This Is For The Men Of This Board

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 5 2004, 04:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 5 2004, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Nov 5 2004, 04:15 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 5 2004, 02:23 PM

Maybe we simply need more District Attorney's to bring abortion cases to trial?

Btw, I hear that one of our newly elected Governor's in the land plans on bringing more abortion cases to trial, focusing primarily on the doctors who provide abortions.  Maybe we are moving in the right direction after all.

How can you bring someone to trial for something that isn't illegal?

According to Setheus last post, or the one before that, I think it could be argued that abortion is illegal. At least in the state of Texas.

It'll never happen. That governor is wasting his/her time (not to mention the state's resources.)

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Nov 5 2004, 04:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Nov 5 2004, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Nov 5 2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by -curvette@Nov 5 2004, 04:15 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 5 2004, 02:23 PM

Maybe we simply need more District Attorney's to bring abortion cases to trial?

Btw, I hear that one of our newly elected Governor's in the land plans on bringing more abortion cases to trial, focusing primarily on the doctors who provide abortions.  Maybe we are moving in the right direction after all.

How can you bring someone to trial for something that isn't illegal?

According to Setheus last post, or the one before that, I think it could be argued that abortion is illegal. At least in the state of Texas.

It'll never happen. That governor is wasting his/her time (not to mention the state's resources.)

Sorry, but I'd rather see them go to court rather than simply state that nothing can be done. Our courts should be in the business of upholding our laws.

[Ray]

… if my doctor advises me to be on bed rest or else I risk the chance of miscarrying, and yet I have to work to support the family I already have and I miscarry--I could face negligent homicide or manslaughter charges. Every miscarriage would be suspect. Most women miscarry a number of times without ever even knowing they were pregnant. Abortion is a very, very complex issue.

Not as complex as you may think. I think we would simply need to differentiate between things that happen by “accident” and things that happen by “intent”.

Going to see a doctor in an abortion clinic, set up specifically to abort the birth of babies simply because a woman wants to do that, is an example of intentionally killing an innocent person.

The example you offered would be an example of “accident”, unless you could show that the woman intended her actions to cause the death of her child.

[Setheus]

Curvette, let me remind you of the definition of "Individual".

Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an UNBORN child at EVERY stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

This Legal definition INCLUDES while the baby is inside the mother. It covers everything from Zygoat to death of old age, and evey stage in between.

Also, how is the baby "part " of the mother's body? Once it is fertilized it is its own "individual" that is mearly inside of her body, not part of it.

Like a symbotic relationship. There are bacteria and virus living inside of you right now. Do you consider them to be part of your body or a seperate being that lives INSIDE of your body?

I don't buy it. Abortion at any stage is taking a human life.

BUT even I have what I would consider exceptions. ie, if my wife were rapped and became pregnant as a result of that rape I would allow her the choice (without any pressure from me) to either have the child and raise it, have the child and give it up to LDS adoption, or have it aborted. Also, if she were going to die from a pregnancy I'd say I would choose here over the unborn child.

[john doe]

I don't care about the woman.

Obviously.

This is a family-oriented site, and as the thread-starter, I would like you to back off the explicitness of your posts. It is possible to discuss this subject without degrading yourself and others in the process.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 5 2004, 08:08 PM

I don't care about the woman. All I want to do is ejaculate and get rid of all the stress associated with the lack of weekly ejaculations.

Is this just plain ignorance or arrogance?

Women are not a vessel for you to relive your "stress" into. If this was a serious comment from you, then it would be fitting for the loss of nibbies that curvette mentioned.

[Faerie]

the more you post, the more i fear you

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Faerie@Nov 5 2004, 10:17 PM

the more you post, the more i fear you

Who?

[Faerie]

sorry...disruptive..lol

[StrawberryFields]

Oh I see.

I wonder why he chose the name DisRuptive1? :)

[Vicky Hail]

My thoughts on this subject have been the same since I was old enough to understand what abortion was and what it was for. I believe that a woman and man have a right to end a pregnancy IF there is a danger of death to the mother or unborn child. IF the woman was raped, or IF the child is handicapped so severly their quality of life will be zero and the parents together feel it is in the best interest of the child for them not to have to suffer such a life.

I don't feel that under any circumstances abortion should be used as birth control.

There are too many ways out there to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. but not enough ways out there to help a family that can not have a child.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 5 2004, 05:20 PM

Not as complex as you may think. I think we would simply need to differentiate between things that happen by “accident” and things that happen by “intent”.

What the heck? Listen to what you are saying. If you extend the rights of a full blown individual to a fetus, then intent can't count at all! If a woman is raped, by that logic, she should be able to bring the fetus to full term, give birth, and then decide that she wants to kill it. If a fetus is considered a full human being, then they must be given the same constitutional rights as any living person whether he/she was conceived intentionally or not. Allowing an abortion in the case of rape/ incest requires that you not consider the embryo/fetus a full human being.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Setheus@Nov 5 2004, 06:01 PM

I don't buy it. Abortion at any stage is taking a human life.

BUT even I have what I would consider exceptions. ie, if my wife were rapped and became pregnant as a result of that rape I would allow her the choice (without any pressure from me) to either have the child and raise it, have the child and give it up to LDS adoption, or have it aborted. Also, if she were going to die from a pregnancy I'd say I would choose here over the unborn child.

I refer you to my rebuttal above on this topic. Also, if abortion in it's earliest stages is the same as taking a human life, then any miscarriage suffered by a woman, no matter how early would be grieved as if it had been a live birth. Certainly many women grieve a miscarriage, especially if it's late in the pregnancy, but I've never witnessed a woman who suffered a very early miscarriage remain in deep mourning for more than a few weeks like she would had she lost a baby or older child. I oppose abortion personally. But I most certainly differentiate significantly between first trimester miscarriage/abortion and late term ones.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 5 2004, 07:08 PM

I don't care about the woman. All I want to do is ejaculate and get rid of all the stress associated with the lack of weekly ejaculations.

Then, as your planned parenthood advisor, I recommend that you either get snipped, or learn to love your right hand.

[DisRuptive1]

I'm sorry if I might have derailed this post, but I was only making my comments in defense of the men who aren't ready to start a family yet.

Like these men, I don't want responsibility forced on me, or extra taxes (called child support) leveraged against me. On the west coast, mainly in California and Washington, there is a serious problem with women who try to have children because they want to start a family and cannot be reasoned with. Men who just wanted to have a little fun get sucked into a whole world of responsibility which they never wanted in the first place. If you doubt me, look at how many single mothers live in Seattle. There's something queer (strange) going on there.

Curvette, my right hand doesn't take care of my physical need for companionship.

[Setheus]

Originally posted by curvette@Nov 5 2004, 11:30 PM

Then, as your planned parenthood advisor, I recommend that you either get snipped, or learn to love your right hand.

Whats wrong with the left?

B)

[DisRuptive1]

I was going to throw in a southpaw joke, but felt it would have put the rest of my post to shame if I wasn't completely serious.

That joke reminded me about people who have funny names and always get made fun of because of it. Like I knew a guy named Chuck, who always got mad when people would come and say, "What's up, Chuck" and they'd get a laugh out of it. Chuck didn't think it was funny since he's heard it a bunch of times. Whoa, I don't know where that came from. Ignore the last paragraph.

[Larry Kozlowski]

My friend Stella doesn't fully appreciate her name either.

[DisRuptive1]

Hey do you know what Toys for Tots is?

Obviously you'd think that Tots (little children) would get their own toys from their moms. But their moms either gave them up for adoption since they didn't want them or the mom can't afford to buy toys for the child. We'd save everyone money if we just got rid of the unwanted children since we wouldn't have to shell out money to buy them toys.

Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth 8.5 pounds of a cure, assuming a fetus weighs an ounce.

[Faerie]

must...not....rip...you...a....new....one....GRRRRR

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 7 2004, 01:02 PM

Hey do you know what Toys for Tots is?

Obviously you'd think that Tots (little children) would get their own toys from their moms. But their moms either gave them up for adoption since they didn't want them or the mom can't afford to buy toys for the child. We'd save everyone money if we just got rid of the unwanted children since we wouldn't have to shell out money to buy them toys.

Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth 8.5 pounds of a cure, assuming a fetus weighs an ounce.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXNOTXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWORTHXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXMYXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXTIMEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!

[Vicky Hail]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 7 2004, 01:02 PM

Hey do you know what Toys for Tots is?

Obviously you'd think that Tots (little children) would get their own toys from their moms. But their moms either gave them up for adoption since they didn't want them or the mom can't afford to buy toys for the child. We'd save everyone money if we just got rid of the unwanted children since we wouldn't have to shell out money to buy them toys.

Remember, an ounce of prevention is worth 8.5 pounds of a cure, assuming a fetus weighs an ounce.

*gives a swift kick in the shins and walks away knowing that a lot more of us are so much more intelligent then giving and answer like that*

[DisRuptive1]

I figured a little controversy should keep this topic alive.

But why should unwanted children be born? It's going to suck for them if they are born, so why not send them straight to Heaven where they can party for all eternity, rather than have to go through the muck of not being wanted.

[Setheus]

Why? Because that would put you 1st on the list to go. LOL

[Vicky Hail]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 8 2004, 01:52 AM

I figured a little controversy should keep this topic alive.

But why should unwanted children be born? It's going to suck for them if they are born, so why not send them straight to Heaven where they can party for all eternity, rather than have to go through the muck of not being wanted.

there is a difference between giving a thread a little controversy and coming across as an ######.