Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:49 PM
I don't necessarily agree with this, but I love the thought that went into it. Great philosophical points.
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:48 PM
No, just tired of seeing the very important and complex issue of abortion reduced to cutesy sound bytes. So I thought I'd chime right in with the cutesiness too. :)
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:44 PM
Well, the father of my daughter certainly has. :)
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:42 PM
*correct your wrongness. Good lord, is it TH or my keyboard?
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:42 PM
I'm neither glad nor sorry, so I guess I'm correct your wrongnes. :)
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:17 PM
Well, I'd love to believe that women are more wondrous and miraculous than men, but my experience being one leads me to think that they're really not. It's true to say that the physical process of reproduction requires a lot more from women than from men, though.
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:15 PM
Again with the tedious name-calling...do you call people these things to their face, or only from the safety of your keyboard? Pro-choicers also pursue unwanted pregnancy prevention; they are quite well-known for their advocacy of birth control.
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:14 PM
I'm not a simpleton, and your name-calling reflects either your lack of self-control or lack of manners. I am not pro-death--that isn't a word in common usage with an associated common meaning, so I'd have to guess at the meaning, which would seem to be "wants everyone living to die"--that's definitely not me.
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:10 PM
Disagreeing with you--though honestly I don't yet know if we do disagree entirely or not, as it's hard for me to tell from your dramatic hyperbole what your exact feelings about abortion truly are--doesn't make me a moral coward. Refusing to consider the issue deeply and allow my feelings to be engaged would make me a moral coward, but I haven't done that, so I'm not one. I don't lack a deeply considered opinion about abortion--my opinion is just very complex and unable to be reduced to a convenient sound byte. I'm happy to answer specific questions about if if you have any, though. :)
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 12:07 PM
They're really not the same thing. That's why we have different words for them--the meaning of the Latin root notwithstanding--the Latin root for "embryo" means "to swell," so should we based on that consider an embryo (which is the stage at which more than half of elective abortions take place) a "swelling?" We need to base our opinions on abortion on logical and moral reasoning, not on ancient language word roots.
In response to:

Roe v Wade, Forty Years After

lshort Wrote: Jan 14, 2013 11:46 AM
You are correct--I don't have the time right now to look up the exact numbers, but I believe that something like 19 states have already in their state constitutions outlawed abortion if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, and something like 6 states have that abortion will be legal if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned.
Previous 11 - 20 Next
Sunday, May 26 | 02:50 AM ET
Sunday, May 26 | 02:50 AM ET
Sunday, May 26 | 02:50 AM ET
Sunday, May 26 | 02:50 AM ET