Virginia Sticks It To Women - Literally

[Carcharhinidae primari]

... ever had sexual education in high school? birth controll does not always work. sometimes it fails.

yes and they are 95-99.9% effective. That is higher than condoms by far. It is still irrelevant that Yamoli thinks that people don't understand birth control.

hmm-mm, most of them are. even if condoms are also a part of 'birth control' most of them are pretty effective, which is the reason abortions are still a fairly rare occurance.

rapid source(not themost reliable, perhaps, but first one I could dig up):http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=121304062461064&ShowArticle_ID=11430906083826593
by point 16 is holds to 16 abortions per 1000 women, which is 1.6%. or, well between 5-0.1% failiure ratio for contraceptives.

Further edit: I apologize for my abimanoble spelling, but for some reason the swiss laptop I'm using has it's configurationcompletely different from what I'm used to.

[Revolutopia]

who are you, or ANYONE for that matter, to claim to know what is 'God's will'? now, I'm agnost, but I think that if there is a god we, as mortals and stupid and all not, cannot even begin to grasp 'His' mind, thoughts or intent.

why would he give us the technology to save people if he didn't want us to use it?

You still haven't addressed my question of what gives you the right to decide to kill a baby in order to save the mother.

[Euronion]

if we have the technology to save lives we should use it. That is God's will.

That is not what I said, I accused of killing a baby as you fell it is safer for the mother. Shouldn't you demand the mother carry it to term and take the risks as to preserve the life of the child. Or does life lose its value when it is not convenient for you?

All pregnancy carries some risk, I mean when several doctors tell the woman that if she goes through with the pregnancy she will die, and to save her life so she can have healthier children and fend for the children she may already have.

[Euronion]

why would he give us the technology to save people if he didn't want us to use it?

You still haven't addressed my question of what gives you the right to decide to kill a baby in order to save the mother.

the fact that the mother can bring more life, and healthier life, this does not mean that the woman couldn't carry it to term if she wanted, just that she could have an abortion or a cesarean section.

[Nature-Spirits]

why would he give us the technology to save people if he didn't want us to use it?

You still haven't addressed my question of what gives you the right to decide to kill a baby in order to save the mother.

Because it's not a person yet.

[Carcharhinidae primari]

That is not what I said, I accused of killing a baby as you fell it is safer for the mother. Shouldn't you demand the mother carry it to term and take the risks as to preserve the life of the child. Or does life lose its value when it is not convenient for you?

All pregnancy carries some risk, I mean when several doctors tell the woman that if she goes through with the pregnancy she will die, and to save her life so she can have healthier children and fend for the children she may already have.

ehm, last I checked woman didn't just exist to have babies, which is what you're implying here.
for the record,I don't think any human exists for a specific reason.

[Salandriagado]

That is not what I said, I accused of killing a baby as you fell it is safer for the mother. Shouldn't you demand the mother carry it to term and take the risks as to preserve the life of the child. Or does life lose its value when it is not convenient for you?

All pregnancy carries some risk, I mean when several doctors tell the woman that if she goes through with the pregnancy she will die, and to save her life so she can have healthier children and fend for the children she may already have.

That's a good point, actually. In places with ridiculous laws restricting abortions to situations where the mother's life is at risk, one could simply claim that all pregnancies put the mother's life at risk, and thereby ignore the law entirely.

[Heaven Hieghts]

Maybe we should start with penile probing to make sure the males are taking care of their spermatozoa.

[Euronion]

All pregnancy carries some risk, I mean when several doctors tell the woman that if she goes through with the pregnancy she will die, and to save her life so she can have healthier children and fend for the children she may already have.

ehm, last I checked woman didn't just exist to have babies, which is what you're implying here.
for the record,I don't think any human exists for a specific reason.

no, I am saying that the woman by sacrificing this life to save hers, could bring more life into the world and/or protect the life she has already created.

[Revolutopia]

That is not what I said, I accused of killing a baby as you fell it is safer for the mother. Shouldn't you demand the mother carry it to term and take the risks as to preserve the life of the child. Or does life lose its value when it is not convenient for you?

All pregnancy carries some risk, I mean when several doctors tell the woman that if she goes through with the pregnancy she will die, and to save her life so she can have healthier children and fend for the children she may already have.

So you support murder( you claimed that a fetus is alive and abortion is murder) as here you are making the decision that one life is more important then the other. Thus, allowing the mother to murder her innocent child instead hoping for a miracle.

[Euronion]

All pregnancy carries some risk, I mean when several doctors tell the woman that if she goes through with the pregnancy she will die, and to save her life so she can have healthier children and fend for the children she may already have.

That's a good point, actually. In places with ridiculous laws restricting abortions to situations where the mother's life is at risk, one could simply claim that all pregnancies put the mother's life at risk, and thereby ignore the law entirely.

one could, but a doctor saying there is risk and a doctor saying your life is at risk are two very different things.

[Salandriagado]

ehm, last I checked woman didn't just exist to have babies, which is what you're implying here.
for the record,I don't think any human exists for a specific reason.

no, I am saying that the woman by sacrificing this life to save hers, could bring more life into the world and/or protect the life she has already created.

Where does this ridiculous idea that bringing more life into the world is a good thing come from?

[Carcharhinidae primari]

ehm, last I checked woman didn't just exist to have babies, which is what you're implying here.
for the record,I don't think any human exists for a specific reason.

no, I am saying that the woman by sacrificing this life to save hers, could bring more life into the world and/or protect the life she has already created.

okay, so you are pro-choice when the mother, if she did have another child, would be unable to provide that child the care it needs? or for that matter to the children she already had?
sounds to me like that's the number one reason for abortions.

[Iuuvic]

All pregnancy carries some risk, I mean when several doctors tell the woman that if she goes through with the pregnancy she will die, and to save her life so she can have healthier children and fend for the children she may already have.

ehm, last I checked woman didn't just exist to have babies, which is what you're implying here.
for the record,I don't think any human exists for a specific reason.

I was wondering if anyone else found that to be underhandedly sexist.

[Nature-Spirits]

ehm, last I checked woman didn't just exist to have babies, which is what you're implying here.
for the record,I don't think any human exists for a specific reason.

no, I am saying that the woman by sacrificing this life to save hers, could bring more life into the world and/or protect the life she has already created.

You do realise that the word is already overpopulated and that the last thing we need is more people, right?

[Tekania]

What about this makes sense?

Probably the fact that it'll end guarantee the Democrats will win Virginia in 2012. I'm fine with that.

Good, I like it better when we have democrats running our state.... We don't end up with crap like this.

[Euronion]

All pregnancy carries some risk, I mean when several doctors tell the woman that if she goes through with the pregnancy she will die, and to save her life so she can have healthier children and fend for the children she may already have.

So you support murder( you claimed that a fetus is alive and abortion is murder) as here you are making the decision that one life is more important then the other. Thus, allowing the mother to murder her innocent child instead hoping for a miracle.

No, it is equivalent to involuntary manslaughter, if you are driving and someone jumps in front of the road, are you going to try and stop or get out of the way? of course, but are you going to turn your car to the edge of the cliff and fall into the ocean? no you wouldn't

[Carcharhinidae primari]

That's a good point, actually. In places with ridiculous laws restricting abortions to situations where the mother's life is at risk, one could simply claim that all pregnancies put the mother's life at risk, and thereby ignore the law entirely.

one could, but a doctor saying there is risk and a doctor saying your life is at risk are two very different things.

a doctor saying 'there is a risk' will automatically mean that your life it at risk... I mean, a doctor going 'there is a risk... that atlanta will lose this years football competition' to a patient is just being sadistic.

[Revolutopia]

You still haven't addressed my question of what gives you the right to decide to kill a baby in order to save the mother.

the fact that the mother can bring more life, and healthier life, this does not mean that the woman couldn't carry it to term if she wanted, just that she could have an abortion or a cesarean section.

So you would sacrifice one life for the possibility of future lives? How do we not know that aborted fetus might not have given creation to more future lives then their mother?

[Euronion]

no, I am saying that the woman by sacrificing this life to save hers, could bring more life into the world and/or protect the life she has already created.

You do realise that the word is already overpopulated and that the last thing we need is more people, right?

In Mexico, India, China, Africa, and other Asian countries, not in the United States. Again as a baby who is going to get aborted, why should be suffer by killing our own children because the rest of the world is a screwed up place?

[Randroidian Libertopia]

As far as I'm concerned, conservatives have no authoriity to speak from a pro-life standpoint.

As stated before, their ideal government would provide little to nothing for these children once they are born.

They are not so pro-life when thousands get sick with treatable illnessess, and their health insurance denies treatment based on a pre-determined fine print technicality. Or when they unapologetically rationalize and justify the huge numbers of cilvilians killed in the wars that they vehemently support.

Those lives don't matter, but a woman must give birth to a rapist's child, and cannot terminate a pregnancy that will kill her.

Give me a break. They aren't pro life in any way, shape, or form. They're anti-woman. Period.

As Carlin said, they want live babies, to raise them to be dead soldiers.

[Yomali]

if we have the technology to save lives we should use it. That is God's will.

That is not what I said, I accused of killing a baby as you fell it is safer for the mother. Shouldn't you demand the mother carry it to term and take the risks as to preserve the life of the child. Or does life lose its value when it is not convenient for you?

What about when it cannot survive on its own should the mother perish mid-term? If the mother could have survived if she had a life-saving surgery, do you really want that on your concience?

[Revolutopia]

So you support murder( you claimed that a fetus is alive and abortion is murder) as here you are making the decision that one life is more important then the other. Thus, allowing the mother to murder her innocent child instead hoping for a miracle.

No, it is equivalent to involuntary manslaughter, if you are driving and someone jumps in front of the road, are you going to try and stop or get out of the way? of course, but are you going to turn your car to the edge of the cliff and fall into the ocean? no you wouldn't

If one truly valued protecting innocent life, then they should be willing to take the risks of preserving their life even it might be risky to themselves.

[Iuuvic]

So you support murder( you claimed that a fetus is alive and abortion is murder) as here you are making the decision that one life is more important then the other. Thus, allowing the mother to murder her innocent child instead hoping for a miracle.

No, it is equivalent to involuntary manslaughter, if you are driving and someone jumps in front of the road, are you going to try and stop or get out of the way? of course, but are you going to turn your car to the edge of the cliff and fall into the ocean? no you wouldn't

Wow...You see a fetus as a baby and you make that analogy? Besides how are those analogies relevant at all? Thou shall not kill...involuntary manslaughter is no biggie though.

[Nature-Spirits]

You do realise that the word is already overpopulated and that the last thing we need is more people, right?

In Mexico, India, China, Africa, and other Asian countries, not in the United States. Again as a baby who is going to get aborted, why should be suffer by killing our own children because the rest of the world is a screwed up place?

Because it's the world population that has too much people and therefore all of the countries in the world should work toward keeping the population down?