Originally posted by C-B-M

And again, you're just demonstrating your immaturity.  For example, let's say someone used drugs and then later realized that they negatively impacted their life.  Now they are against drug use.  You approach that like a little kid: "hey, you got to use drugs, so I get to use drugs, too.  Fair is fair!"  Some day maybe you'll grow up.

Used drugs, now you don't use drugs, and tell people hey, not doing drugs is better than doing drugs.

That's ok.

Used drugs, now you don't use drugs, and now that you don't use drugs you support heavy jail terms for drug users although you didn't get caught and go to jail when you were using drugs.

Hypocrite.

Sure, except that recall that she was the plaintiff in the so-called landmark case of abortion that led to legality.  You accepted her as a "force for change" when it suited you.  She later stated that she was wrong and you then say "well, that's irrelevant."  Or, actually, you basically said "she's scum," but close enough.  Again, your argumentation is coming from a premise of "the baseline status of abortion is that it should occur."  So when she changes things so that they CAN occur, you say "ah, now things are correct, I accept the change."  But if she reverses course, then you say "no, now things are as they should be, no change can occur by defnition."

Originally posted by C-B-M

Sure, except that recall that she was the plaintiff in the so-called landmark case of abortion that led to legality.  You accepted her as a "force for change" when it suited you.  She later stated that she was wrong and you then say "well, that's irrelevant."  Or, actually, you basically said "she's scum," but close enough.  Again, your argumentation is coming from a premise of "the baseline status of abortion is that it should occur."  So when she changes things so that they CAN occur, you say "ah, now things are correct, I accept the change."  But if she reverses course, then you say "no, now things are as they should be, no change can occur by defnition."

This is incorrect. Abortion should not occur.

However, making it illegal is not the answer.

Parts of Scandanavia have seen dramatic decreases in abortion by giving women the things they need to not feel they need to get an abortion.

It always seems goofy to me that conservatives would be willing to spend money trying to enforce anti-abortion laws, but will not spend money on things that actually decrease abortions, like child daycare.

And now we're back to your other argument.  "You don't want abortion?  Fine, because I don't, either.  So if you don't want abortion, then you have to provide all care for the baby once it's born, including the provision of nannies so that the mother can go about life essentially as if she has no baby unless she wants to, food, clothing, and so on."  And like I said then, as I repeat now, that merely reflects your immaturity.  Once again, you have the scenario where someone who DIDN'T want a baby still behaved in a way that led to pregnancy, which is irrelevant to you and is their right to do.  And NOW we as a society have to remove the consequences of that behavior by either aborting the baby or essentially raising the baby for the mother.  How gracious of you to offer two options, either of which fulfill the same requirement: no consequences.  Of course, there ARE other options, but since they confer consequences to actions they are invalid and cannot be considered.  So says Ihmotepp!

Originally posted by C-B-M

And now we're back to your other argument.  "You don't want abortion?  Fine, because I don't, either.  So if you don't want abortion, then you have to provide all care for the baby once it's born, including the provision of nannies so that the mother can go about life essentially as if she has no baby unless she wants to, food, clothing, and so on."  And like I said then, as I repeat now, that merely reflects your immaturity.  Once again, you have the scenario where someone who DIDN'T want a baby still behaved in a way that led to pregnancy, which is irrelevant to you and is their right to do.  And NOW we as a society have to remove the consequences of that behavior by either aborting the baby or essentially raising the baby for the mother.  How gracious of you to offer two options, either of which fulfill the same requirement: no consequences.  Of course, there ARE other options, but since they confer consequences to actions they are invalid and cannot be considered.  So says Ihmotepp!

I did not state you have to do anything.

I"m simply exposing you to what works, and what does not.

The only option you're offering is to make abortion illegal.

I don't think that solves the problem.

Oh, raising a woman's baby for her "works" in that it removes all responsibility from her.  Other than that, it doesn't do anything.  Making abortion illegal would "work," too because women would know they'd have to raise their baby.  Imagine that, consequences to actions leading to a change in action.  A controversial statement, to be sure.

