|
| Author |
Message |
Disagreeable
Rancher
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 2464
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Disagreeable
Rancher
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 2464
|
|
| Back to top |
|
BBJ
Member
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 616
Location: Central Texas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Jinglebob
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5727
Location: Western South Dakota
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Disagreeable wrote: |
| Jinglebob wrote: |
I find it odd at what you have written at the bottom of all your posts. Seems strange that you would want a quote about giving up liberty and freedom, when you are doing so, or at least suggesting it is right to do so, when you agree with abortion?  |
And I find it odd that you would tell a woman, simply because she's pregnant, that she does not have the right to decide what to do with her own body. |
I think that one of our first laws in this country is that you have the right to do with your body as you please as long as it's not hurting another person. When you decide to kill a child(person) that is inside of you, you no longer are just dealing with your body. Elementary Watson, there are now TWO people involved.
If you want to pierce your body, or put legal drugs into your body or even sell your body or I'd even go so far as to say, destroy your body, I ain't got a problem with that. The moment you become pregnant, then there is another person involved and socitey has the right to stop you from harming another persaon. We can even get you for drinking or taking the wrong drugs while pregnant, because THERE IS ANOTHER HUMAN BEING INSIDE YOUR BODY. Did you hear that this time? Don't be so obtuse.
If you want to control your body, DON'T GET PREGNANT! 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Disagreeable
Rancher
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 2464
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jinglebob wrote: |
I think that one of our first laws in this country is that you have the right to do with your body as you please as long as it's not hurting another person. When you decide to kill a child(person) that is inside of you, you no longer are just dealing with your body. Elementary Watson, there are now TWO people involved. |
The cluster of cells that makes up a fetus can't live outside the woman's body. IMO, she should have the right to terminate a pregnancy until the fetus can live on it's own. Then it's a baby. Then it has rights.
| Quote: |
| If you want to pierce your body, or put legal drugs into your body or even sell your body or I'd even go so far as to say, destroy your body, I ain't got a problem with that. The moment you become pregnant, then there is another person involved and socitey has the right to stop you from harming another persaon. We can even get you for drinking or taking the wrong drugs while pregnant, because THERE IS ANOTHER HUMAN BEING INSIDE YOUR BODY. Did you hear that this time? Don't be so obtuse. |
My, aren't you being a bit liberal? It's ok with you to destroy the temple God has given you?
| Quote: |
| If you want to control your body, DON'T GET PREGNANT! |
Women get pregnant through no fault of their own, rape and incest come to mind. Is her fault, too?
Why do you think South Dakota didn't make the penalty for abortion a Class 1 or 2 felony? If abortion is murder, why is the penalty similar to having a bag of marijuana? Or repeated drunk driving? And why is the woman not charged with anything?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Jinglebob
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 5727
Location: Western South Dakota
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Disagreeable wrote: |
| Jinglebob wrote: |
I think that one of our first laws in this country is that you have the right to do with your body as you please as long as it's not hurting another person. When you decide to kill a child(person) that is inside of you, you no longer are just dealing with your body. Elementary Watson, there are now TWO people involved. |
The cluster of cells that makes up a fetus can't live outside the woman's body. IMO, she should have the right to terminate a pregnancy until the fetus can live on it's own. Then it's a baby. Then it has rights.
I AM NOT SHOUTING, JUST MAKING IT POSSIBLE TO SEE WHO IS WRITING HERE, EASIER.
SOOOO, CAN A NEW BORN BABY LIVE OUTSIDE IT'S MOTHER? WITHOUT ANY HELP WHATSOEVER? I WOULD GUESS IN THE PROPER ENVIROMENT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST 2 TO 3 YEARS OLD. SO IF THAT IS RIGHT, WHY NOT KILL CHILDREN UP TO THAT AGE, IF THEY ARE A BURDEN?
| Quote: |
| If you want to pierce your body, or put legal drugs into your body or even sell your body or I'd even go so far as to say, destroy your body, I ain't got a problem with that. The moment you become pregnant, then there is another person involved and socitey has the right to stop you from harming another persaon. We can even get you for drinking or taking the wrong drugs while pregnant, because THERE IS ANOTHER HUMAN BEING INSIDE YOUR BODY. Did you hear that this time? Don't be so obtuse. |
My, aren't you being a bit liberal? It's ok with you to destroy the temple God has given you?
I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MY BODY, I SAID YOUR BODY. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ONE YOU WANT TO CONTROL, ISN'T IT?
| Quote: |
| If you want to control your body, DON'T GET PREGNANT! |
Women get pregnant through no fault of their own, rape and incest come to mind. Is her fault, too?
NOPE, IT SURE ISN'T AND THIS LAW WOULD STILL ALLOW THE USE OF ABORTIFICANTS IN THOSE CASES, UP TO A CERTAIN LENGTH OF PREGNANCY.
Why do you think South Dakota didn't make the penalty for abortion a Class 1 or 2 felony? If abortion is murder, why is the penalty similar to having a bag of marijuana? Or repeated drunk driving? And why is the woman not charged with anything?
I'M NOT SURE. KINDNESS, COMPASSION?
I THINK THEY JUST WANT PEOPLE TO STOP USING ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO GET RID OF A CHILD , NOT CAUSED BY RAPE OR INCEST, OTHER THAN THINKING THAT THE CHILD WOULD BE PLACING A BURDEN ON THE MOTHER?
IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PRECAUTIONS NOT TO GET PREGNANT, IN THE FIRST PLACE.
IF YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO USE BIRTH CONTROL OF SOME FORM, YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE HAVING SEX.
AND IF YOU ARE THAT STUPID, YOU OUGHT TO AT LEAST GIVE THE CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION TO SOME LOVING PARENTS WHO WILL CHERISH AND NURTURE THE CHILD.
KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE DO WITH STUPID COWS WHO DON'T WANT THEIR CALVES. ONLY, WITH CATTLE, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO ELIMINATE THEM FROM THE GENE POOL WHEN THEY ACT THAT WAY.
|
By the way dis, you have a nice day. I'll pray for you. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Turkey Track Bar
Rancher
Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Posts: 1461
Location: North Central SD, South Central ND
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Disagreeable
Rancher
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 2464
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Turkey Track Bar wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The cluster of cells that makes up a fetus can't live outside the woman's body. IMO, she should have the right to terminate a pregnancy until the fetus can live on it's own. Then it's a baby. Then it has rights. |
Dis:
You are wrong here...an embryo can live outside the womb--they do all the time--if you'll remember there is such a thing as test tube babies, and thus embryo transfer, I believe in human medicine it's called invitro fertilization. This technology is not only available in humans, but was pioneered in livestock species, namely cattle and horses.
Get your facts straight next time. |
My facts are straight. The embryo cannot come to term and be a human being without the body of a female. A woman must agree to devote her body to those cells for them to become a human being. The key word there being "agree." If she doesn't want to, you have no right to force her.
Hundreds of frozen human embryos are destroyed every year in fertility clinics. Yet you never see the Bush Bunch trying to stop that.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Disagreeable
Rancher
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Posts: 2464
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jinglebob said:
| Quote: |
| SOOOO, CAN A NEW BORN BABY LIVE OUTSIDE IT'S MOTHER? WITHOUT ANY HELP WHATSOEVER? I WOULD GUESS IN THE PROPER ENVIROMENT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST 2 TO 3 YEARS OLD. SO IF THAT IS RIGHT, WHY NOT KILL CHILDREN UP TO THAT AGE, IF THEY ARE A BURDEN? |
Nice try, but we're not talking about babies. It’s illegal to kill a child. We're talking about a woman's right to choose whether to carry those few cells to term or not.
| Quote: |
| I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MY BODY, I SAID YOUR BODY. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ONE YOU WANT TO CONTROL, ISN'T IT? |
You apparently have a problem with women managing their own body in some ways, but you don’t care if they destroy it in others. Some might call that hypocritical.
| Quote: |
| NOPE, IT SURE ISN'T AND THIS LAW WOULD STILL ALLOW THE USE OF ABORTIFICANTS IN THOSE CASES (rape, incest), UP TO A CERTAIN LENGTH OF PREGNANCY. |
If you truly believe a fertilized egg is a human being, how can you support any abortion? The baby is not at fault for being the product of rape or incest. I know I can say hypocrite here.
| Quote: |
| I THINK THEY JUST WANT PEOPLE TO STOP USING ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO GET RID OF A CHILD , NOT CAUSED BY RAPE OR INCEST, OTHER THAN THINKING THAT THE CHILD WOULD BE PLACING A BURDEN ON THE MOTHER? |
So you don’t believe SD is serious about this anti abortion law? They are only trying to get the public’s attention? Hmmm. Who’d have thought the legislature of SD would be so hypocritical as to pass a law, not expecting it to be followed?
| Quote: |
| IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PRECAUTIONS NOT TO GET PREGNANT, IN THE FIRST PLACE. |
Right. They’re not allowed to change their minds. Only men who can and do walk away. They can change their minds with no penalty at all.
| Quote: |
| IF YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO USE BIRTH CONTROL OF SOME FORM, YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE HAVING SEX. |
There you go being judgmental again. Ever hear of birth control not working? Broken rubbers, bad birth control pills? You know the rhythm method isn’t very reliable.
| Quote: |
| AND IF YOU ARE THAT STUPID, YOU OUGHT TO AT LEAST GIVE THE CHILD UP FOR ADOPTION TO SOME LOVING PARENTS WHO WILL CHERISH AND NURTURE THE CHILD. |
And if your job is riding horses and you can’t perform it because you’re eight months pregnant, who’s going to support your other kid while you carry a rapist’s child to term?
| Quote: |
| KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE DO WITH STUPID COWS WHO DON'T WANT THEIR CALVES. ONLY, WITH CATTLE, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO ELIMINATE THEM FROM THE GENE POOL WHEN THEY ACT THAT WAY |
Are you being judgmental again?.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
katrina
Rancher
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4847
Location: East north east of Soapweed
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Except for Dis, We humans are smarter than a cow, so you are comparing apples and oranges......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Silver
Rancher
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 1432
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well Jinglebob, it's unfortunate that someone who is so normally rational in thought as yourself has been so soundly beaten at every point by someone such as ole Dis here.
You are quite clear in that you think a zygot is a human being and accorded all the rights of a human being. That it's never ok to kill a baby. That it's a baby from conception. So, when does it stop being a baby? When does it become ok to kill this child? Something tells me (I might be wrong here) that you think the death penalty is ok. (So it's ok to kill this child when it's a little older....). Perhaps you back the war in Iraq (put a little age on the child, slap him in a uniform, point him east and send him off to die), or possibly kill someone else's baby (of indeterminate age).
Obviously there must be a line somewhere where it becomes ok to kill these children then?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
kolanuraven
Rancher
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 7908
Location: planet earth
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why does no one get upset about those embryos that are frozen then later destroyed by the clinics?
How do you see that?
And who gets the murder 'rap' on that deal? The parents....the clinic....whom????
I'd venture to guess that more embryos are destroyed via clinics ,by parents permission who have decided they have enough children, than are aborted by suction, RU486 ,etc.
This is the bigger point you all are missing???? What about it?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
