PDA

View Full Version : ND House Passes Abortion Ban



FlaGator
02-19-2009, 06:04 PM
ND House Passes Abortion Ban

Feb 17 2009 7:37PM
KXMCTV Minot

North Dakota's House of Representatives has passed a bill effectively outlawing abortion.
The House voted 51-41 this afternoon to declare that a fertilized egg has all the rights of any person.

That means a fetus could not be legally aborted without the procedure being considered murder.

Minot Republican Dan Ruby has sponsored other bills banning abortion in previous legislative sessions - all of which failed.

He also sponsored today's bill and says it is compatable with Roe versus Wade - the Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion. (Rep. Dan Ruby, -R- Minot) "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs. Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does."



The whole article is here (http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=333726)

Mythic
02-19-2009, 11:35 PM
Good for North Dakota! Hopefully more states will do something similar.

PoliCon
02-19-2009, 11:42 PM
This is either excellent or dead awful timing . . . . This will of course go to SCOTUS and will be a hot button issue for the election if it makes it there before 2010. The question is - will it rally the dems or the conservatives more?

noonwitch
02-20-2009, 08:48 AM
That ban also would ban the morning after pill and IUDs, because both involve ensuring that a fertilized egg does not implant in the uterus. It's going to be struck down by a higher court.

FlaGator
02-20-2009, 08:55 AM
That ban also would ban the morning after pill and IUDs, because both involve ensuring that a fertilized egg does not implant in the uterus. It's going to be struck down by a higher court.

That should make wilbur happy. He can't cite ND as being hypocritical...

linda22003
02-20-2009, 02:49 PM
This is the kind of legislation you get in places where nights and winters are way too long. What penalties do they have for women who cross the border into some other big square/rectangular state?

FlaGator
02-20-2009, 03:38 PM
This is the kind of legislation you get in places where nights and winters are way too long. What penalties do they have for women who cross the border into some other big square/rectangular state?

In this case what goes on in another state should be of no concern to ND. ND is treating this as a state's rights issue as it should have been all along. What penalty should Florida put on me if I drive to South Carolina and buy cigarettes and avoid Florida's cigarette tax?

linda22003
02-20-2009, 03:45 PM
I know that Virginia frowns on my driving into the District of Columbia to buy cases of wine or liquor, and it's not good if they catch me with a trunkful. (It's also not high risk). So sometimes states do care.

FlaGator
02-20-2009, 04:32 PM
I know that Virginia frowns on my driving into the District of Columbia to buy cases of wine or liquor, and it's not good if they catch me with a trunkful. (It's also not high risk). So sometimes states do care.

Which makes me happy to know I don't live in Virginia. I perfer the crazies that live here.

Phillygirl
02-20-2009, 06:27 PM
In this case what goes on in another state should be of no concern to ND. ND is treating this as a state's rights issue as it should have been all along. What penalty should Florida put on me if I drive to South Carolina and buy cigarettes and avoid Florida's cigarette tax?


I know that Virginia frowns on my driving into the District of Columbia to buy cases of wine or liquor, and it's not good if they catch me with a trunkful. (It's also not high risk). So sometimes states do care.

You can buy them there, you just can't bring them into the state without paying the state tax. So, roadtrip to South Carolina or D.C. (or, in my case, Delaware or Maryland) but you must drink and smoke them all before getting back to your home state. At least, until they figure out how to tax your urine.

Space Gravy
02-20-2009, 06:42 PM
I know that Virginia frowns on my driving into the District of Columbia to buy cases of wine or liquor, and it's not good if they catch me with a trunkful. (It's also not high risk). So sometimes states do care.

We always used to go to Maryland.

FlaGator
02-20-2009, 06:43 PM
Linda, I was just yanking your chain with the Virginia comment. Virginia is a beautiful state.

