Hillary Clinton's Policy on Gun Control and Abortion................

[3fan4life]

[f6john]

   That's the trouble I have understanding women who support abortion on demand. Most all the women I know would die trying to save their child, born or unborn. I believe some of it comes from the good ole boys days when there were no women to speak of in the legislature or the courts and women felt they were under their thumb. This right to control ones body is a moot point when it comes to life and death. The random killings in places like Chicago show a total disregard for human life and I see little difference in our societies acceptance of the current abortion laws. 

[RP#62]

It may just be my perception, but it seems like most that are pro choice are also anti death penalty.  That one I never understood - i.e. no problem killing innocents, but the monsters must be saved.

-RP

[..]

Typical politician double speak. We get it from all of them.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Personally, I think this issue belongs with the medical community, not politicians. Doctors decide when we are officially dead, they should also decide at what point we are alive and protected.

But, don't get me wrong. Anything which shows the criminal monster above in a bad light is good by me!

[The emperor has no clothes]

It may just be my perception, but it seems like most that are pro choice are also anti death penalty.  That one I never understood - i.e. no problem killing innocents, but the monsters must be saved.

-RP

Probably an accurate perception. But I buck the trend. 

[98valk]

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/18/undisputed-scientific-fact-human-life-begins-at-conception-or-fertilization/

It is undisputed that a new, distinct human organism comes into existence during the process of fertilization.[1] Scientific literature states the following:

• “The fusion of sperm and egg membranes initiates the life of a sexually reproducing organism.5]

• “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.1] See, e.g., Condic, When Does Human Life Begin? A Scientific Perspective (The Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person Oct. 2008), http://bdfund.org/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2012/06/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf; George & Tollefsen, EMBRYO 39 (2008).

[2] Marsden et al., Model systems for membrane fusion, CHEM. SOC. REV. 40(3):1572 (Mar. 2011) (emphasis added).

[3] Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010) (emphasis added).

[4] Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012) (emphasis added).

[5] Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012) (emphasis added).

[6] Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013) (emphasis added).

[7] National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013), http://www.merriamwebster.com/medlineplus/fertilization (emphasis added).

[8] Moore & Persaud, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 16 (7th ed. 2003) (emphasis added).

[9] For an overview of how the definition of “pregnancy” has changed, see Gacek, Conceiving Pregnancy: U.S. Medical Dictionaries and Their Definitions of Conception and Pregnancy, FRC INSIGHT PAPER (Apr. 2009), http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09D12.pdf.

[dinosnake]

It may just be my perception, but it seems like most that are pro choice are also anti death penalty.  That one I never understood - i.e. no problem killing innocents, but the monsters must be saved.

-RP

This reply is NOT personal, I'm addressing it broadly to all, so please forgive anything taken personally because it is not meant to be so!!  

Because, if I may, it is very simple:

1) Pro-choice advocates are exactly that: Pro choice.  Sure, [we] believe that all life is precious but [we] also believe that everyone should have their own right to choose.

In other words, [we're] sick of hearing others play the 'high moral ground' when it is often anything but.

Some people have a religious problem with the topic, others a personal belief regarding when life starts.  [We] understand that.  But [we] also make it a point to, point-out, that those are personal beliefs and, thanks to the Constitution, everyone has a right to believe differently.  

So, to not be rude: People have opinions.  Everyone needs keep their opinions to themselves and, if you don't want to do something, make that decision personal and stop trying to push personal opinions on everyone else.

The question of abortion should be between the doctor, the woman and, if available, the partner.  Nobody else, keep your nose out of other people's business.  Want no abortions?  Why not change people's minds so that more people openly believe that way, instead of forcing one opinion into law?

If anti-abortionists are so "pro life", then why don't they support free medical care and other necessities, like good food, to every child regardless of family income or circumstance?

Because that costs money, and it's easier to talk "we protect life!" than it is to back up words with deeds.

2) Anti-death penalty: It exactly, and precisely, connects with the answer to opinion (1).  The state should not be in the business of taking lives just because the public feels some sort of 'eye for an eye' mentality.  It's ancient, outdated and, more importantly, one-way, you can't go back on a mistake.