Originally posted by C-B-M

Oh, raising a woman's baby for her "works" in that it removes all responsibility from her.  Other than that, it doesn't do anything.  Making abortion illegal would "work," too because women would know they'd have to raise their baby.  Imagine that, consequences to actions leading to a change in action.  A controversial statement, to be sure.

I disagree. History shows it does not work.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by C-B-M

Oh, raising a woman's baby for her "works" in that it removes all responsibility from her.  Other than that, it doesn't do anything.  Making abortion illegal would "work," too because women would know they'd have to raise their baby.  Imagine that, consequences to actions leading to a change in action.  A controversial statement, to be sure.

 

I disagree. History shows it does not work.

Oh, really?  What "history" is that?  Because for MOST of history, we haven't had institutionally recognized abortion.  And then around the 1970s we started to have it.  So what has abortion "worked" to do, out of curiosity?

Originally posted by C-B-M

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by C-B-M

Oh, raising a woman's baby for her "works" in that it removes all responsibility from her.  Other than that, it doesn't do anything.  Making abortion illegal would "work," too because women would know they'd have to raise their baby.  Imagine that, consequences to actions leading to a change in action.  A controversial statement, to be sure.

 

I disagree. History shows it does not work.

Oh, really?  What "history" is that?  Because for MOST of history, we haven't had institutionally recognized abortion.  And then around the 1970s we started to have it.  So what has abortion "worked" to do, out of curiosity?

Women aborted babies in the time of Christ. It was considered acceptable if done before the "quickening". They aborted babies during the American revolution. Laws don't stop it, just make it unsafe.

See, this is funny because I was actually going to write in my post: "Now, of course we both understand that abortion has occurred throughout a great deal of human civilization, but clearly that's different from the institutionally accepted abortion we have today.  But of course we both understand that."  But I thought that wouldn't be necessary since you'd just answer the question in a reasonable manner.  Turns out I was wrong when I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

You can answer the question if you want or we can just sit around playing semantic games based on technicalities.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by C-B-M

Originally posted by Vato26

Rape baby...... ohh, your argument went up in flames.

Ha ha ha.  Look, Vato realized how retarded his argument was, so he immediately did the usual liberal thing and said "rape!"  Because we ALL know that rape babies are the reason 99.9% of women have abortions.  LOLZER.

I bet his mom smoked when she was pregnant.

Yet, you are generalizing on all pregnancy cases.  Thus, my point still stands and still destroys your Ultra-Conservative's grasp of taking away a woman's right to their own body.

They're infringing on another human beings right when they choose to abort.

 

So you have to choose.

I choose the woman's right to privacy over the rights of the fetus, in reasonable circumstances. FOr me, reasonable would be what was historically allowed during the founding of the US, abortion before the "quickening".

Also agree that christian conservatives and those on the far rights are hypocrites when it comes to supporting less government, and freedom;

Less government!

Unless it's about controlling a woman's body, then we want MORE government!

Less government!

Unless it's about the drug war, then we want MORE government!

Less government!

Unless it's about teaching Creationism in schools, then we want MORE government!

Ok. Quit trolling the christian right and stay on subject for one damn minute. It's obnoxious.

To the point of what is on hand.

There's a say, your freedom ends, where my nose begins. For you to choose the "Privacy" A.K.A. Convenience of women who do not understand responsibility, over the life of a human being, is despicable, and is the beginning to an anarchist societ when morality is flipped upside down.

 

A woman's right to choose is HER RESPONSIBLITY not yours.

She only has a right to choose when it involves only her. But it doesn't. It also involves the unborn child. So...

It's her womb, not yours.

You can do whatever you want with YOUR womb.

Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. I don't see how it started any anarchist society.

And more unborn children have been murdered in 38 years than the genocides by stalin or hitler combined.

Also...I said beginning. And it has shown. When people have no moral responsibility. Law means nothing.

 

Responsibility

: the quality or state of being responsible: as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : reliability, trustworthiness

2

: something for which one is responsible : burden responsibilities>

 

 

I don't see anything in there that gives you the right to control a womans womb. Its being responsible morally or legally. It's LEGAL to have an abortion.

So what if it's legal? Slavery has been legal. Controlled rape has been illegal. Genocide has been legal.

