Now grannie...You are being just a bit sly here. You use the term 'forcing a woman to have children' and then try to lay a guilt-trip on pro-choicers. First of all you provide no definitions. I already asked you what you meant and all I got was a bunch of left-wing talking-points. Apparently you have forgotten HOW it is that the pregnancy comes about. I gave you a hint when I said the word 'rape' which is a criminal act punishable by law. Are you then claiming that all abortions are the result of rape?
Yea those nasty conspirators... Yea those (*)(*)(*)(*) conspirators, that and paranoia, go hand in hand. Next we know you'll suggest foil hats. No, I do not , but clearly you do, or are purposely misrepresenting what I say. Yea so? It is not what is visible, but where it is at whose expense. I made no summary law, but it would be better if you sopped lying. No such implication was made, so again you are either purposely lying or lack reading comprehension. That is exactly it, I do not want ANY KIND of dictatorship, communist or theocratic. I am not, I love them, but not in public places or at public expense. And it belongs in personal life not in public affairs.
Killing them is preferable to inconvenient timing? You SERIOUSLY don't see how sick that is? So is abortion in general a good thing? Please answer directly, no dodging this time.
Intentionally killing a child in utero is not a medical procedure, it is basically a "hit" and a homicide unless it saves a life. It is only a medical procedure when it saves a life.
What difference does it make HOW the pregnancy comes about? Is a fetus that results from rape different from a fetus resulting from consensual sex? Forcing women to continue a pregnancy simply because it is a result of consensual sex is admitting that the forced pregnancy/childbirth is intended to be a punishment for the woman's choosing to have sex. Oh, BTW, denying a woman a perfectly safe medical procedure IS FORCING her. If pro-lifers feel any guilt from that, and I doubt any do, it is well deserved.
The ONLY way one can be said to be forcing ANYTHING on the pregnant woman is in the case of rape. That is just basic logic! No guilt whatsoever. Why would anyone feel guilty for prohibiting a homicide? Again, abortion just because a woman wants one is not a medical procedure!!!
You have a unique perception of logic. Think about this: if a woman is denied an abortion, she is then, it logically follows, forced to continue the pregnancy and ultimately give birth. "Wanting" or "Not wanting" is not what qualifies a medical procedure. Think about it. Plastic surgery for a boob job is just as much a medical procedure as an appendectomy.
So where is the "forced life"? The life exists prior to any abortion opportunity arising; therefore, logically any abortion decision cannot "force life". So, in your opinion, is prohibiting murder in our society "forcing life"? Legality aside, it is the same principle. I see, so does a boob job intentionally kill anyone? Is that the purpose for the procedure?
It is forced pregnancy, forced parenthood, forced birth, anytime a woman chooses an abortion and is denied one. Your attempts at deflection aren't working. The intentional outcome of a procedure is not what determines whether it is medical or not. Medical procedures are those performed by medical personnel to enhance the well-being of the patient.
I approve of prohibiting homicides at will, whether they be abortions or any other homicide. Is that clear enough for you? Once again, a procedure designed to kill a person is not a medical procedure unless it saves the life of another. What you call deflection, the sane world calls logic. At least you implicitly acknowledged that an abortion is the killing of a person. I consider that progress.
Well they did... Im part of a growing movement in America of atheists standing up for their rights. Its a very exciting time for us that were having more of an impact in our society, said Damon Vix, the organizer of the atheist group." Yes you do..and I pointed it out. Apparently you missed that as well. I referred to a former post where I said Christmas decorations on private property FACE public roads and that so-called 'religious' displays on City streets and public malls and parking facilities would apparently run afoul of your secular-humanist 'religion.' Apparently you either 'mis-comprehended' yet again or you are telling a lie. Then Atheists are guilty as well. Their 'religion' has caused public expenditure as well. You were extolling the virtues of Eastern Europe where you said there were "no displays anywhere and people managed to celebrate Christmas"....The IMPLICATION is that Christians should just shut up and celebrate quietly like they did in the Eastern European block. There is no theocratic dictatorship in the US but we are close to communism with the suppression of religious displays. I would also point out that at least 2 centuries of celebrating Christmas, religious displays on public property and other 'religious' celebrations has NOT resulted in a theocracy.
I did neither and did address your point. You as usual are missing the point or misrepresenting it. My point was that in Eastern Europe, there wee no public displays of religious nature yet people managed to enjoy and celebrate religious holidays. They sag and caroled in churches and in their homes and the homes of friends who shared their faith. They did not need displays or had to wear their faith on their sleeves yet remained true and I say closed to what their faith required of them. Thank God for that. BS that is nothing more than your paranoia. It just goes to show your ignorance. Look up when Christmas became a national holiday then explain why then if our founders were so "Christian" as you claim?
Since you yourself are unclear about what constitutes a "homicide", I don't believe you can make it clear to someone else. You are entirely too eager to read your own point of view into what others say. I have never said nor implied that a zef is a person. No medical procedures are "designed to kill a person", although some allow a person to die. An abortion is a medical procedure because it is performed by medical personnel (in our society), it is not SOMETIMES a medical procedure and SOMETIMES NOT.
Nope. The fact is they were prohibited from displaying religious symbols. Who are YOU to say what anyone 'needs?' OK then...Let's let the government decide what Prometeus really needs...I'm sure you could do quite well without a few precious freedoms. Christmas was celebrated during the Founders time and was quite popular during the 1800s.
Your denial does not alter reality. On public property. People had Christmas trees and decorations in their homes and churches, so you are making no sense. Are you this dense? Where did I say anything about what anyone needed. No freedoms are being taken away, your paranoia is growing though. It was not a national holiday, an odd thing considering how you claimed that the founders used Christianity as a basis.
Actually it is CRYSTAL clear to me. There is no geray area whatsoever. It is you who is confused, perpetually.
Denial of what? I posed a question about religious displays, you cherrypicked and ignored the rest of my post. It is you who are in denial. Angels, stars of David etc. have traditionally been erected on City streets and public buildings for centuries and as long as I can remember. No one had any sort of problem with that. Now you and your ilk would tear them down in the name of some vague interpretation of the 'establishment' clause. You wrap yourself in the Constitution to do unconstitutional things. You wrote: "they did not need displays" in reference to the your 'sainted' religious folks in the Eastern European communist controlled areas where open displays of religion were prohibited. My question is: Who are you to say what anyone needs? In fact, a case can be made that religious displays were needed in order to create a more cohesive opposition that could have freed those folks from stifling Communist rule which, is probably the exact reason they were not allowed. Atheists organized and conspired to monopolize those spaces in order to block Christians from displaying their seasonal religious symbols. I posed a scenario where an entity (like government) would come and take away YOUR freedom as and example. You try to claim I am paranoid which is obfuscation at best and a lie at worst. So? The fact remains that religious decorations & symbols have been and continue to exist and continue to be displayed on and near public property for public viewing. Maybe you can just close your eyes if you are so offended? Have you read the Declaration of Independence lately? Have you looked at a dollar-bill lately? There are 'religious' references/symbols there and so far, still no State church. What is your problem? Talk about paranoid.....
