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

[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 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

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 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 cir stances.

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 . 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 cir stance.

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 cir stance.

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 cir stance.

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 ? 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...-abortion-bill

=======

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