[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
John, do you mind if I ask why the plan would backfire?? Because people would then make it a life vs. choice debate?
[quote]John S. wrote:
Without a doubt we shouldn’t be funding them. If this is what it takes to cut the funding I am all for it an hopes that this does it. But if the right try’s to take it one step further and use this as a push against abortion it will backfire, that is what I worry about.
I don’t believe in federal funding for anything. Their job is military and that is it.[/quote]
[/quote]
Because the country is very strongly 50/50 on this issue and if this incident is used to push an agenda people will rally behind planned parenthood.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
John, do you mind if I ask why the plan would backfire?? Because people would then make it a life vs. choice debate?
[quote]John S. wrote:
Without a doubt we shouldn’t be funding them. If this is what it takes to cut the funding I am all for it an hopes that this does it. But if the right try’s to take it one step further and use this as a push against abortion it will backfire, that is what I worry about.
I don’t believe in federal funding for anything. Their job is military and that is it.[/quote]
[/quote]
Because the country is very strongly 50/50 on this issue and if this incident is used to push an agenda people will rally behind planned parenthood.[/quote]
So you’re advocating a chip away effect rather than a bulldoze effect?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
John, do you mind if I ask why the plan would backfire?? Because people would then make it a life vs. choice debate?
[quote]John S. wrote:
Without a doubt we shouldn’t be funding them. If this is what it takes to cut the funding I am all for it an hopes that this does it. But if the right try’s to take it one step further and use this as a push against abortion it will backfire, that is what I worry about.
I don’t believe in federal funding for anything. Their job is military and that is it.[/quote]
[/quote]
Because the country is very strongly 50/50 on this issue and if this incident is used to push an agenda people will rally behind planned parenthood.[/quote]
So you’re advocating a chip away effect rather than a bulldoze effect?[/quote]
I think it is just sick and they should be defunded and those people should go to jail. I don’t see the need to drag an abortion debate into this that is all.
So far we haven’t seen anyone standing up for them and it seems pretty much everyone is on board for at least a full blown investigation so lets not try and take this into political waters.
Tho, if people want to get into a fight over this, it could probably be used to make it so everyone under 18 needs to get parental consent. But I think this nation is fighting enough as it is, I say just let this thing get defunded and these crazy bitches go to jail.
Why is a true debate a bad thing?! I KNOW one side will prevail because they have simple, logical thought behind the pro-life side. How many people do NOT truly understand the process?? I know I come across many of them. Plus you presume to know how people will react. Do you offer a class where I might be able to attend?
As a side note, I hope you don’t think I am attacking you in anyway. A playful ribbing maybe, but nothing more ; )
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
John, do you mind if I ask why the plan would backfire?? Because people would then make it a life vs. choice debate?
[quote]John S. wrote:
Without a doubt we shouldn’t be funding them. If this is what it takes to cut the funding I am all for it an hopes that this does it. But if the right try’s to take it one step further and use this as a push against abortion it will backfire, that is what I worry about.
I don’t believe in federal funding for anything. Their job is military and that is it.[/quote]
[/quote]
Because the country is very strongly 50/50 on this issue and if this incident is used to push an agenda people will rally behind planned parenthood.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Why is a true debate a bad thing?! I KNOW one side will prevail because they have simple, logical thought behind the pro-life side. How many people do NOT truly understand the process?? I know I come across many of them. Plus you presume to know how people will react. Do you offer a class where I might be able to attend?
As a side note, I hope you don’t think I am attacking you in anyway. A playful ribbing maybe, but nothing more ; [/quote]
Because this country is debating everything else. I would much rather have a moment of unity and defund this organization.
Just look at every time an abortion debate is brought up, people get ready to start beating each other up.
Insulting each other is part of PWI, I feel sorry for anyone who takes them serious. Should see the jabs Zeb and I give each other.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Why is a true debate a bad thing?! I KNOW one side will prevail because they have simple, logical thought behind the pro-life side. How many people do NOT truly understand the process?? I know I come across many of them. Plus you presume to know how people will react. Do you offer a class where I might be able to attend?
As a side note, I hope you don’t think I am attacking you in anyway. A playful ribbing maybe, but nothing more ; [/quote]
Because this country is debating everything else. I would much rather have a moment of unity and defund this organization.
Just look at every time an abortion debate is brought up, people get ready to start beating each other up.
Insulting each other is part of PWI, I feel sorry for anyone who takes them serious. Should see the jabs Zeb and I give each other.[/quote]
Homo…anyway, the idea that if we just don’t argue about it we’ll be unified won’t really work. We’ll just be silently unified. The only time that this country has been unified is during a national disaster like 9/11 and Katrina.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
However, it is my experience that “pro-life” activists rarely care about human suffering[/quote]
Wow…no proof or anything. What motives would a pro-life activist have besides protecting the mother and the child?[/quote]
They clearly have no interest in protecting the mother–if they did, they wouldn’t attempt to revoke her human rights and force her to carry a child she does not want to term. Even if they did, as I said, it is unacceptable for them to attempt to infringe upon her rights.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
However, it is my experience that “pro-life” activists rarely care about human suffering[/quote]
Wow…no proof or anything. What motives would a pro-life activist have besides protecting the mother and the child?[/quote]
They clearly have no interest in protecting the mother–if they did, they wouldn’t attempt to revoke her human rights and force her to carry a child she does not want to term. Even if they did, as I said, it is unacceptable for them to attempt to infringe upon her rights.
[/quote]
The mother forfeits those rights when she engages in an act that causes pregnancy, actions have consequences. just like criminals forfeit certain rights when they commit crimes.
apbt55 hit the nail right on the head!! If a woman partakes in an activity knowing full well the consequence/s of the act, her rights are superseded when another life is created. Save your breath Ryan, do NOT argue a case for rape and incest when they account for less than one percent of the total number.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
However, it is my experience that “pro-life” activists rarely care about human suffering[/quote]
Wow…no proof or anything. What motives would a pro-life activist have besides protecting the mother and the child?[/quote]
They clearly have no interest in protecting the mother–if they did, they wouldn’t attempt to revoke her human rights and force her to carry a child she does not want to term. Even if they did, as I said, it is unacceptable for them to attempt to infringe upon her rights.
[/quote]
The mother forfeits those rights when she engages in an act that causes pregnancy, actions have consequences. just like criminals forfeit certain rights when they commit crimes.[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
However, it is my experience that “pro-life” activists rarely care about human suffering[/quote]
Wow…no proof or anything. What motives would a pro-life activist have besides protecting the mother and the child?[/quote]
They clearly have no interest in protecting the mother–if they did, they wouldn’t attempt to revoke her human rights and force her to carry a child she does not want to term. Even if they did, as I said, it is unacceptable for them to attempt to infringe upon her rights.
[/quote]
The mother forfeits those rights when she engages in an act that causes pregnancy, actions have consequences. just like criminals forfeit certain rights when they commit crimes.[/quote]
Didn’t know ending someone’s life was someone else’s right. As well, what about the rights of a woman to know the mental effects that will result from getting an abortion?
Look at the difference between adoption and abortion. When a woman is looking to give away her child, her baby…she can only terminate the relationship between the mother and child after the state helps and ensures she’s making the right decision. Several states, she must wait until after birth to terminate the mother-child relationship and give away the child…the mother must be offered counseling. Maternal rights are looked at with the upmost respect; however, in the context of abortion…zero respect. Question for all (the courts, those claiming to represent the rights of women, pro-life, churches, &c.) where is your discussion and defense of the mother, the real rights of the mother?
The mother forfeits those rights when she engages in an act that causes pregnancy, actions have consequences. just like criminals forfeit certain rights when they commit crimes.[/quote]
Am I the only one who feels that this isn’t the warmest analogy? Not to make too fine a point about it, but it does sound rather like a punishment for wrongdoing rather than an embrace of the wonders of conception.
It begs a question: Does a man lose any rights as well by committing an act that causes pregnancy, for example a right to keep his money by having to pay child support?
The mother forfeits those rights when she engages in an act that causes pregnancy, actions have consequences. just like criminals forfeit certain rights when they commit crimes.[/quote]
Am I the only one who feels that this isn’t the warmest analogy? Not to make too fine a point about it, but it does sound rather like a punishment for wrongdoing rather than an embrace of the wonders of conception.
It begs a question: Does a man lose any rights as well by committing an act that causes pregnancy, for example a right to keep his money by having to pay child support?
Just trying to understand your perspective.
Makkun[/quote]
lots of actions forfeit rights, EVEN legal ones.
You have the right to not drive, unless you’ve already gotten in a car and gotten on the road. You can’t get out on the interstate and the just choose not to drive anymore. No one can force you to START driving, BUT if you chose to start driving on your own you have the moral obligation (which overrides your right to choose) to bring your action to a close while insuring the safety of all other parties.
If I put a kid in a car with me, took him out driving on the road, then decided I didn’t want to drive so I jumped out of the moving vehicle, it’s murder if the kid dies. If the car crashes into a house, I’m responsible for damages. Pro-choice is in support of the “right” to escape a moving car you put in motion yourself.
Once a person CHOOSES an activity it is their responsibility to continue that line of action until such a time that no other lives are in danger.
The mother forfeits those rights when she engages in an act that causes pregnancy, actions have consequences. just like criminals forfeit certain rights when they commit crimes.[/quote]
Am I the only one who feels that this isn’t the warmest analogy? Not to make too fine a point about it, but it does sound rather like a punishment for wrongdoing rather than an embrace of the wonders of conception.
It begs a question: Does a man lose any rights as well by committing an act that causes pregnancy, for example a right to keep his money by having to pay child support?
Just trying to understand your perspective.
Makkun[/quote]
No I was just using that analogy to imply abortion is a criminal act. Just like neglect. Just like feeding your child draino because you no longer want to take care of them.
and yes the father shares responsibility and if he chooses not to be accountable should financially or criminally punished for those actions.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
However, it is my experience that “pro-life” activists rarely care about human suffering[/quote]
Wow…no proof or anything. What motives would a pro-life activist have besides protecting the mother and the child?[/quote]
They clearly have no interest in protecting the mother–if they did, they wouldn’t attempt to revoke her human rights and force her to carry a child she does not want to term. Even if they did, as I said, it is unacceptable for them to attempt to infringe upon her rights.
[/quote]
The mother forfeits those rights when she engages in an act that causes pregnancy, actions have consequences. just like criminals forfeit certain rights when they commit crimes.[/quote]
No, she does not. Her rights are not subject to your approval, you arrogant prick.
And nice going comparing a woman who has sex to a criminal. No wonder this country is going down hill.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
apbt55 hit the nail right on the head!! If a woman partakes in an activity knowing full well the consequence/s of the act, her rights are superseded when another life is created. Save your breath Ryan, do NOT argue a case for rape and incest when they account for less than one percent of the total number.[/quote]
I don’t have to argue “the case” for rape and incest. If she wants an abortion, it is her right to have one, regardless of the circumstances or how it makes you feel. Deal with it.
Even if I give you the assumption that the fetus is a human with no argument, it’s your right to go hunting and kill animals if you wish, an act that is far more capricious than ending a pregnancy which will have consequences for the rest of the woman’s life. A one or two month old fetus is no different from an animal.
And there are no significant mental effects from abortion:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
apbt55 hit the nail right on the head!! If a woman partakes in an activity knowing full well the consequence/s of the act, her rights are superseded when another life is created. Save your breath Ryan, do NOT argue a case for rape and incest when they account for less than one percent of the total number.[/quote]
I don’t have to argue “the case” for rape and incest. If she wants an abortion, it is her right to have one, regardless of the circumstances or how it makes you feel. Deal with it.
[/quote]
So, if a woman is driving down the interstate and chooses to stop driving, causing a massive accident killing people, that’s her right? Who are you to judge her choice? Regardless of how it makes you feel, you have no right to force her to keep driving.
Actions have consequences. We force people to own up to the consequences of there actions when it affects other people. It happens all the time in every day life. If you were really FOR a persons right to choose, you must also be for the right of everyone to choose not to do things that put other people’s lives at risk. You must be pro right to park and leave your car on the interstate. Pro right to leave your infant at home and just take off to do whatever you want for as long as you want. You must be pro choice to not pay child support.
You are so amazing inconsistent hypocritical it’s absurd.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
However, it is my experience that “pro-life” activists rarely care about human suffering[/quote]
Wow…no proof or anything. What motives would a pro-life activist have besides protecting the mother and the child?[/quote]
They clearly have no interest in protecting the mother–if they did, they wouldn’t attempt to revoke her human rights and force her to carry a child she does not want to term. Even if they did, as I said, it is unacceptable for them to attempt to infringe upon her rights.
[/quote]
The mother forfeits those rights when she engages in an act that causes pregnancy, actions have consequences. just like criminals forfeit certain rights when they commit crimes.[/quote]
No, she does not. Her rights are not subject to your approval, you arrogant prick.
And nice going comparing a woman who has sex to a criminal. No wonder this country is going down hill.
[/quote]
so anyone who prosecutes someone is a prick, anyone who holds someone accountable for what they do is a prick.
You are a puffed chest little college student with no clue of the world accept from books. You can read about shit all day, but until you do it you have no clue.
and yes someone who has sex knowing full well that it could mean starting a new life and then killing that life, is a criminal.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
apbt55 hit the nail right on the head!! If a woman partakes in an activity knowing full well the consequence/s of the act, her rights are superseded when another life is created. Save your breath Ryan, do NOT argue a case for rape and incest when they account for less than one percent of the total number.[/quote]
I don’t have to argue “the case” for rape and incest. If she wants an abortion, it is her right to have one, regardless of the circumstances or how it makes you feel. Deal with it.
[/quote]
you are a college student, probably using some sort of assistance, being funded by our money.
so by your logic it is our money, so scoiety can say you are worthless and end your life.