FlaGator
02-20-2009, 06:44 PM
You can buy them there, you just can't bring them into the state without paying the state tax. So, roadtrip to South Carolina or D.C. (or, in my case, Delaware or Maryland) but you must drink and smoke them all before getting back to your home state. At least, until they figure out how to tax your urine.

Thank the Lord they don't have declaration checkings between states :eek:

linda22003
02-21-2009, 06:18 AM
Linda, I was just yanking your chain with the Virginia comment. Virginia is a beautiful state.

That's okay. :) You completely undercut your remarks with your spelling of "prefer". It's all good. :p

noonwitch
02-21-2009, 12:52 PM
I know that Virginia frowns on my driving into the District of Columbia to buy cases of wine or liquor, and it's not good if they catch me with a trunkful. (It's also not high risk). So sometimes states do care.



Michigan State Police are known for confiscating cartons of cigarettes bought out of state from Michigan residents. This happens especially along the MI/IN border, because Ohio raised their taxes so the price is about the same as here.

I think we are allowed one carton from out of state, but no more.

wilbur
02-23-2009, 02:02 AM
That should make wilbur happy. He can't cite ND as being hypocritical...

I don't see any reason to believe they fully realize the consequences of passing such a law... if followed to the letter it would outlaw typical birth control pills... as they sometimes prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation (but allowing conception).

This bill (and you 'life-at-conception' folks) leave no recourse to justify the allowance of any type of non-barrier type contraception... so one has to to wonder why so many of you lack the same zeal about BC that you bring to the table when it comes to abortion (well, I don't... its because you do recognize that a zygote is not equivalent to a human being... you have just let the rhetoric stymie any and all reflective thought that might give you the awareness to realize it consciously)

As for the the bill itself... it seems like it will be nothing more than a meaningless gesture.... like when congress signs a resolution condemning or supporting something.

FlaGator
02-23-2009, 08:36 AM
I don't see any reason to believe they fully realize the consequences of passing such a law... if followed to the letter it would outlaw typical birth control pills... as they sometimes prevent pregnancy by preventing implantation (but allowing conception).

This bill (and you 'life-at-conception' folks) leave no recourse to justify the allowance of any type of non-barrier type contraception... so one has to to wonder why so many of you lack the same zeal about BC that you bring to the table when it comes to abortion (well, I don't... its because you do recognize that a zygote is not equivalent to a human being... you have just let the rhetoric stymie any and all reflective thought that might give you the awareness to realize it consciously)

As for the the bill itself... it seems like it will be nothing more than a meaningless gesture.... like when congress signs a resolution condemning or supporting something.

I'm sure they understand exactly what the law is invoking. Whether I agree with the totality of their law or not, I believe that this is a state's rights issue and not a federal privacy issue. When considering whether birth control should be allowed or not, that too should be a state's right issues and not a privacy issue. The problem here is that you abortion zealots who believe that almost any excuse is a good one for an abortion and canít stand the fact that some states may disagree with you. That is why previous pro-abortion groups got the feds to enforce their beliefs on all. As is asked of Christians all the time, what gives you the right to force your morals and beliefs on others?

As for it being a meaningless gesture, that depends on how the Supreme Court handles it. If they refuse to hear any case brought by opponents to the law then this meaningless gesture opens the door for other states to enact the same law. If they hear it and find the issue to be one of states' rights then again the door is open for the states to enact certain laws.

Zeus
02-23-2009, 09:20 AM
Some of the pro abortion folks obviously flunked Biology while in school.

wilbur
02-23-2009, 12:39 PM
Some of the pro abortion folks obviously flunked Biology while in school.

Oh? Explain.







*I was actually 2 tenths of a point shy of an A in college biology (the lowest grade I got that semester).

FlaGator
02-23-2009, 12:45 PM
Oh? Explain.







*I was actually 2 tenths of a point shy of an A in college biology (the lowest grade I got that semester).

I just realized that you are saying that pro-lifers are being inconsistant in their views and you are doing this after admitting that you were being inconsistant in your views concerning the resurrection of Christ. You stated something to the effect of you had to take the absurd view point because the only rational option was contrary to your beliefs. Isn't that interesting.... What is good for the goose apparently isn't necessarily good for the gander.

Zeus
02-23-2009, 12:57 PM
Oh? Explain.







*I was actually 2 tenths of a point shy of an A in college biology (the lowest grade I got that semester).

If you are so learned then why do you need something as basic as reproduction explained to you. Specifically the difference between preventing a pregnancy & Terminating a pregnancy

FlaGator
02-23-2009, 01:03 PM
If you are so learned then why do you need something as basic as reproduction explained to you. Specifically the difference between preventing a pregnancy & Terminating a pregnancy

Now you've done it. He's going to produce some stats showing that the pill usually kills the fertilized egg (self abortion) instead of hindering the fertilization process.

wilbur
02-23-2009, 01:07 PM
I just realized that you are saying that pro-lifers are being inconsistant in their views and you are doing this after admitting that you were being inconsistant in your views concerning the resurrection of Christ.

I have never been inconsistent there.

But even if were true.... it doesn't eliminate the contradictions in your average pro-lifer's view.

I do realize there are crazed maniacs who do desire to outlaw most methods of contraception and dole out homicide charges to any woman/doctor who takes part in an abortion.... and there are a lot more than I think most realize. They ARE the consistent ones, who actually follow the rhetoric to its logical conclusions. It might behove the more mild pro-lifers to take care what rhetoric they repeat.. because most of it is all straight from the mouths of those extremists.. and by endorsing their arguments, you have lost all credibility and ability to justify your own more milder views..

PoliCon
02-23-2009, 01:07 PM
Now you've done it. He's going to produce some stats showing that the pill usually kills the fertilized egg (self abortion) instead of hindering the fertilization process.

some pills do - but not all.

wilbur
02-23-2009, 01:11 PM
If you are so learned then why do you need something as basic as reproduction explained to you. Specifically the difference between preventing a pregnancy & Terminating a pregnancy

Most of you would probably have a hard time trusting any source of mine... but fortunately I can simply resort to many a pro-life website here: Straight from the horses mouth... see what this pro-life website says:

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html



"Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?"

Here's what 11 physicians and medical professionals are saying about the book Randy Alcorn published in 1998:

1. "From medical textbooks and pharmacy references, to statements from the Pill-manufacturers themselves, this book proves, beyond any doubt, the abortion-causing action of birth control pills. This book should be read by everyone interested in knowing the truth."

~ Paul L. Hayes, M.D., Board Certified Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians/Gynecologists

2. "Does the birth control pill cause abortions? Using research results from medical literature, Randy Alcorn has convincingly shown that the answer is `yes.' He has, with care and compassion, given us the truth. The question for us as Christians is how we will respond now that we know."

~ Linda Martin, M.D., Pediatrician

3. "By carefully detailing the available medical information concerning the abortifacient effects of oral contraceptives, Randy Alcorn has developed a logical and thoughtful challenge to every prolife person. The conclusions of this study are scientifically accurate. Birth control pills usually prevent pregnancy, but sometimes they cause an abortion. Questions? Objections? Randy has addressed them in a gentle but firm way. This is the manner in which the often fiery debate over prolife subjects should be carried out- unemotionally, intelligently and quietly. The evidence is before us . . . `How should we then live?'"


A quick google search will bring up quite a lot of information from pro-life sources about the widely known chemically induced abortions that oral contraceptions (and UID's) can cause.

PoliCon
02-23-2009, 01:14 PM
kinda interesting that the site wilber offers as evidence has no disclosure about who they are and their goals or missions statement or even affiliations . . . .

wilbur
02-23-2009, 01:16 PM
kinda interesting that the site wilber offers as evidence has no disclosure about who they are and their goals or missions statement or even affiliations . . . .

So do you dispute the idea or not... ditch the ad hominems. I don't vouch for the site, I just found it 2 seconds ago with google. But if you don't trust that one, use google yourself, there are plenty more where it came from.

FlaGator
02-23-2009, 01:16 PM
I have never been inconsistent there.

But even if were true.... it doesn't eliminate the contradictions in your average pro-lifer's view.

I do realize there are crazed maniacs who do desire to outlaw most methods of contraception and dole out homicide charges to any woman/doctor who takes part in an abortion.... and there are a lot more than I think most realize. They ARE the consistent ones, who actually follow the rhetoric to its logical conclusions. It might behove the more mild pro-lifers to take care what rhetoric they repeat.. because most of it is all straight from the mouths of those extremists.. and by endorsing their arguments, you have lost all credibility and ability to justify your own more milder views..

Shall I dig up the posts from the archive where you choose the irrational position verses the rational one because you could not stomach the rational choice? Your logic was inconsistant on the resurrection but that was acceptable inconsistancey and now you find fault with those whose position is inconsistant on abortion. That in and of itself is yet another inconsistancy. My point being is that logically you can not advocate for a consistant view point from others and yet not be willing to apply that same reasoning to your own opinions.

wilbur
02-23-2009, 01:27 PM
Shall I dig up the posts from the archive where you choose the irrational position verses the rational one because you could not stomach the rational choice? Your logic was inconsistant on the resurrection but that was acceptable inconsistancey and now you find fault with those whose position is inconsistant on abortion. That in and of itself is yet another inconsistancy. My point being is that logically you can not advocate for a consistant view point from others and yet not be willing to apply that same reasoning to your own opinions.

Simply repeating that your choice is the only rational one doesn't make it so Fla. Seriously, you are smart enough to see the faulty logic there, I don't know why your so hung up on such a losing point. Feel free to dredge up any posts you want on that issue ;)

As for consistency, like many virtues, no human will achieve it with perfection... but it should always be the goal. Likewise, inconsistency should be eliminated when discovered... coherence is what one needs to aim for if you place any efficacy in logic at all. If one is unknowingly inconsistent with one proposition, that person could still point out inconsistencies in other things.

FlaGator
02-23-2009, 01:42 PM
Simply repeating that your choice is the only rational one doesn't make it so Fla. Seriously, you are smart enough to see the faulty logic there, I don't know why your so hung up on such a losing point. ]Feel free to dredge up any posts you want on that issue ;)

As for consistency, like many virtues, no human will achieve it with perfection... but it should always be the goal. Likewise, inconsistency should be eliminated when discovered... coherence is what one needs to aim for if you place any efficacy in logic at all. If one is unknowingly inconsistent with one proposition, that person could still point out inconsistencies in other things.

Simply saying that it is a losing point doesn't make it so. It just means you are unable to refute it.

If you believe the bolded portion of the quote then why is it so important to you that pro-lifers be consistant? After all no human will achieve it with perfection. In fact they won't even change their views when their inconsistancy is pointed out to them.

wilbur
02-23-2009, 01:44 PM
As for the resurrection argument.... it is comparable to the following scenario:

Imagine you are a third grade teacher... and one of your best students comes to you and tells you he doesnt have his homework because he was abducted by aliens last night. The other possibilities trouble you... that he is obviously very distressed or he is lying to you for the first time that you know of.

Saying the resurrection is the most rational, most likely choice in your scenario is akin to saying the kids alien story is the most rational and likely explanation for his missing homework. :)

wilbur
02-23-2009, 01:46 PM
Simply saying that it is a losing point doesn't make it so. It just means you are unable to refute it.

If you believe the bolded portion of the quote then why is it so important to you that pro-lifers be consistant? After all no human will achieve it with perfection. In fact they won't even change their views when their inconsistancy is pointed out to them.

Since we all "sin" in your eyes, and removing all of it is an ideal which we can never actually achieve in this life, does that mean we must tolerate any and all sin.?

FlaGator
02-23-2009, 01:50 PM
Since we all "sin" in your eyes, and removing all of it is an ideal which we can never actually achieve in this life, does that mean we must tolerate any and all sin.?

The sin can not be tolerated. The sinner, however, must be, especially if he or she makes a serious effort to repent.

Zeus
02-23-2009, 01:52 PM
Since we all "sin" in your eyes, and removing all of it is an ideal which we can never actually achieve in this life, does that mean we must tolerate any and all sin.?


Don't hate the playa, hate the game.:cool:

PoliCon
02-23-2009, 02:09 PM
So do you dispute the idea or not... ditch the ad hominems. I don't vouch for the site, I just found it 2 seconds ago with google. But if you don't trust that one, use google yourself, there are plenty more where it came from.

I've already stated my position on abortion and birth control. I am not an absolutist like some. So you can't trap me with your ploys at claiming that if I support one i must support the other or be a hypocrite. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
02-23-2009, 02:10 PM
arguing religion and theology with this asshole is a waste of time and only leaves you smelling like shit. Shake the dust and move on.

wilbur
02-23-2009, 02:19 PM
I've already stated my position on abortion and birth control. I am not an absolutist like some. So you can't trap me with your ploys at claiming that if I support one i must support the other or be a hypocrite. :rolleyes:

So then you believe its OK to murder innocent children for convenience under certain circumstances.

FlaGator
02-23-2009, 02:37 PM
So then you believe its OK to murder innocent children for convenience under certain circumstances.

No, just collateral damn of the biological war of birth control.

FlaGator
02-23-2009, 02:39 PM
arguing religion and theology with this asshole is a waste of time and only leaves you smelling like shit. Shake the dust and move on.

Wilbur and I are friends. We disagree on some stuff and agree on others. Besides the healthy do not need a physician ;) Paging Dr. FlaGator...

PoliCon
02-23-2009, 03:27 PM
So then you believe its OK to murder innocent children for convenience under certain circumstances.

I have stated before - I am willing to allow abortions to be an option in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I am willing to allow these cases because they account for a very very slim minority of all abortions and they are the hot button issues that convince your average Joe that all abortions should be legal. I am willing to do this to save the lives of so many others who are slaughtered for no other reason than convenience. I have also stated that I am against the use of abortificant birth control methods.

This is not to say that I think it is okay to murder innocent children for convenience - it's when they are killed for convenience that I object most.

PoliCon
02-23-2009, 03:35 PM
Wilbur and I are friends. We disagree on some stuff and agree on others. Besides the healthy do not need a physician ;) Paging Dr. FlaGator...
No the health do not need a doctor. But the reprobate are incapable of receiving him. BTW - what on earth could you possibly agree with him on? I have yet to see him spout anything that was not leftist . . . . .

wilbur
02-23-2009, 04:57 PM
No the health do not need a doctor. But the reprobate are incapable of receiving him. BTW - what on earth could you possibly agree with him on? I have yet to see him spout anything that was not leftist . . . . .

You need to learn the difference between leftist and libertarian. The all too common misconception that one needs to cow-tow the dumbfounding social conservative view to be mostly conservative is a trademark of the neo-con, ditto-head, Anne Coulter 'conservatism for dummies' philosophy. I probably agree with many here on more things that one initially realizes, but the types of posts that are the most common around here typically arent the type that would illustrate that.

I am strongly libertarian on most things.. most of my anti-theism views are really neither conservative nor liberal... just anti-theist.

As for abortion, I depart a bit from libertarians in that I don't necessarily buy the notion that abortion should be a states rights thing... it crosses some lines to me to think that a state should have so much sovereignty over a woman's body, and weild the authority to just make up the mind for someone in such a complicated deeply personal philosophical decision. But I can't say I've committed hard line to one view or the other in that regard.

PoliCon
02-23-2009, 05:14 PM
You need to learn the difference between leftist and libertarian. The all too common misconception that one needs to cow-tow the dumbfounding social conservative view to be mostly conservative is a trademark of the neo-con, ditto-head, Anne Coulter 'conservatism for dummies' philosophy. I probably agree with many here on more things that one initially realizes, but the types of posts that are the most common around here typically arent the type that would illustrate that.

I am strongly libertarian on most things.. most of my anti-theism views are really neither conservative nor liberal... just anti-theist.

As for abortion, I depart a bit from libertarians in that I don't necessarily buy the notion that abortion should be a states rights thing... it crosses some lines to me to think that a state should have so much sovereignty over a woman's body, and weild the authority to just make up the mind for someone in such a complicated deeply personal philosophical decision. But I can't say I've committed hard line to one view or the other in that regard.

Libertarians are people who are social permissives, moral relativists, and generally all round leftists with an over abundance of self interest thrown in to give the appearance of conservatism. :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-23-2009, 05:21 PM
Libertarians are people who are social permissives, moral relativists,


Social permissives? Wrong way to think of it.... libertarian/libertarian conservatives simply extend small government conservative philosophy to social moral issues... therefore they are the most consistently conservative people.

The moral authoritarian people who claim to be conservative are walking contradictions.



and generally all round leftists with an over abundance of self interest thrown in to give the appearance of conservatism. :rolleyes:

I don't think you understand relativism.... there's nothing relativist about libertarianism. Most of us are all believers in objectivity.

PoliCon
02-23-2009, 05:24 PM
yea - objective from your point of view - and of course you would not dare impose your POV in anyone else. They have to figure out what is right for them - ie abortion, gay marriage, etc. :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-23-2009, 05:34 PM
yea - objective from your point of view - and of course you would not dare impose your POV in anyone else.

Sure I would impose my view in the form of argument and reasoned discussion or activism. Not with the government.

One can both be 'against' a certain thing but also believe that it should not be controlled by government. Duh. As a conservative, this shouldn't have to be explained to you.

PoliCon
02-23-2009, 07:47 PM
Right because no moral issue deserves the force of law . . . . and all laws based on morality should be repealed. Murder laws . . . . Rape laws . . . . Repeal them all since their primary purpose is enforcement of morality:rolleyes:

wilbur
02-23-2009, 10:14 PM
Right because no moral issue deserves the force of law . . . .

Well gee... I never said that at all.



and all laws based on morality should be repealed. Murder laws . . . . Rape laws . . . . Repeal them all since their primary purpose is enforcement of morality:rolleyes:

Don't be absurd.

Consensual crimes are the most notable category of 'moral issue' that government has really no business meddling with, generally.

PoliCon
02-23-2009, 10:31 PM
Well gee... I never said that at all.



Don't be absurd.

Consensual crimes are the most notable category of 'moral issue' that government has really no business meddling with, generally.
Ah yes the whole - victimless crimes argument . . . .because when a guy buys sex off a hooker - there is no victim right? :rolleyes:

linda22003
02-24-2009, 09:18 AM
Ah yes the whole - victimless crimes argument . . . .because when a guy buys sex off a hooker - there is no victim right? :rolleyes:

Not unless he doesn't pay up.

FlaGator
02-24-2009, 09:35 AM
Not unless he doesn't pay up.

Or she passes off some disease to him.

linda22003
02-24-2009, 09:58 AM
Either example is a calculated risk entered into voluntarily.

wilbur
02-24-2009, 10:02 AM
Either example is a calculated risk entered into voluntarily.

I don't agree with seat belt or helmet laws either;)

Lars1701a
02-24-2009, 10:29 AM
I don't agree with seat belt or helmet laws either;)

Do you believe then if you crack your skull and dont have the ability to pay for your care for the rest of your life the state should then take care of you?

PoliCon
02-24-2009, 10:29 AM
Not unless he doesn't pay up.

BULLSHIT. Because there are tons of victims to each and every act of prostitution. Society as a whole pays a price. The children of both involved pay a price. The women who end up marrying or dating these pigs who see women as nothing more than objects pay a price - we all pay a price through the collateral crimes connected to prostitution including drug use.

PoliCon
02-24-2009, 10:31 AM
Either example is a calculated risk entered into voluntarily.

Not for the other people involved. His wife did not enter into that risk voluntarily.

linda22003
02-24-2009, 10:42 AM
Not for the other people involved. His wife did not enter into that risk voluntarily.

In the example given, I didn't even know he was married. What kind of car does he drive? :rolleyes:

FlaGator
02-24-2009, 10:48 AM
Either example is a calculated risk entered into voluntarily.

So you don't believe that someone can be a victim even if they aren't aware of it until later?

Shannon
02-24-2009, 10:50 AM
So you don't believe that someone can be a victim even if they aren't aware of it until later?

Are we discussing abortion or prostitution now?

FlaGator
02-24-2009, 10:50 AM
In the example given, I didn't even know he was married. What kind of car does he drive? :rolleyes:

So if your husband spends some time with a hooker, it doesn't matter to you as long as you don't know? After all, the hooker didn't even know that he was married, but I bet she knows what kind of car he drives :rolleyes:

FlaGator
02-24-2009, 10:52 AM
Are we discussing abortion or prostitution now?

I just go with the flow...

I am wondering what my changes are of getting Linda to volunteer with an outreach program that deals with prostitutes for a week or so. She might change her whole view of victimless crime.

PoliCon
02-24-2009, 10:56 AM
In the example given, I didn't even know he was married. What kind of car does he drive? :rolleyes:

you should check and find out what percentage of men who frequent prostitutes are married. I'll give you a hint - it's most of them.

PoliCon
02-24-2009, 11:01 AM
Are we discussing abortion or prostitution now?

It's the whole victimless crime concept . . . . The one that so called "libertarians" use to justify their support of things like abortion and prostitution

Shannon
02-24-2009, 11:21 AM
It's the whole victimless crime concept . . . . The one that so called "libertarians" use to justify their support of things like abortion and prostitution

There is clearly a victim when an abortion is performed.

FlaGator
02-24-2009, 11:23 AM
There is clearly a victim when an abortion is performed.

Wilbur will disagree with that, unless the killer...er abortionist botched up the procedure.

linda22003
02-24-2009, 11:23 AM
you should check and find out what percentage of men who frequent prostitutes are married. I'll give you a hint - it's most of them.

I bow to your expertise. ;)

linda22003
02-24-2009, 11:25 AM
So if your husband spends some time with a hooker, it doesn't matter to you as long as you don't know? After all, the hooker didn't even know that he was married, but I bet she knows what kind of car he drives :rolleyes:

If she's seen his car she knows he's not going to be a high-dollar date. :p

linda22003
02-24-2009, 11:26 AM
I just go with the flow...

I am wondering what my changes are of getting Linda to volunteer with an outreach program that deals with prostitutes for a week or so. She might change her whole view of victimless crime.

Is that like "hope and change"? This thread has gone way off the rails, here. I don't know that criminalizing prostitution is even worthwhile, but that's another thread - and without CW, we're just talking hypotheticals in any case.

PoliCon
02-24-2009, 11:35 AM
I bow to your expertise. ;)

If you only knew who and what I was in my past . . . .I could tell you things that would make your blood run cold. Suffice it to say that the world is a very ugly place and I've been through and done so very ugly things.

linda22003
02-24-2009, 12:04 PM
If you only knew who and what I was in my past . . . .I could tell you things that would make your blood run cold. Suffice it to say that the world is a very ugly place and I've been through and done so very ugly things.

You may be seeing things through a different lens than some of us do. Our experiences are not all the same.

PoliCon
02-24-2009, 12:13 PM
You may be seeing things through a different lens than some of us do. Our experiences are not all the same.

True. Which is why I can say with assurance - Prostitution is NOT a victimless crime.