Texas Passes Bill to Require Sonograms Before Abortions

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well for starters if going out on a Saturday and having a good time means you will end up in bed with a stranger on Sunday morning well then maybe you should quit drinking. That would be the responsible thing to do.

No Simpson, what you are talking about here is people's social lives (after having previously said it is not about controlling people's lives), not having sex.

How does one "act responsible" when having sex. That's what you said - act responsible when having sex. How does one do that?

Maybe it more about changing the minds and hearts of people who have frequent appointments with the dentist.

You aren't talking about changing hearts and minds - you're talking about forcing people via the law (and subsequent punishments implied by breaking the law) to comply to your code of morals.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I don't think its about having something or nothing- I can read, and you demonstrate that you can't do so very well.

Words have their meaning within the context in which they're used. Danno posted a dictionary example of the word 'responsible' up above. You might benefit from doing the same as a first step in getting things a little better.

Like I said before you knew exactly what I was talking about and you even quoted me yet you chose to go down the "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." road. That is nothing but a game and one you play quite often.

[Zero Sum 305]

Like I said before you knew exactly what I was talking about and you even quoted me yet you chose to go down the "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." road. That is nothing but a game and one you play quite often.

You feel like you're getting picked on don't you?

If you go down that silly road- expect to have your faults pointed out to you quite often.

The truth in advertising is quite evasive for you, unfortunately.

This topic in particular will always be about your willingness to force others to be bound by law to your particular structure of morality.

[_Simpson_ 250]

No Simpson, what you are talking about here is people's social lives (after having previously said it is not about controlling people's lives), not having sex.

Fail. I'm addressing the soon to be aborted baby that is innocent but has to pay the price for these two imbicles who dont know how to act like a responsible adult.

How does one "act responsible" when having sex. That's what you said - act responsible when having sex. How does one do that?

Use a condom or pill, hell if you really dont want a child use both, that would be the responsible thing to do.

You aren't talking about changing hearts and minds - you're talking about forcing people via the law (and subsequent punishments implied by breaking the law) to comply to your code of morals.

Sure I am, to get the laws changed we will need to change the hearts and minds of many people. Now...do we really need to address the laws that are in place that you agree with and do exactly the same thing your #######ng about?

[_Simpson_ 250]

You feel like you're getting picked on don't you?

If you go down that silly road- expect to have your faults pointed out to you quite often.

The truth in advertising is quite evasive for you, unfortunately.

This topic in particular will always be about your willingness to force others to be bound by law to your particular structure of morality.

What about the laws that are on the book that already as you put it "force others to be bound by law to your particular structure of morality."?

Somewhere out there a village is thriving right now.

[Zero Sum 305]

What about the laws that are on the book that already as you put it "force others to be bound by law to your particular structure of morality."?

Somewhere out there a village is thriving right now.

I love this kind of thinking. Lets compare what those laws do, their purpose, with these 'laws' you propose to see on the books, shall we? You brought up the idea, so go ahead. Just make sure you write simple sentences.

+1

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This isn't about controlling people's life this is about saving lives.

Oh please, spare me this garbage. Wanna save lives? Focus your outrage on the tens of thousands of preventable deaths that occur each and every year in this country and support a health care system that makes sure that this number comes down. You can't sit there and oppose measures that will afford living and breathing people an opportunity to receive life-saving health care and then call yourself pro-life. You cannot work as hard as you can to shut down organizations that provide essential healthcare to women including prenatal care and fertility treatments and refer to yourself as pro-life. Well, you can but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously because these anti-life positions don't fit into a pro-life picture. It's simply not credible.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Zero Sum 305]

Oh please, spare me this garbage. Wanna save lives? Focus your outrage on the tens of thousands of preventable deaths that occur each and every year in this country and support a health care system that makes sure that this number comes down. You can't sit there and oppose measures that will afford living and breathing people an opportunity to receive life-saving health care and then call yourself pro-life. It's not credible.

To his credit he is in favor of funding for post-natal adoption agency care for babies born to mothers that would previously have been aborted. Never mind the fact that these women would be forced to carry out the pregnancy full-term for a moment: and lets focus on the care of the kids. He assumes that there are sufficient would-be parents willing to adopt (ignoring that if this were the case now, no kid in the US would be in the adoption care cycle)... but if we entertain his obviously enlightened manner of thought, he should also be willing to be 100% certain that the would-be parents are fit for adopting (using the strictest of moral characteristics, including filtering out according to finances, sexual orientation, etc), with safeguards in place for these kids to be publicly supported in the case the adoption matching is not infallible... this means he'd be paying more taxes, by obligation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fail. I'm addressing the soon to be aborted baby that is innocent but has to pay the price for these two imbicles who dont know how to act like a responsible adult.

Use a condom or pill, hell if you really dont want a child use both, that would be the responsible thing to do.

Sure I am, to get the laws changed we will need to change the hearts and minds of many people. Now...do we really need to address the laws that are in place that you agree with and do exactly the same thing your #######ng about?

