joe, unless you just fell out of a tree - it can hardly have escaped your notice that its a central part of the human experience to contextualise things.

If a woman chooses (for reasons of her own) not to go through with a pregnancy, then there is no baby.

i guess you can argue that a dead baby is not a live baby.

We don't contextualize this type of killing. At least those with some grasp of morality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The difference surely is the willingness to respect the decisions of women to manage their own lives and bodies, and not try to force them into having a child against their will based on dishonest sentiment masquerading as morality.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The difference surely is the willingness to respect the decisions of women to manage their own lives and bodies, and not try to force them into having a child against their will based on dishonest sentiment masquerading as morality.

It isn't dishonest to call a baby exactly what it is. Whats dishonest is calling it something that it isn't so as to allow its destruction if one wishes to do so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i guess you can argue that a dead baby is not a live baby.

We don't contextualize this type of killing. At least those with some grasp of morality.

Yes we do Joe, hence as has been pointed out to you (also inumerable times) - if you choose to have an abortion you are not charged with having committed a murder.

Murder is a human construction that is defined by the law.

The difference surely is the willingness to respect the decisions of women to manage their own lives and bodies, and not try to force them into having a child against their will based on dishonest sentiment masquerading as morality.

It isn't dishonest to call a baby exactly what it is. Whats dishonest is calling it something that it isn't so as to allow its destruction if one wishes to do so.

The point being - that whatever you think about it, it isn't your decision to make and therefore the process of reasoning that goes into it isn't yours either.

Quite simply, you need to learn to mind your own business.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

i guess you can argue that a dead baby is not a live baby.

We don't contextualize this type of killing. At least those with some grasp of morality.

Yes we do Joe, hence as has been pointed out to you (also inumerable times) - if you choose to have an abortion you are not charged with having committed a murder.

Murder is a human construction that is defined by the law.

The difference surely is the willingness to respect the decisions of women to manage their own lives and bodies, and not try to force them into having a child against their will based on dishonest sentiment masquerading as morality.

It isn't dishonest to call a baby exactly what it is. Whats dishonest is calling it something that it isn't so as to allow its destruction if one wishes to do so.

The point being - that whatever you think about it, it isn't your decision to make and therefore the process of reasoning that goes into it isn't yours either.

Quite simply, you need to learn to mind your own business.

Then it isn't your business if someone kills their 2 year old.

[The_Dude 1,142]

You can't reason with someone whose logic is rooted in biblical morality. There world is one of absolutes and there is no interpretation, you either adhere to their belief system, or you are simply wrong, no deviation whatsoever.

On this there is no deviation. Your world is one of relativism, and that must be applied across the board, or you have a double standard (which you do in this case)

Not all things in this world joe are absolutes. I don't think you understand what relativism means, but for that matter, I don't think you really read what people post. Such is your world of recidivism.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's pretty silly, Joe.

The law makes the distinctions you object to. You seem completely unable to comprehend the idea that context defines.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

You can't reason with someone whose logic is rooted in biblical morality. There world is one of absolutes and there is no interpretation, you either adhere to their belief system, or you are simply wrong, no deviation whatsoever.

On this there is no deviation. Your world is one of relativism, and that must be applied across the board, or you have a double standard (which you do in this case)

Not all things in this world joe are absolutes. I don't think you understand what relativism means, but for that matter, I don't think you really read what people post. Such is your world of recidivism.

I'm not sure why you post anymore all you say to those who you disagree with is -"you don't know what X means" "You don't understand Y". Never anything of substance.

Me saying "everything in this world" is an absolute is another fantasy cooked up by the leftwing kooks.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

That's pretty silly, Joe.

The law makes the distinctions you object to. You seem completely unable to comprehend the idea that context defines.

The law did not - The Supreme Court did. And it was wrong. It allowed for new laws to be written that were also wrong. Based on the right to privacy which does not include killing others.

I don't find it silly, it is sick and twisted what the left in this country have done to the unborn.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's pretty silly, Joe.

The law makes the distinctions you object to. You seem completely unable to comprehend the idea that context defines.

The law did not - The Supreme Court did. And it was wrong. It allowed for new laws to be written that were also wrong. Based on the right to privacy which does not include killing others.

I don't find it silly, it is sick and twisted what the left in this country have done to the unborn.

Abortion isn't restricted solely to this country, Joe. If you'd have read the article I posted at the beginning you would realise that.

Strangely, I think its sick and twisted that you want to force women into a form of slavery based on your mysogynistic conception of biblical morality. You need to live in the 21st century and stop pining after the 19th.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[The_Dude 1,142]

You can't reason with someone whose logic is rooted in biblical morality. There world is one of absolutes and there is no interpretation, you either adhere to their belief system, or you are simply wrong, no deviation whatsoever.

On this there is no deviation. Your world is one of relativism, and that must be applied across the board, or you have a double standard (which you do in this case)

Not all things in this world joe are absolutes. I don't think you understand what relativism means, but for that matter, I don't think you really read what people post. Such is your world of recidivism.

I'm not sure why you post anymore all you say to those who you disagree with is -"you don't know what X means" "You don't understand Y". Never anything of substance.

Me saying "everything in this world" is an absolute is another fantasy cooked up by the leftwing kooks.

When you clearly demonstrate an inability to use a word properly, I can safely say that you don't know what that means. As in your case, you're arguing based upon your moral beliefs that are steeped in biblical logic. You refuse to even acknowledge or look at Pike or Hal's point of view which is from a logical, scientific or legal point of view. From what I've read of this over the past few days, you are basing your entire argument basically on the fact that in your view, God's law trumps that of the state or federal government. Now this may be true on a higher level, here and now in this world it is not, but you simply refuse to concede anything, despite the facts of the matter.

[rebeccajo 14]

Where did Joseph go?

He's indicated to us before that he MAY be a father.

I find it - inconsistent - for a man to wail on about bringing little children into the world and then not being around for their upbringing.

The story that I have a child and I am not there for its upbringing is a fantasy you cooked up in your own mind.

So why don't you clear it up for us?

No obligation to.

Tsk tsk. You lose your credibility when you refuse to clarify your personal behaviors then.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

That's pretty silly, Joe.

The law makes the distinctions you object to. You seem completely unable to comprehend the idea that context defines.

The law did not - The Supreme Court did. And it was wrong. It allowed for new laws to be written that were also wrong. Based on the right to privacy which does not include killing others.

I don't find it silly, it is sick and twisted what the left in this country have done to the unborn.

Abortion isn't restricted solely to this country, Joe. If you'd have read the article I posted at the beginning you would realise that.

Strangely, I think its sick and twisted that you want to force women into a form of slavery based on your mysogynistic conception of biblical morality. You need to live in the 21st century and stop pining after the 19th.

Only the left would think living up to your responsibilities after having sex is "slavery"

Another fantasy is that "I think abortion is restricted solely to this country". You guys have a great imagination.

Where did Joseph go?

He's indicated to us before that he MAY be a father.

I find it - inconsistent - for a man to wail on about bringing little children into the world and then not being around for their upbringing.

The story that I have a child and I am not there for its upbringing is a fantasy you cooked up in your own mind.

So why don't you clear it up for us?

No obligation to.

Tsk tsk. You lose your credibility when you refuse to clarify your personal behaviors then.

What credibility does truth have with the left anyway? It wouldn't matter.

[Peikko 1,575]

Only a moron would think that behaving responsibly after having sex means bringing a child into the world even if the consequences are dire for everyone. Killing a fetus can in some circumstances be the best option, even for the fetus.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Only the left would think living up to your responsibilities after having sex is "slavery"

Perhaps it may come as a surprise to you that people have sex for pleasure (and have done so for centuries, millennia actually) and not simply for the purposes of reproduction.

Another fantasy is that "I think abortion is restricted solely to this country". You guys have a great imagination.

Joe, the thread was discussing the subject in general - you seem intent on making about your beef with the US Supreme Court and turning it into yet another BS bitchfest about partisan politics.