Community› Wedding Discussion Boards› Snarky Brides
Snarky Brides
New Discussion
Options

An interesting Dear Prudence

1…45679

Re: An interesting Dear Prudence

  • Options
    AnysunriseAnysunrise member
    Combo Breaker First Comment
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:40c9c14c-2297-4af4-b85f-06a55cbd2df2">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An interesting Dear Prudence : I thought I read several months back that there is a state that is ruling some instances of miscarriage to be homocide... I hesistate to post this as I don't have the link any more but has one one heard about that?
    Posted by SpartanCat[/QUOTE]

    <div>I think it waaaas Georgia? </div>
    Report Reply
  • Options
    polichikpolichik member
    First Comment
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:40c9c14c-2297-4af4-b85f-06a55cbd2df2">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An interesting Dear Prudence : I thought I read several months back that there is a state that is ruling some instances of miscarriage to be homocide... I hesistate to post this as I don't have the link any more but has one one heard about that?
    Posted by SpartanCat[/QUOTE]
    WTF? Ok, I'm no attorney, but pretty sure you can't prosecute a body's involuntary and often emotionally devastating biological response.
    image
    Planning!.....Married!
    Report Reply
  • Options
    AnysunriseAnysunrise member
    Combo Breaker First Comment
    Yup, Georgia.

    Report Reply
  • Options
    SpartanCatSpartanCat member
    Name Dropper First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment
    Thanks. There was a big discussion about it on a different forum and I couldn't find the original post.

    Daisypath Anniversary tickers
    Follow Me on Pinterest
    Report Reply
  • Options
    monkeysipmonkeysip member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    I hope it goes without saying that I don't support criminalization of miscarriages.  And I wouldn't support an investigation into a miscarriage if there were suspicions that it was actually an abortion.  If a woman says it was a miscarriage, then I would believe her, and I think miscarriage is just as tragic as the loss of a born child.  A child is a child, and a woman can suffer just as much pain no matter how developed her baby was. 

    I would simply criminalize doctors and clinics performing abortions.  In all reality, if this happened, a black market of abortion pills would thrive, but I still think abortion levels would go down.  You can't prevent all abortions, and I wouldn't hold women down to keep them from trying.  But I still think the law is important not only because I think it would prevent some abortions but also because the law does help change society's views.  But it would take time.

    And, as I said before, I think it's equally important to create a society more supportive of pregnant women so that they don't want to make that choice as often.  This is where my liberal beliefs come in.

    I'm obviously not trying to convince you guys of anything but I am just trying to defend my views.

    You guys keep repeating the same arguments about not forcing my beliefs on others and not telling people what to do with their bodies.  But my argument this whole time is that your rights end where another's begins--the baby's.  And no, I don't think it's a clump of cells.  When a baby is born, they are not independent nor even fully developed.  Their brains, hearts, and lungs still do not function to full capacity.  To me, embryonic and fetal development is just one stage of an entire spectrum of human development (infancy, adolescence, adulthood, etc.).  As I stated earlier, if you don't define persons as simply living humans, then you're basically just arbitrarily choosing a stage at which to give people rights. 

    This is the fundamental disagreement (and obviously we can't just change each other's minds right here on a forum).  But my point is that *if* you accepted that a fetus is a human person with all the same rights as a born person, then you too would agree that we need to protect that right to life against those who would want to violate it. 

    SaveSave
    Report Reply
  • Options
    AnysunriseAnysunrise member
    Combo Breaker First Comment
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:3ca9cfef-fed2-47ad-be40-c888340d029e">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]  In all reality, if this happened, a black market of abortion pills would thrive, but I still think abortion levels would go down.  You can't prevent all abortions, and I wouldn't hold women down to keep them from trying.  But I still think the law is important not only because I think it would prevent some abortions but also because the law does help change society's views.
    Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]

    <div>So you'd be okay with letting women have highly unsafe black market abortions/abortion medications instead of providing it legally in a regulated and controlled environment, because you think SOME women would choose to not get them if it might get them killed or maimed in the process? I seriously don't understand that line of thinking. </div><div>
    </div><div>The second part just says to me that you support laws dictating that others be forced to live under your beliefs until they accept it, with no choice in the matter. Which is all kinds of disturbing.</div><div>
    </div><div>
    </div>
    Report Reply
  • Options
    monkeysipmonkeysip member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited June 2012
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:4986bbf1-73c5-4fec-844d-435e68414225">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An interesting Dear Prudence : So you'd be okay with letting women have highly unsafe black market abortions/abortion medications instead of providing it legally in a regulated and controlled environment, because you think SOME women would choose to not get them if it might get them killed or maimed in the process? I seriously don't understand that line of thinking.  The second part just says to me that you support laws dictating that others be forced to live under your beliefs until they accept it, with no choice in the matter. Which is all kinds of disturbing.
    Posted by Anysunrise[/QUOTE]


    No, I'm not okay with it.  I said in all reality, this is what would happen.  I'm not okay with legally giving out these medicines or illegally giving them out.  I also don't think they're safe or healthy now, because a person ALWAYS dies every time they're used.  There is no safe abortion.  But I'm not going to allow killing people to be legal just so that it can be "safely" regulated.

    For the second part, that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying that laws can shape beliefs.  Whenever slavery was criminalized, people were pissed.  Most of the country still didn't believe it was wrong.  But eventually, opinions changed.  Awareness of the issue spread, more dialogue, more evidence, and (most) people realized it was wrong.  I think the laws help in this regard.

    I still don't get why this is me forcing my beliefs on others.  If anything, pro-choicers are forcing their beliefs on unborn children by allowing them to be killed.  Were abolitionists forcing their beliefs on slave-holders by outlawing slavery?  The analogy isn't perfect (no analogy is), but I think it still accurately reflects my position that it isn't an issue of respecting people's beliefs but an issue of life.  No one has the right to decide who lives and who dies.  Just because the baby is in your body doesn't give you the right to kill it.  Simple as that.

    SaveSave
    Report Reply
  • Options
    PepsiladyPepsilady member
    First Comment First Anniversary
    coming out of lurking here:  Are the "pro-lifers" going to adopt all the children that are in foster care now? Those children that the Mothers didn't abort cause they considered it murder? When the "pro-lifers" start taking care of those children that no one wanted or because of other situations, then we can discuss if it is murder or not. In the meantime I don't want or need a young person telling me that what I do with my body, in their opinion, is right or wrong
    Report Reply
  • Options
    AnysunriseAnysunrise member
    Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited June 2012
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:47d90de2-fa85-43f4-99eb-fd9f9953c0a0">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An interesting Dear Prudence : No, I'm not okay with it.  I said in all reality, this is what would happen.  I'm not okay with legally giving out these medicines or illegally giving them out.  I also don't think they're safe or healthy now, because a person ALWAYS dies every time they're used.  There is no safe abortion.  But I'm not going to allow killing people to be legal just so that it can be "safely" regulated. For the second part, that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying that laws can shape beliefs.  Whenever slavery was criminalized, people were pissed.  Most of the country still didn't believe it was wrong.  But eventually, opinions changed.  Awareness of the issue spread, more dialogue, more evidence, and (most) people realized it was wrong.  I think the laws help in this regard. <strong>I still don't get why this is me forcing my beliefs on others</strong>. <strong> If anything, pro-choicers are forcing their beliefs on unborn children by allowing them to be killed</strong>.  Were abolitionists forcing their beliefs on slave-holders by outlawing slavery?  The analogy isn't perfect (no analogy is), but I think it still accurately reflects my position that it isn't an issue of respecting people's beliefs but an issue of life.  No one has the right to decide who lives and who dies.  Just because the baby is in your body doesn't give you the right to kill it.  Simple as that.
    Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]

    No. Just because the option is there, does not mean one has to take it, but what you propose would take away a woman's choice and yes, that is forcing her to act in accordance to how you believe. THAT is the major difference between the so-called pro-life and pro-choice stances, at least for me.<div>
    </div><div> The fact of the matter is, an embryo is completely dependent on its mother for life. A baby can be cared for by someone other than its biological mother. It CAN biologically survive as an independent organism. The eventual potential for life is not the same as life itself, and your inability to comprehend that due to your religious belief (I say this only because if it weren't the difference of a soul, your logic wouldn't allow for the removal of any type of parasite, and I'm assuming you're not an advocate for the rights of tapeworms) does not entitle you to make decisions for other people. 
    <div>
    </div></div>
    Report Reply
  • Options
    AnysunriseAnysunrise member
    Combo Breaker First Comment
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:e930eb66-849b-4076-8c9e-ad401fc1e0b2">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]coming out of lurking here:  <strong>Are the "pro-lifers" going to adopt all the children that are in foster care now? Those children that the Mothers didn't abort cause they considered it murder? When the "pro-lifers" start taking care of those children that no one wanted or because of other situations, then we can discuss if it is murder or not. </strong>In the meantime I don't want or need a young person telling me that what I do with my body, in their opinion, is right or wrong
    Posted by Pepsilady[/QUOTE]

    <div>Hah, that is why I found it hilarious in the Q & A thread where Chels simultaneously said she'd make stricter welfare laws and also ban abortion.</div>
    Report Reply
  • Options
    monkeysipmonkeysip member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:08492738-84e4-4fe4-8afe-ba7ef39c966d">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: An interesting Dear Prudence : No. Just because the option is there, does not mean one has to take it, but what you propose would take away a woman's choice and yes, that is forcing her to act in accordance to how you believe. THAT is the major difference between the so-called pro-life and pro-choice stances, at least for me.  The fact of the matter is, an embryo is completely dependent on its mother for life. A baby can be cared for by someone other than its biological mother. It CAN biologically survive as an independent organism. <strong>The eventual potential for life is not the same as life itself, and your inability to comprehend that due to your religious belief (I say this only because if it weren't the difference of a soul, your logic wouldn't allow for the removal of any type of parasite, and I'm assuming you're not an advocate for the rights of tapeworms) does not entitle you to make decisions for other people. </strong>
    Posted by Anysunrise[/QUOTE]

    I'm sorry, I find this insulting, although you probably didn't mean it that way.  Like I said before, while my faith strengthens my view, it did not create it.  I felt this was before my conversion. 

    I don't view the soul as an issue here.  Let's assume there is no "soul" (at least in any religious/spiritual sense).  How would you determine when life begins if there is no soul?  The biological answer is when cells become active, start replicating, and requiring nutrition.  NO biologist will tell you that a fetus is not alive.  That is NOT the issue... it is a living human with it's own genetic identity separate from its mother when it is conceived.

    So the question is, when does this living human organism become a human person (person=rights)?  Some here have said that when a being is no longer dependent upon its biological mother for subsistence, then it is a person.  And they say this like it is somehow a self-evident truth.

    I think that's an arbitrary distinction.  Just because a being is dependent upon its mother doesn't mean its not a person.  It is not potentially a life.  It is already a life that has not reached the next stage in life.  There are many stages of life, and many degrees of dependency.  Somehow, a baby that is dependent upon its mother is not a person, but a baby that is dependent on others, just not its mother, is suddenly a person.  Again, arbitrary.

    Saying that a living human organism is a person requires no arbitary distinctions.  It requires no religious assertions or arguments over "the soul."  Living human being=human.

    Like the pro-life atheist website says, life is ALL THERE IS... so it is important. 

    Now let's go back to your parasite statement.  Contrary to popular claim, fetuses aren't parasites for two reasons.  First:  A parasite is by biological definition not the same species as the host.  Unless you're giving birth to a raptor or something, your baby is not a parasite.  Second:  A parasite sucks nutrients or elements of support from its host and doesn't return anything.  A fetus actually gives back to its mother.  Fetuses actually return stem cells through the umbilical cord back to the mother and can help build a woman's immune system. 

    So, no, tapeworm =/= baby.

    SaveSave
    Report Reply
  • Options
    monkeysipmonkeysip member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:c3aaa3bd-4ec6-4e67-a049-4af94db0bb69">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]My guess is that people who are prolife will say that the two issues are separate and that the number of unwanted children does not determine at what stage a fetus becomes a person. Eta and Any it like the way you explain this issue a lot.
    Posted by Dot Dash[/QUOTE]

    This exactly, but I would also add that I do hope to adopt one day.  And I fully support more government programs to help ease the process of adopting, fostering, and more support for those children in the program.

