Page 27 of 37 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 675 of 913

Thread: Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?

  1. #651
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Lutz was the one who started it, Persian. See his post dated the 10th at 4:13.

    He made the comment to try to convince me that the Republicans were gaining support due to the tough abortion laws, I didn't believe him, and he pretty much dared me to "disprove it".

  2. #652
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Evil Scumbags, Inc.
    Posts
    1,121

    Default

    Maedar, you are just as bad, if not worse, in every thread the two of you post in. I don't care who started it. I just want to know why it's valid to the discussion of the morality of abortion. Because I'd really hate to see you two get yet another thread closed.

  3. #653
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Pro-birth people are absolutely the most selfish human beings I've ever met. They're not pro-life, they're pro-birth, because they don't give a **** about the child after it's born.

    If you're going to force women to have children, because you believe that growth in their body is a baby, then you should pay for the child after it's born. Give the women some money, some food to help support their child. Pro-birth people only care for the unborn baby, they see the baby as SOL after it's born. That's not pro-life dudes, that's just selfish.
    There are so many children in adoption agencies. Why fill this world with more unwanted children?
    Pregnancy is extremely painful and can damage a woman's health permanently after they give birth. I've seen it happen enough times in my life.. and it can even kill the woman. Why force them into something like that when they want to have a higher chance of being a healthy individual? That's just selfish.

    Something that happened also in my life, is my parents didn't want to have children, so they beat the **** out of my siblings until they permanently became disabled, and I'm not even trolling. It was just the christian thing to do to have children even if you did't want them.

    Each person is entitled to their own beliefs. If you believe that a child is a child when the sperm enters the egg, or even before it's born, that's cool-- you can have the child, your wife can have the child, your girlfriend can have the child-- that's cool. It is -your- opinion though. If something is not proven, it should never be force onto someone else, and the belief that it's okay to force your opinions on other's is horribly illogical.

    Also, I've had an abortion before. It was a wonderful experience. Since I was a child, I told myself that I never wanted kids.. and yeah I ended up getting pregnant and having an abortion. Being pregnant was like having cancer... it makes you feel like you're dying. No way in **** I'm going to let a growth cause me pain and destroy my body.

    Also you can't argue that if you don't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have sex. Sorry, it's going to happen. It's just the circle of life. Live with it.

    And another thing, if abortions are outlawed, it's not going to stop abortions. People -will- find ways to miscarriage, and it won't be pretty-- and if they don't miscarriage, than they would probably do so many things to their body their baby when born would lose all brain functions. People find ways around anything, and everything that's "outlawed." So yeah either keep abortions legal, or have more dead women, miscarriages, and retarded children born with horrible brain trauma. Pick your choice.

  4. #654
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    If a child or parent is at risk of severe health problems, or cannot be supported then it's perfectly acceptable. Also if it's a result of rape. That's the moral part.

    The personal part, if it's an unwanted pregnancy and a conscious decision is made by both parents then that's their right. It's not a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyanyachan View Post
    Pro-birth people are absolutely the most selfish human beings I've ever met. They're not pro-life, they're pro-birth, because they don't give a **** about the child after it's born.
    That is so true. Don't see them offering to pay for the children.

  5. #655
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    By the way, the ACA complainers have been denied one of their demands, at least for now. It doesn't deal with abortion, but it's close:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4536754.html

    "The same as Jews being forced to eat pork". Right. I've been hearing this debate since 2008 and THAT one is the lamest excuse yet! These people will say anything to keep the rich happy.

  6. #656
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    By the way, the ACA complainers have been denied one of their demands, at least for now. It doesn't deal with abortion, but it's close:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4536754.html

    "The same as Jews being forced to eat pork". Right. I've been hearing this debate since 2008 and THAT one is the lamest excuse yet! These people will say anything to keep the rich happy.
    Nice that the Obama administration knows more about Catholosism than Catholic nuns do. But then why should I be surprised at how low they will sink

    One has to wonder considering who is involved in the case: why does the Obama administration hate The Little Sisters of the Poor?
    Last edited by BigLutz; 3rd January 2014 at 7:45 PM.

  7. #657
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    I find it interesting that a group of people bound by a vow of chastity are suddenly opposed to birth control.

    And by the way, let me quote the story for you so all can see it:

    The Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged, a very conservative group, in Denver, is the group that has challenged the law’s contraceptive-coverage mandate. This would make more sense if the nuns did not already have a way around the mandate: they just have to fill out a form saying the home has a religious mission and that they object to paying for contraceptives. The essence of their challenge is that, by saying so, they become complicit, enablers of sin—because then others will make sure that their employees have coverage.

    Their religious superior, Mother Loraine, claims that she cannot sign the forms because God does not want her to.

    The suggestion here is that birth control has such a dirtiness, such an innate sinfulness to it that even the formal and financial separation of religious employers from the coverage—they don’t manage it, they don’t pay for it, even though their employees get it—is insufficient.

    The nuns' petition said that to just fill out the form letting their insurer know they qualified so it could proceed was to “abandon their religious convictions and participate in the government’s system to distribute and subsidize contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs and devices.” It is worth noting that, according to the filing, fully half of the funds the nuns use to run their home, according to their filing, come “from government payments (chiefly Medicaid and Medicare) for the care they provide to the needy elderly.”

    Bottom line: What religious-affiliated groups like this one are insisting is that the women who work for them bear the economic cost for the "sin" they will commit in using these devices.
    So in other words, The Little Sisters of the Poor would rather hire lawyers and fight the government instead of... Fill out paperwork.

    IMOHO, Lutz, that is not "doing it on moral principals", it is being ridiculous. They are wasting more money on a doomed endeavor than they ever could save.

  8. #658
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    I find it interesting that a group of people bound by a vow of chastity are suddenly opposed to birth control.

    And by the way, let me quote the story for you so all can see it:

    So in other words, The Little Sisters of the Poor would rather hire lawyers and fight the government instead of... Fill out paperwork.

    IMOHO, Lutz, that is not "doing it on moral principals", it is being ridiculous. They are wasting more money on a doomed endeavor than they ever could save.
    Yes how dare a group of nuns violate their religious principles for Obama's pet program don't they know Obama is more important? This is a stupid PR disaster in the making for the Obama Administration in which there is no way for them to win

  9. #659
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Do I have to repeat why they have no case again? I think I will:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    It's there in black and white. And I saw it with my own eyes when I visited DC.

    So to everyone who says that the religious institutions can defy federal law, I say, "Shut it."

  10. #660
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Do I have to repeat why they have no case again? I think I will:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    It's there in black and white. And I saw it with my own eyes when I visited DC.

    So to everyone who says that the religious institutions can defy federal law, I say, "Shut it."
    You do realize there is Supreme Court precise that a law cannot violate a person or groups religious principle unless there is a overriding need like taxes. So since birth control is so widely available it doesn't meet such a need and thus cannot be imposed on the little sisters

  11. #661
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    The Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the law.

    That part is covered in Article III.

    The current Supreme Court says the ACA is legal and that the President is right. so again, to all who say otherwise, Shut it.

  12. #662
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    The Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the law.

    That part is covered in Article III.
    It was the Supreme Court in 1993 I believe that set up the qualifications of burden of which this doesn't meet

    The current Supreme Court says the ACA is legal and that the President is right. so again, to all who say otherwise, Shut it.
    The Supreme Court said the law's penalty can be used as a tax that does not act as a blanket for everything in the law

  13. #663
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLutz View Post
    The Supreme Court said the law's penalty can be used as a tax that does not act as a blanket for everything in the law
    Which brings me back to my original point. That might have actually aided institutions like these nuns who object on religious grounds, because they can simply spend fifteen minutes filling out paperwork, and they'll be exempt. But no, they have to use lawyers to challenge the whole law on a national level.

  14. #664
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Which brings me back to my original point. That might have actually aided institutions like these nuns who object on religious grounds, because they can simply spend fifteen minutes filling out paperwork, and they'll be exempt. But no, they have to use lawyers to challenge the whole law on a national level.
    Did you ever stop to ask why they are not signing it? By signing it, the form automatically authorizes third party insurance companies to provide birth control to the employees if requested, thus by signing it they are complicit in the spread of birth control, something against their religious views. Furthermore the form they must sign has it's problems.

    "However, the HHS definition of a church group in relation to the “compromise” is also at issue. That definition required the groups to primarily employ members of their own faith, and to primarily serve members of their own faith. The Little Sisters of the Poor do not discriminate in their service to the community, which is another issue that courts will have to decide. "

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/0...bunch-of-nuns/

  15. #665
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    I know exactly why they are signing it.

    Like everyone who voted for Mr. Obama, they are too egotistical to admit defeat, and will go broke before doing so, no matter how infinitesimally small their chances are, how much this is costing the GOP the women's and minority vote, and how foolish this is making the Republican Party.

    They want to be seen as martyrs, even though in this day and age, that doesn't work. Like all ultra-conservatives, they were born in the wrong century, and think that changing the entire country is easier than trying to adapt themselves.

    I'd call people like this old fashioned curmudgeons who refuse to accept the modern world, but the thing is, that also describes the Amish, and they're pretty nice people who pursue things the Republicans seem to reject: peace and tolerance.

    And don't bring up the word "compromise". That's what the Republicans have been refusing to do since 2008. They're only screaming that they want it now because the ACA is working and they're losing.

  16. #666
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    I know exactly why they are signing it.

    Like everyone who voted for Mr. Obama, they are too egotistical to admit defeat, and will go broke before doing so, no matter how infinitesimally small their chances are, how much this is costing the GOP the women's and minority vote, and how foolish this is making the Republican Party.

    They want to be seen as martyrs, even though in this day and age, that doesn't work. Like all ultra-conservatives, they were born in the wrong century, and think that changing the entire country is easier than trying to adapt themselves.

    I'd call people like this old fashioned curmudgeons who refuse to accept the modern world, but the thing is, that also describes the Amish, and they're pretty nice people who pursue things the Republicans seem to reject: peace and tolerance.
    Yeah.. because when I think of Catholic Nuns who's sole purpose is to help the poor and elderly, I think of egocentric political trolls who reject peace and tolerance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    They're only screaming that they want it now because the ACA is working and they're losing.
    Dude c'mon I am eating lunch here! Stop trying to make me laugh in a thread about abortion! That is just cruel!
    Last edited by BigLutz; 3rd January 2014 at 9:57 PM.

  17. #667
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    By the way, the ACA complainers have been denied one of their demands, at least for now. It doesn't deal with abortion, but it's close:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4536754.html

    "The same as Jews being forced to eat pork". Right. I've been hearing this debate since 2008 and THAT one is the lamest excuse yet! These people will say anything to keep the rich happy.
    What were the ACA complainers denied? Seems like they got their temporary injunction.

    Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted the nonprofits a temporary injunction late Tuesday, just hours before the mandate was set to take effect, and asked the government to respond by Friday. It isn't clear when Sotomayor or the rest of the court will rule on whether to extend the injunction as the case is appealed.
    Bolded and underlined relevant portion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Do I have to repeat why they have no case again? I think I will:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    It's there in black and white. And I saw it with my own eyes when I visited DC.

    So to everyone who says that the religious institutions can defy federal law, I say, "Shut it."
    Forcing birth control mandates on some people is a violation of the free exercise of their religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    I know exactly why they are signing it.

    Like everyone who voted for Mr. Obama, they are too egotistical to admit defeat, and will go broke before doing so, no matter how infinitesimally small their chances are, how much this is costing the GOP the women's and minority vote, and how foolish this is making the Republican Party.
    Are you calling Obama supporters egotistical or did you leave a word out or use the wrong word?

    They want to be seen as martyrs, even though in this day and age, that doesn't work. Like all ultra-conservatives, they were born in the wrong century, and think that changing the entire country is easier than trying to adapt themselves.
    Same could be said of the liberals trying to make themselves into martyrs.

    I'd call people like this old fashioned curmudgeons who refuse to accept the modern world, but the thing is, that also describes the Amish, and they're pretty nice people who pursue things the Republicans seem to reject: peace and tolerance.
    Weren't some Amish put into jail for engaging in violence? And what was that you said about people trying to act as if one group was one big conglomerate?

    And don't bring up the word "compromise". That's what the Republicans have been refusing to do since 2008. They're only screaming that they want it now because the ACA is working and they're losing.
    Plenty of examples were given in the Politics thread about compromise attempts. And the ACA working? Really? What news sources are you reading?
    Last edited by LDSman; 4th January 2014 at 12:01 AM.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  18. #668
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Forcing birth control mandates on some people is a violation of the free exercise of their religion.
    It also gives us freedom from religion. That's the part most people miss. By trying to overturn this part of the law, rather than just signing the papers, they are trying to force their religion on us.

  19. #669
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    It also gives us freedom from religion. That's the part most people miss. By trying to overturn this part of the law, rather than just signing the papers, they are trying to force their religion on us.
    Where exactly are you getting the idea that they want to overturn the law?

  20. #670
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    It also gives us freedom from religion. That's the part most people miss. By trying to overturn this part of the law, rather than just signing the papers, they are trying to force their religion on us.
    Not wanting to pay for someone else's birth control is forcing their religion on them? What did they do before this disaster of a bill?

    And any response to the rest of my reply?

    edit: Changed to be generic. Obviously some people had it covered under their insurance or didn't need it.
    Last edited by LDSman; 4th January 2014 at 12:22 AM.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  21. #671
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Okay, here's the problem. You object to a law because it's against your religion. Do you:

    A. Sign papers so that you'll be exempt from the law, costing you nothing.

    OR

    B. Hire lawyers, spend a fortune to take the U.S. Government to court and try to overturn the law of the land in a case you can't possibly win, and end up being forced to abide by the law after losing and wasting the fortune.

    Most sane people would have chosen option A.

  22. #672
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Okay, here's the problem. You object to a law because it's against your religion. Do you:

    A. Sign papers so that you'll be exempt from the law, costing you nothing.

    OR

    B. Hire lawyers, spend a fortune to take the U.S. Government to court and try to overturn the law of the land in a case you can't possibly win, and end up being forced to abide by the law after losing and wasting the fortune.

    Most sane people would have chosen option A.
    Problem is you are not correctly portraying what A is

    Option A: Sign the papers in which would allow any member to take said papers to a third party insurance agency and get birth control from them, thus making your signature a defacto gift of birth control.

    It's like having a church hand out tickets that say "One free birth control from your drug store"

  23. #673
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    So you admit that these nuns want to force their religious beliefs on their employees

    Again, we return to the First Amendment. What they want is unconstitutional. Period.

  24. #674
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    Okay, here's the problem. You object to a law because it's against your religion. Do you:

    A. Sign papers so that you'll be exempt from the law, costing you nothing.

    OR

    B. Hire lawyers, spend a fortune to take the U.S. Government to court and try to overturn the law of the land in a case you can't possibly win, and end up being forced to abide by the law after losing and wasting the fortune.

    Most sane people would have chosen option A.
    Picking A means you are still a party to what you object to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    So you admit that these nuns want to force their religious beliefs on their employees

    Again, we return to the First Amendment. What they want is unconstitutional. Period.
    Did they apply to work at that job knowing what that job entailed? Are they required to join that religion?

    They are not "forcing their religious beliefs on their employees." Their employees are still free to engage in whatever activity, buy whatever items they want, at their own expense, not their employers.

    Still waiting on a response to the rest of the earlier post.
    Last edited by LDSman; 4th January 2014 at 12:36 AM.
    Stand by for political rant that no one else really cares about.

    3DS friend code: 1650 1976 9524

    My FS type is Steel with Magneton, Forretress and Bronzong.

  25. #675
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Posts
    8,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maedar View Post
    So you admit that these nuns want to force their religious beliefs on their employees

    Again, we return to the First Amendment. What they want is unconstitutional. Period.
    No, as by signing the paper and thus giving defacto release of abortion pills it is in violation of their faith, making the paper unconstitutional to sign. They are not forcing their religious beliefs on their employees, as birth control can be obtained easily outside of insurance provided by them. And seeing how Birth Control pills are so widely available the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should force the court to side with the nuns.
    Last edited by BigLutz; 4th January 2014 at 12:40 AM.

Page 27 of 37 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728293031 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •