Abortion Debate - Albuquerque, NM

Yankee Yahoo wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, here is your post:
"Then your "Jesus" was just another result of a cheater."
You did not point out any fallacies, you insulted Christianity. A deliberate act of intolerance and bigotry.
There is no use of logic here, there is just hate-speech.
How do you plead to this charge?
Ideals?
I am a realist. And I know that most people can refrain from having sex until they are ready to take responsibility for the natural consequences of it. Heck, I was raised an atheist, and even I knew this. There is no religious angle here.
I believe it is you that has an "ideal." That sex can be had without consequences, that nature can be defied, and that people cannot control their sexual urges, so why bother? Have you read Brave New World and the capitalist/socialist utopia that your Progressives ancestors promoted? Talk about being an idealist!
By your logic, a man with pedophile tendencies, but who NEVER acts on them because he KNOWS its wrong, will not be able to stop himself.
That makes you doubly a prejudiced person. You just prejudiced the whole human race.

shovelhead72 wrote:

<quoted text>It is a POTENTIAL human being. I'm sure you've heard the oak tree/ acorn analogy often enough not to need for me to repeat it.
<quoted text>Exactly. BORN humans have rights. Potential humans do not.
<quoted text>It didn't have to. Women are born, and we are the ones with rights.
<quoted text>As a matter of fact, my younger son told me he was glad I didn't abort him, just the other day.
<quoted text>I am their mother. Of course they think I'm a goddess, since without me, they wouldn't exist.
What is your point?

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>That guy's a ridiculous little dork who fancies himself a deft debater. Hey, Shove, how you doin?

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm sorry for your loss, that had to be tough. I have to say, you would be the only woman to say they miscarried a fetus rather than a baby. I'm sorry you don't believe your child is a baby until it is born. I think that is really sad. Maybe it helps you cope, that I can understand, but it is still sad.

shovelhead72 wrote:

<quoted text>Ha.'Hoo is more of a 'mass debater', but 'deft' he is not.('Daft' maybe....)
Not bad. How 'bout you?

shovelhead72 wrote:

<quoted text>Whatever. If you get your jollies feeling sorry for me, that's on you. I tend to think it wonderful that I was able to give birth twice, and count my blessings, but you go ahead and do whatever it is that blows your skirt up, with my compliments.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm happy for you that you gave birth twice, but that is not what is being discussed here. I'm sorry you don't feel you didn't carry your 'baby' full term. I derive no joy or 'jollies' from that. I think it is a sad shame.

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>I'm well. This has been a busy year but a "good busy."

shovelhead72 wrote:

<quoted text>You're sorry that I'm not wailing and gnashing my teeth over events which happened 20 years ago, and that I'm not in dire emotional pain over losing 5 'babies', rather than accepting the fact that those pregnancies didn't come to fruition, leaving it at that, and moving on.
You're a great humanitarian. Please detect heavy sarcasm.
What is being discussed here, is the FACT that babies are BORN. And since the births of my sons were joyously anticipated, apparently you don't want to talk about them - I guess you're way more interested in browbeating women into having babies they don't want and/or are not ready for, by making them feel guilty for terminating said pregnancies, calling them names, and generally indicating that women should sew our legs shut until we're married.
You so-called 'pro-life' folks really grind my gears.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
I already stated that I believe you don't call them babies as a defense mechanism,

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>and that I understand why you would do that. My only point about it is, I think it's a sad thing when a mother says she lost a 'fetus' instead of a baby.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>As Sherry Shepherd said about the TX law, had she been required to undergo an ultrasound and receive REAL information of the stage of development of her 'BABY' she probably would not have aborted it, but then goes on to say how she and her child would have lived a horrible life. I don't buy that.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text> The way we keep women 'in check' with this abortion thing is to hold back all the information we can to keep them from seeing their child as a real entity..

shovelhead72 wrote:

