"Christian" bubbas at it again: legal to kill doctors who perform abortions

[boutons_deux]

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of "justifiable homicide" to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/475481/shocking%3A_south_dakota_wants_to_legalize_murderi ng_abortion_providers/#paragraph4

[jack sommerset]

A life for a life?

[boutons_deux]

What Would Jesus Do?

[jack sommerset]

What Would Jesus Do?

There is no jesus. Do they want to take a life for life?

[boutons_deux]

This law is deputizing any "Christian" motherfucking gun fetishist bubbas to go around murdering people because he thinks they are abortionists.

[Sec24Row7]

I sometimes wonder if you are just a really masterful troll.

No one could be as stupid, vitriolic and consistent as you without grabbing a gun and using it on your peers and then yourself eventually...

Just do me a favor... and use it on yourself first... then go after your peers.

[boutons_deux]

So you approve of self-deputizing bubbas murdering abortionists?

[TeyshaBlue]

Newsflash. It's a bill...not a law.

[TeyshaBlue]

If it passes, which it has no chance in hell of doing so, then you can get all worked up, red faced, and have your little brand of "fun".

Until then, it's a bill.

[ElNono]

There is no jesus. Do they want to take a life for life?

Then they should be allowed to kill the mother, not the doctor...
The doctor is merely doing a work for hire that's constitutionally lawful...

[Sec24Row7]

So you approve of self-deputizing bubbas murdering abortionists?

Translate this into big boy talk and I'll respond to you with my opinion.

[boutons_deux]

So you approve of self-deputizing bubbas murdering abortionists?

[Sec24Row7]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

-Albert Einstein

[Spurminator]

This is clearly not the intent of the proposed law. Alternet/MotherJones are making some lofty assumptions here.

[boutons_deux]

What is "clearly" the intent of the law?

[jack sommerset]

What is "clearly" the intent of the law?

More important what is the intent of an abortion? Do they want to take a life for a life?

[Halberto]

No way it passes. It basically throws the sixth amendment out the window.

[boutons_deux]

"a life for a life"

how about a live for a TV?

Some TX bubba kills a non-threatening robber running away with his TV?

[TeyshaBlue]

Nice goal post move....again. And a straw goal post at that.

[ElNono]

More important what is the intent of an abortion?

You would need to ask the mother what her intentions are when hiring a doctor to perform one.

My question to you jack is, why do you care?

[Stringer_Bell]

There is no jesus. Do they want to take a life for life?

Being another welfare baby with a mother that can't care for you, or being fed into the meat-grinder of foster care is not what I call a "life."

And if there's no Jesus, then I'm guessing there's no God and GW was having conversations with himself when he was instructed to go into Iraq? :wow

[jack sommerset]

You would need to ask the mother what her intentions are when hiring a doctor to perform one.

My question to you jack is, why do you care?

Because I do.

There have been many studies of why these peeps have abortion. Doesn't feel she is ready, feels she can't afford baby, has in her opinion to many kids already, has to much family responsbility as is, relationship sucks,feels she isn't mature enough, might fuck with her schooling or career plans, the parents of the person having the abortion want it done These are easily over 90 percent of why mothers (i'm glad u reconize they are mothers) end a helpless innocent life. The other few percents of abortions are rape, incest and health reasons. Clearly more mothers abort their children, kill thier babies for selfish reasons. The few others get caught up in some sick shit.

Our country kill millions every year through abortions so if some guy wants to try to pass a law killing those who kill innocent lives, I gots no problem with that. Won't happen but I like it.

[jack sommerset]

Being another welfare baby with a mother that can't care for you, or being fed into the meat-grinder of foster care is not what I call a "life."

And if there's no Jesus, then I'm guessing there's no God and GW was having conversations with himself when he was instructed to go into Iraq? :wow

makes alot of sense. no jesus means no god and gw is a crazy man. :wow

[boutons_deux]

"Our country kill millions every year through abortions"

Been under 900K/year since 1997.

A big number, but not millions/year.

[ploto]

...if some guy wants to try to pass a law killing those who kill innocent lives, I gots no problem with that.

If you kill the mom, you kill the baby, and she is the one choosing to end a life.

[jack sommerset]

Boutons, my ######, troll, well over a million abortions a year are performed in good old USA. Our laws protect those who want to abort kids for whatever reasons they may have but make no mistake, its well over a million a year. I think I read somewhere that since Roe vs Wade there has been close to 50 million abortions committed. FUCK, USA is a slaughter house.

[jack sommerset]

If you kill the mom, you kill the baby, and she is the one choosing to end a life.

WTF are u talking about?

[DarkReign]

...well over a million abortions a year are performed in good old USA.

Thank fucking Christ. Looks like we're dodging one million bullets every year. That makes Neo look bitch made.

[ElNono]

Because I do.

Do you realize that 'life' as biologically defined entails more than just human life, right? Are you as concerned about non-human killing of innocent lives?
Would you like somebody else to decide if you have to keep a tapeworm, or if you should eat meat or not?


There have been many studies of why these peeps have abortion. Doesn't feel she is ready, feels she can't afford baby, has in her opinion to many kids already, has to much family responsbility as is, relationship sucks,feels she isn't mature enough, might fuck with her schooling or career plans, the parents of the person having the abortion want it done These are easily over 90 percent of why mothers (i'm glad u reconize they are mothers) end a helpless innocent life. The other few percents of abortions are rape, incest and health reasons. Clearly more mothers abort their children, kill thier babies for selfish reasons. The few others get caught up in some sick shit.

The reasons are truly completely irrelevant to you, since you're not being asked to make the decision for her. The law in this country gives the power to make that decision to the person carrying the fetus.


Our country kill millions every year through abortions so if some guy wants to try to pass a law killing those who kill innocent lives, I gots no problem with that. Won't happen but I like it.

Our country kills a lot of innocent lives every year outside of abortions. Are you as outraged our wars kill innocent civilians and merely label them as "collateral"? Are you advocating for killing our military personnel also?
If not, why not?

[jack sommerset]

Dude,...It's a human life. Around 50 million people in this country have abortions since 1973. Over 90 % of them had the "procedure" for selfish reasons. They admitted it. "I'm not ready for a kid" "I don't know who the dad is" "I was drunk" "He said he would pull out" "I have 2 years left and I get my bachelors" "I just got this job" "I'm not ready" I think it's safe to say there are 30-40 million of examples like this on why these mothers (glad you agree they are mothers) had the life terminated. I can't think of to many reason why anyone would want to abort a kid but forgetting to take birth control pill or I don't think it's my husbands baby should be one of the reasons.

I'm not cheerleading for any religious group, I get our country has killed innocent peeps durning wars and yes in alot of cases I am outraged by that. Our country gives me the power to voice my opinion and that opinion as silly as you may think it is says abortions is the murder of innocent life. I think it's straight up gangster shit killing most of these kids. Do I understand why some get abortions? Yes. Do I support everyones decisions on abortion? No. Do I think the laws should change on abortion. Yes. Do I know exactly what we should do? No. I know abortion have gotten out of control in this country. I think you even know they have.

If some congressmen wants to try to pass a law saying it's cool for the father to kill the doctor (throw mommy in there for shits and giggles), for killing his kid, I am all for it. That will never ever ever happen in a MILLION years but I like some of the messages it sends.

[ChumpDumper]

If you kill the mom, you kill the kid too, jack.

Then you'd have to kill yourself.

There could be an upside to this law.

[ploto]

If some congressmen wants to try to pass a law saying it's cool for the father to kill the doctor for killing his kid, I am all for it.

Then someone would have to kill the father, too, for taking a life- right? Like maybe that doctor's parent whose kid's life was taken. Then, someone would have to kill that person... So you believe so strongly in the sanctity of life that you advocate killing people?

And people on here know that I am pro-life but it is people like you and this congressman who give the cause a bad name.

[CuckingFunt]

Dude,...It's a human life. Around 50 million people in this country have abortions since 1973. Over 90 % of them had the "procedure" for selfish reasons. They admitted it. "I'm not ready for a kid" "I don't know who the dad is" "I was drunk" "He said he would pull out" "I have 2 years left and I get my bachelors" "I just got this job" "I'm not ready" I think it's safe to say there are 30-40 million of examples like this on why these mothers (glad you agree they are mothers) had the life terminated. I can't think of to many reason why anyone would want to abort a kid but forgetting to take birth control pill or I don't think it's my husbands baby should be one of the reasons.

I just loooooove when men having this argument arbitrarily decide how easily pregnant women make the decision to terminate their pregnancy.

I've known several women who have had abortions. Some because their pregnancies were the result of rape and/or incest, some because they "selfishly" decided they weren't ready (to be honest, realizing and admitting that to yourself before becoming a parent is the antithesis of selfish). In all of these cases I know that the women were 100% certain they had made the right decision. Yet in all of these cases I also know that their decisions were VERY difficult to make.

I'm not naive enough to pretend that there aren't women who have a casual approach to abortion or who view it as an easy solution, but as someone who has twice experienced the conflicted emotions that come from mourning a child you didn't want and/or weren't prepared for (miscarriages in my case), I can assure you that's not the way it works for the vast majority of women who seek abortion.




Between the happy trips to the abortion clinic and the vengeful yoo-hoo razor blades, tonight's Political Forum has a serious obsession with the idea of weaponized female reproductive organs. If someone mentions the vagina dentata, I'm out. Gots no time for Freud.

[ChumpDumper]

Speaking only for myself, I rather enjoy my interaction with vaginas.

I don't know what happened to these other guys.

[sickdsm]

You would need to ask the mother what her intentions are when hiring a doctor to perform one.

My question to you jack is, why do you care?

Is the Dad of no concern?

[sickdsm]

Speaking only for myself, I rather enjoy my interaction with vaginas.

I don't know what happened to these other guys.

Apparently you have a nice monitor.
:lol

[sickdsm]

I just loooooove when men having this argument arbitrarily decide how easily pregnant women make the decision to terminate their pregnancy.

I've known several women who have had abortions. Some because their pregnancies were the result of rape and/or incest, some because they "selfishly" decided they weren't ready (to be honest, realizing and admitting that to yourself before becoming a parent is the antithesis of selfish). In all of these cases I know that the women were 100% certain they had made the right decision. Yet in all of these cases I also know that their decisions were VERY difficult to make.

I'm not naive enough to pretend that there aren't women who have a casual approach to abortion or who view it as an easy solution, but as someone who has twice experienced the conflicted emotions that come from mourning a child you didn't want and/or weren't prepared for (miscarriages in my case), I can assure you that's not the way it works for the vast majority of women who seek abortion.




Between the happy trips to the abortion clinic and the vengeful yoo-hoo razor blades, tonight's Political Forum has a serious obsession with the idea of weaponized female reproductive organs. If someone mentions the vagina dentata, I'm out. Gots no time for Freud.


I think I read a poll before on views regarding abortion. Most people are in the middle, believing that abortions should be legal but legislate them so they are harder to get in certain cases and less common. I'm firmly in that camp. Just because someone is pro-life does NOT make them want to kill the doctors or flat out ban them all.


I think we need to have China adopt all of our culture. They would gain the lax attitude we have, enabling us to catch up on their economy, education and they would benefit from curtailing their population with abortion.

[ChumpDumper]

Apparently you have a nice monitor.
:lolMonitors have nothing to do with it.

You really are clueless when it comes to vaginas.

[Wild Cobra]

If it passes, which it has no chance in hell of doing so, then you can get all worked up, red faced, and have your little brand of "fun".

Until then, it's a bill.
Bouton's is latching on to an unintended technicality I think. The black and white of a law always has some unintended loop hole. That's why no we enjoy the unintended facts of things like anchor babies.

I guess the wording could be intentional, but I doubt it.

I have at times stressed the need of all bills/laws having a purpose and scope attached, to separate the intent of the law from the technicalities it creates.

[Wild Cobra]

What is "clearly" the intent of the law?
Would have to read the whole bill. Does it have a "purpose and scope" attached at the beginning?

[Wild Cobra]

What is "clearly" the intent of the law?
My first thought would be shooting a criminal who is acting with a weapon.

[Wild Cobra]

More important what is the intent of an abortion? Do they want to take a life for a life?
My first thought was the bill was being misread, and making abortion a justifiable homicide.

[Wild Cobra]

If some congressmen wants to try to pass a law saying it's cool for the father to kill the doctor (throw mommy in there for shits and giggles), for killing his kid, I am all for it. That will never ever ever happen in a MILLION years but I like some of the messages it sends.
Abortion has killed more life than evil men like Hitler. Not many people of the time would disagree with killing Hitler as a justifiable homicide.

[Wild Cobra]

Ooops...

My bad...

Just opened the bill (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bill.aspx?Bill=1171). The first line reads:


FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
However, a disclaimer at the top also says this:

This bill has been extensively amended (hoghoused) and may no longer be consistent with the original intention of the sponsor.

Now "certain unborn children" is not "all unborn children."

Now on the side of it not being used to justify killing abortion doctors, it does say this:


if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.]

It should be understood, the firt like was introduced like this:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain crimes.
It appears it was amended to make it fail.

[boutons_deux]

You vigilantes here who support self-deputized gun fetishists killing abortion clinic people (why just the doc? why not blow away all the clinic people?) love to respect the Constitution and SCOTUS when you agree with them, but are willing to murder people when you don't. You represent the best of America, American civilization at its crest.

The myth was that America is a Nation of Laws, not men, but you tea bagging right-wingers are destroying that myth, where America is a nation of men who make up the law as they go along and ignore any law they don't agree with. You know, like dubya's DoJ "lawyers" justifying torture, nullifying habeas corpus, and the entire financial industry in multi-year, serial fraud.

[ElNono]

Dude,...It's a human life. Around 50 million people in this country have abortions since 1973. Over 90 % of them had the "procedure" for selfish reasons. They admitted it. "I'm not ready for a kid" "I don't know who the dad is" "I was drunk" "He said he would pull out" "I have 2 years left and I get my bachelors" "I just got this job" "I'm not ready" I think it's safe to say there are 30-40 million of examples like this on why these mothers (glad you agree they are mothers) had the life terminated. I can't think of to many reason why anyone would want to abort a kid but forgetting to take birth control pill or I don't think it's my husbands baby should be one of the reasons.

Still their decisions, not yours.

Who gave you the moral high-ground to define what's 'selfish'? Do you want to impose your moral values onto others?

If what you're trying to tell me is that some people regret having abortions after the fact... then, okay, that might be the case. It's still their decision to do it or not, based on their own values. You don't have to agree with them.


I'm not cheerleading for any religious group, I get our country has killed innocent peeps durning wars and yes in alot of cases I am outraged by that. Our country gives me the power to voice my opinion and that opinion as silly as you may think it is says abortions is the murder of innocent life. I think it's straight up gangster shit killing most of these kids. Do I understand why some get abortions? Yes. Do I support everyones decisions on abortion? No. Do I think the laws should change on abortion. Yes. Do I know exactly what we should do? No. I know abortion have gotten out of control in this country. I think you even know they have.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion about abortion, and expressing it. Ultimately though, it's irrelevant seeing that you have no authority over the person with the decision-making process, which is the person carrying the fetus.
When you move past opinion and try to codify your moral standards into laws though, then you're crossing a line. I'm not surprised you agree with the attempt of imposing your moral-high ground on others though.


If some congressmen wants to try to pass a law saying it's cool for the father to kill the doctor (throw mommy in there for shits and giggles), for killing his kid, I am all for it. That will never ever ever happen in a MILLION years but I like some of the messages it sends.

What message is that? That doing a constitutionally-protected work for hire could get you murdered? For a society that strives to uphold the rule of law, it's absolutely the wrong message.

And where do you think the buck stops with this? The law doesn't specifically target doctors. Does somebody that induces an abortion through non-medical means is automatically fair game for murder? Is a mother taking the morning-after pill also a target?

[ElNono]

Is the Dad of no concern?

Not really, no. Does he carry the fetus?

[Wild Cobra]

Here's the 1/25/11 version, before the derailing amendments:

HOUSE BILL NO. 1171 (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bills/HB1171P.pdf)


FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain crimes.

[ElNono]

Abortion has killed more life than evil men like Hitler. Not many people of the time would disagree with killing Hitler as a justifiable homicide.

Cardiovascular diseases have killed more life than Hitler...
Do you really want the government to tell you what your diet should be?

[ElNono]

Here's the 1/25/11 version, before the derailing amendments:

HOUSE BILL NO. 1171 (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/Bills/HB1171P.pdf)

I really don't understand why that's needed, to be honest. Doesn't that fall within personal defense?

[Wild Cobra]

I really don't understand why that's needed, to be honest. Doesn't that fall within personal defense?
I think some state laws still don't recognize the death of a fetus as a killing. With abortion acceptable, they didn't kill life or it is argued in court that life wasn't threatened to justify defense, therefore defense laws can not always be applied.

[Wild Cobra]

Cardiovascular diseases have killed more life than Hitler...
Do you really want the government to tell you what your diet should be?
Death is the forgone conclusion of life. When in a natural way, do you want them to dictate?

[ElNono]

I think some state laws still don't recognize the death of a fetus as a killing. With abortion acceptable, they didn't kill life or it is argued in court that life wasn't threatened to justify defense, therefore defense laws can not always be applied.

They don't have to recognize anything. This law is not about the death of the fetus, but about using deadly force to defend it. Which is already permissible on a personal defense basis.


Death is the forgone conclusion of life. When in a natural way, do you want them to dictate?

Natural vs unnatural has nothing to do with it. I highly doubt you would be OK with an abortion process that removed the fetus from the host without damaging it, and then died 'naturally' since it couldn't self-sustain.

As far as abortion is concerned, I think the decision process is entirely in the right place: the host.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know El...

I have heard plenty of times in the new where fetal deaths have occurred, and the perpetrator got off because it wasn't human yet. I don't have a problem with writing into law that a woman can protect her baby with deadly force, an act that may do no harm to her.

Battering for example. Is deadly for justifiable? A few bruised, etc. Is that life threatening to the woman that would justify defense with deadly force? However, this could easily kill the fetus. Maybe cause a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage.)

[DarkReign]

Dude,...It's a human life. Around 50 million people in this country have abortions since 1973. Over 90 % of them had the "procedure" for selfish reasons. They admitted it. "I'm not ready for a kid" "I don't know who the dad is" "I was drunk" "He said he would pull out" "I have 2 years left and I get my bachelors" "I just got this job" "I'm not ready" I think it's safe to say there are 30-40 million of examples like this on why these mothers (glad you agree they are mothers) had the life terminated. I can't think of to many reason why anyone would want to abort a kid but forgetting to take birth control pill or I don't think it's my husbands baby should be one of the reasons.

Good.


I'm not cheerleading for any religious group, I get our country has killed innocent peeps durning wars and yes in alot of cases I am outraged by that. Our country gives me the power to voice my opinion and that opinion as silly as you may think it is says abortions is the murder of innocent life. I think it's straight up gangster shit killing most of these kids. Do I understand why some get abortions? Yes. Do I support everyones decisions on abortion? No. Do I think the laws should change on abortion. Yes. Do I know exactly what we should do? No. I know abortion have gotten out of control in this country. I think you even know they have.

Youre entitled to your opinion, absolutely. Just dont be all surprised when nobody gives a fuck about it.


If some congressmen wants to try to pass a law saying it's cool for the father to kill the doctor (throw mommy in there for shits and giggles), for killing his kid, I am all for it. That will never ever ever happen in a MILLION years but I like some of the messages it sends.

Well, in that case, every time someone offends my personal beliefs about what constitutes life/death, Im just going to kill them and know the law will protect me.

Great idea.

[ElNono]

I don't know El...

I have heard plenty of times in the new where fetal deaths have occurred, and the perpetrator got off because it wasn't human yet. I don't have a problem with writing into law that a woman can protect her baby with deadly force, an act that may do no harm to her.

Battering for example. Is deadly for justifiable? A few bruised, etc. Is that life threatening to the woman that would justify defense with deadly force? However, this could easily kill the fetus. Maybe cause a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage.)

And that's exactly the problem with a law like this. A miscarriage can happen for a number of different reasons, including many that are entirely natural.
Good luck trying to prove it happened because of something specifically.

Do you really want to grant a license for killing to any woman that has a miscarriage? How are you going to prove that the killing was justified?

And battery is already a punishable crime. That you can't charge the guy with attempted murder or murder doesn't make it any less of a crime, and it's not what this law is trying to address either.

[Sec24Row7]

I will never understand conservative opposition to liberal's process of self extermination.

It's counterproductive to conservative causes to have any of those kids be born.

Contraception should be handed out in 7th grade... Kids should have to wade knee deep through condoms, sponges and pills to have unprotected sex.

[jack sommerset]

You libs and your fight for human rights are really falling short on this topic. Surely you can find it in your cold little hearts to block most of the abortions happening today. Think about the fathers rights for a bit. I know a couple who divorced because the wifey had the abortion. The father wanted to keep the kid but mommy said no way, aborted and hubby moved out that day. She said she wanted a baby but then decided after she didn't.

[ChumpDumper]

You libs and your fight for human rights are really falling short on this topic. Surely you can find it in your cold little hearts to block most of the abortions happening today. Think about the fathers rights for a bit. I know a couple who divorced because the wifey had the abortion. The father wanted to keep the kid but mommy said no way, aborted and hubby moved out that day. She said she wanted a baby but then decided after she didn't.So he should have killed her.

Problem solved.

[jack sommerset]

So he should have killed her.

Problem solved.

The abortion law should be changed to protect not only kids rights but the fathers rights in a case like this, don't u think or do u just want to say tough titty said the kitty and let her get away with murder?

[ElNono]

The abortion law should be changed to protect not only kids rights but the fathers rights in a case like this, don't u think or do u just want to say tough titty said the kitty and let her get away with murder?

She's the one carrying the fetus, and taking all the risks during pregnancy (risks that might include her own death). So I have zero problems with the host being the one and only that makes that decision.

As far as I'm concerned, the father has zero rights on that kid until it's born, and the kid has zero rights too, being that's entirely dependent on the host.

[Trainwreck2100]

She's the one carrying the fetus, and taking all the risks during pregnancy (risks that might include her own death). So I have zero problems with the host being the one and only that makes that decision.

As far as I'm concerned, the father has zero rights on that kid until it's born, and the kid has zero rights too, being that's entirely dependent on the host.

That's where its hypocritical, the guy should be able to swear off the baby the womb just like the woman can

[Blake]

The abortion law should be changed to protect not only kids rights but the fathers rights in a case like this, don't u think or do u just want to say tough titty said the kitty and let her get away with murder?

so you would kill the mom before she has a chance to abort

[ElNono]

That's where its hypocritical, the guy should be able to swear off the baby the womb just like the woman can

Well, it wasn't the woman that chose to be the one hosting to the baby. Nature/God/Osiris/Whatever-you-believe-in decided for her.

[Trainwreck2100]

Well, it wasn't the woman that chose to be the one hosting to the baby. Nature/God/Osiris/Whatever-you-believe-in decided for her.

Not the man's choice either, if you're not gonna punish a woman for being a woman how do you justify punishing a for being born a man

[ChumpDumper]

The abortion law should be changed to protect not only kids rights but the fathers rights in a case like this, don't u think or do u just want to say tough titty said the kitty and let her get away with murder?More like tough titty it's not murder.

[ElNono]

Not the man's choice either, if you're not gonna punish a woman for being a woman how do you justify punishing a for being born a man

I'm not punishing anybody. I didn't make the decision. Doesn't change the fact that the woman is the one taking all the risk.

[Blake]

Not the man's choice either, if you're not gonna punish a woman for being a woman how do you justify punishing a for being born a man

in your opinion, what would be the best way to have an abortion if the mother was unwilling?

[Trainwreck2100]

I'm not punishing anybody. I didn't make the decision. Doesn't change the fact that the woman is the one taking all the risk.

Never mind youre the guy I argued with for three days because of you're typo and I'm not wasting my time with that shit again. Though I'm sure by now your grasp of the english language is better

[jack sommerset]

so you would kill the mom before she has a chance to abort

No.

What I am saying is the law as it stands today needs too change. We know to much now just to let the senseless murder of all the babies die in vain. Educating the folks has not worked unless you think educating them is giving them directions to the butcher. Fathers right, doesn't exist. How fucking crazy is this. A guy says he doesn't want the kid for whatever reason but if the girl keeps it that guy is paying his half by LAW. You get more shit for being a deadbeat dad from society then a mother killing her little one. Crazy!!!!! For fucks sake people, we are past girls in the alley getting hangers stuck up there fuckholes to scrap out the kids because Uncle Vinny raped her. It' s 2011, it can't be a women can do whatever she wants when it comes to abortions. I am very surprised some of you have taken this hard stance. It's time to re-visit the law and make some changes.

[ChumpDumper]

For fucks sake people, we are past girls in the alley getting hangers stuck up there fuckholes to scrap out the kidsYou want to go back to that.

[Blake]

No.

What I am saying is the law as it stands today needs too change. We know to much now just to let the senseless murder of all the babies die in vain. Educating the folks has not worked unless you think educating them is giving them directions to the butcher. Fathers right, doesn't exist. How fucking crazy is this. A guy says he doesn't want the kid for whatever reason but if the girl keeps it that guy is paying his half by LAW. You get more shit for being a deadbeat dad from society then a mother killing her little one. Crazy!!!!! For fucks sake people, we are past girls in the alley getting hangers stuck up there fuckholes to scrap out the kids because Uncle Vinny raped her. It' s 2011, it can't be a women can do whatever she wants when it comes to abortions. I am very surprised some of you have taken this hard stance. It's time to re-visit the law and make some changes.

what kind of law would you propose?

what's your stance on the morning after pill?

[ElNono]

Never mind youre the guy I argued with for three days because of you're typo and I'm not wasting my time with that shit again. Though I'm sure by now your grasp of the english language is better

your :lol

It's all good. I'm not going to berate you for having an opinion, tbh.
I just don't really agree with that viewpoint, that's all.

[ElNono]

I am very surprised some of you have taken this hard stance.

Uh? A hard stance to me would be that neither the mother or the father gets to choose.

[v2freak]

I have an admittedly poor understanding of political science.

Given this, what's the deal with the morning-after pill? How quickly can sperm fertilize an egg? I know people who consider abortion to be evil once human life is being created (aka sperm has fertilized egg).

I've also heard people argue condoms should be outlawed because it serves the same purpose as abortion - it blocks the creation of life during sex. I would say no human life has been terminated as a result of using a condom.

[Blake]

I've also heard people argue condoms should be outlawed because it serves the same purpose as abortion - it blocks the creation of life during sex. I would say no human life has been terminated as a result of using a condom.

wtf

only religious nutjobs would argue that

[boutons_deux]

"people argue condoms should be outlawed because it serves the same purpose as abortion"

That people would be the hard-core doctrinaire position of the Catholic Church, where only rhythm and coitus interruptus are acceptable birth control methods.

[jack sommerset]

what kind of law would you propose?

what's your stance on the morning after pill?

I'm not sure. As of right now it's the womens choice, period. I would start with fathers rights. I would like to start with the baby's life but obviously that has gone nowhere the past 30-35 years so lets see if we can save a life so that dad is not screwed by mommy killing his kid.

The morning pill is down right sinister. If you know there is a kill pill you can eat up the next day because you have concerns some dude splashed his load in your snatch I would guess you know about many other birth control methods that would have prevented the concern in the first place. Fucking pretty sick if you ask me that someone has the mentally ability to wake up after a night of fucking and poison their body to kill a potential kid. Pill should be banned

[jack sommerset]

Uh? A hard stance to me would be that neither the mother or the father gets to choose.

By hard I mean brutal. A well educated human rights advocate young man like yourself can come up with a reason, a law that could prevent some of these sensless killing instead of the stale old heartless take that a women can do whatever she wants with her body concerning whether a life lives or dies under any circumstance. That's hardcore brah.

[jack sommerset]

...............

[ElNono]

By hard I mean brutal. A well educated human rights advocate young man like yourself can come up with a reason, a law that could prevent some of these sensless killing instead of the stale old heartless take that a women can do whatever she wants with her body concerning whether a life lives or dies under any circumstance. That's hardcore brah.

Maybe a well educated person like yourself can explain why the life of the kid is more important than the life of the mother.

To me there's nothing senseless about the current system. Au contraire, I think it's exactly how it should be.

[CuckingFunt]

As a woman, the rhetoric of this issue is so disturbing to me.

Why assume that father's rights aren't being considered in a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy? Why assume that an abortion is necessarily the result of poor decision making or irresponsibility? The woman's irresponsibility, specifically.

Are there women out there who make bad choices? Of course. Are there women out there who decide to terminate a pregnancy without consulting the father, or perhaps without even informing him that she's pregnant? Of course. But that's not all women. And, even without researching, I'd feel pretty secure in suggesting that it's not most women. By a long shot. As I've suggested before, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is, by and large, not made casually. Nor is it a decision made only as a result of poor planning or irresponsiblity -- most of the women I know who have had an abortion (which, admittedly, is not a huge number) were in committed, long term relationships and had been careful in taking steps to prevent pregnancy specifically because they knew they and their partner were not yet in a position to start a family.

The point where this argument turns into one in which women shouldn't make these decisions about their own body because they're inherently incapable of doing so responsibly skeeves me right out. Too blatantly connected to the longstanding patriarchal suggestions that women, as a whole, are stupid and/or manipulative.

[ElNono]

But women should be in the kitchen, not deciding about life and death!

That's what men do!

[TeyshaBlue]

But women should be in the kitchen, not deciding about life and death!

That's what men do!

Blue or not, CF is gonna kick yer ass for that.:lol

[ElNono]

Blue or not, CF is gonna kick yer ass for that.:lol

:lol

[CuckingFunt]

Nah. I appreciate sarcasm.

And would have recognized it there even without the fancy colors.

[TeyshaBlue]

Kick his ass anyway. He's getting mighty cocky in here.:ihit

[jack sommerset]

Maybe a well educated person like yourself can explain why the life of the kid is more important than the life of the mother.

To me there's nothing senseless about the current system. Au contraire, I think it's exactly how it should be.

Brutal brah but atleast your being honest with me. The kid dies, mommy lives. A women decides she might not look so good in a bikini so she has a doctor kill the baby. My education, my morals says the kids life is more important. The law needs to be changed.

[ChumpDumper]

Brutal brah but atleast your being honest with me. The kid dies, mommy lives. A women decides she might not look so good in a bikini so she has a doctor kill the baby. My education, my morals says the kids life is more important. The law needs to be changed.Since it's so important to you, what are you doing to amend the constitution to outlaw abortions once and for all and say fetal life is more important than biologically adult female life?

[jack sommerset]

As a woman, the rhetoric of this issue is so disturbing to me.

Why assume that father's rights aren't being considered in a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy? Why assume that an abortion is necessarily the result of poor decision making or irresponsibility? The woman's irresponsibility, specifically.

Are there women out there who make bad choices? Of course. Are there women out there who decide to terminate a pregnancy without consulting the father, or perhaps without even informing him that she's pregnant? Of course. But that's not all women. And, even without researching, I'd feel pretty secure in suggesting that it's not most women. By a long shot. As I've suggested before, the decision to terminate a pregnancy is, by and large, not made casually. Nor is it a decision made only as a result of poor planning or irresponsiblity -- most of the women I know who have had an abortion (which, admittedly, is not a huge number) were in committed, long term relationships and had been careful in taking steps to prevent pregnancy specifically because they knew they and their partner were not yet in a position to start a family.

The point where this argument turns into one in which women shouldn't make these decisions about their own body because they're inherently incapable of doing so responsibly skeeves me right out. Too blatantly connected to the longstanding patriarchal suggestions that women, as a whole, are stupid and/or manipulative.

Considering you hate men for the most part and could careless about a fathers right maybe you can get behind a change in the law that would stop women from getting multiple abortions.

[Winehole23]

England, brah.

[Spurminator]

Why do you need Big Government to enforce your moral issue with abortions, Jacko? Get out there and carry a sign around. It's your 1st Amendment right.

[ChumpDumper]

Considering you hate men for the most part and could careless about a fathers right maybe you can get behind a change in the law that would stop women from getting multiple abortions.So now you want to keep a government database of the medical records of every woman in the US to make sure she doesn't have what you have decided to be too many abortions.

Par for the course.

[ElNono]

Brutal brah but atleast your being honest with me. The kid dies, mommy lives. A women decides she might not look so good in a bikini so she has a doctor kill the baby. My education, my morals says the kids life is more important. The law needs to be changed.

Not always. Sometimes the kid dies inside mommy, cause internal bleeding and both die. Sometimes mommy has a high risk pregnancy, and has a heart attack when delivering. Then mommy dies and the kid lives.

The fetus is not biologically dependent on you or your morals, which makes your opinion pretty much irrelevant.

I'm glad science was used to determine who's at higher risk, and thus who should make the decision, and not morals. You teach morals, you don't impose them on others.

[jack sommerset]

Not always. Sometimes the kid dies inside mommy, cause internal bleeding and both die. Sometimes mommy has a high risk pregnancy, and has a heart attack when delivering. Then mommy dies and the kid lives.

The fetus is not biologically dependent on you or your morals, which makes your opinion pretty much irrelevant.

I'm glad science was used to determine who's at higher risk, and thus who should make the decision, and not morals. You teach morals, you don't impose them on others.

I'm not talking about a kid dying in mommys belly from natural causes. You know this. I'm not talking about the risk mommy has to her heart. You know this. You actually are using "science" as a reason why mommy kills baby because mommy thinks she won't look good in a bathing suit. Science!!!!

[Blake]

I'm not talking about a kid dying in mommys belly from natural causes. You know this. I'm not talking about the risk mommy has to her heart. You know this. You actually are using "science" as a reason why mommy kills baby because mommy thinks she won't look good in a bathing suit. Science!!!!

this thread usually always comes back to when we all disagree at what point we can call it a baby.

I'm surprised it hasnt by now.

[ElNono]

I'm not talking about a kid dying in mommys belly from natural causes. You know this. I'm not talking about the risk mommy has to her heart. You know this. You actually are using "science" as a reason why mommy kills baby because mommy thinks she won't look good in a bathing suit. Science!!!!

That you want to circumscribe this to a single example, doesn't mean it's the only example. I gave you others just as valid.

The only thing in common is that the fetus is still biologically dependent on the mother (with or without a bikini). The one running the medical risk of carrying through with the pregnancy is the mother.

Not the father. Not your morals.

That's a fact supported by science.
Now, you can keep on pandering about bikinis, 'father rights', or morals. It's truly irrelevant.

[jack sommerset]

this thread usually always comes back to when we all disagree at what point we can call it a baby.

I'm surprised it hasnt by now.

Me too....With that said you are either pregnant or not.

[ElNono]

this thread usually always comes back to when we all disagree at what point we can call it a baby.

I'm surprised it hasnt by now.

It normally happens when people start discussing wether it's considered murder or not. We're really addressing who should make the decision, regardless of how you consider the act.

[jack sommerset]

That you want to circumscribe this to a single example, doesn't mean it's the only example. I gave you others just as valid.

The only thing in common is that the fetus is still biologically dependent on the mother (with or without a bikini). The one running the medical risk of carrying through with the pregnancy is the mother.

Not the father. Not your morals.

That's a fact supported by science.
Now, you can keep on pandering about bikinis, 'father rights', or morals. It's truly irrelevant.

It's truly not. Science does not give the reasoning for a couple to decide to have a kid and after the women gets pregos says "I just got this promotion at work" and decides to terminate the life. El NoNo thats not science. That's not the kid dying from natural causes, thats not the mom having an abortion that could potentially save her life. Son, that's fucking despicable and some would say murder (me) I find it hard to believe you would support such actions .

[Blake]

It normally happens when people start discussing wether it's considered murder or not. We're really addressing who should make the decision, regardless of how you consider the act.

I think Jack's now pretty much saying there shouldn't be a decision at all.

If there is though, there's no way a dude can have any say so whatsoever. Just the way it goes.

If he doesn't want that to happen, then he shouldn't stick his dick in in the first place.

[ElNono]

It's truly not. Science does not give the reasoning for a couple to decide to have a kid :blah:blah:blah

Where did I said Science gives any reasoning to decide anything?

I said:

The only thing in common is that the fetus is still biologically dependent on the mother (with or without a bikini). The one running the medical risk of carrying through with the pregnancy is the mother. That's a fact supported by science.

Which it is. Science doesn't say who should make any decisions. It just establishes who is bearing the burden of the medical risk.

To me, personally, it's enough to conclude that said person should be making the decision, since it's the person that has more at stake. As a matter of fact, she has potentially everything at stake.

[jack sommerset]

I think Jack's now pretty much saying there shouldn't be a decision at all.

If there is though, there's no way a dude can have any say so whatsoever. Just the way it goes.

If he doesn't want that to happen, then he shouldn't stick his dick in in the first place.

Jack is still saying the abortion laws need to change.


Where did I said Science gives any reasoning to decide anything?

I said:

The only thing in common is that the fetus is still biologically dependent on the mother (with or without a bikini). The one running the medical risk of carrying through with the pregnancy is the mother. That's a fact supported by science.

Which it is. Science doesn't say who should make any decisions. It just establishes who is bearing the burden of the medical risk.

To me, personally, it's enough to conclude that said person should be making the decision, since it's the person that has more at stake. As a matter of fact, she has potentially everything at stake.

You said it again. A healthy mommy is not at medical risk, but her decision to abort puts the kid at medical risk. Science has nothing to do with a healthy mommy deciding she will abort her kid unless you think looking good in a bikini is science. Therefore, the child is the one who is now carrying the burden of the medical risk and has everything at stake thanks to dear old healthy mommy We should change the abortion laws.

[Blake]

Jack is still saying the abortion laws need to change.


what would be the perfect law(s) regarding abortion?

[jack sommerset]

what would be the perfect law(s) regarding abortion?

I don't know but I did make some suggestions and gave some reasons why they need to change.

[Blake]

I don't know but I did make some suggestions and gave some reason why they need to change.

k.

then I'm still ok with abortions before the fetus hits a certain age.

just because some sperm fused with an egg, I'm not ready to give it human rights.

[ElNono]

Jack is still saying that his moral views should be imposed on others

fify


You said it again. A healthy mommy is not at medical risk

Do we have to pretend you're a doctor now?
There's plenty of healthy women whose pregnancies are considered high risk because of age alone. You really shouldn't be opining about this if you don't know what you're talking about.


but her decision to abort puts the kid at medical risk.

Uh? The fetus is dead after an abortion. Even if it didn't die during the procedure, it can't self-sustain. What medical risk for the kid are you talking about?


Science has nothing to do with a healthy mommy deciding she will abort her kid unless you think looking good in a bikini is science.

You keep insisting on assigning me a point I never made. That's very hypocritical of you.
I said science proves that the medical risks are entirely with the host, and nobody else. That's a fact. I don't know why you try to keep on spinning this to mean what I never claimed it means.

The decision to abort or not is entirely with the mother. I simply choose to side with the person that's scientifically proven to carry all the risk here. I don't dabble in morals when there's a much more mundane risk.


Therefore, the child is the one who is now carrying the burden of the medical risk and has everything at stake thanks to dear old healthy mommy We should change the abortion laws.

The kid is dead, finito. The host decided she didn't want to take the risk of pregnancy or simply didn't want to host a fetus in her body.

You have nothing at stake on any of that. But you want to mandate what the other person should do? That's the very definition of authoritarian, jack.

[CuckingFunt]

Considering you hate men for the most part and could careless about a fathers right maybe you can get behind a change in the law that would stop women from getting multiple abortions.

I'm quite fond of men.

I think a father's rights are incredibly important. I just happen to think that the biological processes of reproduction are such that a woman's rights are a tad more important in this case.

EDIT: And, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that I think it's respectful or responsible for a woman to have an abortion without consulting the father (in a committed relationship, at least; don't know what is to be gained by tracking down a one-night stand should such a thing lead to pregnancy). I am fundamentally opposed, however, to ANY law that would allow for someone else to demand a woman go through the physical strain of a pregnancy and childbirth she doesn't want.

What have I ever posted about reproductive rights would lead you to believe I would be at all supportive of a law stopping women from getting multiple abortions?

[jack sommerset]

I'm quite fond of men.

I think a father's rights are incredibly important. I just happen to think that the biological processes of reproduction are such that a woman's rights are a tad more important in this case.

EDIT: And, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that I think it's respectful or responsible for a woman to have an abortion without consulting the father (in a committed relationship, at least; don't know what is to be gained by tracking down a one-night stand should such a thing lead to pregnancy). I am fundamentally opposed, however, to ANY law that would allow for someone else to demand a woman go through the physical strain of a pregnancy and childbirth she doesn't want.

