Senate passes bill making it a crime to take a girl to another state for abortio

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So if it happens to be the father that got his daughter pregnant she has to get his permission to get an abortion. makes sense to me.

Everybody--quit with these stupid posts--we've already addressed that there are provisions for these situations.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It is unfair that an 18 year old girl can have it done privately while a girl maybe only a few months younger who is obviously of sound mind would have to go through parents to get it done.

Obviously the girl did something wrong, so how can that make that 16 year-old "sound of mind"?

No, it is obvious that the girl did nothing 'wrong'.  In the first place I heartily approve of young girls having sex, and in the second, whether you approve or dissapprove of such things is purely subjective. 

Yes, lets just put all of our daughters on the street corners with a 1/2 off sign.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it is convenient, and the cells have no power.  Poor people die all the time for the convenience of the rich, DJ, so why should this situation be any different (of course obviously the difference is that this is not a person, but a part of the girl's body). 


[/quote]

Once again--restraining myself.  So for convenience, we should just kill WHOever we want.  and no--it is a separate person.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It is unfair that an 18 year old girl can have it done privately while a girl maybe only a few months younger who is obviously of sound mind would have to go through parents to get it done.

Obviously the girl did something wrong, so how can that make that 16 year-old "sound of mind"?

No, it is obvious that the girl did nothing 'wrong'.  In the first place I heartily approve of young girls having sex, and in the second, whether you approve or dissapprove of such things is purely subjective. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it is convenient, and the cells have no power.  Poor people die all the time for the convenience of the rich, DJ, so why should this situation be any different (of course obviously the difference is that this is not a person, but a part of the girl's body). 

YOU approve of girls having sex under the age of 18?  Your a tipical liberal, but even worse you seem to be a person without morals and and ethical idealogy of the meaning and appreciation of life.  Sex was never created for conveniet pleasure, it was "invented" by God for human to procreate, and carry the human life to take care of the Earth.

How is murder convenient? Murdering an innocent person is wrong, whether its is an unborn child flourishing in protection of the womb, or a poor person.  However i dont believe it is the rich's fault.  I don't agree with any one who trys to disrespect the poor and prevent them from their pursuits of life as well.  It is quite unfortunate and more help needs to be provided to them. 

To your point that the baby is apart of the women.  In order for it to be "apart" of her wouldn't it technically need to give something back to her? This isn't a mutual relationship, its is one in which only one partner gains. The other loose nore gains.  Much like the remora's way of ataching to a shark for protection in a similar relationship.  The remora relies's on the shark however it is not apart of the shark.  For the baby to be "one" with the mother, the baby would of had to be regenerated.  But its is through sex, sperm and egg, 2 sources, that creates this life.  Is an egg apart of a bird?

Last time I checked the anatomical make up of a women did not include a baby. 

This post brought a smile to my face.  You don't usually see something so convoluted, and well, downright crazy on this forum.

G-d "invented" sex?  Let me ask you, if G-d only wanted us to do it to procreate, why does it feel good?  You'd think G-d would make it neutral feeling so that it was only done for children, right?

YEs, God invented sex--mainly for procreation ,but also included pleasure in it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You sound like somebody in the Chinese gov't--there's too many people so lets kill some.  Honestly, I think that baby would rather grow up never knowing his real mother than being murdered.

[jerusalemcar5]

It is unfair that an 18 year old girl can have it done privately while a girl maybe only a few months younger who is obviously of sound mind would have to go through parents to get it done.

Obviously the girl did something wrong, so how can that make that 16 year-old "sound of mind"?

No, it is obvious that the girl did nothing 'wrong'.  In the first place I heartily approve of young girls having sex, and in the second, whether you approve or dissapprove of such things is purely subjective. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because it is convenient, and the cells have no power.  Poor people die all the time for the convenience of the rich, DJ, so why should this situation be any different (of course obviously the difference is that this is not a person, but a part of the girl's body). 

YOU approve of girls having sex under the age of 18?  Your a tipical liberal, but even worse you seem to be a person without morals and and ethical idealogy of the meaning and appreciation of life.  Sex was never created for conveniet pleasure, it was "invented" by God for human to procreate, and carry the human life to take care of the Earth.

