Vote for McCain. See what happens to Roe v. Wade. See what happens to equal protection in the workplace, etc.

Any woman who has voted Democrat in the past would be doing herself a huge disservice voting for McCain.

meh. That's what everyone said about Bush ahead of the 2000 election. Roe v Wade didn't go anywhere with Bush in the White House for eight years, and I still can't grab ladies' tits at the workplace without getting in trouble.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh. That's what everyone said about Bush ahead
> of the 2000 election. Roe v Wade didn't go
> anywhere with Bush in the White House for eight
> years, and I still can't grab ladies' tits at the
> workplace without getting in trouble.


One more justice on the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade will be history. It may be "settled precedent," but Scalia and company will figure out some way that will allow states to ignore it. Personally, I don't care. But these 60-year-old broads will be bitching and screaming when that happens. Do you want to listen to them? I don't.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> meh. That's what everyone said about Bush ahead
> of the 2000 election. Roe v Wade didn't go
> anywhere with Bush in the White House for eight
> years, and I still can't grab ladies' tits at the
> workplace without getting in trouble.


Well...nothing happened eh! Well for the first time in history a medical procedure was declared illegal even if the procedure is needed to save a women's health. Whats that you say? Is that such a big deal? I guess not if you are a male.

A feamle member of the Supreme Court thought it was a big deal...

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged as much moments later, when she solemnly read a statement from the bench explaining her dissent.

The majority opinion, she told a stone-silent courtroom, "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

The FACT is women's rights are under attack her as they are in Muslim countries...they havent quite succeeded as well here...but just wait!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800710.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2008 09:05PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well...nothing happened eh! Well for the first
> time in history a medical procedure was declared
> illegal even if the procedure is needed to save a
> women's health. Whats that you say? Is that such
> a big deal? I guess not if you are a male.

Quote
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a Sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant

they banned that specific procedure, not others. seriously, that's just sick.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I personally despise abortion. I don't have a daughter, but if I did I would think carrying a baby nine months and giving it up for adoption would be a lot less traumatizing than having an abortion and thinking about it for the rest of your life.

That said, I don't like the direction Bush has taken this court and McCain has vowed to continue it. Any court that has justices like Scalia who say torture isn't cruel and unusual punishment because it is technically not being used as punishment is an invitation to forming a police state. If we have to scare these old bags into supporting Obama because of Roe v. Wade, so be it.

Feminism is dead, ladies. It has served its purpose. I, and most Americans, have no problem with a woman being president. Just as long as that woman isn't Hillary Clinton.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they banned that specific procedure, not others.
> seriously, that's just sick.

No matter what one's stance is on the legality of abortion is is hard to imagine how someone could bring themselves to perform such a macabre act. Who even thought it up? Oh well, as long as there are those who would do that, there will be idiots line Vince(1) defending it and saying that banning such a thing obviously equals throwing all American women into burqas.

Let's get the issue straight fellas...it isnt what anyone thinks about abortion...partial birth or otherwise. The issue is whether the government has the right to step in between an adult female and her doctor when an issue of the women's health is at stake. By the way...there are no such limits placed on any medical procedure offered to men...makes you wonder...especially when some of the "logic" associated with this issue involved how women are unfit to make these choices for themselves...and need society's help when it comes to her health issues.

http://www.slate.com/id/2164512/

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well...nothing happened eh! Well for the first
> > time in history a medical procedure was
> declared
> > illegal even if the procedure is needed to save
> a
> > women's health. Whats that you say? Is that
> such
> > a big deal? I guess not if you are a male.
>
> a partial-birth abortion -- an abortion in which a
> physician delivers an unborn child's body until
> only the head remains inside the womb, punctures
> the back of the child's skull with a Sharp
> instrument, and sucks the child's brains out
> before completing delivery of the dead infant
>
> they banned that specific procedure, not others.
> seriously, that's just sick.


You are one stupid person Gravis...it is the Republican Party's stated agenda to reverse Rowe vs Wade...send the abortion back to the states where neanderthals like you can pick women's right reproductive rights bit by bit. You would make a great Muslim Ayatollah.
>
>

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 01:53AM by Alias.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The issue is whether the government
> has the right to step in between an adult female
> and her doctor when an issue of the women's health
> is at stake.

actually there are many ways to perform an abortion and the partial birth one is sick.


Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are one stupid person Gravis...

and everyone who disagrees with you on anything, right?


> it is the Republican Party's stated agenda to
> reverse Rowe vs Wade...

im not saying they arent trying to do that. however, i dont think the republicans got this bill through alone, i think a LOT of people voted to ban this.


> send the abortion back to the states
> where neanderthals like you can pick women's right
> reproductive rights bit by bit.

seriously though, do you think this form of abortion should be legal?! i mean, you call me sick and violent but this is like some inhuman act.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Why do you ALWAYS argue a point that is different (and more exaggerated) than the one being presented??

You are a terrible arguer.


Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince, why stop at partial birth abortion?
>
> Peter Singer, Professor of Ethics at Princeton
> University, advocates infanticide, giving parents
> the right to kill their infant children who are
> born disabled. He also believes that animals
> should be accorded the same value as humans and
> should not be discriminated against because they
> belong to a non-human species. Hence, humans
> should not eat animals because that would be
> murder. So, we can’t kill a non-human to feed
> ourselves but we can kill human babies if their
> disabilities get in the way.
>
> I wonder if he thinks it's ok if we eat disabled
> non-humans? I wonder how he defines 'disability'?
> Vince, I imagine you were a colicky baby, right? I
> know all your crying and projectile vomiting would
> have gotten on my nerves, fast.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you ALWAYS argue a point that is different
> (and more exaggerated) than the one being
> presented??
>
> You are a terrible arguer.
>
>
>

It's an indication of a low IQ. Good thing for him it isn't illegal to abort the mentally retarded after they are born. I would lobby to do it to him now.

It shouldnt be up to me...or you...nor anyone else besides a women and her doctor when to perform such a procedure. This country's law is based on legistation and presecdent...and the logic used to pass it is unpresedented. While you or I might find this particualar procedure abhorant....many people find any abortion to be abhorant and they would be very willing to use this case of a basis for future legislation.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2008 01:23PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It shouldnt be up to me...or you...nor anyone else
> besides a women and her doctor when to perform
> such a procedure. This country's law is based on
> legistation and presecdent...and the logic used to
> pass it is unpresedented. While you or I might
> find this particualar procedure abhorant....many
> people find any abortion to be abhorant and they
> would be very willing to use this case of a basis
> for future legislation.


Per Vince's point, here is what the Supreme Court said in Roe v. Wade...

...The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

...If "the state" is the Federal government, then there is nothing about the ban that flies in the face of precedent. However, if "the state" refers to individual states, then the Federal ban could be argued as being unconstitutional.

See if you can solve this riddle
Attachments:

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 02:32AM by Alias.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 01:57AM by Alias.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 01:51AM by Alias.

Typical cop-out response.

You stupid hick.




Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meeper:
>
>
>
>

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It shouldnt be up to me...or you...nor anyone else
> besides a women and her doctor when to perform
> such a procedure. This country's law is based on
> legistation and presecdent...and the logic used to
> pass it is unpresedented. While you or I might
> find this particualar procedure abhorant....many
> people find any abortion to be abhorant and they
> would be very willing to use this case of a basis
> for future legislation.


It shouldnt be up to me...or you...nor anyone else besides a citizen and his personal security needs when to carry a firearm. This country's law is based on
legistation and presecdent...and the logic used to pass it is unpresedented. While you or I might find self defense with a firearm abhorant....many people find the second amendment to be abhorant and they would be very willing to use this case of a basis for future legislation.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It shouldnt be up to me...or you...nor anyone
> else
> > besides a women and her doctor when to perform
> > such a procedure. This country's law is based
> on
> > legistation and presecdent...and the logic used
> to
> > pass it is unpresedented. While you or I might
> > find this particualar procedure
> abhorant....many
> > people find any abortion to be abhorant and
> they
> > would be very willing to use this case of a
> basis
> > for future legislation.
>
>
> It shouldnt be up to me...or you...nor anyone else
> besides a citizen and his personal security needs
> when to carry a firearm. This country's law is
> based on
> legistation and presecdent...and the logic used to
> pass it is unpresedented. While you or I might
> find self defense with a firearm abhorant....many
> people find the second amendment to be abhorant
> and they would be very willing to use this case of
> a basis for future legislation.

If gun owners only shot themselves..Id be all for your proposition. The 2nd Amendment rights are under currently under Supreme Court review. I have made my case for what I beleive they will decide in a previous thread..I wont go into it again.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 01:52AM by Alias.

.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2012 01:50AM by Alias.

Note: that's a really boring and lame video, don't waste your time watching it folks.



Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper wrote:
>
> "You stupid hick."
>
> At least you didn't call me a stupid mick...
>
>
>
>
>

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If gun owners only shot themselves..Id be all for
> your proposition. The 2nd Amendment rights are
> under currently under Supreme Court review. I
> have made my case for what I beleive they will
> decide in a previous thread..I wont go into it
> again.


If abortion facilities only "aborted" themselves..Id be all for your proposition. Abortion rights are under currently under Supreme Court review. I have made my case for what I beleive they will decide in a previous thread..I wont go into it again.

Dont worry, Hillary is gonna lobby for a seat on the supreme court from Obama as a favour for dropping out of the race and giving him the nomination.

Abortion is a PERSONAL issue for both men and women. The topic should NEVER had had laws passed regarding it - Pro or Con.

If I no longer wanted my right arm, I would need a doctors assistance to make sure I did not die when it was cut off. It is my decision to get rid of my right arm, and should not be restricted by law or court rulings.

If I do not want to bring a child into this world, I need a doctors assistance to make sure I do not die when the fertilized egg is withdrawn. It is MY and my significant other's decision to terminate the pregnancy, and should not be restricted by law or court rulings.

All of that being said, I have never had an abortion nor do I believe I would, but I strongly believe that decision is mine and mine alone and the subject should be left out of the Political Arena!