|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
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.
|
richard
|
|
response 161 of 331:
|
Feb 28 15:38 UTC 2006 |
klg and nharmon still won't say how they intend to pay for abortion being
illegal and the costs of enforcing such a law. they just don't care how much
taxes will have to be raised to build all the extra jails and have all the
extra trials and enact all the additional laws that would be necessary as part
of the enforcement of the abortion ban. They just don't care.
|
klg
|
|
response 162 of 331:
|
Feb 28 17:03 UTC 2006 |
We'll increase tax revenue by reducing marginal tax rates on the
wealthy.
|
richard
|
|
response 163 of 331:
|
Feb 28 17:27 UTC 2006 |
that won't be nearly enough tax revenue and it wouldn't work anyway. you can
ONLY pay for the kind of money you'd need to fund an anti-abortion law, by
raising taxes. That or put slot machines on every corner
|
other
|
|
response 164 of 331:
|
Feb 28 17:29 UTC 2006 |
Richard, as a demonstration of how half-assed your logic is, try
substituting the word prostitution for the word abortion. According to
your logic No state in the country could ban prostitution within its
own borders because Nevada allows it.
KLG,... oh never mind. You wouldn't understand, so you're beyond help.
|
richard
|
|
response 165 of 331:
|
Feb 28 17:32 UTC 2006 |
bad analogy other, prostitution is not a capital crime. Big difference. HUGE
difference. And it isn't that no other state could ban abortion if another
state allows it, its that no other state could prevent its own citizens from
getting abortions. Which would make its own ban pointless.
|
other
|
|
response 166 of 331:
|
Feb 28 17:34 UTC 2006 |
This is the first mention of capital crime staus in this item. And
pointlessness is a virtual requirement for the passage of laws these
days, not a deterrent. What planet are you on, anyway?
|
richard
|
|
response 167 of 331:
|
Feb 28 17:35 UTC 2006 |
A better analogy is gun control. If gun control was state by state, and New
York had a ban on guns but New Jersey didn't, what good would New York's law
be? It would be a worthless law, because a New Yorker can go to New Jersey
and buy a gun. The only way gun controls can possibly work is on a federal
level, and it is the same with abortion laws.
|
richard
|
|
response 168 of 331:
|
Feb 28 17:39 UTC 2006 |
Or I suppose Other, that if cocaine was legal in Ohio, but not in Michigan,
that you'd still think Michigan ought to spend money making cocaine illegal
if it was so easy to get across the state line?
We're talking billions of taxpayer dollars that are spent on gun laws, drug
laws and would be spent on abortion laws. without federal laws, and without
laws preventing people from crossing state borders, state laws against those
things would be a colossal waste of money.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 169 of 331:
|
Feb 28 17:42 UTC 2006 |
Couldn't the same argument be made for just about everything?
"A New Yorker can go to New Jersey and marry his/her gay lover. The
only way gay marriage bans can possibly work is on a federal level, and
it is the same with abortion laws."
"A New Yorker can go to New Jersey and buy drugs. The only way drug
laws can possibly work is on a federal level, and it is the same with
abortion laws."
"A New Yorker can go to New Jersey and buy fireworks. The only way a
ban on fireworks can possibly work is on a federal level, and it is the
same with abortion laws."
Sorry, I don't buy it.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 170 of 331:
|
Feb 28 17:42 UTC 2006 |
168 slipped in.
|