Abortion.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Now BJ, let's not omit that "...in the case of incest, rape etc..." was part of the language of the Amendment. I think that says something about the voters standing on more specific grounds than just "pro, con".

I'm not forgetting that. That's why I linked the article. The only thing I am saying is that it seems, even in a conservative state, that a majority is willing to accept abortion in at least some cases. So the hard line (no abortions, ever) isn't really ever going to fly.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'm not forgetting that. That's why I linked the article. The only thing I am saying is that it seems, even in a conservative state, that a majority is willing to accept abortion in at least some cases. So the hard line (no abortions, ever) isn't really ever going to fly.

Ah, ok....

[GrayMouser]

I also note that parental notification initiatives failed in both Oregon and California. That's an issue I'm more ambivalent about. I can see the arguments of opponents that some girls may be threatened or coerced, but a minor is a minor and we are generally very careful about practising any kind of (non-emergency) medical intervention without the parents knowing and usually consenting.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

So when it comes down to it, what would you vote for?

[GrayMouser]

I'd support parental notification with the option of appeal to a judge/ special panel to waive- (thus setting up huge fights over who gets to judge.)

This may be influenced over the hassle I had last week just trying to pull my son out of class to get a filling; the idea that my underage daughter (if I had one) could undergo a serious medical procedure without my even knowing about it strikes me as wrong.

Here in Taiwan the government just implemented a three-day waiting requirement for all women; plus married women now have to notify their husbands.

(By implemented I mean a typical Taiwan-government-style procedure. Some pressure group goes to a Minister and says "you should do this"; the Minister makes an announcement; all hell breaks loose from everybody who hasn't been consulted; politicians from all parties jump in on both sides; in panic the government announces a delay in instituting the new measure while the issue is "studied", then proceeds to ignore the studies until the deadline has been reached, then one office re-announces launch of the new policy while others continue to ignore it, and no poor member of the public can get a straight answer and it happens EVERY TIME!!!)

[Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane]

I'm not trying to go against anyone's beliefs or make anyone angry, this is simply how I feel.

I think that abortions will happen anyway, so why not make it safe? Also, why not make that baby's life stand for something? You've heard of stem cell research? Well, use abortion babies.
I don't like abortion, I don't think that I could do it...I don't think that women should resort to it, then again, I'm not in their postion and I refuse to condemn something I don't understand.
On the same note, if it is made legal it shouldn't be abused...and by that I mean that it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. I think that parents or legal gaurdians of underage children should be informed of an abortion, before it takes place and that the parents/guardians should be part of the process.

Then again, that's just what I think...with American views on the subject.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane

I'm not trying to go against anyone's beliefs or make anyone angry, this is simply how I feel.

I think that abortions will happen anyway, so why not make it safe? Also, why not make that baby's life stand for something? You've heard of stem cell research? Well, use abortion babies.
I don't like abortion, I don't think that I could do it...I don't think that women should resort to it, then again, I'm not in their postion and I refuse to condemn something I don't understand.
On the same note, if it is made legal it shouldn't be abused...and by that I mean that it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. I think that parents or legal gaurdians of underage children should be informed of an abortion, before it takes place and that the parents/guardians should be part of the process.

Then again, that's just what I think...with American views on the subject.

Very cool; excellent post. You've got my vote. You're gonna get all kinds of christian fundie republican huff and guff soon in this thread, but that's the way it is in real life anyway, isn't it? You've got some allies here so don't get too discouraged when they start flogging you for your stance. It's awesome to see you here. Welcome back, Snowmane.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You like pigeon-holing everyone who doesn't agree with you, don't you?

[Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane]

Me? How was I pigeon-holing anyone?

[hectorberlioz]

I'm not sure, but I think he was referring to Lotesse

[Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane]

Ah. That makes more sense.

[Lotesse]

I don't get the part where I'm "pigeonholing" anyone. Pigeonholing? Not quite getting your meaning, bub. Perhaps you could explain your rather snide little comment?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I was referring to your rather snide little comment, my dear, the one that predicted that Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane's post would be assaulted by:

Originally Posted by Lotesse

all kinds of christian fundie republican huff and guff

(By the way, please note that no such thing occurred). But the point is, you condescendingly generalise any sort of response as 'christian fundie republican huff and guff'. 'Huff and guff' aside, I take objection to 'christian fundie republican'; most of it does not apply even to me. I am neither a fundamentalist, nor a Republican, and while I am a Christian, it is by no means necessary to be a Christian. It's like when conservative creationists act as though there were two kinds of people: Christians and evolutionists, as though the two were some how mutually exclusive and opposed to one another. It really gets my goat when people try to turn anyone who disagrees with them on Issue A, B, C, or any combination thereof into a pre-made template such as "Godless ACLU Atheist Abortion Doctor" or "Fanatical Republican Gun-Toting Christian"; clearly, these are both extremes of the matter, but they get the general idea across, of imagining the world in black and white, with Black believing this across the board, and White contradicting black and believing that.

