Just Like Mardi Gras, so they said......

Well, since you brought up the incest exception, we should have one because it would eventually deplete Alabama's fan base

 

As soon as we start shooting they start running and that ressitance falls.

 

I notice you've chosen to ignore TigerEducated's comments, except to suggest he change his name. Sir, you don't know me. You don't know my past, my present, or the many responsibilities that I have currently both to myself and to my family. Untill you are fully aware of the situation I am in, you have absolutely no right to question my choices or my attitude. I'm a pretty passive person, I'm not gung-ho, I don't go looking for a fight, but when one finds me I'll follow it through to the end.

BTW: I'm neither a limp dick nor am I right wing, and I don't pretend to be brave. What I am is a pain in the ass, 6'5" Irish mother fucker who doesn't like his country, his president, or his brothers in sisters fighting in a foreign land to be disrespected constantly domestically. Its about respect. Everything in this life is about respect.

 

SEN...Don't worry...He thinks that he's pissed you off, and now he's snickering to himself...

He's looking at some left-leaning website like cnn.com or nyt.com or something like that, so he can leave a petty link or make up some ridiculous charge at those who support Bush or support Troops or think we're doing the right thing over there.

He cannot support any of his arguments on their own. He has no factual basis, only rhetoric.

He is full of sound and fury, signifying...yadda yadda yadda...He's really just tired...real tired...

He used to be funny, then he used to be annoying, he's always been stupid...But, by now, he's just tired...

 

That's a silly, ridiculous argument - nothing but a canard. You prove it the same way you prove ANY defense raised to a criminal accusation - like self, property, others, etc.
Completely absurd.

 

So, in other words, JD, you'd institute a system by which you'd allow women to come forward and try to "prove their worthiness" to an abortion?

Do you support setting such a system as this up? Who would man it? How would you institute such a setup?

Would you have a board of "rape experts" that would have to prove a rape before you were allowed to abort? Would you merely have to say that you were raped before they were allowed? Would you have to prove your rape in a court of law? How in the world could you expedite justice in time to allow for an abortion using this rape clause in time to abort the child before it reached the "point of no return" (ie-a late term and now illegal abortion)?

When it came to incest, Mr. Wonderful mentioned a situation in which two people who were consenting adults copulated and then became pregnant together. Who says that that child should be aborted, if at the time of the copulation, she was consenting? Why should a situation between two consenting adults be subjected to scrutiny compared to a situation between two non-related adults?

When it came to the life of the mother, who makes that decision? Who assumes the responsibility in a court of law? What board or governing body sets the parameters by which "the life of the mother" is sufficiently in danger enough that abortion would be okayed?

Just explain to me how you consider this feasible, and how you would set it up.

You've NEVER given your stance on abortion, from what I understand. You've also explained that you can support Blanco for being anti-abortion outside of those three ambiguous caveats, which is what prompted me to ask you this question. How would you set up the parameters for those three stiuations that you support Blanco for?

Explain YOUR stance on abortion and explain how Blanco's would set up legally and still allow for choice based on those situations.

If you cannot, then promptly discontinue crowing about Republicans and their stances on abortion.

Right here, right now, lay out your positions on the subject. Then, lay out how YOU would set up a system to protect in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

Then, kindly continue crowing about those you disagree with. But, without explaining the basis for YOUR support, how can sit back and take cynical shots?

You can't sit back and just complain. Offer up how YOU feel, how YOU would do it, first.

Otherwise, go sit in the back of the bus and stop telling us how to drive...

 

I just got back from a week in London. CottonBowl 66: You would fit in real well over there. Why don't you go? We'll help you pack.

 

The real question is what do you anti-abortion lunatics intend to do when Roe v Wade is overturned, and the Federal government and many state governments declare that any fertilized egg in a woman's body is a legal "person."

So if a woman has an abortion and pays a doctor to do it, isn't that a contract murder? Do you want her subjected to the death penalty?

If not, how can you justify putting a man to death for hiring someone to kill his wife, business rival, or enemy? If you do not think she should get the needle in her arm, isn't that a double standard?

Isn't that admitting that you do NOT consider the victim as the same legal status as a forty year old murder victim?

When a divorcing couple wants to flush a frozen embryo (sorry, "person") down the drain because neither wants to have a child with the other, isn't that a contract murder also?

Do you want them both put to death for it?

You anti-abortion fanatics will not answer, I know that. But I just want to point out the hopelessness of consistency in your position.

 

The hoplessness of our consistency, and the clear cut nature of how a stance like that will affect society, is in stark contrast to the frightening levels of uncertainty, liability issues with health care, trying to speed a rape case through the legal system in time to speed up an abortion before it reaches the point of no return (ie-becoming a late term partial birth abortion-which is now illegal, thanks to your fellow Democrats and Republicans in Congress)...

You set up more moral issues and quagmires with your support of a candidate who favors ambiguous statues like, "Rape, incest, and the life of the mother."

The lack of a set of logical, pragmatic steps with which you could implement an anti-abortion statute while protecting these three caveats of choice to abort is noticeable in its absence.

You idiots who support choice, but then support a pro-life candidate who gives you three ridiculous choices that can't be protected legally in any way, shape, or form will not anwer. We all know that. but, I just wanted to point out your hypocrisy...