The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 You can see your baby's heart beating at six weeks. My opinion on abortion changed the moment I saw my child's heart beating that early (I think he was a little later than that). I don't mean to suggest that if you've never had a child, you should STFU about the subject, but there are a crapload of stupid people in this thread who should pick a subject they can discuss from experience because they sound dumber with every post. Nobody has acknowledged how getting an abortion might actually be the responsible thing to do. While the pregnancy might result from irresponsibility, that doesn't mean it must be compounded by bringing an unwanted child into the world, especially if somebody doesn't have the means to support it. Sure, adoption is always an option, but if that's the solution, I think it's a hell of a message to send to the women out there that the consequence of having pleasure sex as if there should be any to begin with) is carrying a !@#$ing human in your abdomen for 9 months. Meanwhile, the consequences for the man she had said pleasure sex with are...wait...they're...hold on...nope, can't really think of any. Why must it be her burden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 The point should be that we respect each sides position, not that you have to agree with it. The GOP platform has always had this stance, it isn't as if it's a new tack to the right. The only variable that hasn't remained static is the left's response to this long standing position from the GOP. Rather than respect their views that there shouldn't be tax payers to fund from their perspective "killing a life", the new response now is to demagogue their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Nobody has acknowledged how getting an abortion might actually be the responsible thing to do. While the pregnancy might result from irresponsibility, that doesn't mean it must be compounded by bringing an unwanted child into the world, especially if somebody doesn't have the means to support it. Sure, adoption is always an option, but if that's the solution, I think it's a hell of a message to send to the women out there that the consequence of having pleasure sex as if there should be any to begin with) is carrying a !@#$ing human in your abdomen for 9 months. Meanwhile, the consequences for the man she had said pleasure sex with are...wait...they're...hold on...nope, can't really think of any. Why must it be her burden? This guy is a criminal http://www.the-leader.com/newsnow/x1587350347/Cops-Upstate-NY-man-fatally-shot-his-family-s-dog A doctor that lets a baby die on the counter from a failed abortion, is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) They really would have...all right before the damn convention too. One might say he's raping the Romney camp, whose natural defenses against becoming impregnated by his remarks have thus far not worked, and who given their druthers would retroactively abort him if they could. Edited August 22, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 The point should be that we respect each sides position, not that you have to agree with it. The GOP platform has always had this stance, it isn't as if it's a new tack to the right. The only variable that hasn't remained static is the left's response to this long standing position from the GOP. Rather than respect their views that there shouldn't be tax payers to fund from their perspective "killing a life", the new response now is to demagogue their views. This issue is about funding of abortions? Have you been paying attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Nobody has acknowledged how getting an abortion might actually be the responsible thing to do. While the pregnancy might result from irresponsibility, that doesn't mean it must be compounded by bringing an unwanted child into the world, especially if somebody doesn't have the means to support it. Sure, adoption is always an option, but if that's the solution, I think it's a hell of a message to send to the women out there that the consequence of having pleasure sex as if there should be any to begin with) is carrying a !@#$ing human in your abdomen for 9 months. Meanwhile, the consequences for the man she had said pleasure sex with are...wait...they're...hold on...nope, can't really think of any. Why must it be her burden? Every choice in life has a consequence some are more severe than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 <p> This issue is about funding of abortions? Have you been paying attention? As if we've stayed strictly on a singular topic.Apparently you haven't been paying attention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 <p> Well, they know that they have to try to rile up their loony lefty base to try to win this election, and fact is that there are enough dim wits that believe this line of attack, so it's all about pumping up the base, and since they know they can't win on substance, all they can primarily focus is on are these sort of issues. They also understand that the media will comply and will continue to make this a central issue, all while we are experiencing the worst economic "recovery" since the Great depression, trillion dollar deficits as the new norm, failure of leadership to address the entitlement programs, real unemployment through the roof and wages that are continuing to plummet.And the media complains that the candidates aren't offering substance, yet they are the ones who push these issues. As far as politics go, I agree any GOP politicians and pundits should steer clear of this. It's all fine and good for us to kick it around here, but changing the subject to abortion and letting that become the narrative is a bad move. Not because it's a winning issue for the left, which I don't believe it is, but because the momentum and ammo on the economy is so strong for them that it would be foolish to allow the campaign to get bogged down in this. It's just like in sports; if you let your opponent hang around long enough it's probably going to come back to bite you in the ass. When you've got him up against the ropes knock him out, don't switch it up to show how versatile you can be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 <p> One might say he's raping the Romney camp, whose natural defenses against becoming impregnated by his remarks have thus far not worked, and who given their druthers would retroactively abort him if they could. Just admit it, you want to have Baracks baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 <p> As if we've stayed strictly on a singular topic.Apparently you haven't been paying attention true on both accounts hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Since about 70-75% of conceptions end up miscarrying - if life starts at conception then we live in a graveyard where we should be constantly mourning, Heaven or Limbo (not sure what the Vatican position is now) is filled to the brim with souls that never spent a second with a brain or even a nervous system. Pollution and stress both increase miscarriages so basically that smokestack laden factory or nasty aggressive boss are both trying to kill your unborn children and should be dealt with accordingly and remember you have the right to stand your ground. Jesus Tom you are a retard - Miscarrying simply means to be unsuccessful or to fail, something you should understand given your familiarity with the subject. A fertilized egg never implanting is not a miscarriage. Because it's not a pregnancy. Clinically, pregnancy begins with implanting. Worst. Doctor. Ever. Clinically recognized pregnancy - which is what I said does not begin with implantation of a fertilized egg, it is when the pregnancy can be visualized with ultrasound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 As far as politics go, I agree any GOP politicians and pundits should steer clear of this. It's all fine and good for us to kick it around here, but changing the subject to abortion and letting that become the narrative is a bad move. Not because it's a winning issue for the left, which I don't believe it is, but because the momentum and ammo on the economy is so strong for them that it would be foolish to allow the campaign to get bogged down in this. It's just like in sports; if you let your opponent hang around long enough it's probably going to come back to bite you in the ass. When you've got him up against the ropes knock him out, don't switch it up to show how versatile you can be. Agree except for bolded. The "left" (aka those who believe abortion should stay legal) has the opposition SEVERELY outnumbered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Nobody has acknowledged how getting an abortion might actually be the responsible thing to do. While the pregnancy might result from irresponsibility, that doesn't mean it must be compounded by bringing an unwanted child into the world, especially if somebody doesn't have the means to support it. Sure, adoption is always an option, but if that's the solution, I think it's a hell of a message to send to the women out there that the consequence of having IRRESPONSIBLE pleasure sex as if there should be any to begin with) is carrying a !@#$ing human in your abdomen for 9 months. Meanwhile, the consequences for the man she had said pleasure sex with are...wait...they're...hold on...nope, can't really think of any. Why must it be her burden? Those consequences are natural, but you again stick with your "group of cells" theory that precludes a possibility that you can't eliminate and suggest that the potential killing of a kid is an appropriate means to ensuring the ability to have irresponsible pleasure sex and let someone else (i.e. the baby who didn't ask to be conceived) suffer the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Agree except for bolded. The "left" (aka those who believe abortion should stay legal) has the opposition SEVERELY outnumbered. not really http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) Those consequences are natural, but you again stick with your "group of cells" theory that precludes a possibility that you can't eliminate and suggest that the potential killing of a kid is an appropriate means to ensuring the ability to have irresponsible pleasure sex and let someone else (i.e. the baby who didn't ask to be conceived) suffer the consequences. Yes, we are coming back to the group of cells who--quite frankly--are aren't "deciding" jack ****. And won't be "deciding' jack **** until months after they take their first breath as an actual human. So I'm going to defer to the adult on who is better equipped to "decide" anything. But I come back to those "consequences" being specific to the woman. And quite frankly i don't want to live in a world where the ladies lock their knees and make the beast with two backs for procreation only. That might work for some of you guys, but... Edited August 22, 2012 by The Big Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Yes, we are coming back to the group of cells who--quite frankly--are aren't "deciding" jack ****. And won't be "deciding' jack **** until months after they take their first breath as an actual human. So I'm going to defer to the adult on who is better equipped to "decide" anything. But I come back to those "consequences" being specific to the woman. And quite frankly i don't want to live in a world where the ladies lock their knees and make the beast with two backs for procreation only. That might work for some of you guys, but... I'm not getting back into the abortion debate because we spelled that out pretty clearly last night. It either went over your head or you just get satisfaction in the simplicity that is your thought process. As to your second point, the consequences aren't specific to women. I'm proof that you're dead wrong as I am raising a child I didn't plan for and wasn't convenient at the time and I've never for half a second had the slightest regret - quite the opposite actually. And to your third point (which is quite honestly the dumbest point yet made in this thread - and that's a HUGE !@#$ing statement), I don't know what kind of women you hang out with, but most who are old enough to "make the beast" without requiring someone to commit a felony, have knowledge of and access to very effective and convenient methods of birth control... well, except for 30 year old Columbia Law students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Yes, we are coming back to the group of cells who--quite frankly--are aren't "deciding" jack ****. And won't be "deciding' jack **** until months after they take their first breath as an actual human. So I'm going to defer to the adult on who is better equipped to "decide" anything. But I come back to those "consequences" being specific to the woman. And quite frankly i don't want to live in a world where the ladies lock their knees and make the beast with two backs for procreation only. That might work for some of you guys, but... My whole problem is not when the glob/fetus/whatever is considered a human being. My problem is a woman who had chosen to deny said fetus/glob/whatever the opportunity to become a human being because that glob/fetus/whatever is inconveniencing her. Pretty !@#$ing selfish if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I'm not getting back into the abortion debate because we spelled that out pretty clearly last night. It either went over your head or you just get satisfaction in the simplicity that is your thought process. As to your second point, the consequences aren't specific to women. I'm proof that you're dead wrong as I am raising a child I didn't plan for and wasn't convenient at the time and I've never for half a second had the slightest regret - quite the opposite actually. And to your third point (which is quite honestly the dumbest point yet made in this thread - and that's a HUGE !@#$ing statement), I don't know what kind of women you hang out with, but most who are old enough to "make the beast" without requiring someone to commit a felony, have knowledge of and access to very effective and convenient methods of birth control... well, except for 30 year old Columbia Law students. It was hyperbole, bruh. Learn to roll with it. Also, save the insults, and don't call me simple. And lastly, good for you. You made right in a very noble way. You're also smarter than the average bear, and if you really want this conversation to go off the rails, we can talk about where to whom babies are born that WON'T get the attention and resources they need to prosper. I don't dare take that thought any further because it might cause some heads here to explode, so I'll leave it at that. I'm led to believe you live above the standards which are the true cause of our country's degradation, so while your case is honorable, you alone a blueprint for responsible parehood do not make. My whole problem is not when the glob/fetus/whatever is considered a human being. My problem is a woman who had chosen to deny said fetus/glob/whatever the opportunity to become a human being because that glob/fetus/whatever is inconveniencing her. Pretty !@#$ing selfish if you ask me. I agree, but back to shades of my response to Rob above, in a lot of cases, these babies aren't just inconveniencing mama, they're inconveniencing a LOT of taxpayers...get my drift? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 (edited) My whole problem is not when the glob/fetus/whatever is considered a human being. My problem is a woman who had chosen to deny said fetus/glob/whatever the opportunity to become a human being because that glob/fetus/whatever is inconveniencing her. Pretty !@#$ing selfish if you ask me. Well embryo transplants will soon be possible and ectopic implantation into males are possible right now - so lets see who steps up to the plate in defense of the sacredness of life. Or you could just call abortion collateral damage of sex- because it's OK to kill an unlimited number of people if you call them collateral damage. Edited August 22, 2012 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 It was hyperbole, bruh. Learn to roll with it. Also, save the insults, and don't call me simple. And lastly, good for you. You made right in a very noble way. You're also smarter than the average bear, and if you really want this conversation to go off the rails, we can talk about where to whom babies are born that WON'T get the attention and resources they need to prosper. I don't dare take that thought any further because it might cause some heads here to explode, so I'll leave it at that. I'm led to believe you live above the standards which are the true cause of our country's degradation, so while your case is honorable, you alone a blueprint for responsible parehood do not make. I agree, but back to shades of my response to Rob above, in a lot of cases, these babies aren't just inconveniencing mama, they're inconveniencing a LOT of taxpayers...get my drift? So are a lot of deadbeats on welfare and food stamps. Should we off them too? ****ty ass reason to abort in my opinion. Well embryo transplants will soon be possible and ectopic implantation into males are possible right now - so lets see who steps up to the plate in defense of the sacredness of life. Or you could just call abortion collateral damage of sex- because it's OK to kill an unlimited number of people if you call them collateral damage. Why have my wife and I had sex for over 30 years with zero collateral damage? It ain't that hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts