Bumper stickers of the confused

[nomoney]

I don't think that any sane person cheers killing babies.

But, by being pro-choice, they're saying that killing babies is an acceptable alternative - thus they are for that choice being one of the choices.

:flush: dang it there goes another one.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

I've actually answered it repeatedly before.

Morally, I believe that the child should not be killed. However, morals are only one way to determine law. Law should primarily be determined by responsibility, and the mother would not be responsible in terms of becoming pregnant in the case of rape (less than 0.5% of abortions are from rape/incest as of 2004 data).

So, from a moral point of view, I would believe that this should not be a reason to kill the child. From a legal point of view, I believe this would be the case where it's an option. When the health and life (physical) safety of the mother is in real jeopardy, the choice should be up to the doc, mom, and dad. The other 95+% should be illegal, like all other forms of murder.

So, you are pro-choice.

 

[puggymom]

Well, for what it's worth..When my wife told me she was pregnant with our third child, I didn't really "want" it. Nor did I think I could afford another child. We were also having problems at the time. Thirteen years later, my third child is just as wonderful as the other two. I couldn't imagine life without her. Because of our higher moral beliefs, we knew abortion wasn't right. I'm so glad.

If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant. We all know what causes that. Once you're pregnant, I believe we as human beings have the moral obligation to let that baby live. If you want to abort it, you better have a pretty darn good reason other than it just wasn't wanted. That's so wrong.

My problem is with the whole new fetal rights movement you need to take abortion out of the equation and look at it from the view of every pregnant woman in this country. Rough statistics here but approx 4 million babies are born every year and there are approx 1.4 million abortions. That means roughly every year there are 5.4 million pregnancies. My issue with the pro life 'fetal rights movement' that seems to be the primary argument is that you are potentially affecting the rights of every one of those 5.5 million pregnant woman even though it is a small minority who are seeking abortions.

 

[nomoney]

So, you are pro-choice.

legally she is, just not morally. There's a difference.

Thus when another person believes the same thing yet calls themselves pro choice, they're are somehow wrong.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

Either that or you think the government should determine what happens with someone's baby... which is quasi-socialism.

You are a socialist.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

legally she is, just not morally. There's a difference.

Thus when another person believes the same thing yet calls themselves pro choice, they're are somehow wrong.

See my other post.

Government control over health care = socialism. This_person, who doesn't support President Obama and hopes he fails because he's some evil socialist, supports socialism when it supports his/her/its agenda.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

Outlaw sex! Sex leads to pregnancy which leads to baby killing, which leads to retards arguing on the internet.

 

[nomoney]

Outlaw sex! Sex leads to pregnancy which leads to baby killing, which leads to retards arguing on the internet.

I agree, From the time this thread was started 37 babies have been sucked out of uteruses across the country. And not one pro-lifer here has even tried to adopt an unwanted kid today.

 

[This_person]

So, you are pro-choice.

< 0.5% of the time, I guess I am.

So, now that we've beaten the hell out of me answering your questions, how about mine to you from earlier in this thread (besides the numerous ones in other thread where you disappear

Kind of like conservatives who are for the death penalty, for killing animals and are pro-gun and pro-Jesus but are anti-abortion.

I never understood how people equate the death penalty with abortion when they (wrongly) think it makes conservatives look bad, but don't realize that they're saying abortion is the death penalty to a baby.

What did the baby do to deserve the death penalty?

How does killing an animal for food and/or clothing (and/or the countless other useful things to do with animals) equate to killing a baby?



The funny thing is, I doubt you'll even attempt an answer. You spout things like "Shooter" in Happy Gilmore, like "I eat pieces of #### like you for breakfast". Then, when asked if you really eat #### for breakfast, you realize how stupid you are and just go away.​

Or:

It's amazing how the small government conservatives are all for big government when it comes to enforcing their religious views.

Belief in the sanctity of life is strictly a religious view?
Damn, you're even dumber than I thought.​

 

[puggymom]

See my other post.

Government control over health care = socialism. This_person, who doesn't support President Obama and hopes he fails because he's some evil socialist, supports socialism when it supports his/her/its agenda.

It's all about small government except with abortion and gay marriage. Then all of a sudden we need government control and regulations at full force.

