Judge blocks Texas sonogram law

[gabosaurus]

About time someone stood up to the wackos who are waging war against women.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/judge-tosses-much-of-states-ne.html

[DragonStryk72]

I am definitely not in favor of abortion, but this law was going too far, with guidelines that could be interpreted poorly. A simpler, and far better solution to it, would have been a law requiring parental consent for all abortions by underage girls (I would, however, put in a provision where the girl in question can choose to keep the baby if she is at least at the age of consent, and can put forth a way to provide for the child.), and a cap limit on the number of abortions that can be had (save for cases of rape or incest, and charges MUST be pressed.). Abortion is not a form of birth control, and yes, that are women who treat it just like that.

[darin]

About time someone stood up to the wackos who are waging war against women.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/judge-tosses-much-of-states-ne.html

except UNborn women, right?

[Thunderknuckles]

I thought the law certainly had a good ole Texas flair to it:
If you're gonna kill someone, you should at least have the courage to "look them in the eye" before you do.

[KartRacerBoy]

I thought the law certainly had a good ole Texas flair to it:
If you're gonna kill someone, you should at least have the courage to "look them in the eye" before you do.


You have a an unrealistic warped view of Texas. In the state of delusion, you can shoot a burglar in the BACK who is robbing and fleeing a neighbor's house without fear of proscution. Looking them in the eye. :rolleyes:

I WISH Texas would secede.

[gabosaurus]

Just another indication of how conservative America thinks these days.
If a woman wants to have an abortion, she is considered a vile criminal with no rights of any kind.
But if a lunatic wants to buy a gun, all he/she/it has to do is pay for it.

[logroller]

Just another indication of how conservative America thinks these days.
If a woman wants to have an abortion, she is considered a vile criminal with no rights of any kind.
But if a lunatic wants to buy a gun, all he/she/it has to do is pay for it.

Not sure what conservative means to you, but I consider myself a conservative and I'd say individual rights and less govt is the defining characteristic. But I understand the will of many isn't to be ignored. Whereas liberal is quite the opposite; where the role of government, society really, is responsible for the protection of its citizens from the individual will. That's just my opinion though, I'm sure liberals would see conservatives as narrow-minded. Whereas the libs, as a certain poster posits so often, are seen by conservatives as overbearing control freaks, beset on forcing their will upon others. It's really funny, actually, because the hardliners from both sides are so similar in their means, differing only in their opinion of what everybody else should do. But let me be clear, forcing or taking away the freedom to do something because it might result in something illegal runs contrary to the principles this country was founded upon--amended in the Constitution, bearing arms was specifically mentioned as a right necessary to ensure freedom, abortion was not-- And ironically, government doesn't fund the stores that sell guns, but they do fund clinics that provide abortion services.:slap:

If a lunatic wants to kill somebody, they don't need a gun; they could use their hands, or a rock... There's an infinite number of ways to kill somebody; but few legitimate causes to do so. Though abhorrent to many, abortion is legitimate. Personally i could care less if someone has an abortion; excluding my mother in 1977 and my wife of course. I think having an abortion is pretty dumb, but then again, I don't want dumb people procreating, so I'm willing to allow them to reduce their influence on the gene pool because I realize the benefits to my progeny.:thumb:

[J.T]

The solution to the abortion debate. You have a right to choose to not have a child, but any abortions not performed out of medical necessity must include a hysterectomy, just to help you stick with that choice.

