U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2011, 07:26 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,451,079 times
Reputation: 2772

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Dan View Post
You right to lifers crack me up! I have a hard time taking you seriously. Apparently the "right to life" stops immediately upon birth! You want to force a woman to bring a child into the world that she cant take care of. But yet, you dont want to pay for the childs needs after it is born! You dont want your tax $ to pay for food or education. You dont want to pay for healthcare or job training for the mom to improve her and the babys lives! Hypocrites! Youre a bunch of damned hypocrites!
It's worse than just that. They encourage economic sanctions against women in the market place and blame her for the outcome. Expect abuse and rebuke from men, 'defective male' females, the church, the community, and their very own government preferring to play along with the defective male treatment attitude.

So America, what's it going to be? Continue forcing womankind into welfare queen roles or legalized prostitution against her will or is American policy going to recognize that this brand of civilization we live out never considered the majority of this nation as a viable asset worthy of respect? Equal rights in the constitution means the embrace of responsibility, and when laws are written prohibiting that embrace of responsibility, I've got a serious problem with those laws.
As for capitalism reflecting the values of this nation--- America eagerly pays outrageous premiums for porn and infinite varieties of entertainment than it ever has put it's money where it's mouth was on the subject of motherhood. There are nothing but thorns put in the path of women no matter their desire to be aspire to BE that good mother. Mothers in America can expect punishment from many people, and it's not liberals doing it. It's social conservatives claiming to be the sole champion of family values. They wouldn't know Christian if it bit them on the nose. Lady Gaga's republican parents manage her career; pimping their daughter on a stage for millions.

Make no mistake about it. Those actual (not the fake brand) 'family values' come at the expense of women altruistically carrying it on their backs because no infant can thrive without her direct investment in them. Government and religion out of the picture it would remain the same fact of womankind's gift to humanity, but alas, porn is far more important to your economic happiness. Mankind writing the rules to suit himself abused & neglected that gift.

To the myriad of sources of retardation;
You can help, or you can get the hell out of the way. I'll be damned if I'll support any legislator inventing more brands of thorns for her feet, listen to one more wannabe male puffing himself up with contrived self serving definitions of fatherhood/ manhood, or allow anyone (including other women, how sick is that?) to use womankind as a punching bag to project their own sexual immaturity/ irresponsibility. Keep killing/ hobbling her, you're only killing/ hobbling babies. THAT'S THE FACT JACK.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2011, 07:43 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,451,079 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
so it's better to just kill the kid?
Your jihad on womankind has earned a beheading.

It's so much better to ensure every choice a woman has to make in her life is railed into Sophies choice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie's_Choice_(film)

-There is no dissenting medical opinion: the fetus could not be medically saved.

-The parents had no choice but to allow biology to slowly smother it to death, which is no improvement over leaving that fetus to the wolves.

-If this wrongful legal/medical imposition meant that 2 of her already born children would find themselves motherless due to technicalities applied by faux medical science, how does that enter into your bizarre left brain math?

-Give me all the reasons why anyone without a uterus be allowed to speak with more than a tablespoon worth of weight on this matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 08:11 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,451,079 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
So you think the hospital should have been forced to provide an abortion? what if it was a religious hospital?
What if the only hospitals allowed to exist were either religious or corporate profiteers? Should either be dictating public health if they're serving masters contrary to medical science/ public health? Koch sponsored Westboro Baptists ought to decide for you?

What happens when all medical science is orientated to female physiology r&d (because we are the majority) and they start dictating the proper dosage of estrogen to correct your "defects"?

It grotesquely contradicts your claims of upholding free will as the end all be all of western civilization and the Bible. Free will applies only to males as per constitution & Bible? If equal rights aren't applicable to both genders, does that mean I get to live in America doing whatever I please as citizen-nomad because the constitution doesn't apply to me?

Hear that ladies??? No more religious/ legal laws/ taxes applicable to you by virtue of gender!! Yeee haww! We're FREEEEEEEEE as the wind blows! Squatters rights rulz!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,044 posts, read 98,981,287 times
Reputation: 31537
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
Oh, she's so poor that she can't go to another state but can have kids???? What's wrong with this picture?
For every problem there is a simple solution that is absolutely wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
The point exists, though, that she was not prevented from going to a state that allowed such abortions...like Kansas.
This has been addressed. Why don't you google how far it is from Grand Island, NE to say, Wichita or Topeka? Consider all those miles in a bumpy car while you're supposed to be on bedrest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Of course. It happens all the time.

Many people have to travel to Canada or Mexico to get certain drugs, or to get certain surgical procedures done.
I don't know of anyone going to Canada for medical procedures. Some get drug there, I've heard (don't know anyone personally or have any evidence that this happens), and some go to Mexico b/c it's cheap and many drugs that are rx here are OTC there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
So why can't every state have state of the art heart surgery clinics? Why should someone have to travel to another state to have that done if it isn't available in their state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
She could have went to where it was allowed. Pretty simple solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
She could have went to another state. Look, when people need heart surgery or some specialized treatment, they have to go to where it is performed right? That could be a state all the way across the country right? No difference here.
Actually, most states do have such facilities. You have created a strawman with this gramatically incorrect "she could have went to another state, , ,". If abortion is so heinous, why would that be OK?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
Oh please. Was she crippled? She could have gotten out of bed to go get treatment. That was the lamest excuse ever. I didn't even read the rest of your garbage.
Talk about anti-woman! She was placed on bedrest. Do you really think a several hundred mie car ride would be the equivalent of bedrest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerJAX View Post
It was already stated that she could of sought an abortion out of state.
Another gramatically incorrect statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
Why should the state of Nebraska be forced to provide a "medical procedure" that the people of the state determine to be immoral?
Was there a referendum on this subject? Or did the legislature pass this law? I know a lot of people in Nebraska. They probably think this law is bunk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
Nobody knew the child was going to die regardless. They wanted to try and save it by inducing labor right? Please stick to the facts.
It has been documented that this child had very little chance of survival.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 08:38 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,451,079 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay View Post
When my money goes to pay for someone's abortion
Nothing about the Deavers medical bills have anything to do with your money. Your commentary on them invites a lawsuit I'd gladly vote in their favor. It IS you injecting yourself (through writ) into a very painful reality against their wishes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay View Post
We as a society ALREADY decide what is morally acceptable and not.
We as a society have had to spend the lions share of legal thought beating off wild eyed puritans trying to invent their own version of utopia. There is a point where individual rights, which are inalienable, cannot be dictated by 'society' or governance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wxjay View Post
The false premise that society doesn't have the right to insert itself into the abortion debate because it's "a woman's right" simply flies in the face of the rest of our moral-based laws and provisions.
This very thread as evidence:
Society does a very poor job being self aware, too often dishonest with itself, and avoids paying for it's own choices directly. "Society" ought to mean a collection of individuals who own their choices directly. "Society" in the hands of well intended Quakers constructed a torturous prison they've spent considerable effort to correct/ repent over. Their ignorance of mental illness tortured the mentally ill. That is, at times, the byproduct of 'group think'. Realize this same group think occurred on the subject of womankind. The Bible and all of western civilizations treatment of womankind considers her an afterthought at best. A useful carrot and stick leaders use to control men against their will at worst. The only job men have is to control themselves and still you persist (veiled under the guise of social, religious or legal propriety) trying to control womankind and abandoning your own task of self control in the process.

It is not you who personally has to live with the consequence of a lost child. It is the Deaver family. The boundary issues in your own mind need clearing up. Not the Deavers. You're way out of line by any standard of common decency or righteous religious/ legal authority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 08:55 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,451,079 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
that, my friends, would be an example of eugenics. It's what Margaret Sanger, the founder of PP believed in.
It's what the churches endorsed when they ignored the reality of peoples lives for centuries and instructed them to passively embrace poverty and suffering as God's will. Read that Bible closely it's an instruction for womankind to embrace a vow of poverty cheerfully, only to be spat upon by mankind/ the balance of civilization for being 'a good Christian'.

If churches were serious about that abstinence only program they'd spend a little more time teaching the wisdom behind that policy. Instead they spend their every waking moment railing against birth control and blaming abortionists for the reality they're too weak minded to look dead in the eye. What chance does a crack baby have to embrace free will no matter the investment of time/ attention/ care? You pay for it all by yourself if you're insisting yourself to make the decision.

Is it God's will that a fetus should be smothered to death for weeks on end?
Is it God's will that we deny pain medication?
Is it God's will that we deny medical treatment at all (because God willed that I'd get pneumonia)
Buildings are an artificial construct of man. That's not God's will, therefore, we should abolish architecture. That's the bass ackwards byproduct of linear thinking we've seen enough of in western civilization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:11 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,451,079 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerJAX View Post
I'm not sure if there is a specific philosophy, but there are quite a few people with those kind of viewpoints. It's a mix of total lack of moral regard, utilitarianism, in certain cases racism, and maybe even libertarianism. I'll have to admit, there is a grain of truth in their arguments.
Here's the other grain of truth. Nature can only be 'managed' or adapted to so far no matter how heroic men (and women) mean to portray themselves. Then comes a Tsunami. Then comes a comet ruining your dinner plans. Human beings in western civilization compulsively delude themselves (with plenty of encouragement from media/ religion/ etc preying upon ego fear) into the notion of achieving immortality. Whether that be in the form of the Carnegie foundation, or Churches no longer serving the mission of Jesus and instead defending themselves as an institution for the sake of institution, or power in service to itself in the form of corporations/ governance... it all comes down to the negation of our own mortality. Our own humble origins in the vast scheme of life, the universe, and through the eyes of our maker are being defied.

If God made a special just passing through appearance in western civilization today I'm certain that most would be so fearful to even open their eyes they'd feel compelled to kill God. Reach for the red button. THAT is the material state of organized religion today. Men are compulsively worshiping themselves, leading women to follow them off that very same cliff, and calling it religion. No thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:22 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,451,079 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Dan View Post
But if you insist on poor people bringing kids into the world that they cant afford to rear, youre certainly going to pay for them after they are born. Would you have a problem with tax $ being used to pay for tubaligations for poor women?
According to Tom Delays plan sold to cheerfully applauded by college aged young republicans in a convention, if they succeed in banning abortion, there would be no need for illegal immigrant slave class/ underground economy to clean their swimming pools or service their sexual appetites economically. That's the point of making sure the poor stay poor to infinity and beyond. Only those who maximize their ability to exploit may live. All others are suckers who deserve everything inflicted upon them herded into the cattle car through writ. Make sure they're desperate enough, they'll do anything you say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Jersey
2,165 posts, read 3,243,642 times
Reputation: 1689
My previous posts bring us to the question. Do you think American tax payers would be better off in the long run if all abortions were subsidized for the poor(assuming the welfare system remained intact), and should we as a society encourage under-privileged women who get pregnant out of wedlock to seek an abortion because of the long term benefits that society will gain?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2011, 09:56 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,451,079 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
People really need a reality check if they think they should have a say in all end of life decisions. Medicine through the ages has been about treating disease, easing suffering, and offering palliative and end-of-life care. It's part and parcel of health care.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
Nothing has changed apart from the fact that people want a say in everything, and want to control everything now for some peculiar reason.... the average person doesn't even educate themselves in the basics, but they have staunch opinions based on their religious beliefs.
But it has changed, drastically. When advances in medical science allow me to prolong my life indefinitely and the church is telling me that to choose anything other than stealing every ounce of life I can steal is a criminal act. It's high comedy listening to Irish catholics arguing over budget woes 2 yrs ago and senior citizens complaining about changes in health care meant a death panel for them (the even petitioned the Pope!) but to hell with the kids when the schools close and vaccines are unavailable to them because the Irish economy is too busy covering exorbitant costs of senior care. Isn't that something else?

Catholicism (philosophically) dares to spit on my own father with rebuke. In their estimation he was a wimp for being unable to endure end stage cancer until that cancer ate every last ounce of joy out of him. My answer to Catholicism- I do not want my body kept alive artificially draining resources away from my own children. THAT was not the purpose of my life. I do not want my family forced to stare at my brain dead body forever out of guilt or whatever else people concoct- I love them too much to punish them with this bizarre form of vanity that science has afforded me to do with my life. To my family- let me go when my maker calls me. Letting go at the appropriate time is God's will.

If the Pope declares I'm not Catholic over it he can go ahead and try extracting Catholicism from the marrow of my bones. He'll get as far as any atheist trying the same, and isn't that saying something in and of itself. Yes, indeed, it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick View Post
How hard is it for people to understand the need in the case for a humane resolution to an awful situation.
Megalomania trumps humane treatment of anyone. You're just a number. A pin on the map. A pawn in their overly intellectualized chess game servicing a need for supremacy and dominion over all others. The founders of this nation recognized this wicked side of the human heart aspiring for tyranny and intended to keep it at bay through checks and balances. Too bad Abigail Adams wasn't taken seriously enough at the time but that's our work today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top