Been raped...GOP says too bad...you gotta have the baby...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

I'm still freaked out about the facts on PP... they are all over 22 years old...:lmao

---

And include the heading "Planned Parenthood Today."

Following SnC's logic, SnC cannot support the Constitution of the United States because it was written by a slave owner and SnC must think that everything Lincoln did must be condemned because he was, in fact, a racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Following SnC's logic, SnC cannot support the Constitution of the United States because it was written by a slave owner and SnC must think that everything Lincoln did must be condemned because he was, in fact, a racist.

---

:lol

Some assumptions:

1. If one believes abortion is bad, or is "pro Life" that person believes the fetus to be a child, a human, in full possession of the most basic or rights: The Right to Live.

2. That person (fetus) did not have any control over how he/she was conceived.

3. Anti-abortion EXCEPT is a non-logical position; the only exception LOGICALLY being when the life of the mother is in danger (the child's right to life does not trump the mother's).

Seems to me you either think the fetus has a right to live, or you do not. I am open to listening and discussing why an exception in which one fetus has MORE of a right to live than another is valid; but I can't imagine one being legitimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Following SnC's logic, SnC cannot support the Constitution of the United States because it was written by a slave owner and SnC must think that everything Lincoln did must be condemned because he was, in fact, a racist.

---

is that coexistence or a coincedence?

Masturbation is murder!!!

In 2006 PP aborted 289,750 unborn children and sold 1,436,846 "emergency" birth control kits. Sounds like a mill to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Following SnC's logic, SnC cannot support the Constitution of the United States because it was written by a slave owner and SnC must think that everything Lincoln did must be condemned because he was, in fact, a racist.

---

:lol
idiot. how does that make any sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

3. Anti-abortion EXCEPT is a non-logical position; the only exception LOGICALLY being when the life of the mother is in danger (the child's right to life does not trump the mother's).

Seems to me you either think the fetus has a right to live, or you do not. I am open to listening and discussing why an exception in which one fetus has MORE of a right to live than another is valid; but I can't imagine one being legitimate.

---

Agreed.

Pro-life in all non-life-threatening circumstances is a much more logical and defensible position than pro-life-except-in-rape-cases, though I disagree with both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

:lol
idiot. how does that make any sense?

---

I agree; your logic makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Some assumptions:

1. If one believes abortion is bad, or is "pro Life" that person believes the fetus to be a child, a human, in full possession of the most basic or rights: The Right to Live.

2. That person (fetus) did not have any control over how he/she was conceived.

3. Anti-abortion EXCEPT is a non-logical position; the only exception LOGICALLY being when the life of the mother is in danger (the child's right to life does not trump the mother's).

Seems to me you either think the fetus has a right to live, or you do not. I am open to listening and discussing why an exception in which one fetus has MORE of a right to live than another is valid; but I can't imagine one being legitimate.

---

Outside of preserving the greater common good in protecting society from certain criminals as a justification to justify the death penalty, The law in this country never supports a relinquishment of one's life to preserve another person's rights. And even the death penalty serves all of society rather thna a single individual.

Long-standing principle of men created equally.

The law recognizes rights up to a point, but at the point where the outcome of legal enforcement becomes too aggregious to enforce, the law refuses a remedy.

Thus the fetus has a right to live beyond the first trimester, but that right does not extend to others having to sacrifice their own lives to preserve that right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I agree; your logic makes no sense.

---

:rollin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Some assumptions:

1. If one believes abortion is bad, or is "pro Life" that person believes the fetus to be a child, a human, in full possession of the most basic or rights: The Right to Live.

2. That person (fetus) did not have any control over how he/she was conceived.

3. Anti-abortion EXCEPT is a non-logical position; the only exception LOGICALLY being when the life of the mother is in danger (the child's right to life does not trump the mother's).

Seems to me you either think the fetus has a right to live, or you do not. I am open to listening and discussing why an exception in which one fetus has MORE of a right to live than another is valid; but I can't imagine one being legitimate.

---

Another option is to recognize the possibility of a fetus being "alive" but recognizing that outlawing abortion might lead to more back-alley abortions, mothers who don't raise their children correctly, etc etc.

Abortion is one of the few issues where I can't come down on either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Another option is to recognize the possibility of a fetus being "alive" but recognizing that outlawing abortion might lead to more back-alley abortions, mothers who don't raise their children correctly, etc etc.

Abortion is one of the few issues where I can't come down on either side.

---

its bullshit smokescreen, used to pit the christian populous vs the rest of society.

Im not saying its not worthwhile to defend the rights of the unborn, but I dont think repugs give a fuck...they just use it as a part of a dishonest political strategy to steer sheep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

:lol
idiot. how does that make any sense?

---

Its so refreshing to log on midday and see Chump owning your ass all day...I wish I had the time and energy this man does.

:toast CD!

Providing a means to prevent pregnancies in the first instance strikes me as a fairly injurious practice for an abortion mill, which (after all) depends upon pregnancies for its existence. Surely, PP, in keeping with its abortion mill mission, is only giving away condoms with holes in them and sugar pills that masquerade as birth control pills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parker2112

Its so refreshing to log on midday and see Chump owning your ass all day...I wish I had the time and energy this man does.

:toast CD!

---

:lmao
YOu saying chump owns anyone on postings. Why don't you explain the similarity of my post and chumps jargon if you find the humor so appealing you post twice with the quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

In 2006 PP aborted 289,750 unborn children and sold 1,436,846 "emergency" birth control kits. Sounds like a mill to me.

---

Of course it does, if that's all you're interested in hearing.

Performing abortions and providing the Plan B pill is, obviously, not all that Planned Parenthood did over the course of 2006, though.

Additionally, selling 1,436,846 emergency birth control kits does not translate to 1,436,846 pregnancies that were terminated as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Providing a means to prevent pregnancies in the first instance strikes me as a fairly injurious practice for an abortion mill, which (after all) depends upon pregnancies for its existence. Surely, PP, in keeping with its abortion mill mission, is only giving away condoms with holes in them and sugar pills that masquerade as birth control pills.

---

Bastards.

How dare they have the nerve to be both an abortion mill AND bad capitalists?

great corporatists though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuckingFunt

It is much more heavily promoted in communities of color and in lower class communities than in affluent/white communities. Or, at least, it historically has been, even when the dangers and potential complications were known.

---

Is it promoted in affluent black communities?

I think you are seeing things that don't exist, using your own biased perception.

As far as I know, it is promoted to all women of child bearing age who rely on social services.

Are you saying social services discriminate between poor whites and poor blacks? Social services do not supply birth control, aspirin, free medical care, etc. to those who pay for things themselves, or have their own insurance. that's where I see the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

So she believes it, but she just didn't say it? Oh ok, that's much better.

---

My point is that she never said what is implied. Yes, she is a strong pro life, but there is no indication that she would force others to not have an abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

What's wrong with thinking it's god's plan for a young child to get pregnant because of rape or incest? Are you serious?

This issue really doesn't even have anything to do with religion. She's just an insane extreme right winger using religion to justify her nonsense because it's the most convenient of excuses. And only a dullard wouldn't see through that, which is exactly why you didn't.

---

Your opinion. You are one of many.

Your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

No population control targeting certain races isn't racist.

---

I would say targeting races would be racist. However, again, I have only seen then target the poor, and yes, there are more poor blacks than poor whites. Statistics don't make racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

does birth control limit abortions?

---

I know I'll open a can of worms for saying this again...

I believe Birth control increases births as people get a false sense of security.