Abortion debate (2 Viewers)

[Phanatical]

What, so I should adopt an affirmative action rule that says that at least 50% of my friends must be women?

 

[katie_tully]

Yes.

 

[ur_inner_child]

What, so I should adopt an affirmative action rule that says that at least 50% of my friends must be women?

just being a bitch andrew....

 

[ameh]

uic: were you at oxford st a few days ago?

 

[crazyhomo]

and i should add that my views of how gov't should deal with it is drastically different from my moral views on it, i just don't believe in gov't legislating morality.

ummm...that's what laws are for. they make a morality call on a certain action to decide whether or not it is acceptable.

 

[crazyhomo]

In many cultures and religions, life begins at conception, and not birth. This happens to be a viewpoint I agree with.

No, I'm an atheist.

hey! me too! :hug:

 

[katie_tully]

He doesn't hate babies. He wants to conserve the babies. Aborting a feotus is like burying your 3 month old in the backayrd, it's MURDER!

 

[ur_inner_child]

uic: were you at oxford st a few days ago?

yeah i work there lol. until friday.

oh crap. you bosers and spotting me out...

 

[ameh]

Ok, well improve your posture when walking.

 

[sospecha]

The whole problem with this debate is there are people (so called pro-lifers) who believe that they can or should make decision for other people. That they should have a say over whether a person wants to have a child or not. Well i don't actually see how it has anything to do with you. if you fall pregnant then DON'T HAVE AN ABORTION!!! But i don't see how it is your right to decide what other people should do.

This debate seems to be more pro-choice vs. anti-choice. Anti-choice being the people who are so arrogant in thinking they can control other peoples actions, and that they have a responsiblility to society to stop women having a choice. the CHOICE whether or not they want the responsibilty to have a child.

suprisingly those among us who belive in freedom of choice, and the freedom to make your own decisions, don't acutally give a sh*t what you think or what you believe - you arrogant jerks.

 

[Phanatical]

It's not just a matter of saying that we (or our partners) shouldn't have abortions. The issue is that as people with consciences, pro-lifers equate abortion with murder, and can't stand by and watch people murdering people. Simplistic, but that's pretty much it.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Ok, well improve your posture when walking.

what other posture is appropriate when you hate work and you're currently working?

 

[ur_inner_child]

It's not just a matter of saying that we (or our partners) shouldn't have abortions. The issue is that as people with consciences, pro-lifers equate abortion with murder, and can't stand by and watch people murdering people. Simplistic, but that's pretty much it.

same deal when someone invades a country and sees their actions as barbaric. I suppose you know what's best for everyone. Like the way England knew what was best for India more than India knew what was best for itself...

 

[ogmzergrush]

It actually is that simple. You might abhor drinking, equate it with a mortal sin that damns someone to hell for eternity, but it's legal!

So are abortions. So just... y'know. Don't get them.

DAMN IT MAN, HE'S TRYING TO SAVE LIVES. LET HIM DO HIS WORK!

(lol)

 

[davin]

ummm...that's what laws are for. they make a morality call on a certain action to decide whether or not it is acceptable.

in my view, no, laws should be preventing you from doing harm to another or taking their property.
in other words, rape.....yeah, illegal. but consentual sex and then saying that guy is fiscally responsible for the outcome of the girls choice, thats simple morality, not protecting harm or property

 

[ameh]

the I have gigantic jugs and I'm proud posture.

 

[crazyhomo]

in my view, no, laws should be preventing you from doing harm to another or taking their property.

so the laws need to make a moral judgement on what constitutes harm. and then what the appropriate punishment is for the kind and extent of harm caused. the law even needs to morally define that property exists, and that objects can be considered a belonging of a person

these are all aspects of morality that have been decided upon by those in power to be written into law and enforced. they are not moral absolutes that exist everywhere. if they were laws would be the same everywhere and there would be no debate about them ever

 

[katie_tully]

Fuck I hate Tony Abbott. And Piers Ackerman. That guy is a cockfag. Anyway, are you all aware of Tony's new plans?

Now that the little sissy wench lost his veto power, he's trying to bypass abortion clinics by handing counselling services to Church groups.

</3 I am angry.

 

[erawamai]

Fuck I hate Tony Abbott. And Piers Ackerman. That guy is a cockfag. Anyway, are you all aware of Tony's new plans?

Try and forget that Ackerman exists. Buy the Sun Herald. Even though Miranda Devine is a bit loopy at times, she is no where near as annoyingly bias as Ackerman.

I read his article yesterday about abortion, at a friends house who hada copy of the Sun tele, and well, what can I say?

 

[katie_tully]

Usually I bypass columnists altogether, however I was captivated by the headlines "RU486 a tombstone in the debasement of human life".
I was rather impressed with Cardinal George Pell's use of emotive language. "Approving the importation and use of KILLER drug". He also refers to the current Parliament as "anti life".
Hahaha. A part of me is happy that this decision pisses these two off.