|
Grex > Agora46 > #77: Abortion clinics SHOULD be bombed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 209 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 31 of 209:
| 
Jul 11 21:39 UTC 2003 |
I'm getting such a kick out of visualizing sabre screaming, "My God is
fucking mad at all you fucking bitches for spreading your legs for every
fucking dick that wants in. You'd be better off, slut, to use the fucking
corn God grew for you."
This show is too much of a train wreck to be real. But as train
wrecks go it's pretty funny.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 32 of 209:
|
Jul 11 22:41 UTC 2003 |
What sabre's actually doing is sitting at home, giggling, and saying "I knew
those predictable dumbasses wouldn't be able to resist this one."
|
twenex
|
|
response 33 of 209:
|
Jul 11 22:48 UTC 2003 |
A true "universal respect for human life" requires denial of the death
penalty, murder, war, and the means to cause, by action or inaction, the deaht
of e.g. a bum.
Anything else is a qualification. Foetuses are not self-aware, therefore imho,
abortion for god reason like in the case of a child who would be unloved
because of a rape incident, or a pregnancy whose termination would result in
the death of the mother, is admissable if ver carefully considered and agreed
upon by the mother, the father (when applicable, i.e. when the father is able
and willing to ACT as a father) and MD/surgeon.
|
md
|
|
response 34 of 209:
|
Jul 11 23:13 UTC 2003 |
Has anyone considered that sabre might be the sort of person who
invests so much ego in everything he says that the effort of defending
#0, which he didn't even believe when he wrote it, could actually turn
him into the rabid anti-abortion type he's impersonating? Psychology
101. I mean, everyone knows what Rane et al. are gonna say anyway, so
why not say "Why, sir, that is most justly observed," or something?
(Generic "he" there. sabre could be Mary Remmers for all I know.)
|
dcat
|
|
response 35 of 209:
|
Jul 11 23:45 UTC 2003 |
Mostly I think 'sabre' is a misnomer. 'epee' might be more accurate.
|
mary
|
|
response 36 of 209:
|
Jul 12 02:35 UTC 2003 |
I miss mulberry.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 37 of 209:
|
Jul 12 04:28 UTC 2003 |
resp:19 whoa, he's making *you* do the dance? Well, I responded a
while back to other stuff (maybe not as long) so I guess it was coming.
resp:31 an interesting and witty way of putting it. Sometimes, it
seems more like a rotten apple pie fight.
resp:32 Why yes! True, Joe. Wait for my other brother, sabre. So
juicy, plump, BIG! *clop clop clop*
|
sj2
|
|
response 38 of 209:
|
Jul 12 05:24 UTC 2003 |
Duh!! People still post on this guy's threads???
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 209:
|
Jul 12 05:38 UTC 2003 |
If every thread that deserved being ignored were ignored, it would be
rather silent around here.
|
janc
|
|
response 40 of 209:
|
Jul 12 05:41 UTC 2003 |
Re #32: If all else fails, I'm sure that's what he'd prefer to have us think
he is up to. I have no idea who sabre is and what he is thinking. I respond
to please myself, serving my own agenda. If that happens to also serve
someone else's agenda, then I have no problem with that.
Re #26: I do have a problem with that handy, dandy, pocket-sized God you got
there. That's a funny kind of God that you can just whip out of your pocket
any time you need him to back up your opinions.
Now, me, I happen to believe in God too, but I believe that God is at least
as large and complex as the universe, and at least as difficult to understand.
It's entirely beyond me to attempt to state with any certainty what God thinks
about any particular issue. If God has opinions, I expect they are all way
too large to fit into my brain. Maybe after I've completely understood the
entire universe, I'll be ready to start making semi-confident guesses about
what God thinks.
I don't believe you are enough smarter than me to know what God thinks. I
don't think that thing you are calling "God" is God. I think that thing is
a little sock puppet you've stuck your hand into so it will conveniently
back you up on any opinion you might care to offer. Forgive me if I am
not impressed by either the strength of your argument or the depth of your
faith.
|
sabre
|
|
response 41 of 209:
|
Jul 12 11:14 UTC 2003 |
RE:#5
Here's an example tod
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/lacicharge1.html
RE#31
You're funny....you made me laugh
RE# 32...You read me like a book
RE# 35 dcat? what a pussy ass name. I saw your photo on the web.
A little faggot like you shouldn't say a word about anyone else's handle
#38 You stupid moron. Do you realise how fucking stupid you sound when you
do the very thing you're posting against? You are a fucking post whore.
#34 md..You'll never know.
#39. That is so true. every bbs needs a few trolls to stir things up.
You lamers are so *yawn* BORING.
#33 Don't get your panties in a wad twenex.
|
cross
|
|
response 42 of 209:
|
Jul 12 16:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 43 of 209:
|
Jul 14 15:48 UTC 2003 |
Re #7: When Rane uses the word "liberal", it's not the common usage that is
a synonym for "Democrat".
Re #31: LOL.
|
twenex
|
|
response 44 of 209:
|
Jul 16 14:13 UTC 2003 |
<twenex untwists panties>
|
polytarp
|
|
response 45 of 209:
|
Jul 16 17:22 UTC 2003 |
Fop.
|
tod
|
|
response 46 of 209:
|
Jul 16 23:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
johnyell
|
|
response 47 of 209:
|
Jul 19 16:29 UTC 2003 |
Sorry but i don't agree with what you say, everyone has a right to give up
thier child, but what is not acceptable is that the man cannot decide as well,
it is totally up to the female.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 48 of 209:
|
Jul 19 17:55 UTC 2003 |
I've occasionally thought that someone who's identified as the impregnator
of a pregnant woman should get a choice: pay her the price of an abortion
and give up all parental rights to the child should she decide to have it,
or pay child support normally and keep parental rights.
|
drew
|
|
response 49 of 209:
|
Jul 19 18:49 UTC 2003 |
Sounds reasonable to me.
|
sabre
|
|
response 50 of 209:
|
Jul 19 20:03 UTC 2003 |
He is charged with two counts of murder one.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 51 of 209:
|
Jul 19 20:35 UTC 2003 |
Prosecutors throw as many charges as they can, and see what sticks. In this
situation, she might have given birth in the process of being killed, which
would make it clearly two murders if he killed the baby as well.
|
janc
|
|
response 52 of 209:
|
Jul 20 01:17 UTC 2003 |
Re #47: How would a father's right to decide be enforced? Suppose you
suspect that your girlfriend is pregnant. Would you have a right to force
her to take a pregnancy test? Can any man require this of any woman just
by claiming that they had sex together, even if she denies it? If the
test is positive, do you have a right to force her to undergo an amnio
(which entails some risk to the fetus) so a genetic test can be done
to test whether or not the baby is yours?
Suppose the fetus is proven to be yours, she wants an abortion, you want
the baby. Does she have to go through with the pregnancy? How much
control over her behavior during the pregnancy do you now have? Can you
regulate what she drinks and eats, and how much she exercises? All these
things can effect the health of the child - if she doesn't want the child
and you do, then presumably she can't be trusted to behave optimally.
What if she wants to take a business trip to another state or country
where the law would allow her to get an abortion without your permission.
Would you have the right to prevent her travelling?
Suppose she turns up one day no longer pregnant. She says she miscarried.
Miscarriages are probably about as common as abortions. What kind of tests
can you demand she has to go through to determine whether or not she
deliberately aborted the child?
It's a fundamental issue that if you really want to force a woman to
have a baby that she doesn't want to have, then you have to be prepared
to strip her of nearly all her normal rights during the period of her
pregnancy. You practically have to jail her. Is this sane? How does
three minutes of pleasure give a man such rights to control a woman's
life and to intrude so much into her privacy?
|
bru
|
|
response 53 of 209:
|
Jul 20 01:34 UTC 2003 |
What "Rights" does pregnancy interfere with?
|
janc
|
|
response 54 of 209:
|
Jul 20 18:25 UTC 2003 |
Isn't that question answered by the bulk of my previous response?
If you intend to force a woman to continue a pregnancy that she doesn't want,
or if you want to be able to be able to detect when a woman has an abortion,
then you need to encroach very closely on her privacy and freedom of choice.
If you want to outlaw abortion, but don't intend to be at all serious about
enforcing it, then there isn't a problem. Any woman can find out if she is
pregnant by peeing on a stick, and abort an pregnancy by swallowing a pill.
That can be done pretty easily without leaving a paper trail that the law can
easily detect. Unless you are willing to seriously restrict and intrude on
women, outlawing abortion would be about as effective as outlawing marajuana
has been.
|
mvpel
|
|
response 55 of 209:
|
Jul 20 19:25 UTC 2003 |
The murky bottom of the slippery slope of outlawing abortion can be seen in
the history of Romania, when Ceaucescu required every woman to have four kids
or provide medical proof why she couldn't. Abortion was strictly outlawed,
and every fertile woman was subjected to monthly pregnancy tests by the state
health system.
If she miscarried, three doctors would have to agree or she would face
criminal charges. Romanian wombs were transformed into the property of the
state, an Orwellian nightmare that a close friend of mine was lucky enough
to escape.
|