And people have to be responsible to THEIR  morals, not YOURS.

Anyone who doesn't consider murder immoral has no morals.

Making people responsible for YOUR morals?

Well, move to Iran. That's what they do with Sharia Law.

Uh. Are you completely obtuse? That's every country. The elite decide "the morals" of the many.

Abortion is illegal in Iran.

Maybe you'll like it there.

 

 

Seriously, I think you might be happier in Iran. It's a theocracy, and they control women. I think that's what you want.

It's not going to happen in the US, but it does exist in Iran.

rape not equal abortion.

murder not equal abortion.

Slavery not equal abortion.

No one is buying those retarded attempts to hide your real agenda, control of a woman's womb.

If you want to control something, why don't you worry about your penis?

If you want that control it DOES exist. In Iran. Iran controls women, they are not equal to men, and abortion is illegal.

I suggest you move there if that's the kind of society you want to live in.

 

This whole, "Move to iran" bit is tiresome and is a sign of a lazy attempt at debate.

Stating, "It's not going to happen in the US", is so laughable. Fact is, before 1973, it was happening in the U.S. Before the supreme court UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OVERTURNED, states right. Surprise!

Murder...Does equal abortion, it's the same damn thing.

 

And what is your obsession about a woman's womb? NO ONE CARES ABOUT A WOMANS WOMB! Except you...Because you seem RIDICULOUSLY obsessed with womens wombs.

Here. Let's close this argument with this quote.

"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth — that's a baby!

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion — at any point — was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear"

- Norma McCorvey

If you don't know who Norma McCorvey, she's more popularly known as Jane Roe.

Even the woman that in 1969 attemptedly lied to doctors in texas to try to get a legal abortion, and then was used as a pawn by Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, later in life recognized the error of her ways, and even attempted to get the same supreme court decision she was responsible for, overturned.

 

Really? You're going to make the retarded "fetus = child" statement? Get a clue.

If you think abortion = murder, I think you should move to Iran. It seems YOU"RE the one obsessed with a woman's womb, since you want control over it.

Why don't you just worry about controlling your penis?

They force their religion on people In Iran. You'd fit right in.

During the Founding of the United States, abortion was legal before the "quickening".

It was only later that abortion was made illegal. Rights in the US have eroded for quite some time.

Thank goodness we're leaving that stuff in the past and moving forward.

BTW, prohibition is also over. It's legal to drink alchohol now, just like it was when the US was founded. \

When people like you try to take away freedoms of Americans, I feel like it might have been better if you'd been aborted.

We'd all be better off.

But there's no test you can do to tell if someone is going to end up being a control freak, worried about controlling other people's lives, instead of tending to their own business.

 

 

 

Prove that a fetus doesnt = child and therefor doesn't equal murder.

I have this inclination that you can't, since all simple science proves you incorrect.

And no, I couldn't give two cents of care over a womans womb. I only care about the rights of individuals and their right to life in particular. Especially innocent life.

I'm not forcing my religion on anyone. Oh wait...I bet you ASSUMED i'm a christian...Know what they say about assuming...

Leaving silly things like morals in the past? Oh i know...It's awesome we're leaving it in the past. It allows for an obviously better society...Oh wait...Increased crime rate, particularly violent crimes like murder, rape, armed robbery, assault. Hrmm...Well. It's still better, morals only keep us bound, right?

You comparing this to alcohol is completely asinine. You really feel yourself beating logically beat, don't you?

And aha! Here we have it. The true sign of a losing argument. "It'd be better off if you were aborted!". Are you really that pathetic to make such a psychotic statement? You're like an angry drunk who is getting beaten in a debate, so you retort back with such blind rage, "I"m going to kill you!!!"

And yes, when it comes to protecting the life of an innocent human being, I am a control freak. Just as any sane, moral, and good person would be.

Hence why we have LAWS. To try to protect the innocent.

You're going to have to come back with something better than these EXTREMELY pathetic, retorts. It's embarassing. You're not even trying.

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by C-B-M

Originally posted by Vato26

Rape baby...... ohh, your argument went up in flames.

