|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
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.
|
richard
|
|
response 171 of 331:
|
Feb 28 17:51 UTC 2006 |
nharmon there is a difference between going across a state line to do
something, like getting a prostitute, and going across a state line to get
something and bring it back, such as a gun or drugs. Or to have an abortion.
If a state has such laws, it is to prevent not only use of guns or drugs, but
to prevent those things from being brought back for use in the state. Or to
prevent a pregnant citizen of that state from becoming not pregnant there or
anywhere else. Laws in other states can make it impossible to enforce such
laws in these states. IMO you cannot have gun control laws that mean anything
unless they are federalized.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 172 of 331:
|
Feb 28 18:06 UTC 2006 |
How do abortions fall under the catagory of "getting something and
bringing it back, such as a gun or drugs"? If anything, it should fall
under the catagory of "going across a state line to do something".
|
tod
|
|
response 173 of 331:
|
Feb 28 18:07 UTC 2006 |
re #156
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
You mean carry the foetus to birth, right?
Terminating a pregnancy happens even naturally. How can you outlaw it?
|
richard
|
|
response 174 of 331:
|
Feb 28 19:36 UTC 2006 |
also if Other had actually been to Nevada, he might know that prostitution
is actually ILLEGAL there in all but one or two counties now. One of which
is NOT Las Vegas by the way. Why did Nevada change its prostitution laws over
the years? Pressure from the border states naturally.
Personally I think prostitution should be legal everywhere, it is not for the
government to tell any adult citizen what they can or cannot do with their
bodies, be it have an abortion or have sex for money or whatever
|
tod
|
|
response 175 of 331:
|
Feb 28 19:40 UTC 2006 |
Didn't the White House have a gay prostitute running around not long ago?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 176 of 331:
|
Feb 28 20:32 UTC 2006 |
nate..wirthlin poll? really?!
lol!
|
mcnally
|
|
response 177 of 331:
|
Feb 28 20:38 UTC 2006 |
re #174:
> Personally I think prostitution should be legal everywhere, it is not
> for the government to tell any adult citizen what they can or cannot
> do with their bodies, be it have an abortion or have sex for money or
> whatever
Right. That's really more for their pimps to decide..
It's true that a substantial amount of the motivation behind prostitution
bans comes from attitudes about sex, but there's also another part of the
law that's meant to protect women (actually, girls mostly..) from being
pressured or forced into prostitution.
|
richard
|
|
response 178 of 331:
|
Feb 28 20:53 UTC 2006 |
it is not the responsibility of the law to protect consenting adults from
themselves. in a free country, you should have the right to do what you want
with your body, whether its get it tattooed or have sex with it or whatever
|
rcurl
|
|
response 179 of 331:
|
Feb 28 20:56 UTC 2006 |
A lot of problems have been associated with prostitution - mobs, disease,
"white slavery", etc. But these have mostly been regulated out of existence
in places where prostitution is now legal.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 180 of 331:
|
Feb 28 21:02 UTC 2006 |
re #178: I agree that the law is best left out of personal arrangements
between consenting adults but your argument is simply *assuming* the fact
that the prostitutes are consenting. In fact, many are coerced into
prostitution to varying degrees (everything from what we would consider
wholly voluntary to some truly horrifying scenarios.)
|