Jason Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='BengalSIS' date='Jul 1 2005, 04:45 PM']Jason, I see your point. BUT, those women CHOSE to have abortions. Maybe it ended up not being right for them. But they chose. Why should other women not have that right? I am against abortion. I think it's wrong. [b]Especially if only used as a means of birth control.[/b] But there are far too many reasons or situations where women get pregnant. Who am I do decide that they must deliver the baby? [right][post="109530"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] That's the problem though. For most women, it is simply a means of birth control. The last statistic I saw for this (admittedly, this was several years ago), 60% of women getting an abortion have had at least one before. One year, while in college, the pro-life group was putting up the cemetart of the innocents. A girl came out, started pulling up the crosses and stars of David, and throwing them. She was a typical college student agewise, (early 20s). She had had [b]4[/b] abortions, and she was no older than 23. One year in Ohio, calls to the suicide hotline were tracked. Over 30% of calls were women who were depressed because of an abortion. Yes, I am pro-life. I think it's wrong except in the case of a tubal pregnancy. But I think AT LEAST abortion needs to be treated like every other surgical procedure, and it is not. You don't need to be a licensed surgeon to perform one. A teenager can get one without parental notification in a LOT of states. A minor can't get a [b]TATTOO[/b] without parental consent. Most surgical procedures require informed consent about what the surgery does, risks, and possible "side effects". That is not the case with abortion. Abortion is not about helping women, it is about making money. I know of one woman who used to own an abortion clininc. She had instructed her "doctors" to crank the women through and get their money. In some instances, those women weren't even PREGNANT! As long as abortion is legal, it needs to be treated exactlu like every other surgical procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='BengalSIS' date='Jul 1 2005, 03:45 PM']Jason, I see your point. BUT, those women CHOSE to have abortions. Maybe it ended up not being right for them. But they chose. Why should other women not have that right? I am against abortion. I think it's wrong. Especially if only used as a means of birth control. But there are far too many reasons or situations where women get pregnant. Who am I do decide that they must deliver the baby? [right][post="109530"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] the only problem w/ this choice, is there is no going back if you make the wrong decision... after you kill the baby, they are gone... jason is just showing that people close to him, have had problems w/ that decision after it was said and done... when your young, you tend to make bad decisions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalSIS Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 I was reading Jason's response...(thinkin I saw ricks avatar and sig, and therefore was reading HIS response. About halfway through I was like "this is NOT rick"...sure enough, it wasn't... Anyway, I digress I can definitely feel for the anti abortion crowd. But I have to think about the minority % that aren't doing abortion for birth control. They deserve a choice. I agree that the current abortion laws (if they stay legal) definitely need to be amended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gonzoid Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 1 2005, 01:57 PM']nope.. the only people that hate bush and what he stands for, are liberals, like yourself... [right][post="109440"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Nope. More folks are getting disenfranchised with him. Go seek out some of the latest poll numbers. And if you consider yourself either conservative or Republican AND you support Bush, then you're a dupe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='Gonzoid' date='Jul 1 2005, 04:49 PM']Nope. More folks are getting disenfranchised with him. Go seek out some of the latest poll numbers. And if you consider yourself either conservative or Republican AND you support Bush, then you're a dupe. [right][post="109570"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] b/c i don't agree w/ you i'm a dupe... just showing everyone your true colors... i guess that the majority of america is a dupe in your opinion then since we have won the presidency, senate, and house of rep's ever since 2000... you can fight w/ words, i'll just rub in and come w/ facts: that YOU ARE IN THE MINORITY!! [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] nice try [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img] and about the poll numbers... what the hell do you expect, when we're fighting a war and good men and woman are dying... reguardless if you agree or disagree w/ the war, it should be obvious to anyone w/ a brain, that his numbers will go down, and then back up if the constitution gets written... then back down until they vote... and then back down until we're down... its not brain science... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gonzoid Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jul 1 2005, 03:28 PM'][i][b]Am I the only one that finds the sign on the Left humorous.... Isn't God the one that created "death" and supposedly would have the power to stop it, also if you believe thta things happen for a reason, isn't he complicit in every death [/b][/i] not to mention the hundreds of times God kills in the Bible [right][post="109524"][/post][/right][/quote] To quote the late, great Bill Hicks: [i]"If you're so pro-life, do me a favour: don't lock arms and block medical clinics. If you're so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries."[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gonzoid Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 1 2005, 04:53 PM']b/c i don't agree w/ you i'm a dupe... [right][post="109571"][/post][/right][/quote] Nah, you're a dupe anyway. Conservatives are for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. How is Bush a conservative? Because he said so? He also said we had to go to Iraq because of WMD. Sorry, the Republican party was hijacked long ago by ultra-fundamentalist Christians and business corporations who are more concerned with lining their own pockets & interfering in people's private lives. That's why I left them long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='Gonzoid' date='Jul 1 2005, 06:01 PM']Nah, you're a dupe anyway. Conservatives are for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. How is Bush a conservative? Because he said so? He also said we had to go to Iraq because of WMD. Sorry, the Republican party was hijacked long ago by ultra-fundamentalist Christians and business corporations who are more concerned with lining their own pockets & interfering in people's private lives. That's why I left them long ago. [right][post="109573"][/post][/right][/quote] I am a conservative, and a Republican, and I supported Bush in 2004 because he was a better option than Kerry. Do I wish someone had run against Bush for the Republican nomination? Hell yes! But there was NO WAY I could bring myself to vote for Kerry. I won't go so far as to say Bush was the lesser of 2 evils, but it's pretty close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gonzoid Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='Jason' date='Jul 1 2005, 05:05 PM']I am a conservative, and a Republican, and I supported Bush in 2004 because he was a better option than Kerry. [right][post="109575"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Ptomaine poisoning was a better option than Kerry. And Bush. There were other options besides Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dummer. Badnarik, Nader, Cobb... Repubs & Demos are the problem with this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='Gonzoid' date='Jul 1 2005, 06:17 PM']Ptomaine poisoning was a better option than Kerry. And Bush. There were other options besides Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dummer. Badnarik, Nader, Cobb... [b]Repubs & Demos are the problem with this country.[/b] [right][post="109578"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Don't know much about Cobb and Badnarik, but Nader would have been worse than Kerry. And realistically, there were only 2 candidates that had ANY chance to win. And I chose what I thought was the best of the 2. Hell, if nothing else, under Bush there has not been a successful terror attack on US soil since 9-11. How many people would have believed it if they were told that on 9-12? I wouldn't have. As for your last statement, you're close. Republicans legislating like Democrats, or acting like they are still in the minority is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='Gonzoid' date='Jul 1 2005, 04:17 PM']Ptomaine poisoning was a better option than Kerry. And Bush. There were other options besides Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dummer. Badnarik, Nader, Cobb... [b]Repubs & Demos are the problem with this country.[/b] [right][post="109578"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Word. I like the simple fact that while they do their best to point fingers at each other, and call names, they're ALL guilty of the same shenanigans. And I think sometimes that they publicly take opposing stances on issues just to have something to debate about, when in reality their views are pretty similar. I hate politicians of every type. Except the honest ones...they're OK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mongoloido Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Is it wrong to look at the protestor pics to see which ones I'd bone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalSIS Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 I don't think Bush has stopped anything since 9-11. And I don't think that he's the only one who would've had no attacks. That attack took years of planning. It won't be the last. We had many years before a SUCCESSFUL attack (the first WTC attack was not really a success). I wouldn't have expected another one since 9/11 until several years later. Right now, the "evildoers" are just sitting back laughing watching us take away our own freedoms to "protect" ourselves. We can live in a complete police state. Even that won't guarantee no attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='oldschooler' date='Jul 1 2005, 05:00 PM']Hell you can add men to that Men: 0 If a woman wants to have a baby and the guy doesn`t she can still have the baby and make him pay child support. If the man wants to have the baby and the woman doesn`t...she can have an abortion and the guy can`t stop her. Anyway ....have a good 1 Jamie. Peace.... [img]http://www.morgananddavid.com/lucas/firstmonth/lucas-peace-sign.jpg[/img] [right][post="109540"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I was thinking about how I missed that point on the drive home. Good catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalSIS Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 While I agree that men don't have a choice is a good point, I don't think it's a completely fair one. I doubt most abortions take away children from men who want them. Men also don't have to deal with the pregnancy and permanent effects of pregnancy and delivery. Many women shouldn't get pregnant for a variety of health reasons, but despite birth control, they do anyway. SHould they be forced to risk their lives and damage their bodies to carry a child they tried not to have to start with? It's not always possible to tell at what point the baby will harm the mother. If there is a good chance it will, but not in the first trimester, I would rather the mother end it early (if that was her choice) than risk it later and then have it be too late to end it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gonzoid Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 I think if you had better sex education courses and fewer of this stupid abstinence only programs, you'd probably see a lot less pregnancy. Then again, I'm the sort of fella who thinks we should abolish the death penalty and hand murderers over to the chemical companies for product testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest steggyD Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 [quote name='Jason' date='Jul 1 2005, 06:26 PM']Don't know much about Cobb and Badnarik, but Nader would have been worse than Kerry. [b] And realistically, there were only 2 candidates that had ANY chance to win. [/b] And I chose what I thought was the best of the 2...