Reading This Now
-
I still don't get it. What are you talking about? You think it's good for women to sleep around and simply "eliminate" the consquence? This applies to men too, since men require women to sleep around with.
espeir wrote:
I still don't get it. What are you talking about? You think it's good for women to sleep around and simply "eliminate" the consquence? This applies to men too, since men require women to sleep around with.
Exactly! So now we are back at my orignal question to which you have not reponded:
led mike wrote:
Question: You would like to seriously effect this issue… so how many orphaned kids do you spend your time working with? You know become a "Positive" force in there life so they might not grow up to duplicate the problem.
led mike
-
espeir wrote:
I still don't get it. What are you talking about? You think it's good for women to sleep around and simply "eliminate" the consquence? This applies to men too, since men require women to sleep around with.
Exactly! So now we are back at my orignal question to which you have not reponded:
led mike wrote:
Question: You would like to seriously effect this issue… so how many orphaned kids do you spend your time working with? You know become a "Positive" force in there life so they might not grow up to duplicate the problem.
led mike
We don't have orphaned kids anymore. They've all been slaughtered. The few that remain are adopted into homes. There was a time when there were many orphans who grew up to be wealthy contributors to society. Now their chances at life are destroyed before they have a chance. But if there were any orphanges around, I would definately consider them a very worthy cause for contribution.
-
We don't have orphaned kids anymore. They've all been slaughtered. The few that remain are adopted into homes. There was a time when there were many orphans who grew up to be wealthy contributors to society. Now their chances at life are destroyed before they have a chance. But if there were any orphanges around, I would definately consider them a very worthy cause for contribution.
-
So ... that would be a "no". Whew ... that was like pulling teeth out of a raving lunatic. :laugh: That proved way too difficult... I am submerging back into silent mode again. :suss: led mike
Uh...Pulling teeth? You asked me if I volunteer at places that don't exist. :~ Stay in silent mode. You make more sense that way.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote:
I agree; it's a difficult issue. How would you resolve it?
By giving states back their constitutional right to outlaw abortion.
espeir wrote:
By giving states back their constitutional right to outlaw abortion.
That would not resolve it. That would just get the government involved. X|
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
-
Uh...Pulling teeth? You asked me if I volunteer at places that don't exist. :~ Stay in silent mode. You make more sense that way.
-
espeir wrote:
You asked me if I volunteer at places that don't exist.
What places did I ask about? None! Lame attempt at avoiding the gaping hole in your approach to this particular issue. X| led mike
Sorry, I was thinking you said "orphanages" but you said "orphaned kids". Let me correct myself. There aren't orphans anymore because they've all been slaughtered. There are also no more orphanages because the orphans have all been slaughtered. There are also long waiting lists for the few children who actually get to be born. So what's your point again?
-
Sorry, I was thinking you said "orphanages" but you said "orphaned kids". Let me correct myself. There aren't orphans anymore because they've all been slaughtered. There are also no more orphanages because the orphans have all been slaughtered. There are also long waiting lists for the few children who actually get to be born. So what's your point again?
:omg: How wrong can one person be... According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are 532,698 children in the U.S. foster care system. Of those, 116,000 want to be adopted. http://www.iachildren.org/[^]
espeir wrote:
So what's your point again?
My point is that it's contradictory for a "Pro Life" stance to end at birth. I mean if a person is only concerned with the life of others until birth then that makes the claim of "Pro Life" insincere. A person that was sincerely concerned about life would surely be involved helping others in any way that one could find to accomplish that. So my question was aiming to clarify for me what your particular brand of concern is. Does that help? led mike
-
Thomas George wrote:
How do you debate? Brand everyone names, and not discuss the actual issues? You keep saying that whatever I say is an argument of the left, and later gives no valid reason why despite all the support, the political system in your country cannot deliver what the people want. You keep telling me that the judicial system in your country is fucked up, and no one wants to fix it -- although everyone wants it fixed. Apparently, those are some weak or indifferent people that you guys vote for!
I didn't call you any names. Actually for the first time in many years, the judicial system has been populated with constitional literalists (i.e. judges who actually interpret the law instead of making it up...go figure), so we're expecting change. It was a long journey as we conservatives had to fight to gain control of both branches of government since liberals will veto any qualified judge if that judge is not also liberal.
Thomas George wrote:
If the courts override bills that are passed, there is something unconstitutional about it, if none of the politicians are willing to take it up. As I understand, most politicians do not see the abortion issue as more important than partisan politics.
I don't think you're understanding what I said. Judges do not have to base their decision on any literal text. We had a string of judges that decided their personal opinion was more important than the law. It does not mean there is anything contrary to the constitution in the law. In fact I challenge you and anybody here to point out the text of our constitution that restricts states from passing anti-abortion laws.
Thomas George wrote:
It is amazing that when such a large majority in your country supports the "pro life" case (as you suggest), you cannot get enough people in the legislature to amend the constitution to give unborn babies the same rights as a born human being. I think that the concerted propoganda argument is silly. People either support something or they don't. I did not see as widespread a support for anti-abortion when I was in US. In India, I see a higher support for the cause -- aithough the government has let the medical ethics committee decide on a code of conduct for doctors, when they perform abortion. i.e., they are allowed to perform abortion only in certain situations.
Actually now it's split down the middle
espeir wrote:
but right now I'm focusing on your desires to subvert democracy to ensure your personal agenda is inflicted on an unwilling public.
Amazing. I did not inflict anything on anyone. I just stated my opinion. Now, you might say that my opinion does not matter. It does, because it seems to be shared by many in your country also. As you said previously, my desires hold water only if it has enough support. It seems that neither your position nor my position has enough support in the law making bodies. Hence the intense focus on judge appointments.
espeir wrote:
We had a string of judges that decided their personal opinion was more important than the law.
What would the law makers do if the panel of judges made murder legal? Would you want an immediate legislation, or trivialize the issue and wait 23 years to balance the judge majority in favour of your position? You compared abortion to murder. The decision came in 1973. You claim overwhelming public support. Yet, the law making bodies could not amend the constitution. You are imagining the support -- the public is divided.
espeir wrote:
When people are told that abortion is a "medical procedure", it desensetizes them to its true nature.
Would the same thing happen, a propoganda started that "muder is a medical procedure". Propoganda has been intense from both sides, and people are divided on the issue.
espeir wrote:
There is no constitutional text that guarantees abortion is a constitutionally protected right. That's a fact. Prove me wrong if you think otherwise.
The justice system in your country made an incorrect interpretation of the constitution, according to you. I am not informed enough to make that judgement. Since even the appointment of judges have been hotly contested based on this issue, I don't think that the overwhelming public support for "no abortion in any case" exists. That is just imagination -- you probably don't count anyone who does not share conservative viewpoints.
espeir wrote:
No, it's actually the opinion of most legal scholars
Unfortunately, "most" legal scholars are not the judges. . . . and the attempt by both sides to take the "back door" by controlling judical appointments is pathetic. Ofcourse, it is a sign
-
L_u_r_k_e_r wrote:
Ahh hbut here lies a serious issue.
I agree; it's a difficult issue. How would you resolve it? I can see cases where the woman gets deliberately pregnant to tie up the father, if nothing else, for the child support money. And then, I can also see cases where the woman does not want the child, but the man is against aborting it for whatever reason. Although I wonder of those women who abort, how many let their partners in on the whole thing? Alvaro
The bible was written when people were even more stupid than they are today. Can you imagine that? - David Cross
Responsibility goes to the parent who wants the child if the other does not. Or EQUAL Parenting rights unlike the BS they hand out now where it goes to the lower income parent so the courts can get a lot of money by processing payments. The money they get is based on how much they collect.