Overturning Roe vs Wade

[opebo]

Overturn Roe vs Wade and let the states decide.  Soviet California will probably have Abortions-On-Demand, while the "hell holes" (like Opebo says) like Mississippi will make it illegal.

I consider all american states to be hellholes, Richius.  CA is only slightly less horrible than for example MS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wouldn't worry about that too much.  Infant mortality will be increasing throughout the US, and particularly in the Bush states with increasing poverty, as well as a lowering of adult life expectancy. 

Allowing abortions in some states and not others will probably not stop too many abortions. The situation in Ireland is that abortions are unconstitutional unless the mother's life is in danger. It is circumvented by Irish women who travel to England for abortions.

Poor people typically cannot afford to travel in the US, Jas.   However I do not doubt we will be finding more babes in the Dumpsters!

[opebo]

I heard on the radio this morning that an Francisco has the least number of children of any major city in the country.

Why is liberalism correlated with sterility?

Because reproducing is dumb.

[opebo]

Look, $50 will get you a round-trip Greyhound bus ticket for a medium-distance trip. Incidentally, I've taken the bus before: twice, both round-trips from DC to New York, both for roughly $40 round-trip (although this is a few years ago). Most of the people on the bus, in my experience, were/are...:

5. Tourists (the US is the #3 tourist-place in the world).

Oh god, those poor bastards!  Can you imagine coming to this place for fun?!!

[opebo]

I heard on the radio this morning that an Francisco has the least number of children of any major city in the country.

Why is liberalism correlated with sterility?

Because reproducing is dumb.

Good thing for you that your parents didn't think that

Eh, marginally.  But in my case they're fairly well off - certainly in the top few percent.  For most people, you're not doing your offspring any favours by condemning them to a life of toil.

[opebo]

Abortions should be made as common as McDonalds and Starbucks.

They are a great human truimph.

Hear hear!  As always, a voice of reason, phknrocket.

[opebo]

I think making abortion illegal in any state or nationwide setting is completely idiotic and chaotic. Women won't stop having abortions if you ban it. Instead of going to see their doctor at a clean and safe hospital, they will go to someone who isn't trained and isn't safe- we would be back to the 'back alley' abortion. Either that or they would purposely try to self induce a miscarriage. Then the evangelical nuts will be arresting women who miscarry incase they 'did it themselves.' Sick.

And that is perfectly fine.  It is her choice if she wants to risk her life to commit murder.  If they don't want a baby, DO NOT HAVE SEX.  If you were raped, well, my condolences to you. Put the kid up for adoption.  But please, don't murder the kid for the sins of the father.

It is ridiculous to expect someone to not have sex when there is a perfectly nice modern technological solution to the problem - abortion.  Besides, it is none of your business, Richius.

[opebo]

Though I don't know for sure, I believe the number of unborn children killed has pass the number of Jews killed.

The characterization 'unborn children' is inaccurate.  So is the verb 'killed'.

[opebo]

The term killed is factually accurate.

No, we don't say, 'I killed my foot' if it is amputated.

[opebo]

The term killed is factually accurate.

No, we don't say, 'I killed my foot' if it is amputated.

Yes, because it's only a foot that's growing inside of a woman when she's pregnant.

That is how I look at it - a part of her body.  Given that its impossible for it to live outside of her, I think that is an emminently reasonable analysis.  Its future is irrelevant to the present.

If we took into account all sorts of future possibilities in criminology, every murder would be one of countless generations to come.. and every masturbatory ejactulation would be a genocide.

[opebo]

It is accurate to say that a sperm is killed, and it's accurate to say that a fetus is killed.

Then how, in good conscience, can we, as members of the culture of life, allow the travesty of beating off to continue unabated?!!
Sin, sin sin.

[opebo]

Follow a point, opebo. You said killing was an inaccurate term. You're incorrect. No one here said all killing was wrong, so don't change the subject just because you're so obviously wrong.

Well, if some killing is OK, and other killing is not, then where you draw the line is entirely flexible.  In fact of course the concept of 'wrong' is subjective.  I don't see the big difference between sperm and fetii myself.

[opebo]

How can you not tell the difference between sperm and a fetus?

The point is, all have the same characteristic that obsesses you abortion-foes - the potential to produce yet another human life. 

[opebo]

That's not what we're talking about. You said it's inaccurate to use the word kill. That's false.

A fetus is human, and it is life. That said, human life isn't necessarily significant at all of its stages.

OK, why on earth do you expect me to take serious your concern for the fetii, when you so calously disregard the sperm?

Just because some slut of a lad can't keep his hands out of his pants, why should we allow him to murder millions of babies purely for his own convenience and hedonistic pleasure?!

[opebo]

I don't, and I never debated the point. That's not what we're talking about. Stop making asinine arguments like "it isn't alive."

It is no more alive than a sperm.

[opebo]

There is no "more alive." There's no such thing as being more alive than something else. Something is either alive, or it's not. A fetus is alive, so saying 'killed' is correct, not inaccurate as you falsely claimed.

Well, apparentely a sperm is also alive, according to you.  So why do you object to abortion and not to non-vaginal ejaculation?

[opebo]

According to me?! That's a biological fact.

I don't oppose all killing. The fact that something is alive doesn't mean it shouldn't be killed. It's just dumb to keep claiming it isn't alive, as you have.

So, given that one can simply choose to think that 'killing' a sperm by whacking off is acceptable, one can simply choose to think that 'killing' a fetus is OK, right? 

I'm asking you - why do you think the State should prevent abortion but not prevent masturbation?

[opebo]

Not 'killing,' killing. Like killing bacteria, or killing trees. It's killing, and you don't have to oppose it, but it's still killing, so quit making factually incorrect statements.

I'm not arguing about abortion. I'm arguing about a simple fact. I have not argued that a fetus should have any value. I have simply pointed out how dumb it is to insist it's not killing.

Oh, well glad we got that straightened out.  And yet a bacteria or a tree can live independently.. unlike a sperm or a fetus..  so are those latter really living in the full extent of the word?  I think not.

[opebo]

By saying it can only live dependently, you are admitting it is alive.

Well, a foot is 'alive', and can only live dependently.  So a sperm and a foot and a fetus are all the same.