Ha ha ha.  Look, Vato realized how retarded his argument was, so he immediately did the usual liberal thing and said "rape!"  Because we ALL know that rape babies are the reason 99.9% of women have abortions.  LOLZER.

I bet his mom smoked when she was pregnant.

Yet, you are generalizing on all pregnancy cases.  Thus, my point still stands and still destroys your Ultra-Conservative's grasp of taking away a woman's right to their own body.

They're infringing on another human beings right when they choose to abort.

 

So you have to choose.

I choose the woman's right to privacy over the rights of the fetus, in reasonable circumstances. FOr me, reasonable would be what was historically allowed during the founding of the US, abortion before the "quickening".

Also agree that christian conservatives and those on the far rights are hypocrites when it comes to supporting less government, and freedom;

Less government!

Unless it's about controlling a woman's body, then we want MORE government!

Less government!

Unless it's about the drug war, then we want MORE government!

Less government!

Unless it's about teaching Creationism in schools, then we want MORE government!

Ok. Quit trolling the christian right and stay on subject for one damn minute. It's obnoxious.

To the point of what is on hand.

There's a say, your freedom ends, where my nose begins. For you to choose the "Privacy" A.K.A. Convenience of women who do not understand responsibility, over the life of a human being, is despicable, and is the beginning to an anarchist societ when morality is flipped upside down.

 

A woman's right to choose is HER RESPONSIBLITY not yours.

She only has a right to choose when it involves only her. But it doesn't. It also involves the unborn child. So...

It's her womb, not yours.

You can do whatever you want with YOUR womb.

Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. I don't see how it started any anarchist society.

And more unborn children have been murdered in 38 years than the genocides by stalin or hitler combined.

Also...I said beginning. And it has shown. When people have no moral responsibility. Law means nothing.

 

Responsibility

: the quality or state of being responsible: as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : reliability, trustworthiness

2

: something for which one is responsible : burden responsibilities>

 

 

I don't see anything in there that gives you the right to control a womans womb. Its being responsible morally or legally. It's LEGAL to have an abortion.

So what if it's legal? Slavery has been legal. Controlled rape has been illegal. Genocide has been legal.

And people have to be responsible to THEIR  morals, not YOURS.

Anyone who doesn't consider murder immoral has no morals.

Making people responsible for YOUR morals?

Well, move to Iran. That's what they do with Sharia Law.

Uh. Are you completely obtuse? That's every country. The elite decide "the morals" of the many.

Abortion is illegal in Iran.

Maybe you'll like it there.

 

 

Seriously, I think you might be happier in Iran. It's a theocracy, and they control women. I think that's what you want.

It's not going to happen in the US, but it does exist in Iran.

rape not equal abortion.

murder not equal abortion.

Slavery not equal abortion.

No one is buying those retarded attempts to hide your real agenda, control of a woman's womb.

If you want to control something, why don't you worry about your penis?

If you want that control it DOES exist. In Iran. Iran controls women, they are not equal to men, and abortion is illegal.

I suggest you move there if that's the kind of society you want to live in.

 

This whole, "Move to iran" bit is tiresome and is a sign of a lazy attempt at debate.

Stating, "It's not going to happen in the US", is so laughable. Fact is, before 1973, it was happening in the U.S. Before the supreme court UNCONSTITUTIONALLY OVERTURNED, states right. Surprise!

Murder...Does equal abortion, it's the same damn thing.

 

And what is your obsession about a woman's womb? NO ONE CARES ABOUT A WOMANS WOMB! Except you...Because you seem RIDICULOUSLY obsessed with womens wombs.

Here. Let's close this argument with this quote.

"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth — that's a baby!

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion — at any point — was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear"

- Norma McCorvey

If you don't know who Norma McCorvey, she's more popularly known as Jane Roe.

Even the woman that in 1969 attemptedly lied to doctors in texas to try to get a legal abortion, and then was used as a pawn by Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, later in life recognized the error of her ways, and even attempted to get the same supreme court decision she was responsible for, overturned.

 

Really? You're going to make the retarded "fetus = child" statement? Get a clue.

If you think abortion = murder, I think you should move to Iran. It seems YOU"RE the one obsessed with a woman's womb, since you want control over it.

Why don't you just worry about controlling your penis?

They force their religion on people In Iran. You'd fit right in.

During the Founding of the United States, abortion was legal before the "quickening".

It was only later that abortion was made illegal. Rights in the US have eroded for quite some time.

Thank goodness we're leaving that stuff in the past and moving forward.

BTW, prohibition is also over. It's legal to drink alchohol now, just like it was when the US was founded. \

When people like you try to take away freedoms of Americans, I feel like it might have been better if you'd been aborted.

We'd all be better off.

But there's no test you can do to tell if someone is going to end up being a control freak, worried about controlling other people's lives, instead of tending to their own business.

 

 

 

Prove that a fetus doesnt = child and therefor doesn't equal murder.

I have this inclination that you can't, since all simple science proves you incorrect.

Children breathe without assistance, a fetus doesn't. That's why we have two different words, and not just one. Duh.

Done.

Originally posted by Finwe

And yes, when it comes to protecting the life of an innocent human being, I am a control freak.

Yep. You'd fit right in with the Mullahs in Iran. Rather than try to chage the US into Iran, why not just pack your bags and move to Iran where you can rejoice in a society that takes away freedom?

Yeah, if you're against abortion you're like a mullah.  What a great argument!  Let me guess, if you're against drug use you're also like a mullah.  Wait ...I can sort of see where this is going!  If you're against anything Ihmotepp is for, you're like a mullah!

Originally posted by C-B-M

Yeah, if you're against abortion you're like a mullah.  What a great argument!  Let me guess, if you're against drug use you're also like a mullah.  Wait ...I can sort of see where this is going!  If you're against anything Ihmotepp is for, you're like a mullah!

Mullahs in Iran do not allow individual freedom.

In fact, that's a tenent of the society, that the collective is more important that individual rights, which is why our cultures so often clash.

America supports individual rights, not the right of the collective.

Social Conservatives do not respect individual rights. Things like abortion, smoking pot, gay marriage, which have absolutley NOTHING to do with them, become their biggest concern. They want to invade people's personal lives and control them with Big Government.

If you don't like "Mullahs" then we can say social conservatives are like the borg if you prefer.

That was a lengthy way of saying that if you don't agree with Ihmotepp you're a mullah.

Originally posted by C-B-M

That was a lengthy way of saying that if you don't agree with Ihmotepp you're a mullah.

Uh, no.

If you don't agree with my fiscal policy, that would not make you a Mullah.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by C-B-M

That was a lengthy way of saying that if you don't agree with Ihmotepp you're a mullah.

 

Uh, no.

If you don't agree with my fiscal policy, that would not make you a Mullah.

What a relief!  Because your fiscal policy is pretty stupid, too.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

I've been trying to avoid coverage of this case wherever possible, so I cannot personally express shock at the outcome, but most of the analysts are in disbelief.  Was the evidence against her that strong?  If it was and she got away with murder, then you have to wonder about the competence of the average American juror.  The OJ trial was a fiasco and if this one was the same, it does not bode well for the American judical system.

 They had a bunch of circumstantial evidence and not one bit of direct evidence.

The decision was the correct one.

When you send somebody to prision for a crime you have to KNOW that they did it and not THINK that they did it; and when all you're presented with is circumstantial evidence there's always doubt.

Originally posted by Hazelle

Originally posted by Zindaihas

I've been trying to avoid coverage of this case wherever possible, so I cannot personally express shock at the outcome, but most of the analysts are in disbelief.  Was the evidence against her that strong?  If it was and she got away with murder, then you have to wonder about the competence of the average American juror.  The OJ trial was a fiasco and if this one was the same, it does not bode well for the American judical system.

 They had a bunch of circumstantial evidence and not one bit of direct evidence.

The decision was the correct one.

When you send somebody to prision for a crime you have to KNOW that they did it and not THINK that they did it; and when all you're presented with is circumstantial evidence there's always doubt.

You don' thave to "know". You can have doubts. There is also no problem convicting someone on circumstantial evidence alone.

Your statements are simply incorrect. In this case, there was not enough circumstantial evidence to overcome reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.