You don't have to take the morning after pill (although I probably would in a heart beat) but 20 weeks???

Screw that. There's no good reason (absent dire health to the mother) that women should just be able to have elective abortions at that stage.

(06-15-2013, 09:55 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Some women are definitely that way, Maggot.

Some men too.

Betchya there are some indecisive cowardly hermaphrodites as well.

Yes, men are not excluded from the " No ballsack zone" 20 weeks is more than half way through a pregnancy. More than enough time to make a decision and still wrong.

(06-16-2013, 01:18 PM)Maggot Wrote: Yes, men are not excluded from the " No ballsack zone" 20 weeks is more than half way through a pregnancy. More than enough time to make a decision and still wrong.

(Cynical ninja has his crewmen lash him securely to the ships mast)

You think abortion is wrong?

All abortion?

Why?

Go ahead, dazzle me maggot!

The bill passed the House yesterday as expected. Looks like the cut-off is 22 weeks.

Here's the reaction/response from female senators (Democrats) on the hill, and President Obama:

“The bill that they passed yesterday is a nonstarter in the Senate, and it’s a nonstarter with the majority women,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said on the floor Wednesday. “It was a charade to appeal to a dwindling base, but it’s a charade that will end here today.”

Murray joined Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in criticizing House Republicans for thinking they should make healthcare decisions for women. “This House Republican bill that passed yesterday is a frontal assault on women’s health,” Boxer said. “They’re back in full-force with an even more extreme anti-choice and anti-women agenda.”

On Tuesday evening, the House voted 228-196 to impose a nationwide ban on abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy. Boxer said that the bill did not include an exception for the health of the mother. At the last minute, Republicans added an exception for cases of rape and incest, but Boxer said, “They don’t fix the problem,” because the exception depends on if the rape or incest is reported to police.

Murray said that the House bill would take the nation backward 40 years — when the Supreme Court decided women have the right to make their own healthcare decisions in the Roe v. Wade case. She added that Republicans were politically motivated in taking the vote. “They’ve shown this isn’t about what’s best for women,” Murray said. “It’s about political calculations and appeasing the far right.”

Republicans said the bill was needed to tighten abortion law in light of the Dr. Kermit Gosnell trial, in which the Pennsylvania abortion doctor was convicted of murdering several infants born alive after failed abortions.

President Obama threatened to veto the House bill on Monday.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se...an-outrage

Bullshit!! I bet the vast majority of women would support this bill. Another case of the extremists ruling the roost.

I am vehemently pro-choice and as long as provision is made for rape, incest and a pregnant womans life being in danger i can't see why 20 weeks isn't acceptable to people who are pro-choice.

I guess they think it's a slippery slope but I don't buy that argument either.

Those on the far left on the subject of abortion seem to be like those on the far right on the subject of gun control, mortally terrified and paranoid about giving a motherfucking inch.

(06-19-2013, 03:23 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: Those on the far left on the subject of abortion seem to be like those on the far right on the subject of gun control, mortally terrified and paranoid about giving a motherfucking inch.

Exactly.

OP, why do you keep saying people are paranoid & scared? It does not apply to anyone I know who is a gun owner nor does it apply to anyone I see posting in here, like Six, FU or Mr. Bone.

Why else are they not prepared to give one single motherfucking millimetre to try and reach a mutually beneficial compromise that would keep both sides happy? Because they are paranoid and scared if they make a concession that will A - bring back the banning of abortion or B - have all their guns taken away.

They are both like chicken little if they make a concession the fucking sky will fall in on them.

(06-19-2013, 03:57 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: Why else are they not prepared to give one single motherfucking millimetre to try and reach a mutually beneficial compromise that would keep both sides happy? Because they are paranoid and scared if they make a concession that will A - bring back the banning of abortion or B - have all their guns taken away.

They are both like chicken little if they make a concession the fucking sky will fall in on them.

Did you not read Six's comments in the gun thread? I saw him agreeing to damn near everything that was listed. You're not paying attention, gun owners ARE agreeable to most everything, don't add all the other crap to it, that's what people don't like.

(06-19-2013, 04:03 PM)Duchess Wrote: Did you not read Six's comments in the gun thread? I saw him agreeing to damn near everything that was listed. You're not paying attention, gun owners ARE agreeable to most everything, don't add all the other crap to it, that's what people don't like.[/i][/size]

He was also typically pissy, pig headed and stubborn about a few things on the list as well as we have come to expect from the gun nuts.

Gun nuts are NOT agreeable to almost everything, everything has to be on their terms and their terms alone or no dice. It really is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when they are asked to compromise.

(06-20-2013, 04:19 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: Gun nuts are NOT agreeable to almost everything, everything has to be on their terms and their terms alone or no dice. It really is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when they are asked to compromise.

Not true at all so why don't you take that list he responded to and point out exactly what you're having a problem with.

One that springs to mind is not wanting to tell a doctor about his guns I mean why the hell not? A doctor asks loads of question about peoples health and safety and anything that has a bearing on peoples health and safety and guns do have a bearing on both issues.

Doctors take a hippocratic oath they aren't going to be telling the feds how many guns you have or haven't got you fucking meathead.

(06-20-2013, 07:11 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: Doctors take a hippocratic oath they aren't going to be telling the feds how many guns you have or haven't got you fucking meathead.

C'mon. A Dr.'s oath means nothing. That's very naive and I know you're smarter than that.

Are you trying to tell me in all seriousness that you think a doctor, after you give him information about your gun ownership, is going to go squealing to the narcs like a stoolie?

Of course not. Stop being so dramatic.

Ok so why shouldn't doctors ask you about guns? Especially if you got kids/grandkids?

Gun nuts are a strange bunch they say that guns are no big deal then complain that they don't want doctors to know about them like its some dirty little secret, they need to make their minds up.

I can't speak for everyone but for myself I view that as no ones business. It just isn't. Once guns are purchased in a legal manner by law abiding citizens it is no ones business. I really don't know how to be any more clear than that. My property is not your business...period.