|
|
| Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules (1167697) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 9 of 11 |
||
|
| (1169924) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 00:30:52 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 00:03:56 2014. We do, but "our element" likes to use figures of speech, and on occasion we forget the tendency of right-wingers to take everything completely literally. |
|
|
| (1169926) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 00:34:52 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 00:09:06 2014. You l0st the abortion argument calling it "choice".In what universe? You lost the abortion argument when you admitted you believe that men have an ownership interest in women's bodies. Now you're back for more I see. Likewise. Just say you're pro-abortion, like me. What does "pro-abortion" mean? Define in explicit detail exactly what philosophy you mean when you say "pro-abortion." |
|
|
| (1169928) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 00:37:15 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 00:30:52 2014. Guns and animal cruelty. Oh man. |
|
|
| (1169930) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 00:38:25 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 00:34:52 2014. In what universe? You lost the abortion argument when you admitted you believe that men have an ownership interest in women's bodies.LOL @ ownership. Pro-abortion means you support abortion. |
|
|
| (1169931) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 00:39:12 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 00:37:15 2014. Please don't tell me you just took the figure of speech literally right after I specifically pointed out that wingnuts often mistakenly take figures of speech literally.I mean come on, there's cheap laughs, but that's like watching a clown closely observe the banana peel and then choose to slip on it anyway. |
|
|
| (1169935) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 00:45:14 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 00:38:25 2014. LOL @ ownership.You think it's funny? It's sexist and disgusting. Your lack of decorum perfectly complements the repugnance of your views. Pro-abortion means you support abortion. Gee willikers, really? You don't say! Support abortion in what sense? That it should be legal? Compulsory? Compulsory only for people of certain demographics? If abortion is legal but not compulsory, who gets to make the decision? Who are they obligated to consult before making it? There's a reason I asked you for "explicit detail." Now provide said details. |
|
|
| (1169936) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 00:45:37 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 00:30:52 2014. That particular trait is what keeps bingbong and I keep coming back for more! Back in the days of early television, game shows judged the winners based on an applause meter. Whoever pinned the meter won.Here on subchat, we've got THIS meter to pick the winner ...  And while autism is in NO way humorous, it does describe what we see here on a daily basis, and that's pretty damned sad. Even sadder is that if only they'd embrace Obamacare, they could actually get some help. :( |
|
|
| (1169938) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 00:47:27 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 00:45:14 2014. I explained it's an insult to call abortion "pro-choice". That's all. I don't like "pro-choice". It's derogatory. |
|
|
| (1169941) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 00:54:55 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 00:47:27 2014. "Pro-choice" is the mainstream term; I've only ever heard "pro-abortion" used as a derogatory term by anti-choicers. That combined with your insistence that women should need male permission before they get an abortion leads me to believe that you're an anti-choicer just like Cruz and Akin, except that you are willing to admit what you genuinely believe instead of pretending to think embryos are people for PR purposes.That's why I asked for the details. You support abortion in what sense? That it should be legal? Compulsory? Compulsory only for people of certain demographics? If abortion is legal but not compulsory, who gets to make the decision? Who are they obligated to consult before making it? Your reluctance to state your actual beliefs even as you argue over them is not a good sign. |
|
|
| (1169944) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Apr 5 01:23:44 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 00:39:12 2014. HOWLING!I love how you got them twisting in the wind! |
|
|
| (1169948) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 01:48:17 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Edwards! on Sat Apr 5 01:23:44 2014. He has nothing but word-humping over "abortion" vs. "choice".Abortion has kept NYC as one of the safest cities in AMerica. You should be happy. |
|
|
| (1169950) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 02:03:04 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 01:48:17 2014. Thanks for attacking. That's a lie. |
|
|
| (1169952) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:04:24 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 02:03:04 2014. It's the truth. AMerica should duplicate what NY has been doing for decades and the rest of this once great nation would reduce it's crime issues too. |
|
|
| (1169954) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 02:07:52 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:04:24 2014. No, it's a lie pushed by liberal college professors. No real evidence supports it—just like with "anthropogenic global warming". Thanks for attacking. |
|
|
| (1169955) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:09:37 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 01:48:17 2014. Abortion has kept NYC as one of the safest cities in AMerica.Oh, is this eugenics you're supporting now? Your portfolio gets bigger each post you make. Oh and by the way, I'm still awaiting an answer to my previous inquiries. So far, you have offered a lot of evasions but no real answer as to what you actually believe. |
|
|
| (1169956) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:12:39 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 02:07:52 2014. No, it's a lie pushed by liberal college professors.Last time I checked, eugenics was a right-wing idea. The last time it was seriously proposed by anybody who could meaningfully call themselves "liberal" was something like 80 years ago, and society has advanced enough that ideas considered left-wing in those days are on the extreme right now. No real evidence supports it—just like with "anthropogenic global warming".  Q.E.D. |
|
|
| (1169957) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 02:12:40 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 02:07:52 2014. One professor named Levitt at Baruch college? That's all you've got?So one Jewish guy at a Jewish university is your pile of libruls? Antisemite much? |
|
|
| (1169958) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:17:53 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 02:12:40 2014. Olog isn't antisemitic; he's just anti.We've thrown a lot of pies over the years, and Olog has not stated one thing he supports. He's basically a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum. Or maybe a 14-year-old in his pointlessly rebellious phase. Or maybe a sad old man yelling at the world that's passed him by. |
|
|
| (1169959) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 02:22:29 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:17:53 2014. Oh, I only did that because he tosses around the "A word" as though it means anything anymore with his abuse of same. I got a kick out of his "google" thing, so checked it out. Poor boy doesn't realize how google works, it shows different results to everyone based on what they're most obsessed with. I'm sure he filled up the first ten pages worth with more variations of the same thing. :)Poor fella ... for ME, after the "too many results for this one link" on their main page,m other items on that front google page included such classics that Olog wanted me to read such as "Are the Xbox and unleaded gas helping keep you safe from violent crime?" I kinda lost it right there. Heh. |
|
|
| (1169960) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:23:28 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:12:39 2014. Eugenics?!Leftists always overstate the argument. |
|
|
| (1169961) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Apr 5 02:24:32 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:23:28 2014. You mean like "death panels?" :) |
|
|
| (1169963) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:26:06 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:23:28 2014. You claim that we can/should/do reduce the crime rate through strategic abortions.What else do you call that? |
|
|
| (1169965) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:28:10 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:26:06 2014. That's not eugenics. The holocaust and ethnic cleansing would be eugenics.Once again the Leftists overstate the argument. Nothing "strategic" about it. |
|
|
| (1169967) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:31:47 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:09:37 2014. Oh, is this eugenics you're supporting now? Your portfolio gets bigger each post you make.So you're calling abortion eugenics? You said you support "choice". Abortion. Whatever it's called. |
|
|
| (1169968) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:33:20 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:28:10 2014. Eugenics refers to any attempt to "improve" the human population through selective breeding or killing. The holocaust was simply a massive example thereof. By the way, nice Godwin.Nothing "strategic" about it. What, so the crime rate is reduced by having a completely random cross-section of the pregnant female population choose to abort? Exactly how has abortion "kept NYC as one of the safest cities in AMerica" in that case? And what's with the UNusual CApitalisation of "America?" |
|
|
| (1169971) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:40:01 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:33:20 2014. Wow.All worked up is Nilet. |
|
|
| (1169974) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:44:56 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:40:01 2014. As I expected. You can't answer the question.I'll add "eugenics" to your portfolio then. So let's see. You're a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe, you act like a child, and you support eugenics. Good work there. You have certainly convinced me that conservatives are not a bunch of ignorant assholes. |
|
|
| (1169976) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:47:10 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:44:56 2014. I support abortion, just like you do Nilet.You can't separate yourself from my on this, no matter how late you stay up and try. |
|
|
| (1169977) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:48:22 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:31:47 2014. No, I'm calling externally enforced selective breeding eugenics because that's the precise definition of what it is.When you decide to get an abortion, it's your choice. When an external authority declares that X demographic will all get abortions whether they want them or not whilst Y demographic will be permitted to reproduce, it's eugenics. Your claim that abortion has improved New York's safety (with the implied statement that this is because "those people" are getting abortions, however you may define "them") invites the reasonable conclusion that you support eugenics. That you vehemently support "abortion" but have only a vague at best understanding of bodily autonomy and what it means to be pro-choice further supports the conclusion that you endorse eugenics. Obviously, you could correct me in an instant by answering my previous inquiries, but we both know you simply aren't capable of that. |
|
|
| (1169978) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:51:32 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:47:10 2014. I support abortion, just like you do Nilet.Then answer the questions. You can't separate yourself from my on this... Actually, every post you make confirms you're as anti-choice as Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin. That you vehemently refuse to tell me what you believe further confirms this fact. ...no matter how late you stay up and try. Oh I'll be up whether you're here or not. Sleep disorders are a bitch. |
|
|
| (1169979) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:52:08 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:48:22 2014. L0se. Sorry.I said abortion has contributed to the decline in crime in NYC and should be expanded nationwide. Don't blow this up into an argument about eugenics. You l0se when you do. |
|
|
| (1169980) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:52:42 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:51:32 2014. Who the fuck is Akin? |
|
|
| (1169981) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:53:42 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:52:08 2014. I said abortion has contributed to the decline in crime in NYC and should be expanded nationwide.And I asked you to articulate the connection between abortion and reduced crime. Just because you won't say it out loud doesn't mean we can't all tell what you're thinking. |
|
|
| (1169982) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:55:31 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:52:42 2014. Todd Akin. |
|
|
| (1169983) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:58:58 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:53:42 2014. Just because you won't say it out loud doesn't mean we can't all tell what you're thinking.Why should I say anything? If you can't accept my roots in the Ridgewood/Glendale area it's impossible to discuss anything with you. You will go to sleep, or not, with the knowledge that we're on the same side. We're pro-"choice". You can't shake your similarity to me. As a result, this conversation has ended. |
|
|
| (1169987) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 03:17:23 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 02:58:58 2014. Why should I say anything? If you can't accept my roots in the Ridgewood/Glendale area it's impossible to discuss anything with you.You really are thick, aren't you? Did you huff lead paint when you were a kid? I never disputed that you were from the Ridgewood/Glendale area. I said that the fact that you are from the Ridgewood/Glendale area does not make it a valid argument to declare that your point has totally been proven by a bunch of dudes you know (whose identities you don't provide and whose existence can't possibly be verified). You will go to sleep, or not, with the knowledge that we're on the same side. We're pro-"choice". You can't shake your similarity to me. You keep saying we're on the same side, similar, etc, but although specifically asked on many occasions, you refuse to say what "side" you're actually on. At every turn, you have evaded and made excuses, but at no point have you ever stated precisely what your position is— despite that generally being the first thing one does in a debate. I direct you once again to my questions. I'll even repeat them here for good measure. You support abortion in what sense? That it should be legal? Compulsory? Compulsory only for people of certain demographics? It seems fairly clear that our beliefs on this subject have essentially nothing in common; you take positions consistent with the extreme right, you demonstrate shibboleths associated with the extreme right, and you have only the vaguest understanding of what my beliefs are (even though I've stated them explicitly). However, it's impossible to determine the precise extent to which our beliefs are different because you won't say what your beliefs are. Given your close association with the extreme right, it's a fair bet that you won't disclose your beliefs because you know they're incoherent, irrational, immoral, or some combination thereof. As a result, this conversation has ended. Very well. I'll note down that you're an anti-choice racist who believes the crime rate can be reduced by a eugenics program involving forced abortions performed on the race you declare inferior, but you're sufficiently aware that this belief is abhorrent that you refuse to say it out loud. That's the conclusion I'm forced to draw from what little you've posted. If you want to correct me, you're free to tell me what you actually believe by answering a few simple questions. Namely: You support abortion in what sense? That it should be legal? Compulsory? Compulsory only for people of certain demographics? If abortion is legal but not compulsory, who gets to make the decision? Who are they obligated to consult before making it? |
|
|
| (1169989) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 03:21:51 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 03:17:23 2014. Did you huff lead paint when you were a kid?I think we were all exposed to it. I said if a woman is not married and gets pregnant, the man should be informed, and if he decides he does not want to get married and be a father, the woman can then decide to abort or raise the kid on her own and the man has no financial obligation. The man should have some rights too. Yes, abortion clearly lowered crime in NYC. They started mass abortion in the 70's and by the 90's they became one of the safest cities and have been ever since. |
|
|
| (1169991) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 03:25:49 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 03:21:51 2014. Yes, abortion clearly lowered crime in NYCBullshit. Enforcing the law lowered crime in NYC. Giuliani wasn't nicknamed "Jailiani" for nothing. Thanks for liberalcollegeprofessorpropagandattacking. |
|
|
| (1169992) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 03:26:54 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 03:17:23 2014. LOL Alinskyism.You into fourth-grade crap like the POTUS and his "stinkburger"/"meanwich" comments? |
|
|
| (1169994) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 03:34:25 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 03:21:51 2014. I said if a woman is not married and gets pregnant, the man should be informed, and if he decides he does not want to get married and be a father, the woman can then decide to abort or raise the kid on her own and the man has no financial obligation. The man should have some rights too.So then your answers would be that you believe abortion should be legal for all women, and compulsory for none. The right to decide belongs to the woman carrying the pregnancy; if she chooses to abort, she can do so without consulting any other party, but if she chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, she is obligated to consult with the man who induced the pregnancy and offer to fulfill his obligations to the child as well as her own, because men have a right to become parents without facing any inconvenience or having any responsibilities, while women must shoulder exclusive responsibility for the well-being of their children save for those that the father might voluntarily choose to take up entirely of his own free will despite lacking any legal or moral obligations towards his child. Is that more or less accurate? Yes, abortion clearly lowered crime in NYC. By what mechanism? Explain the causal relationship; how did abortion lower the crime rate? They started mass abortion in the 70's and by the 90's they became one of the safest cities and have been ever since. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. |
|
|
| (1169995) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 03:36:10 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 03:26:54 2014. You into fourth-grade crap like the POTUS and his "stinkburger"/"meanwich" comments?The fuck you talking about? |
|
|
| (1169997) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 03:39:39 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 03:25:49 2014. Wrong.Abortion helped lower crime. So did the demise of the Italian mafia. Combined, NYC improved. |
|
|
| (1169998) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 03:41:01 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 5 03:25:49 2014. Did you know Margaret Sanger was Irish-Catholic? |
|
|
| (1170010) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Apr 5 04:32:09 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by Nilet on Sat Apr 5 02:12:39 2014. So why has there been no warming since 1998? Might the models be underestimating a negative feedback mechanism? |
|
|
| (1170035) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 09:35:59 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 00:47:27 2014. To whom? The choosers? That makes you a misogynist.Being "pro-abortion" is a dogwhistle for eugenics, yunno. |
|
|
| (1170038) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 09:56:36 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 03:21:51 2014. That is putting a person ahead of the woman who's taking the risk with her health and could be forced to carry a pregnancy to term *against her will*.The only person to make this call is the woman. |
|
|
| (1170048) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 10:51:53 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 09:56:36 2014. how is it against her will.and stop slandering abortion as eugenics. |
|
|
| (1170057) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 11:23:46 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 10:51:53 2014. If the man says he wants the child, in your twisted world, she would have to have it against her will.The woman is the sole decision maker over what becomes of her body. THIW |
|
|
| (1170058) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 11:26:11 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 11:23:46 2014. No.If she wants the child and he does not, she would be financially responsible. That's all. |
|
|
| (1170062) | |
Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Apr 5 11:29:54 2014, in response to Re: US appeals court upholds new Texas abortion rules, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 5 11:26:11 2014. He would still be the father and could decide to enforce his rights. The child also has a right and a need to know both parents. Without financial support, this would be wrong for both mother( carrying all the weight of raising the child) and the child (who deserves support from both parents in ALL forms). |
|
|
|
Page 9 of 11 |
||