|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:19 am
I think abortion centers should play movies of small children playing, saying there first words, taking there first steps, and pro-life protesters should march with small, cute, well behaved kids who walk up to people, give them a lolly pop and say 'im here cause my mommy loves me and i bet you'll love your baby to'
i think itd be more effective than bombing.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:01 pm
Libertarian2008 I think abortion centers should play movies of small children playing, saying there first words, taking there first steps, and pro-life protesters should march with small, cute, well behaved kids who walk up to people, give them a lolly pop and say 'im here cause my mommy loves me and i bet you'll love your baby to' i think itd be more effective than bombing. lol.. interesting concepts. There are alot of people who just don't view fetuses as children. That kind of thing has to be nipped in the bud. Maybe if you taught sex ed to kindergardeners like that South Park episode...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:58 pm
lol the funny thing is they do in some schools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:11 pm
Libertarian2008 lol the funny thing is they do in some schools. *hides face* hopefully not like Mr. Garrison *gets a scary image of him demonstrating how to apply a condom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:13 pm
Sinew Libertarian2008 lol the funny thing is they do in some schools. *hides face* hopefully not like Mr. Garrison *gets a scary image of him demonstrating how to apply a condom. unfortunately i just rescently got cable and i missed that episode. Was it anything like sex ed in 'the meaning of life'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:20 pm
Libertarian2008 Sinew Libertarian2008 lol the funny thing is they do in some schools. *hides face* hopefully not like Mr. Garrison *gets a scary image of him demonstrating how to apply a condom. unfortunately i just rescently got cable and i missed that episode. Was it anything like sex ed in 'the meaning of life'? I don't want to ruin it for you ^-^ i'll just say that it's a pretty twisted episode, even for South Park.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:28 pm
thats definately saying something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:31 pm
Sinew VashZero5 Sinew Welcome aboard, Starlight. Yes Welcome to the Libertarian Guild. I'm somewhat pro-choice. I'm not pro-abortion per say and I'm not saying everyone should go out and get one, but I'm pro-choice. Abortion is the one of the few areas in our society where I happy with the the status quo. I say when the baby realizes its being murdered should be a cut off, but if it's just a mass of living/non-thinking tissue, I don't have a problem with it. If abortion was outlawed by the government, I honestly don't think it would cut down on the # of abortions. It will cut down on the number of safe abortions, but not on the number of abortions. Back-alley and self abortions would increase by sugnificant amount, and in most of the those cases the mother dies. I don't think I have a right to judge these mothers and what they've had to go throught. Another reason I'm pro-choice is because of instances of rape. I don't want criminal's love seeds spreading around. I'm not saying getting one is either right or wrong, but it's the mothers body, and she should be able to choose. I have no problem in people convincing others to not to get an abortion, but I don't think the government should step in and outlaw it. True. Back when there was a prohibiton of it of sorts, there were still illegal ones, but back then, (early 20th century) it was pretty risky to get one compared to today, so the situation was rare when it would actually increase the mother's chance for survival. I should prolly research it a little sometime, and see how long ago it really was invented. I can agree that the baby shouldn't be killed when it gains consciousness, but sometimes the mother's life is endangered, or the baby's life is doomed.. I can't think of a clear-cut/black-and-white law I'll be satisfied with. And I'd hate for taxpayer money to go to a commission/judge for deciding all of them. That's what makes this issue so hard. Nothing is back or white in this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:41 pm
Sinew Michael Badnarik The government that can ban abortion can just as easily mandate abortion, as is currently the case in China. You know, I've never thought of it that way (even though I've always been pro-life).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:37 pm
Erin Sovenya Sinew Michael Badnarik The government that can ban abortion can just as easily mandate abortion, as is currently the case in China. You know, I've never thought of it that way (even though I've always been pro-life). Well, it's kind of the point of libertarianism is to minimize the power and scope of government - Public opinion is a fickle thing, and the wonderful laws of today will look pretty damn stupid a hundred years from now. Case in point, the stated reason (at the time) for banning marijuana was because they believed it would make black men rape white women. With my outlook based on modern politics and beliefs, I'd say that's one of the dumbest reasons for passing a law ever, and when we're all dead they're going to look back and comment on the pure stupidity of our wonderful decisions. I'm pretty damn certain they're going to look on these gay marriage ammendments with the same kind of "Wow, that was a boneheaded idea! Who came up with that piece of pressed and formed horse s**t?" feeling that we look back on prohibition with. Fear the abuse of the preposition!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:50 am
And how sad it will be that we'll probably have to have a constitutional ammendment allowing gay marriage. stare
My point on this issue is that somebody elses' baby is in no way your concern. If they want to abort it, then they should be able to abort it. If you don't want to abort, then don't abort your babies. I don't see how somebody else having an abortion is going to affect your life in any significant way. Or maybe I'm just annoyed with so many 'intrest' groups sticking their noses into places they don't belong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 9:49 am
Jahoclave And how sad it will be that we'll probably have to have a constitutional ammendment allowing gay marriage. stare My point on this issue is that somebody elses' baby is in no way your concern. If they want to abort it, then they should be able to abort it. If you don't want to abort, then don't abort your babies. I don't see how somebody else having an abortion is going to affect your life in any significant way. Or maybe I'm just annoyed with so many 'intrest' groups sticking their noses into places they don't belong. Well, I have to grant that their argument has some merit - If the parasite DID constitute a person, then legal interferance would be justifiable under the same logic as murder - despite the vastly different situations. This is why they will NEVER call it a fetus, parasite, or anything else that makes it sound not-quite-human. Personally, I think it's justifiable as self defense - The thing does severe irreparable damage to your body, causes severe short-term health issues, and could even be charged with rape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:38 pm
Tanasha Jahoclave And how sad it will be that we'll probably have to have a constitutional ammendment allowing gay marriage. stare My point on this issue is that somebody elses' baby is in no way your concern. If they want to abort it, then they should be able to abort it. If you don't want to abort, then don't abort your babies. I don't see how somebody else having an abortion is going to affect your life in any significant way. Or maybe I'm just annoyed with so many 'intrest' groups sticking their noses into places they don't belong. Well, I have to grant that their argument has some merit - If the parasite DID constitute a person, then legal interferance would be justifiable under the same logic as murder - despite the vastly different situations. This is why they will NEVER call it a fetus, parasite, or anything else that makes it sound not-quite-human. Personally, I think it's justifiable as self defense - The thing does severe irreparable damage to your body, causes severe short-term health issues, and could even be charged with rape. True it could be cassified as a form of self-defense. The flaw in that though is that Self-Defense laws are very weak in America. Legislatures just don't feel the need to protect the right of self-defense nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:09 pm
Tanasha Jahoclave And how sad it will be that we'll probably have to have a constitutional ammendment allowing gay marriage. stare My point on this issue is that somebody elses' baby is in no way your concern. If they want to abort it, then they should be able to abort it. If you don't want to abort, then don't abort your babies. I don't see how somebody else having an abortion is going to affect your life in any significant way. Or maybe I'm just annoyed with so many 'intrest' groups sticking their noses into places they don't belong. Well, I have to grant that their argument has some merit - If the parasite DID constitute a person, then legal interferance would be justifiable under the same logic as murder - despite the vastly different situations. This is why they will NEVER call it a fetus, parasite, or anything else that makes it sound not-quite-human. Personally, I think it's justifiable as self defense - The thing does severe irreparable damage to your body, causes severe short-term health issues, and could even be charged with rape. True, I just feel that they really don't take into account the burden that the baby would put on society and the person. And it annoys me that they feel that they have the right to tell somebody else what to do; especially considering it won't affect them. They'd be better off trying to take a more "anti-drinking while driving" approach to abortion than making it illegal. By that, I mean make it socially-unacceptable to be in that position. And I don't mean using scare tactics, spitefully misinformed ads, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:54 pm
Jahoclave Tanasha Well, I have to grant that their argument has some merit - If the parasite DID constitute a person, then legal interferance would be justifiable under the same logic as murder - despite the vastly different situations. This is why they will NEVER call it a fetus, parasite, or anything else that makes it sound not-quite-human. Personally, I think it's justifiable as self defense - The thing does severe irreparable damage to your body, causes severe short-term health issues, and could even be charged with rape. True, I just feel that they really don't take into account the burden that the baby would put on society and the person. And it annoys me that they feel that they have the right to tell somebody else what to do; especially considering it won't affect them. Indeed, but for them it's the intentional act of killing another human, and feel compeled to intervene on the grounds that murder is grounds to intervene. To them it is murder, and to have it be legal is no better than legalizing murder itself. It all comes back to the crux of their argument - the personification of a parasite that one day might become a person. Too many people on the pro-choice side fail to realize that, and it makes winning the argument that much harder. Understanding your enemy leads to success, while anger ultimately leads to failue - keep your own emotions in check while you enrage others. ... I should probably actually read Sun Tsu's the Art of War sometime... <.< >.> Jahoclave They'd be better off trying to take a more "anti-drinking while driving" approach to abortion than making it illegal. By that, I mean make it socially-unacceptable to be in that position. And I don't mean using scare tactics, spitefully misinformed ads, etc... Same with those anti-drug ads, or the "truth" campaign agaisnt cigarettes. (Although those truth ads aren't nearly as bad as the rest.) It's all designed to whip people up into groups of blind emotion, because those groups will stop thinking about what they hear and will follow orders blindly. In any conflict you can use soldiers, bodies, or both; Soldiers need to be smart, bodies need to be dumb. Guess which has a bigger impact on politics - Skilled and rational debate, or a large voting block? Ah, but I'm ranting again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[.Hottie09.]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/2a/a1/6645011f10a12a_flip.png?t=1240191221_6.00_00)
Reply
