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.
No it is just stupidity. And a lack of civilized self-control. The animal kingdom on steroids. Sometimes people need to see themselves as others see them then maybe they can start to change to be more civilized. Abortion is barbaric. You have to wonder about the people on the court that allows this barbaric behavior to continue to be without punishment to the doers without considering the rights of the human murdered. That aborted baby was sentenced to death and it had never done anything wrong to deserve it. That is inhumane.
Then do you support a law that would require all pregnant women to give birth? If violated, murder charges would be pressed?
Can the Supreme Court Decisions save you from Gods collateral damage IF He decides to bless their
decisions or can those decisions result in death or suffering for you and your family. The risk has to do with judgment and what precipitated it. Abortion is suspected in ANY form to tick off God then you push
His buttons with same sex marriage and spit on His covenants. I believe the culmination of evil whether
intentional or out of a perversion within the "rights issue" will climax in a systematic destruction of America
via natural disasters post court decisions in Sodomon . Anotherwords here we go again.
So it's going to get a lot worse than a kitten dies every time a woman gets an abortion?
Texas also pulled state funding from clinics that did not even perform abortions. Does that make any logical sense at all to close clinics that provide contraception, education and other health services. They hate abortion but they cut services to clinics that are working to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
Quote:
The first blow to Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics in Texas came in 2011, when lawmakers cut family-planning grants by 66% across the state. The money that remained was directed toward community health centers and county health departments that provide more comprehensive care.
This dramatic cut in funding was responsible for the closure of 82 family-planning clinics in the state, researchers said. About one-third of them were affiliated with Planned Parenthood.
If the radical right wing Christians want an excuse to close abortion clinics, they need to find something better than the "complication rate of abortion."
I'm not debating whether abortion is more safe than pregnancy. The question is whether the government should have the authority to make abortion(as well as pregnancy), as safe as possible. Does it have the right to regulate abortion clinics, and hospitals, and doctors, to require them to meet certain standards, which make these procedures safer, and thus save lives.
The law requires abortion clinics guarantee that their patients will have access to emergency care. And we know that hundreds of thousands of women have needed emergency care after their abortions. And we further know, that if they didn't have access to emergency care, many more of them would have died.
The law, taken by itself, does not prevent a single abortion.
Tell me this: why do conservatives always want to compare apples to oranges?
Does that mean you believe there are enormous differences between a premature baby in the NICU and one at the same stage of development still in the womb? Does one have two heads, is cold blooded and has wings?
What exactly are the major differences that make them apples and oranges?
Throughout your dissertation here and the video of Obama asking congress to act, where is the statement, " abolish gun-ownership?" Obama simply wanted congress to look into preventing further mass shootings.
You added the, "abolish gun ownership" phrase. Old trick of deception is to instill a lie into a bit of truth.
Look, think for yourself for a moment, what is it that Obama wants?
What Obama has pushed for years, has been restrictions on gun ownership. He wants to restrict the kinds of guns you can buy, and who is allowed to buy them. And the argument he uses, is that it would save lives.
Obama, along with other liberal members of Congress, have argued repeatedly that the second-amendment is not an individual right, but rather, it pertains only to a "well-regulated militia". On this basis, there is no right to gun ownership at all. And in the Supreme Court case of Heller, and McDonald; The decision went 5-4. If the Democrats could appoint one more Supreme Court justice and retry the case, then they would rule the other way.
So, imagine for a moment that Obama, along with a loaded Supreme Court, could pass any gun-control law that he wanted. What would it be? Do you honestly believe that Obama, if he had the power, wouldn't take away all of the guns?
Does Obama believe that the ownership of guns save lives? Or does Obama think that the ownership of guns takes lives? And on his principle that if laws can be passed which would save even a single life, he would most-certainly be in favor of abolishing gun-ownership.
And I think you have to know it. And Obama isn't even the only liberal who would abolish guns if they had the power to do so. Many of them talk about it all the time.
Why are you even arguing about it? Are you that desperate?
[quote=ahzzie;44578699]It's so funny to sit here and read the comments from the anti abortion crowd claiming that they suddenly have this profound interest in women's safety while undergoing a routine outpatient procedure.
Janelle,
Being the avid anti abortionist you are, what would your reaction have been if the court had upheld this law? Would you be celebrating the fact that (according to you and IC at least) women would now have higher safety standards in place for getting a routine outpatient procedure or would you be celebrating the fact that abortions would be significantly more difficult to obtain? Be honest and pick only one. I'm curious.[/quote)
A routine outpatient procedure really hits abortion on the head so thanks for writing that. Abortion has gone from only when the woman's life is in danger (as in rare and necessary) to an everyday routine thing (nothing to talk about really) since it happens thousands of times a day.
So since abortion has become just routine with so many done a day, don't you think it should be done with more caution and safety than getting ones nails done? Nail salons have more restrictions than abortion clinics do.
But who cares huh? It's mostly poor, black women and babies so they are easily expendable. We learned that when Gosnell was in business. But you are pro-abortion so you will look the other way. Striking down this law will help you do that. Stay fat and happy.
I'm not debating whether abortion is more safe than pregnancy. The question is whether the government should have the authority to make abortion(as well as pregnancy), as safe as possible. Does it have the right to regulate abortion clinics, and hospitals, and doctors, to require them to meet certain standards, which make these procedures safer, and thus save lives.
The law requires abortion clinics guarantee that their patients will have access to emergency care. And we know that hundreds of thousands of women have needed emergency care after their abortions. And we further know, that if they didn't have access to emergency care, many more of them would have died.
The law, taken by itself, does not prevent a single abortion.
The court said basically the State can make any law it wishes dealing with medical safety. If the state passes a law that all places needing hospital care above x parts per thousand performed it would be perfectly legal. However the state cannot pass a law that says Abortion clinics must do this or that. It can't segregate them from other medical operaations.
This is actually pretty simple stuff. The State can regulate medical operations as it sees fit. But it cannot discriminate against only Abortion and it may well get sued by the Medics if it does not have a rational argument for some particular requirement.
I'm not debating whether abortion is more safe than pregnancy. The question is whether the government should have the authority to make abortion(as well as pregnancy), as safe as possible. Does it have the right to regulate abortion clinics, and hospitals, and doctors, to require them to meet certain standards, which make these procedures safer, and thus save lives.
The law requires abortion clinics guarantee that their patients will have access to emergency care. And we know that hundreds of thousands of women have needed emergency care after their abortions. And we further know, that if they didn't have access to emergency care, many more of them would have died.
The law, taken by itself, does not prevent a single abortion.
That response is rather creative, closing all abortion clinics in an area the size of Connecticut doesn't prevent a single abortion. Maybe they just need to travel to Mexico or self abort. They closed over half of the clinics in Texas, I don't know how you can make that statement.
Why do women getting abortions require immediate access to emergency care, the lawyer representing Texas didn't have a good answer maybe you do.
The discussion is the definition of "as safe as possible", was the intention safety or closing clinics? Pretty obvious that women's health care was not the intention.
[Some people's] primary motivation is never about actually reducing abortions. If it were [those people] would have been all for expanding access to birth control and comprehensive sex ed, since both of those reduce abortions. But [they are] usually against those too.
I'm not against those things. Just don't make me pay for them.
I don't want to be in your bedroom refereeing what you can and cannot do with another consenting adult. But, I don't want to pay for your fun and or mistakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands
No, the main motivation from [the other] side is punishing people for sexual behavior that you disagree with. [They] oppose anything that would lead to enhanced sexual freedom and reduced consequences for sex outside of marriage.
I love sex and don't care what consenting adults do or with whatever other consenting adults they do it with.
But, if you want freedom, you need to accept responsibility.
That's how it works.
In fact, that's the only way freedom works. Freedom cannot be sustained for long absent responsibility.
Have all the sex and abortions you desire. I don't care. But, take responsibility and pay for your own fun and your own mistakes.
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.
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.
