President Obama reverses abortion-funds policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jiro said:
Since you pleaded your 5th, you no longer can voice your opinions in this thread anymore. You just disappointed your own pro-lifers Adios! :wave:
Click to expand...

I can voice my opinions in this thread, but not to YOUR question. Understand ? :)

Since you said that I just disappointed my own pro-lifers ? What ever. Each on their own. :)
 
Hear Again said:
ummm...you're the one who started complaining about morals when you brought up jillio.
Click to expand...

No, I was "complaining" about Jilo whining about us "moral Nazis" who, according to her I guess, only use "morals" to base our decisions on issues such as this.
 
Maria said:
I can voice my opinions in this thread, but not to YOUR question. Understand ? :)

Since you said that I just disappointed my own pro-lifers ? What ever. Each on their own. :)
Click to expand...

actually no. It's not my question. It's the question by Supreme Court to decide on legalization of abortion. and no you cannot voice your opinions anymore since you just plead the fifth to Supreme Court question. the WHOLE issue of abortion came down to one simple question - Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? (in simpler meaning - Does a woman have the right to privacy of the decision to do so?)

since you cannot answer that question (along with pro-lifers)... Supreme Court ruled in favor of pro-choicers. How disappointing for you.... You failed your own agenda.
 
Dutch said:
As are mine.

Again, you are the one who called us "moral Nazis".
Click to expand...

and where did I say that? and sorry no your posts are not relevant. Roe v. Wade is not about morality. It's asking Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
 
Jiro said:
sorry but that wasn't the question in Roe v. Wade case. The question was asked by Supreme Court that determined the legalization of abortion. So I ask again -

"Does a woman have the right to privacy of the decision to do so?" YES or NO?
Click to expand...

The reason I interpreted the question is because it makes no sense as it stands. So I'll just have to break it up.

Does a woman have the right to privacy
Click to expand...

That's fine as far as it goes. A woman has the right of privacy as long as she doesn't kill anybody.

of the decision to do so?
Click to expand...

That part of the question really doesn't make sense. To do so? To do what? So that's why it was neccessary for me to interpret the question. In which case the answer was NO.

The fact that this peice of legal jargon voted in is proof that the whole thing was framed. The Pro abortion crowd were richer then the anti abortion crowd. AND it was mostly funded by Men.
 
dreama said:
The reason I interpreted the question is because it makes no sense as it stands. So I'll just have to break it up.

That's fine as far as it goes. A woman has the right of privacy as long as she doesn't kill anybody.

That part of the question really doesn't make sense. To do so? To do what? So that's why it was neccessary for me to interpret the question. In which case the answer was NO.

The fact that this peice of legal jargon voted in is proof that the whole thing was framed. The Pro abortion crowd were richer then the anti abortion crowd. AND it was mostly funded by Men.
Click to expand...

to do what? obviously... to perform abortion. A actual question asked at Supreme Court was "Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?"

But I used Jillio's version of the question because I don't think you are familiar with our Constitution. But if you do - well then refer to the actual question asked at Supreme Court.
 
Jiro said:
actually no. It's not my question. It's the question by Supreme Court to decide on legalization of abortion. and no you cannot voice your opinions anymore since you just plead the fifth to Supreme Court question. the WHOLE issue of abortion came down to one simple question - Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? (in simpler meaning - Does a woman have the right to privacy of the decision to do so?)

since you cannot answer that question (along with pro-lifers)... Supreme Court ruled in favor of pro-choicers. How disappointing for you.... You failed your own agenda.
Click to expand...

:nono: Nice try, Jiro for attemptin' to MAKE me to say it ( yes or no ). It's best to leave it unsaid. I am not goin' to support if, she choses an abortion that the Constitution give that right to her due to " personal " reason. And, even IF, I say yes I support that Constitution give a woman right to chose an abortion, then you would call me a pro-choicer. :nono:
 
Jiro said:
and where did I say that? and sorry no your posts are not relevant. Roe v. Wade is not about morality. It's asking Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
Click to expand...

Ah...it was Jillo who said that(I'm new here..Jillo..Jiro..mellow..milo). So go back and read up on it, and you'll see what I meant by a double standard.

And also read what I said about the whining about morals..I'd be happy to repost it.
 
Maria said:
:nono: Nice try, Jiro for attemptin' to MAKE me to say it ( yes or no ). It's best to leave it unsaid. I am not goin' to support if, she choses an abortion that the Constitution give that right to her due to " personal " reason. And, even IF, I say yes I support that Constitution give a woman right to chose an abortion, then you would call me a pro-choicer. :nono:
Click to expand...

:dizzy: uh.... so yes or no?

Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
 
Dutch said:
Ah...it was Jillo who said that(I'm new here..Jillo..Jiro..mellow..milo). So go back and read up on it, and you'll see what I meant by a double standard.

And also read what I said about the whining about morals..I'd be happy to repost it.
Click to expand...

actually no I don't really care. Please read up on Roe v. Wade case. :cool2:
 
Maria said:
I can voice my opinions in this thread, but not to YOUR question. Understand ? :)

Since you said that I just disappointed my own pro-lifers ? What ever. Each on their own. :)
Click to expand...

I'm not disapointed in you. Jiro just asked us a nonsensical question. When I tried to translate it into plain english I was told I had to answer it in political jargon instead.

The truth is that question doesn't make any sense by itself unless you know they are refering to abortion.
 
Dutch said:
No, I was "complaining" about Jilo whining about us "moral Nazis" who, according to her I guess, only use "morals" to base our decisions on issues such as this.
Click to expand...

thanks for making my point. :cool2: as for jillio, i have no comment. she's an adult who is capable of expressing her own opinion without me agreeing or disagreeing with her.
 
dreama said:
I'm not disapointed in you. Jiro just asked us a nonsensical question. When I tried to translate it into plain english I was told I had to answer it in political jargon instead.

The truth is that question doesn't make any sense by itself unless you know they are refering to abortion.
Click to expand...

the question IS talking about abortion!!!! what else would it be about? to have a permission to make baby? to have a sterilization? :roll:
 
Hear Again said:
thanks for making my point. :cool2: as for jillio, i have no comment. she's an adult who is capable of expressing her own opinion without me agreeing or disagreeing with her.
Click to expand...

It's not making your point when you add what I said about morals:

I find it amazing how they do not like(and I can see why) to discuss what is actually developing in the womb, but instead they resort to- we're talking about roe-v-wade..what you're talking about has nothing to do with the legality of abortion...you're talking morals and not the law..blah blah blah.

We're called "moral Nazis"..and what are the Nazis famous for? Killing innocent people. They did so because Hitler said it was ok- even ordered them to do so. It was the law of the land. What was that? Morals? Is that the reason why it was wrong? Chinese forced abortions. It's their law. Nothing wrong with it I guess? Don't you dare bring morals into that one, either.
 
Taken from the Roe vs. Wade case...

Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’"

So, any claims that the women are murdering anyone are moot because according the the law, aborting a viable fetus is illegal...
 
Dreama - 2 questions are SAME THING. "Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?" and "Does a woman have the right to privacy of the decision to do so?"

The first question was asked at Supreme Court. Since you are not an American.... I don't think you are familiar with our Constitution so the 2nd question was "translated" to make it easier for you to answer.
 
shel90 said:
Taken from the Roe vs. Wade case...

Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’"

So, any claims that the women are murdering anyone are moot because according the the law, aborting a viable fetus is illegal...
Click to expand...

which was 12 weeks, right? (correct me if I'm wrong). UK allows it up to 24 weeks. HOW TWISTED IS THAT??? Your country, dreama!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top