PushbuttonWarfare Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Wow, in one swift paragraph comparing abortion to not only slavery, but nazi germany. Incredible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.C.Shadow Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Maybe I'm just an asshole... But there are already too many humans on this earth. If a woman wants to get an abortion its her baby. Who fucking cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yum Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 extremely well said 2342 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishbel Bullen Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 i pretty much only support abortion in a few cases. 1. when women are using it as a contraceptive (sic) 2. when a rape occurs and this results in a pregnancy 3. when incest is involved. maybe someone else said them but i didnt feel like reading through them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Im anti-abortion unless the mothers life is endangered. Theres always adoption. It may not be the best way but I think its better than killing the child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Cowboy Bill Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 if 90% of the world died today, we would still have 650 million people running round... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KING BLING Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Originally posted by yum@Feb 26 2006, 06:27 AM extremely well said 2342 Quoted post Exactly... And MAR you made a point without realizing it - "but I think its better". I don't think anyone is PRO-ABORTION (jokes aside) but the choice must be ours to make. If you are against it, punishing and shaming do nothing moral or right. If only all that anti-abortion energy and money went towards adoption assistance for willing adopters and perhaps assistance for poor mothers we might find people less cynical about having kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Exactly. I cant judge anyone for what they do. I've never been in that situation. I know what I would do, but really that only matters for me. What other people do is ultimately their desision but we need to make certain changes first before we can lead others towards the path we deem correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulkillers Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 ok how many people here have been thru a abortion? Thru the pain in deciding to have a abortion for what ever reason? i am a guy who has been there with a woman gettin a abotion of my own future child. it is not easy for someone to decide to do that. i am all about letting the woman decide on what see needs to do for her. just because someone is pregnat by ordinary mean[not rpae,molestaion,incest etc] can they or should they keep the children reason ranging from mental retaration to not being able to care for that child. just think for every abortion done there is twice as many kids in foster care or welfare or in situations where the are not well off that as tax payers we pay for and as humans we all suffer for because there pain. Pain that children should not fell. Id rather have some broke ass crack head abort the fetus then let grow up poss crack additcated of even phyiscal handicapped due to moms drugs. foster care is not always good for the chids ether Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishbel Bullen Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 from what i hear its rarely ever good for anyone but the parents getting the money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Mississippi advances bill to ban most abortions No exceptions for rape or incest; Barbour says he’ll probably sign it into law Rep. Steve Holland, D-Miss., introduced a near-ban on abortion that would only allow the procedure to save a pregnant woman's life. Updated: 10:27 p.m. ET March 1, 2006 JACKSON, Miss. - Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday he would probably sign a bill under consideration in the state House that would ban most abortions in Mississippi. The measure, which passed the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday, would allow abortion only to save a woman’s life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest. Barbour, a Republican, said he preferred an exception in cases of rape and incest, but if such a bill came to his desk: “I suspect I’ll sign it.� The full House could vote on the bill next week, and it would then go to the Senate. South Dakota lawmakers passed a similar bill last week that was intended to provoke a legal showdown over Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling establishing the right to an abortion. The measure is awaiting Republican Gov. Mike Rounds’ signature. He has said he is inclined to sign it. Mississippi already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the nation. It requires a 24-hour waiting period and counseling for all abortions, plus the consent of both parents for minors who seek the procedure. A Missouri lawmaker filed similar legislation to ban abortions, as well as a measure to amend the state’s constitution. “The time has come for these decisions to be made in these deliberative bodies, not by nine men and women who wear black robes,� said Republican state Sen. Jason Crowell. The Missouri Legislature has a solid anti-abortion majority and has enacted various restrictions to the procedure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ishbel Bullen Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 "southern man, better keep your head, don't forget what your good book says... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 those damn southern racists...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly high Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Originally posted by bobthedestroyer@Feb 23 2006, 08:15 PM The death penalty is also retarded... Not only does it not work as a deterrant but a fuckload of people on there are innoicent. Anyways how can you say that killing is wrong and then go ahead and kill someone.... Fuck the death penalty and fuck abortion. Let's be real here, most abortions are not done by females who were raped and what not, they are done by dumb fuck hoes who fuck too many people don't use condoms get pregnant and try to kill their mistakes. Quoted post I agree, a life for a life and we are all dead! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 what? So If someone rapes and kills your daughter what do you do with him? throw him in jail to breathe the same air as you? Hell no, He shouldn't have been killing people , plain and simple. Do you go around killing people? If not, then you don't have anything to worry about. I never killed anybody, My wife never killed anybody, I know alot of people who never killed anybody, so there you have it, A lot of people would still be alive if an eye for eye was the law. I beleive in an eye for en eye, It's natural because it's not necissarily killing that's wrong, It;s killing without a just cause and If someone kills an innocent person then killing him has now turned into a just cause in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 "what? So If someone rapes and kills your daughter what do you do with him?" DING DING DING!!!!!! EXACTLY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 abort him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2342 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Here is an article from a friend of mine- and as always- he makes PEFECT SENSE out of something that makes NO SENSE what-so-ever. S. Dakota Slaps Up Its Women Another state you should never visit passes an appalling abortion ban, because they hate you - By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Friday, March 3, 2006 Attention all funky sexy single intelligent women of South Dakota (assuming there are any left): It is time. Pack it up. Strip the bed, box up the cat, load the U-Haul, call your hip friends over in Minneapolis, move out West, or East, or anywhere with a mind-set not stuck like a bloody nail in the moral coffin of 1845. Let this be your clarion call. Get the hell out, right now. Here is why: Your state hates you. Your state, apparently run by pallid sexless demagogic men who think they know something of God and morality but know only ignominy and the smell of sulfur and death in their nightmares, thinks you are irresponsible dumb-ass meat, unable to handle your own decisions, your own body, your sex. Your state's leaders and your Republican governor, Mike Rounds, wish to treat you like meaningless, voiceless chattel. Get out now. You already know why. For everyone else reading this, here is the nauseating news: South Dakota, in case you missed it amid the reports of increasingly violent civil war in Iraq, the Dubai ports fiasco and Bush's record-low approval ratings across the board, has just passed a sweeping anti-abortion measure that completely bans the procedure in almost all cases -- including rape, including incest, including if you were, for some ungodly reason, accidentally knocked up by South Dakota neocon anti-choicers like Republican and bill sponsor Rep. Roger W. Hunt, these baggy slabs of pallid manhood who wouldn't know true female sexual pleasure from a hole in a mattress. Or is that being too kind? And why? Why have these lawmakers rammed this law down South Dakota women's throats and why is it so likely that Gov. Rounds will sign it into law, when the state is already one of the most bitterly restrictive, the most difficult in the nation in which to get an abortion? Why, for the sole purpose of having the invidious law challenged all the way to the newly realigned, neocon-approved, anti-woman Supreme Court, where the backers of the hateful law hope to finally claim the Big Prize, the great gold ring of self-righteous sex-hating fundie Christians everywhere: challenging Roe v. Wade, maybe even (gasp) overturning the single most female-empowering law in the last 50 years. Wouldn't that be swell? Here's a fascinating aspect: Most women are stunned by this news. Most women not living in one of the few remaining prehistoric red states cannot believe their ears, eyes, souls. I've told a number of my youngish female friends of this hideous development and they all respond the same way: stunned silence, then "You can't be serious," then this ashen "Oh my God" feeling of utter horror, followed by, "Does anyone else know this? Why isn't this making bigger headlines? Where the hell is Oprah?" Etc. See, modern women under 40, they simply don't accept it. They have no conception of a world in which they don't have complete control over their flesh, their reproductive rights, their sexuality. For most women of this generation, reproductive choice is simply a fundamental, incontrovertible human right, obvious and ironclad and indisputable, and so to hear that it's being deeply threatened in this back-ass BushCo world is so foreign, so surreal, it induces an immediate cringing recoil, like watching Tom Cruise stick his tongue in Katie Holmes' face, like watching flies feed, like seeing Dick Cheney naked. It simply does not compute. No matter. South Dakota's leaders, much like those in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi -- who've all introduced similar hateful, anti-choice measures -- don't care about women. They don't care about rights. But they care a great deal about power, about self-righteous ideology, about the ever-present egomaniacal male need to control, dominate, imprison that which it cannot understand. They care about suppression. Here's another sordid detail: South Dakota passed its new ban without a referendum. Translation: The frigid neocons who wrote the law didn't actually have the nerve to allow South Dakota's own citizens to vote on it, because they knew the odds were too great that a majority of the state wouldn't accept it. See, even in a conservative red state the people know when a law has gone too far. And then, the kicker: The stage is now set for a major legal battle over the new draconian law, a battle which will cost millions. The neocons say they've already received a bizarre pledge of a million bucks from some anonymous woman-hating Christian rightist to help defray the legal costs. But it won't be nearly enough. Who gets to pay for the rest? South Dakota taxpayers, most of whom probably didn't want the damnable law in the first place. Ah, neocon politics. You're soaking in it. Now, the good news. Most legal experts, even those from Christian "pro-family" anti-choice groups, are already saying the law has little chance of posing a serious challenge to Roe v. Wade. It's simply too draconian, too vile, too flagrantly unconstitutional. But then again, with Alito and Roberts on the bench, you just never know. Nastier things have happened. Just check the wiretap on your e-mail. These are the things you need to know. We are at that point. We are right now at the apex of some great and dirty battle, some ugly siege, the nation so overrun by the Christian right that they finally get to make some sort of grand and desperate statement, a vicious volley of stabs to the heart of progress and sexual rights, before being run out of Congress this fall and Bush becomes a lame duck and the nation slowly wakes up from this catatonic Republican-bled haze. The South Dakota lawmakers know. They've said as much, that this is the right time to attack, the opportunity possibly fleeting, the national gag reflex induced by these neocons not yet at full force. "I think the stars are aligned," said Matthew Michels, South Dakota House Speaker and Republican, referring to the appointments of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. "Simply put, now is the time." Sure their odds may be long, but their hearts are black with passionate intensity. Of course, with any luck, with any sort of divine feminine intervention, with any sort of national common sense, this sickening attack on female choice will quickly go the way of "intelligent design," of the Terry Schiavo zombies, of the WMD zealots. It will dissolve and implode like the nasty moral insult it so very is. We can only hope. And of course, vote, in November. Until then, it would behoove the final dozen or so sexually attuned, lusciously feminine women in South Dakota -- not to mention every teenage girl within a 1,000-mile radius -- to pack their bags and book their tickets outta town before they lock the gates and start the fires. I hear Canada is lovely this time of year. What are you waiting for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 wow... what an uninformed, hateful, bigoted ass fuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herbivore Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Originally posted by Dawood@Mar 2 2006, 10:45 PM what? So If someone rapes and kills your daughter what do you do with him? throw him in jail to breathe the same air as you? Hell no, He shouldn't have been killing people , plain and simple. Do you go around killing people? If not, then you don't have anything to worry about. I never killed anybody, My wife never killed anybody, I know alot of people who never killed anybody, so there you have it, A lot of people would still be alive if an eye for eye was the law. I beleive in an eye for en eye, It's natural because it's not necissarily killing that's wrong, It;s killing without a just cause and If someone kills an innocent person then killing him has now turned into a just cause in my book. Quoted post I don't agree with you on a lot of things, but I definitely agree with you on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2342 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Originally posted by angelofdeath@Mar 3 2006, 02:12 PM wow... what an uninformed, hateful, bigoted ass fuck. Quoted post Who are you calling an “uninformed, hateful, bigoted ass fuck�- the author of the article or the post- or both? And either way- if your going to throw out such names- why don’t you explain why you are saying this- some of us don’t have an apparent crystal ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 obviously, im referring to the guy who wrote the article. im saying this because that is what the author of the article is. if someone on the right wrote something like that baiting the left, he would damn near be indicted for violation of federal hate crime laws. i wonder if the author knows what a "neo con" is? and if he really hates them. after all a neo con is a liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2342 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Originally posted by angelofdeath@Mar 3 2006, 03:29 PM obviously, im referring to the guy who wrote the article. im saying this because that is what the author of the article is. if someone on the right wrote something like that baiting the left, he would damn near be indicted for violation of federal hate crime laws. i wonder if the author knows what a "neo con" is? and if he really hates them. after all a neo con is a liberal. Quoted post To the contrary, it was not obvious. And- you are incorrect regarding your definition of a neocon. Those of us living in reality know damn right well- the US is currently completely controlled by the power of the Religious Right – to go bit further I am inferring the “Christian right wing.� Abortion – and your personal beliefs boil down to you’re your elucidation of life and when it begins. “neocon-approved, anti-woman Supreme Court� Christ in a side car folks- wake the hell up-look around- this is exactly where we are at! Neocon = n : a conservative who subscribes to neoconservativism Neoconservativism= n : an approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a traditional point of view (in contrast to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 allow me to break it down in simple easy to understand terms. a neo conservative is not a conservative. they are ex communists and 60s liberals who rode the reagan revolution into power. many neo cons do expouse social conservatism, (mainly to win the votes of the nations middle class conservative core) however many do not. one of the key differences between conservatives and neo conservatives is foreign policy. conservatives favor america first and an non interventionist foreign policy. neo cons believe in global democracy and a crusade to secure it. this is liberalism as embodied by Woodrow Wilson. why i call neo cons, liberals is simple. they believe in the federal state. conservatives do not. this is the basic core of each ideology. liberalism is belief in a strong central government