[/quote] This is the funny part. If everyone who has ever used this line, voted for a third party, I promise you there would be a third party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 this thread has taken on many heads we have been from supreme court, to bush, to rep vs. dem's, and now abortion... my head is spinning from trying to follow this thread.. anyways about abortion, i feel that there are specific exemptions including rape and health of the mother... those are the only two i can think of off hand, but i feel like there was another exception... but reguardless, i think that sis and i are actually agreeing b/c she earlier said that there needs to be some reforms to prevent abortions b/c "they will make me fat" or "i don't know if i'm ready" b/c those got under my skin... i agree that there should be a choice somewhat, but i draw the line pretty fast b/c it is killing a human being... now to gonzoid... so you hate dem's and rep's... i can see your point b/c i've been somewhat disappointed w/ the rep's lately, but i can't see myself voting third party... its a wasted vote... if i don't see a candidate, out of the two, i just wouldn't vote... to say that the republican party has been taken over by the evangalical christians is amusing... if you take out the harshness of "being taken over" your somewhat right... the base of the republican party is christian... i won't dispute that... what is wrong w/ that? which base is a better starting point: moveon.org, michael moore goons or christians? if you think that moveon.org has you and me in mind more that christians, then i have no fucking clue what to say to you... then you mention big business... besides the bad name that liberals have given them, whats so bad about helping big business? i mean, they do employ a whole fuck load of people, and usually pay well, right? whats wrong w/ helping out business? i can never figure this out... you can keep saying it, and trying to scare people, but i hope that they do help out my company, b/c that equals more money for me... what the hell is wrong w/ that? and then you say that rep's are no longer about small gov't and fiscal responsiblity... small gov't equals many things, but the definition i believe when i say it, is "less gov't in our lives"... tax cuts would be included, which we have gotten... less gov't control on business equal more stable economy, which equals more money for me and you... those are the types of things that i think of, when i think of small gov't... not necessarily making the gov't itself, smaller, but less control over everyday things... about fiscal responsibilty, there is less of an arguement b/c he sure isn't cutting the budget, which is necessary... but the problem is, as i mentioned before, you can add more money to the budget, b/c its easy to sell someone on more stuff for the their states... the job of the senator, is to get as much for their state as possible... you can add things on there like parks, more money for africa, aids, etc. but try to cut one of those programs... you have special interest groups, unions, everyone coming after you... but to a point, your right b/c it is not about fiscal responsiblily as much now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 1 2005, 07:55 PM']but i can't see myself voting third party... its a wasted vote... if i don't see a candidate[/quote] I agree and i hate that this is true. I agree w/ a lot of what the liberatrians say. [quote]to say that the republican party has been taken over by the evangalical christians is amusing... if you take out the harshness of "being taken over" your somewhat right... the base of the republican party is christian... i won't dispute that... what is wrong w/ that? which base is a better starting point: moveon.org, michael moore goons or christians? if you think that moveon.org has you and me in mind more that christians, then i have no fucking clue what to say to you...[/quote] Christians or the fundamentalist. The crazy fundamentalist that have everyone scared are on par w/ moveon.org to me. [quote]then you mention big business... besides the bad name that liberals have given them, whats so bad about helping big business? i mean, they do employ a whole fuck load of people, and usually pay well, right? whats wrong w/ helping out business? i can never figure this out... you can keep saying it, and trying to scare people, but i hope that they do help out my company, b/c that equals more money for me... what the hell is wrong w/ that?[/quote] An extremely big business pays me pretty well. So not a god damn thing. [quote]and then you say that rep's are no longer about small gov't and fiscal responsiblity... small gov't equals many things, but the definition i believe when i say it, is "less gov't in our lives"... tax cuts would be included, which we have gotten... less gov't control on business equal more stable economy, which equals more money for me and you... those are the types of things that i think of, when i think of small gov't... not necessarily making the gov't itself, smaller, but less control over everyday things... about fiscal responsibilty, there is less of an arguement b/c he sure isn't cutting the budget, which is necessary... but the problem is, as i mentioned before, you can add more money to the budget, b/c its easy to sell someone on more stuff for the their states... the job of the senator, is to get as much for their state as possible... you can add things on there like parks, more money for africa, aids, etc. but try to cut one of those programs... you have special interest groups, unions, everyone coming after you... but to a point, your right b/c it is not about fiscal responsiblily as much now... [right][post="109646"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Thats is one of my biggest beefs right now... Fiscal Responsibility and big goverment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='BengalSIS' date='Jul 1 2005, 07:14 PM']While I agree that men don't have a choice is a good point, I don't think it's a completely fair one. I doubt most abortions take away children from men who want them. Men also don't have to deal with the pregnancy and permanent effects of pregnancy and delivery. Many women shouldn't get pregnant for a variety of health reasons, but despite birth control, they do anyway. [b]SHould they be forced to risk their lives and damage their bodies to carry a child they tried not to have to start with? It's not always possible to tell at what point the baby will harm the mother.[/b] If there is a good chance it will, but not in the first trimester, I would rather the mother end it early (if that was her choice) than risk it later and then have it be too late to end it. [right][post="109600"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] But hasn't medical technology reached the point where, more often than not, we can save them both? No, men may not have to deal with the permanent physical effects of a pregnancy, but 1, most women at some point want kids, and would have to deal with that anyway, and 2, men still legally, bear 50% of the financial responsibility regardless of what they want. And I have known men who were upset by their girlfriends abortions. My thinking is though, how selfish we have become. Less than 5% of abortions are rape/incest/life of the mom. That leaves 95% of abortions for "convenience". Sis, if, heaven forbid, you had to make the choice of your life or your child's, you would likely pick the child to live, wouldn't you? Once you create a life, you now have a responsibility beyond yourself ("you" in the generic sence). ANd when you consider the waiting list to adopt an infant, abortion is completely unnecessary, except for the few rare medical need cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='steggyD' date='Jul 1 2005, 08:45 PM']This is the funny part. If everyone who has ever used this line, voted for a third party, I promise you there would be a third party. [right][post="109643"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Honestly, I wouldn't care. I'm a Reagan Republican through and through. The problem in my mind is how few of them actually run for office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 Damn you, Rick. Michael Moore goons? Now I'm haunted by images of fat people making me offers I can't refuse! "Give me the vig...or you eat Twinkies till dawn." The selection of a Justice ought to be based on judicial philosophy, not specific issues. One person (forgive me, I've forgotten who) said they wanted a strict constructionist. I, on the other hand, would prefer a John Marshall type over a Roger Taney type. We already have a "super-literalist" in Scalia, and that's enough, imo. I'm a "general welfare" kind of guy and am willing to let a bunch of more or less moderate justices slug this out on a case by case basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BadassBengal Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 Jesus Christ, BJs almighty savior! I try to stay out of politics and cover my ears whenever I hear it on the radio, but now listening to you guys talking in about various stuff in here has me CONFUSED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jul 1 2005, 11:25 PM']Damn you, Rick. Michael Moore goons? Now I'm haunted by images of fat people making me offers I can't refuse! "Give me the vig...or you eat Twinkies till dawn." The selection of a Justice ought to be based on judicial philosophy, not specific issues. [b]One person (forgive me, I've forgotten who) said they wanted a strict constructionist.[/b] I, on the other hand, would prefer a John Marshall type over a Roger Taney type. We already have a "super-literalist" in Scalia, and that's enough, imo. I'm a "general welfare" kind of guy and am willing to let a bunch of more or less moderate justices slug this out on a case by case basis. [right][post="109759"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] That would be me. I'm sick of judges finding things in the constitution that aren't there. In fact, it isn't even in the constitution that that is what the supreme court does. They gave themselves that power. The constitution says what it says, nothing more, nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalSIS Posted July 2, 2005 Report Share Posted July 2, 2005 [quote name='Jason' date='Jul 1 2005, 09:18 PM']But hasn't medical technology reached the point where, more often than not, we can save them both? No, men may not have to deal with the permanent physical effects of a pregnancy, but 1, most women at some point want kids, and would have to deal with that anyway, and 2, men still legally, bear 50% of the financial responsibility regardless of what they want. And I have known men who were upset by their girlfriends abortions. My thinking is though, how selfish we have become. Less than 5% of abortions are rape/incest/life of the mom. That leaves 95% of abortions for "convenience". Sis, if, heaven forbid, you had to make the choice of your life or your child's, you would likely pick the child to live, wouldn't you? Once you create a life, you now have a responsibility beyond yourself ("you" in the generic sence). ANd when you consider the waiting list to adopt an infant, abortion is completely unnecessary, except for the few rare medical need cases. [right][post="109700"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I have never argued what I would do. I don't agree with abortion. But it's not MY body, my life, my decision if it's someone else. Like I said before, I think more rules need to be placed around current abortion laws, but I cannot agree with making it illegal. I think there are far too many people who are living, breathin, and aware that we don't take care of as it is to say what happens to a tiny organism that has yet to develop organs, brain, etc. If we all cared so much about human life, then we would do a better job takin care of souls already here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.