I for one am not a fan of guns at all. I cannot for the life of me undertand why someone would want a semi or fully automatic weapon just because. I just do not get it at all. But if there was ever a vote on a law to restrict one's right to own one of these I would vote against it because I do not think my personal opinions should ever inflict on the rights of someone else.

 

[This_person]

Either that or you think the government should determine what happens with someone's baby... which is quasi-socialism.

You are a socialist.

How is saying you can't kill your child the same as saying "the government should determine what happens with someone's baby"?

So, the government is socialist because it says you can't murder your kids? That's your stance? Because, it's certainly not mine.

 

[This_person]

Outlaw sex! Sex leads to pregnancy which leads to baby killing, which leads to retards arguing on the internet.

 

[This_person]

It's all about small government except with abortion and gay marriage. Then all of a sudden we need government control and regulations at full force.

Abortion and gay "marriage" changes the size of government?

I for one am not a fan of guns at all. I cannot for the life of me undertand why someone would want a semi or fully automatic weapon just because. I just do not get it at all. But if there was ever a vote on a law to restrict one's right to own one of these I would vote against it because I do not think my personal opinions should ever inflict on the rights of someone else.

Do you agree with Andy that being told you can't kill someone makes the government socialist?

 

[puggymom]

How is saying you can't kill your child the same as saying "the government should determine what happens with someone's baby"?

So, the government is socialist because it says you can't murder your kids? That's your stance? Because, it's certainly not mine.

Abortion is a tough issue because while yes you are ending human life, as opposed to alien, but it boils down to legalities and right now abortion is not legally defined as murder since two people cannot have equal rights over the same body. One person has to have a higher share so to speak. Some believe the woman's rights should always take precedence, some believe the fetus/baby.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

What did the baby do to deserve the death penalty?

How does killing an animal for food and/or clothing (and/or the countless other useful things to do with animals) equate to killing a baby?

Never said it did. x2

I'm just pointing out neoconservative hypocrisy.

]Belief in the sanctity of life is strictly a religious view?

Forcing one to have a baby when they do not want one by: wanting to ban birth control and the morning after pill and any other thing that may prevent pregnancy and wanting to ban gay marriage which would blatantly violate the constitution ... yes, that is strictly a religious view.

 

[Beaver-Cleaver]

So, the government is socialist because it says you can't murder your kids?

The government is socialist if it makes your medical decisions for you.

Isn't that the reason why you're opposed to universal healthcare?

 

[This_person]

Outlaw sex! Sex leads to pregnancy which leads to baby killing, which leads to retards arguing on the internet.

A huge problem with this type of discussion is that there are people like me on my side and Puggy on hers that can have rational, reasonable discussions and part the conversation amicably because we speak respectfully to one another and each have valid points.

Then there're people like Andy and Nomoney

 

[puggymom]

Abortion and gay "marriage" changes the size of government?Do you agree with Andy that being told you can't kill someone makes the government socialist?

I kind of answered this below the second part below--well above this one.

As for the first part it just seems that many people who are pro life and against gay marriage tend to be for small government in general. Yet at the same time want big government to come in and restrict these two making them illegal or non existent.

 

[This_person]

Never said it did. x2

I'm just pointing out neoconservative hypocrisy.

Well, if they're not equatable, it's not hypocrisy. Do you have as much trouble understanding that word as you do socialism?

Forcing one to have a baby when they do not want one by: wanting to ban birth control and the morning after pill and any other thing that may prevent pregnancy and wanting to ban gay marriage which would blatantly violate the constitution ... yes, that is strictly a religious view.

That is neither a religious view, nor the view of pro-life.

I was beginning to wonder if you're also Nuck, because he does the same thing (changes the argument to fit his pre-determined arguing points), but he argues a lot smarter than you do, so I'm pretty sure you're not him.

 

[nomoney]

A huge problem with this type of discussion is that there are people like me on my side and Puggy on hers that can have rational, reasonable discussions and part the conversation amicably because we speak respectfully to one another and each have valid points.

Then there're people like Andy and Nomoney

And what exactly is the point of having a rational reasonable discussion on this subject in particular? They've been having rational reasonable discussions for how many years now.....and whats come of it? Really, will your opinion change if I'm more rational and reasonable?

Would it surprise you if I told you that I was pro-life and still feel that being reasonable and rational on the internet is not going to change the way people think?

Really, you are not that awesome of a person to be able to change anyones mind. So its pretty pointless to still be spewing your "moral" opinions.