Death penalty is a personal belief.  It does not serve the public one iota, studies have proved that it does not deter crime and it certainly does not bring any victim back from the dead.  So, therefore, it only appeases the living with some (twisted) belief of "justice", because nothing in the past has changed at all.  Actually, it might have less atonement: the dead (criminal) can't work to make civilization better for those who are left behind.  They can't be made to work and their work benefit society, they can't change and then teach others of the wrongness of their actions, etc etc etc.

About the only "benefit", and this is commonly quoted actually, is that in the end it costs less to kill them than to keep them incarcerated.  What a great reason, it cost us less (showing the most important mentality of too many of our public).

[We] are wondering the exact same thing: Why do people who constantly chant "pro life!" always ready to KILL with being pro-death penalty?

Pro-choicers and anti-death penalty are usually connected, just with an added view: my choices don't matter in regards to other people.  You have your rights, I have mine, we live happily ever after as long as we respect that.

[Popeye]

Personally, I think this issue belongs with the medical community, not politicians. Doctors decide when we are officially dead, they should also decide at what point we are alive and protected.

But, don't get me wrong. Anything which shows the criminal monster above in a bad light is good by me!

I agree.  That woman is the scariest *itch alive.

[Willow]

Not you, Popeye, but just above you.

That is just about the stupidest rant I have read or heard in at least a month.

As near as I can tell it boils down to this:  "If you disagree with me than it is your own personal opinion and you should keep it to yourself."  What a stupid position.

I think it should be alright for me to terminate people that I discern are not really very good for society.  Who has the right to tell me it's not?  The Constitution guarantees me the right to think differently!

A couple of things I will say about the death penalty.  It stops anyone who is executed from committing any future crimes.  I believe that is different than "it's cheaper to kill them than to keep them incarcerated."  I do believe a death penalty should be held as only a last resort, the consequence of someone who has demonstrated the willingness to commit heinous crime without any concern for the right or wrong of it.  It does need to be available.

Because pro-life people have a value for life.  If one has wantonly taken a life without justification he needs to suffer the consequence.  Of course, that only applies to someone who has murdered an obvious conservative.  Someone who is openly damaging the welfare of life in general just doesn't matter and doesn't count.   

It amazes me how ignorant we can get when we start to define what's wrong with other people's position. 

[Bighead]

It may just be my perception, but it seems like most that are pro choice are also anti death penalty.  That one I never understood - i.e. no problem killing innocents, but the monsters must be saved.

-RP

This reply is NOT personal, I'm addressing it broadly to all, so please forgive anything taken personally because it is not meant to be so!!  

Because, if I may, it is very simple:

1) Pro-choice advocates are exactly that: Pro choice.  Sure, [we] believe that all life is precious but [we] also believe that everyone should have their own right to choose.

In other words, [we're] sick of hearing others play the 'high moral ground' when it is often anything but.

Some people have a religious problem with the topic, others a personal belief regarding when life starts.  [We] understand that.  But [we] also make it a point to, point-out, that those are personal beliefs and, thanks to the Constitution, everyone has a right to believe differently.  

So, to not be rude: People have opinions.  Everyone needs keep their opinions to themselves and, if you don't want to do something, make that decision personal and stop trying to push personal opinions on everyone else.

The question of abortion should be between the doctor, the woman and, if available, the partner.  Nobody else, keep your nose out of other people's business.  Want no abortions?  Why not change people's minds so that more people openly believe that way, instead of forcing one opinion into law?

If anti-abortionists are so "pro life", then why don't they support free medical care and other necessities, like good food, to every child regardless of family income or circumstance?

Because that costs money, and it's easier to talk "we protect life!" than it is to back up words with deeds.

2) Anti-death penalty: It exactly, and precisely, connects with the answer to opinion (1).  The state should not be in the business of taking lives just because the public feels some sort of 'eye for an eye' mentality.  It's ancient, outdated and, more importantly, one-way, you can't go back on a mistake.

Death penalty is a personal belief.  It does not serve the public one iota, studies have proved that it does not deter crime and it certainly does not bring any victim back from the dead.  So, therefore, it only appeases the living with some (twisted) belief of "justice", because nothing in the past has changed at all.  Actually, it might have less atonement: the dead (criminal) can't work to make civilization better for those who are left behind.  They can't be made to work and their work benefit society, they can't change and then teach others of the wrongness of their actions, etc etc etc.

About the only "benefit", and this is commonly quoted actually, is that in the end it costs less to kill them than to keep them incarcerated.  What a great reason, it cost us less (showing the most important mentality of too many of our public).

[We] are wondering the exact same thing: Why do people who constantly chant "pro life!" always ready to KILL with being pro-death penalty?

Pro-choicers and anti-death penalty are usually connected, just with an added view: my choices don't matter in regards to other people.  You have your rights, I have mine, we live happily ever after as long as we respect that.

Well since you brought it up as people need to keep their opinions to their selves. Why didn't you keep your opinion silent?
Facts are facts! Life begins at conception period if it didn't there would be NO life.
if you feel it ok to abort an innocent fetus why would you feel it a wrong for a police officer to shoot and kill a turd who is being aggressive towards them?
It can't be both ways.
On one hand you are ok with killing a fetus that is a human that has never done one single wrong but not OK with the defense of an adult life?
How does that compute? it doesn't does it.
As far as your being against the death penalty because it doesn't deter crime. You may be correct but it keeps US from paying more than the average American makes a year to keep one alive who has been handed the penalty after being found guilty of a crime worthy of the penalty.

[Bighead]

Not you, Popeye, but just above you.

That is just about the stupidest rant I have read or heard in at least a month.

As near as I can tell it boils down to this:  "If you disagree with me than it is your own personal opinion and you should keep it to yourself."  What a stupid position.

I think it should be alright for me to terminate people that I discern are not really very good for society.  Who has the right to tell me it's not?  The Constitution guarantees me the right to think differently!

A couple of things I will say about the death penalty.  It stops anyone who is executed from committing any future crimes.  I believe that is different than "it's cheaper to kill them than to keep them incarcerated."  I do believe a death penalty should be held as only a last resort, the consequence of someone who has demonstrated the willingness to commit heinous crime without any concern for the right or wrong of it.  It does need to be available.

Because pro-life people have a value for life.  If one has wantonly taken a life without justification he needs to suffer the consequence.  Of course, that only applies to someone who has murdered an obvious conservative.  Someone who is openly damaging the welfare of life in general just doesn't matter and doesn't count.   

It amazes me how ignorant we can get when we start to define what's wrong with other people's position. 

Willow we were typing at the same time and I agree 100%

[98valk]

[/quote]
This reply is NOT personal, I'm addressing it broadly to all, so please forgive anything taken personally because it is not meant to be so!!  

Because, if I may, it is very simple:

1) Pro-choice advocates are exactly that: Pro choice.  Sure, [we] believe that all life is precious but [we] also believe that everyone should have their own right to choose.
[/quote]

WHAT do you think the new human baby's choice would be? Is not the baby part of the EVERYONE who should their right to choose? The newly conceived baby is a US citizen it has a choice NOT to be Murdered by the woman carrying it.
Why does this woman HAVE the right to kill it? The woman's choice ended when she decided to open her legs. Even if she was raped, she doesn't have the right to kill the innocent baby.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/raped-women-who-had-their-babies-defy-pro-choice-stereotypes
 Statistics about rape victims and abortion are surprising to many people. There have been two studies done about pregnant rape victims. In each study, 70% of the women chose to keep their babies. This defies the stereotype that all raped women want abortions. According to the two doctors who conducted one study, Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, M.D. and William V. Dolan, M.D.:

    [This study indicates] that pregnancy need not impede the victim’s resolution of the trauma; rather, with loving support, nonjudgemental attitudes, and empathic communication, healthy emotional and psychological responses are possible despite the added burden or pregnancy. (3)