But according to you, if someone uses contraception and still gets pregnant they are lumbered with going through with a pregnancy, just so you can sleep at night.

Rubbish.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What about the laws that are on the book that already as you put it "force others to be bound by law to your particular structure of morality."?

Somewhere out there a village is thriving right now.

Allowing women to abort doesn't force anything on anyone. It allows women to make a choice, that's all it does.

What you want to do does force people to live according to a narrow, puritanical moral code.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Allowing women to abort doesn't force anything on anyone. It allows women to make a choice, that's all it does.

What you want to do does force people to live according to a narrow, puritanical moral code.

For some, myself included, it has nothing to do with this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

For some, myself included, it has nothing to do with this.

But you aren't a bible thumping extremist.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I love this kind of thinking. Lets compare what those laws do, their purpose, with these 'laws' you propose to see on the books, shall we? You brought up the idea, so go ahead. Just make sure you write simple sentences.

+1

Murder

Oh please, spare me this garbage. Wanna save lives? Focus your outrage on the tens of thousands of preventable deaths that occur each and every year in this country and support a health care system that makes sure that this number comes down. You can't sit there and oppose measures that will afford living and breathing people an opportunity to receive life-saving health care and then call yourself pro-life. You cannot work as hard as you can to shut down organizations that provide essential healthcare to women including prenatal care and fertility treatments and refer to yourself as pro-life. Well, you can but you can't expect anyone to take you seriously because these anti-life positions don't fit into a pro-life picture. It's simply not credible.

Talk past me all you want but I really do give a dam. As far as health care goes "apples and oranges".

To his credit he is in favor of funding for post-natal adoption agency care for babies born to mothers that would previously have been aborted. Never mind the fact that these women would be forced to carry out the pregnancy full-term for a moment: and lets focus on the care of the kids. He assumes that there are sufficient would-be parents willing to adopt (ignoring that if this were the case now, no kid in the US would be in the adoption care cycle)... but if we entertain his obviously enlightened manner of thought, he should also be willing to be 100% certain that the would-be parents are fit for adopting (using the strictest of moral characteristics, including filtering out according to finances, sexual orientation, etc), with safeguards in place for these kids to be publicly supported in the case the adoption matching is not infallible... this means he'd be paying more taxes, by obligation.

Another back handed complement courtesy of Zero Sum

But according to you, if someone uses contraception and still gets pregnant they are lumbered with going through with a pregnancy, just so you can sleep at night.

Rubbish.

Do you really want to make a argument based on the exception to the rule? Walk away now and save what little dignity you have left.

Allowing women to abort doesn't force anything on anyone. It allows women to make a choice, that's all it does.

What you want to do does force people to live according to a narrow, puritanical moral code.

In life we just cant run around doing anything, so we have laws. I hope to change certain laws.

But you aren't a bible thumping extremist.

Do you consider me a bible thumping extremist?

Not once in this thread has god been mentioned and yet you want to bring up bible thumping extremists. Check your stereotypes at the door please.

Edited May 11, 2011 by _Simpson_

[rika60607 215]

I will agree with you for a sake of argument there.

So if the real problem is that people aren't responsible about having sex.

You could educate them how to be responsible. But you don't want that.

You could help them with the consequences of their actions, but you don't want that.

You want to save lives... but not all baby lives. Just those ones that were a result of irresponsible sex.

IMHO, you are trying to punish those irresponsible. Saving lives is not your primary agenda. If it was, you would be:

1. Educating about contraception, pregnancy, parenting and abortion.

2. Providing free pre and post-natal care for those teens you care so much about, and helping them with either placement of babies or support them keeping those babies (all on taxpayer, as teenagers do not have money).

3. Making excellent well baby care available to all babies.

But no, all you want are laws who punish those who had irresponsible sex and do nothing for the well being of that fetus to be child. And you want to punish doctors who terminate pregnancies, while at it.

Punishment is not the best tool to change people's behavior. You probably just enjoy punishing!

This isn't about controlling people's life this is about saving lives. Now lets look at it from your POV - at least my me me me attitude saves lives.

I do disagree. The real problem is that people don't act responsible when having sex.

[Zero Sum 305]

Murder is not a law, Simpson.

I will agree with you for a sake of argument there.

So if the real problem is that people aren't responsible about having sex.

You could educate them how to be responsible. But you don't want that.

You could help them with the consequences of their actions, but you don't want that.

You want to save lives... but not all baby lives. Just those ones that were a result of irresponsible sex.

IMHO, you are trying to punish those irresponsible. Saving lives is not your primary agenda. If it was, you would be:

1. Educating about contraception, pregnancy, parenting and abortion.

2. Providing free pre and post-natal care for those teens you care so much about, and helping them with either placement of babies or support them keeping those babies (all on taxpayer, as teenagers do not have money).

3. Making excellent well baby care available to all babies.

But no, all you want are laws who punish those who had irresponsible sex and do nothing for the well being of that fetus to be child. And you want to punish doctors who terminate pregnancies, while at it.

Punishment is not the best tool to change people's behavior. You probably just enjoy punishing!

That about sums it up.