How is murder convenient? Murdering an innocent person is wrong, whether its is an unborn child flourishing in protection of the womb, or a poor person.  However i dont believe it is the rich's fault.  I don't agree with any one who trys to disrespect the poor and prevent them from their pursuits of life as well.  It is quite unfortunate and more help needs to be provided to them. 

To your point that the baby is apart of the women.  In order for it to be "apart" of her wouldn't it technically need to give something back to her? This isn't a mutual relationship, its is one in which only one partner gains. The other loose nore gains.  Much like the remora's way of ataching to a shark for protection in a similar relationship.  The remora relies's on the shark however it is not apart of the shark.  For the baby to be "one" with the mother, the baby would of had to be regenerated.  But its is through sex, sperm and egg, 2 sources, that creates this life.  Is an egg apart of a bird?

Last time I checked the anatomical make up of a women did not include a baby. 

This post brought a smile to my face.  You don't usually see something so convoluted, and well, downright crazy on this forum.

G-d "invented" sex?  Let me ask you, if G-d only wanted us to do it to procreate, why does it feel good?  You'd think G-d would make it neutral feeling so that it was only done for children, right?

YEs, God invented sex--mainly for procreation ,but also included pleasure in it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You sound like somebody in the Chinese gov't--there's too many people so lets kill some.  Honestly, I think that baby would rather grow up never knowing his real mother than being murdered.

The Chinese government doesn't advocate those killings, the parents do those killings. 

Obviously we won't get anywhere with whether a ball of cells that can't breathe, think, feel, or procreate and is less human than the average insect which can at least do some of those things is actually human.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Actually--It's still a law that you can only have 1 kid.  Teh quote was getting too long though.  Just b/c I'm curious, I'm going to do a where life begins poll.

[jerusalemcar5]

Actually--It's still a law that you can only have 1 kid.  Teh quote was getting too long though.  Just b/c I'm curious, I'm going to do a where life begins poll.

No, you get a hefty kid tax if you have a second, they don't go chop its head off.

[J. J.]

So if it happens to be the father that got his daughter pregnant she has to get his permission to get an abortion. makes sense to me.

Everybody--quit with these stupid posts--we've already addressed that there are provisions for these situations.

This is the person that thinks judges "down south" oppose abortion and support incest.

[The Dowager Mod]

So if it happens to be the father that got his daughter pregnant she has to get his permission to get an abortion. makes sense to me.

Everybody--quit with these stupid posts--we've already addressed that there are provisions for these situations.

This is the person that thinks judges "down south" oppose abortion and support incest.

Putting words in my mouth doesn't refute what i said.
If a judge is anti choice in all circumstances then why would he allow for incest?

[MODU]

This might have been lost in the discussion, but if you look at the poll above, it's currently 50/50 with 38 votes as of right now.  That's a pretty good balance for this discussion.

[J. J.]

So if it happens to be the father that got his daughter pregnant she has to get his permission to get an abortion. makes sense to me.

Everybody--quit with these stupid posts--we've already addressed that there are provisions for these situations.

This is the person that thinks judges "down south" oppose abortion and support incest.

Putting words in my mouth doesn't refute what i said.
If a judge is anti choice in all circumstances then why would he allow for incest?

Here is the quote:

So if it happens to be the father that got his daughter pregnant she has to get his permission to get an abortion. makes sense to me.

No, there is, and has been, the option for a court order to permit it.

Like roy Moore? won't happen with all of the religiously insane judges down south.

Now, I know very few, if any, people, including judges, who support incest.  I actually tuned down your quoted remark.

One thing is the appellate process.  If a judge makes an exceptionally poor decision, it is possible to quickly appeal it.

Are you one of those people that supports 12 year olds getting nose jobs without parental consent (or a court order) as well?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So if it happens to be the father that got his daughter pregnant she has to get his permission to get an abortion. makes sense to me.

Everybody--quit with these stupid posts--we've already addressed that there are provisions for these situations.

This is the person that thinks judges "down south" oppose abortion and support incest.

What are you talking about?  I simply said stop bringing up "problems" that we already have solutions for.

[J. J.]

What are you talking about?  I simply said stop bringing up "problems" that we already have solutions for.

Here is Texasgurl's "problem."

So if it happens to be the father that got his daughter pregnant she has to get his permission to get an abortion. makes sense to me.

No, there is, and has been, the option for a court order to permit it.

Like roy Moore? won't happen with all of the religiously insane judges down south.