The second study, conducted in 2000, revealed that 78% of the 30% of women who had abortions after their rapes felt that they’d made the wrong decision and said that “abortion is not the answer for women who were raped.” In contrast, not a single one of the 70% who had their children regretted it. Some of these women had given up their babies for adoption, and some of them had kept their babies – but the unifying factor among all of them was that none of them regretted giving birth.
 The statistics seem counterintuitive and almost impossible to believe. But they are true. Women who have their babies often have a better psychological outcome than women who do not. One woman who had an abortion after her rape spoke at a pro-life rally in Mississippi. Here is an excerpt from her testimony:

    I was raped a month before I turned 18. And because of that rape I was so fearful and so shameful that I chose abortion, out of fear. My rape was nothing compared to what I did to my child. What my rapist did to me does not compare to what I chose to do to my baby. My rapist didn’t kill me, I’m standing here alive right now. I have three beautiful children at home and a husband who loves me. But I chose to kill my child out of the shame, out of guilt, out of fear because of what a man did to me. Rape is no excuse for abortion. I want to say that. … I’m tired, as a person who was raped and a person who had an abortion, I’m telling you right now, I’m tired of using rape as an excuse. … For years I lived in depression, contemplated suicide, attempted suicide, I spend years drinking to numb the pain, to numb the horrific nightmares, was later diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, not just because of the rape but because of the abortion. We have got to speak up, it’s not just about the babies, it’s about the moms like me who think they’re making a good decision but they’re not.

You can see a video of the entire testimony here.

Another woman who was raped and had her baby speaks out:

[dinosnake]

Well since you brought it up as people need to keep their opinions to their selves. Why didn't you keep your opinion silent?
Facts are facts! Life begins at conception period if it didn't there would be NO life.
if you feel it ok to abort an innocent fetus why would you feel it a wrong for a police officer to shoot and kill a turd who is being aggressive towards them?

You see, isn't that nice?  We get along fine.  You tell me that you're right, I tell you that no, I have a personal opinion and you can just stuff off, and everyone is happy.  

NO, I WILL NOT KEEP QUIET AND IT'S JUST TOUGH SH#T IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE MY VIEWPOINT.

Why don't you guys play the "I'm right and everyone who doesn't think like me is wrong!!" card more.  Worked fine for Archie Bunker.

And THAT'S why people are PRO-CHOICE.  You DON'T have the right to make a unilateral judgment call for everyone.  

Oh!  I'm SO SORRY to burst your little ego bubble!!

You have the right to make judgment calls for yourself and anyone else who chooses to listen.  Since some of us don't give a rat's a$$ what you think, the Constitution says we don't have to and therefore the freedom to choose is still with us, here in America.

If you don't want people to have certain choices (medical treatments, marriages, abortions et al) then that's fine.  We're not asking you to change, you can still believe and simply not do the things that you don't like.  But you are asking OTHERS to respect your wishes so strongly that their beliefs no longer matter.

And that's why those type of views - telling other people what they can, or must, do, based upon the beliefs of a segment of the population - are constantly biatch-slapped down by courts.  A "freedom" that says "I'm free to practice and believe what I want, now make sure you believe what I do, too" isn't freedom, sorry, wrong answer.

I respect that you don't believe in abortion.  The question is NOT that you don't...the question is not even if *I* do or don't...believe in abortion: the question is if the WOMAN who is pregnant believes.  Your beliefs, usually postulated and based in religion, simply don't mean squat.  Same as mine: my beliefs don't mean squat and do not matter.  

I'm not sure if I believe in abortion and what about the possible life of the fetus in question?  Sorry, that's completely irrelevant.  Yep, you heard it right: my opinion doesn't matter squat.  There, I said it.  I dismiss myself as much as I dismiss your opinions, too.  The only opinions that matter are the woman's, her doctor's and maybe the father in question.  That's it.  I officially remove myself completely from the decision-making process that a woman has to go through during times like these because my remote-control opinion doesn't matter.  I have no right to double-think her life, her health, the doctor's verdict and the possible outcome, she has as much right to make decisions as anyone else.

[98valk]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/i-left-my-job-at-planned-parenthood-after-seeing-perfectly-formed-quadruple

[dinosnake]

    I was raped a month before I turned 18. And because of that rape I was so fearful and so shameful that I chose abortion, out of fear. My rape was nothing compared to what I did to my child. What my rapist did to me does not compare to what I chose to do to my baby. My rapist didn’t kill me, I’m standing here alive right now. I have three beautiful children at home and a husband who loves me. But I chose to kill my child out of the shame, out of guilt, out of fear because of what a man did to me. Rape is no excuse for abortion. I want to say that. … I’m tired, as a person who was raped and a person who had an abortion, I’m telling you right now, I’m tired of using rape as an excuse. … For years I lived in depression, contemplated suicide, attempted suicide, I spend years drinking to numb the pain, to numb the horrific nightmares, was later diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, not just because of the rape but because of the abortion. We have got to speak up, it’s not just about the babies, it’s about the moms like me who think they’re making a good decision but they’re not.

I agree and I said that in my first response: if our society doesn't want the abortion option, then make it a point of personal education so that people choose, by themselves not to partake in it.  

If life is so "precious" then we can open a philosophical debate as to why wars are allowed and why large-scale armed conflicts aren't automatically declared "crimes against humanity" and the actors brought up for immediate trial; why hunger and child suffering is allowed, even in our own country; etc etc.  We know why war isn't declared a universal and immediate "crime against humanity": people want the option of using it to forward their own agenda.  If planet Earth universally declared war a crime, and the criminals facing harsh punishments, how can *we* declare war when we have a "justified" cause, eh?

[Karen]

Please don't feed the troll, it only makes him more <please-insert-your-own-descriptor-here; mine is not suitable for posting...> 

[Wizzard]

Please don't feed the troll, it only makes him more <please-insert-your-own-descriptor-here; mine is not suitable for posting...> 

 

[f6john]

     You would think that here in the land of the free and home of the brave that the people who live here would be universally in agreement in the value and the fragility of human life from conception until the body is totally worn out, trumps all other arguments and positions.

[Wizzard]

some hold life in no regard unless its their own

[Jess from VA]

some hold life in no regard unless its their own

       In this case, some = millions and millions.

[Moonshot_1]

It may just be my perception, but it seems like most that are pro choice are also anti death penalty.  That one I never understood - i.e. no problem killing innocents, but the monsters must be saved.

-RP

This reply is NOT personal, I'm addressing it broadly to all, so please forgive anything taken personally because it is not meant to be so!!  

Because, if I may, it is very simple:

1) Pro-choice advocates are exactly that: Pro choice.  Sure, [we] believe that all life is precious but [we] also believe that everyone should have their own right to choose.

In other words, [we're] sick of hearing others play the 'high moral ground' when it is often anything but.

Some people have a religious problem with the topic, others a personal belief regarding when life starts.  [We] understand that.  But [we] also make it a point to, point-out, that those are personal beliefs and, thanks to the Constitution, everyone has a right to believe differently.  

So, to not be rude: People have opinions.  Everyone needs keep their opinions to themselves and, if you don't want to do something, make that decision personal and stop trying to push personal opinions on everyone else.

The question of abortion should be between the doctor, the woman and, if available, the partner.  Nobody else, keep your nose out of other people's business.  Want no abortions?  Why not change people's minds so that more people openly believe that way, instead of forcing one opinion into law?

If anti-abortionists are so "pro life", then why don't they support free medical care and other necessities, like good food, to every child regardless of family income or circumstance?

Because that costs money, and it's easier to talk "we protect life!" than it is to back up words with deeds.

2) Anti-death penalty: It exactly, and precisely, connects with the answer to opinion (1).  The state should not be in the business of taking lives just because the public feels some sort of 'eye for an eye' mentality.  It's ancient, outdated and, more importantly, one-way, you can't go back on a mistake.

Death penalty is a personal belief.  It does not serve the public one iota, studies have proved that it does not deter crime and it certainly does not bring any victim back from the dead.  So, therefore, it only appeases the living with some (twisted) belief of "justice", because nothing in the past has changed at all.  Actually, it might have less atonement: the dead (criminal) can't work to make civilization better for those who are left behind.  They can't be made to work and their work benefit society, they can't change and then teach others of the wrongness of their actions, etc etc etc.

About the only "benefit", and this is commonly quoted actually, is that in the end it costs less to kill them than to keep them incarcerated.  What a great reason, it cost us less (showing the most important mentality of too many of our public).

[We] are wondering the exact same thing: Why do people who constantly chant "pro life!" always ready to KILL with being pro-death penalty?

Pro-choicers and anti-death penalty are usually connected, just with an added view: my choices don't matter in regards to other people.  You have your rights, I have mine, we live happily ever after as long as we respect that.

So if I understand, you choose to be completely dismissive of scientific fact.
Science can determine, theoretically immediately after conception and as a matter of practicality a few weeks from conception that a human individual exists.

The Constitution requires the Government to defend Individual rights. To ensure due process. Apparently you choose to apply that to only those you choose are worthy.  Dismissing any rational logic by deeming it religion or just a matter of personal belief in the face of well documented biological science and DNA being the standard for human identity.

I would think you would champion the science that would prove by the use of DNA testing the identity of an individual that commits a heinous crime and bring them to justice.

Yet you completely dismiss it when it proves the identity of a person not yet born.

Either the science is right or it is not. It cannot be subjective.
Either you apply the Constitutional protections for those individuals not yet born or those protections don't apply at all.

One would think that we would want to error on the side of Ethics and Morals.

[Gavin_Sons]

I don't like the idea of abortions. Wish they would limit them to rape, insist,  and in cases where the mothers health or life is in jeopardy. But if they mustgive a woman a choice it should be limited to the first trimester. Mayne thry should put you pro choice people in a room where they perform an abortion on a baby just weeks from being born. Would that change your mind? Everyone knows what happens when you put a wiener in a vagina.   

[The emperor has no clothes]

I try to limit the amount of processed meat product that goes in my favorite vagina.

[Gavin_Sons]

I try to limit the amount of processed meat product that goes in my favorite vagina.

  that must not be very difficult for you.

[3fan4life]

What I absolutely cannot understand about the Pro "Choice" crowd is that:

They aren't willing to accept "ANY" limits.

Any reasonable/logical person should be willing to accept that there has to be a point where it transitions from a fetus to a child.

We can debate where that point is but there should be NO debate that it exists.



Maybe, the biggest problem with Full Fledged Bleeding Heart Liberals is that they are TOTALLY ruled by emotion.

Situations that require logical solutions are COMPLETELY beyond their ability to solve.   

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

What I absolutely cannot understand about the Pro "Choice" crowd is that:

They aren't willing to accept "ANY" limits.

Any reasonable/logical person should be willing to accept that there has to be a point where it transitions from a fetus to a child.

We can debate where that point is but there should be NO debate that it exists.



Maybe, the biggest problem with Full Fledged Bleeding Heart Liberals is that they are TOTALLY ruled by emotion.

Situations that require logical solutions are COMPLETELY beyond their ability to solve.   

Could not agree more.

[G-Man]

Well since you brought it up as people need to keep their opinions to their selves. Why didn't you keep your opinion silent?
Facts are facts! Life begins at conception period if it didn't there would be NO life.
if you feel it ok to abort an innocent fetus why would you feel it a wrong for a police officer to shoot and kill a turd who is being aggressive towards them?

You see, isn't that nice?  We get along fine.  You tell me that you're right, I tell you that no, I have a personal opinion and you can just stuff off, and everyone is happy.  

NO, I WILL NOT KEEP QUIET AND IT'S JUST TOUGH SH#T IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE MY VIEWPOINT.

Why don't you guys play the "I'm right and everyone who doesn't think like me is wrong!!" card more.  Worked fine for Archie Bunker.

And THAT'S why people are PRO-CHOICE.  You DON'T have the right to make a unilateral judgment call for everyone.  

Oh!  I'm SO SORRY to burst your little ego bubble!!

You have the right to make judgment calls for yourself and anyone else who chooses to listen.  Since some of us don't give a rat's a$$ what you think, the Constitution says we don't have to and therefore the freedom to choose is still with us, here in America.

If you don't want people to have certain choices (medical treatments, marriages, abortions et al) then that's fine.  We're not asking you to change, you can still believe and simply not do the things that you don't like.  But you are asking OTHERS to respect your wishes so strongly that their beliefs no longer matter.

And that's why those type of views - telling other people what they can, or must, do, based upon the beliefs of a segment of the population - are constantly biatch-slapped down by courts.  A "freedom" that says "I'm free to practice and believe what I want, now make sure you believe what I do, too" isn't freedom, sorry, wrong answer.

I respect that you don't believe in abortion.  The question is NOT that you don't...the question is not even if *I* do or don't...believe in abortion: the question is if the WOMAN who is pregnant believes.  Your beliefs, usually postulated and based in religion, simply don't mean squat.  Same as mine: my beliefs don't mean squat and do not matter.  

I'm not sure if I believe in abortion and what about the possible life of the fetus in question?  Sorry, that's completely irrelevant.  Yep, you heard it right: my opinion doesn't matter squat.  There, I said it.  I dismiss myself as much as I dismiss your opinions, too.  The only opinions that matter are the woman's, her doctor's and maybe the father in question.  That's it.  I officially remove myself completely from the decision-making process that a woman has to go through during times like these because my remote-control opinion doesn't matter.  I have no right to double-think her life, her health, the doctor's verdict and the possible outcome, she has as much right to make decisions as anyone else.

If I must contribute to the cost, in the billions, of something I don't agree with, then I can say whatever the phuk I want to say about it.  And that goes for everyone else who is forced to contribute.  And who do you think you are to try and tell us we should have no say.  Refund all of my tax dollars that has gone to the entire abortion industry, THEN you can tell me I don't have say.  Until then, don't want to hear it, DON'T LISTEN ! ! !

And as for the moral high ground bullshit, the left has been playing that card forever.  Pot calling the kettle ________ (blank because i may be called racist)

[Reb]

Wooo!

sh!ts getting thick on these parts,

Time to switch to climate change and global warming

[G-Man]

Post about guns and abortion,.... back on track, maybe.

I need a little help from our lawyer brothers...............  If a pregnant woman is shot, and both the mother and the fetus die, and the cause of death for both mother and fetus is the bullet, is this considered a double murder, or 2 separate murders, or is the death of the fetus not considered murder at all?

I ask because this lead to a thoughtful point on facebook.  If the death of the fetus is considered murder, then why is abortion not considered murder?

[Gavin_Sons]

Post about guns and abortion,.... back on track, maybe.

I need a little help from our lawyer brothers...............  If a pregnant woman is shot, and both the mother and the fetus die, and the cause of death for both mother and fetus is the bullet, is this considered a double murder, or 2 separate murders, or is the death of the fetus not considered murder at all?

I ask because this lead to a thoughtful point on facebook.  If the death of the fetus is considered murder, then why is abortion not considered murder?

it varies state to state. Most states will charge you with a double murder.

[dinosnake]

If I must contribute to the cost, in the billions, of something I don't agree with, then I can say whatever the phuk I want to say about it.  And that goes for everyone else who is forced to contribute.  And who do you think you are to try and tell us we should have no say.  Refund all of my tax dollars that has gone to the entire abortion industry, THEN you can tell me I don't have say.  Until then, don't want to hear it, DON'T LISTEN ! ! !

There, you see?  You make a sound, valid point and then I get to respond - democracy in a nutshell.  If you don't want to listen, then that's OK too but is completely your own problem  

OK, so you don't feel that you should have to put any money towards the payments of abortions.  That's fine!

Then women also get to refuse to help pay for men's issues, such as ED treatment and its medications like Viagra et al.  Your ED problems, your inability to perform in bed to your SO, is not a life-or-death issue by any means so there is absolutely, positively, no reason why the general public must contribute funds to solve your personal and private issue.  The ED treatment system is worth billions between advertising, doctor samples, giveaways and insurance costs - no reason to make one thin dime of that come from the public, right?

Simple.  If some individuals get to play the "I don't want to pay for _____!!", then everyone else does, too.

[NewValker]

The gubmint pays for pecker meds???   

Do they have a clinic called Planned Erections?

[dinosnake]

The gubmint pays for pecker meds???  

Do they have a clinic called Planned Erections?

Some insurance companies cover ED meds

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91538

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-viagra_n_5543916.html

which is what we're talking about: only 15 states cover abortions on government assistance (Medicaid) and this is a choice of each individual state legislature

https://fundabortionnow.org/get-help/medicaid

The federal government does not "pay for" abortions, hasn't since the Hyde Amendment of 1977.  And since ACA, all costs should be via for-profit insurance companies.  Now, it can be argued that federal funds now pay for abortions via subsidies for low income individuals under ACA, but as I note we can then also include federal subsidies via ACA that pay for selective treatments for gender-specific problems, too (Hobby Lobby's coverage of vasectomies for example, if any Hobby Lobby employees are getting any form of ACA subsidy then we are subsidizing the availability of vasectomies to them)

[The emperor has no clothes]

The gubmint pays for pecker meds???   

Do they have a clinic called Planned Erections?

I prefer unplanned. 

[Bighead]

Well since you brought it up as people need to keep their opinions to their selves. Why didn't you keep your opinion silent?
Facts are facts! Life begins at conception period if it didn't there would be NO life.
if you feel it ok to abort an innocent fetus why would you feel it a wrong for a police officer to shoot and kill a turd who is being aggressive towards them?

You see, isn't that nice?  We get along fine.  You tell me that you're right, I tell you that no, I have a personal opinion and you can just stuff off, and everyone is happy.  

NO, I WILL NOT KEEP QUIET AND IT'S JUST TOUGH SH#T IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE MY VIEWPOINT.

Why don't you guys play the "I'm right and everyone who doesn't think like me is wrong!!" card more.  Worked fine for Archie Bunker.

And THAT'S why people are PRO-CHOICE.  You DON'T have the right to make a unilateral judgment call for everyone.  

Oh!  I'm SO SORRY to burst your little ego bubble!!

You have the right to make judgment calls for yourself and anyone else who chooses to listen.  Since some of us don't give a rat's a$$ what you think, the Constitution says we don't have to and therefore the freedom to choose is still with us, here in America.

If you don't want people to have certain choices (medical treatments, marriages, abortions et al) then that's fine.  We're not asking you to change, you can still believe and simply not do the things that you don't like.  But you are asking OTHERS to respect your wishes so strongly that their beliefs no longer matter.

And that's why those type of views - telling other people what they can, or must, do, based upon the beliefs of a segment of the population - are constantly biatch-slapped down by courts.  A "freedom" that says "I'm free to practice and believe what I want, now make sure you believe what I do, too" isn't freedom, sorry, wrong answer.

I respect that you don't believe in abortion.  The question is NOT that you don't...the question is not even if *I* do or don't...believe in abortion: the question is if the WOMAN who is pregnant believes.  Your beliefs, usually postulated and based in religion, simply don't mean squat.  Same as mine: my beliefs don't mean squat and do not matter.  

I'm not sure if I believe in abortion and what about the possible life of the fetus in question?  Sorry, that's completely irrelevant.  Yep, you heard it right: my opinion doesn't matter squat.  There, I said it.  I dismiss myself as much as I dismiss your opinions, too.  The only opinions that matter are the woman's, her doctor's and maybe the father in question.  That's it.  I officially remove myself completely from the decision-making process that a woman has to go through during times like these because my remote-control opinion doesn't matter.  I have no right to double-think her life, her health, the doctor's verdict and the possible outcome, she has as much right to make decisions as anyone else.

Dino I didnt say I was right and you were wrong you stated about peoe keeping opinions to themselves so I ask why didnt you?

[michaelyoung254]

Dang! I had to add another to the "You are ignoring this user" list 

[Wizzard]

The gubmint pays for pecker meds???   

Do they have a clinic called Planned Erections?

Why shouldn't they? Look at all the peckerheads in the whitehouse

[Gavin_Sons]

It must be rough living in your moms basement playing keyboard warrior 

[big d]

Dinosnake, I pity you. You know everything and you are right about everything. It must be a heavy burden to be so perfect. I am sure your family is in awe of your knowledge.