    As bad as not having a family is, however, I don't think killing parent-less children is better.  I think a lot of people who grew up without families still managed to lead perfectly happy lives and would not rather someone have aborted them.

    SaveSave
    Report Reply
  • Options
    monkeysipmonkeysip member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited June 2012
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:d8153de5-3800-4315-a5b5-ab80d047aa78">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]Monkey I have to ask, how far does your belief that all life should be sustained no matter what go? Does it apply to bugs and vermin? Plants and animals? I'm not comparing the two. Pest control and abortion are two entirely different things. I'm wondering what you think.
    Posted by Dot Dash[/QUOTE]

    Human life must be protected at all costs.  There is no justifiable reason to *purposefully* kill a human being (in cases of self-defense, it would be justifiable to defend yourself with the effect of killing someone, but it's not okay to purposefully set out to kill an attacker.  The person should try to restrain them without killing them first.)

    Animal life is different.  There is no natural right to life for these creatures.  But that doesn't mean we should just kill them for no reason.  Only if we have a good purpose (food, or in self-defense, etc.).  And we should try to kill them painlessly. 

    Plant life or bacteria... again, the only real argument against harming these things are ecological.  There's no natural right to life.

    SaveSave
    Report Reply
  • Options
    monkeysipmonkeysip member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    Yup.

    I would think most people here, except the vegans/vegetarians, would agree.

    SaveSave
    Report Reply
  • Options
    polichikpolichik member
    First Comment
    In Response to Re:An interesting Dear Prudence:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: An interesting Dear Prudence:In Response to Re: An interesting Dear Prudence : Human life must be protected at all costs.nbsp; There is no justifiable reason to purposefully kill a human being in cases of selfdefense, it would be justifiable to defend yourself with the effect of killing someone, but it's not okay to purposefully set out to kill an attacker.nbsp; The person should try to restrain them without killing them first. Animal life is different.nbsp; There is no natural right to life for these creatures.nbsp; But that doesn't mean we should just kill them for no reason.nbsp; Only if we have a good purpose food, or in selfdefense, etc..nbsp; And we should try to kill them painlessly.nbsp; Plant life or bacteria... again, the only real argument against harming these things are ecological.nbsp; There's no natural right to life.Posted by monkeysip


    So no natural right to life for any living creature other than humans? Posted by Dot Dash[/QUOTE]Ok, what are you basing this "natural right to life" thing on? Why does it not apply to animals? Is it just an arbitrary decision? Honestly, this kind of pisses me off. It just seems so egotistical to say that we as humans have a right to life but that nothing else does.
    image
    Planning!.....Married!
    Report Reply
  • Options
    monkeysipmonkeysip member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    Again, not having a right to life doesn't mean that an animal can just be killed for any reason.  It means that there are situations in which an animal can be killed.  There are not situations in which a person can be killed.

    While some here may believe that a human can be killed for certain reasons, I would think that everyone here except the vegans/vegetarians would agree that there are far fewer acceptable reasons to kill a human than an animal.  I'm assuming most people here think murder is wrong, but eating animals is okay. 

    Humans are rational beings, and animals are not.  I love animals.  I'd risk my life to protect my puppy.  And they should be protected and cared for within reason.  But they are not rational beings (or capable of rationality). 

    Of course my religious beliefs bolster my beleifs about human dignity and rights.  But I think that even many atheists would agree that there is a fundamental difference between the rights of humans and the rights of animals.

    I also don't think it's fair for me to be the only person answering these questions.  I would like to know whether you guys think that humans have an inalienable right to life or not, whether humans have different rights than animals, and why.

