Topix Chitown Regulars

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Detroit, MI

#97840 Apr 17, 2014
ScarletandOlive wrote:
There is even a quote from a Repub lawmaker saying that the law "protects children and upholds morality".
Gee, we can't allow that. And not legalizing something isn't the same as making it illegal. Nice word play

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Detroit, MI

#97841 Apr 17, 2014
squishymama wrote:
Every single piece of legislation restricting abortion.
So you support partial birth abortions? You support aborting a baby two days before it's due?

Some might call you a monster

Roe v Wade was overturned by a conservative supreme court FORTY years ago. There had been no recent push to make them illegal again. Restricted yes, but even you support restricting things. Every law we have has restrictions on it

“Checks and Balances”

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#97842 Apr 17, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>Gee, we can't allow that. And not legalizing something isn't the same as making it illegal. Nice word play
WTF?! You did go to college, right? If something is not legal, it is illegal. That is the definition of illegal - not legal.

And yes, there is actually a law in Louisiana that gay sex is illegal, which is why some lawmakers wanted to pass a law to make it legal.
Zap Brannigan

United States

#97843 Apr 17, 2014
Clueless as usual dog. Even many Republican lawmakers admit the purpose of the restrictions is to make abortions impossible to get. You do understsand that if you make something so restricive that it is nearly impossbile, form a practical standpoint it may as well be illegal.

Look at the recent North Dakota law that was ove turned by a Federal judge. The law make abortions illegal after 6 weeks. Exactly how many women do you think will be aware they are pregant at 6 weeks and not just naturally late? You do realize women's bodies are not timepieces and thier cycles have natural variation, don't you?
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So you support partial birth abortions? You support aborting a baby two days before it's due?
Some might call you a monster
Roe v Wade was overturned by a conservative supreme court FORTY years ago. There had been no recent push to make them illegal again. Restricted yes, but even you support restricting things. Every law we have has restrictions on it

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#97844 Apr 17, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So you support partial birth abortions? You support aborting a baby two days before it's due?
Some might call you a monster
Roe v Wade was overturned by a conservative supreme court FORTY years ago. There had been no recent push to make them illegal again. Restricted yes, but even you support restricting things. Every law we have has restrictions on it
When you tell a woman that she has to carry to term a baby that will never ever ever be viable because YOU have a problem with abortion, then I'm sorry, YOU are the monster.

But I am not in the business of worrying about other people's souls or consciences. If a woman chooses to abort a perfectly healthy baby, even very late in the pregnancy, THAT IS HER PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH AND SHE WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT CHOICE.

Isn't that the very essence of personal freedoms you GOPers are so hot about?

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#97845 Apr 17, 2014
squishymama wrote:
Isn't that the very essence of personal freedoms you GOPers are so hot about?
Nope. He's all for personal freedoms...unless they violate his sense of morality.
ScarletandOlive

Indianapolis, IN

#97846 Apr 17, 2014
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
When you tell a woman that she has to carry to term a baby that will never ever ever be viable because YOU have a problem with abortion, then I'm sorry, YOU are the monster.
But I am not in the business of worrying about other people's souls or consciences. If a woman chooses to abort a perfectly healthy baby, even very late in the pregnancy, THAT IS HER PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH AND SHE WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT CHOICE.
Isn't that the very essence of personal freedoms you GOPers are so hot about?
IMO, it is our responsibility to protect everyone's freedoms, as long as they don't infringe on another person's. Consensual sex between two adults is no one else's business. Aborting a viable fetus, one who can live outside of his mother's womb, is infringing on the baby's rights because he is not able to speak on his own behalf.

That is the opinion of many of the Republicans that I know. Edog, or at least his online persona, is an extremist.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Detroit, MI

#97847 Apr 17, 2014
ScarletandOlive wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF?! You did go to college, right? If something is not legal, it is illegal. That is the definition of illegal - not legal.
And yes, there is actually a law in Louisiana that gay sex is illegal, which is why some lawmakers wanted to pass a law to make it legal.
There is a difference between taking something which used to be legal and making it illegal, which dems do frequently, and not making new legislation to allow a new law.

And sodomy laws have been on the books for a while in several states, run by both parties, so don't try to blame that on today's Republicans

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Detroit, MI

#97848 Apr 17, 2014
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
When you tell a woman that she has to carry to term a baby that will never ever ever be viable because YOU have a problem with abortion, then I'm sorry, YOU are the monster.
I never said they should

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Detroit, MI

#97849 Apr 17, 2014
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text> Nope. He's all for personal freedoms...unless they violate his sense of morality.
I support abortion BECAUSE I support personal freedoms, but I agree it should have restrictions

“Checks and Balances”

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#97850 Apr 17, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>There is a difference between taking something which used to be legal and making it illegal, which dems do frequently, and not making new legislation to allow a new law.

And sodomy laws have been on the books for a while in several states, run by both parties, so don't try to blame that on today's Republicans
They would be repealing an old law, not creating a new one. The Repubs won't repeal it for "moral" reasons. I am not "blaming", but you asked for examples of Republicans legislating morality, so I gave you an example. You may agree with them, but it is still imposing your morality, based on your religion, on consenting adults.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#97851 Apr 17, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said they should
You never said they should what? Carry a non-viable fetus to term? Have a late-term abortion?

Toj

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#97852 Apr 17, 2014
Why mess with laws when you can change the Constitution? In an article dated March 14, 2014 (fairly recent I would say):

"Republican senators proposed a constitutional amendment Thursday that would allow states to reject federal laws, such as ObamaCare.

Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) introduced S.J.Res. 34, which would allow states to repeal federal laws and regulations if ratified by the two-thirds of state legislatures across the country."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/...

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Detroit, MI

#97853 Apr 17, 2014
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
You never said they should what? Carry a non-viable fetus to term?
This one

“Where is Tonka?”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#97854 Apr 17, 2014
Really?
So where are all the legal things written down?
Is there a big book of legal?
Can you give me a link where it says bicycle riding is legal on your own property
How about wearing white T shirts on Saturday?

I stipulate that anything is legal so long as it has not been defined as illegal.

The e-cigarette are legal, but there is no law stating such. But there is a push to make a law defining them as illegal.
ScarletandOlive wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF?! You did go to college, right? If something is not legal, it is illegal. That is the definition of illegal - not legal.
.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Detroit, MI

#97855 Apr 17, 2014
ScarletandOlive wrote:
<quoted text>
They would be repealing an old law, not creating a new one. The Repubs won't repeal it for "moral" reasons. I am not "blaming", but you asked for examples of Republicans legislating morality, so I gave you an example. You may agree with them, but it is still imposing your morality, based on your religion, on consenting adults.
I was talking about gay marriage laws. And there are already several laws legislating morality, like laws against prostitution, so don't act like this is some new concept thought up by those evil Republicans.

And for many people, religion has nothing to do with being opposed to gay marriage, that's another argument that's growing tiresome. It has more to do with redefining marriage than religion
Zap Brannigan

United States

#97856 Apr 17, 2014
WTF! I repeat WTF! Are you really serious?
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
And for many people, religion has nothing to do with being opposed to gay marriage, that's another argument that's growing tiresome. It has more to do with redefining marriage than religion

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Detroit, MI

#97858 Apr 17, 2014
Zap Brannigan wrote:
WTF! I repeat WTF! Are you really serious?
<quoted text>
See, liberals need to be more open-minded. It's shocking to learn your narrow-minded preconceived notions are inaccurate

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#97859 Apr 17, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about gay marriage laws. And there are already several laws legislating morality, like laws against prostitution, so don't act like this is some new concept thought up by those evil Republicans.
And for many people, religion has nothing to do with being opposed to gay marriage, that's another argument that's growing tiresome. It has more to do with redefining marriage than religion
So if gay marriage RE-defines mariage, where is it currently defined? If it is currently defined as one man-one woman, what was the need for prop 8 and the like?

And for the people who are opposed to refefining mariage, perhaps you can explain how their opposition is not tied to their moral objection to homosexuality. What is there to object to if not based on their morality?

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#97860 Apr 17, 2014
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
This one
Yet that is exactly what is happening. Things that should be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor are now being legislated.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min No Surprize 1,685,379
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Alain Vain 11,795
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr loose cannon 243,262
thu 5 3 hr test 2
Sick of commercials with mix couples 8 hr Lulz 18
Little Dicky Durbin needs to know this. 18 hr DurbinDicksAmerica 4
FIX was in from the Beginning. 18 hr I ACCUSE 2

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages