Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[HAL 9000 96]

That's pretty silly, Joe.

The law makes the distinctions you object to. You seem completely unable to comprehend the idea that context defines.

The law did not - The Supreme Court did. And it was wrong. It allowed for new laws to be written that were also wrong. Based on the right to privacy which does not include killing others.

I don't find it silly, it is sick and twisted what the left in this country have done to the unborn.

That's the left for you. Evildoers.

You can't reason with someone whose logic is rooted in biblical morality. There world is one of absolutes and there is no interpretation, you either adhere to their belief system, or you are simply wrong, no deviation whatsoever.

On this there is no deviation. Your world is one of relativism, and that must be applied across the board, or you have a double standard (which you do in this case)

Not all things in this world joe are absolutes. I don't think you understand what relativism means, but for that matter, I don't think you really read what people post. Such is your world of recidivism.

I'm not sure why you post anymore all you say to those who you disagree with is -"you don't know what X means" "You don't understand Y". Never anything of substance.

Me saying "everything in this world" is an absolute is another fantasy cooked up by the leftwing kooks.

When you clearly demonstrate an inability to use a word properly, I can safely say that you don't know what that means. As in your case, you're arguing based upon your moral beliefs that are steeped in biblical logic. You refuse to even acknowledge or look at Pike or Hal's point of view which is from a logical, scientific or legal point of view. From what I've read of this over the past few days, you are basing your entire argument basically on the fact that in your view, God's law trumps that of the state or federal government. Now this may be true on a higher level, here and now in this world it is not, but you simply refuse to concede anything, despite the facts of the matter.

I wonder what his views on Islamofascism is like.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

That's pretty silly, Joe.

The law makes the distinctions you object to. You seem completely unable to comprehend the idea that context defines.

The law did not - The Supreme Court did. And it was wrong. It allowed for new laws to be written that were also wrong. Based on the right to privacy which does not include killing others.

I don't find it silly, it is sick and twisted what the left in this country have done to the unborn.

That's the left for you. Evildoers.

You can't reason with someone whose logic is rooted in biblical morality. There world is one of absolutes and there is no interpretation, you either adhere to their belief system, or you are simply wrong, no deviation whatsoever.

On this there is no deviation. Your world is one of relativism, and that must be applied across the board, or you have a double standard (which you do in this case)

Not all things in this world joe are absolutes. I don't think you understand what relativism means, but for that matter, I don't think you really read what people post. Such is your world of recidivism.

I'm not sure why you post anymore all you say to those who you disagree with is -"you don't know what X means" "You don't understand Y". Never anything of substance.

Me saying "everything in this world" is an absolute is another fantasy cooked up by the leftwing kooks.

When you clearly demonstrate an inability to use a word properly, I can safely say that you don't know what that means. As in your case, you're arguing based upon your moral beliefs that are steeped in biblical logic. You refuse to even acknowledge or look at Pike or Hal's point of view which is from a logical, scientific or legal point of view. From what I've read of this over the past few days, you are basing your entire argument basically on the fact that in your view, God's law trumps that of the state or federal government. Now this may be true on a higher level, here and now in this world it is not, but you simply refuse to concede anything, despite the facts of the matter.

I wonder what his views on Islamofascism is like.

Ask me in another thread

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't see how that's a problem. That's a mutually beneficial arrangement, you both should be very content with that. Would that all couples were able to communicate so effectively.

Yeah i should have said "problem" because it really isn't. Unless we argue who gets to be the more inconvenienced one.

Why wouldn't I admit it is killing? It's a fact, it's reality. In an abortion a fetus is killed and guess what? Because of that the vast majority of people who have them are also emotionally affected by them which is why they are not something people just have like a hair cut, or fake nails. Because someone believes that the availability of abortion is a necessary it does not follow that that person believes that abortion isn't something that should be taken seriously, that people who seek them should be properly counseled and all the options available to them explored and only once it is determined that it truly is the best option available one performed.

I know you'll laugh at this, but out of all the libs here - I think you and I can find common ground. You and I both think reducing or eliminating abortions by eliminating the demand is also a good thing. Reducing demand is making birth-control safe and available. I read about a lot of those pills are dangerous long term. Can cause even sudden death. Who would want to take something with that risk?

Sorry, I didn't realise we were doing serious.

Yes, I am sure that's true. I don't think the pill is the cure all. Not the current one anyway. I do think that there are more positive options to be discovered given sufficient research funds and interest. I also believe that both parties are equally responsible in ensuring pregnancy doesn't take place, at least in countries where all sorts of birth control options are available and where for the most part it is not considered sinful or whatever.

I agree. It is both party's responsibility. I also agree with the safe male pill (or injection that wouldn't sterilize us) as well. Where Ana and I are concerned - I would always take the responsibility if it were me and it was possible. I would go out of my way so that she was never inconvenienced. The only problem is that she feels the same way (just the opposite)

I know you'll laugh at this, but out of all the libs here - I think you and I can find common ground. You and I both think reducing or eliminating abortions by eliminating the demand is also a good thing. Reducing demand is making birth-control safe and available. I read about a lot of those pills are dangerous long term. Can cause even sudden death. Who would want to take something with that risk?

I'd say that a lot of people here think that. If you weren't so keen on going off on a big ideological rant as you always do - you'd have realised this.

As it is - we have to wade through pages of your fake sentiment and disingenuous moralising.

You should know by now that I am not fake. I don't do fake. I don't even like implants.

So the guy who insists on seeing individuals in terms of stereotypes is actually serious about it?

That's not very complementary of you.

Calling you a lib isn't a stereotype. I thought you'd be honored.

You mean you actually now see me as a distinct, autonomous individual?

I'm shocked.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why wouldn't I admit it is killing? It's a fact, it's reality. In an abortion a fetus is killed and guess what? Because of that the vast majority of people who have them are also emotionally affected by them which is why they are not something people just have like a hair cut, or fake nails. Because someone believes that the availability of abortion is a necessary it does not follow that that person believes that abortion isn't something that should be taken seriously, that people who seek them should be properly counseled and all the options available to them explored and only once it is determined that it truly is the best option available one performed.

I know you'll laugh at this, but out of all the libs here - I think you and I can find common ground. You and I both think reducing or eliminating abortions by eliminating the demand is also a good thing. Reducing demand is making birth-control safe and available. I read about a lot of those pills are dangerous long term. Can cause even sudden death. Who would want to take something with that risk?

If you bother to read all other 'libs' posts, you'd realize how much common ground we all have. Of course, you don't, which makes you look even more silly around these parts.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I have actually asked my priest about this topic. His response, and i'm paraphrasing is that this is the moral code that we as Catholics live by. We try spread our word, but never IMPOSE upon others the way we choose to live our lives. Now, I suspect he would be considered a liberal rogue within the church, but the fact remains....... why is it your job joe to impose your morality on everyone else? How can you justify projecting your morality into a codified law that will apply to everyone, not just those who subscribe to your particular faith? I am of two minds on this subject; for my own personal decision, I am pro-life, I could not even consider it. But I don't believe that my beliefs, or that of my church should be applied to all people, free will you know.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Imagine. Suddenly slipping on the floor of your bathroom becomes negligent homicide.

Having a glass of wine or two becomes a jailable offence!

Now your just being ridiculous, but hey I will play along. Whens the last time you seen a pregnant woman slip into a clinic at the exact same time a doctor slips and accidental gives the woman a abortion?

People need to be held accountable for there actions, from the bedroom the operation room.

And that, right there is your agenda.

You don't give a ####### about the practicalities of having or looking after the child, you just want to win an ideological battle to enforce your concept of morality onto pregnant women. It's a form of slavery is what it is.

Ideological battle, good grief? Thats just what you want to believe and go ahead. I have said many things about this issue and its funny how you want to grab on to this and try and run with it, fail.

He's right though. Morality is not reasonable when its imposed.

Its reasonable and moral to send a criminal to jail,no?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Why wouldn't I admit it is killing? It's a fact, it's reality. In an abortion a fetus is killed and guess what? Because of that the vast majority of people who have them are also emotionally affected by them which is why they are not something people just have like a hair cut, or fake nails. Because someone believes that the availability of abortion is a necessary it does not follow that that person believes that abortion isn't something that should be taken seriously, that people who seek them should be properly counseled and all the options available to them explored and only once it is determined that it truly is the best option available one performed.

I know you'll laugh at this, but out of all the libs here - I think you and I can find common ground. You and I both think reducing or eliminating abortions by eliminating the demand is also a good thing. Reducing demand is making birth-control safe and available. I read about a lot of those pills are dangerous long term. Can cause even sudden death. Who would want to take something with that risk?

If you bother to read all other 'libs' posts, you'd realize how much common ground we all have. Of course, you don't, which makes you look even more silly around these parts.

Looking silly to you is a badge of honor.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Imagine. Suddenly slipping on the floor of your bathroom becomes negligent homicide.

Having a glass of wine or two becomes a jailable offence!

Now your just being ridiculous, but hey I will play along. Whens the last time you seen a pregnant woman slip into a clinic at the exact same time a doctor slips and accidental gives the woman a abortion?

People need to be held accountable for there actions, from the bedroom the operation room.

And that, right there is your agenda.

You don't give a ####### about the practicalities of having or looking after the child, you just want to win an ideological battle to enforce your concept of morality onto pregnant women. It's a form of slavery is what it is.

Ideological battle, good grief? Thats just what you want to believe and go ahead. I have said many things about this issue and its funny how you want to grab on to this and try and run with it, fail.

He's right though. Morality is not reasonable when its imposed.

Its reasonable and moral to send a criminal to jail,no?

it is reasonable if the "crime" commited is actually, legally defined as such. If someone is considered a criminal because of what you believe to be a crime based upon your religious beliefs, then no, it is not reasonable.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I have actually asked my priest about this topic. His response, and i'm paraphrasing is that this is the moral code that we as Catholics live by. We try spread our word, but never IMPOSE upon others the way we choose to live our lives. Now, I suspect he would be considered a liberal rogue within the church, but the fact remains....... why is it your job joe to impose your morality on everyone else? How can you justify projecting your morality into a codified law that will apply to everyone, not just those who subscribe to your particular faith? I am of two minds on this subject; for my own personal decision, I am pro-life, I could not even consider killing a 1 month old. But I don't believe that my beliefs, or that of my church should be applied to all people, free will you know. They should be able to kill their kids at will.

That should explain my thinking. Even though I know you know it. Just an edit for illustration, not trying to be funny.

[HAL 9000 96]

HAL is so goddamn mean

You know you love those truthful friendly b!tchslaps. For the logically-minded, they do what Nietzche wrote about. For the not-so-logically minded, they do something else.

Imagine. Suddenly slipping on the floor of your bathroom becomes negligent homicide.

Having a glass of wine or two becomes a jailable offence!

Now your just being ridiculous, but hey I will play along. Whens the last time you seen a pregnant woman slip into a clinic at the exact same time a doctor slips and accidental gives the woman a abortion?

People need to be held accountable for there actions, from the bedroom the operation room.

And that, right there is your agenda.

You don't give a ####### about the practicalities of having or looking after the child, you just want to win an ideological battle to enforce your concept of morality onto pregnant women. It's a form of slavery is what it is.

Ideological battle, good grief? Thats just what you want to believe and go ahead. I have said many things about this issue and its funny how you want to grab on to this and try and run with it, fail.

He's right though. Morality is not reasonable when its imposed.

Its reasonable and moral to send a criminal to jail,no?

Its reasonable to make congruous arguments. Morality is independent of that.

Looking silly to you is a badge of honor.

Oh its not just me and its all about you.

Be happy- you get the attention you want.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I have actually asked my priest about this topic. His response, and i'm paraphrasing is that this is the moral code that we as Catholics live by. We try spread our word, but never IMPOSE upon others the way we choose to live our lives. Now, I suspect he would be considered a liberal rogue within the church, but the fact remains....... why is it your job joe to impose your morality on everyone else? How can you justify projecting your morality into a codified law that will apply to everyone, not just those who subscribe to your particular faith? I am of two minds on this subject; for my own personal decision, I am pro-life, I could not even consider killing a 1 month old. But I don't believe that my beliefs, or that of my church should be applied to all people, free will you know. They should be able to kill their kids at will.

That should explain my thinking. Even though I know you know it. Just an edit for illustration, not trying to be funny.

You may not be trying to be funny, and trust me, that was not funny at all, but it does prove my point. You seem to be detatched from logic here. You have it wired in your brain your position that any abortion is murder and anyone who does it is a dirty baby killer. You don't seem to get that that is your opinion and nothing more.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

HAL is so goddamn mean

You know you love those truthful friendly b!tchslaps. For the logically-minded, they do what Nietzche wrote about. For the not-so-logically minded, they do something else.

Imagine. Suddenly slipping on the floor of your bathroom becomes negligent homicide.

Having a glass of wine or two becomes a jailable offence!

Now your just being ridiculous, but hey I will play along. Whens the last time you seen a pregnant woman slip into a clinic at the exact same time a doctor slips and accidental gives the woman a abortion?

People need to be held accountable for there actions, from the bedroom the operation room.

And that, right there is your agenda.

You don't give a ####### about the practicalities of having or looking after the child, you just want to win an ideological battle to enforce your concept of morality onto pregnant women. It's a form of slavery is what it is.

Ideological battle, good grief? Thats just what you want to believe and go ahead. I have said many things about this issue and its funny how you want to grab on to this and try and run with it, fail.

He's right though. Morality is not reasonable when its imposed.

Its reasonable and moral to send a criminal to jail,no?

Its reasonable to make congruous arguments. Morality is independent of that.

Looking silly to you is a badge of honor.

Oh its not just me and its all about you.

Be happy- you get the attention you want.

Ok i will.

[HAL 9000 96]

I have actually asked my priest about this topic. His response, and i'm paraphrasing is that this is the moral code that we as Catholics live by. We try spread our word, but never IMPOSE upon others the way we choose to live our lives. Now, I suspect he would be considered a liberal rogue within the church, but the fact remains....... why is it your job joe to impose your morality on everyone else? How can you justify projecting your morality into a codified law that will apply to everyone, not just those who subscribe to your particular faith? I am of two minds on this subject; for my own personal decision, I am pro-life, I could not even consider killing a 1 month old. But I don't believe that my beliefs, or that of my church should be applied to all people, free will you know. They should be able to kill their kids at will.

That should explain my thinking. Even though I know you know it. Just an edit for illustration, not trying to be funny.

So why the hypocrisy on trying to impose your morality unto others? If it explains your thought process with honesty, that is.

Ok i will.

That makes more than two of us. Its Friday, lets all enjoy a beer after work.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I have actually asked my priest about this topic. His response, and i'm paraphrasing is that this is the moral code that we as Catholics live by. We try spread our word, but never IMPOSE upon others the way we choose to live our lives. Now, I suspect he would be considered a liberal rogue within the church, but the fact remains....... why is it your job joe to impose your morality on everyone else? How can you justify projecting your morality into a codified law that will apply to everyone, not just those who subscribe to your particular faith? I am of two minds on this subject; for my own personal decision, I am pro-life, I could not even consider killing a 1 month old. But I don't believe that my beliefs, or that of my church should be applied to all people, free will you know. They should be able to kill their kids at will.

That should explain my thinking. Even though I know you know it. Just an edit for illustration, not trying to be funny.

You may not be trying to be funny, and trust me, that was not funny at all, but it does prove my point. You seem to be detatched from logic here. You have it wired in your brain your position that any abortion is murder and anyone who does it is a dirty baby killer. You don't seem to get that that is your opinion and nothing more.

No, I don't believe that this is a murder of cold-blood - and that the person is dangerous. But it is taking innocent life, and those promoting it and the programs are mainly to blame. And as I said in my post it wasn't meant to be funny.

[_Simpson_ 250]

W/out sperm there is no fertilization. Put on a darn condom. Slip it on, slip it off. Why should a female have to change her body's hormonal balance for our pleasure?

I dont get what your saying in relation to what it was I was trying to say.

Condoms are less invasive on human physiology vs hormonal pills.

Some people make the idiotic 'spread her legs' argument without considering its us horny men seeking sex for the most part, and we have to give ourselves credit for tricking/convincing enough women to let us check the oil on the engine without proper protection.

So basically this had nothing to do with what I said, but Im guessing the woman are really loving you right now.

Put on a condom, take a pill I dont care but its no secret that both could fail and thats a chance you take when you have sex. So she shouldnt spread her legs and he should keep his pecker in his pant if they arent willing to take on the responsibility of what could happen.