|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 13, 2006 12:30:23 GMT -5
I understand you qualified this as a non answer, Chrisfan, but if I might probe, why should that responsibility entail doing whatever is necessary to prevent an abortion? From where I sit, that doesn't seem to follow.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 13, 2006 12:36:34 GMT -5
After all, I have the right to vote. I can go to the polls and make completely uninformed decisions for the rest of my life, and that right will not be taken away. Why should abortion rights carry the responsibility of restraint?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 13, 2006 13:09:40 GMT -5
Just because you can do something Kenny doesnt' mean you should do it. I'm not sure I follow your comparison to your right to vote being taken away, given I've never advocated taking abortion away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 13, 2006 14:33:33 GMT -5
I believe the comparison was that voting does not entail doing whatever's necassary to educate one's self of the candiates. Yes, it should but it doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 13, 2006 14:59:02 GMT -5
Understood Mantis. But there was a provision put in there for voting not being taken away ... neither is abortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 13, 2006 16:06:58 GMT -5
OK, so, analogy aside, why should abortion rights carry the responsibility of restraint?
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 13, 2006 16:11:07 GMT -5
Under the Endangered Species Act the fetus of the bald eagle is protected by a heavy fine if not jail time(I don't have time to look it up). Do you think the fetus of a bald eagle should be protected under the same power of the law that protects those who wish to abort their own baby even if the head of the baby is out of the birth canal? First of all, my apologies for actually giving you hell like the name of this thread implicitly states. But to answer your question, I think I don't give two flying fucking shits about bald eagles EGGS ("fetuses"? wtf?), but that such a law only exists in the first place because the greedy and callous disregard that the Republican way of life treats our national parks and even our beloved symbol of America. Get back to me when humanity becomes an endangered species, will you? I also think that you'd better get used to answering these sort of questions without this totally lame and unimpressive stall tactic. If you and your ilk actually want to see abortion banned and mothers and doctors thrown in jail, you'd better come up with a cohesive vision that the rest of America won't vehemently reject on principle. Parading around images and stories of aborted fetuses thrown in the trash don't hold much weight when it can be explicitly shown that even your own side doesn't have the moral fortitude to say, with conviction, that abortion doctors and would-be mothers should be put in the chair for their actions. Which is funny given that very same group of people's steadfast support of the death penalty against pretty much every poor black person that's ever lived, and even the never ending cluster fuck that is the civilian-killing Operation Iraqi Freedom®. Who knows, Melon, maybe you'll come up with a policy that won't sicken everyone who hears it and you can forward it to FRC headquarters for use. What a personal triumph that would be, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 13, 2006 16:15:31 GMT -5
OK, so, analogy aside, why should abortion rights carry the responsibility of restraint? Because there's not a right that exsists that is not accompanied by responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 13, 2006 17:05:50 GMT -5
Having an abortion is being responsable
by admitting you're not ready to take care of a child ... !!
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 13, 2006 17:23:51 GMT -5
Phil, voting is also responsible. But that's beside the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 13, 2006 18:03:54 GMT -5
OK, so, analogy aside, why should abortion rights carry the responsibility of restraint? Because there's not a right that exsists that is not accompanied by responsibility. So we must be restrained in the enjoyment of all rights? Why is that? |
|
|
|
Post by luke on Mar 13, 2006 19:25:22 GMT -5
I don't think I know a girl whose had an abortion whose kids wouldn't have grown up to be crack/meth heads and/or criminals. Abortions should be mandatory for some of these girls, followed by a good tube tying.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 13, 2006 22:32:51 GMT -5
Because there's not a right that exsists that is not accompanied by responsibility. So we must be restrained in the enjoyment of all rights? Why is that? Didn't say that Kenny. I'm happy to talk about what I have said. Iwill not get dragged into discussing what I have not. |
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 13, 2006 22:53:38 GMT -5
SEMANTICS QUEEN STRIKES AGAIN!
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Mar 14, 2006 8:27:42 GMT -5
*sigh
Ok, so you basically said that the abortion right carries with it the responsibility of ensuring that we do everything in our power to make sure we never have to use it. You insinuated that that "restraint clause" was inherent in that right. I am asking you why that is.
|
|
