Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roe v. Wade Is More Popular Than Ever. A Fact the Supreme Court Is Unlikely to Ignore.

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Roe v. Wade Is More Popular Than Ever. A Fact the Supreme Court Is Unlikely to Ignore.

    Linda Hirshman

    January 22, 2013 | 4:46 pm


    http://www.tnr.com/b...unlikely-ignore


    On this fortieth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in the abortion case, Roe v. Wade, a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 70 percent of U.S. adults support the decision, compared to 58 percent in 1989. That marks an all-time high. 2012 saw a huge number of abortion restrictions passed through state legislatures (though significantly less than 2011). But the feminist movement


  • #2

    yah but what about the fugly motorcycle and the fat bigot with a mustache? shrug

    Attached Files

    Comment


    • savoldi
      savoldi commented
      Editing a comment

      Zeopold wrote:

      yah but what about the fugly motorcycle and the fat bigot with a mustache? shrug


      THAT pretty much makes the argument FOR abortion.

      Attached Files

  • #3
    Government sanctioned murder is gaining in popularity everywhere.

    Comment


    • Opposite Day
      Opposite Day commented
      Editing a comment

      Move over Lady Gaga!


    • newbie chick
      newbie chick commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Government sanctioned murder is gaining in popularity everywhere.

      Abortion isn't murder and it wasn't murder before Roe v. Wade decision.

      I'll give a damn about a man's view of abortion when they start to get pregnant, but until then Id prefer that they STFU.

       

      Id prefer that the Vatican keep their opinions to themselves and their rosaries off of my ovaries.  


    • Mossy Mossy Moss
      Mossy Mossy Moss commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Government sanctioned murder is gaining in popularity everywhere.

       

      Abortion isn't murder. 


  • #4
    Newbie: If women would stop murdering their children, then those who understand that it is murder would shut up about it.

    Until then....shut the **************** up yourself.

    Comment


    • newbie chick
      newbie chick commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Newbie: If women would stop murdering their children, then those who understand that it is murder would shut up about it.

      Until then....shut the **************** up yourself.

      Abortion isn't murder.

       

       " Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law."


    • yanktar
      yanktar commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Newbie: If women would stop murdering their children, then those who understand that it is murder would shut up about it.

      Until then....shut the **************** up yourself.

      Classic!

      **************************** believes in the "Right to Life"---but only for the unborn.

      That "Right to Life" for 1st graders doesn't exist for him--HIS "right" to keep any kind of firearm, without any restriction, check, background check, and his "right" to carry it wherever he wants is more important to him than the RIGHT TO LIFE of children who HAVE been born!

      He's said it again and again and again. He doesn't give a flying **************** about murdered school children, only about "murdered" fetuses.

      Classic RWNT hypocrite.


    • Mossy Mossy Moss
      Mossy Mossy Moss commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Newbie: If women would stop murdering their children, then those who understand that it is murder would shut up about it.

      Until then....shut the **************** up yourself.

       

      Murdering children is a felony. Abortion isn't. 


  • #5
    Minning: that's what they are. Children.

    Comment


    • newbie chick
      newbie chick commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Minning: that's what they are. Children.

      A fetus is not a child.


    • Minning Around
      Minning Around commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Minning: that's what they are. Children.

      Fetuses become children when they are born. It's not that complicated.


    • Graeca
      Graeca commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Minning: that's what they are. Children.

       

      Is an egg a chicken, or mere a potential chicken?

      Think about it.


  • #6
    Newbie: Of course it is.

    Comment


    • newbie chick
      newbie chick commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Newbie: Of course it is.

      A fetus has the potential to be a child but it is not yet a child. You should have listened to your biology teacher in HS.


  • #7
    Newbie: call it a doohickey if you like. It's still a child.

    Comment


    • flemtone
      flemtone commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Newbie: call it a doohickey if you like. It's still a child.

      No. 

       

      An egg is not a chicken.


  • #8
    Newbie: Biology teachers aside...it's murder nonetheless.

    Comment


    • newbie chick
      newbie chick commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Newbie: Biology teachers aside...it's murder nonetheless.

      Abortion is not murder, despite your views.

       

      What happened to your previews statement that you were a libertarian, or are you now admitting to being a member of the TEAparty?


  • #9
    Yanktar: Conflating seems to be a specialty of yours.

    Comment


    • yanktar
      yanktar commented
      Editing a comment

      mauser wrote:
      Yanktar: Conflating seems to be a specialty of yours.

      Mauser:

      You cannot face your own hypocrisy.

      "Right to Life" for the unborn, but your gun "right" supecedes "Right to Life" for 1st graders--by your OWN words.

      Own it, don't try to weasel out of it.


  • #10
    Yanktar: There is no hypocrisy, as my owning a firearm doesn't violate anyone's right to life.

    Comment


    • #11
      Another: If you disagree that the unborn is human life with rights that should be protected, then we can disagree about that.....but lets not make the leap and claim that we're wanting to "tread" on women.

      That's nothing more than hyperbolic nonsense.

      Comment


      • Used2BMarkoh
        Used2BMarkoh commented
        Editing a comment

        mauser wrote:
        Another: If you disagree that the unborn is human life with rights that should be protected, then we can disagree about that.....but lets not make the leap and claim that we're wanting to "tread" on women.

        That's nothing more than hyperbolic nonsense.

        Yes, guido is right when he says we're all pro-choice.  Nobody thinks a woman should be forced to have a child.

        Why, I even think rape and incest should be illegal, and punished severely.

         


    • #12
      I agree with you. Unborn fetuses are not entitled to personhood status.
      _________________________________________________
      band websites:
      http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
      https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
      https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
      http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

      Comment


      • #13
        Markoh: no, the law us not about forcing people to do things with their own bodies against their will. It has never been about that. THAT'S the nightmare philosophy. And yes, it IS about absolute value because a STARK line is drawn regarding viability and the unique relationship I spoke of. There's no slippery slope there. No other place to go. That relationship exists nowhere else in nature.
        _________________________________________________
        band websites:
        http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
        https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
        https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
        http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

        Comment


        • #14
          Asking the government???? Nonsense. It's about having an individual right to do with your own body as you choose. It's about the government staying OUT of it. Not of asking them to do anything for you.
          _________________________________________________
          band websites:
          http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
          https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
          https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
          http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

          Comment


          • Used2BMarkoh
            Used2BMarkoh commented
            Editing a comment

            guido61 wrote:
            Asking the government???? Nonsense. It's about having an individual right to do with your own body as you choose. It's about the government staying OUT of it. Not of asking them to do anything for you.

            No, abortions are rarely self-administered.  It is very much a public policy issue.  Aren't you the guy calling for intellectual integrity here?  You blow off intellect as well as morality, we've definitely got nothing left.

            And one last time on law and government (dang, I'm patient!) - what would law be about, if not what one does with one's body?  Are thoughts illegal?  No, it's actions, and actions are done by one's body.  Law is a matter of telling a person what they must or must not do, and you do with your body.  I think this is part of being a lib, not thinking about what the essential purpose of law and government really is.

             


        • #15
          Markoh: of course they aren't self administered. That's irrelevant. It's a private procedure. It's not the government forcing anyone to do anything. It's YOU who wants to have the government force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will. You're completely turning the argument around backwards so you can continue to have one

          Yes. Lets be intellectually honest here. Laws are not about what one can do with and to their own body. You're twisting and stretching your argument further and further

          We agree as to what an unviable fetus is. We disagree as to what authority the mother has over it. You want the government to tell her what she can and cannot do regarding it. I do not. You think it's immoral to allow her to have that control. I do not. Well never convince the other to shift their position on the morality. As far as which position wins legally? If you are honest about your moral absolute position you lose by a HUGE margin.
          _________________________________________________
          band websites:
          http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
          https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
          https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
          http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

          Comment


          • Used2BMarkoh
            Used2BMarkoh commented
            Editing a comment

            guido61 wrote:
            ... Laws are not about what one can do with and to their own body.
            Yeah, and you also know you're being intellectually dishonest in that the fetus is not her own body. Standard talking point stuff here, always and forever. So you won't admit the broad principle of law and you fudge your particular instance. As Click and Clack would say, "boooo-oooo-oooo-ooo-gus!"
            You want the government to tell her what she can and cannot do regarding it.
            Well, actually, I didn't say what the government should do. I specifically said I was focusing on the moral question. (And, yes, I said up front that would be impossible to do on here)


        Working...
        X