Heinous

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally, I would rather die than purposely kill my unborn child. I've lived my life...I could die tomorrow in a car accident. My husband wasn't too happy when I told him the baby comes first if he found himself in a situation where he had to chose between the baby and me.
 
TXgolfer said:
Wrong as usual. That legalizes the killing. It doesn't say it's not killing.
Click to expand...

incorrect. Roe v. Wade empowers women's rights to privacy.
 
Reba said:
"The laws" are all about details. If you're going to proclaim that you "follow the laws" you need to know what the laws are. You might be surprised.
Click to expand...

like I said - we follow the laws. you are free to add something to what I said. I've never said a spousal's right to make a decision would override patient's wish even if it's documented such as living wills, DNR, etc.

nope never said such thing.
 
kokonut said:
I think most people do. Even going over 5 mph over the speed limit is speeding.
Click to expand...

I agree. But he says he follows the laws, so if he does speed, then he obviously doesn't follow the laws.
 
LoveBlue said:
You said you follow the laws. You just contradicted yourself, then.
Click to expand...

I don't know what would you prefer - breaking a law for speeding or for killing.

that's why Dr. Kevorkian went to jail. and I got a ticket for speeding but I would go to jail for killing a person if I were speeding.

so I fail to see any point in your question. and I'll reiterate again - we follow the laws.
 
LoveBlue said:
I agree. But he says he follows the laws, so if he does speed, then he obviously doesn't follow the laws.
Click to expand...

doctors, lawyers, hospitals, etc. have to follow the laws to the letter. that's why Dr. Kevorkian went to jail.

I don't know why would you even bring in speeding argument into this. it's not even same thing. Straw man perhaps? or non sequitor?

no wonder you people keep failing to convince Supreme Court otherwise. all you have to do is come up with a coherent argument. that's all I'm asking. I don't like abortion either and if I made a mistake, I wouldn't opt for abortion. and I especially don't like interfering with a woman's right to privacy. It's none of my business. The law is already there that it's illegal to perform abortion after third trimester unless her life is in serious danger due to pregnancy.

So yea - you're not giving me any single coherent reason to trample over woman's rights to privacy. I, in my good conscience, cannot support such unconstitutional act. That's why Supreme Court disagrees with you and continues to disagree since Roe v. Wade.
 
Foxrac said:
You misunderstood my post...

I means during third trimester, the women are allowed to abort the fetus if their life is in danger and it has been for many years, prior to Roe v. Wade.

For all other reasons - allowed up to 17 weeks, that it.
Click to expand...


I didn't misunderstand anything. You jumped into a conversation without are fully reading my post.
 
:lol:

Don't see anything where it says no killing is involved.
 
Jiro said:
I don't follow. what did you think what Roe v. Wade is mainly about?
Click to expand...

R v W was a case that decided baby killing was covered by the right to privacy.... :lol: It didn't extend that right..... It used that right to justify its decision
 
TXgolfer said:
R v W was a case that decided baby killing was covered by the right to privacy.... :lol: It didn't extend that right..... It used that right to justify its decision
Click to expand...

You completely misunderstood Roe v. Wade. This case allowed women's right to privacy to make a decision. Before - her right was being interfered by state and panels to decide whether or not she can have one. Now... women do not have to go thru humiliating and degrading farce to make a decision..... hence empowering women's rights to privacy.
 
Jiro said:
You completely misunderstood Roe v. Wade. This case allowed women's right to privacy to make a decision. Before - her right was being interfered by state and panels to decide whether or not she can have one. Now... women do not have to go thru humiliating and degrading farce to make a decision..... hence empowering women's rights to privacy.
Click to expand...


Nice edit and twist..... :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top