Perhaps it was not your intention to so generalise or classify, but that was certainly the impression.

[Lotesse]

^^ There you go, ladies and gentleman! A lovely example of a little huff'
n guff! You're a funny guy, kiddo; anybody ever tell ya that? Cute. Very cute! Well, carry on with your bad self, sweetie...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Ah, but the huff and guff was neither fundie, nor Republican, nor (arguably) Christian, nor did Master'sBaneSwiftSnowmane get it, as predicted. You got the huff and guff bit right, though, and you totally nailed which thread it would occur in.

[Lotesse]

Oh - so, you're not a christian? Could have sworn you claimed to be a christian, but I guess I was wrong about that. That's odd; I could have sworn... ah, well. What I find hilarious, among other things, is how you immediately got flustered and ruffled and huffy, in the first place, automatically assuming that I was speaking of you in particular when I mentioned christian fundie republicans. It's not all about YOU, kid. But I must say, it's been a fun time watching your knee-jerk miffed huff and guff response to my casual and true statement! And then when I set the trap pretending to be "mad" at being told I "pigeon-holed" you went for it without hesitation, and gave us a beautiful demonstration of offended and flappered huff n guff! Which I don't know about anyone else, but me, personally, I got a great laugh out of that. Yes, I'm an evil, evil bitch...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

and while I am a Christian, it is by no means necessary to be a Christian.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

nor (arguably) Christian,

He means you don't have to be christian to jump all over Monsieur SnowBane (arguably), if [people] did.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Oh - so, you're not a christian? Could have sworn you claimed to be a christian, but I guess I was wrong about that. That's odd; I could have sworn... ah, well. What I find hilarious, among other things, is how you immediately got flustered and ruffled and huffy, in the first place, automatically assuming that I was speaking of you in particular when I mentioned christian fundie republicans. It's not all about YOU, kid. But I must say, it's been a fun time watching your knee-jerk miffed huff and guff response to my casual and true statement! And then when I set the trap pretending to be "mad" at being told I "pigeon-holed" you went for it without hesitation, and gave us a beautiful demonstration of offended and flappered huff n guff! Which I don't know about anyone else, but me, personally, I got a great laugh out of that. Yes, I'm an evil, evil bitch...

Some of us fundie rep christians just pass over replying to such blather

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

H


Some of us fundie rep christians just pass over replying to such blather

Yes, and good for you, kiddo! And some of us non-christian, non-partisan open-minded thinkers prefer to pass over replying to the endless, repetitious, baloney christian-based arguments against such things as same-sex marriage and a woman's right to choose abortion, because your nonsensical, superior, snobbish attitude towards those of us without christian leanings is, well, blather. I've watched the ridiculous blather from your type in these hot gen. msg. threads for two years now, and have noticed one thing: The debate never changes. But Bravo to the keepers of the flame of truth around here for continuing the fight against religion-based reasoning. In the meantime, thanks for the giggle, mr. Windgem, and watch that ego, Berlioz - one of these days you're gonna get a bad back from the weight of that thing! Ciao, kids -

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Yes, and good for you, kiddo! And some of us non-christian, non-partisan

Of all things, you claim non-partisanship?!

open-minded thinkers prefer

PREFER, implying you types are not so open-minded

to pass over replying to the endless, repetitious, baloney christian-based arguments against such things as same-sex marriage and a woman's right to choose abortion, because your nonsensical, superior, snobbish attitude towards those of us without christian leanings is, well, blather.

You yourself said above:

And then when I set the trap pretending to be "mad" at being told I "pigeon-holed" you went for it without hesitation, and gave us a beautiful demonstration of offended and flappered huff n guff! Which I don't know about anyone else, but me, personally, I got a great laugh out of that. Yes, I'm an evil, evil bitch...

Isn't that boasting about being blatherous?

I've watched the ridiculous blather from your type in these hot gen. msg. threads for two years now, and have noticed one thing: The debate never changes.

Well, that's a good thing. Nice to know we use the same arguements, rather than wheedle through with tricks. Consistency used to be admired in debate...

But Bravo to the keepers of the flame of truth around here

Heh! You just critisized our side for "debate never changes", and now you're praising your side for it!

for continuing the fight against religion-based reasoning. In the meantime, thanks for the giggle, mr. Windgem, and watch that ego, Berlioz - one of these days you're gonna get a bad back from the weight of that thing! Ciao, kids -

My ego is fine, thank you

[Lotesse]

It is what it is, kid. It is what it is...