I'm constantly on the look-out for the dirt on Conservatives...

[j2k4]

The editing controls aren't working correctly, so I'll settle for directing your attention to your first reply in red in the prior post:

"that is the only way to place your fantasy about birth control not existing into a reality"

What is this in aid of?

I haven't made any allusions to eliminating birth control.

Or is it simply the clearest indicator yet of your true view of abortion?

[vidcc]

What is this in aid of?

I haven't made any allusions to eliminating birth control.

Or is it simply the clearest indicator yet of your true view of abortion?

you said this

Here's a thought:

What if there were no such thing as birth control, other than some variant of the rhythm method?

If there were literally no way to avoid pregnancy apart from math skills and luck, what would the upshot of such a situation be?

Vid?

You said your only point about it was that people can change their sexual habits....well (and I repeat) the only way to test your fantasy situation in reality is to remove birth control and the only way to do that in reality is to make it illegal.

You raised an irrelevant fantasy scenario and complained when I initially gave no reply because it is irrelevant. I gave it possible relevance

It appears in reality by your answer that it's a different answer than the fantasy

[j2k4]

you said this

Here's a thought:

What if there were no such thing as birth control, other than some variant of the rhythm method?

If there were literally no way to avoid pregnancy apart from math skills and luck, what would the upshot of such a situation be?

Vid?

You said your only point about it was that people can change their sexual habits....well (and I repeat) the only way to test your fantasy situation in reality is to remove birth control and the only way to do that in reality is to make it illegal.

You raised an irrelevant fantasy scenario and complained when I initially gave no reply because it is irrelevant. I gave it possible relevance

It appears in reality by your answer that it's a different answer than the fantasy

Really.

So, if I actually say, Pie-in-the-sky, you start scanning the heavens for baked goods?

[vidcc]

Really.

So, if I actually say, Pie-in-the-sky, you start scanning the heavens for baked goods?

Oh hum.

That would be a clever response but for one thing...... I didn't take your scenario as being anything but fantasy. That's why I didnt answer and that's why I included the "little green men" bit in my answer when you complained that I didn't answer.
However...... you word your scenario to give it any possible bearing on reality....If you can't do it then not only did the scenario bear no relevance but also your point.... which you want me to take seriously.

[j2k4]

Okay, one last and very simple question, then:

Do you regard abortion as merely another method of birth-control?

[vidcc]

Okay, one last and very simple question, then:

Do you regard abortion as merely another method of birth-control?

"Merely"...........no

It is technically that, however much as you like to portray it as being such I doubt that many people think "I don't need to take the precautions.......Abortion is so much more convenient".

Sure people don't act responsibly and have "protection free sex" often there are a few factors involved, drink for example. Plan B is probably the best action to take, pity some want to ban this.

You also like to portray it as being something that often happens right up to delivery day because the woman suddenly decides her career is more important..........

Women are not skipping into abortion clinics and demanding with joyous abandon "remove this baby from my body so I can go out and have more unprotected sex.... oh and book me in for a month next tuesday, I'm feeling horny"

But to answer from my personal viewpoint.

I don't view it as an option for us, certainly not as a matter of convenience ( I will pm you later on a point ) I don't like abortion.
I view abortion as a matter of personal moral values and as such we have no right to impose our values.

someone put it best once when they said:

Pro choice advocates are not saying "Do as I do", they are saying "Leave me alone".
Anti-choice quite often are not only saying, "Do as I do", but also "My right is to make you live by my beliefs, and if you resist me, then you are 'intolerant'."

If you don't agree with abortion....don't have one, nobody is forcing you to.

[j2k4]

I would probably never feel compelled to argue the point (apart from the state's rights angle) if abortion was not utilized so often as "birth control", retroactive, or otherwise.

I can't count the occasions I've actually heard a woman say something to the effect of, "Now I've got nine months to convince him to marry me..."

I've never tried to make the case all women take such advantage, but there are many who do.

BTW-Truthfully, I don't regard "drink" as an adequate excuse.

You say people it causes people to engage in incautious sex...so what?

Yes, people do occasionally act stupidly when they've been drinking, but why should that be an excuse?

If they're capable of sex, they're not totally blotto, right?

It's not as if they forget to drop their drawers to take a whiz, is it?

If they did, finding a sexual partner might prove difficult.

[vidcc]

I would probably never feel compelled to argue the point (apart from the state's rights angle) if abortion was not utilized so often as "birth control", retroactive, or otherwise.

as said before ,I don't think it is a state or fed thing, it is a private matter

BTW-Truthfully, I don't regard "drink" as an adequate excuse.

You say people it causes people to engage in incautious sex...so what?

Yes, people do occasionally act stupidly when they've been drinking, but why should that be an excuse?

If they're capable of sex, they're not totally blotto, right?

It's not as if they forget to drop their drawers to take a whiz, is it?

If they did, finding a sexual partner might prove difficult.

I never said it was an excuse, I said it was sometimes a factor in peoples behaviour. many people do things "under the influence" that they would not do sober. I don't condone it, just point out a reality

[vidcc]

The ministry of misinformation is at it again

RNC Mischaracterizes Feingold's Censure Resolution

A GOP radio ad falsely characterizes Sen. Feingold's censure resolution as reprimanding the President for pursuing Al Qaeda

March 21, 2006

Modified: March 21, 2006

eMail eMail to a friend Print Printer Friendly Version
Summary



A GOP radio ad accuses Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin of proposing to censure President Bush "for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda," which isn't true. Feingold has stated he supports wiretapping suspected terrorists. His measure would censure Bush for ordering wiretaps on US soil without a court warrant, for failing to notify all members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, and for "efforts to mislead the American people" about the legality of the program.
Analysis

The Republican National Committee (RNC) released the radio advertisement on March 21. The RNC would not disclose how much they spent on the ad, but an RNC spokesperson said the advertisement is scheduled to run for a week on Wisconsin radio stations.

RNC AD: "Censure"

Announcer: September 11th changed our country.
And it changed how America responds to terrorists.
President Bush is working to keep American families safe.
Passing the PATRIOT Act which has disrupted over one hundred and fifty terrorist threats and cells making sure the US is monitoring terrorist communications.
But some Democrats are working against these efforts to secure our country, opposing the PATRIOT Act and terrorist surveillance program.
Their leader is Russ Feingold.
Now Feingold and other Democrats want to censure the President. Publicly reprimanding President Bush for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda.
Some Democrats are even calling for President Bush’s impeachment.
Is this how Democrats plan to win the War on Terror?
Call Russ Feingold and ask him why he’s more interested in censuring the President than protecting our freedom.
Paid for by the Republican National Committee not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee www.gop.com.
The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.

The ad characterizes President Bush as "working to keep American families safe," while accusing Sen. Feingold of leading Democrats who are "working against . . . efforts to secure our country." The ad claims that "Feingold and other Democrats want to censure the President. Publicly reprimanding President Bush for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda." That is a false characterization.

Mischaracterizing the Censure Resolution

When Feingold introduced his resolution to censure the president on March 13 he stated clearly on the Senate floor:

Feingold: No one questions -- no one questions -- whether the government should wiretap suspected terrorists. Of course we should and we can under the current law.

He also stated in a March 12 press release :

Feingold: This issue is not about whether the government should be wiretapping terrorists -- of course it should, and it can under present law.

The resolution would censure Bush for the way in which he ordered wiretaps, not for the wiretaps themselves. It would condemn him for "unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required " (emphasis added), and also for "failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees," and for "his efforts to mislead the American people" about the legalities of the program.

Feingold and the PATRIOT Act

The radio ad says the PATRIOT Act "has disrupted over one hundred and fifty terrorist threats and cells," a claim that rests solely on statements from the Department of Justice and which hasn't been independently verified. The ad also says Feingold is leading Democrats in "opposing the PATRIOT Act and terrorist surveillance program."

The surveillance program is separate from the Patriot Act, however. It is true that Feingold has twice opposed enactment of the PATRIOT Act. In 2001, Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the original act and in 2006 he was one of ten Senators who voted against the bill that renewed the act with modifications. Feingold says on his website : "the [PATRIOT] Act contains many provisions that are needed to help protect our nation against terrorism," and says he voted against the act because "the bill went too far in allowing the government to obtain personal information about law-abiding Americans and in undermining constitutional rights and protections." As for the surveillance program, as we've noted, Feingold does oppose the nature of Bush's program but not surveillance of suspected terrorist.

Who is Calling for Impeachment?

The ad also says that "some Democrats are even calling for President Bush’s impeachment ." That's true, but there aren't many. Rep. John Conyers introduced a bill last December to create a select committee to "make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment." As of March 21, Conyers had attracted 31 additional sponsors.

Republicans hope to convince voters that Democrats intend to impeach the President if they gain control of Congress. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said March 20 on CNN's Situation Room: "the [impeachment] talk originally came up from a number of different people, including John Conyers, a gentlemen who if the Democrats took control, would be the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And what I think is important for people to understand is this is their agenda."

http://www.factcheck.org/article381.html

[j2k4]

I could answer that cut-and-paste with a cut-and-paste of my own, but I have foresworn their use in argumentative circumstances.

Unless you'd grant an exception...