Liberal Forum

Mmm, I don't think so. The government can say what it wants but I will never 'okay' evil just because they think it is fine and dandy.Well, that's an entirely different topic, isn't it.

Well, that's an entirely different topic, isn't it.Not exactly, considering I never really said I'd make it illegal downright if it was my choice to begin with. You assumed as much. However women who do it for no reason other than their own greed and selfishness... should not be hailed as heroes. They should not be even considered a decent person anymore by those they surround themselves with. What angers me about all of this is how they can publicly admit why they did it (often for the wrong reasons) out of this ridiculous sense of pride... and people will cheer them for it.That's wrong. It'll never be right. Edited by Kelliak, 12 March 2011 - 06:29 PM.

It's a constitutionally protected right for women to kill their unborn children?There was a little decision made by SCOTUS in 1973, that said that women have a right to have an abortion. It was in all the newspapers.

It was in all the newspapers.I seen it. It was there.You gonna bite this bullet, son?Let's break it down, son.Let's pretend a huristunamiquake has shut us all off from government for the next year, and we are stranded, relying on our own natural rights as the only force for civilization. A guy tries to steal your food. You shoot him. Kosher so far. Another shoots heroin, then drives his jeep at breakneck speed by your home. Him, you also shoot. Okay, let's keep going.You find out the lady down the street is planning to take an herb that will cause her to lose the fetus she is carrying. She's doing this for her own reasons - you have no idea what those reasons are.You already have two scalps on your belt. You gonna make it three? What are you - personally, under natural law - gonna do about her choice, freely made?

...women who do it for no reason other than their own greed and selfishness... should not be hailed as heroes.Perhaps you can cite an example of where women who have had abortions for no reason other than their own greed and selfishness are being hailed as heroes.Once again the irony of you calling me ignorant presents itself.

Perhaps you can cite an example of where women who have had abortions for no reason other than their own greed and selfishness are being hailed as heroes.Once again the irony of you calling me ignorant presents itself.I really wish this subject came up earlier. I actually a had a book with such a person that basically spoke about how she had an abortion, all for the sake of keeping her and her husband's life as it was. She refused for it to change with a child. She was proud of that fact and spoke openly about it. If I can find the book again I'll quote it exactly and the name of this... human being. There are more like her too, quite a few in fact. You really think most of the women are going to clinics to save their life or unable to go through birth due to the child being wrought of rape? Laws of nature, no, humanity in general, will tell you otherwise without any convincing needed.Also, it happened during your time. Not mine. You read about it so it is more of an occurring, evidential fact in your mind. What bothers me is how there is plenty going on NOW that you seem completely ignorant to. What, the newspaper just not providing you with what you need now-a-days? Actually, I think you just pick and choose your information personally. But whatever, going back on to the subject of your idiocy and I'd rather avoid that and stick to this more interesting topic.As for you Cannon, I don't know how I would feel or what I would do. I'd likely leave her alone. If she ever admitted as to why and it was for an unsavory reason, she'd get an earful from me followed by a rude finger gesture and my *** out the door. Edited by Kelliak, 12 March 2011 - 06:41 PM.

As for you Cannon, I don't know how I would feel or what I would do. I'd likely leave her alone. If she ever admitted as to why and it was for an unsavory reasons, she'd get an earful from me following by a finger and my *** out the door.Welcome to the world of pro-choice America. You admit you have no natural right to control the body of another. You maintain your right to judge, to accuse, to condemn - but not your right control, prohibit, prevent.You're pro choice, just like me. I'm glad I could be instrumental in helping you to realize it.

There was a little decision made by SCOTUS in 1973, that said that women have a right to have an abortion. It was in all the newspapers.Too bad it's not in the actual Constitution itself.Can you quote what part of the Constitution that allows it?No? Didn't think so.Never mind that the liberal justices who wrote the decision never meant what is commonly allowed today. They'd be horrified at the barbaric Partial Birth Abortion, which is frequently actual infanticide.

Welcome to the world of pro-choice America. You admit you have no natural right to control the body of another. You maintain your right to judge, to accuse, to condemn - but not your right control, prohibit, prevent.You're pro choice, just like me. I'm glad I could be instrumental in helping you to realize it.You don't get it, not many do. People and society in general needs to stand up against whores and not validate their crimes. They should not be seen as champions of rights for women but rather disgusting villains. Sometimes, social exile is far more powerful than any punishment mandated by law. Not to mention, if you start making it illegal all kinds of difficult variables begin to occur. You'll start convicting innocent women that truly required an abortion for whatever reason along with the guilty. It wouldn't work and never could. It's also intrusive as hell if you tried to make it work(think womb police).What I am talking about is not forcing these things through law, but by public expectation of their fellow man. That's all. Edited by Kelliak, 12 March 2011 - 06:50 PM.

Too bad it's not in the actual Constitution itself.Can you quote what part of the Constitution that allows it?No? Didn't think so.Never mind that the liberal justices who wrote the decision never meant what is commonly allowed today. They'd be horrified at the barbaric Partial Birth Abortion, which is frequently actual infanticide.Repubs controlled the house, senate, whitehouse, and 6 of 9 scotus appointees for 6 years. They pretend to be against abortion. What happened?You don't get it, not many do. People and society in general needs to stand up against whores and not validate their crimes. They should not be seen as champions of rights for women but rather disgusting villains. Sometimes, social exile is far more powerful than any punishment mandated by law. Not to mention, if you start making it illegal all kinds of difficult variables begin to occur. You'll start convicting innocent women that truly required an abortion for whatever reason along with the guilty. It wouldn't work and never could. It's also intrusive as hell if you tried to make it work(think womb police).What I am talking about is not forcing these things through law, but by public expectation of their fellow man. That's all.That's what I said: pro-choice.

