Abortion: Putting A Face On The Issue

On what page number do the dead baby jokes start?

This thread doesn't have any yet?

Oh sorry, I was watching tv and not paying enough attention. Check your PM box for the dead baby joke. I am afraid it might be too much for this thread.

Why, yes, yes it is too much for this thread

But it wasn't a dead baby joke, just a bad baby joke.

This thread has been through Linden Review and I'm happy to see that with such a controversial topic being debated, there continues to be well-thought-out reasoning to be made from different posters. Please carry on and thanx for being respectful of each other's views.

Can't we just lock it already?

I hope she does run. I can't wait to see the huge Republican losses in the red states. This is the party that's used race as a wedge issue for decades. I would find it very amusing to see it bite them in the butt finally.

What makes you think the woman's doctor hasn't given her the necessary information? Is it because you believe that if she had all the facts she would come to the same conclusions you have? Or is it that you believe these doctors to be evil and scheming to rip the babies out of unsuspecting, uninformed women? Is there any evidence that there is a widespread problem with women not being informed about the procedure? Why should the federal government get involved here?

Usually the people trying to get such nonsense passed try to make the "information" as biased as possible, as gruesome as possible, and as cumbersome as possible. All in order to make abortions more difficult to perform, and, sadly, not to insure that the woman is really informed.

This is the most significant thing Kevn has said about abortion. Having a baby doesn't require a choice, it doesn't require any consideration or thought. No planning, no social services, no money, no health care. No interest at all from the anti-abortionists. Their interest ends the minute the woman decides not to have an abortion. The baby can live in poverty, disease, or in the middle of a war. Not a bit of interest from the anti-abortionists. In fact, most of them support the right of the US to bomb babies. After they've left the womb, they're on their own.

It's not a child.

The point is, if nothing is done..... the baby lives, if a choice is made that changes that fact, it will be choosing abortion.

If the "doctor" has given that information then there is no point arguing it. If not, then why are you saying it shouldn't be mandated? Are you afraid a woman may change her mind if she sees her child before choosing to kill it? I don't understand how there can be a disagreement here, we are talking about ensuring the woman is fully informed.

Government shouldn't be involved. period.

On a sidenote. Gay couples. Should they be allowed to adopt children?

I doubt she will run, if so I doubt she will win nomination.

Being the president's secretary hardly qualifies one to be the president.

She's not the President's secretary. She's The Secretary of State. Before that she was the Natonal Security Advisor during the worst attack on US soil ever. Some might say that's negligence that she should have been fired over. She got promoted instead.

There are gay couples I would not allow to adopt.

There are also strait couples I would not allow to adopt.

*blink* *rubs eyes*
Do you even know who she is?

Duh.

But that's not the question.

The answer was implied.

of course, but you're muddying up the water.

Morning kiddo! Just figured out that you can respell Resident Moderators into "Retard, Demerits Soon!".

Anything happening here yet?

It's a bit quiet right now, as Kevn is figuring out how to best answer my question about whether to allow Gay couples to adopt children.

I'm sure once he finds a relevant fundie opinion from a Google search we'll be up and running.

Wrongo, it has nothing to do with this thread. The train is on track.

It has everything to do with this thread. Answer my question.