and wanting citizens to rely on it. conservatives believe in small, decentralized government, and local control and individualism. decentralization, the principles espoused in the VA and KY resolutions penned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson are held with as much esteem as the constitution and declaration. conservatives also believe in strict construction of the federal constitution. neo cons do not. they pretend they do, but they do not. it is against thier agenda of big government, deficits, and imperial foreign wars. neoconservatism is not conservatism. it is a form of liberalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2342 Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Originally posted by angelofdeath@Mar 3 2006, 04:45 PM allow me to break it down in simple easy to understand terms. a neo conservative is not a conservative. they are ex communists and 60s liberals who rode the reagan revolution into power. many neo cons do expouse social conservatism, (mainly to win the votes of the nations middle class conservative core) however many do not. one of the key differences between conservatives and neo conservatives is foreign policy. conservatives favor america first and an non interventionist foreign policy. neo cons believe in global democracy and a crusade to secure it. this is liberalism as embodied by Woodrow Wilson. why i call neo cons, liberals is simple. they believe in the federal state. conservatives do not. this is the basic core of each ideology. liberalism is belief in a strong central government and wanting citizens to rely on it. conservatives believe in small, decentralized government, and local control and individualism. decentralization, the principles espoused in the VA and KY resolutions penned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson are held with as much esteem as the constitution and declaration. conservatives also believe in strict construction of the federal constitution. neo cons do not. they pretend they do, but they do not. it is against thier agenda of big government, deficits, and imperial foreign wars. neoconservatism is not conservatism. it is a form of liberalism. Quoted post I agree with you to a point. i.e. “The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds� Perhaps this term is more appropiate: Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) refers to a branch of American conservative thought that is often called Old Right From Wikipedia Neoconservatism refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, who are mainly characterized by their relatively interventionist and hawkish views on foreign policy, and their lack of support for the "small government" principles and restrictions on social spending, when compared with other American conservatives such as traditional or paleoconservatives. In the context of U.S. foreign policy, neoconservative has another, narrower definition: one who advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones. This view competes with liberal internationalism, realism, and non-interventionism. The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism, but can also refer to the comparatively recent emergence of this "new wave" of conservative thought, which coalesced in the early 1970s from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II. It also serves to distinguish the ideology from the viewpoints of "old" or traditional American conservatism. Neoconservative journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and politicians, often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike, have been credited with (or blamed for) their influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially under the administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and George W. Bush (2001-present), and are particularly noted for their association with and support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The term "neocon," while increasingly popular in recent years, is somewhat controversial and is rejected by many to whom the label is applied, who claim it lacks a coherent definition. We are getting way off topic though- or are we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 definately getting off topic... but another thing to note is..... some neo conservatives get offended by the term. they believe it is synomous with "jew" when used by "traitor" conservatives. of course this stems from the old right america firster paleo cons or true conservatives who are against all foreign alliances, no exceptions even for israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yum Posted March 5, 2006 Author Share Posted March 5, 2006 my god thats so funny that you just posted a bunch of pictures of black people holding the confederate flag. wow. seriously what are those photos meant to prove? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KING BLING Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Originally posted by Smart@Mar 2 2006, 07:25 AM Mississippi advances bill to ban most abortions Rep. Steve Holland, D-Miss., introduced a near-ban on abortion that would only allow the procedure to save a pregnant woman's life. Quoted post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Originally posted by yum@Mar 5 2006, 03:58 AM my god thats so funny that you just posted a bunch of pictures of black people holding the confederate flag. wow. seriously what are those photos meant to prove? Quoted post if you read what i was responding too... "southern man... listen what your good book says..." is from a neil young song talking about "those evil racist southerners." so i was responding with the WHOLE story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Originally posted by KING BLING+Mar 5 2006, 04:56 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KING BLING - Mar 5 2006, 04:56 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Smart@Mar 2 2006, 07:25 AM Mississippi advances bill to ban most abortions Rep. Steve Holland, D-Miss., introduced a near-ban on abortion that would only allow the procedure to save a pregnant woman's life. Quoted post Quoted post [/b] never heard of a conservative democrat before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.