|
|
| Do you like the cartoons? |
| Yes. |
|
7% |
[ 1 ] |
| No. |
|
7% |
[ 1 ] |
| Some of them. |
|
71% |
[ 10 ] |
| Didn't look. |
|
14% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:22 pm
Ya >.< not good at explaining really.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:37 pm
Scribblemouse WatersMoon110 Scribblemouse I like this one. I use the term loosely.  I sort of like that one, only in that third trimester abortions really are done only in cases where the woman involved would die without them. So it sort of makes sense to assume that many people who want to ban such abortions aren't really thinking about the health/life of the woman. I assume that you don't think that life saving abortions are wrong, or at the very least are justified? Yeah, I think abortions for the sake of the mother's health should be left alone. I don't like how anti-abortion activists seem to have tunnel-vision in this area. All they seem to see is a cute little baby that needs help, not the mother whose life may well be in danger. It's somewhat hypocritical - to save the abbies life, they're happy to condemn the mother. Not all anti-abortion activists are like this, I know. But you see a lot of the ones who are. Anyway, as for 'partial-birth abortion', as someone has said, it's usually used for getting out already dead foetuses. Banning it would just be pointless. It wouldn't be saving a life at all, in most cases. The dead foetus would poison the mother and kill her. So . . . yeah . . . leave 'partial-birth' alone. unless you're in canada. then, you can legally kill a living fetus which would thrive on it's own outside of the womb just as easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:52 am
divineseraph unless you're in canada. then, you can legally kill a living fetus which would thrive on it's own outside of the womb just as easily. I forgot that late-term abortion is legal in Canada. I don't know if it is available there or if it is like in the US, where most doctors just won't do it... Does anyone here have any experience or a source about this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 3:13 pm
WatersMoon110 divineseraph unless you're in canada. then, you can legally kill a living fetus which would thrive on it's own outside of the womb just as easily. I forgot that late-term abortion is legal in Canada. I don't know if it is available there or if it is like in the US, where most doctors just won't do it... Does anyone here have any experience or a source about this?
I believe, but I'm not 100% sure, that some provinces may have set up their own regulations on abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:15 am
Beware the Jabberwock WatersMoon110 divineseraph unless you're in canada. then, you can legally kill a living fetus which would thrive on it's own outside of the womb just as easily. I forgot that late-term abortion is legal in Canada. I don't know if it is available there or if it is like in the US, where most doctors just won't do it... Does anyone here have any experience or a source about this?
I believe, but I'm not 100% sure, that some provinces may have set up their own regulations on abortion. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:03 pm
ah! so it seems that even murderes (technically now correct, in south dakota) have moral values!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:28 pm
divineseraph ah! so it seems that even murderes (technically now correct, in south dakota) have moral values! I think that even though abortion isn't legal in South Dakota it still doesn't carry a charge of murder. Murderer still isn't an acceptable word and I don't think it's an appropriate word to use in this subforum where we are supposed to be having civil discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:13 am
Aiko_Kaida divineseraph ah! so it seems that even murderes (technically now correct, in south dakota) have moral values! I think that even though abortion isn't legal in South Dakota it still doesn't carry a charge of murder. Murderer still isn't an acceptable word and I don't think it's an appropriate word to use in this subforum where we are supposed to be having civil discussions. Although it isn't a correct legal term to us, it is in fact murder, but it does bring with it emotional bagage and a very demeening negative term, which we would rather not use in debate, because it is up for a toss up between both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:23 am
Master Kaiser Aiko_Kaida divineseraph ah! so it seems that even murderes (technically now correct, in south dakota) have moral values! I think that even though abortion isn't legal in South Dakota it still doesn't carry a charge of murder. Murderer still isn't an acceptable word and I don't think it's an appropriate word to use in this subforum where we are supposed to be having civil discussions. Although it isn't a correct legal term to us, it is in fact murder, but it does bring with it emotional bagage and a very demeening negative term, which we would rather not use in debate, because it is up for a toss up between both sides. Well, technically, one could consider abortion to be "murder" under the secondary definition of the word which means "something very bad". Legally it isn't murder though, and referring to abortion doctors as "murderers" is incredibly incorrect AND offensive. This is a civil SubForum, divineseraph and you seem to be unwilling or unable to act civilly in here. You have to know that referring to abortion doctors in such a way is going to offend people, why do you continue to disregard the feelings of others in here? If you really can't stand Pro-Choicers so much that you are completely unable to be at all civil to any of us, you should choose not to come into this SubForum. Since you are unable to control yourself, I fear that very soon the Mods in here will be forced to help you out...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:34 am
Sorry waters. I cant agree with you there. Offensive or not, he's entitled to his opinoins. SO long as he's not naming names and macking personal attacks, he's fine. Allbeit his remarcks can come off as offinsive to those who disagree with him, he's mearly stating his personal feelings. Banning him for that is unjustified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:47 am
Tiger of the Fire Sorry waters. I cant agree with you there. Offensive or not, he's entitled to his opinoins. SO long as he's not naming names and macking personal attacks, he's fine. Allbeit his remarcks can come off as offinsive to those who disagree with him, he's mearly stating his personal feelings. Banning him for that is unjustified. Like I said, I don't want to ban anyone. But I feel that some civility must be called for. If divineseraph can't stand to even pretend to be civil to Pro-Choicers in here, I really wonder why he would choose to come in here. I feel that another warning/reminder is called for, which is what I gave him. It might be my opinion that...penguins are ugly. However, if I were in a discussion with penguins, it would not be proper for me to say this. For me to say something insulting (and untrue) in such a situation would be purposely offensive. I don't feel that saying "it's just my opinion" covers up the fact that I would have said something with the intention of offending a group of individuals I knew were present when I made such a comment. If someone in here really can't at all stand to talk civilly with the opposite group present in here, I would question why they were in here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:54 am
I feel that this topic must be locked for getting so offtopic. As it is really just a link to another site, I do not feel that this will detract from the value of keeping this topic in the SubForum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:49 pm
Like I told you Waters, I don't think he was meaning to be directly offensive, just voicing his disgust in his own way over a few of the cartoon and articles he read. Thats perfectly reasonable.
I cant consioucly support the warning. I'm leaving it to miranda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 7:23 am
Tiger of the Fire Like I told you Waters, I don't think he was meaning to be directly offensive, just voicing his disgust in his own way over a few of the cartoon and articles he read. Thats perfectly reasonable. I cant consioucly support the warning. I'm leaving it to miranda. He PMed me with his reasoning. I agree that he doesn't need to be warned, only reminded. Actually, I believe he was responding to the Canadian abortion doctors won't perform non-life-saving late-term abortions discussion, not the cartoons themselves. I agree that he probably wasn't just trying to offend with his comment. A reminder might help him to keep in mind that some people in this SubForum might find such choice of words disagreeable. You are right that a warning would be too strong at this point. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]Kaiser['s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/45/d1/499e0b0716d145_flip.png?t=1230584771_6.00_00)
Reply