Not exactly, considering I never really said I'd make it illegal downright if it was my choice to begin with. You assumed as much. However women who do it for no reason other than their own greed and selfishness... should not be hailed as heroes. They should not be even considered a decent person anymore by those they surround themselves with. What angers me about all of this is how they can publicly admit why they did it (often for the wrong reasons) out of this ridiculous sense of pride... and people will cheer them for it.That's wrong. It'll never be right. "I will never 'okay' evil just because they think it is fine and dandy."THAT is a whole other topic.

"I will never 'okay' evil just because they think it is fine and dandy."THAT is a whole other topic.You're the ones who got into the legalities of this subject with me while I was talking about social standards and expectations.Yes, I am pro-choice. The day I feel the government should take these sort of things into their own hands is the day I completely lose whatever shred of faith I had left in humanity. Edited by Kelliak, 12 March 2011 - 06:53 PM.

You're the ones who got into the legalities of this subject with me while I was talking about social standards and expectations. YOU said: "It's a constitutionally protected right for women to kill their unborn children?"I pointed out that, yes, it is Constitutionally protected.WHO asked the question?Do you understand what 'pro-choice' means? Because, if you do, then your questioning of its protection is odd.

MistyBlue: Are you really such a dense jackass, or do you just play one on this forum?It took years of hard work, study and practice.You actually made me laugh. It must be a sign of the Apocalypse. Misty: Once again, I was talking about Roy Blunt's amendment which would allow employers (and/or insurance carriers) to opt out of federal benefit mandates, not just for contraceptives, but for ANY treatment or ANY condition they claimed was contrary to their religious and/or MORAL beliefs as well. Moral beliefs don't necessarily have anything to do with any church, Catholic or otherwise. An employer could deny treatment for cervical cancer, because it's caused by HPV, which is transmitted sexually.Or they could deny coverage for treatment of alcoholism or any health issue associated with drinking, if that is against their moral beliefs.Clem:Off the top of my head, yes, if accompanied by sufficient Free Market Reform that would ensure a wide range of competition.I'd allow purchasing of health insurance across state lines, under the power and intent of the Commerce Clause, for example.Why shouldn't that be allowed?Is it just me or was that totally non-responsive to my post?My question was:Once we've accepted the principle that employers or insurance providers have the right to refuse coverage of any services, treatments, or medications included in a health-care mandate that clashes with their moral or religious beliefs, (see Senator Roy Blunt's [R] bill), where does it stop?Are you familiar with Roy Blunt's Amendment?Sen. Roy Blunt's amendment to the Affordable Care Act would allow employers to deny coverage not just for contraception but for ANY treatment or ANY condition they claimed was contrary to their religious or MORAL beliefs.Looks like a big slippery slope to me. Edited by MistyBlue, 29 February 2012 - 04:53 PM.

Pulling Flying Monkeys out of Mistys Stupid *** is Just Another Prime Example of the Limp Wristed Homosexual Purple Lipped Obama Regime's FAILED POLICIES!

It took years of hard work, study and practice.You actually made me laugh. It must be a sign of the Apocalypse. Hey, there's been too darned much politeness happening today!Clem:Off the top of my head, yes, if accompanied by sufficient Free Market Reform that would ensure a wide range of competition.I'd allow purchasing of health insurance across state lines, under the power and intent of the Commerce Clause, for example.Why shouldn't that be allowed?Is it just me or is that totally non-responsive to my post?It's you. Providing competition would allow lots of choice, so if some idiot insurance company wouldn't insure needed treatments, people could easily change companies.I'd also change the tax deductibility from company to individual, so it'd be very easy to change without having to lobby one's boss.I mean, what kind of idiots would go into the health insurance business, if their religious beliefs were so unpopular that most consumers would reject them?You really ought to take the time to read Free Market publications like the WSJ. Might disturb you for a little while, but they're dangerously persuasive. Edited by RichClem, 29 February 2012 - 04:55 PM.

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by JTZilla . View it anyway?Oh look. JT saw the thread title Flying Monkeys and thought it was a family reunion.

I`M A [female organ]+1 AGREED

Is it just me or is that totally non-responsive to my post?It's you. Providing competition would allow lots of choice, so if some idiot insurance company wouldn't insure needed treatments, people could easily change companies.I'd also change the tax deductibility from company to individual, so it'd be very easy to change without having to lobby one's boss.I mean, what kind of idiots would go into the health insurance business, if their religious beliefs were so unpopular that most consumers would reject them?So this is your response to my asking about Roy Blunt's Amendment?Let the free market handle it?People can't always 'easily' change insurance companies.Not all jobs offer that kind of choice.The bill also allows employers to not provide coverage for treatments or medications that they find morally objectionable. You don't think that's a very vague term and has the potential to be abused by some employers to save money? Seriously?You really ought to take the time to read Free Market publications like the WSJ. Might disturb you for a little while, but they're dangerously persuasive.The operative word being 'dangerously'.

I once watched a midget give my boyfriend a hot carl, while I guzzled a tub of man juice.That must have been fun for you.123urout: I once got boils from a clown when I fisted him for scratch tickets.TMI Sweetie.