The Abortion Debate... (1 Viewer)

[Jezzabelle]

I didnt cut you down because you didnt say something amazingly stupid...


[/size]



haha submissive...pregant...uneducated...in the kitchen...good luck to you...please go back to the 1950s...no wait 1900s where you belong!...god fearing submissive wife!

what an age we live in

/slaps her forhead

you seem to forget that marriage involves two people. and in a Godly marriage the wife is instructed to submit to her husban (1 Peter) but the husband is called to honour and to lay down his life for his wife.

When each person in the relationship is fulfilling this role their is harmony.
here is an example (tho a rather silly one):

The husband says to the wife: "what would you like for dinner?"
and the wife says; "KFC?"
and the husband says; "I was thinking Pizza"
so the wife submits and says; "you choose"
and the husband says " ok, we'll have KFC then."

silly example, but my point is submissive does not equal being taken advantage of and abused...

 

[Jezzabelle]

lol well i dont think thats an example of being submissive in that the husband has submitted to the will of the husband.

You assume that all men honour their loves ones (clearly not the case...unless you live under a rock)

So um whats the difference between a godly marriage and an ungodly one?

and you seem to assume i think every women should be submissive regardless of her situation.

I am talking about CHRISTIAN MARRIAGES... so obviously, the guy i marry will be a guy who is a committed Christian and will honour me. hence no problems.

Godly marriage has God at the centre and the couple encourage each other in living a Godly life. They put God first and have a submissive/honouring relationship..

your carrying on like i want a BDSM relationship....

 

[Jezzabelle]

Why cant a non christian honour you? It is because he would not honour your god? You could never marry a non christian even if he loved you because he doesnt love your god?

he can. i just wouldnt marry him

I've been in enough nonchristian abusive relationships to make me learn the hard way why God is against nonchristian/christian marriage

 

[Jezzabelle]

if its any concellation... your other post was kind of showing a romantic side.... awww

 

[Lexicographer]

Asquithian,

I have never met an arts/law student that completely LACKS the ability to understand what he is reading. Then again, I know many lawyers who have the ability to read a piece of work and tell people that it is something totally different. So, either you'll make a brilliant lawyer or a piss-poor one.

In any case, I never said women don't know what's right or good for them, I said women do not have the right to take the life of another (their child). It has nothing to do with whether or not some random man (as you so delightfully painted me ) tells her what to do, it is an issue of human rights. Don't try to portray me as some mysoginist troglodyte when you can't argue with my statement directly.

Secondly, your situation of "a young girl who has made a mistake" is a very interesting. I would put forward that making one mistake (becoming pregnant before your time*) doesn't justify making another. It is plainly wrong to kill a child for the sole reason that you don't want it, especially considering the alternatives available and the numerous physiological and psychiatric afflictions that follow. Whether the child lives or dies is not your issue, as a mother you have a duty to this person, this child to care for him or her until (at the very least) it dies naturally or is born and you can offload it onto a more capable/loving person.

Lastly, it does not surprise me Tim that you have descended to the low of trying to personally insult me. Everyone is familiar with the standard reaction to running out of plausible arguments: try to chisel away the integrity, credibility or self esteem of the person against whom you are arguing. It also serves the convenient function of drawing attention away from your own faltering line. How delightful. Too bad it doesn't work on me (you bogan). At least I don't try to pick up schoolgirls off the internet.

*whatever you read that to mean, whether it be when you are too young, or unprepared, or simply unwilling to have a child.

 

[Jezzabelle]

what how shocking a non christian has a romantic side or has feelings ...and can show compassion wow what a shock...

i was talking about you, as the persona you portray on BoS, not making a generalisation of nonchristians. I have dated a few non christians and have expeienced love, compassion, care, protection from them all..
not everything i say is an attempt to wack you over the head with the Holy Bible

 

[Lexicographer]

No, Tim. This is a device known as irony. Another thing I wrongfully expected you to understand.

Honestly, you're almost as dumb as that Tully girl. I remember the days when you used to be worth replying to, seems those are gone.

 

[katie_tully]

No, Tim. This is a device known as irony. Another thing I wrongfully expected you to understand.

Honestly, you're almost as dumb as that Tully girl. I remember the days when you used to be worth replying to, seems those are gone.

Ouch.
However, I remember a person *cough lexicographer cough* stating that they wouldnever lower themselves to the level of using personal attacks. Gee, to be nearly as dumb as that Tully girl is quite a feat.

Fact of the matter is, just because YOU do not believe in abortion does not make it wrong. Nor does it give you the right to criticise anybody who has an abortion for whatever reason.
If you believe children should be born unwanted, with no father if that is the case, in poverty if the mother is from a low socioeconomical background or is young and uneducated then thats your decision. The government has no right imposing its moral views on the general public.

You remind me of that guy who shot a doctor outside an abortion clinic. Go take your extreme right for life view somewhere else, like a fucking hippy club maybe.

 

[LadyBec]

i vote both Lexicographer and Asquithian shut the fuck up.
Honestly, if the pair of you can't debate without lowering yourselves to personal insults, maybe you should do it elsewhere. This is supposed to be a debate of sorts, not your personal mudslinging competition.

 

[katie_tully]

no one owns a child you fuck.

Oh.. Sorry.. I just did a google search of hypocrisy.

 

[Lexicographer]

Actually, I said I'd never use it in place of a real argument, and criticised you for doing just that. In my post it was used to add humour rather than as a substitute to reason.

Fact of the matter is, just because certain people fail to recognise unborn children as people doesn't make them inhuman, and nobody has the right to take their lives away from them.

I am more saddened by those who abort their children than angered. However, I freely criticise those who would support the murder of indefensible children. There are far better ways to deal with the shortcomings of life than to simply destroy the evidence and move on.

What's more, the government IS the general public. They are the very people YOU choose to represent YOUR views. It is precisely their FUNCTION to enact laws and protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Hmm, now here's the killer. I'm trying to become a doctor, why would I want to shoot one? I don't see the point in ending yet another persons' life in the name of saving life, as there will always be more willingly aborting obstetricians to replace those shot (sort of like the killing of soldiers in Iraq really). What needs to change is the attitudes people have that lead them to kill their children.

Tim, when will you understand that it is not just one body involved here but two? There is the mother, and there is the child. Secondly, stop using your stupid generalisation of "slipping Australia back 50 years", you're as bad as John Howard convincing voters that a Labor government would ruin their precious economy. I don't consider the decriminalisation of abortion as progress at all. Yes, it came about with a number of other very progressive acts (gender equality in the workplace for example) but this in itself is not beneficial to anyone.

In a country where the birthrate continues to plummet and career-women realise the infertility nobody told them about twenty years ago, there is an abundance of people willing to adopt children. Why should the government spend so much trying to stimulate the birth rate with ridiculous "baby bonuses" when so many of these precious children are being ground up in tubes?

 

[Lexicographer]

i vote both Lexicographer and Asquithian shut the fuck up.
Honestly, if the pair of you can't debate without lowering yourselves to personal insults, maybe you should do it elsewhere. This is supposed to be a debate of sorts, not your personal mudslinging competition.

LadyBec, you weren't here at the time but we've done this before. Tim likes to bring in other (unrelated, personal) issues, I respond by making fun of his absurd personal insecurity (I don't even need to begin quoting posts from "Uni Crush" or the various photo threads) and he calls me an Ugly Catholic Virgin (despite only knowing the Catholic bit for sure).

Back in the good old days when we could put multiple quotes in the quick reply bar, I'd have a field day playing "dissect-a-post". Now I can't be bothered.

 

[LadyBec]

yes i called whoever it was a fuck. It's a little different when your entire post is an insult. Besides it wasn't a personal attack as such, there was nothing personal in it.
I really don't know why i bothered to justify myself... I am a hypocrit, at least i can admit it.

 

[Lexicographer]

If you expect me to post photographs of myself, or recount stories of sexual exploit, please hold your breath.

You won't die, but it'll be funny when you wake up.

 

[katie_tully]

Actually, I said I'd never use it in place of a real argument, and criticised you for doing just that. In my post it was used to add humour rather than as a substitute to reason.

Fact of the matter is, just because certain people fail to recognise unborn children as people doesn't make them inhuman, and nobody has the right to take their lives away from them.

I am more saddened by those who abort their children than angered. However, I freely criticise those who would support the murder of indefensible children. There are far better ways to deal with the shortcomings of life than to simply destroy the evidence and move on.

What's more, the government IS the general public. They are the very people YOU choose to represent YOUR views. It is precisely their FUNCTION to enact laws and protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Hmm, now here's the killer. I'm trying to become a doctor, why would I want to shoot one? I don't see the point in ending yet another persons' life in the name of saving life, as there will always be more willingly aborting obstetricians to replace those shot (sort of like the killing of soldiers in Iraq really). What needs to change is the attitudes people have that lead them to kill their children.

Tim, when will you understand that it is not just one body involved here but two? There is the mother, and there is the child. Secondly, stop using your stupid generalisation of "slipping Australia back 50 years", you're as bad as John Howard convincing voters that a Labor government would ruin their precious economy. I don't consider the decriminalisation of abortion as progress at all. Yes, it came about with a number of other very progressive acts (gender equality in the workplace for example) but this in itself is not beneficial to anyone.

In a country where the birthrate continues to plummet and career-women realise the infertility nobody told them about twenty years ago, there is an abundance of people willing to adopt children. Why should the government spend so much trying to stimulate the birth rate with ridiculous "baby bonuses" when so many of these precious children are being ground up in tubes?

1. Abortion is murder is not a view shared by every Australian. Just because that religious fuck of a politician thinks so, does not mean it's the view shared by everybody. And in a case like Abortion, where ultimately it is an individual decision, NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL A PERSON WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THEIR OWN BODY.

2. A fucktard rang Willesee up the other night saying Abortion is attributing to the decline in birth rate.
Go and fucking shoot yourselves you tools. 1. We have an aging population, therefore in comparison to our aging population, our birth rate appears to be declining.
A woman in her 30s, who has an abortion is NOT attributing to the decline. Especially if she already has children. Secondly, there are enough ORPHANS in the world who need to be adopted out, before people just start giving birth for the purpose of adopting out.
Thirdly, if the baby has a detected deformality, nobody is going to want to adopt it. Nor is it going to have a good quality of life. Hardly seems fair to me.

"It is precisely their FUNCTION to enact laws and protect those who cannot protect themselves."
Are you saying women who have an abortion do not have the competancy to protect themselves, or are not in a state to make rational decisions? Are you saying because the politician does not agree with abortion that it is in direct relation to the views shared by every Australian?
I think not.

 

[LadyBec]

LadyBec, you weren't here at the time but we've done this before. Tim likes to bring in other (unrelated, personal) issues, I respond by making fun of his absurd personal insecurity (I don't even need to begin quoting posts from "Uni Crush" or the various photo threads) and he calls me an Ugly Catholic Virgin (despite only knowing the Catholic bit for sure).

Back in the good old days when we could put multiple quotes in the quick reply bar, I'd have a field day playing "dissect-a-post". Now I can't be bothered.

doesn't that strike you as a little, well pointless? OK we all realise that you two don't like each other much, but do you really have to attack each other. Really, it's quite irritating when almost an entire post is dedicated to insulting each other.

 

[LadyBec]

1. Abortion is murder is not a view shared by every Australian. Just because that religious fuck of a politician thinks so, does not mean it's the view shared by everybody. And in a case like Abortion, where ultimately it is an individual decision, NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL A PERSON WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THEIR OWN BODY.

2. A fucktard rang Willesee up the other night saying Abortion is attributing to the decline in birth rate.
Go and fucking shoot yourselves you tools. 1. We have an aging population, therefore in comparison to our aging population, our birth rate appears to be declining.
A woman in her 30s, who has an abortion is NOT attributing to the decline. Especially if she already has children. Secondly, there are enough ORPHANS in the world who need to be adopted out, before people just start giving birth for the purpose of adopting out.
Thirdly, if the baby has a detected deformality, nobody is going to want to adopt it. Nor is it going to have a good quality of life. Hardly seems fair to me.

"It is precisely their FUNCTION to enact laws and protect those who cannot protect themselves."
Are you saying women who have an abortion do not have the competancy to protect themselves, or are not in a state to make rational decisions? Are you saying because the politician does not agree with abortion that it is in direct relation to the views shared by every Australian?
I think not.

*claps*
exactly. Just because a politition thinks something is so doesn't make it true. Nobody has the right to tell someone what to do with their own body. And no, i do not consider it to be two bodies.
The decline in bithrate could have something to do with the fact that we have an ageing population, there were more people in our parents generation then ours, more people=more babies. Aside from that i doubt abortions contribute to it, as many of them are by women who do want kids someday, just not right now.

 

[mayhemily]

Its probably been said already, but notice how the vast majority for anti-abortionists are men? chauvanistic bastards. I hate how they go on about the cost of abortions to the state. Uh, it costs a hell of a lot more for the country to raise an unwanted child for 18 years! Stupidity at its finest. Also religon and politics SHOULD NOT MIX. If I got pregnant, I would sure as hell have an abortion. Its the early, early stages of the joining of a sperm and and egg, and that is all as far as I am concerned. Separately, they die A LOT. Not much of a difference when just a few cells, usually smaller than a full stop.

 

[katie_tully]

Amen to that sister.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

There is alot of women that are anti-abortion...

Uh, it costs a hell of a lot more for the country to raise an unwanted child for 18 years!

That 'unwanted' child is merely speculation, there are many unwanted children who go on to live great lives and their parents usually take responsibility for them and look after them...
It costs the country alot of money when people don't support their own children.

Also religon and politics SHOULD NOT MIX. If I got pregnant, I would sure as hell have an abortion.

This is not a matter of religion.. i'm about as atheist as anyone. Yes, and it's your choice to have an abortion .. however at the moments abortions have fairly loose restrictions...

Not much of a difference when just a few cells, usually smaller than a full stop.

By 12 weeks they have recognisable human parts, a beating heart and they move around.