PDA

View Full Version : Gallop Survey: 61% Say Abortion Should be Illegal



llotter
05-25-2011, 07:22 PM
Frankly, I don't think that this is a change but just thought those here that like the continued killing of innocent babies should know that they are still in a shrinking minority.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-61-percent-say-all-or-most-aborti

It really goes to show how far a country can be pushed of course by a loud, obnoxious and stupid minority.

pooltchr
05-25-2011, 07:27 PM
And then they get all bent out of shape when the majority pushes back!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

llotter
05-25-2011, 08:06 PM
In the old days, America was great because America was good. Now, our greatness has been sacrificed to the selfish and the corrupt and the Godless. I hope America can recover its soul.

nAz
05-25-2011, 08:15 PM
that number will probably go down once you try to pass laws to over turn Roe vs wade.

I got no problem with a persons rights to abortion when its in the first 12 to 14 weeks. after that i believe the fetus is too far developed. But thats not business thats between them and their absent landlord god.

The real problem for me with this is people using abortion as a means of birth control, its just freaking wrong. that's why i advocate for giving free contraceptive at high schools and churches along will more sex education courses.

cushioncrawler
05-25-2011, 09:23 PM
I beleev that the mother shood hav the right to an abortion for the first 14 weeks after birth.
mac.

nAz
05-25-2011, 09:45 PM
rotf good one /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Qtec
05-25-2011, 11:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And then they get all bent out of shape when the majority pushes back!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve </div></div>

You never read the link, did you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In this year’s survey, in addition to the approximately <span style='font-size: 14pt'>49 percent who said they were pro-choice and 45 percent who said they were pro-life, </span>another approximately 7 percent would not describe themselves as either pro-choice or pro-life. This included 2 percent who said they had no opinion on the matter, 2 percent who said they did not know what the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” meant, and 3 percent who described themselves as mixed on the issue or neither one of the two. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Gallup did not publish a breakdown of the percentage of self-described “pro-choice” people who said they believe abortion should be illegal in either all or most circumstances.</div></div>

Q

Gayle in MD
05-26-2011, 06:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And then they get all bent out of shape when the majority pushes back!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve </div></div>

You never read the link, did you?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In this year’s survey, in addition to the approximately <span style='font-size: 14pt'>49 percent who said they were pro-choice and 45 percent who said they were pro-life, </span>another approximately 7 percent would not describe themselves as either pro-choice or pro-life. This included 2 percent who said they had no opinion on the matter, 2 percent who said they did not know what the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” meant, and 3 percent who described themselves as mixed on the issue or neither one of the two. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Gallup did not publish a breakdown of the percentage of self-described “pro-choice” people who said they believe abortion should be illegal in either all or most circumstances.</div></div>

Q </div></div>

A woman's right to total control of her own body, is settled constitutional Law.

It's really sick, how the very people who are always yapping about the Constitution, are the same ones who refuse to accept settled, Constitutional Laws, and then praise cowardly murderers, who hide in the bushes and kill and maim, innocent people, and vote for the Party, which has pushed for legislation to destroy women's rights, to be safe from Rape, and destroy their rights, to file charges against, and sue the men who rape them.

Pure insanity, IMO. No one has the right to take away from anyone, their right to have the total control, of their own body, and their own personal, private, decisions and choices in their own personal lives, and certainly, no men, in black robes, sitting on their thrones, and living in their Ivory Towers, or anywhere else, have any right, to dictate to any woman, what she cannot do with her own body!!!!

G.

pooltchr
05-26-2011, 07:29 AM
Do whatever you want to with your own body....but leave the unborn children alone!!!!!!!

Steve

Qtec
05-27-2011, 01:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do whatever you want to with your own body....but leave the unborn children alone!!!!!!!

Steve </div></div>

A foetus is not a separate being until its umbilical cord is cut. Up till then, its part of the mother.

Q

Gayle in MD
05-27-2011, 09:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do whatever you want to with your own body....but leave the unborn children alone!!!!!!!

Steve </div></div>

A foetus is not a separate being until its umbilical cord is cut. Up till then, its part of the mother.

Q </div></div>

He's too ignorant to understand such a basic principle.

Rememmber, he's the misogynist who wrote:

"When a woman spread her legs, she loses her defense"

THE MOST REPULSIVE, MISOGYNISTIC, MALE CHAUVINIST PIG, STATEMENT I'VE EVER HEARD IN MY WHOLE LIFE!

g.

pooltchr
05-27-2011, 10:29 AM
So the unborn child is a part of the mother? I guess it's not part of the father. So the father has no rights until the mother allows it to be born, at which time, the father then becomes responsible?

Or, she can decide to kill it, in which case nobody is responsible?

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-27-2011, 10:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So the unborn child is a part of the mother? I guess it's not part of the father. So the father has no rights until the mother allows it to be born, at which time, the father then becomes responsible?

Or, she can decide to kill it, in which case nobody is responsible?

Steve </div></div>

It's none of my business, nor yours, nor anyone else's, what she decides to do. It isn't a "child" unless she bring the fetus to term.

It is a personal, private decision, and the right, to control ones' own body, as the Supreme Court originally found, is the Hallmark of individual rights.

The man, has no "Rights", to anything, ONLY obligations, if he didn't watch out where he squirted his sprem, and she can prove it is his child, if she decides to bring HER fetus to term, tough cookie for him. He should have used his own birth control.

It's not his body, and it's not his FETUS, either.

Possession is nine tenths of the law.

No one has the right to dictate what another person does with their own body.

g.

pooltchr
05-27-2011, 12:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The man, has no "Rights", to anything, ONLY obligations</span>, if he didn't watch out where he squirted his sprem,
g. </div></div>

What a load of crap! I suppose the woman had nothing to do with giving him a place to "squirt his sperm"!

Your ignorance knows no bounds!

Steve

eg8r
05-28-2011, 10:19 AM
That number is not nearly high enough.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
05-28-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do whatever you want to with your own body....but leave the unborn children alone!!!!!!!

Steve </div></div>

Actually, for those who believe the Bible, an unborn person is not a person, at least not all the time. Judaism, more closely following Biblical theory, doesn't consider a BORN person a full person for almost a year (9 months, I think it is, until they become fully a person).

How so? Back in the day, the Law said an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and by parallel reasoning and also direct language, a life for a life.

There was a case that came before the judges, who were ecclesiastical authorities. Something someone did caused a miscarriage, and the loss of life of the unborn. That person was not condemned to death, but had a fine imposed. Since the rule was a life for a life, and that wasn't enforced that way, the Biblical precedent is that the unborn did not have a human life that had to be avenged with the loss of anothers life.

Now, someone like myself can ignore whatever was done by a primitive tribal culture some thousands of years ago. But a fundamentalist, who takes the entire word of God as literally true, and all of it fit for reproof and instruction (as it says itself it is), must take this example from the scripture most seriously.

Gayle in MD
05-28-2011, 11:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The man, has no "Rights", to anything, ONLY obligations</span>, if he didn't watch out where he squirted his sprem,
g. </div></div>

What a load of crap! I suppose the woman had nothing to do with giving him a place to "squirt his sperm"!

Your ignorance knows no bounds!

Steve </div></div>

Your misogyny knows no bounds. A woman's body belongs to herself, not to anyone else, but to herself.

You think a man has a right to dictate what a woman does with her own body.

You think a man who goes to bed with a woman, and dooesn't use birth control himself, has a right to the inside of a woman's body?



Pure misogyny.

"When a woman spread her legs, she loses her defense"

Only a true woman hating misogynist, would write those words.

G.

eg8r
05-29-2011, 07:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was a case that came before the judges, who were ecclesiastical authorities. Something someone did caused a miscarriage, and the loss of life of the unborn. That person was not condemned to death, but had a fine imposed. Since the rule was a life for a life, and that wasn't enforced that way, the Biblical precedent is that the unborn did not have a human life that had to be avenged with the loss of anothers life.</div></div>I had not read this story. What is the passage. I love reading the old testament stories. Thank goodness Jesus was sent to die for us and we have the New Testament. Living under levitical law would have been tough.

eg8r

Sev
05-29-2011, 07:51 PM
And the wonker keeps yapping on.

sack316
05-30-2011, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do whatever you want to with your own body....but leave the unborn children alone!!!!!!!

Steve </div></div>

Actually, for those who believe the Bible, an unborn person is not a person, at least not all the time. Judaism, more closely following Biblical theory, doesn't consider a BORN person a full person for almost a year (9 months, I think it is, until they become fully a person).

How so? Back in the day, the Law said an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and by parallel reasoning and also direct language, a life for a life.

There was a case that came before the judges, who were ecclesiastical authorities. Something someone did caused a miscarriage, and the loss of life of the unborn. That person was not condemned to death, but had a fine imposed. Since the rule was a life for a life, and that wasn't enforced that way, the Biblical precedent is that the unborn did not have a human life that had to be avenged with the loss of anothers life.

Now, someone like myself can ignore whatever was done by a primitive tribal culture some thousands of years ago. But a fundamentalist, who takes the entire word of God as literally true, and all of it fit for reproof and instruction (as it says itself it is), must take this example from the scripture most seriously.

</div></div>

Very good research Sofla. One semi-correction would be that Jewish law references an embryo as a viable living thing (bar kayama) until 30 days for the fetus after its birth. This has more to do with mourning practices in Jewish law, but the point you presented remains the same.

The main supposed argument under Biblical law Pro-lifer's use is "thou shall not kill". But even though on it's face it appears a pretty stout argument, it is also quite wrong. Here we run into translation issues... as the actual wording is "rasach", which more directly means "murder" as opposed to "kill". We kill to be the actual commandment, we technically could not even defend ourselves without committing a cardinal sin. Using the actual true meaning of "murder" it becomes quite different. Combining this with what I mention in the first paragraph, we cannot have a murder if there is no "person" to be murdered (technically even up to 30 days after birth!).

Sounds weird to many I'm sure, but going by a technical and strictly Biblical argument the case cannot be made against abortion.

Sofla, I think at least part of what you reference comes from Exodus 21:22-23:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury [i.e., to the mother], the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury [i.e., to the mother], you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…" </div></div>

This again, surprisingly, shows evidence that the Bible does not equate the life of a fetus to that of a person. More recently some scholars have attempted to reinterpret this passage a different way... but their newer interpretation does not align with historical records.

Further evidence can be found in Genesis 38, Leviticus 27:1-7, and Numbers 3:15.

Sack