Heart Beat Bill Vetoed

a reply to: EternalShadow

I am using reality to justify my position on the topic.

I'm sorry you can't understand reality.

And... this is why we can't talk anymore. "Pats you on the melon head"... good night!!!

originally posted by: GreyScale
a reply to: EternalShadow

I am using reality to justify my position on the topic.

I'm sorry you can't understand reality.

And... this is why we can't talk anymore. "Pats you on the melon head"... good night!!!

Put a helmet on that warrior there chief...lest one mistake make thee regret thy initial intent.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Murder isn't some arbitrary word to be used to mean anything you personally deem immoral. It has actual legal meaning. It's a legal term. Murder is an unlawful taking of human life, a legal abortion is obviously not unlawful. So it's not murder, and therefore women who have them are not serial killers. If you're going to continue this line of thought it would behove you to give a reasonable argument instead of "geez" or "yeah good try".

a reply to: EternalShadow

although most doctors will advise those women to space the births a few years apart...
do women have the same right to protect their health and wellbeing as men do???

and, I said spouse, could be the man or the women....
men should also have the same right to protect their earnings....
and since I am usually talking about husband and wife couples and not one night romps in the sacks with strangers, well, usually the husband will respect the idea that the wife doesn't want a child at the moment, and the women will respect the husband's idea that the husband feels too financially burdened at the present time.

if either of them feel that they don't want another child strongly enough, then they should have the right to say no to the sex. this often times just doesn't go over too well with the other spouse though. so which do you prefer a divorce, or the person who doesn't want one to take their chances and possibly decide an abortion is the proper solution if the birth control fails?

Awesome....get this fellas, women now have the right to dictate family density! Lol..

yes, we have the right to decide how many kids we will bring into the world!!!
so don't men!!!

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: EternalShadow

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Murder isn't some arbitrary word to be used to mean anything you personally deem immoral. It has actual legal meaning. It's a legal term. Murder is an unlawful taking of human life, a legal abortion is obviously not unlawful. So it's not murder, and therefore women who have them are not serial killers. If you're going to continue this line of thought it would behove you to give a reasonable argument instead of "geez" or "yeah good try".

You HONESTLY believe because it's legal, it morally absolves individuals??
That we should find it as trivial as a parking ticket perhaps?

Who are you?

a reply to: EternalShadow

You HONESTLY believe because it's legal, it morally absolves individuals??

Still failing to grasp this.

The morality of it is a separate discussion. I'm addressing the very false claim that women having legal abortions are serial killers. I spelled it out ad nauseam. If you don't get it by now, you simply are incapable.

As for the morality of abortions, I personally find abortions perfectly moral so long as they take place during a certain timeframe.

Awesome....get this fellas, women now have the right to dictate family density!

Since you advocated men having a say in whether the abortion happens earlier...

What about the scenario of the woman not wanting an abortion and the man wanting one??

Who are you?

A serial killer advocate apparently lol

Double post..sorry.

How about, if you are CIVIALLY MARRIED, aside from medical and life threatening circumstances, you cannot conduct an abortion.

Point Blank.

Everyone is cool with the government legitimizing marriage across the board, making weed a thing to do, UPHOLDING Rowe vs. Wade, allowing illegals to get drunk and plow into you head on, but nooooooooo......

Don't mess with my body I'm statistically irresponsible with!!

Whatever.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: EternalShadow

You HONESTLY believe because it's legal, it morally absolves individuals??

Still failing to grasp this.

The morality of it is a separate discussion. I'm addressing the very false claim that women having legal abortions are serial killers. I spelled it out ad nauseam. If you don't get it by now, you simply are incapable.

As for the morality of abortions, I personally find abortions perfectly moral so long as they take place during a certain timeframe.

Awesome....get this fellas, women now have the right to dictate family density!

Since you advocated men having a say in whether the abortion happens earlier...

What about the scenario of the woman not wanting an abortion and the man wanting one??

Who are you?

A serial killer advocate apparently lol


Evidently..

Well that went exactly where I expected it to go; nowhere.

a reply to: reldra

Kasich is looking more and more like he would have been a reasonable candidate.

You can have Kasich if you want him.

He is my governor and I think he sucks.

a reply to: EternalShadow

come back and talk to me about it when refusing sex isn't considered grounds for divorce...

A sexless marriage is not one in which the couple is merely not being consistently intimate, but rather one in which repeated sexual advances are ignored and the couple experiences a long period without any intimate activity at all.

‘It is called either alienation of affection or constructive abandonment,’ reports The ExperienceProject.com. If a spouse is withholding sex, or using it as a weapon, this is immediate grounds for divorce. Marriage, as set forth in legal precedent, implies that there will be sex’to withhold this is considered a divorceable offense.

www.vanlarsonlaw.com...

every women weather they know it or not has a valid medical reason not to want to have kids spaced too closely together. it not only adds risk to the mother, but also to the unborn child that is conceive.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Why are women allowed to be serial killers if they chose? Because a procedure is available?

An abortion isn't done by a home kit you buy off Ebay doctors perform the procedure so how is the woman a serial killer?

So a woman is allowed to end a life, LEGALLY no less, and if they choose, a man has to endure 18 years+ of servitude if she decides to see it through?

Yeah like all fathers live up to their responsibility.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Well that went exactly where I expected it to go; nowhere.

Abortions should not be wholesale. As a man, once my partner becomes "inconvenient", should a law elect me to off said partner, or vice versa? I mean this gal isn't financially viable for my current situation, so she's gotta go.

Those that are here are more important than those that are not yet? Planned or not?

Obviously, personal responsibility is freaking paramount!

Since 1973.....56 million babies aborted.

Either every other person you talk to, male or female, is a serial rapist, or there may be an epidemic of mortality rates in hospitals.....or there's the "inconvenient" quotient which would disturb many.

Either number should raise alarms... but neither can withstand simple responsibility.

a reply to: EternalShadow

you could always opt to hop into your car and drive away, no need to off her...

I've raised three kids, when the youngest one was born, my oldest was under three years old. to make matters worse, my husband opted to hop into his big ole semi and drive cross country. I have rather large babies and my third was the largest coming in at 9lbs, 4 ounces. after the two previous pregnancies my uterus was a tad bit lower than it should have been. I have a two year old that was being a two year old, into whatever peaked his curiosity and a newborn relying on me for everything and a dead car. and... I also had an ob that was often times griping at me to not pick them up, which, of course, I had to ignore. I didn't trust my ability to walk really and often times had pains shooting down my legs. boy, how I would have loved to have been able to drop that bundle in my stomach off into the crib and pick up my other kids and enjoy holding them some!!!

and that is the difference between your unwanted wife/girlfriend, and my third son!!! and that is also the reason for what I am saying now, if there had been a fourth on that soon afterward, it would have been aborted...
FOR THE SAKE OF THE THREE THAT I ALREADY HAD!!

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: EternalShadow

Why are women allowed to be serial killers if they chose? Because a procedure is available?

An abortion isn't done by a home kit you buy off Ebay doctors perform the procedure so how is the woman a serial killer?

So a woman is allowed to end a life, LEGALLY no less, and if they choose, a man has to endure 18 years+ of servitude if she decides to see it through?

Yeah like all fathers live up to their responsibility.

Oh yeah?

Seriously? A poorly planned pregnancy is never debated knowing there's an OUT?
"Are you going to keep it?"
"What are you going to do?"
(Gets pretty REAL pretty quick..)

All this talk of gun show loopholes, and yet...

a reply to: EternalShadow

So in a nutshell: if you deem the reason for an abortion justified, then it is. If you deem the reason immoral, then it is. Well we are at an impasse because I feel the same about my positions.

Either way, abortions are legal. The Law looks at it the way it does regardless of our personal views.

Obviously, personal responsibility is freaking paramount!

It does seem obtuse how you are framing things. As if it were only a matter of irresponsibility between consenting partners. Never-minding situations like pregnancy through rape or via birth control usages failing (they're not 100% effective).

Those that are here are more important than those that are not yet?

My position is that we should give more concern towards conscious human beings than we should a fetus that has the potential to be one, yes. Since you asked.

As a man, once my partner becomes "inconvenient", should a law elect me to off said partner, or vice versa?

Le sigh.

originally posted by: reldra
Heart Beat Bill Vetoed

It's nice to see ignorant knee-jerk extremism put down for a change.

Discussing topics this complicated with someone like EternalShadow is a lot like showing card tricks to a dog...

a reply to: reldra

In keeping with the ruling of RvW, 20 weeks seems like it could hold up if it's challenged at the SCOTUS level (the ruling specifically mentions "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." I think that with modern capabilities, this potential does exist.

I expect that this may become the new standard for these types of abortion laws in other states wanting to implement them.

I think that we all knew that the "heartbeat bill" wasn't going to fly, so it makes sense that he vetoed that.