BF2S Forums Virgina about to pass law that may force vaginal probe for abortion

I don't, but that's because I have very strict rules regarding independence when I define life. But it's such an absurdly complex issue (what the hell do you call this, for example) that I'm in absolute agreement with the second part of that sentence.

Jay wrote:

How about: it's already legal. So your comparison of it to drugs is flawed. Drug advocates are trying to remove restrictions. Abortion advocates are trying to add restrictions. They're trying to control the behavior of others. Y'all bitch when libruls go after your guns and make you take down nativity scenes on public property, yet you do the same shit in turn.

1) I am not bitching about the legality of it.
2) The comparison was NOT to drugs, the comparison was to the argument of "They are going to do it anyway, so make it legal."
3) I was not the one that made that argument... I am not the one that MAKES that argument... It comes up every time there is something said that sounds like it is infringing on abortion though. If you believe in choice, that is totally fine... Just don't use the argument of "But they would do it anyway."
4) Watch where you are throwing that "ya'll" around. "Do the same shit in turn" is a little different when you are talking about owning a gun, and committing what many see as murder. That is what it boils down to. Owning a gun doesn't infringe on other people's rights. Murdering people does.


The arguments of "it is ok, because they are not aware it is happening" is retarded. If you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is murder to you. If you don't, then who cares if someone has an abortion. But if you DO believe life begins at conception, and you say "They aren't aware of what is going on, so it is still ok" is equivalent to saying it is ok to kill a 4 year old in their sleep, as long as they don't know what is going on."

Jay wrote:

But as for the legislation itself, it does two things:

1) It destroys the private practice of doctors in Virginia and will force them to find other work, or move to another state. They can't enact legislation that restricts people from going to Maryland for abortions. It essentially boils down to NIMBYism. Out of site, out of mind, for these cretins.

2) If point 1 fails and people still seek abortions in Virginia, this legislation will do nothing more than add another heaping of guilt onto what is already a difficult decision. If a mother is convinced to change her mind after hearing a heartbeat it doesn't change anything. She's still going to have the same issues that drove her to an abortion clinic, with an extra heaping of guilt tossed on top for good measure. She's not going to hear the heartbeat and suddenly morph into Mother Of The Year, sorry. That kid is most likely doomed to an unloved existence.

But, I don't have to live in Virginia, so I really don't care.

I agree with both of your first two points here... Like I said earlier, it is using the law to force loop-holes and allow bullying, in my opinion.

I don't agree with your Virginia comment though, because once this type of law catches on in one place, it is likely to spread all over the nation. It needs to be accepted or fought against... Saying you don't care because you don't have to live in Virginia is the same thing you were speaking against earlier... "Out of site, out of mind."

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Jay wrote:

How about: it's already legal. So your comparison of it to drugs is flawed. Drug advocates are trying to remove restrictions. Abortion advocates are trying to add restrictions. They're trying to control the behavior of others. Y'all bitch when libruls go after your guns and make you take down nativity scenes on public property, yet you do the same shit in turn.

1) I am not bitching about the legality of it.
2) The comparison was NOT to drugs, the comparison was to the argument of "They are going to do it anyway, so make it legal."
3) I was not the one that made that argument... I am not the one that MAKES that argument... It comes up every time there is something said that sounds like it is infringing on abortion though. If you believe in choice, that is totally fine... Just don't use the argument of "But they would do it anyway."
4) Watch where you are throwing that "ya'll" around. "Do the same shit in turn" is a little different when you are talking about owning a gun, and committing what many see as murder. That is what it boils down to. Owning a gun doesn't infringe on other people's rights. Murdering people does.


The arguments of "it is ok, because they are not aware it is happening" is retarded. If you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is murder to you. If you don't, then who cares if someone has an abortion. But if you DO believe life begins at conception, and you say "They aren't aware of what is going on, so it is still ok" is equivalent to saying it is ok to kill a 4 year old in their sleep, as long as they don't know what is going on."

I believe we both have the benefit of looking at things from the far side of 30, yes? Imagine yourself in the shoes of a 16,17,18,19,20 year old. Were you prepared to raise a kid at that age? I sure as hell wasn't. It's easy to judge when you've managed to dodge the bullet, so to speak, and have an extra half of a life to learn a thing or two.

I came close to it when I was 22. Turned out the girl had cheated on me and the kid wasn't mine. I thought my life was over. If it had been mine, and I had been forced to go through with raising it, my life would be completely different than it is today. Can I say if for better or for worse? No. I just know that from atop my high horse it's easy to say 'you made the decision to stick it in an shoot, life with that decision' except not a whole lot of thought went into the act back then. I didn't spend a lot of time philosophizing about what-if's and I don't think many people that age do.

There's a reason that pro-choice rallies attract the very young and the very old. The young are brainwashed and don't know any better, and the old have had a lifetime to forget what it's like to be young. I don't agree with abortion on a personal level, but that's because I'm in a position where I can actually care for a kid, and only a year or two from actively trying to have one. I can no longer put myself in the shoes of 22-year-old-me and tell me what to do.

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Jay wrote:

Anti-abortion advocates always rant about how precious life is and how babies should be given up for adoption rather than aborted. The best way to silence them is to ask them how many of these unwanted children they have adopted.

The only thing wrong with this statement is that I know a lot of fathers that wanted their babies, and were very upset with their ex-wife/girlfriend aborted them. I also work with 2 different people that adopted babies that were up for abortion. Neither could get pregnant on their own, and both were trying to adopt from China to begin with... So it does happen.

Those fathers really have no concept of what they wanted. I guarantee you that they expected the mother to raise the kid while they simply paid child support and had a toy to play catch with on the weekends. I do think the father should definitely have a say, but if he wants the kid and she doesn't, let him take full responsibility for it after its born. I bet they'd change their tune.

HITNRUNXX wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Girls would still get abortions regardless of the legality of it (like they did before it was legal).  That's the real reason people are pro-choice.  It's just an ugly fact of life, kind of like drunks on skid row.

SOME would... I think it would be a small percentage though... That is a horrible argument though. (Not you, tons of people say that). Every law gets broken by SOME people, so we might as well not have any. If it were legal to take what ever you wanted from whereever you wanted, without paying for it, it would probably cut down on armed robberies and other violent crimes/related deaths... Not a good reason to legalize stealing though.

There is a large group making the same argument right now to legalize all drugs. Afterall, the people that would do drugs are going to do them anyway, right? And they aren't controlled, so people die and stuff... And we don't get to tax those sales... No, that is such an awful argument...  That is why alcohol uses are such a high percentage of the population, but even little ol' harmless marijuana is comparatively rare. I know too many people who have said "I am really curious about XYZ-Drug, and would like to try it just once, but can't risk jail/losing job/etc."

I understand the point of the argument... No one wants girls and their boyfriends doing abortions in the back alley with a coat hanger and wet-vac... But legalizing something because they would do it anyway is not a good mindset to move forward as a country, whether you are for or against abortion...

So you're saying that if murder was legal people would do it more than they already do?  Wow, talk about trusting and loving your fellow man, like Jesus would.  Do you have any idea the percentage of people who already get away with murder in this country?  It's much higher than people think. 

People and cops ARE doing drugs, because the majority of people know the laws are bullshit and law enforcement cannot possibly chase down everyone.  So who gets punished the most?  The poor, and minorities.  I'd love to be a big city police commissioner for a few months, just so I could listen to the thousands of upper middle class white assholes bitch and moan when the cops knock down their doors and send their kids to prison.  That'd be fun.  And the drug laws would be reformed the day after that, if we were to enforce the law proportionally, and fairly. 

But that's really what laws are all about.  You seem to think people would be murdering each other on a daily basis we murder to become legal (a completely ridiculous hypothetical).  What you're missing here is that the law, and governments, are formed from the consent of the people, not the other way around.  The social contract. 

Social conservatives are disgusting because they are the first and loudest to call others socialist, despite being socialists themselves when it comes to other people (even more so when those people have differences in lifestyle).  If I were to believe in hell, they'd be the first to arrive on judgement day.

Also marijuana is smoked by more people then you realize.

Spearhead wrote:

So you're saying that if murder was legal people would do it more than they already do?  Wow, talk about trusting and loving your fellow man, like Jesus would.  Do you have any idea the percentage of people who already get away with murder in this country?  It's much higher than people think. 

People and cops ARE doing drugs, because the majority of people know the laws are bullshit and law enforcement cannot possibly chase down everyone.  So who gets punished the most?  The poor, and minorities.  I'd love to be a big city police commissioner for a few months, just so I could listen to the thousands of upper middle class white assholes bitch and moan when the cops knock down their doors and send their kids to prison.  That'd be fun.  And the drug laws would be reformed the day after that, if we were to enforce the law proportionally, and fairly. 

But that's really what laws are all about.  You seem to think people would be murdering each other on a daily basis we murder to become legal (a completely ridiculous hypothetical).  What you're missing here is that the law, and governments, are formed from the consent of the people, not the other way around.  The social contract. 

Social conservatives are disgusting because they are the first and loudest to call others socialist, despite being socialists themselves when it comes to other people (even more so when those people have differences in lifestyle).  If I were to believe in hell, they'd be the first to arrive on judgement day.

Also marijuana is smoked by more people then you realize.

While being a completely ridiculous post, I will still respond in this:

YES, more people would be murdered it murder was legal. I have no doubt about that.

YOU brought up legal murder, not me, but still, YES that is true. More people would be killed. For one thing, there would be nothing to stop all the people that already do murder from murdering all they want...

I have a good idea of how many people smoke marijuana, and as I said IN COMPARISON to LEGAL alcohol consumption it is a small fraction.

Arguing how the laws are enforced and who can get away with what has NOTHING to do with the law, and everything to do with the justice system. The laws do not state "Drugs are illegal unless you are a middle income white male."

To say "What you're missing here is that the law, and governments, are formed from the consent of the people, not the other way around.  The social contract." is moronic as an argument. It that were the only truth, then there would be no need for the law to begin with... If everyone accepted and agreed to it, this thread wouldn't even exist. But no, a few people get to DECIDE the laws, and a few more later get to DECIDE the interpretation of those laws...

By the way, popular vote on many laws have been overturned by higher courts.

At least we can agree on that.

Everybody shuns big government unless it furthers their prejudices or pacifies their fears.

Also, I love the typo in the thread title. 

Last edited by Turquoise (2012-02-16 07:50:00)

You know you're a redneck when you say "virgina"

Jaekus wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Also, I love the typo in the thread title. 

It's thread version 1.1 coz he made a typo the first time around

The title is a work in progress

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Why are Republicans so interested in what should be the private lives of people?

They are against big government controlling your lives, but want to control everything you do in your own bedroom.

Mischaracterization of the issue, Reap. It's not about controlling what happens in one's bedroom. It's about preventing what some feel is the intentional taking of a human life. The proposed law (and others like it) have zero language regarding what it took for the woman to get pregnant (what happens in the bedroom/back seat) or the patient's "private life".

And in one word the whole reason why I am pro-choice is summed up.

Because one could use the same descriptor for the proportion of people who don't feel that way and are forcing their morality on others?

Silly, really.