- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Oklahoma lawmakers OK bill criminalizing performing abortion
Posted on 5/19/16 at 4:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/19/16 at 4:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
then it makes it hard for the exceptions
I know people get hung up on the exceptions all the time, but I believe an unwanted child still has a right to live, as does the mother. If the unborn child's development is going to be a significant health risk to the mother, then the mother should be treated (up to and including the abortion of the baby if medically necessary).
Outside of medical reasons, I can't get behind abortions for any other reason. I know that is unpopular with many people who support them in cases of incest and rape, but I'm a logical and moral person, or at least I try to be, and unless that pregnancy poses a threat to the mother's life, I cannot condone killing it.
On a similar note, the adoption rules and procedures in this country could use an overhaul. There are people out there who want children and cannot have them, yet the financial hurdles presented by adoption are often too much to bear.
2
Posted on 5/19/16 at 4:12 pm to TechDawg2007
Unconstitutional. She's signed 18 bills restricting abortion since 2011 and nearly every one has been overturned. Great use of taxpayer money.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 4:24 pm to Barf
Barf
-----
How stupid does one have to be to ask your page 2 question?
-----
How stupid does one have to be to ask your page 2 question?
Posted on 5/19/16 at 4:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
plan B is/should be taken prior to fertilization, iirc
Were talking about bad choices and punishment here. This isn't relevant. Was referring to the "just because" abortions comment.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 4:26 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Ah yes, Roe v. Wade. When a cabal of unelected people holding power for life decided shite upon the Constitution of the United States of America and arbitrarily make their own law where no law existed before.
I love this whole "unelected" spiel that conservatards like Ted Cruz trot out when they don't get their way on an issue. Citizens United, Bowers v. Hardwick, et al were all great, necessary, correctly decided decisions upholding the Constitution, but as soon as the Court reaches a decision they don't agree with (as in Roe v. Wade or Obergefell), it's "five unelected lawyers in Washington" or "a cabal of unelected people holding power for life." You can't have it both ways.
This post was edited on 5/19/16 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 5/19/16 at 4:33 pm to slackster
quote:
The right to life is not in question, and that right extends to both the mother and the unborn child, at least IMO. Does that clear it up?
Sort of, but it seems you are morally allowing for abortion if that choice is one life or another. I understand where you are drawing the line, I think.
I'd just assume stay out of that decision all together and let them take it up with their maker.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 4:36 pm to tigerfan88
tigerfan88
----------
Spoken like a full-bore millennial liberal that can't see the forest for the trees. For one, some of the things you speak of are a consequence of war, many times entered into on the basis of protecting "someone". But I digress, the one you support is specifically the murder of an unborn entity that has no ability to speak for itself and at the complete mercy of "self interests" individuals. So say you!
----------
Spoken like a full-bore millennial liberal that can't see the forest for the trees. For one, some of the things you speak of are a consequence of war, many times entered into on the basis of protecting "someone". But I digress, the one you support is specifically the murder of an unborn entity that has no ability to speak for itself and at the complete mercy of "self interests" individuals. So say you!
Posted on 5/19/16 at 4:50 pm to Barf
Barf
----
Do you (law) have the right to tell her she can kill her unborn baby?
----
quote:
Do you have the right to tell her she can not?
Do you (law) have the right to tell her she can kill her unborn baby?
Posted on 5/19/16 at 5:07 pm to ULSU
quote:
I'd just assume stay out of that decision all together and let them take it up with their maker.
That approach can be taken with many choices, but I believe wewe have a responsibility to take up for the least among us, particularly when they cannot speak for themselves.
For the record, it is "I'd just as soon", not assume.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 5:08 pm to slackster
quote:
If the unborn child's development is going to be a significant health risk to the mother, then the mother should be treated (up to and including the abortion of the baby if medically necessary).
What if the baby has a high likelihood of being born with significant health issues?
Disclaimer: this is not some "gotcha" question. I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts on this. I go back and forth on this dilemma.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 5:29 pm to slackster
So your wife gets raped, pregnant, y'all are keeping the baby?
Posted on 5/19/16 at 5:39 pm to larry289
Spoken like a fricking moron that can't reason or think rationally or even read obviously. And just resorts to calling anyone they disagree with a "liberal millennial" bc that's what ole Rush told em to do.
