Babbling

[KnightStar]

Or off the street like I told him a couple pages back now.
There will always be ways to dodge gun fee's and if I'm not mistaken you can do that by going to any given gun show at any given time.
You only have to pass a background check and have the money to walk off with anything in the building.

[YoAsianPeopleHateMe]

Well think about it, If the woman is raped, it should be her right to defend her body from an unwanted invading force. The #### of the man that raped her.

Now, if its consentual sex, and the woman just decides she doesnt want to deal with the birth, if no health issue is brought to the attention, because she is perfectlly healthy. they SHOULD apply the law that rights of the potential human being begin the moment the #### reaches the egg and they unite.

Why do I think this? To teach her a lesson for being so loose. You can't just be allowe to end life inside of you all willy nilly, the government technically owns that baby, and owns you too. What if that baby cures cancer? How will they get more lawful citizens if you keep aborting them all?

But again, if the mother is worried about complications during birth it makes sense for them to abort, they just have to put this forward. Because its her life vs the life she doesn't wish to care for.

But if the mother is just reckless with her behavior, do you believe you should reward her this way? People keep saying its THEIR body, etc etc, are they the same people who drink, smoke, and party like theres no tommorow? You people can't be serious in wanting the government to reward you for reckless behavior.

THIS IS NOT A COUNTRY OF HEATHENS AND WAS NOT FOUNDED WITH SUCH INTENTIONS.

We have freedoms because hard working individuals of the past, slaves, presidents, pioneers, worked HARD to make it so.

We suffer due to corruption at the top, and all that old money.

Trying to create a respect for human life is NOT a bad thing, regardless if it is the womans body or not. But again, they don't make laws correctly, they don't add details, they like to blanket things into horrible systems. Like this.

[The_Pirate-King]

What kind of incoherent garbled... what? What are you trying to say?

[Astromang]

---

Gaius_Sextus wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

conanwong wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

conanwong wrote:
explain why there should be a fee for abortion. because i don't get your logic of comparing guns to abortions.

---

Explain why there should be a fee for purchasing a gun?

---

explain where you got the 350 fee? because i don't see it anywhere in this thread. and before you say anything, that fee only applies to New York while the lot of us only have to pay $20-$30 tops.

proof in my state: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/firearms.pdf

and to your question, you buy a gun, you have to buy a license to carry it or face consequence under the state and federal laws concerning about unlicensed guns. and those fees help generate state revenues for gun safety and other stuff related to firearms information.

---

It was mentioned earlier in this thread, as I have already pointed out. Also, New York does have a $350 fee plus a $94 fee to finger print. I don't have to pay anything in my state unless I get a background check which I don't need if I have a CCW permit.

This isn't the point, the point is someone said they would like to see this everywhere, and I brought up the point that it would be limiting gun ownership only to those who could afford it.

So what's the problem with adding a $350 government fee for people getting abortions? What if those fees generate state revenue for sex ed? How about a $350 fee for voting, with the fees going towards voter education? Would you still be in favor of this?

---

Bah. You could just buy a gun on-line.

---

Nope. When I ordered my Nagant I needed to go through a federal background check. All the same rules apply online as buying from a storefront.

[YoAsianPeopleHateMe]

---

The_Pirate-King wrote:
What kind of incoherent garbled... what? What are you trying to say?

---

TEENAGE SUPER MUTANT NINJA TURTLES!!!!1

[Glodson]

---

YoAsianPeopleHateMe wrote:

Well think about it, If the woman is raped, it should be her right to defend her body from an unwanted invading force. The #### of the man that raped her.

Now, if its consentual sex, and the woman just decides she doesnt want to deal with the birth, if no health issue is brought to the attention, because she is perfectlly healthy. they SHOULD apply the law that rights of the potential human being begin the moment the #### reaches the egg and they unite.

Why do I think this? To teach her a lesson for being so loose. You can't just be allowe to end life inside of you all willy nilly, the government technically owns that baby, and owns you too. What if that baby cures cancer? How will they get more lawful citizens if you keep aborting them all?

But again, if the mother is worried about complications during birth it makes sense for them to abort, they just have to put this forward. Because its her life vs the life she doesn't wish to care for.

But if the mother is just reckless with her behavior, do you believe you should reward her this way? People keep saying its THEIR body, etc etc, are they the same people who drink, smoke, and party like theres no tommorow? You people can't be serious in wanting the government to reward you for reckless behavior.

So, are you also for finding a way to impregnate a man who knocked her up too? He was just as "loose" as she was.

THIS IS NOT A COUNTRY OF HEATHENS AND WAS NOT FOUNDED WITH SUCH INTENTIONS.

We have freedoms because hard working individuals of the past, slaves, presidents, pioneers, worked HARD to make it so.

We suffer due to corruption at the top, and all that old money.

Trying to create a respect for human life is NOT a bad thing, regardless if it is the womans body or not. But again, they don't make laws correctly, they don't add details, they like to blanket things into horrible systems. Like this.

---

[YoAsianPeopleHateMe]

---

Glodson wrote:

---

YoAsianPeopleHateMe wrote:

Well think about it, If the woman is raped, it should be her right to defend her body from an unwanted invading force. The #### of the man that raped her.

Now, if its consentual sex, and the woman just decides she doesnt want to deal with the birth, if no health issue is brought to the attention, because she is perfectlly healthy. they SHOULD apply the law that rights of the potential human being begin the moment the #### reaches the egg and they unite.

Why do I think this? To teach her a lesson for being so loose. You can't just be allowe to end life inside of you all willy nilly, the government technically owns that baby, and owns you too. What if that baby cures cancer? How will they get more lawful citizens if you keep aborting them all?

But again, if the mother is worried about complications during birth it makes sense for them to abort, they just have to put this forward. Because its her life vs the life she doesn't wish to care for.

But if the mother is just reckless with her behavior, do you believe you should reward her this way? People keep saying its THEIR body, etc etc, are they the same people who drink, smoke, and party like theres no tommorow? You people can't be serious in wanting the government to reward you for reckless behavior.

So, are you also for finding a way to impregnate a man who knocked her up too? He was just as "loose" as she was.

THIS IS NOT A COUNTRY OF HEATHENS AND WAS NOT FOUNDED WITH SUCH INTENTIONS.

We have freedoms because hard working individuals of the past, slaves, presidents, pioneers, worked HARD to make it so.

We suffer due to corruption at the top, and all that old money.

Trying to create a respect for human life is NOT a bad thing, regardless if it is the womans body or not. But again, they don't make laws correctly, they don't add details, they like to blanket things into horrible systems. Like this.

---

---

I don't think men can get pregnant.

[katt_goddess]

---

YoAsianPeopleHateMe wrote:

---

I don't think men can get pregnant.

---

They can be medically forced surrogates.

The technology now exists, it just hasn't been tested because men are pain-babies.

The maturnity section of clothing stores would never look the same again. Overalls as far as the eye can see. In 'Oh My God It's Coming Towards Us!' size. And t-shirts saying 'Daddy's Little Tapeworm' and 'Packing Gas 4 2' .

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

YoAsianPeopleHateMe wrote:

---

Glodson wrote:

---

YoAsianPeopleHateMe wrote:

Well think about it, If the woman is raped, it should be her right to defend her body from an unwanted invading force. The #### of the man that raped her.

Now, if its consentual sex, and the woman just decides she doesnt want to deal with the birth, if no health issue is brought to the attention, because she is perfectlly healthy. they SHOULD apply the law that rights of the potential human being begin the moment the #### reaches the egg and they unite.

Why do I think this? To teach her a lesson for being so loose. You can't just be allowe to end life inside of you all willy nilly, the government technically owns that baby, and owns you too. What if that baby cures cancer? How will they get more lawful citizens if you keep aborting them all?

But again, if the mother is worried about complications during birth it makes sense for them to abort, they just have to put this forward. Because its her life vs the life she doesn't wish to care for.

But if the mother is just reckless with her behavior, do you believe you should reward her this way? People keep saying its THEIR body, etc etc, are they the same people who drink, smoke, and party like theres no tommorow? You people can't be serious in wanting the government to reward you for reckless behavior.

So, are you also for finding a way to impregnate a man who knocked her up too? He was just as "loose" as she was.

THIS IS NOT A COUNTRY OF HEATHENS AND WAS NOT FOUNDED WITH SUCH INTENTIONS.

We have freedoms because hard working individuals of the past, slaves, presidents, pioneers, worked HARD to make it so.

We suffer due to corruption at the top, and all that old money.

Trying to create a respect for human life is NOT a bad thing, regardless if it is the womans body or not. But again, they don't make laws correctly, they don't add details, they like to blanket things into horrible systems. Like this.

---

---

I don't think men can get pregnant.

---

If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacred right.

[NaBraniel]

ITT : Astromang incidentally takes an agreeable stance against restricting the basic constitutional rights of the poor to bear arms via prohibitive costs, catches mostly irreverent hell because it is Astromang for pages in the thread about abortion legislation.


The ASMB -- This is where a slogan would go if there were any aspect of it worth sloganing.

[conanwong]

thread has been updated. see first post again on page 1.

[JQuest15]

Ahh wtf,

"The move effectively killed the bill for this year."

Still don't like this shit

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

conanwong wrote:
thread has been updated. See first post again on page 1.

---

Yeah, from what I heard, women seeking an abortion still have to get an ultrasound, but not the vaginal probe kind. But it's STILL an unnecessary medical procedure. Which is kind of ironic, since Republicans are the ones always whining about people on govt. aid gettng ANY sort of medical care. People like Astroll or Packard would blow their #### gaskets if they heard of a person on welfare getting an unnecessary medical procedure. "THEY'RE WASITNG MY PRECIOUS TAX DOLLARS!"

[Gaius_Sextus]

Wife Turns Cold Shoulder To VA State Delegate Over Vaginal Ultrasound Bill

I don't care who you are, that's funny!

[GinaSzanboti]

I don't care what Republicans do in their bedrooms, but do they have to flaunt it and shove it down our throats?  And enter it into the legislative record, for cripesake?

If I were his wife, he wouldn't be getting any tonight either after blabbing it all over the tv.  Maybe never again...

[katt_goddess]

"Vajihad" .

[The_Pirate-King]

---

Gaius_Sextus wrote:

---

conanwong wrote:
thread has been updated. See first post again on page 1.

---

Yeah, from what I heard, women seeking an abortion still have to get an ultrasound, but not the vaginal probe kind. But it's STILL an unnecessary medical procedure. Which is kind of ironic, since Republicans are the ones always whining about people on govt. aid gettng ANY sort of medical care. People like Astroll or Packard would blow their #### gaskets if they heard of a person on welfare getting an unnecessary medical procedure. "THEY'RE WASITNG MY PRECIOUS TAX DOLLARS!"

---

I assumed a vaginal ultrasound was the only kind that would actually pick up a clear image at that stage.

You're telling me there was no reason at all for it to be vaginal? That whoever wrote the bill literally added that part just to shame and violate women seeking abortions?

I don't even know what to say about that.

[LadyMiseryAli]

---

The_Pirate-King wrote:

---

Gaius_Sextus wrote:

---

conanwong wrote:
thread has been updated. See first post again on page 1.

---

Yeah, from what I heard, women seeking an abortion still have to get an ultrasound, but not the vaginal probe kind. But it's STILL an unnecessary medical procedure. Which is kind of ironic, since Republicans are the ones always whining about people on govt. aid gettng ANY sort of medical care. People like Astroll or Packard would blow their #### gaskets if they heard of a person on welfare getting an unnecessary medical procedure. "THEY'RE WASITNG MY PRECIOUS TAX DOLLARS!"

---

I assumed a vaginal ultrasound was the only kind that would actually pick up a clear image at that stage.

You're telling me there was no reason at all for it to be vaginal? That whoever wrote the bill literally added that part just to shame and violate women seeking abortions?

I don't even know what to say about that.

---

The trans-vaginal sonogram is more for women who are keeping their pregnancy and want to determine how far along they are. You can determine how far along a woman is without sticking a probe in her, especially if she doesn't plan on carrying to term. OR they can do what they normally do and just do an abdominal ultrasound and NOT FORCE the woman to look like other bills have tried to do. This is a bill that is akin to rape and is, like you said, used to shame and violate these women because gods forbid they don't want to be an incubator. 

[Gaius_Sextus]

---

The_Pirate-King wrote:

---

Gaius_Sextus wrote:

---

conanwong wrote:
thread has been updated. See first post again on page 1.

---

Yeah, from what I heard, women seeking an abortion still have to get an ultrasound, but not the vaginal probe kind. But it's STILL an unnecessary medical procedure. Which is kind of ironic, since Republicans are the ones always whining about people on govt. aid gettng ANY sort of medical care. People like Astroll or Packard would blow their #### gaskets if they heard of a person on welfare getting an unnecessary medical procedure. "THEY'RE WASITNG MY PRECIOUS TAX DOLLARS!"

---

I assumed a vaginal ultrasound was the only kind that would actually pick up a clear image at that stage.

You're telling me there was no reason at all for it to be vaginal? That whoever wrote the bill literally added that part just to shame and violate women seeking abortions?

I don't even know what to say about that.

---

Yep. There is no medical reason whatsoever for any type of ultrasound to get an abortion. It was never nesessary before. And check out the link in my sig for the stages of pregnancy.

[LadyMiseryAli]

I love that site. It's an accurate depiction of embryonic and fetal stages and it also proves that most abortion pics are faked.