|
Post by elliejay21 on Jan 22, 2009 14:27:00 GMT -5
On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision which prevents states from criminalizing women's reproductive choices.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
While I am a strong supporter of states' rights, there comes a time when federal law must supercede individual jurisdictions at the order of the highest court in our land, in order to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 22, 2009 14:41:20 GMT -5
Yay abortions!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 22, 2009 15:03:42 GMT -5
You should say YAY.
As a conservative, who most likely LOATHES the fact that his tax dollars go toward social services and entitlements, you'd be paying a HELL OF A LOT MORE of them had abortions been banned.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 22, 2009 15:19:17 GMT -5
Whoever said I am looking to ban abortions?
I just dont like them being used as a form of flippant birth control.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 22, 2009 15:25:07 GMT -5
"I just dont like them being used as a form of flippant birth control." - from a personal responsibility and morality issue, I agree.
From a wanting to keep my money that would otherwise be earmarked for handouts to irresponsible, leeching welfare recipients who are able bodied enough to work.....I could care less....in fact I encourage them to get MORE abortions.
I'd rather do my part in funding a free-clinic $175 dollar abortion, than do my part in funding the burgeoning criminal career of what was an unwanted impoverished child for 18 years.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 25, 2009 22:53:23 GMT -5
So it's ok to kill babies as long as it keeps people from getting welfare? You really don't have a clue about conservatives if you think that.
The right to kill babies is not something people in this country should celebrate.
|
|
|
Post by sancho231 on Jan 26, 2009 0:40:19 GMT -5
I really should not get into this but why the fuck do some of these fucks care so much about the unborn, but the second they are born the same support is not there?
|
|
|
Post by Domi on Jan 26, 2009 0:56:38 GMT -5
The right to kill babies is not something people in this country should celebrate. Good thing then that people in this (or any) country don't have the right to kill babies, innit?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 7:07:52 GMT -5
According to Roe v. Wade, that's not true.
But the point is not so much whether you support abortion. As disgusting as the idea of snuffing out a life before birth is to me, I accept that it's here. It's not about an abortion debate. But to actually celebrate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which granted this right, is just sick.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Jan 26, 2009 11:02:03 GMT -5
Good thing then that people in this (or any) country don't have the right to kill babies, innit? Stop making sense.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 26, 2009 11:14:41 GMT -5
"So it's ok to kill babies as long as it keeps people from getting welfare?"
No, it's OK to abort fetuses, for that purpose though.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 11:22:05 GMT -5
Again, that comes down to the definition of life. Of course, liberals tend to want to kill babies and protect criminals and terrorists. But unfortunately, they also decided to give themselves a pass on killing babies by just deciding that life begins when liberals say it begins. Still babykilling.
Either way, this thread is sick.
|
|
|
Post by cactusjames on Jan 26, 2009 11:46:55 GMT -5
Yeah I don't see why this thread got started, but I'm on the side that says a woman can do what she wants with her baby. If she's raped and gets pregnant, she has the right to terminate that pregnancy. If she has a boyfriend or a couple of years, he gets her pregnant than skips out on her, she has the right to end the pregnancy. I don't see how an unborn fetus has any rights. It doesn't even know where it is but all of the sudden it's entitled to certain rights and liberties a 40 year old has? It's crazy talk. Woman's body, woman's right. Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Jan 26, 2009 12:11:35 GMT -5
I really should not get into this but why the fuck do some of these fucks care so much about the unborn, but the second they are born the same support is not there? Good one. Time for some of these ignorant fucks to bury their heads back into Fox News, so they can come up with a comeback for that one.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 12:40:10 GMT -5
I always laugh at comments like Mac's. Liberals always try to spew how tolerant they are, but the fact is, they are the most intolerant people on the planet. If you don't drink the liberal KoolAid, you are ignorant.
And to answer Sancho's question, no one is championing the rights of babies after birth, because the liberals aren't trying to legalize murdering babies after birth. Of course, in the liberal mind, it's ok to kill them DURING birth, but that's another issue.
|
|
|
Post by mac0822 on Jan 26, 2009 13:05:45 GMT -5
Liberals in general are more ignorant that Conservatives? Interesting.
We're talking about Welfare, etc. for the born children. Meaning, Reps want to turn their back on "supporting" them. Nobody is talking about murdering born children...shit.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 13:12:54 GMT -5
The point is that with this particular issue, we're against KILLING them. It's not for the government to support them, it's for the people themselves. The two viewpoints are not inconsistent, and Sancho's question involves two completely separate issues that have little to do with each other.
It's like when liberals wonder how someone who is pro-life can also be pro-death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 26, 2009 13:23:20 GMT -5
Right, and Neocons like to use the simple brush for abortions and call it murder, but not when it comes to war and death penalty.
Either way, conservatives are faggots who spent the last 8 years talking tough and posting pics about defending the country all while they fucked things up so bad a black guy was able to get elected President. Hey tough guys, how's the war on terror going? Is the Middle East still throwing flowers at our feet? How's the economy? You guys bragged about how you would fix things and take care of everyone, yet, now the place is crawling with asshole Democrats. What went wrong? I know what went wrong, a faggot penis went in your fucking Neocon assholes.
I think abortions are awesome.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 13:33:43 GMT -5
Yawn. So it's ok to murder babies, as long as criminals and terrorists are protected. Gotta love liberal logic.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 26, 2009 13:45:36 GMT -5
Care to point out where I said they need to be protected? I'm pointing out how most pro-life/pro-death penalty FAGGOTS use two totally different lines of thinking for each. Don't know where you got that from, but I'm very much pro-death penalty.
Gotta love MetsSuckBalls logic: When something is wrong, run away from jack frost and start another message board. Gotta love them hardass GOPers!!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 13:56:34 GMT -5
You can call everyone under the sun a faggot, but it still won't change that the two issues--pro-life and pro-death penalty are absolutely different.
What's fucked up is the reverse--kill babies/protect criminals and terrorists.
The difference between the two stances are very simple. A baby never did anything to deserve death. A murderer/criminal and/or terrorist, has done something to warrant the death penalty. If you can't get that, that's your problem, not mine.
Don't speak for my logic until you get some yourself. And feel free to keep sweating the existence of this board. It amuses me.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 26, 2009 14:14:59 GMT -5
Again, not what I'm trying to say.
But it's ok, you're a dick and this board sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 26, 2009 14:15:07 GMT -5
"It's like when liberals wonder how someone who is pro-life can also be pro-death penalty. "Ummmmmmmm, no...it's more like when liberals wonder how someone who is pro-"LIFE?" can also be vehemently, steadfastly, and in some cases violently against any and all forms of social assistance. GET IT? ? (probably not)
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 14:18:26 GMT -5
I get it. Liberals have no clue that these two issues are completely different. Obviously, the liberal solution is to just kill the babies.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 26, 2009 14:19:14 GMT -5
"kill babies" Not sure where any liberal advocated standing there in the delivery room with an executioner on staff. We're talking about aborting a fetus at the point where it has yet to become a self-sustaining viable life form. Of course, in typical Balls fashion, you'll try to present the EXCEPTION as the RULE....and talk about the wacko extreme minority to promote third trimester abortions....who don't comprise the mainstream liberal consensus whatsoever....but that's ok, because that's the BALLS way.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 26, 2009 14:22:24 GMT -5
And conservative conclusion is to promote MORE unwanted, unsupportable children, create more bad-parenting situations.....and then try their hardest to deny any form of social assistance whatsoever.
So while people like Balls complain and cry for justice against the ghetto heathen who mugged him for his wallet, they conveniently forgot throwing a rotten egg at his mother 18 years ago as she walked into the free clinic, shouting "murderer" at her.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 14:23:39 GMT -5
Hey, they just call it an abortion and a day.
You can play semantics all you want. Doesn't change anything. And sorry, but the wacko partial birth abortion is also advocated by many democrats in Congress.
You can make up a point of viability all you want, but what makes a newborn viable? Dump a newborn in the trash. It won't be able to climb out and survive.
Look, abortion is hardly the most important issue in this country. There are far bigger fish to fry. I just think it's utterly sick that someone could actually start a thread celebrating the anniversary of a decision where the Supreme Court made up a consitutional right that is not in the constitution, and over extended their power by legislating from the bench, all in the name of murdering babies.
This case was hardly Brown v. Board of Ed, and is not an anniversary that should be lauded.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 26, 2009 14:39:57 GMT -5
I too think it's a stupid reason to start a thread.
Also, getting back to the use of abortion as birth control multiple times: all for it. Anyone that does that is probably not fit enough to be a parent, and hopefully all those abortions will cause enough damage that that person cannot reproduce. We have enough bad parents in the world, we don't need anymore.
Also, my point was the conservative notion that only abortions is murder, and war/death penalty aren't. Both are, but the point of view is merely different. All depends on how much of a weepy faggot you are.
Hey can I post pics of the 'God hates fags' wackos and call them Neocons, and say this is what ALL conservatives think the way Balls blankets everyone?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 26, 2009 14:50:53 GMT -5
Murder involves an innocent victim. The death penalty is not murder. Homicide, but not murder. Same with war.
As for dealing with people who aren't fit to be parents, a good old fashioned sterilization could accomplish the same task.
|
|
|
Post by grover on Jan 26, 2009 15:06:11 GMT -5
Murder intention to kill. Killing someone who deserves it is justice, and still murder. There is no mention of innocence in the dictionary.
Also, human casualties in war are not innocent? Really? So, all those children we've murdered in the middle east were not innocent?
Gotta love the Conservative view point. You guys are bigger faggots then liberals. At least liberals are straight out pussies who don't try to act tough. You guys just pretend everything is someone else's fault and that everything bad isn't, then put on some macho show.
Here's a question: If a pregnant mother dies in a war, it's not murder? Because war is not murder, according to you. But the baby didn't deserve it, so it has to be murder!
LOLOLOLLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLO!@!!!! HECKLE HOUSE SUCKS! YOU'RE BANNED FROM SOFTBALL!!
|
|