    SaveSave
    Report Reply
  • Options
    polichikpolichik member
    First Comment
    edited June 2012
    Monkey, I think the only reason you're the only one answering these questions is that it's several hours too late for most people on these boards, and you were also the person who said animals don't have a fundamental right to life. I think it's absurd to say that humans have a right to life but that others don't. Clearly, I like humans just fine and am quite happy that we evolved, but we have a lot of pretty atrocious traits that come along with rational thinking, from slavery to genocide to torture and onward. I just think it's pretty darn hubristic to say which species have a right to life and which don't. I don't think that eating meat is morally wrong, even though I choose not to. But I think we would do well to have much more respect for animal life than most people do.
    image
    Planning!.....Married!
    Report Reply
  • Options
    polichikpolichik member
    First Comment
    I'm off to bed, night ladies.
    image
    Planning!.....Married!
    Report Reply
  • Options
    Lenore2010Lenore2010 member
    First Comment
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:b9291419-3c94-4290-969b-b4fc321d915e">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]Yup. I would think most people here, except the vegans/vegetarians, would agree.
    Posted by monkeysip[/QUOTE]

    <div>
    </div><div>Not really. This is a belief that has served human purposes for a very, very long time. The trouble is that it is not really morally defensible. As to the "rational beings" argument, well history is just full of examples of us functioning as superior, "rational beings" or not....</div><div>
    </div><div>Much like the religious beliefs that say women are suppose to submit to men as they submit to the lord, I have little use for the argument.</div><div>
    </div><div>I am sorry I will be so busy today because I would honestly like to discuss this!</div>
    We Support Pet Adoption
    Report Reply
  • Options
    Smash AdamsSmash Adams member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment
    edited June 2012
    Why does the life of the fetus trump the life of the mother?

    Edit:  I'm so late and I don't know why I'm bothering because I'm not going to agree with whatever you say so never mind.
    image

    "Smash's balls are the biggest balls of them all." -AATB

    Report Reply
  • Options
    AnysunriseAnysunrise member
    Combo Breaker First Comment
    edited June 2012
    I'm sorry, I was using life in the context that you seemed to be, which was some arbitrary measurement of value you placed on humans. But each individual sperm and egg cell are alive before they combine to make a zygote, so I'm assuming you're also morally opposed to periods and jacking off as well. I don't think the distinction of now having 43 chromosomes is justifiable if you're going to base it off simply being biologically alive.

    Ditto everyone else about that whole right to life deal, and no, it was definitely meant to be insulting. But here, let me phrase it another way. If you want to believe that magical unicorns and fairies grant fetuses life upon conception, that is absolutely fine and dandy. For you. Just because you believe that, does not mean you get to make everyone else believe it too, and I don't know why that is such a difficult concept to grasp.

    Report Reply
  • Options
    marateamaratea member
    First Comment First Anniversary
    edited June 2012
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:39d3410f-1d60-4af7-bd49-0ed598c2ba88">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]Why does the life of the fetus trump the life of the mother? Edit:  I'm so late and I don't know why I'm bothering because I'm not going to agree with whatever you say so never mind.
    Posted by Smash Adams[/QUOTE]
    Because it's a person!!!!!! and not a parasite!!!!! Humans /> animals!!!

    Yes, Monkey this is me making fun of you, because I think you're a tool. I generally don't take it upon myself to make fun of others for their beliefs, but you are just too ridiculous.
    Report Reply
  • Options
    ggirl2001ggirl2001 member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment Combo Breaker
    In Response to Re:An interesting Dear Prudence:[QUOTE]I'm sorry, I was using life in the context that you seemed to be, which was some arbitrary measurement of value you placed on humans. But each individual sperm and egg cell are alive before they combine to make a zygote, so I'm assuming you're also morally opposed to periods and jacking off as well. I don't think the distinction of now having 43 chromosomes is justifiable if you're going to base it off simply being biologically alive.Ditto everyone else about that whole right to life deal, and no, it was definitely meant to be insulting. But here, let me phrase it another way. If you want to believe that magical unicorns and fairies grant fetuses life upon conception, that is absolutely fine and dandy. For you. Just because you believe that, does not mean you get to make everyone else believe it too, and I don't know why that is such a difficult concept to grasp. Posted by Anysunrise[/QUOTE]

