What?!?!?!?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:57 am

Scrat wrote: I believe it's called apathy. And your spot on. This is a free country, you can do as you like and hurt other people and ruin lives. If you have enough money for a top end lawyer, you can get away with it too.

To me it's not a battle worth fighting, why? because when it comes to concepts like "accountability", "responsibility", "caring", "love", "right", "wrong", "good" and "evil" they are all shades of grey.
Then your opinion is worthless - useless noise unattached to will.

Scrat wrote: No one seems to want to set good standards and good examples for the generations coming up. It's a free for all. From sex in the highschools to making as much money as possible as fast as you can any way you can. Not no one, Scrat. YOU! You are unwilling to set good standards and good examples. It's too hard. I am setting the best example I am able. I am influencing whomever I can to turn around and make a difference.

But because not everyone is cooperating, you see no one cooperating. It's hard, so you quit.

Scrat wrote: I find capitalistic thinkers such as you to be some of the worst apologizers for what ails society today. Look at the television ads, advertising in general. SEX SELLS!!! Our society breeds the most voracious consumers on the planet. Consumers of everything available, including SEX!!

In a society that discourages critical thought in favor of having the latest fashion from Abercrombie and Fitsch you really don't expect people to have a real firm grasp on consequences do you?
Yes, Scrat, I do. Despite the uphill battle I'm fighting having to climb over do-nothing whiners like you, I do expect people to understand consequences. The fact that evil people take advantage of the gullible does not take away the gullible's responsibility.

We are all accountable for our actions - and inaction. You, Scrat, are responsible for the state our society has become, due to your apathy.

Yes it's hard. It's like trying to eat an elephant. How do you eat a whole elephant? One bite at a time. But you prefer to complain helplessly, because it's hard. You make my job harder, yet I continue.

Scrat wrote: Always quick to point out who should be responsible ect but never willing to look in the mirror.
I look in the mirror every day, Scrat. I like what I see. I understand that my situation is my own. My life is my own. My destiny is my own. I have companions to help me and enemies to hinder me - and apathetic people to just stand in my way - but I know it is my responsibility to make of my life what I will. It is my responsibility to take risks and to be accountable for the consequences.

I have a saying: it's not the f*ckup, it's the recovery that counts. I look in the mirror daily and assess my progress, and my recoveries.

What do you see in the mirror, Scrat?

Scrat wrote: Abortion is a necessary evil, doctors get rich off of doing them and the indusrty keeps 10s of thousands of people employed.
Abortion is an evil of convenience. Apathy allows the practice to flourish. You, Scrat, through your apathetic inaction, allow the practice to become socially acceptable.

You disgust me.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:53 am

Scrat wrote: To me it's not a battle worth fighting, why? because when it comes to concepts like "accountability", "responsibility", "caring", "love", "right", "wrong", "good" and "evil" they are all shades of grey.

Hmmm...you must have had different parents than mine. All of those concepts are black and white in my head, completely defined.

No one seems to want to set good standards and good examples for the generations coming up.

Speak for yourself, Scrat. Each morning I put on my best clothes, go to work, do not swear, show honor, courage, integrity, and dignity. I treat all the children I meet during that day with compassion, courtesy, and love.

No matter how bad my personal life might be I start off every class period with a smile and a happy greeting. I am aware that every action I take will be weighed in their minds as professional or unprofessional and I strive for the former unceasingly. Respect is the word of the day in my cassroom. I have it for them, and they have it for me.

I never lie, or cheat, or play favorites. I always reward, encourage, and inspire.

So...just who are these people you are talking about?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:15 pm

Accountable wrote:

Abortion is an evil of convenience. Apathy allows the practice to flourish. You, Scrat, through your apathetic inaction, allow the practice to become socially acceptable.

The problem with the bill is that it's indiscriminate. Your reply is both indisriminate and inaccurate.

By not accepting that there can possibly be any circumstances under which abortion can be a necessary solution you make yourself either an extremist or you're not thinking things through.

Take, for example, the case of the explosion at the Union Carbide plant at Bhopal or the similar chemical plant explosion in northern Italy a couple of years later. In both cases it was a near certanty that any woman in the early stages of pregnancy within the fallout zone would have a deformed baby. Would you deny those women the choice? Would you describe abortion in those circumstances as "a convenience"?

