Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-02-06 10:32:10
topal63
. . .
+533|7147

ghettoperson wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Jussimies wrote:

I can understant this, but what happens, if the couple is men and women, and one or booth are somehow disabled so that they can't have a child?
That's the whole point.  They are trying to make a statement that the relationship between two adults is more than just being able to have children.
Oh wait, so it's a joke?
Depends on how you define - joke?

This scenario could be defined as a joke:
1.) People with their own personal beliefs try to restrict someone else's NON-VIOLENT personal-life based upon their belief-system.
2.) This nonsense becomes a sound-byte sound-board and another irrelevant political issue / debate.
3.) As a reaction to the reality of (1) happening... this law is proposed - to highlight the absurdity of it all.
2007-02-06 10:33:14
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7165|Salt Lake City

ghettoperson wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Jussimies wrote:

I can understant this, but what happens, if the couple is men and women, and one or booth are somehow disabled so that they can't have a child?
That's the whole point.  They are trying to make a statement that the relationship between two adults is more than just being able to have children.
Oh wait, so it's a joke?
No, these folks are dead serious.  I seriously doubt they could ever get it passed, and even if it did pass it would be quickly shot down in the courts as unconstitutional.
2007-02-06 10:36:12
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|7060|USA
That is the biggest waste of time I have ever seen. 

WOW....Just wow.
2007-02-06 10:42:20
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7165|Salt Lake City

smtt686 wrote:

That is the biggest waste of time I have ever seen. 

WOW....Just wow.
Do you want to see another.  The Republican/Mormon dominated legislature here wants to ban all abortions except for cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother is at great risk, or the baby has fatal deformities.  The AG has already told them this is a losing battle that would likely cost $1,000,000+ to fight and lose.  They said they have money set aside to take this to court.  The problem is that this is tax payer money.

If they want to fight it, fine.  They should do this on their own using their own money and donations from those that agree with their stance on the subject.  They should not be using tax payer money to fund a legal battle that the AG has already said they would lose.

Fucking commie conservatives.
2007-02-06 10:43:14
topal63
. . .
+533|7147

smtt686 wrote:

eleventeen is my favorite number
Now that I think about it - this is my favorite number as well.
2007-02-06 11:03:33
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6874|The Land of Scott Walker

Ilocano wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Funny thing is that these days, probably more kids are born out of wedlock, or marriages due to pregnancy.
I have a hard time believing that when Mormon families are having 10+ kids.
I think there are more undocumented aliens in the USA than there are Mormons.

And no, not just our south of the border friends, but from Asia as well...
Perhaps more undocumented aliens in the US than Mormons.   However, there are more married legal citizens than undocumented aliens and most of those legal couples have children.  According to the 2000 census bureau only 33% of all births are to unmarried women, meaning 67% are to married women.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Do you want to see another.  The Republican/Mormon dominated legislature here wants to ban all abortions except for cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother is at great risk, or the baby has fatal deformities.  The AG has already told them this is a losing battle that would likely cost $1,000,000+ to fight and lose.  They said they have money set aside to take this to court.  The problem is that this is tax payer money.

If they want to fight it, fine.  They should do this on their own using their own money and donations from those that agree with their stance on the subject.  They should not be using tax payer money to fund a legal battle that the AG has already said they would lose.

Fucking commie conservatives.
They’ve been voted in to represent you, so your state has given them the power to present this legislation . . . hardly commie.  Vote them out the next election and reverse the legislation.  I don’t see any problem with each state should be able to decide this issue on their own imho.  We don't elect judges, we elected legislature to represent us.  Therefore, they should be deciding, not the courts.  If a state does not want elective abortions occuring in their state, they should be able to put it into law.  Then those who still wish to have an abortion of convenience can go to a state that allows it.

What would be the point of aborting a baby that is not the product of rape or incest, not a risk to the mother’s life, and lacking fatal deformities?  Oh, that’s right, it’s “inconvenient” because the woman couldn’t keep her legs together or the guy was too stupid to wrap up properly, so one or both of the parents have the right to carry out a death sentence against their child.   If they did that after birth, we’d toss them in jail and throw away the key.
2007-02-06 11:35:31
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7165|Salt Lake City

Stingray24 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:


I have a hard time believing that when Mormon families are having 10+ kids.
I think there are more undocumented aliens in the USA than there are Mormons.

And no, not just our south of the border friends, but from Asia as well...
Perhaps more undocumented aliens in the US than Mormons.   However, there are more married legal citizens than undocumented aliens and most of those legal couples have children.  According to the 2000 census bureau only 33% of all births are to unmarried women, meaning 67% are to married women.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Do you want to see another.  The Republican/Mormon dominated legislature here wants to ban all abortions except for cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother is at great risk, or the baby has fatal deformities.  The AG has already told them this is a losing battle that would likely cost $1,000,000+ to fight and lose.  They said they have money set aside to take this to court.  The problem is that this is tax payer money.

If they want to fight it, fine.  They should do this on their own using their own money and donations from those that agree with their stance on the subject.  They should not be using tax payer money to fund a legal battle that the AG has already said they would lose.

Fucking commie conservatives.
They’ve been voted in to represent you, so your state has given them the power to present this legislation . . . hardly commie.  Vote them out the next election and reverse the legislation.  I don’t see any problem with each state should be able to decide this issue on their own imho.  We don't elect judges, we elected legislature to represent us.  Therefore, they should be deciding, not the courts.  If a state does not want elective abortions occuring in their state, they should be able to put it into law.  Then those who still wish to have an abortion of convenience can go to a state that allows it.

What would be the point of aborting a baby that is not the product of rape or incest, not a risk to the mother’s life, and lacking fatal deformities?  Oh, that’s right, it’s “inconvenient” because the woman couldn’t keep her legs together or the guy was too stupid to wrap up properly, so one or both of the parents have the right to carry out a death sentence against their child.   If they did that after birth, we’d toss them in jail and throw away the key.
When the AG, whom we also elect as out legal professional, tells them that this is a losing battle and that they are wasting $1,000,000+ tax payer dollars, that is not representation.  That is using ones office to fight a personal crusade at taxpayer expense.

When you have a school system with average class sizes of 40 students, often with insufficient desks for each body, and in some cases only a classroom set of books, while ranking between 49th to 50th in the nation for dollars spent per student, that is not representation.

When you need only $2,000,000 to get another $2,000,000 in matching federal funds to supply simple things like dental coverage to the elderly and disabled, but refuse to come up with it in a year of record surplus, while also spending $15,000,000 to build a new parking garage at the capital is not representation.

When bills are put before the church leadership for approval before it ever goes to committee is not representation.

When you gerrymander districts to try and rid the state of the only Democratic senator in the state, that is not representation.

When the legislature goes out of their way to withhold funds to Salt Lake County because it is the only bastion where there isn't total republican domination, and they won't just rubber stamp the Republican agenda, is not representation.
2007-02-06 11:51:48
syntaxmax642
Member
+32|7054|Seattle

chittydog wrote:

The Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance wrote:

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.
This all makes sense now. If you read the statement after the initiative (it's not a law, just a proposed law), this wasn't proposed with the intention of becoming law, but as a protest to the government interfering in our private lives by saying who can and cannot get married.
So basically just creating work for the lawyers... Typical litigious nature of Amerika..
2007-02-06 11:56:44
Sondernkommando
Member
+22|7145

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Do you want to see another.  The Republican/Mormon dominated legislature here wants to ban all abortions except for cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother is at great risk, or the baby has fatal deformities. 

Fucking commie conservatives.
How far we have come.  Here in Canuckistan, because we have NO ABORTION LAW WHATSOEVER, a woman could abort her term pregnancy just before delivery, on the internet, for profit, and there would be nothing we could do about it.  Sound extreme?  Just try to regulate any aspect of abortion and you will be tarred and feathered.
2007-02-06 12:01:36
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7165|Salt Lake City

Sondernkommando wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Do you want to see another.  The Republican/Mormon dominated legislature here wants to ban all abortions except for cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother is at great risk, or the baby has fatal deformities. 

Fucking commie conservatives.
How far we have come.  Here in Canuckistan, because we have NO ABORTION LAW WHATSOEVER, a woman could abort her term pregnancy just before delivery, on the internet, for profit, and there would be nothing we could do about it.  Sound extreme?  Just try to regulate any aspect of abortion and you will be tarred and feathered.
Don't quote me out of context.  I have no problem with them pursuing this course of action as part of their religious convictions.  I have a problem with the fact that they are using tax payer dollars to do it, even when the AG (Attorney General) has advised against it as a lost cause.
2007-02-06 12:50:32
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6874|The Land of Scott Walker
Agent:
From reading your description, Utah is worlds different than any other state I’ve lived in.  No bills go before church leadership here.
2007-02-06 13:19:25
too_money2007
Member
+145|6737|Keller, Tx
Dumbest law ever maybe? The state govt trying to tell us what to do basically.
2007-02-06 13:40:41
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7165|Salt Lake City

topal63 wrote:

Thread derail

Stingray24 wrote:

(1) They’ve been voted in to represent you, so your state has given them the power to present this legislation . . . hardly commie.  Vote them out the next election and reverse the legislation.  I don’t see any problem with each state should be able to decide this issue on their own imho.  We don't elect judges, we elected legislature to represent us.  Therefore, they should be deciding, not the courts.  If a state does not want elective abortions occuring in their state, they should be able to put it into law.  Then those who still wish to have an abortion of convenience can go to a state that allows it.

What would be the point of aborting a baby that is not the product of rape or incest, not a risk to the mother’s life, and lacking fatal deformities?  (2) Oh, that’s right, it’s “inconvenient” because the woman couldn’t keep her legs together or the guy was too stupid to wrap up properly, so one or both of the parents have the right to carry out a death sentence against their child.   If they did that after birth, we’d toss them in jail and throw away the key.
(1)
     a. Considering many people don’t vote - that concept means less in reality than you think it does (?).
     b. Representing me - does not equate to a majority suppressing a minority - nor does it mean a majority imposing
     their beliefs (religious belief-system) or personal-agenda upon a minority - or worse imposing their beliefs; personal
     agendas upon an apathetic majority that does not vote or care; etc.
     c. It is very commie; because your (religious belief-system) beliefs are already intact. No one; and No LAW is demanding
     that you should have a mandatory abortion - no matter what State you live in. You already are protected by LAW - your
     beliefs are not prohibited by any LAW. What is prohibited is you / me / or anyone imposing such beliefs upon the minority;
     what is prohibited (currently) - is you / me / or anyone imposing such beliefs; personal-agendas upon an apathetic
     majority that does not share your beliefs.

(2)
     a. That part is BS rhetoric, most woman who fall in the “unwanted” pregnancy area - are not well-formed adults to begin
     with and are probably not ready to properly take care of a child. This you want them to follow through with an unwanted
     child - is nonsense. There is a lot more to a life (a women; a young woman); other than being a vessel or container for a
     growing child. You are valuing your beliefs and yourself as greater than the woman and her beliefs. And you wish to
     call it murder. And many would call it murder at any stage of the pregnancy even when it is clearly just a glob of cells.

     b. You're also focusing on your personal belief and a potential-life (and also unwanted) over the woman (which is not a
     potential; but a whole life already living in the world). There are just so many whole-life issues / agendas to be concerned
     with; people living and breathing already to be concerned with; that it  amounts to imposing a specific religious belief
     upon others - while ignoring the living; and the quality of their whole-life (which is not a potential).


All that being said - to many abortions do happen. It most certainly is NOT a form of birth control. Certain restrictions seem appropriate. Late trimester abortions should not be allowed - please give me a break - you could not tell you were pregnant? Also considering it is a matter personal belief - alternatives could & should be discussed. Many young people often don’t have well formed belief-systems anyway (and might not be sure what they want to do anyway; or how they really feel about it). I don’t think allowing a discussion with a psychologist (non-religious; non-pressuring; not promoting a personal agenda)  about the adoption-alternative - is in any way intrusive or offensive. Also the Christian ethic that human life has meaning at any level may NOT be shared as a belief (by all); but it is not worthy of being discounted in it’s entirety. (a) Adoption is an alternative. (b) Birth-control and sex education is an alternative. Any sex education class should comprehensively cover both (a & b).

Thread derail over. . .
Well said.  I would be much more in favor of that money being spent on preventing those pregnancies in the first place so that abortion would not be needed in the first place.  I'm also in agreement about late term abortions.  I believe any elective abortions should be performed within the first trimester.  After that, only medical conditions should be valid reasons.
2007-02-06 13:43:35
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7165|Salt Lake City

Stingray24 wrote:

Agent:
From reading your description, Utah is worlds different than any other state I’ve lived in.  No bills go before church leadership here.
Utah has not earned the reputation that it has without good reason.  We spend tons of money every year trying to convince companies to move here.  Unfortunately, that is often difficult because of these very types of moral crusades by the government.  While many of those that work for these companies would be hired locally, there would still be many people that relocate with the company, and getting them to come here can be very difficult.
2007-02-06 14:11:25
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6897
But what if the couple id to old to have kids? Or what if they are infertile for another reason? This wouldn't only hurt gays.

Last edited by doctastrangelove1964 (2007-02-06 14:11:34)

2007-02-06 14:55:04
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7075
You guys are missing the point. Women use sex as a tool to get us to marry them. Then, when we finally do, they withhold it from us.

With this new law, we are essentially guaranteed sex after marriage.
2007-02-06 15:04:32
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|7096

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

You guys are missing the point. Women use sex as a tool to get us to marry them. Then, when we finally do, they withhold it from us.

With this new law, we are essentially guaranteed sex after marriage.
But after you get her pregnant, it's all over.  Solution, get a nympho.  Or just be so good she can't get enough of you.

Last edited by Ilocano (2007-02-06 15:06:07)

2007-02-06 17:25:29
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7201|PNW

Would've almost been fooled except for the fact that I live in Washington. As bad as our government is, this'd be laughable.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-02-06 17:26:22)

2007-02-06 17:26:22
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7075

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Would've almost been fooled except for the fact that I live in Washington.
You know this is real, right?
2007-02-06 17:29:56
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7201|PNW

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Would've almost been fooled except for the fact that I live in Washington.
You know this is real, right?
957 exists, but unless I'm legally blind, I don't see anything suggesting what you posted in there.
2007-02-06 17:29:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina
Hmmm...  It sounds like we should deport all pregnant illegal immigrants to Washington state, so that this guy sees the error of his thinking...
2007-02-06 17:30:17
Heavy_Guns_91
I hand out purple hearts like candy
+72|6832|Alberta, Canada
So... They can get married... But if they don't have a child in 3 years, it's anulled.
They whine that 3 years isn't good and that they want to have marriages without having children.
What is the problem between them? If they don't want to have a child, don't get married. Call themselves "boyfriends" and "girlfriends" instead.
2007-02-06 17:33:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina
When I get married, I'm not having kids.  Fuck that shit.  You know what usually happens to a woman after pregnancy?  Goodbye metabolism....
2007-02-06 18:09:23
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6874|The Land of Scott Walker

Turquoise wrote:

When I get married, I'm not having kids.  Fuck that shit.  You know what usually happens to a woman after pregnancy?  Goodbye metabolism....
You'll miss out on the joy of prego sex, man.
2007-02-06 18:11:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6834|North Carolina

Stingray24 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

When I get married, I'm not having kids.  Fuck that shit.  You know what usually happens to a woman after pregnancy?  Goodbye metabolism....
You'll miss out on the joy of prego sex, man.
LOL....  I won't ask, but I'll take your word for it. 

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard