Graphic But Real - Page 8

tadpole256 · 08-18-2005, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabris

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan1088352

but a lump of canser will never become a human, has no thoughts and can not feel pain.

And neither will the fetus if we abort it...

That's the whole point...

Indeed it won't, until the thing develops a nervous system. I haven't watched the video, but what are they doing? I'm 100% against abortions that are PBA, with snipping the spinal cord and all that fun stuff. Within 2-3 months, you should damn well already know if you're gonna keep the baby or not, and abort then, before it is capable of feeling pain.

Tadpole, I remember you saying the baby has rights once it pops out of the woman's vagina. Does that still mean that an 8 and a half month baby has no rights? It's a fully formed human and is more than capable of living outside the womb, even though it's still inside.

My only stance on abortion is that they should be allowed for any time within the first trimester. After that, the tissues are well on their way developing. To me, the baby is a person when the heart and brain form and begin operation. It happens sometime early in the second trimester, so why not just give mothers the whole first trimester?

They should have already thought long and hard about whether or not theywant to keep it. There's no reason for them to suddenly decide at 8 or 8 and a half months that she can't have it because it suddenly became inconvenient for some reason. 8 or 10 weeks is plenty of time to decide if you ar ereally ready to have the kid or not.

Dude we agree. Readl my posts I am wholly against partial birth abortion, unless the mother's life is at risk.

Tabris · 08-18-2005, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabris

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Quote:

Originally Posted by dan1088352

but a lump of canser will never become a human, has no thoughts and can not feel pain.

And neither will the fetus if we abort it...

That's the whole point...

Indeed it won't, until the thing develops a nervous system. I haven't watched the video, but what are they doing? I'm 100% against abortions that are PBA, with snipping the spinal cord and all that fun stuff. Within 2-3 months, you should damn well already know if you're gonna keep the baby or not, and abort then, before it is capable of feeling pain.

Tadpole, I remember you saying the baby has rights once it pops out of the woman's vagina. Does that still mean that an 8 and a half month baby has no rights? It's a fully formed human and is more than capable of living outside the womb, even though it's still inside.

My only stance on abortion is that they should be allowed for any time within the first trimester. After that, the tissues are well on their way developing. To me, the baby is a person when the heart and brain form and begin operation. It happens sometime early in the second trimester, so why not just give mothers the whole first trimester?

They should have already thought long and hard about whether or not theywant to keep it. There's no reason for them to suddenly decide at 8 or 8 and a half months that she can't have it because it suddenly became inconvenient for some reason. 8 or 10 weeks is plenty of time to decide if you ar ereally ready to have the kid or not.

Dude we agree. Readl my posts I am wholly against partial birth abortion, unless the mother's life is at risk.

Alright, my mistake

. Same here. Sorryyyy

sgtdmski · 08-19-2005, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Actually, you're completely wrong. Hev said Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, thus it is the will of the people that it remains that way. The precedents set forth by the Plessy and Dred Scott cases WERE overturned, thus they were overturned because that was the will of the people. Obviously the people didn't just will these decisions to happen, but at some point or another, the collective will of the people influenced Dred Scott and Plessy to be overturned, just as the collective will of the people is keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned.

Once again, know your history. Brown v Board of Education (1954) which overturned Plessy was not welcomed with open arms, or have you forgotten that great Democratic Governor George Wallace's statement, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Dred Scott took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment. They were were far from the will of the people. The issue of abortion is just as divisive, except no longer is the division between North and South. The collective will of the people had nothing to do with the overturning of Plessy, read the Brown decision, the court relied upon psychological data. Plessy was overturned in spite of the fact that there was overwhelming pressure by the people to maintain the decision. THe court intrepretted the constitution and decided that under equality, the notion of seperate but equal could not exist. Plessy was overturned despite the will of the people. Hev's own statement was that it shouldn't be overturned because it is the will of the people, a very similiar argument used by southern racists in upholding the Plessy decision.

Know your history, know your facts, my statement is still accurate, and still correct. The notion that the will of the people is what is influencing the Court's decision is fallable. I used a historical demonstration of that argument, it happened to be regarding racism, but the parallels still apply and are accurate. Do I consider hev a racist, no, but I used that issue to show the fallacy of the argument used. Instead of realizing the accuracy of the argument, instead history is adjusted to fit the argument.

dmk

Tabris · 08-22-2005, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Actually, you're completely wrong. Hev said Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, thus it is the will of the people that it remains that way. The precedents set forth by the Plessy and Dred Scott cases WERE overturned, thus they were overturned because that was the will of the people. Obviously the people didn't just will these decisions to happen, but at some point or another, the collective will of the people influenced Dred Scott and Plessy to be overturned, just as the collective will of the people is keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned.