[KartRacerBoy]

Not sure what conservative means to you, but I consider myself a conservative and I'd say individual rights and less govt is the defining characteristic. But I understand the will of many isn't to be ignored. Whereas liberal is quite the opposite; where the role of government, society really, is responsible for the protection of its citizens from the individual will. That's just my opinion though, I'm sure liberals would see conservatives as narrow-minded. Whereas the libs, as a certain poster posits so often, are seen by conservatives as overbearing control freaks, beset on forcing their will upon others. It's really funny, actually, because the hardliners from both sides are so similar in their means, differing only in their opinion of what everybody else should do. But let me be clear, forcing or taking away the freedom to do something because it might result in something illegal runs contrary to the principles this country was founded upon--amended in the Constitution, bearing arms was specifically mentioned as a right necessary to ensure freedom, abortion was not-- And ironically, government doesn't fund the stores that sell guns, but they do fund clinics that provide abortion services.:slap:

If a lunatic wants to kill somebody, they don't need a gun; they could use their hands, or a rock... There's an infinite number of ways to kill somebody; but few legitimate causes to do so. Though abhorrent to many, abortion is legitimate. Personally i could care less if someone has an abortion; excluding my mother in 1977 and my wife of course. I think having an abortion is pretty dumb, but then again, I don't want dumb people procreating, so I'm willing to allow them to reduce their influence on the gene pool because I realize the benefits to my progeny.:thumb:

The difference between conservatives and liberals is WHAT each feels justified in controlling. Conservatives say "hands off my wallet" but feel perfectly willing to control behavior. Liberals, on the other hand, say "hands off my liberties" but have no compunction against regulating financial behavior. Of course there is some crossover on both sides, but that's my view. Real libratarians say "hands off everything."

[darin]

The difference between conservatives and liberals is WHAT each feels justified in controlling. Conservatives say "hands off my wallet" but feel perfectly willing to control behavior. Liberals, on the other hand, say "hands off my liberties" but have no compunction against regulating financial behavior. Of course there is some crossover on both sides, but that's my view. Real libratarians say "hands off everything."

Slight adjustment:

Conservatives don't want the gov't controlling behaviour. It's honestly absurd to suggest that. Conservatives typically want to govern our nation more in line with LIMITED government interference - Conservatives like states empowering their citizens with regulation only as necessary and for the Feds to take a reduced role in every aspect. Conservatives promote 'individual responsibility' concepts which teach us every citizen is presented with the SAME benefits/laws/chances as the next. Conservatives believe ultimate success or failure is among the most-important of rights. Conservatives realize through failure comes amazing life-lessons which cannot be otherwise taught. Conservatives tend to know the difference between 'educated' and 'wise' - and seldom confuse the two. Where Liberals will say 'if we EDUCATE our kids, they will make good choices', conservatives understand kids lack the wisdom to use education; so we step in an PARENT; making the choices FOR our kids until they demonstrate they have failed enough in the little things, to take on the big issues of life.

Liberals demand the Government play robin-hood. You know how that works: Government steals from the wealthy and gives the weathy's money to administrators who over-see departments in charge of creating generational hardship and "Welfare" among the citizens. Where conservatives believe non-governmental CHARITIES are probably society's best hope for those truly in NEED (as opposed to today's mindset; "In WANT") of stuff / help, Liberals believe Bureaucrats and "Policy" are the best "help" we can offer - and only as part of a FORCED 'donation' program. Liberals tend to believe in keeping white males oppressed and continuing policies which deny male reproductive rights. Liberals tend believe a woman has the "right" to throw herself down a flight of stairs, punch herself, and otherwise obliterate the baby growing inside her - but if she asks the FATHER to do those things for her, the father should go to JAIL. Liberals LOVE that sorta thing. Liberals tend to believe Skin color is a disability, and work to use skin-color as a means of issuing employment, loans, grants, etc. Yet, they believe BEHAVIOUR is a biological imprint; and we are all victims to that imprinting. Liberals ARE, however, brilliant Entrepreneurs. Liberals create visually-stunning campaigns and use junk and fake science, repeated ad naseam until citizens approve the Government taking MORE of their wealth, to give to bureaucrats who supervise agencies working to 'combat' whatever it is the Liberals decide we should be afraid of. Liberals tend to believe Good, honest people should only worry about "creating a dialog' with those who wish to do us harm. After all, liberals will tell us, a person commits crime ONLY because they want to be understood; only because hard-working honest people didn't GIVE the criminal enough free shit when the criminal was growing up. Liberals tend to be sexists; liberals tend to believe the only TRUE wisdom and child-rearing skills happen when a heterosexual male is NOT present in a kids life. Liberals believe, most of the time, in removing as much 'male' as possible from our little boys. Liberals refuse to admit serious biological differences; the importance of a Male and Female jointly raising a child. Liberals will believe and teach only gay men, and women are 'sensative' enough to coddle a child; thereby ruining ANY hope that child grows up to be secure, strong, decisive, and free-thinking. To that end, Liberals tend to love indoctrinating our kids in those ways; forcing those ideas into our kids' minds as early as they can.

Other than those points, you were pretty much right.

[KartRacerBoy]

Slight adjustment:

Conservatives don't want the gov't controlling behaviour. It's honestly absurd to suggest that. Conservatives typically want to govern our nation more in line with LIMITED government interference - Conservatives like states empowering their citizens with regulation only as necessary and for the Feds to take a reduced role in every aspect. Conservatives promote 'individual responsibility' concepts which teach us every citizen is presented with the SAME benefits/laws/chances as the next. Conservatives believe ultimate success or failure is among the most-important of rights. Conservatives realize through failure comes amazing life-lessons which cannot be otherwise taught. Conservatives tend to know the difference between 'educated' and 'wise' - and seldom confuse the two. Where Liberals will say 'if we EDUCATE our kids, they will make good choices', conservatives understand kids lack the wisdom to use education; so we step in an PARENT; making the choices FOR our kids until they demonstrate they have failed enough in the little things, to take on the big issues of life.

Liberals demand the Government play robin-hood. You know how that works: Government steals from the wealthy and gives the weathy's money to administrators who over-see departments in charge of creating generational hardship and "Welfare" among the citizens. Where conservatives believe non-governmental CHARITIES are probably society's best hope for those truly in NEED (as opposed to today's mindset; "In WANT") of stuff / help, Liberals believe Bureaucrats and "Policy" are the best "help" we can offer - and only as part of a FORCED 'donation' program. Liberals tend to believe in keeping white males oppressed and continuing policies which deny male reproductive rights. Liberals tend believe a woman has the "right" to throw herself down a flight of stairs, punch herself, and otherwise obliterate the baby growing inside her - but if she asks the FATHER to do those things for her, the father should go to JAIL. Liberals LOVE that sorta thing. Liberals tend to believe Skin color is a disability, and work to use skin-color as a means of issuing employment, loans, grants, etc. Yet, they believe BEHAVIOUR is a biological imprint; and we are all victims to that imprinting. Liberals ARE, however, brilliant Entrepreneurs. Liberals create visually-stunning campaigns and use junk and fake science, repeated ad naseam until citizens approve the Government taking MORE of their wealth, to give to bureaucrats who supervise agencies working to 'combat' whatever it is the Liberals decide we should be afraid of. Liberals tend to believe Good, honest people should only worry about "creating a dialog' with those who wish to do us harm. After all, liberals will tell us, a person commits crime ONLY because they want to be understood; only because hard-working honest people didn't GIVE the criminal enough free shit when the criminal was growing up. Liberals tend to be sexists; liberals tend to believe the only TRUE wisdom and child-rearing skills happen when a heterosexual male is NOT present in a kids life. Liberals believe, most of the time, in removing as much 'male' as possible from our little boys. Liberals refuse to admit serious biological differences; the importance of a Male and Female jointly raising a child. Liberals will believe and teach only gay men, and women are 'sensative' enough to coddle a child; thereby ruining ANY hope that child grows up to be secure, strong, decisive, and free-thinking. To that end, Liberals tend to love indoctrinating our kids in those ways; forcing those ideas into our kids' minds as early as they can.

Other than those points, you were pretty much right.

I got no farther than the bold print before I LoL'd. What do you think this very thread is about? Controlling behavior (abortion) that SOCIAL conservatives don't like. :laugh:

Ok, now I'll read the rest of your post.

[KartRacerBoy]

Read the rest of your post, dmp. It was partisan claptrap and a waste of my time.

[fj1200]

Just another indication of how conservative America thinks these days.
If a woman wants to have an abortion, she is considered a vile criminal with no rights of any kind.
But if a lunatic wants to buy a gun, all he/she/it has to do is pay for it.

"Lunatics" cause 50,000 deaths per year while perfectly rational citizens terminate ~1 million pregnancies per year. :rolleyes: You don't really care about a life do you?

[KartRacerBoy]

"Lunatics" cause 50,000 deaths per year while perfectly rational citizens terminate ~1 million pregnancies per year. :rolleyes: You don't really care about a life do you?

Sure she does. It's just that she and I don't buy into your definition of life. And cut the air of moral superiority. It doesn't wash.

[fj1200]

Sure she does. It's just that she and I don't buy into your definition of life. And cut the air of moral superiority. It doesn't wash.

So we should be proud of the 1mm figure? Think of the lives that weren't inconvenienced. Nonetheless the gist of my post was to counter her failing of logic and poor use of words.

[darin]

Read the rest of your post, dmp. It was partisan claptrap and a waste of my time.

It's truth. If you don't like it, or feel offended, or - yeah -that you wasted your time - doesn't change the fact what I wrote is truth and provable based on expressed opinion and observed action of self-proclaimed liberals. (shrug).

[Gunny]

About time someone stood up to the wackos who are waging war against women.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/judge-tosses-much-of-states-ne.html

For standing up to whacko women waging war against unborn humans? Don't see your point. But then, you don't have one. As usual.

[logroller]

It's truth. If you don't like it, or feel offended, or - yeah -that you wasted your time - doesn't change the fact what I wrote is truth and provable based on expressed opinion and observed action of self-proclaimed liberals. (shrug).

Well i liked dmp's post; I don't agree with all of it, but I didn't find it offensive. I think both you and kart expressed opinions based on the a personal interpretation of what is self-proclaimed, and therein lies the root of most political disagreement--things proved based on expressed opinion. I think that's testament to failings of a two-party system, which compels a person to declare a side which purposes a preconceived construct of ideals which aren't wholly accepted or recognizable. I do agree with dmp's assertion that conservatives, by and large, prefer the limiting of federal powers inherent within Republicanism. But can I say my mother is quite liberal, yet she feels the drug laws at the federal level are unwarranted--so by DMP's definition--she is conservative. Kinda confusing. But i guess that's the downside of free-choice, we're free to confuse matters.

[J.T]

Slight adjustment:

Conservatives don't want the gov't controlling behaviour. It's honestly absurd to suggest that.

Gay marriage, baning mosques, dominionism, abortion...



For standing up to whacko women waging war against unborn humans? Don't see your point. But then, you don't have one. As usual.

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/7802/unledehc.jpg

:rolleyes:

[ConHog]

Abortions should be legal for one simple reason. We as a society will NEVER agree on when the beginning of life is and so abortions are ALWAYS going to happen, so I want to make sure that women have access to safe medical care.

They should NEVER be funded by public money, and absolutely a minor should have to have the consent of custodian before getting one.


I will add this to, just to ruffle a few feathers. Except in the case of rape and or incest a woman should have to have the consent of the father before having an abortion. I know that statement is likely to spin this thread out of control. But oh well.

[J.T]

We as a society will NEVER agree on when the beginning of life is
Yes, we will. We simply have to do away with the religious dogma which characterizes Abortionism. When the life of any given creature begins is a simple matter of biology/physiology. The science is settled: your life begin when you came into being as a living organism. For most of us, this was conception. For a few of us, it was when our system split, along with that of our twin, from single living system.

absolutely a minor should have to have the consent of custodian before getting one.
Even if their religion says science and heathen medicine are evil and she dies because they refuse to get her needed medical attention. Usually we send the parents to prison for negligent homicide or something when that happens; why should this be any different?

[ConHog]

Yes, we will. We simply have to do away with the religious dogma which characterizes Abortionism. When the life of any given creature begins is a simple matter of biology/physiology. The science is settled: your life begin when you came into being as a living organism. For most of us, this was conception. For a few of us, it was when our system split, along with that of our twin, from single living system.

Even if their religion says science and heathen medicine are evil and she dies because they refuse to get her needed medical attention. Usually we send the parents to prison for negligent homicide or something when that happens; why should this be any different?

Just a Turd, I will no longer address your "points" when you are doing nothing but bashing religion. As Gunny has said many times you have made a religion out of bashing religion. Quite hypocritical of you.

[J.T]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008004259_webprayer18m.html

So you're cool with this, or you retract your statement and are willing to let a girl receive needed medical care in the life of an ectopic pregnancy despite her parents waving a bible around in the waiting room and screaming about how she just needs to ask god to heal her?

Do you stand by your assertion that parents should be allowed to force doctors to refuse medical care or not?

Well, prisonpig, answer the question. Is this okay with you or not?

http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/another-child-dead-another-christian-parent-in-jail/

Should parents be allowed to deny their children needed medical care, condemning them to death in the name of religion or not?

Will you retract your insistence that minors must get parental consent to receive life-saving medical care or are you now on record supporting negligent homicide of children in the name of religion?

[ConHog]

Just a Turd negs me again for refusing to feed his religion bashing agenda.

Poor little boy

[Gaffer]

Just a Turd negs me again for refusing to feed his religion bashing agenda.

Poor little boy

I guess that means he don't like you.

[ConHog]

I guess that means he don't like you.

That's cuz he's a Christaphobe.

[DragonStryk72]

Just another indication of how conservative America thinks these days.
If a woman wants to have an abortion, she is considered a vile criminal with no rights of any kind.
But if a lunatic wants to buy a gun, all he/she/it has to do is pay for it.

Um, excuse me, I'm part of "conservative America", as you call it, and you didn't even give credit for fact that I backed up your point from the OP.

[DragonStryk72]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008004259_webprayer18m.html

So you're cool with this, or you retract your statement and are willing to let a girl receive needed medical care in the life of an ectopic pregnancy despite her parents waving a bible around in the waiting room and screaming about how she just needs to ask god to heal her?

Do you stand by your assertion that parents should be allowed to force doctors to refuse medical care or not?

Well, prisonpig, answer the question. Is this okay with you or not?

http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/another-child-dead-another-christian-parent-in-jail/

Should parents be allowed to deny their children needed medical care, condemning them to death in the name of religion or not?

Will you retract your insistence that minors must get parental consent to receive life-saving medical care or are you now on record supporting negligent homicide of children in the name of religion?

Oh joy, another "Let's talk about something not even closely related to the topic at hand" run from you. You really are a coward, JT. It's always this crap that keep popping up, these non-sensible trap runs that aren't even close to the subject at hand. Way to go, JT, another completely unoriginal, unthoughtful, and unimaginative post by you.

[J.T]

Oh joy, another "Let's talk about something not even closely related to the topic at hand" run from you. You really are a coward, JT. It's always this crap that keep popping up, these non-sensible trap runs that aren't even close to the subject at hand. Way to go, JT, another completely unoriginal, unthoughtful, and unimaginative post by you.

:lol:

Not the subject at hand? The subject is abortion law and Parental consent.


absolutely a minor should have to have the consent of custodian before getting [an abortion]

Hence abortions in cases where parents refuse to grant consent is most definitely the subject. Prisonpig refused to retract his words, which means he stands by allowing parents to refuse to allow their children medically necessary abortions- thereby condemning them to death.

Calling for providing medical attention to children isn't 'crap'- condemning your children to death because your religion rejects medical care is already recognized as criminal negligence and we already have precedent for putting parents like Conhog support sin prison when their children die as a result of their refusing to allow their children to receive the medical care needed to save their lives.

[ConHog]

:lol:

Not the subject at hand? The subject is abortion law and Parental consent.



Hence abortions in cases where parents refuse to grant consent is most definitely the subject. Prisonpig refused to retract his words, which means he stands by allowing parents to refuse to allow their children medically necessary abortions- thereby condemning them to death.

Calling for providing medical attention to children isn't 'crap'- condemning your children to death because your religion rejects medical care is already recognized as criminal negligence and we already have precedent for putting parents like Conhog support sin prison when their children die as a result of their refusing to allow their children to receive the medical care needed to save their lives.

You're an idiot. At NO point did I say that parents should be able to deny medically necessary procedures be performed on their children. We are talking about abortions, 90% of which performed in this country are nothing but a form of birth control, ESPECIALLY when you are talking about underage women who haven't informed their parents of what they are having done.

Why are you such a dishonest poster?

[J.T]

You're an idiot. At NO point did I say that parents should be able to deny medically necessary procedures be performed on their children.
Oh?

absolutely a minor should have to have the consent of custodian before getting one.
And when those parents refuse?


We are talking about abortions, 90% of which
Doesn't matter what you think '90% of which' are done for. Do you deny that pregnancies occur that put the mother's life in serious jeapordy?

When this happens in the case of a minor, should they still require parental consent to save the child's life?

Why are you so desperate to avoid the subject?

[ConHog]

Oh?

And when those parents refuse?

Doesn't matter what you think '90% of which' are done for. Do you deny that pregnancies occur that put the mother's life in serious jeapordy?

When this happens in the case of a minor, should they still require parental consent to save the child's life?

Why are you so desperate to avoid the subject?



Good God you are stupid. In the case of a child needing medical care to save their life I do NOT under any circumstances think a parent should be allowed to deny that child that procedure. That is NOT the same thing as saying I think a child should have to have parental consent to get an abortion. Once again, I think you are smart enough to understand the difference, you're just being dishonest.

So, at this point I have to ask you, are you too stupid to grok what people are saying, or are so dishonest that you have to try to spin every comment to fit YOUR agenda? Either way it makes you a shitty poster.

[J.T]

Good God you are stupid. In the case of a child needing medical care to save their life I do NOT under any circumstances think a parent should be allowed to deny that child that procedure.

So you retract your earlier statement and support allowing a doctor to provide an abortion without the parents' consent. Good to know.

[DragonStryk72]

:lol:

Not the subject at hand? The subject is abortion law and Parental consent.



Hence abortions in cases where parents refuse to grant consent is most definitely the subject. Conhog (Save the cheap unoriginal insults for the schoolyard, JT. They don't get you a scrap of respect from me.) refused to retract his words, which means he stands by allowing parents to refuse to allow their children medically necessary abortions- thereby condemning them to death.

Calling for providing medical attention to children isn't 'crap'- condemning your children to death because your religion rejects medical care is already recognized as criminal negligence and we already have precedent for putting parents like Conhog support sin prison when their children die as a result of their refusing to allow their children to receive the medical care needed to save their lives.

By that summation, I can talk about how to properly raise babies, because "Parents" are involved in that, too. No one is talking about denying medical care, it's all spin from you because you can't have an actual debate about the subject at hand. Grow up and join the conversation, or move on, but this crap is just another weak bullshit run from you in what is becoming a long line of bullshit. If you want to debate medical care, start a thread on the subject, don't hijack another thread for it.

You spun his words out of context so you could bring up a topic that you knew he wasn't dicussing or commenting on. It's a pathetic, weak excuse for a debate, and you seriously need to take some time to mature, and start being a real debater, not just an unoriginal board troll.

No one, not one person on here, was discussing denying emergency medical care except you, just as there is no one advocating letting children die. Provide proof, or have the sack to admit you were trolling, but either, grow up.

[DragonStryk72]

So you retract your earlier statement and support allowing a doctor to provide an abortion without the parents' consent. Good to know.

Actually, since he wasn't commenting on emergency medical care at all, but abortions in general, this statement is just more juvenile baiting. It's your only tactic, so I can see why you have to use it, it's just pathetic, is all.

What I believe his statement would have been, were you not trying to play "gotcha" with him, would be about like this: Yes, parental consent is necessary for abortions by under age girls, save in instances such as rape, incest, or in cases where the life of the mother is in peril because of the pregnancy.

You see that? It's called using common sense. you might attempt employing it more often. You will be less of an ass for it.

[J.T]

By that summation, I can talk about how to properly raise babies, because "Parents" are involved in that, too.
Wtf are you babbling about?


No one is talking about denying medical care
Abortion is a medical procedure, genius.


No one, not one person on here, was discussing denying emergency medical
So ch wasn't discussing a parent being able to prevent a minor from getting an abortion?

He didn't say 'elective abortion' or 'abortion not medically required by a significant health risk'- he simply said 'abortion', which includes all abortions.

[DragonStryk72]

Wtf are you babbling about?
Abortion is a medical procedure, genius.
Ah yes, feigning not understanding, followed by a technicality. Woo, you are just burning up on the originality there, man
So ch wasn't discussing a parent being able to prevent a minor from getting an abortion?

He didn't say 'elective abortion' or 'abortion not medically required by a significant health risk'- he simply said 'abortion', which includes all abortions.

As seen by a weak debater? Sure, you can twist his stance that way by completely perverting what he said. I like Peanut Butter & Jelly, but I don't like Peanut butter & Jelly on moldy bread with arsenic in it. See what wonderful things context does? You purposely misread what he wrote, and twisted it into something that it clearly wasn't. Only the weak would use such a ploy, and that is all you show of yourself here.

[ConHog]

As seen by a weak debater? Sure, you can twist his stance that way by completely perverting what he said. I like Peanut Butter & Jelly, but I don't like Peanut butter & Jelly on moldy bread with arsenic in it. See what wonderful things context does? You purposely misread what he wrote, and twisted it into something that it clearly wasn't. Only the weak would use such a ploy, and that is all you show of yourself here.

That's because that's all JT has. Insults and weak assed attempts to hijack threads. Jimmy has a lot more patience than I would.

[J.T]

If someone says they want to ban guns, it means they want to ban guns. If they meant they wanted to ban full automatic weapons hat fire anything over a .50cal, they'd have said that.

PrisonPig didn't have anything about 'elective' abortions. He simply said parents should be able to deny abortions, which are a medical procedure, in the case of minors. He he meant anything else, he'd have said it and not denied what he said before throwing a hissyfit as he began to backpedal.

[ConHog]

If someone says they want to ban guns, it means they want to ban guns. If they meant they wanted to ban full automatic weapons hat fire anything over a .50cal, they'd have said that.

PrisonPig didn't have anything about 'elective' abortions. He simply said parents should be able to deny abortions, which are a medical procedure, in the case of minors. He he meant anything else, he'd have said it and not denied what he said before throwing a hissyfit as he began to backpedal.

IF you had any bit of honesty about you, and we all know you don't, you would have realized that saying that the law should read "minors should be required to get the consent of their parents before getting an abortion" would clearly be setting a rule, and as a rule it would of course have exceptions. One exception being that a parent couldn't deny their child an abortion if it were medically necessary.

Further , you would have admitted that there is probably 1 case in 10 million where a minor has went to her parents to get their consent for an abortion because it was medically necessary. Further, there is probably only 1 in 10 million of THOSE cases where the parent of the minor has said no to an abortion. Meaning you are screaming about something that probably happens in 1 out of 100 million cases of a teenager wanting an abortion.

So I guess I'm sorry for not clarifying that in that 1 out of 100 million cases I would not want THAT child to be denied an abortion b/c her parents didn't want her to have one.


You fucking idiot.