Your inaccuracy is in mistaking disagreement with your views as "apathetic inaction".

Accountable wrote: You disgust me.

Hardly good debating technique?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:24 pm

Jives wrote: Hmmm...you must have had different parents than mine. All of those concepts are black and white in my head, completely defined.

Is someone evil who does bad deeds with good intent? Is someone good who is generous through selfish motives?

Is it good to save a man's life if he turns out to be Stalin to the power of Poll Pot?

Short of absoute zero and the speed of light is anything totally fixed?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:33 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: The problem with the bill is that it's indiscriminate. Your reply is both indisriminate and inaccurate.

By not accepting that there can possibly be any circumstances under which abortion can be a necessary solution you make yourself either an extremist or you're not thinking things through.

Take, for example, the case of the explosion at the Union Carbide plant at Bhopal or the similar chemical plant explosion in northern Italy a couple of years later. In both cases it was a near certanty that any woman in the early stages of pregnancy within the fallout zone would have a deformed baby. Would you deny those women the choice? Would you describe abortion in those circumstances as "a convenience"?Yes, I would describe it as a convenience. Are your eyes finished rolling? I don't believe I said anything about taking away the choice to murder the baby, any more than I suggested taking away Scrat's choice of apathy.

Such a choiced as you apparently endorse might snuff out the life of the next Stephen Hawking (world renowned physicist).

Bryn Mawr wrote: Your inaccuracy is in mistaking disagreement with your views as "apathetic inaction".Scrat defined himself as apathetic.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Hardly good debating technique?
I'm not in this for debating competition. I'm trying to convince people to take responsibility for their actions.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:40 pm

Accountable wrote: I'm not in this for debating competition. I'm trying to convince people to take responsibility for their actions.

Which was my point, where the cause is through no action of their own you are making them take responsibility for someone elses actions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:41 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Which was my point, where the cause is through no action of their own you are making them take responsibility for someone elses actions.
Okay, you wanna untangle that for us in the back of the class, please?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:51 pm

Accountable wrote: Okay, you wanna untangle that for us in the back of the class, please?

In what ways are people affected by the criminal irrisponsibility of the owners of the chemical plants responsible?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 3:56 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: In what ways are people affected by the criminal irrisponsibility of the owners of the chemical plants responsible?
I see no difference between the parents dealing with situation you described possibly causing birth defects, and parents dealing with a 10-year-old kid severely burned in a chemical spill. It's your kid; you deal with it. You try your best to make it work.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:02 pm

Accountable wrote: I see no difference between the parents dealing with situation you described possibly causing birth defects, and parents dealing with a 10-year-old kid severely burned in a chemical spill. It's your kid; you deal with it. You try your best to make it work.

So at what point do you see the foetus as being an independant entity?

Presumably, from your comments, at conception?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:19 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: So at what point do you see the foetus as being an independant entity?

Presumably, from your comments, at conception?
That's when there is DNA evidence of a unique human being, yes. I will be happy when we finally give them citizen status, so this whole argument will go away.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:34 pm

Accountable wrote: That's when there is DNA evidence of a unique human being, yes. I will be happy when we finally give them citizen status, so this whole argument will go away.

But not an independant self sustaining entity.

Until that occurrs I would prefer to give some consideration to the possible effects on the parents and siblings.

I do worry about rigid attitudes - under no possible circumstances can this possibly be right. Personally, I can never be that certain that I know all of the variations.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:41 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: But not an independant self sustaining entity.

Until that occurrs I would prefer to give some consideration to the possible effects on the parents and siblings.

I do worry about rigid attitudes - under no possible circumstances can this possibly be right. Personally, I can never be that certain that I know all of the variations.
I can see it now: Gee sorry, Uncle Bob. I know you don't want to be taken off the machine, but you're not an independant sulf sustaining entity anymore, and we've decided you shouldn't suffer. Rest in peace, Unc.

Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

I worry about attitudes of such flexibility that life and death are concepts that change with a mood. If a woman thinks a baby might have a birth defect and doesn't want to deal with it - or worse, doesn't want anyone to deal with it - she can have it killed in a clinic, and it's called abortion.

That same woman could be attacked by some thug stealing her bag, and in the struggle she's shot, stabbed, or otherwise injured resulting in the baby's death, and it's called murder.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:50 pm

Accountable wrote: I can see it now: Gee sorry, Uncle Bob. I know you don't want to be taken off the machine, but you're not an independant sulf sustaining entity anymore, and we've decided you shouldn't suffer. Rest in peace, Unc.

Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

For the record, I have registered a wish that, should I get to a state where I am not capable of independant thought or action then I would wish to be allowed to die with dignity.

Accountable wrote: I worry about attitudes of such flexibility that life and death are concepts that change with a mood. If a woman thinks a baby might have a birth defect and doesn't want to deal with it - or worse, doesn't want anyone to deal with it - she can have it killed in a clinic, and it's called abortion.

That same woman could be attacked by some thug stealing her bag, and in the struggle she's shot, stabbed, or otherwise injured resulting in the baby's death, and it's called murder.

And you cannot see that it might be more than whim?

It being midnight and work being 06:00, I'll call it a night.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 4:57 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: For the record, I have registered a wish that, should I get to a state where I am not capable of independant thought or action then I would wish to be allowed to die with dignity.Nice sidestep. Care to come back and face the scenario I put forth?

Bryn Mawr wrote: And you cannot see that it might be more than whim?

It being midnight and work being 06:00, I'll call it a night.Can't see what being more than a whim? I was talking about the premeditated death of a baby in two different situations. I understand about the time though. More than once I read something & realized I didn't have time to address it properly. :-5 It'll be here when you get back.

Sleep well.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 6:24 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Is someone evil who does bad deeds with good intent?

Good question, the answer is yes. Doing bad deeds can never be good, only bad. "The ends do not justify the means." Sure, killing off all the retarded people in the world would help the gene pool. But evil means cannot be used to attain a goal, no matter how good you might think it is. See: Adolf Hitler and his ideas for a "Master Race."

Is someone good who is generous through selfish motives?

A good deed is a good deed, no matter the motivation behind it. Let's say I'm a rich man who needs a tax shelter, so I give a ton of money to homeless people. That's still a good deed, no matter why I did it.

Is it good to save a man's life if he turns out to be Stalin to the power of Poll Pot?

Since the future is still a mystery, this can't be answered. But you might be suggesting would I do something like pull a known serial-killer out a a puddle of quicksand or let him sink and die? The answer is that I would always try to do the good thing, save his life. Like I said, black and white.

Of course right after saving him, I would make sure that he stood trial for his crimes. But again, that is doing what is right.

Short of absoute zero and the speed of light is anything totally fixed?

Yep. Pi, the acceleration of gravity...and good and evil.

;)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:07 pm

Scrat wrote: Well AC THAT was a meltdown.

I'll tell you what, you just keep on trying to impose your will on others. I'm not that type, I prefer to take care of myself and those that I value in my life. I'll help a stranger in need in my immediate vacinity if I can, when they need it, and if I think they won't sue me for helping. My will is that people think for themselves, decide for themselves, act on their decisions, and accept responsibility for those actions. By definition, I can't impose my will on anyone, because they wouldn't be doing it for themselves.

You have indicated time and again that people can't be trusted to do what they should. You continuously point to the former Soviet Union claiming how much better off they were before the fall. You practically worship the style of gov't that imposes its will on the people. No wonder you don't recognize support for freedom when you see it.

Scrat wrote: There's a difference between helping someone in need and imposing your will on them. Imposing one's will involves force. Not only have I never said abortion should be outlawed, I have consistently spoken out for choices, and taking responsibility for those choices. After all, that's what being an adult is supposed to be about.

Scrat wrote: No one has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Just like no one has a right to tell you not to have sex with your SO/whatever.

It seems to me you have your own kind of apathy. You like the status quo which is what makes things such as abortion necessary. A third world kind of status quo.Nothing in this thread or anything that I've posted on this subject could be misconstrued as apathetic, unless you misunderstand the definition.

Exactly what status quo am I supporting? The status quo of people taking responsibility for their decisions? You yourself said the status quo is just the opposite. The status quo of considering a fetus a full citizen? Doesn't exist yet so that can't be it. What status quo?

I ask sincerely, because I truly think you're reading through filters. If I'm in any way supporting our dispicable status quo of fun at all costs and aversion to responsibility, I need to know so that I can take responsibility for being misleading and fix my mistakes.

Scrat wrote: You have your comfort zone and I have mine, which happens to be minding my own business.

You just sit there in your chair and bust your veins, I'm at peace with my life.
Too bad. Really. Especially since you're not satisfied with our society, our country, or our young people.

Scrat wrote: Just how far will you go in your imposition of will on others?:-2I'm not imposing my will on anyone. Am I forcing you, or anyone, to respond? I expect you to. I appreciate it when you do. But there is no imposition in effect.

Alfred · Post by **Alfred** » Tue Feb 28, 2006 11:22 pm

Jives wrote:

Yep. Pi, the acceleration of gravity...and good and evil.

;)

sorry to have to tell you this but none of the above are fixed.

pm me if you really care why.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:11 am

Acc should get pregnant and carry the fetus for nine months and raise the child with nothing....maybe he could get a job at Walmart and maybe with the welfare he gets (which he is against) might help his and his child's living conditions and so forth, heaven forbid the child is dis abled because he is against the government funding the disabled...............Thank your lucky stars you are Male ACC.:-3

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:51 am

Accountable wrote:

I look forward to the day when citizenship is bestowed at life, rather than birth. Then the question will be settled.
no it won't.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:56 am

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Acc should get pregnant and carry the fetus for nine months and raise the child with nothing....maybe he could get a job at Walmart and maybe with the welfare he gets (which he is against) might help his and his child's living conditions and so forth, heaven forbid the child is dis abled because he is against the government funding the disabled...............Thank your lucky stars you are Male ACC.:-3
* Why would I have nothing?

* I am not against temporary welfare to help responsible people get back on their feet. Your scenario seems to show that you assume a woman incapable of (a) taking care of herself, or (b) being responsible enough not to sleep with irresponsible men.

* Where have you ever seen me state anything at all regarding disabled children?

* I am lucky I am male.

* I would think that if I were a woman so stupid as to be on my own with nothing, who had had sex with an irresponsible man and got pregnant, I would at least have the maturity and sense of responsibility for my child to give him/her to a loving family for adoption, so he/she would have opportunities I would not be able to give.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:10 am

Accountable wrote: * Why would I have nothing?

* I am not against temporary welfare to help responsible people get back on their feet. Your scenario seems to show that you assume a woman incapable of (a) taking care of herself, or (b) being responsible enough not to sleep with irresponsible men.

* Where have you ever seen me state anything at all regarding disabled children?

* I am lucky I am male.

* I would think that if I were a woman so stupid as to be on my own with nothing, who had had sex with an irresponsible man and got pregnant, I would at least have the maturity and sense of responsibility for my child to give him/her to a loving family for adoption, so he/she would have opportunities I would not be able to give.

Oh Acc, you make it sound so simple & cut & dried. First, let me make a comment to your first comment: That citizenship should be bestowed at life, not birth. If this is truly the beginning of life, why not a conception day, rather than a BIRTHday? You can't have it both ways.

Secondly, you ARE lucky you are a male. Women know how extremely hard it would be to give a baby up for adoption. Once I felt my daughter moving inside me, there was NO WAY I could've given her up.

One more thing... it's not always irresponsibility. Women have been known to get pregnant while on birthcontrol.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:32 am

observer1 wrote: Oh Acc, you make it sound so simple & cut & dried. First, let me make a comment to your first comment: That citizenship should be bestowed at life, not birth. If this is truly the beginning of life, why not a conception day, rather than a BIRTHday? You can't have it both ways.What 'both' do you see? Birthday is a celebration, not a law. I'm suggesting a radical new concept. I'm cool with celebrating conception. I think it would be a very nice anniversary to commemorate.

observer1 wrote: Secondly, you ARE lucky you are a male. Women know how extremely hard it would be to give a baby up for adoption. Once I felt my daughter moving inside me, there was NO WAY I could've given her up.I never said it was easy. Many of the very best things to do are the most difficult. Life sucks that way.

observer1 wrote: One more thing... it's not always irresponsibility. Women have been known to get pregnant while on birthcontrol.That doesn't eliminate the parents' responsibility to the child (justify abortion) any more than driving the speed limit eliminates your responsibility should you rear-end someone.

Birth control reduces risk, that is all. Abstinence reduces it more. You want pleasure without risk? Masturbate.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:52 pm

Accountable wrote: Nice sidestep. Care to come back and face the scenario I put forth?

I'm back!

