Not my question (I get tired of having to use that phrase with you, Sam). You said YOU would want the woman who used RU-486 to get 20 years....MY QUESTION WAS.....would YOU only want 20 years given to a woman who shot a 5 year old? Yes or No? - - - Updated - - - Trying to provide cover for himself by saying "I'm fine with whatever the law in the state is"......Sam accidentially stepped on a land-mine of YOUR obvious question. Now, as you see, he has to CONTRADICT himself and say he is NOT "fine" with whatever "the law in a sate is"
BTW, unlike Diogenes of Sinope searching for an honest man... I actually DID find an HONEST "pro-lifer"...on the Latest News forum. BestViewedWithCable admitted that YES....he would support executing a woman who self-induced an abortion for "murder". Apparently there are some BRAVE and HONEST "pro-lifers" out there.....well, one atleast.
1-If a state wanted to give a woman 20 years in prison for that crime, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Why do I have to repeat myself so much? 2-I didn't contradict myself.
And naturally, BVWC would deny that he "wants to control women"....no, of course not. Just KILL them if they do something he doesn't like.
Much like the "pro-lifer" who admits to having no compassion for women who would die from botched abortions.
And if a state wanted NO punishment for self-inducing an abortion....you'd have no problem with that, right? - - - Updated - - - Well, lethal injection or having them die of botched abortions?....I'm sure they're fine with whatever method kills a woman who doesn't obey.
BTW, lest some "pro-lifer" try "I don't believe you, GC...show me the quote and a link to somebody saying they'd support executing a woman for taking RU-486".......here ya go- http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=343897&page=7
If and only if abortion was illegal, and punishable as murder, with the death penalty. You forgot to mention the conditions of the farce you are now perpetrating. - - - Updated - - - another total lie from you.
No, because I believe that abortion is wrong and should be illegal. - - - Updated - - - Pro-lifers don't want to control women. Regardless of whatever stupid comments I said in the past, I don't want to control women.
If you believe abortion should be illegal then you are trying to control women...UNLESS YOU CAN TELL ME WHO ELSE GETS PREGNANT.
1. It's in the premise of THIS OP, BVWC...and the link to the thread is clearly available for all to read. As are your "caveats". 2. What's the "lie"? That you would DENY that you want to control women? Or that, you clearly stated that if a woman self-induces an abortion....something you "don't like"....that you would support her being executed...i.e. "KILLED"? Tell us exactly....what's the "lie"? - - - Updated - - - So you PICK AND CHOOSE which state laws you "have no problem with"? Well, Sam it's hard to separate out the stupid comments you said in the past...from the ones now.
Remember, Fox....Sam only wants to control "evil" women....who get pregnant but don't want to stay that way...and choose to do something Sam doesn't like. If a woman is "good"...and does what Sam wants?....he doesn't want to control her.
That was not the point we were discussing but YES, laws against child abuse are aimed at CONTROLLING child abusers. And I NEVER said they were wrong or indicated they were wrong but it IS a control issue.
1-Sure, I guess so. 2-What are you implying? - - - Updated - - - Child abuse laws only control adults who do the wrong thing (similar to how abortion laws only control women who do the wrong thing.) But what's your definition of control? - - - Updated - - - You just admitted that I don't support controlling women.
Of course it isn't that is why you post such things as View attachment 25497 Certainly no "emotional" content in that is there
1. So your support for state law....isn't an excuse...since you easily dismiss it whenever the mood strikes you. 2. I'm not implying anything, Sam. YOU're the one who called your own comments "stupid". NOW, you claim that, Sam. Because you kept contradicting yourself.....one minute you'd say "I don't want to control women"....then you'd say "I'd rather be someone who wants to control women than support abortion"......then you'd deny again that you wanted to control women......then you'd say "The only reason pro-lifers want to control women is....".... then when your contradictions were pointed out, you'd say "I was NOT contradicting myself"....when clearly you were.... and finally it even dawned on YOU that you were contradicting yourself and you NOW claim that it was "nervousness". And yet, look at your discussion with FoxHstings on "control".....you're BACK to issuing support for the idea of controlling people....i.e. "Child abuse laws only control adults who do the wrong thing (similar to how abortion laws only control women who do the wrong thing.) " Do you NOT support abortion laws?...which YOU just admitted were about "controlling women"???
I don't expect anyone to be completely divorced from their emotions. That said, I hope they (the readers) can try to keep their emotions from inhibiting their ability to see the fact that not all forms of molestation are sexual.
Chuz is upset...because I "fooled" him once on the other thread. And this thread challenges his over-the-top "Abortion is murder" rhetoric....which he will not or cannot defend in a logical hypothetical. He's a relatively smart guy....unlike BVWC above, who let his "pro-life" zealotry turn him into an American Taliban. While Chuz likely holds similar views with BVWC....he won't admit it. Or perhaps worse for him....he DOESN'T hold the same absolutist and hyperbolic view....while claiming that he does?
I don't want to control women FOR THE SAKE of controlling women. However, abortion laws, similarly to child abuse laws, control people who infringe on the rights of others. Abortion laws don't control all women. As I've said a million times before, it all depends on how you define control.
Asking for a definition of "controlling" has to be a dodge because everyone should know what "control" means. """""I don't want to control women FOR THE SAKE of controlling women""" But making abortion illegal CONTROLS women no matter what your motives are...
In an emotive subject such as abortion I would think not. Fully agree which is why it can be easily used in reference to the woman and pregnancy. It meets ALL of the things in the definition supplied by you.
