- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:51 pm to xiv
well?
If you're a scholar, say it.
Our eggs heads haven't figured it out yet.
I'll wait.
If you're a scholar, say it.
Our eggs heads haven't figured it out yet.
I'll wait.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:51 pm to genro
quote:So much more easily that it’s been 46 years and there have been only 61mllion abortions since then.
Nothing in the Constitution about abortion. You really wanna stretch and twist you can argue it to fit whatever whim you desire, which is what they did in '73. It could just as easily do it the other way. Scratch that, much more easily. Much more correctly.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:51 pm to genro
I didn’t identify the thing to read.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:51 pm to mattloc
Total virtue signaling. Won’t amount to anything. Waste of time.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:52 pm to mattloc
This is for you Alabama!
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:52 pm to xiv
quote:True. You said it rhymes with Schmonstitution. Silly me. You could've been talking about anything.
I didn’t identify the thing to read.
This post was edited on 5/9/19 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:52 pm to xiv
But what does this have to do with the constitution?
How many deaths by gunfire do we have every year?
I'm pro gun.
How many deaths by gunfire do we have every year?
I'm pro gun.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:54 pm to genro
quote:That was a different post.
You said it rhymes with Schmonstitution. Silly me. You could've been talking about anything.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:55 pm to mattloc
This is for you Alabama!
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:55 pm to hoojy
quote:It’s why nine people paid to be rational will oppose it.
But what does this have to do with the constitution?
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:56 pm to xiv
quote:
It’s why nine people paid to be rational will oppose it.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 5:56 pm to xiv
Right. That was before you realized it wasn't in the Constitution. 
Posted on 5/9/19 at 6:00 pm to genro
Your play-by-play isn’t very good.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 6:01 pm to HogFanfromHTown
If I’m raped I’m heading straight to the police department where they will send me to a hospital that will administer the plan B. The 5 day rule is sufficient to cover the rape allegation.
Frankly I see no reason to allow a “rape” exception aside from the administration of Plan B within 5 days. If you’re waiting 6wks to tell the cops you’re raped, I’m sort of doubtful rape actually happened (unless you were actually held captive).
I do think that the appropriate legislative solution is to ban all abortions after 20 wks, with only for a reason that would threaten the life of the mother or another child in utero after a heartbeat but before the expiration of 20 weeks. There is no medical reason justifying an abortion in the 3rd Trimester
Frankly I see no reason to allow a “rape” exception aside from the administration of Plan B within 5 days. If you’re waiting 6wks to tell the cops you’re raped, I’m sort of doubtful rape actually happened (unless you were actually held captive).
I do think that the appropriate legislative solution is to ban all abortions after 20 wks, with only for a reason that would threaten the life of the mother or another child in utero after a heartbeat but before the expiration of 20 weeks. There is no medical reason justifying an abortion in the 3rd Trimester
Posted on 5/9/19 at 6:02 pm to mattloc
I’m only chiming in to raise a point most likely lost on 99% of people. I doubt it’s been raised here.
In order to be a mother, you must be with “child” or give birth to a “child.” If what inside the pregnant woman is not a child then the woman is not a/the mother.
Once you realize this, you can then conclude that the rightful owners have equal say in what happens to the embryo. If they cannot agree to a resolution, the embryo should be born. The parent who argues for life should accept full responsibility only when the other parent formally responds with a nullification of their rights to the child.
This resolution allows for people to see who are the deadbeat mothers and fathers. It also requires an action on the possible father(s) in order to protect his rights to a potential heir or his future earnings. No possible father could assert his right to the property without a sworn affidavit stating his sexual activity with the female in the corresponding period to conception. Any denial of said activity by the mother would require a contradictory hearing whereby the father would have to show by a preponderance of the evidence why he may be the father.
There’s your answer to the majority of the problems that come with abortion. Obviously, none of this matters if the mother is deemed to be with “child” and a human being resides within her.
To answer the question the could be posed by the subject matter presented in the original post, Any person accused of rape or incest relinquishes their right to the child. Any child born of such actions results in the victim’s decision alone. However, if both are culprits then the child becomes property of the state. No culprit of rape can be a victim of incest.
Each person should be equally responsible for their decisions.
For the record, I’m personally for life and it probably shouldn’t be a choice except in extreme circumstances as laid out above.
In order to be a mother, you must be with “child” or give birth to a “child.” If what inside the pregnant woman is not a child then the woman is not a/the mother.
Once you realize this, you can then conclude that the rightful owners have equal say in what happens to the embryo. If they cannot agree to a resolution, the embryo should be born. The parent who argues for life should accept full responsibility only when the other parent formally responds with a nullification of their rights to the child.
This resolution allows for people to see who are the deadbeat mothers and fathers. It also requires an action on the possible father(s) in order to protect his rights to a potential heir or his future earnings. No possible father could assert his right to the property without a sworn affidavit stating his sexual activity with the female in the corresponding period to conception. Any denial of said activity by the mother would require a contradictory hearing whereby the father would have to show by a preponderance of the evidence why he may be the father.
There’s your answer to the majority of the problems that come with abortion. Obviously, none of this matters if the mother is deemed to be with “child” and a human being resides within her.
To answer the question the could be posed by the subject matter presented in the original post, Any person accused of rape or incest relinquishes their right to the child. Any child born of such actions results in the victim’s decision alone. However, if both are culprits then the child becomes property of the state. No culprit of rape can be a victim of incest.
Each person should be equally responsible for their decisions.
For the record, I’m personally for life and it probably shouldn’t be a choice except in extreme circumstances as laid out above.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 6:05 pm to xiv
xiv steps to the plate. Been on quite a slump lately. He's asked the umpire to read the rule book. Umpire informs him he has read the rule book and it contains nothing about his complaint. He's now asked the head official to read "something." And now he's jawing and kicking dirt. Just a pitiful display. Folks we're gonna take a break for our sponsors
Posted on 5/9/19 at 6:10 pm to genro
TL;DR
SCOTUS will shoot this down, and conservatives will win the virtue signaling war since virtue signaling for babies sounds better than virtue signaling for whores.
Republicans win because they know how to play, and this is a textbook Republican move.
SCOTUS will shoot this down, and conservatives will win the virtue signaling war since virtue signaling for babies sounds better than virtue signaling for whores.
Republicans win because they know how to play, and this is a textbook Republican move.
This post was edited on 5/9/19 at 6:10 pm
Posted on 5/9/19 at 6:11 pm to Lickitty Split
I should have included the language about false accusations of rape resulting in civil penalties and possible jail time. Anyone held capitive would still have their rights until the embroyo is deemed a child. That time would be whatever time that is decided by scientists and others.
Posted on 5/9/19 at 6:11 pm to xiv
Those Alabamans are so devious, pulling the strings of the political world
Page 4 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News