<quoted text>I don't call them 'babies' because they were not 'babies'. Words have meanings. I don't feel a need to make up new ones.
<quoted text>Think whatever you like - some of us are realists, and some of us are gooey, over-emotional, rose-colored-glasses wearers.
Babies are born.
<quoted text>YOU don't buy that? What the hell do you know of her life, and the various reasons for how she views it? How does your opinion have ANYTHING to do with her decision not to remain pregnant??
Jee-zuss, you folks really believe everyone is obligated to think like yourselves - what gall.
<quoted text>No one, in this era of the internet, is holding back information from women. If you can show me one woman who has been DENIED a sonogram after requesting one, I'll show you a lawsuit which will render that medical practice insolvent in a week. What you are advocating, is the added indignity of being obligated to view, and pay for, a medically unnecessary ultrasound, by a woman who does not desire one.
Big difference between "I'm pregnant, and I'd like to view an ultrasound." and "You're gonna watch this, or you ain't gettin' no 'bortion, and if you still want to go through with it, you're a murderin' bitch."
Keeping women 'in check' is your true agenda, and thanks so much for admitting it frankly. Your candor is greatly appreciated.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the love Elise was kind enough to disclose they deliberately do NOT discuss the baby's developmental phase until after a woman has decided to keep the baby.
Also, doctors seem to go from 'fetus' to 'baby' once it is determined that a woman will keep her child.
There are many medical terms the average lay-person doesn't use on a regular basis, for instance, the medical term for your head is cranium, but do we go around saying we have cranium-ache today? No we have a headache, just as we don't say I miscarried a 'fetus' but, I miscarried my baby. This is just a 'grounded in reality' as anything else you have put up to try to explain yourself. It doesn't wash. Get mad all you want, you are not fooling anyone here lady.

Just a Thought or Two wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't argue def's with them. They were right there beside Clinton trying to figure out what "is" is. lol

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
So you don't think there was incest involved with your theory of evolution?????

Lobo Viejo wrote:

<quoted text>
Unlike your creation mythology, evolution does not require incest among the aboriginal population of any species.

Lobo Viejo wrote:

<quoted text>
Unlike your creation mythology, evolution does not require incest among the aboriginal population of any species.

Just a Thought or Two wrote:

<quoted text>
I will try and educate you on this topic since many do not know the answer.
According to the Bible, ALL people are related to each other since we all come from Adam and Eve. So if you are going to claim incest, you could never marry for starters because you are related to every single other person on earth. By the way, this is a scientific proven fact, look up Mitochondrial Eve. Yes, we are ALL related.
Now, with that simple point set aside. When God created Man and then Woman from Adams rib, he said "Be fruitful and multiply". The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18-20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God's law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.
Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages. This was because the earth now had a foundation of people and the need to marry within family was no longer necessary to carry on the increase in population.
Why was incest ok then and not now? First, when Adam and Eve were created, they were physically perfect(Genesis 1:31), they did not have any genetic abnormalities. They had not been subjected to anything that would cause their offspring harm. Thus, incest would not be harmful. In todays society, this is just the opposite. We as humans have done numerous things to harm ourselves, generation after generation. Thus the harm possible to offspring is doubled through incest.
Oh, and by the way....All of these states ALLOW first cousins to marry without ANY restrictions. Alaska, Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, & Washington D.C. Hey, the state THIS thread is in is right there in the list! Funny, it's allowed in all of these states yet banned in the one's that everyone seems to think it would be allowed.

Just a Thought or Two wrote:

<quoted text>
By the way, do you think it should be ok for a brother to marry his sister? Serious question.
If yes, please explain. Also, if no, please explain.

Lobo Viejo wrote:

<quoted text>
I do not believe that brothers and sisters should marry because their children would have a greater risk of being born with congenital birth defects.

Just a Thought or Two wrote:

<quoted text>
I would agree if their goal was to have children. But what if having children was NOT their goal at all and they took steps to not have children?