    This exactly. That's what I've been thinking in my head. How can someone be so dense to not realize that you can't force someone to believe what you believe, and thus cannot enact a law that would do that. If I were to choose to get an abortion, it would affect me and the fetus, not you so why should you get a say in what I do. Especially since I don't believe that life begins at conception.
    image
    Report Reply
  • Options
    Megbo2012Megbo2012
    Combo Breaker First Comment
    Murder is ok when it comes to self defense, but aborting a pregnancy that will kill the mother isn't some kind of self defense? K. Also the life is a life is a life thing doesn't work unless you are a vegan and wouldn't slap a mosquito. I'd also think you wouldn't think YOUR life being preserved is more important than an attacker trying to take your life, so you'd jut let the person kill you, rather than kill them, because life is precious. Blah blah blah
    Image and video hosting by TinyPic Wedding Film Sneak Peek!
    Report Reply
  • Options
    RamonaFlowersRamonaFlowers member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited June 2012
    I'm only 3 pages in, and I know that this must have completely spun off topic, but my head is going to explode if I don't get this out:

    Chelsea, you're a fvcking moron. And I'm sure you're going to eventually say "Sorry, guys, I didn't think before I spoke" and all will be forgiven by you again, but seriously: you're a fvcking moron. End of story.

    *I felt sorry for my husband before I met him. Take a number.*
    image

    Report Reply
  • Options
    allisong23allisong23 member
    First Anniversary First Comment
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:432e58aa-58c7-413d-b908-c21ada2a5da6">Re: An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]I'm only 3 pages in, and I know that this must have completely spun off topic, but my head is going to explode if I don't get this out: Chelsea, you're a fvcking moron. And I'm sure you're going to eventually say "Sorry, guys, I didn't think before I spoke" and all will be forgiven by you again, but seriously: you're a fvcking moron. End of story.
    Posted by RamonaFlowers[/QUOTE]

    But it's okay, because she is "working on it".
    image
    Lilypie Second Birthday tickers
    Report Reply
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its Name Dropper First Answer
    Grounds for an annulment.  That kind of news would have rocked my world and broken my trust, most likely forever.
    Report Reply
  • Options
    LetsHikeTodayLetsHikeToday member
    Combo Breaker First Comment
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_an-interesting-dear-prudence?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:47144c29-1f9d-41d4-8ce5-968adc8e97b0Post:67739886-8fb6-48d1-b6a8-1cc51d0a0471">Re:An interesting Dear Prudence</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re:An interesting Dear Prudence: This exactly. That's what I've been thinking in my head. How can someone be so dense to not realize that you can't force someone to believe what you believe, and thus cannot enact a law that would do that. If I were to choose to get an abortion, it would affect me and the fetus, not you so why should you get a say in what I do. Especially since I don't believe that life begins at conception.
    Posted by ggirl2001[/QUOTE]
    But Geeg- She has RESEARCH!<div>
    </div><div>Also, Any- I totally agree with what you just said. </div>
    imageBabyFruit Ticker
    Report Reply
  • Options
    ggirl2001ggirl2001 member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Comment Combo Breaker
    In Response to Re:An interesting Dear Prudence:[QUOTE]In Response to Re:An interesting Dear Prudence:In Response to Re:An interesting Dear Prudence: This exactly. That's what I've been thinking in my head. How can someone be so dense to not realize that you can't force someone to believe what you believe, and thus cannot enact a law that would do that. If I were to choose to get an abortion, it would affect me and the fetus, not you so why should you get a say in what I do. Especially since I don't believe that life begins at conception.Posted by ggirl2001But Geeg She has RESEARCH!Also, Any I totally agree with what you just said.nbsp; Posted by LetsHikeToday[/QUOTE]
    And I have research that says counseling doesn't fix lying manipulative assholes but people on here seem to think that's what the letter write from the OP should do. None of this makes sense, at least to sane logical people.
    image
    Report Reply
  • Options
    loves2shop4shoesloves2shop4shoes member
    First Anniversary 5 Love Its First Answer Name Dropper
    Dude, if my husband lied to me about having a vasectomy, it'd be over.  No ifs ands or buts about it.

    image

    image
    Report Reply
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards