|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 136 of 331:
| 
Feb 27 21:22 UTC 2006 |
you know, klg is really a tax and spend liberal, because he wants all this
extra government infrastructure and government spending to enforce laws
outlawing abortion, which could only be done by massively raising taxes.
You'd have to hire more lawyers, judges, build more jails, have more
trials. It would be a HUGE increase in the size of government in a state
if abortion were to be illegal there.
Increasing the size, and need, for government should be against the
principles of any true conservative. klg is a tax and spend liberal, who
wants to dramatically increase domestic spending.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 137 of 331:
|
Feb 27 21:43 UTC 2006 |
Whether you find these definitions of pro-life and pro-choice "interesting"
is not really relevant. They are the commonly accepted ones used today,
as described on places like Wikipedia and the OED. If you want to
invent your own personal definitions, which seem to be based on straw-man
oversimplifications like "pro-choice means that a baby is the same as a
pimple" then that's certainly your right but it sounds silly.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 138 of 331:
|
Feb 27 21:57 UTC 2006 |
resp:134 Are you having a problem with the word 'choice'? Pro-Choice
people want a woman to have a choice as to whether she terminates a
pregnancy or goes through with it. Keeping a pregnacy IS a choice.
Meaning supporting the choice of a 15 year old girl who doesn't want an
abortion- even if some might think that's the best option. It also means
supporting the choice of a married woman with 4 kids who doesn't want to
have any more children (and we'd hope her hsuband agreed with her). It's
all about allowing the individual to choose.
Pro-abortion would be more like saying the 15 year old should have an
abortion whether she wants it or not simply because she's too young to
decide. And might also think that it's too bad that married woman didn't
abort more of her children.
Lil bit of a difference there methinks.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 139 of 331:
|
Feb 27 21:59 UTC 2006 |
"Sounds like we're a-gonna have to restrict interstate travel
for pregant women."
james dobson
|
twenex
|
|
response 140 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:08 UTC 2006 |
Conservatives don't have principles. Beyond "if it's new, oppose it".
|
happyboy
|
|
response 141 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:15 UTC 2006 |
thank you for agreeing with me
jeffery rollins...
love in christ,
james dobson
|
tod
|
|
response 142 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:20 UTC 2006 |
<hums On Angels Wings in steamroom with Ashcroft>
|
happyboy
|
|
response 143 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:21 UTC 2006 |
/ashcroft gives you a sweaty hug.
"Let the EAAAAGLE SOAAAAAAR..."
|
tod
|
|
response 144 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:27 UTC 2006 |
Ashcroft=one out of 535 members of House and Senate to receive the greatest
amount of financial support from Monsanto. (He received 5x the amount of
money as the congressman finishing 2nd.)
Enjoy your canola oil!!
|
happyboy
|
|
response 145 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:50 UTC 2006 |
is canola on the genetically modified foods list?
|
tod
|
|
response 146 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:54 UTC 2006 |
What isn't?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 147 of 331:
|
Feb 27 22:57 UTC 2006 |
ka-me bamboo shoots!
|
tod
|
|
response 148 of 331:
|
Feb 27 23:10 UTC 2006 |
re #145
The United States accounts for nearly two-thirds of all biotechnology crops
planted globally. GM food crops grown by U.S. farmers include corn, cotton,
soybeans, canola, squash, and papaya.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 149 of 331:
|
Feb 27 23:42 UTC 2006 |
heard about the zuchinni, didn't know about the papaya.
mmmmmm....pesticide food!
|
tod
|
|
response 150 of 331:
|
Feb 28 00:22 UTC 2006 |
Patented seeds, yay!
|
null
|
|
response 151 of 331:
|
Feb 28 03:19 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 152 of 331:
|
Feb 28 03:32 UTC 2006 |
(Drat!! Can't put anything past that Richard anymore. Is life worth
living??)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 153 of 331:
|
Feb 28 03:58 UTC 2006 |
AS DEFINED IN THIS POLL, pro-choice included people who were in favor of
prohibiting a mother from having an abortion after the first three
months of pregnancy. Apparently the limits on a woman's right to choose
only stops at the third month of pregnancy. Removing that choice during
2/3rds of the pregnancy doesn't jeopardizing one's membership in the
pro-choice club. That is what I found confusing and interesting at the
same time.
And Marc, don't talk to me about common accepted definitions of
politically framed labels that not even the website you mentioned
(Wikipedia) can make any sense on what each means exactly.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 154 of 331:
|
Feb 28 04:35 UTC 2006 |
Re #153, I'm sorry, what poll is "this poll"? Are you quoting from
something?
Yes, there is a continuum of opinion, and there are going to be grey
areas. But in general pro-choice means that you believe abortion on
demand should be legal and available for competent women during the
first trimester, which is when the vast majority of abortions are
performed. Pro-life means that you think abortion should generally be
illegal, although you may allow a few narrow exceptions (but the entire
first trimester is not narrow.) That's where the large numbers are,
and that's where the battle is centered; the conflict over late-term
abortions are just minor skirmishes since those procedures are hardly
ever done anyway.
By all means Nathan, please, can you give us your definition of
"pro-choice" and "pro-life" and explain what leads you to identify
yourself as the latter? You seem to have your own view, but for some
reason you only want to hint at what it might be instead of just saying
what you mean.
|
null
|
|
response 155 of 331:
|
Feb 28 05:18 UTC 2006 |
Eat a dead fetus for Jesus
|
klg
|
|
response 156 of 331:
|
Feb 28 11:43 UTC 2006 |
MH is getting like Curl. Making up definitions as he goes along.
Here's what a search on the definition of pro-choice yields. Note
there is no reference to the first or to any trimester.
pro-choice (pr -chois )
adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term
PRO-CHOICE supports that a female is a human being with the intellect to
decide for herself whether or not she wishes to carry her child to term
within
the current given parameters of her personal living situation.
Definition of
1. [a] advocating a woman's right to control her own body
(especially her right to an induced abortion).
a] advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially her
right to an induced abortion).
pro-choice
advocating a woman's right to control her own body
(especially her right to an induced abortion)
Pro Choice means:
You have a choice weather or not to sleep with this person - After you
sleep with this person, and the baby is concieved - it is no longer
your choice
|
nharmon
|
|
response 157 of 331:
|
Feb 28 13:18 UTC 2006 |
Re 154: I'm talking about the Wirthlin poll of #133.
Pro-choice seems to imply that it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a
person or not. Either way, it is property being part of the woman's
body, and can be destroyed. Since I do not agree with this, I concluded
that I must be pro-life. Maybe I'm neither.
|
slynne
|
|
response 158 of 331:
|
Feb 28 14:03 UTC 2006 |
Or maybe, like a lot of issues, things arent just black and white.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 159 of 331:
|
Feb 28 14:52 UTC 2006 |
>Pro-choice seems to imply that it doesn't matter whether the fetus is a
>person or not. Either way, it is property being part of the woman's
>body, and can be destroyed.
Mmm, I think that'd be better expressed as pro-choice means the
individual decides whether or not the fetus is a person (since there is
no definitive answer on when personhood begins). The effect is probably
the same, though. The others here are fussing at your self-definition
of pro-life implies a position that is more hard core than yours seems
to be.
I'm somewhere in the middle, as well--I'm not completely comfortable
with either position. An anti-abortion pro-choicer, maybe?
|
jep
|
|
response 160 of 331:
|
Feb 28 14:55 UTC 2006 |
Hardly anyone is completely, 100%, pro-choice, or 100% anti-abortion
(or pro-life or however you choose to say it). I don't think there's
anything inherently wrong in having an uncertain position, or in having
a definite position which is different based on specific circumstances.
Some people think abortion is okay in the 1st trimester but not after.
Some think it's wrong unless the mother's life is in jeopardy. Some
think rape, incest, age of mother, race, gender of fetus, marital
status, intelligence, income, or any number of other factors make a
difference.
|