If You Hate Ladies & Are Scared of Muslims, You'll Love North Carolina

[BaalsTears]

Do you deny that convenience and sex selection are sometimes the grounds for abortion? Let's examine this subject.

Here we go again with the usual suspects being all 'holier-than-thou' over the abortion issue. Well, unless you want the govt legislating your vasectomy or passing a law on the when, where, and how you have sex I think you all ought to just STFU!!!! Your religion and morality is not mine nor is it anyone else's so keep the f*ck out of other people's private lives before those people start getting into yours with whatever silly, oppressive law they can come up with.

I don't understand why it is so hard for people to comprehend....If you are against abortion then don't choose to have one for you or your spouse (although the men on here might be shocked to find out that their wife can have one without needing their permission or ever informing them at all). Nobody is going to force abortion upon those who are against the procedure so why is it that those who are against it want to force women to not have one if they deem that their best option and choose to terminate.

I say it is nothing more than sheer arrogance on the part of the anti crowd and it is about time they come down to reality before the pro-choice group pass a law requiring vice-grips attached to the genitalia of anyone who tries to tell us what we can do with our own bodies.

Is convenience or sex selection legitimate grounds for an abortion from a moral standpoint?

 

[taxslave]

I don't understand how people put up with the way the US passes bills, etc. The fact that are never voting on one thing is insane. They are always tacking odd unrelated **** onto stuff. It just seems like a weird way to run it.

No different than ours. Just put forward in a different manner. Have a close look at some of the laws passed in Canada this way. Especially the budget bills.

 

[BaalsTears]

It ain't your life....you should just be happy with that!

I can dispute your right to tell anyone else what to do with their body endlessly. Problem is the 'devout' like yourself have no interest in listening to any kind of reason, you just want to force others to live by your level of morality and that is pure arrogance. Last time I checked that was one of the seven that guaranteed your one-way trip to hell.

I don't think you hate women, I think you hate yourself, that is why you want everyone else to conform to your idea of how we should live.

I think it's legitimate to address the moral legitimacy of abortions performed for convenience or for sex selection. I assume that everyone realizes that most fetuses aborted based on sex selection are females.

 

[Cliffy]

I think it's legitimate to address the moral legitimacy of abortions performed for convenience or for sex selection. I assume that everyone realizes that most fetuses aborted based on sex selection are females.

Do you live in China? I doubt that is true in the west.

 

[taxslave]

I'm more concerned with the life that is being needlessly taken. The woman's life is in no real danger the vast majority of the time.




It's only bullshyte because you can't dispute or justify it.

and I also love how the baby murdering scum try to equate pro life with hating women.

You really should have gone to school and got an education instead of of parroting the bile of a cult that is responsible for more murders and crimes against little kids throughout history than anyone else.

Do you deny that convenience and sex selection are sometimes the grounds for abortion? Let's examine this subject.


Is convenience or sex selection legitimate grounds for an abortion from a moral standpoint?

Moral or religious? And whose religion?
Gerry is against abortion because it might cut into the supply of little boys for his cult leaders.

 

[Cliffy]

Moral or religious? And whose religion?
Gerry is against abortion because it might cut into the supply of little boys for his cult leaders.

Woh! Did firing both barrels of that shotgun at once hurt?

 

[JLM]

That's what taxpayers are for. It is unfortunate that you find yourself in that socioeconomic position, had you stayed in school longer and become a banker you would have learned how to circumvent odious expense and spending the nations taxes wouldn't bother you at all.

Yep, that would solve a lot of problems if everyone in the world was a banker! -

Moral or religious? And whose religion?
Gerry is against abortion because it might cut into the supply of little boys for his cult leaders.

I'll back Gerry on that issue, I think he has valid concerns!

 

[taxslave]

Woh! Did firing both barrels of that shotgun at once hurt?

Nope. Not even a twinge. Just tired of the selfrightous hollyer than thou BS

 

[BaalsTears]

Do you live in China? I doubt that is true in the west.

It's occurring. Otherwise conservatives wouldn't have acted to proscribe the practice:

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Mosher12062011.pdf


And pro-choice groups wouldn't have felt compelled to respond:

A Problem-and-Solution Mismatch: Son Preference and Sex-Selective Abortion Bans

I think abortions for convenience or sex selection should be examined from a moral standpoint...not a legal or religious standpoint. I think those who favor such abortions should come forward to address the question of moral legitimacy and the issue of moral hazard.

...
Moral or religious? And whose religion?
Gerry is against abortion because it might cut into the supply of little boys for his cult leaders.

You folks are brutal.

I approach the subject out of moral curiousity. I'm an atheist so I don't approach the matter from any sense other than what strikes me as right and wrong.

I cannot support legal restrictions on abortion without breaking faith with my love for personal autonomy as a component of individual liberty.

That leaves morality as I construe it. In my moral universe one must be accountable for one's actions. Abortions for the sake of personal convenience and nothing more strike me as a flagrant abuse of personal autonomy by seeking to avoid accountability for one's actions in this life.

I don't think any one denies that a fetus is some form of life. Is it acceptable to terminate any life as a matter of convenience especially when that life might be human?

 

[Cliffy]

It's occurring. Otherwise conservatives wouldn't have acted to proscribe the practice:

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Mosher12062011.pdf


And pro-choice groups wouldn't have felt compelled to respond:

A Problem-and-Solution Mismatch: Son Preference and Sex-Selective Abortion Bans

I think abortions for convenience or sex selection should be examined from a moral standpoint...not a legal or religious standpoint. I think those who favor such abortions should come forward to address the question of moral legitimacy and the issue of moral hazard.

Again: whose morals? What are morals if they are not attached to some dogma or another? Morals are a religious conundrum. Natural law has no morals because morals are man made, just like their gods. In the end it is not up to us to judge others. If a person experiences guilt after an abortion, is that not enough retribution? Is it not common practice in our society to shirk our personal responsibilities by blaming gods, devils or anybody handy at the time?

 

[gerryh]

This "because of my religion" crap is getting tiresome. I am pro life. I don't believe that ANY human should kill any other human. You ignorant lot, are able to pick and choose and say it;s ok to kill this one, but it's not ok to kill that. Over all, you have a lust for blood. Something I find completely disgusting and repulsive.Ya's are no better, and in some cases worse, than animals.


For me, killing any human is wrong and no amount of "penance" would make it right.

and BTW, I have no control over what other Catholics do or don't do,so, bring up what other Catholics do means nothing to me personally.

 

[captain morgan]

often the people who are against abortion are also against birth control

and social assistance for single mums

Gotta link?

And most are white males who have no vested interest in the woman's life.

Link?

I heard an interview with an abortion doctor in New York (I believe) a few years back.

Sure ya did.

Why would I make stuff up when it is out there for anybody to look up.

Certainly not because it's a big steaming pile?

Show us.

He can't... But he can pretend really, really well

The Catholic church does frown upon contraception...or at least certain "types" of contraception.

I'm Catholic.. Not really been a practising one for a long time.

I have zero problems with OTC contraception.

Actually I'm angry that they have never developed a rewards program on the retail side... Cheap b*stards

 

[Omicron]

Evidently North Caolina is different from the south.

For me it was going to Charleston for a wedding.

Of course at the end I headed out and found myself in a karaoke bar, evidently dominated by blacks because they waltzed around the way if you've ever been in a bar dominated by natives.

I sang "Purple Raid" my way and got a cluch of white guys in the corner to cheer.

I stepped out on the street and... the background is that a guy in a plaid coat was kicked out by a Carolina cop for being too friendly to everyone, such that I saw him when I went for a smoke walking down that street looking back with frustrated wonder.

At that moment I noticed a tall white girl and a slighly short chinese girl nagging the cop who kicked him out.

Upon some swimming of my head I turned around and said

"Sir! By Canadian standards he was not acting out of line, *however* it must be stated you handled that so... cool"

Both the girls cheered.

Next thing I knew I was plowing myself through all parts of that party district in that state of mind, always finding myself being followed by that cop. At a certain point I was still basically aware of it being time to go home, whereupon a cab magically appeared to get me back to the hotel sharing the ride with someone else, with the driver being a black women, whereupon I offered her a $20 Canadian bill and asked for change, whereupon she put it up to the light and told me no, and I got home.

So next day I'm getting up and standing on a balcony overlooking a place down below which was said to be their police center, and another place beyond which was supposed to be a military accademy... I think they call it the Citadel... there down before my eyes... so high up was my hotel room...

All I said was (because I got home safe) "This place has it's **** together way more than it gets credit for", and from the cop station between the hotel and the Citidal came a cheer, which was freakily cooincidental, but which I have a female witness for. For all I know, for them a pot of coffee finally brewed.

 

[gerryh]

I can't wait to see Gerry's answer to this kind of stupid bullsh*t:roll:

what bullshyte in particular? This whole thread is full of bullshyte.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I think abortions for convenience or sex selection should be examined from a moral standpoint...not a legal or religious standpoint. I think those who favor such abortions should come forward to address the question of moral legitimacy and the issue of moral hazard.

While I am actually not in favor of abortion I will address the point you raise. First, who is to determine what morals we are to use and whether they are legitimate or not? Therein lies the biggest issue. My morals tell me to keep the f*ck out of other people's private business and personal choices so the only legitimacy required is that the person(s) making the choice are doing it within their own conscience. Any discussion of the moral legitimacy of another's choice is colored by your own morality and is therefore invalid as an argument against the decision that person may make. Does that answer your question?

I approach the subject out of moral curiousity. I'm an atheist so I don't approach the matter from any sense other than what strikes me as right and wrong.

I highlighted where your error is. Your version of right or wrong is not neccessarily the same as mine or anyone else's so it is not the measuring stick you should use in this debate.

I cannot support legal restrictions on abortion without breaking faith with my love for personal autonomy as a component of individual liberty.

Good, then stop trying to impose your morality on others.

That leaves morality as I construe it. In my moral universe one must be accountable for one's actions. Abortions for the sake of personal convenience and nothing more strike me as a flagrant abuse of personal autonomy by seeking to avoid accountability for one's actions in this life.

Once again I highlight where your error is. Your moral universe is not mine and nor should it be imposed upon me and vice-versa. What happens to one's body is a personal issue and choice and nobody's moral standards should ever be imposed upon another in such a fashion. When it is it equates to oppression in the worst way.

I think it's legitimate to address the moral legitimacy of abortions performed for convenience or for sex selection. I assume that everyone realizes that most fetuses aborted based on sex selection are females.

Once again the moral legitimacy you speak of is skewed to your personal values, therefore, while it may be legitimate to discuss it is not a valid argument either for or against abortion. The only people with any legitimate say in a termination in fact are the woman and her doctor....every other opinion is irrelevant and should be kept out of the issue.

This "because of my religion" crap is getting tiresome.

OK, it isn't about your religion, it is because you are an egotistical, arrogant moron who thinks your version of morality trumps everyone else's and you have some kind of imagined right to impose that morality upon all other humans on the planet.

Ya's are no better, and in some cases worse, than animals.

That is because we are animals (you included). Mammals of the primate phylum to be exact.;-)

 

[Cliffy]

Gotta link?

Link?

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/

 

[captain morgan]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/

I figured as much.

Thanks for coming out - lemme see if Vanna has a consolation prize somewhere around here for ya

 

[JLM]

My morals tell me to keep the f*ck out of other people's private business and personal choices so the only legitimacy required is that the person(s) making the choice are doing it within their own conscience.


.;-)

You're 99 44/100% right NIck. The only exception I can think of is where a helpless and defenseless being is involved.

 

[DaSleeper]

what bullshyte in particular? This whole thread is full of bullshyte.

Bingo!
Addendum:
While you don't believe in taking of life under any circumstance, which I disagree with but respect, I believe theoretically, of course, that I would do it only to protect myself or another human being; but not to protect an animal or property!

 

[BaalsTears]

Again: whose morals? What are morals if they are not attached to some dogma or another? Morals are a religious conundrum. Natural law has no morals because morals are man made, just like their gods. In the end it is not up to us to judge others. If a person experiences guilt after an abortion, is that not enough retribution? Is it not common practice in our society to shirk our personal responsibilities by blaming gods, devils or anybody handy at the time?

Do you have personal morals you operate under? Probably so. So let's use your moral standards as our reference. From that standpoint is an abortion morally legitimate if its sole purpose is for convenience or for sex selection.

While I am actually not in favor of abortion I will address the point you raise. First, who is to determine what morals we are to use and whether they are legitimate or not? Therein lies the biggest issue. My morals tell me to keep the f*ck out of other people's private business and personal choices so the only legitimacy required is that the person(s) making the choice are doing it within their own conscience. Any discussion of the moral legitimacy of another's choice is colored by your own morality and is therefore invalid as an argument against the decision that person may make. Does that answer your question?


I highlighted where your error is. Your version of right or wrong is not neccessarily the same as mine or anyone else's so it is not the measuring stick you should use in this debate.

Good, then stop trying to impose your morality on others.

Once again I highlight where your error is. Your moral universe is not mine and nor should it be imposed upon me and vice-versa. What happens to one's body is a personal issue and choice and nobody's moral standards should ever be imposed upon another in such a fashion. When it is it equates to oppression in the worst way.


Once again the moral legitimacy you speak of is skewed to your personal values, therefore, while it may be legitimate to discuss it is not a valid argument either for or against abortion. The only people with any legitimate say in a termination in fact are the woman and her doctor....every other opinion is irrelevant and should be kept out of the issue.


OK, it isn't about your religion, it is because you are an egotistical, arrogant moron who thinks your version of morality trumps everyone else's and you have some kind of imagined right to impose that morality upon all other humans on the planet.

That is because we are animals (you included). Mammals of the primate phylum to be exact.;-)

Let's use your personal moral standards and forget about mine. According to your personal moral standards do you hold the opinion that abortions performed for the sole purpose of convenience or sex selection are legitimate.

So now we will use you as a reference point. What say you?