Yes, absolufuckinglootly... If you want to have one, go for it. That is between you and your God. No governmental agency should be able to tell you what to do with your body. Not my problem.

Oh yea, and stay the hell out of my bedroom.

Originally Posted by Ibram

Who is this person? Can't read a word of it.

Define conservative.

Many, if not most, Republican politicians claim to be conservative, when most of them are actually libertarian on social/moral issues, and if the budget deficits with GWB's first 6 years in office are any indication, most Republicans are liberals when it comes to government spending. And as far as I can tell most Republicans who hold national office are in favor of abortion in cases of rape, incest or fetal stem cell research.

There are not many people who are conservative and who are willing to support the rights of the unborn. In this regard the "conservative" position on abortion is little better than the "liberal" position on abortion- both are in favor of killing the unborn for convenience's sake. But abortion is a moral, life and death issue. It transcends politics.

Doesn’t a woman yield control over her body when she sleeps with a man and thus ends up pregnant?

And does the unborn’s father have any rights? The unborn is just as much part of the father’s body as it is the woman’s. Furthermore, are you in favor of child support requirements? If a man has no right to keep a woman from killing his child in utero, what right can the woman have to make the man pay child support if she chooses to let the child live?

Most certainly, in some cases yes. That is quite different from an outside entity, such as a government telling her to yield control. It is about free choice.

I guess that would depend on the relationship with the mother. Hell we can't even get people to assume any rights so much as want them and take responsibility for their actions. In this country the answer is that the fathers have significantly less rights than the women when it comes to the pregnancy.

Yes, for men and women equally. Equal responsibility, esp if one remarries.

Apples and oranges. They two subjects are hardly related.

Is this a thread for discussing partisan politics or engaging in partisan politics?

:lol2:

Yeah, it's amazing how quickly this thread went meta on it's own theme. I dig it, kind of like a post-modern literary art installation, only on the interwebs.

Actually that is done for all invasive procedures and experimental treatments. None of that removes the patients right to sue or prevents them from suing sucessfully.

No. She changes her physical state, but that doesn't mean she relinquishes control over her body. If a woman is giving birth, she gets to choose how and she gets to choose what medical assistance she will or will not have. All these things are the woman's decision. They weren't always, of course.

Unless rape or incest is involved, the woman has already yielded control over her body to someone else when she got pregnant. Why should she be entitled to reclaim what she had willfully given up just because a baby is involved?

My mother has Medicare because she is disabled and gets SSI (lupus). She has no choice but to get treatment at the local government hospital. That hospital won’t treat anybody that won’t sign a waiver whereby they specifically give up their right to sue if malpractice of any sort takes place.

In what way has she given up control and to whom?

Letting a man put his penis in her does not give the man control over her body? Get real.

Holy shit. Well that's an interesting take on it, flaja, it really is.

Of course, in your post you said she gave up that control when she got pregnant, not when she had sex. Do you believe women lose the right to control their bodies when they have sex?

well, this flaja character is certainly the most interesting person to pop up in quite a while.

flaja & radar - seem to have a lot in common. I'm surprised he hasn't chimed in here at all.

You do know how sex works, don’t you? No one can get pregnant without sex. Even with birth control that the woman takes care of herself, she runs the risk that the method used will fail or will have long-term health consequences for her even if it is successful in preventing pregnancy.

I can't believe anyone could possibly think that a woman is giving up control of her body just because she chooses to have sex with someone. The woman makes that choice knowing the possible consequences. That's not losing control or giving up control. That's making an informed decision.

I can't believe anyone could have such antiquated ideas and still expect to be taken seriously. lol

What does that have to do with relinquishing control of her body?

Putting your body at risk of disease, injury or pregnancy isn’t yielding control over it to the actions of someone else?

Having sex means that a woman is giving someone else the opportunity to infect, injure or impregnate her body. By granting such an opportunity the woman is giving up control over her body.

You're not putting yourself at risk if you've made an informed decision. Having made the decision means you've considered the risks and decided that the risks are worth the reward.

Like when I go home tonight and have sex with my husband. He wont be controlling my body. I will. He'll just be pleasuring it.

Thanks Ali - I thought it was just me there for a bit.

Walking down the street is giving someone else the opportunity to infect or injure your body.

So if I infect you with a cold, I'm taking control of your body...by flaja's reasoning of course.

Do you get it now?

Changes nothing. People on Medicare and Medicaid are the first to sue.

Radar re dux.

Bull crap. Well except maybe in your world. My understanding it that sex is a 50/50 relationship and a shared control, not one person "yielding control" over another. That is one whacked out line of thinking. Are you married? Do you have another relationship with a person that you "control"?

Which means that you still have put yourself at risk so you still are giving someone else some input into what happens to your body. You have not maintained total control over your body.

...just like walking down the street.

Merely walking down the street isn't going to make anyone pregnant.

A woman cannot rightfully complain about a baby being inside her body if she willfully allowed someone else to help put it there.

If you did so intentionally or if I willfully went out of my way to let you do it while you did nothing to keep from doing it, then yes.

I am asking for your definition of conservative since most people you encounter on the net who claim to be conservative are really libertarians who don’t understand what conservatism is.

And just because most people who claim to be liberal or claim to be conservative have common beliefs on abortion does not mean that they have the liberal or conservative belief on abortion; abortion is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is a moral issue. You cannot be liberal or conservative on abortion, you can only be right and wrong.

How dense can you be? If you go to the county hospital here for treatment you have to give up your right to sue in order to get treatment.

Which means that a woman who has sex gives up (by your calculation) 50% control over her body. Do you pay any attention at all to what you write?

Contracts signed under duress are not enforceable.

Now, see, that's the thing about morality: it highly subjective. I consider myself to be a very moral person; however, my moral compass is set somewhat differently to yours.

Both sides of the debate think that they are right and that the other side is wrong.

I defy anyone to try to bring a lawsuit against this hospital using your reasoning. A judge would laugh you out of court in a heartbeat.

No it is not. You are either right or wrong by the only standards that matter: God’s.

Given that I do not believe in the existence of God, that kind of 'logic' doesn't really carry any weight with me.

Except for malpractice cases flaja. Those are taken seriously by courts. Under duress or not.

If it is a malpractice suit, then that agreement is actually disregarded until the truth of the incidences come to light. You can make all the claims you want with that trivial piece of paper in place. Your hospital can fight it all they want, but no judge will laugh when the wrong leg has been dismembered. Because it isn't funny unless you are me, and it isn't my leg.

No matter what you sign, you still have rights under the protections of the law. It's funny that you claim you work in a hospital, and think that judges laugh at patient claims. I don't think you know what you are saying really.

I do not even approve of your contractual metaphor, in regards to your so-called moral issues.

Flaja has been identified.

:lol2:

What?? NO. No one could have predicted that. Why, flaja hasn't even brought up global warming yet!!

If by having a lot in common, you mean holding diametrically opposed positions, then sure.

stylisticly (sp) speaking, classic is right. they obviously subscribe to the same rules of order.

clodfobble, that is absolutely awesome. it didn't even occur to me to google that, but you left out my favorite. you have to get a load of this one.

I guess that means I could track you down and bash your head and then justify my actions by saying say my moral standards say such behavior is OK.

I have? When? Where?

if you can convince the rest of society to overturn the laws outlawing murder beforehand? sure. otherwise you'd be breaking a law regardless of what you believe to be moral or immoral. great example though, troll.

No I have not.

Because I am obviously not the person or persons you all wish to believe that I am, and I have no interest in discussing global warming or any other scientific myth on this board.

his wit and humor are still apparently missing.

If morality is a subjective concept, why do we have laws against murder?

Grudgingly, I have to respond to this. Assuming that God has established absolute moral standards, how are we to determine what they are?

If, as is the case, all we have to go on are books written by men about God, then surely it's safer to assume that their assumptions about God's moral standards are just that: human conjecture, and therefore fallible.

To apply infallibility to a human idea is not only foolish, it's dangerous. We all have an incomplete idea of what God's moral standards are.

I find it extremely insulting to God that we assume we would even be able to wrap our puny minds around his omnipotent reasoning.

I brought a lawsuit against that hospital using his reasoning, and when the judge tried to laugh me out of court, I walloped him but good. And it was a real hum-dinger, when he woke up his clothes were out of style. And who was laughing then? I was. All the way to the bank. Now, stick that in your pipe and smoke it. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

whoa dude! you totally defied his defying of you. that is tiiiiiiiight!

It has been my experience that when the accusation of troll is tossed around so freely on a message board it is because the mutual admiration society, whose members populate the board, have been discombobulated by irrefutable facts coupled with the sound reasoning that comes from a superior intellect.

You people cannot confront me on facts, reason or intellect so you resort to insults, whining and nuisance.

Which thread are you reading?