What have I ever posted about reproductive rights would lead you to believe I would be at all supportive of a law stopping women from getting multiple abortions?

I said "maybe you can get behind a change in the law that would stop women from getting multiple abortions." Maybe you can't.

ElNoNo-You're boring, again. You wrote what you wrote. We have pages and pages of it.

[Blake]

I said "maybe you can get behind a change in the law that would stop women from getting multiple abortions."

what's the ethical difference between one and two abortions?

[jack sommerset]

what's the ethical difference between one and two abortions?

It would depend on the circumstances.

Over 95 percent of abortions are not because the mom is concerned with the health risk to her or the baby/kid/fetus. (El NoNo, you don't have to be a doctor to know this) Some people in here say the father/families have no rights to stop the mom/wife/family new member from being terminated. Some people in here agree with the law that women can do anything they want with their body simply because they can. Some people say it's not a life until a certain point of growth. Some people in here want to talk about wars and how innocent people are killed all the time so who gives a shit. Some people want to play devil advocate. Some want to talk about the religious factors.

Abortion is a hot topic and very debatable. I was hoping that some people that chimed into the conversation pro abortion would atleast agree the abortion law as is, is not perfect and perhaps make a few suggestions on their own that would make that law better instead of just arguing the same old, same old. 50 million abortions since 73. "Houston, we have a problem"

[ElNono]

Abortion is a hot topic and very debatable. I was hoping that some people that chimed into the conversation pro abortion would atleast agree the abortion law as is, is not perfect and perhaps make a few suggestions on their own that would make that law better instead of just arguing the same old, same old. 50 million abortions since 73. "Houston, we have a problem"

jack, the problem is you don't want to debate. You have your 'morals', and the rest be damned. As far as placing the decision-making process on the mother, abortion law is as perfect as it gets, IMO.

[jack sommerset]

jack, the problem is you don't want to debate. You have your 'morals', and the rest be damned. As far as placing the decision-making process on the mother, abortion law is as perfect as it gets, IMO.

We have "debated" for 2-3 days now on this topic alone so u are wrong once again.

The rest be damned? Stop it. The problem is 50 million abortions and the different reasons why they happened and lets see if we can stop some of them.

In one instance I say a father has a right to raise his kid after him and his wife agreed to have a kid but 9 weeks into the pregnancy she decides to terminate the baby/fetus/life because she got some sort of promotion at work and the timing is not right now. That fetus/baby/life and father deserve rights and laws to protect them. Your "morals" say that women can do anything she wants with her body. She is the one taking the health risk even though the mom says herself she is not concerned with the health risk that she just changed her mind.

There is no point to "debate" with you. You are thrilled with 50 million abortions and see no problem with moms terminating a life for whatever reasons. Zero problem, under any circumstance.

I'm bored with with you. I'm not saying this to insult you. I'm generally bored with you. I have your opinion and thanks for sharing it. I don't have a problem with "debating", I have a problem with repeating myself and correcting you.

[Blake]

There is no point to "debate" with you. You are thrilled with 50 million abortions and see no problem with moms terminating a life for whatever reasons. Zero problem, under any circumstance.

I doubt anyone is thrilled with 50 million abortions.

[CuckingFunt]

I doubt anyone is thrilled with 50 million abortions.

Of course we are. Didn't you know that those who don't actively oppose a woman's right to choose automatically love abortions?

My girlfriends and I all have vacuum parties at the clinic every few months.

[Blake]

My girlfriends and I all have vacuum parties at the clinic every few months.

sounds expensive.

I've heard of back alley raves where you bring your own rusty hangers.

[ElNono]

We have "debated" for 2-3 days now on this topic alone so u are wrong once again.

Quoting 'debated' is spot on, IMO. There's no such thing going on here.
You've explained what your stance is and why (morals). All you're looking for at this point is for somebody else to come around and agree with you.


The rest be damned? Stop it. The problem is 50 million abortions and the different reasons why they happened and lets see if we can stop some of them.

Maybe we need better education so we don't need to get the point where an abortion is needed. But that's not what we're discussing here.


In one instance I say a father has a right to raise his kid after him and his wife agreed to have a kid but 9 weeks into the pregnancy she decides to terminate the baby/fetus/life because she got some sort of promotion at work and the timing is not right now. That fetus/baby/life and father deserve rights and laws to protect them. Your "morals" say that women can do anything she wants with her body. She is the one taking the health risk even though the mom says herself she is not concerned with the health risk that she just changed her mind.

Whatever triviality you want to assign to the actual choice is entirely irrelevant. You have zero at stake in the process.


There is no point to "debate" with you. You are thrilled with 50 million abortions and see no problem with moms terminating a life for whatever reasons. Zero problem, under any circumstance.

I don't like abortions. I wish it didn't have to get to that point. I think proper sexual education goes a long way to prevent getting there.
Now, being realistic, when and if it gets to that point, I have zero problems with the person that's going to carry all the risk/burden making the decision.

CF is spot on that this is not the black and white issue you're trying to make it.


I'm bored with with you. I'm not saying this to insult you. I'm generally bored with you. I have your opinion and thanks for sharing it. I don't have a problem with "debating", I have a problem with repeating myself and correcting you.

Who gives a shit? You don't need to respond to my posts.

[ElNono]

Of course we are. Didn't you know that those who don't actively oppose a woman's right to choose automatically love abortions?

My girlfriends and I all have vacuum parties at the clinic every few months.

Clearly a bunch of feminists that need a man to put them in your proper place... the kitchen, obviously...

[jack sommerset]

..

[boutons_deux]

More dog whistling to the "Christian taliban" bubba vigilantes:

Nebraska Resurrects 'Justifiable Homicide' Abortion Bill

The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit "justifiable homicide" in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.

"In short, this bill authorizes and protects vigilantes, and that's something that's unprecedented in our society,"

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/nebraska-justifiable-homicide-abortion-bill

=======

Will Fox Repug Propaganda network cover these vigilante bills? in a negative or positive light?