Forums | MacLife

NokX wrote:

so why kill the kids in the womb?

I pointed out that biologically the decision can only be made by the mother- what's your point? Where did I ever say I would kill anything?

NokX wrote:

loving your wife more than other women is discrimination.  discrimination isn't always a bad thing.

The love you seem to be refering to is romantic love, not compassion.

He apparently said it a lot.

NokX wrote:

a 1 year old can't live independently from the birth mother.  should we make abortions legal until they're the age of 3?

i just pray some of you all wake up and realize that a life is being ended during this process.

STOP ADOPTION NOW.

NokX wrote:

and apparently you didn't read "Jane Roe's" testimony as to why she changed her stance.

Irrelevant.

Hey guess what...the woman who started MADD is now an alcohol lobbyist!  OMG!

Roe v. Wade is one case.  The Supreme Court has heard several cases on abortion.  Surely you're aware of this.

When my wife and I were dating we took absolutely no precautions against a baby accidentally being born.  No pill, no condoms, no foams or other do-hickies.... Oh wait.. there was that part where we had heard that the number one cause of pregnancy outside of marrage was sex outside of marriage.

So we didn't have sex.

We were engaged for 6 yrs and 8 months.

And go live with your mental masturbations about how we need to keep abrotion legal because of rape and incest..... fiiiiine.  And let's keep it legal because "Dammit!  it's my body and you're a guy and you'll never understand... fiiiiiiiine

But let's not kid ourselves.  A little self restraint in 97% of the cases would solve this issue in a hurry.  Considering the teeny-tiny window available for babies to be conceived every month anyway, a little bit of Natural Family Planning  (aka the counting method) would go very, very far.

But that's fine.  You can have your precious abortions.  But, I will remain saddened everytime I hear one of these stories.  Not because I am self-righteous or overtly pious but because no matter how you try to reason it away, one thing remains true:  Abortion stops a beating heart.  And that worries me.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

But that's fine.  You can have your precious abortions.  But, I will remain saddened everytime I hear one of these stories.  Not because I am self-righteous or overtly pious but because no matter how you try to reason it away, one thing remains true:  Abortion stops a beating heart.  And that worries me.

Who are they "precious" to?

That's a tad dramatic.

As long as the health care is as good as the health care that people pay for... Let's do it.

I don't want any second rate healthcare.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

But that's fine.  You can have your precious abortions.  But, I will remain saddened everytime I hear one of these stories.  Not because I am self-righteous or overtly pious but because no matter how you try to reason it away, one thing remains true:  Abortion stops a beating heart.  And that worries me.

Precious? Let me go ask a friend of mine who had an abortion, or even my own mother, and see if they'll call it 'precious'. Doubt it.

Oh, and you two didn't boink for over 6 years? Wow...

And to further that idea:  I think that the idea of people going hungry is insane.  And homeless?  Are you kidding me?  And let's go back to having work parties a new New Deal, if you will.

Sure there are extremes everywhere.  Some people actually like being homeless and some of those people who "Will work for food" are millionaires.

But there are people who will work for food and some people just need a place to live, to get back on their feet and become self sufficient again.

Where's the compassion?  Where's the hope?  Did you know that first century Christians actually pooled there resources?  Everybody gave to everybody according to their need.

Now, that would be cool.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

But let's not kid ourselves.  A little self restraint in 97% of the cases would solve this issue in a hurry.  Considering the teeny-tiny window available for babies to be conceived every month anyway, a little bit of Natural Family Planning  (aka the counting method) would go very, very far.

How can you possibly expect everyone to think like you? Mistakes happen. People don't always use 'self restraint'. So you'd rather them not be able to have an abortion because as you say, it 'stops a beating heart'? You'd rather they give up that child for adoption? Or try and raise it when they're 16, 17?

People make mistakes. It happens. I'm floored by people like you who think ONLY of the 'beating heart' inside and nothing of the parents and their situation.

Fiiiiiiine, people should be more cafeful. Fiiiiine, people should save sex for marriage. But sometimes, it doesn't work that way. So your moral high ground certainly doesn't hold water.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

As long as the health care is as good as the health care that people pay for... Let's do it.

I don't want any second rate healthcare.

Second-rate healthcare is better than no healthcare at all. Unless you'd rather let kids get sick and die?

Depends, have they been born yet?

bratboy wrote:

prey4me wrote:

I wish I knew then what I know now.

It is not unconstitutional for the state to provide such education before one goes through with an abortion.

I've been personally involved (testified before a senate committee) in trying to pass 'right to know' bills, where a doctor would be obligated to explain the procedure to a woman before the abortion (just as any doctor would for any other operation). The abortion industry is completely unregulated. Just look at the law that was recently struck down in Conneticut about informing a minor's parents before she has an abortion. You can't even give a minor an asprin in a public school without first notifying the parents.