- This topic has 1,260 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 21, 2009 at 9:04 PM #472914October 21, 2009 at 9:29 PM #472100
briansd1
Guest[quote=sd_matt]
The baby didn’t ask to be brought over to that house. It was brought there. And now it has to play by that houses rules?[/quote]Remember there is no baby yet. It’s still a fetus.
Living humans get to decide if the fetus will become a baby. If the mother decides no, then there is no baby. Simple as that.
Before it’s a fetus, it’s a zygote. If the morning-after pill were readily available, that would obviate the need for a large chunk of abortions of fetuses.
Would you support morning-after pills?
How about aborting embryos before they become fetuses?
When would you support abortion?
October 21, 2009 at 9:29 PM #472282Guest[quote=sd_matt]
The baby didn’t ask to be brought over to that house. It was brought there. And now it has to play by that houses rules?[/quote]Remember there is no baby yet. It’s still a fetus.
Living humans get to decide if the fetus will become a baby. If the mother decides no, then there is no baby. Simple as that.
Before it’s a fetus, it’s a zygote. If the morning-after pill were readily available, that would obviate the need for a large chunk of abortions of fetuses.
Would you support morning-after pills?
How about aborting embryos before they become fetuses?
When would you support abortion?
October 21, 2009 at 9:29 PM #472639Guest[quote=sd_matt]
The baby didn’t ask to be brought over to that house. It was brought there. And now it has to play by that houses rules?[/quote]Remember there is no baby yet. It’s still a fetus.
Living humans get to decide if the fetus will become a baby. If the mother decides no, then there is no baby. Simple as that.
Before it’s a fetus, it’s a zygote. If the morning-after pill were readily available, that would obviate the need for a large chunk of abortions of fetuses.
Would you support morning-after pills?
How about aborting embryos before they become fetuses?
When would you support abortion?
October 21, 2009 at 9:29 PM #472716Guest[quote=sd_matt]
The baby didn’t ask to be brought over to that house. It was brought there. And now it has to play by that houses rules?[/quote]Remember there is no baby yet. It’s still a fetus.
Living humans get to decide if the fetus will become a baby. If the mother decides no, then there is no baby. Simple as that.
Before it’s a fetus, it’s a zygote. If the morning-after pill were readily available, that would obviate the need for a large chunk of abortions of fetuses.
Would you support morning-after pills?
How about aborting embryos before they become fetuses?
When would you support abortion?
October 21, 2009 at 9:29 PM #472933Guest[quote=sd_matt]
The baby didn’t ask to be brought over to that house. It was brought there. And now it has to play by that houses rules?[/quote]Remember there is no baby yet. It’s still a fetus.
Living humans get to decide if the fetus will become a baby. If the mother decides no, then there is no baby. Simple as that.
Before it’s a fetus, it’s a zygote. If the morning-after pill were readily available, that would obviate the need for a large chunk of abortions of fetuses.
Would you support morning-after pills?
How about aborting embryos before they become fetuses?
When would you support abortion?
October 21, 2009 at 10:52 PM #472161scaredyclassic
Participant“admonish” not to attack “conservatives?
wtf?
like, what the heck is a “conservative” anyway. conserve what? back to what time frame? what standards?
I truly cannot comprehend internet discussions anymore. I am not being facetious. i really have no sense whatsoever what people mean when they claim “conservative” values. I tend to thing “conservative” just means whatever the heck people want it to mean. as for liberal as well.
can we all agree politics is just about power and that any claim to moral superiority is, well, kinda silly.
but particularly conservatism. in the way we’re structured.
October 21, 2009 at 10:52 PM #472340Participant“admonish” not to attack “conservatives?
wtf?
like, what the heck is a “conservative” anyway. conserve what? back to what time frame? what standards?
I truly cannot comprehend internet discussions anymore. I am not being facetious. i really have no sense whatsoever what people mean when they claim “conservative” values. I tend to thing “conservative” just means whatever the heck people want it to mean. as for liberal as well.
can we all agree politics is just about power and that any claim to moral superiority is, well, kinda silly.
but particularly conservatism. in the way we’re structured.
October 21, 2009 at 10:52 PM #472700Participant“admonish” not to attack “conservatives?
wtf?
like, what the heck is a “conservative” anyway. conserve what? back to what time frame? what standards?
I truly cannot comprehend internet discussions anymore. I am not being facetious. i really have no sense whatsoever what people mean when they claim “conservative” values. I tend to thing “conservative” just means whatever the heck people want it to mean. as for liberal as well.
can we all agree politics is just about power and that any claim to moral superiority is, well, kinda silly.
but particularly conservatism. in the way we’re structured.
October 21, 2009 at 10:52 PM #472775Participant“admonish” not to attack “conservatives?
wtf?
like, what the heck is a “conservative” anyway. conserve what? back to what time frame? what standards?
I truly cannot comprehend internet discussions anymore. I am not being facetious. i really have no sense whatsoever what people mean when they claim “conservative” values. I tend to thing “conservative” just means whatever the heck people want it to mean. as for liberal as well.
can we all agree politics is just about power and that any claim to moral superiority is, well, kinda silly.
but particularly conservatism. in the way we’re structured.
October 21, 2009 at 10:52 PM #472992Participant“admonish” not to attack “conservatives?
wtf?
like, what the heck is a “conservative” anyway. conserve what? back to what time frame? what standards?
I truly cannot comprehend internet discussions anymore. I am not being facetious. i really have no sense whatsoever what people mean when they claim “conservative” values. I tend to thing “conservative” just means whatever the heck people want it to mean. as for liberal as well.
can we all agree politics is just about power and that any claim to moral superiority is, well, kinda silly.
but particularly conservatism. in the way we’re structured.
October 22, 2009 at 1:57 AM #472180ucodegen
ParticipantTechnically, he didn’t lie because there are no sexual intercourse, hence no sex.
So you are also trying to redefine how you define the word ‘is’?? Phone sex does not have intercourse with the one on the other end.. Oral sex does not have standard genital penetration.. yet is it called sex… Oy vey.
Congress should have left this as a business between Paula Jones and Bill Clinton.
I would agree, except when a sitting president uses his office to subvert justice for personal gain or reasons… which fits what Clinton was doing.
October 22, 2009 at 1:57 AM #472360ParticipantTechnically, he didn’t lie because there are no sexual intercourse, hence no sex.
So you are also trying to redefine how you define the word ‘is’?? Phone sex does not have intercourse with the one on the other end.. Oral sex does not have standard genital penetration.. yet is it called sex… Oy vey.
Congress should have left this as a business between Paula Jones and Bill Clinton.
I would agree, except when a sitting president uses his office to subvert justice for personal gain or reasons… which fits what Clinton was doing.
October 22, 2009 at 1:57 AM #472720ParticipantTechnically, he didn’t lie because there are no sexual intercourse, hence no sex.
So you are also trying to redefine how you define the word ‘is’?? Phone sex does not have intercourse with the one on the other end.. Oral sex does not have standard genital penetration.. yet is it called sex… Oy vey.
Congress should have left this as a business between Paula Jones and Bill Clinton.
I would agree, except when a sitting president uses his office to subvert justice for personal gain or reasons… which fits what Clinton was doing.
October 22, 2009 at 1:57 AM #472795ParticipantTechnically, he didn’t lie because there are no sexual intercourse, hence no sex.
So you are also trying to redefine how you define the word ‘is’?? Phone sex does not have intercourse with the one on the other end.. Oral sex does not have standard genital penetration.. yet is it called sex… Oy vey.
Congress should have left this as a business between Paula Jones and Bill Clinton.
I would agree, except when a sitting president uses his office to subvert justice for personal gain or reasons… which fits what Clinton was doing.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.