First off, I actually support a lot of the examples I gave. I'm pro death penalty, I'm not for universal healthcare, I don't think our health should be regulated in the form of banning unhealthy foods or tobacco. And of course military action is sometimes needed, and collateral damage is sometimes unavoidable. The extent to we use military action when it isn't needed isn't the topic of discussion.
Secondly, aren't many abortions done in the name of protecting "someone," in this case the mother? Again, the point is death of innocent, voiceless people is a necessary evil when it's a cause you believe in, but when you don't then everyone who does it are murderers. I would make this same argument to a super liberal who wants abortions to be super legal but calls our military a bunch of murderers. Very few people are consistent on the value of life. But whatever dude, keep moving those goalposts and making yourself feel better by jacking off to Fox and calling everyone who disagrees with you a dumbass liberal prog
First off, I actually support a lot of the examples I gave. I'm pro death penalty, I'm not for universal healthcare, I don't think our health should be regulated in the form of banning unhealthy foods or tobacco. And of course military action is sometimes needed, and collateral damage is sometimes unavoidable. The extent to we use military action when it isn't needed isn't the topic of discussion.
Secondly, aren't many abortions done in the name of protecting "someone," in this case the mother? Again, the point is death of innocent, voiceless people is a necessary evil when it's a cause you believe in, but when you don't then everyone who does it are murderers. I would make this same argument to a super liberal who wants abortions to be super legal but calls our military a bunch of murderers. Very few people are consistent on the value of life. But whatever dude, keep moving those goalposts and making yourself feel better by jacking off to Fox and calling everyone who disagrees with you a dumbass liberal prog
This post was edited on 5/19/16 at 5:45 pm
Posted on 5/19/16 at 5:43 pm to UpToPar
quote:
What if the baby has a high likelihood of being born with significant health issues?
Google Image search "harlequin baby".
Posted on 5/19/16 at 6:20 pm to ShoeBang
The mother should be disemboweled and be torn apart by piranhas. The most vile of humans right next to pedophiles
Posted on 5/19/16 at 6:22 pm to LSUSUPERSTAR
Why should the baby killed because of it's father's actions?
Posted on 5/19/16 at 6:23 pm to tigerfan88
Agreed 100%.
Posted on 5/19/16 at 6:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
idiot idiot spending other people's money via government
I am not taking a position on abortion here, just commenting on the reality of this instance. If everyone would put their feelings about abortion aside for a second, they could see this for what it is, pandering for votes at taxpayers expense. I find it curious that people who shake their heads' at Mitch Landrieu for his statue removal pandering generally don't see that this is essentially the same thing.
It sucks that pandering for votes is so effective. It also sucks that it is equally effective for all political ideologies and it is clear that people with emotional attachment to an issue have problems realizing their being pandered to.
Bottom line is pushing moral buttons will always get votes and conveniently deflects from issues that have unpopular solutions because sheep don't know they're sheep.
Case in point, we have a presidential election going on and instead of making them talk about the future of Social Security, getting real answers for how to deal with healthcare, or how to fix our crumbling infrastructure, we allow ourselves to get fired up about things like transgender bathrooms and gay marriage...
Posted on 5/20/16 at 1:44 am to LSUSUPERSTAR
quote:
So your wife gets raped, pregnant, y'all are keeping the baby?
I don't know if we'd keep it in the sense of raising it, but I'd like to think that we'd find some solution that didn't involve killing it. I guess adoption would be the route to go, but I'm not sure.
It isn't an easy decision - none of these things are - but killing a child that had nothing to do with it seems incredibly unfair and immoral. I hope we'd do what is right if, God forbid, that situation ever occurred.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 1:48 am to UpToPar
quote:
What if the baby has a high likelihood of being born with significant health issues?
Again, tough situation, but given the advancements in modern medicine I think the child should be born. I just try to fall back on the idea that the unborn child should be treated like any other child in your family would be treated. You wouldn't end the life of your child who had terminal cancer, so I don't think you get to make that call for your unborn child either. It is incredibly depressing to even consider though.
Posted on 5/20/16 at 2:12 am to TechDawg2007
That's unconstitutional and will not stand. Waste of time and money...thanks repubs.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News