Once again, know your history. Brown v Board of Education (1954) which overturned Plessy was not welcomed with open arms, or have you forgotten that great Democratic Governor George Wallace's statement, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Dred Scott took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment. They were were far from the will of the people. The issue of abortion is just as divisive, except no longer is the division between North and South. The collective will of the people had nothing to do with the overturning of Plessy, read the Brown decision, the court relied upon psychological data. Plessy was overturned in spite of the fact that there was overwhelming pressure by the people to maintain the decision. THe court intrepretted the constitution and decided that under equality, the notion of seperate but equal could not exist. Plessy was overturned despite the will of the people. Hev's own statement was that it shouldn't be overturned because it is the will of the people, a very similiar argument used by southern racists in upholding the Plessy decision.

Know your history, know your facts, my statement is still accurate, and still correct. The notion that the will of the people is what is influencing the Court's decision is fallable. I used a historical demonstration of that argument, it happened to be regarding racism, but the parallels still apply and are accurate. Do I consider hev a racist, no, but I used that issue to show the fallacy of the argument used. Instead of realizing the accuracy of the argument, instead history is adjusted to fit the argument.

dmk

Good point.

RidinHighSpeeds · 08-22-2005, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Actually, you're completely wrong. Hev said Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, thus it is the will of the people that it remains that way. The precedents set forth by the Plessy and Dred Scott cases WERE overturned, thus they were overturned because that was the will of the people. Obviously the people didn't just will these decisions to happen, but at some point or another, the collective will of the people influenced Dred Scott and Plessy to be overturned, just as the collective will of the people is keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned.

Once again, know your history. Brown v Board of Education (1954) which overturned Plessy was not welcomed with open arms, or have you forgotten that great Democratic Governor George Wallace's statement, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Dred Scott took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment. They were were far from the will of the people. The issue of abortion is just as divisive, except no longer is the division between North and South. The collective will of the people had nothing to do with the overturning of Plessy, read the Brown decision, the court relied upon psychological data. Plessy was overturned in spite of the fact that there was overwhelming pressure by the people to maintain the decision. THe court intrepretted the constitution and decided that under equality, the notion of seperate but equal could not exist. Plessy was overturned despite the will of the people. Hev's own statement was that it shouldn't be overturned because it is the will of the people, a very similiar argument used by southern racists in upholding the Plessy decision.

Know your history, know your facts, my statement is still accurate, and still correct. The notion that the will of the people is what is influencing the Court's decision is fallable. I used a historical demonstration of that argument, it happened to be regarding racism, but the parallels still apply and are accurate. Do I consider hev a racist, no, but I used that issue to show the fallacy of the argument used. Instead of realizing the accuracy of the argument, instead history is adjusted to fit the argument.

dmk

Ouch! That hurts

Wonder what the comeback is going to be like.

Tabris · 08-22-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Actually, you're completely wrong. Hev said Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, thus it is the will of the people that it remains that way. The precedents set forth by the Plessy and Dred Scott cases WERE overturned, thus they were overturned because that was the will of the people. Obviously the people didn't just will these decisions to happen, but at some point or another, the collective will of the people influenced Dred Scott and Plessy to be overturned, just as the collective will of the people is keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned.

Once again, know your history. Brown v Board of Education (1954) which overturned Plessy was not welcomed with open arms, or have you forgotten that great Democratic Governor George Wallace's statement, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Dred Scott took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment. They were were far from the will of the people. The issue of abortion is just as divisive, except no longer is the division between North and South. The collective will of the people had nothing to do with the overturning of Plessy, read the Brown decision, the court relied upon psychological data. Plessy was overturned in spite of the fact that there was overwhelming pressure by the people to maintain the decision. THe court intrepretted the constitution and decided that under equality, the notion of seperate but equal could not exist. Plessy was overturned despite the will of the people. Hev's own statement was that it shouldn't be overturned because it is the will of the people, a very similiar argument used by southern racists in upholding the Plessy decision.

Know your history, know your facts, my statement is still accurate, and still correct. The notion that the will of the people is what is influencing the Court's decision is fallable. I used a historical demonstration of that argument, it happened to be regarding racism, but the parallels still apply and are accurate. Do I consider hev a racist, no, but I used that issue to show the fallacy of the argument used. Instead of realizing the accuracy of the argument, instead history is adjusted to fit the argument.

dmk

Ouch! That hurts

Wonder what the comeback is going to be like.

:

ulls out Benelli:: No comeback. Argument's over now.

RidinHighSpeeds · 08-22-2005, 05:49 PM

Neeeeext

Tabris · 08-23-2005, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds

Neeeeext

Hehe

aMFliberal · 08-23-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Actually, you're completely wrong. Hev said Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, thus it is the will of the people that it remains that way. The precedents set forth by the Plessy and Dred Scott cases WERE overturned, thus they were overturned because that was the will of the people. Obviously the people didn't just will these decisions to happen, but at some point or another, the collective will of the people influenced Dred Scott and Plessy to be overturned, just as the collective will of the people is keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned.

Once again, know your history. Brown v Board of Education (1954) which overturned Plessy was not welcomed with open arms, or have you forgotten that great Democratic Governor George Wallace's statement, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Dred Scott took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment. They were were far from the will of the people. The issue of abortion is just as divisive, except no longer is the division between North and South. The collective will of the people had nothing to do with the overturning of Plessy, read the Brown decision, the court relied upon psychological data. Plessy was overturned in spite of the fact that there was overwhelming pressure by the people to maintain the decision. THe court intrepretted the constitution and decided that under equality, the notion of seperate but equal could not exist. Plessy was overturned despite the will of the people. Hev's own statement was that it shouldn't be overturned because it is the will of the people, a very similiar argument used by southern racists in upholding the Plessy decision.

Know your history, know your facts, my statement is still accurate, and still correct. The notion that the will of the people is what is influencing the Court's decision is fallable. I used a historical demonstration of that argument, it happened to be regarding racism, but the parallels still apply and are accurate. Do I consider hev a racist, no, but I used that issue to show the fallacy of the argument used. Instead of realizing the accuracy of the argument, instead history is adjusted to fit the argument.

dmk

Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, you're still incorrect.

I don't need big fancy words and long explanations for a comeback, it's plain and simple in this case.

Tabris · 08-24-2005, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

Actually, you're completely wrong. Hev said Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, thus it is the will of the people that it remains that way. The precedents set forth by the Plessy and Dred Scott cases WERE overturned, thus they were overturned because that was the will of the people. Obviously the people didn't just will these decisions to happen, but at some point or another, the collective will of the people influenced Dred Scott and Plessy to be overturned, just as the collective will of the people is keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned.

Once again, know your history. Brown v Board of Education (1954) which overturned Plessy was not welcomed with open arms, or have you forgotten that great Democratic Governor George Wallace's statement, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Dred Scott took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment. They were were far from the will of the people. The issue of abortion is just as divisive, except no longer is the division between North and South. The collective will of the people had nothing to do with the overturning of Plessy, read the Brown decision, the court relied upon psychological data. Plessy was overturned in spite of the fact that there was overwhelming pressure by the people to maintain the decision. THe court intrepretted the constitution and decided that under equality, the notion of seperate but equal could not exist. Plessy was overturned despite the will of the people. Hev's own statement was that it shouldn't be overturned because it is the will of the people, a very similiar argument used by southern racists in upholding the Plessy decision.

Know your history, know your facts, my statement is still accurate, and still correct. The notion that the will of the people is what is influencing the Court's decision is fallable. I used a historical demonstration of that argument, it happened to be regarding racism, but the parallels still apply and are accurate. Do I consider hev a racist, no, but I used that issue to show the fallacy of the argument used. Instead of realizing the accuracy of the argument, instead history is adjusted to fit the argument.

dmk

Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, you're still incorrect.

I don't need big fancy words and long explanations for a comeback, it's plain and simple in this case.

Eh, you don't necessarily need the majority of the people to do it. The whole idea being that their representatives *should* vote on their behalf, but often vote on their own behalf (both sides). A direct vote to every American that's eligible would be preferable, but extremely unlikely. Roberts striking down of Roe would free up the issue for each state to put the votes to their citizens. Let the will of the people of each state figure themselves out. While the majority very well may be pro-choice, the majority of a state like Texas would be pro-life.

08-22-2005, 05:49 PM		#77 (permalink)
	RidinHighSpeeds Website Owner Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Gender: Posts: 5,514 Country: Thanks: 12 Thanked 74 Times in 64 Posts	Neeeeext Networked Web Sites Jon-Kingsbury.com DefendingTheTruth UML Forums

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode