SD bans almost all abortions, challenges Roe v. Wade - Page 6

c312 · 02-27-2006, 10:09 PM

[quote:a2b21]Whatever.

The point I'm trying to make now is that you absolutely contradict yourself with your views.

It's so fucking pig-ignorant. You have been one of the most outspoken in your support of the war - and you have also been one of the most outspoken against killing unborn babies. When you supported your presidents actions to invade Iraq, you were supporting the potential deaths of thousands of people who have lived their lives innocently....and then you say there is no case for aborting babies, totally denouncing it....

You never once commented on whether or not you believe it's okay in some circumstances to abort a child (i.e in the situation of rape - which I prompted as a question a few times in this thread already) so I'm finding it hard to figure where you are coming from....but based on what I have read from you I'd say you were hard-line against it in all forms. Regulated or unregulated.

To say that and then not speak out against your government and instead totally support the actions just seem hypocritical....To be so supportive of a POTENTIAL life, and then so uncaring and attempting to justify life being cut short - It doesn't make sense. [/quote:a2b21]

In Iraq, people were being killed by Saddam. Just like I beleive fetuses are being killed in abortions. Same deal. Now, I know there is the fact that there would be innocent deaths in the Iraq War, but that number will be lower than the total number killed by Saddam already and in the future had he not been taken out of power. That's the difference for me. I care about the innocent lives lost in Iraq, but they were sacrifices made accidentally in order to ensure less deaths in the end. That's the way I see it, it's the same, I don't want to allow Saddam to kill innocents just like I don't want irresponsible mothers to kill innocent fetuses, that's clearly not contradiction, but similarity.

As for rape. I'm not as sure as the rape situation. Rape abortions are undoubtedly much more rare than non rape abortions. I can't say that I agree with aborting a fetus in that case because it's clearly still a life (to me) so that would be wrong. However, I don't think I have anything against the morning after pill for rape victims. As for the case where mothers are in danger, that's a doozy. I guess it would depend on the specific case, but I think I would generally side with the mother's health.

I hope that satisfies you because I'm pretty tired of arguing this, I've made my views pretty clear and I don't think anyone is gonna change their mind for reasons I've already stated, plus, I have two papers and two tests this week and I've already typed more in this thread than in the paper I'm working on right now.

Johnj · 02-27-2006, 10:11 PM

When did I post any support for the president or his war. I may have shown support for the troops, or for my country, but never for a Bush. I'd like to see all the killing stopped now.

c312 · 02-27-2006, 10:12 PM

I hate when people say they support the troops but not the war...ugh.

Coleman · 02-27-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312

I hate when people say they support the troops but not the war...ugh.

what's wrong with that?

Pyro · 02-27-2006, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coleman

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312

I hate when people say they support the troops but not the war...ugh.

what's wrong with that?

yeah...whats wrong with supported the kids who just want money to have a college education being forced to go and kill for an unjustified reason?

Though I don't support the ones who think they are justified in killing innocent iraqis and all those fucking videos i saw of there immature antics.

c312 · 02-27-2006, 10:27 PM

You can't logically support the troops without supporting their cause, ie: The War. That's like saying you support construction workers but don't want the building they are building to be built. Yeah, you may have sympathy for them, but that isn't supporting them.

Machette · 02-27-2006, 10:33 PM

Going offtopic now...

c312 · 02-27-2006, 10:34 PM

sorry. beer:

angel:

Tripper · 02-27-2006, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312

As for rape. I'm not as sure as the rape situation. Rape abortions are undoubtedly much more rare than non rape abortions. I can't say that I agree with aborting a fetus in that case because it's clearly still a life (to me) so that would be wrong. However, I don't think I have anything against the morning after pill for rape victims. As for the case where mothers are in danger, that's a doozy. I guess it would depend on the specific case, but I think I would generally side with the mother's health.

I'd like to know what you'd do if your wife was raped and you attempted to get her to refuse an abortion. If you honestly believe she would want to have the baby you either know some fucked up women or you just plain have NO idea.

...and it's not all that rare is you probably think it is - Rapists don't use condoms. It's also pretty hard for a woman to work up the nerve to see a pharmacist/doctor and go through the questionaire involved with getting the morning after pill after being raped....

I can't even believe you have think it's a "doozy" when the mother's health is in danger...To me, that is insane. If it were my wife, I'd have no trouble in deciding. The baby has no idea it's dieing. The baby has no idea it's even lived. While obviously I would feel a great loss, and I would be emotionally wrecked, I would be able to move on alot more easily than losing someone I've actually known and loved.

I think outlawing abortion in total is just fucking stupid no matter what side of the fence you sit. I'm for more sternly regulating abortions...But I think just as it is necessary to kill 30,000 civilians in order to save them ( oOo: ), I think it is VERY likely that there would be a chance in which aborting the fetus would be necessary - If you're gonna outlaw abortion under any and all circumstances (which you have made yourself clearly supportive of), you should do the same with your war machine.

That's, for me, where the contradiction lies in the hard-line conservative mindstate....

c312 · 02-27-2006, 11:38 PM

I said they should get the morning after pill in the case of rape.

Anyway, I don't see the contradiction in the war machine?

Tripper · 02-28-2006, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312

I said they should get the morning after pill in the case of rape.

That's easy for you to say as a male....

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312

Anyway, I don't see the contradiction in the war machine?

The contradiction is in those who support the war machine AND are hardline against all abortions. Like ALOT of conservatives...

Like you said, the war may have been necessary in the long run. Just like there are obviously cases where abortion is necessary in the long run....and yet if you're totally against abortion and don't agree it would ever be necessary simply because of the loss of life, then how can you ever see war as being necessary - especially when the loss of life is considerably greater?

c312 · 02-28-2006, 12:33 AM

war can have a greater possibility for loss of life, but remember, I said that I support the war because it would have saved more lives than it lost in the long run. I don't see how that is contradictory, it places value on preserving life as best as possible.

Short Hand · 02-28-2006, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c312

war can have a greater possibility for loss of life, but remember, I said that I support the war because it would have saved more lives than it lost in the long run. I don't see how that is contradictory, it places value on preserving life as best as possible.

You killed 100 000 Civy's alone in the war. AND now a possible civil war that will ingulf millions. You have done nothing. Get over it. Admit the war was wrong.

People are not statistics you can stack up. rolleyes:

Poseidon · 02-28-2006, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnj

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnj

So Mad what your saying is your for KILLING BABIES if the mother doesn't want to be bothered with them.

And as long as we call it something else, so it doesn't sound so fucking bad.

No actually, it would be KILLING FETUS'S - It isn't a "baby" until it leaves the womb. Now who's calling it something else to make themselves feel better.

Ok so it make you feel better to call it a fetus, which is Latin for BABY, then we'll call it a fetus. Your position then is that it's ok to kill them, right.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... arch&meta=

A fetus is an unborn human or animal.
a human embryo in the mother's uterus
A term used to refer to a baby during the period of gestation between eight weeks and term.
The unborn child from around eight weeks after conception (when all major organs are formed and it begins to resemble a human being) to the time of birth.
an unborn baby

Many sites beliveing its an unborn child.

Jesters8 · 02-28-2006, 06:32 AM

But do any of these arguments really apply to Roe v. Wade? That decision said that there is a right to an abortion in The Constitution. I've read it many times now, and I don't see it. The Tenth Ammendment is clear. Abortion has to be left to the democratic process.