Accountable wrote: Can't see what being more than a whim? I was talking about the premeditated death of a baby in two different situations. I understand about the time though. More than once I read something & realized I didn't have time to address it properly. :-5 It'll be here when you get back.

Sleep well.

Hmmmm too much thinking before bedtime can be a disadvantage when it come to waking up in the morning

Until and unless we can ever agree the point at which a foetus becomes a person in it's own right then we are unlikely to agree on anything else in this thread.

Assuming that the foetus is before this point (which I accept you are not likely to), then it's a question of accountability. The murderer is accountable for his actions and the harm done to the mother. The mother may not be accountable for the damage to the foetus but is accountable for the effects on any other children she may be raising.

If the foetus is beyond the aforementioned point then all bets are off and, as you quite rightly say, the needs of the baby are paramount.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:48 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Assuming that the foetus is before this point (which I accept you are not likely to), then it's a question of accountability. The murderer is accountable for his actions and the harm done to the mother. The mother may not be accountable for the damage to the foetus but is accountable for the effects on any other children she may be raising.
This is the hipocrisy that's happening today. How can the guy be a murderer if the baby wasn't alive in the first place? If the fetus is only a lump, a cyst, that the mother (sorry, woman) owns - as I heard argued once on a TV discussion - which she can keep or dispose of as she wishes, then the most the guy can be charged with is property damage. Of course then we have to figure the fair market value of a lifeless lump of cells, don't we.

People - or the courts, in this case - pick whichever definition is convenient for their ends. Yet another example of the societal cancer we should fight against.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:00 pm

Accountable wrote: This is the hipocrisy that's happening today.

From Wikipedia

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence.

Not hypocricy, just a different set of beliefs to yours - and probibly equally entrenched

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:12 pm

Accountable wrote: Birth control reduces risk, that is all. Abstinence reduces it more. You want pleasure without risk? Masturbate.

Try telling that to a married couple who doesn't want children. "Nope, sorry, you can't have sex, too great a risk!!" Let me tell you, at the very least, the husband is GONNA get laid. By a living breathing woman, whether it's his wife or not.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:13 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: From Wikipedia

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence.

Not hypocricy, just a different set of beliefs to yours - and probibly equally entrenched
Well please try to explain it to me, because when I see a 3-week old beagle pup, for instance, there is no situation that will convince me that it sometimes is not a 3-week old beagle pup. Yet the same fetus is a living being or a worthless lump of flesh, simply based on how it was killed. How does its worthiness change?

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:37 pm

Accountable wrote: * Why would I have nothing?

* I am not against temporary welfare to help responsible people get back on their feet. Your scenario seems to show that you assume a woman incapable of (a) taking care of herself, or (b) being responsible enough not to sleep with irresponsible men.

* Where have you ever seen me state anything at all regarding disabled children?

* I am lucky I am male.

* I would think that if I were a woman so stupid as to be on my own with nothing, who had had sex with an irresponsible man and got pregnant, I would at least have the maturity and sense of responsibility for my child to give him/her to a loving family for adoption, so he/she would have opportunities I would not be able to give.

LOL! You're funny!:p

Scary but funny...............:rolleyes:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:38 pm

Accountable wrote: Well please try to explain it to me ........

.... Yet the same fetus is a living being or a worthless lump of flesh, simply based on how it was killed. How does its worthiness change?

Not based on how it was killed - you're misquoting me. Based on whether it was capable of independent existance.

You're also misrepresenting my argument by suggesting that I consider the foetus to be a "worthless lump of flesh". That has never been my contention but I do hold that it is not a person until it is capable of existing independantly of its mother.

Until the point, the right of people must, at least, be taken into consideration.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:43 pm

Bryn Mawr wrote: Not based on how it was killed - you're misquoting me. Based on whether it was capable of independent existance.

You're also misrepresenting my argument by suggesting that I consider the foetus to be a "worthless lump of flesh". That has never been my contention but I do hold that it is not a person until it is capable of existing independantly of its mother.

Until the point, the right of people must, at least, be taken into consideration.
Sorry, I didn't mean to infer any of that came from you. I'm talking about society in general. The courts do now charge with murder people that kill a fetus, unless they do it as an abortion.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:47 pm

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: LOL! You're funny!:p

Scary but funny...............:rolleyes:
I think you know me well enough to know I don't see the humor in this. Can you explain it to me, or at least address my questions?

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:00 pm

Acc, as in the past, I'm going to agree to disagree with you on this one Hon. We're just going to knock heads.

I did hear the governor say that there are so few abortions performed in his state, anyway.

The bottom line is that I still believe it is the woman's (and depending on the situation, sometimes the man's) right to choice. We don't force women to have abortions who don't want them. Why should we be forced to carry to term, if there are risks, physical or otherwise? It's a matter of choice.

As I say about other things... I'm not harming anyone but myself (and don't tell me the fetus is being harmed, it doesn't know life yet), so why should others poke their noses into my business at that point? They won't be willing to poke their noses into it after the child is born & while I'm struggling to raise it.

Well, time to go! Catch up with y'all tomorrow.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:06 pm

observer1 wrote: [...]As I say about other things... I'm not harming anyone but myself (and don't tell me the fetus is being harmed, it doesn't know life yet), so why should others poke their noses into my business at that point? They won't be willing to poke their noses into it after the child is born & while I'm struggling to raise it.

Well, time to go! Catch up with y'all tomorrow.
The fetus doesn't know life yet, so it's okay to kill him/her. Slaves didn't know freedom, so it was okay to own them. Okay, I see your point.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:33 pm

Accountable wrote: I think you know me well enough to know I don't see the humor in this. Can you explain it to me, or at least address my questions?

I don't know Acc, I guess unless you are a "WOMAN" you wouldn't understand.

Let's just say I hope the pendulum for "Womens rights" never swings back, we women take for granted so many things, twas not all that long ago women were considered property by their spouses.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:48 pm

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: I don't know Acc, I guess unless you are a "WOMAN" you wouldn't understand.
:wah: I like that. "It's a woman thang. You wouldn't understand." Right on. Right on.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:50 pm

Accountable wrote: :wah: I like that. "It's a woman thang. You wouldn't understand." Right on. Right on.
Then can we get a woman in here who does understand and can explain it to me? I'm a woman, and I don't get it either.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:00 pm

Accountable wrote: :wah: I like that. "It's a woman thang. You wouldn't understand." Right on. Right on.

I guess so....YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!:sneaky:

You want to call all the shots!

Only Women Bleed

Alice cooper, and d wagner

"Man got his woman, to take his seed

He got the power, she got the need"

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:03 pm

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: I guess so....YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!:sneaky:

You want to call all the shots!

Only Women Bleed

Alice cooper, and d wagner

"Man got his woman, to take his seed

He got the power, she got the need"
Exactly incorrect. I want people - all people - to stand for themselves and stop using circumstance as a crutch.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:28 pm

BabyRider wrote: Then can we get a woman in here who does understand and can explain it to me? I'm a woman, and I don't get it either.

Who or what do you not understand?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:33 pm

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Who
You

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: or what do you not understand?
This:

I guess so....YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!:sneaky:

You want to call all the shots!

Only Women Bleed

Alice cooper, and d wagner

"Man got his woman, to take his seed

He got the power, she got the need"

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:49 pm

BabyRider wrote: You

This:

Baby,Baby, Baby, are you being "OBTUSE"?:sneaky:

That is not the reply I made to Acc before you called for the question....catch up!

This one you ask for is a full 10 minutes later:-6

not the original question.

(the original post you asked for was made at 3:33PM)

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:45 pm

Scrat wrote: I can't believe we're going here again. This is unbefreakinglievable!!! Nobody has a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Period.

I do believe in parental conscent in these matters and I certainly am against taxpayers subsidizing womens rights to an abortion (I don't like any kind of tax at all. If we had a VAT tax on cloths I would wear rabbit skins) but I won't ever say a woman can't have an abortion if she wants one.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11546410/?GT1=7756

S. Dakota lawmakers OK ban on most abortions

Law, expected to take effect in July, intended to spark Roe v. Wade fight

Updated: 6:50 p.m. ET Feb. 24, 2006

PIERRE, S.D. - South Dakota lawmakers approved a ban on nearly all abortions Friday, setting up a deliberate frontal assault on Roe v. Wade at a time when some activists see the U.S. Supreme Court as more willing than ever to overturn the 33-year-old decision.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the womanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the bench. Lawmakers said growing support among South Dakotans for abortion restrictions added momentum to the bill.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“I think the stars are aligned,Ã¢â‚¬Â said House Speaker Matthew Michels, a Republican. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Simply put, now is the time.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, has pledged to sue over the measure. About 800 abortions a year are performed in South Dakota.

Some opponents of the bill said abortion should at least be allowed in cases of rape or incest, or where the womanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s health is threatened.

If a rape victim becomes pregnant and bears a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“The idea the rapist could be in the childÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s life ... makes the woman very, very fearful. Sometimes they need to have choice,Ã¢â‚¬Â Heeren-Graber said.

Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion. The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday, and the Senate approved it 23-12 earlier this week. If signed, it would become law July 1.

Girding for battle

Money for the anticipated legal fight is already pouring in. Lawmakers were told during the debate that an anonymous donor has pledged $1 million to defend the ban, and the Legislature is setting up a special account to accept donations.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve had people stopping in our office trying to drop off checks to promote the defense of this legislation already,Ã¢â‚¬Â Rounds said.

Leslee Unruh, president of the Alpha Center, a Sioux Falls pregnancy counseling agency that tries to steer women away from abortion, said most of the abortions performed in South Dakota do not stem from rape or even failed contraception, but are simply Ã¢â‚¬Å“conveniences.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Unruh said she believes most South Dakota women want the state to ban abortion, and many who have had abortions Ã¢â‚¬Å“wish someone would have stopped them.Ã¢â‚¬Â

The governor said he believes it would be better to eliminate abortion in steps rather than all at once. Rounds indicated he does not share the view that Alito and Roberts will usher in sudden, dramatic changes in how the court views abortion. He said it could be a drawn-out legal battle, and noted that it is not even assured that the high court will hear the case.

The bill Ã¢â‚¬Å“may satisfy a lot of individuals out there who would like to see if there is one slim chance the court may entertain three years from now a direct assault on Roe v. Wade,Ã¢â‚¬Â Rounds said.

He added, however: Ã¢â‚¬Å“IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve indicated IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m pro-life and I do believe abortion is wrong and that we should do everything we can to save lives. If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Rounds said his staff will review the bill for technical defects. He noted that he vetoed a similar measure two years ago because it would have wiped out all existing restrictions on abortion while the bill was challenged in court.

WEhat

Now try this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11621741/No exceptions for rape or incest?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 8:43 pm

Somewhere, there's a doctor that's figuring out a way to take a fetus from one womb and transfer it to the womb of a woman who wants the child.

Pray for that doctor.

StupidCowboyTricks · Post by **StupidCowboyTricks** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:11 pm

Accountable wrote: Somewhere, there's a doctor that's figuring out a way to take a fetus from one womb and transfer it to the womb of a woman who wants the child.

Pray for that doctor.

so what you're saying that the rape victim should be victimized again? Would the rapist have parental rights?:-2

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:25 pm

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: so what you're saying that the rape victim should be victimized again? Would the rapist have parental rights?:-2
I'm saying that there's more than one victim in these horrible circumstances. No matter how the child was conceived, he or she deserves a shot at making a good life.

No, the criminal should be cooked slowly over a low fire, then fed to the local vermin.

But it's a shame that the only options today are that a woman carry a reminder that she was raped for nine tortuous months, or to kill a child that had nothing to do with the crime.

That's why I hope for the day when a doctor finds a way to take an innocent child, conceived in torture, out of the womb of a rape victim who neither deserves to be further victimized nor to be a part of the murder of an innocent, and place him or her in the womb of a desparate but loving mother who has no other way to enjoy God's greatest gift - a gift man is unworthy to receive.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:26 pm

StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Baby,Baby, Baby, are you being "OBTUSE"?:sneaky:

That is not the reply I made to Acc before you called for the question....catch up!

This one you ask for is a full 10 minutes later:-6

not the original question.

Geeze, don't people find it aggravating that they cannot form an original thought on their own? That would drive me nuts.....

You asked me what I did not understand. I posted what I did not understand. And you know what? Your constant unwarranted, unfounded, ill-advised remarks are not even worth the effort of me trying to understand you anymore. Buh-bye, Stupid.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:28 pm

Accountable wrote: Somewhere, there's a doctor that's figuring out a way to take a fetus from one womb and transfer it to the womb of a woman who wants the child.

Pray for that doctor.
That idea I really like. Is this true, Acc., or wishful thinking? (For the record, I am all for it!!)