Topic: Should the US revoke voting rights to women who have abortions?
+TJR — 1.6 year ago #64,775
Choose wisely.
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grate ideal | 3 | 60% | |
| I'm an incel | 2 | 40% |
+Anonymous B — 1.6 year ago, 4 hours later[T] [B] #650,070
TJR == Tony Junior Ragglepuff
+Anonymous C — 1.6 year ago, 13 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #650,071
·TJR (OP) — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[T] [B] #650,076
+Eternal God Emperor Obama — 1.6 year ago, 53 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[T] [B] #650,077
Write in: No one should be allowed to vote. I am your eternal god emperor and will never step down.
·TJR (OP) — 1.6 year ago, 3 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[T] [B] #650,080
·Anonymous B — 1.6 year ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[T] [B] #650,083
+La Reina Catalina !j0siCathyI — 1.6 year ago, 6 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[T] [B] #650,092
I love how the United States is slowly becoming Saudi Arabia.
+Anonymous F — 1.6 year ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,094
+Anonymous G — 1.6 year ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,099
@OP
Not sure if you're troll but no I dont think the US should revoke. Don't see nor understand why we care so much about what women do with their bodies when men literally do whatever they want with theirs. Its a dead topic that needs to get stomp out of public discourse once and all. I say let women fuck and if they want babies they'll keep 'em. If they dont want 'em then aight cool dont keep it. We should be more concern with why the US is always the butt end of the joke.
Not sure if you're troll but no I dont think the US should revoke. Don't see nor understand why we care so much about what women do with their bodies when men literally do whatever they want with theirs. Its a dead topic that needs to get stomp out of public discourse once and all. I say let women fuck and if they want babies they'll keep 'em. If they dont want 'em then aight cool dont keep it. We should be more concern with why the US is always the butt end of the joke.
+Anonymous H — 1.6 year ago, 30 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,100
+Anonymous I — 1.6 year ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,101
+Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,103
@650,099 (G)
> Not sure if you're troll but no I dont think the US should revoke. Don't see nor understand why we care so much about what women do with their bodies when men literally do whatever they want with theirs.
It's not about what they do with their own bodies.
When you harm the baby inside you, a line has been crossed. Their body also deserves rights.
And yeah, very wise, it doesn't happen to men. It's almost like the ethical complexities of having another person inside you only happens with women because only they can get pregnant. What would a fair law look like? You can't ban abortions for men too, because it's meaningless. Murder doesn't become OK because the type of murder is only possible for women.
Meanwhile in hypocritical California men have been charged with double homicide for drunk driving and hitting a pregnant woman. It's shrodingers life for dumbass demonrats, it's only alive when it's convenient for the left.
> I say let women fuck and if they want babies they'll keep 'em. If they dont want 'em then aight cool dont keep it. We should be more concern with why the US is always the butt end of the joke.
The US didn't invent the idea of protecting the unborn.
> Not sure if you're troll but no I dont think the US should revoke. Don't see nor understand why we care so much about what women do with their bodies when men literally do whatever they want with theirs.
It's not about what they do with their own bodies.
When you harm the baby inside you, a line has been crossed. Their body also deserves rights.
And yeah, very wise, it doesn't happen to men. It's almost like the ethical complexities of having another person inside you only happens with women because only they can get pregnant. What would a fair law look like? You can't ban abortions for men too, because it's meaningless. Murder doesn't become OK because the type of murder is only possible for women.
Meanwhile in hypocritical California men have been charged with double homicide for drunk driving and hitting a pregnant woman. It's shrodingers life for dumbass demonrats, it's only alive when it's convenient for the left.
> I say let women fuck and if they want babies they'll keep 'em. If they dont want 'em then aight cool dont keep it. We should be more concern with why the US is always the butt end of the joke.
The US didn't invent the idea of protecting the unborn.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,104
@previous (J)
> > Not sure if you're troll but no I dont think the US should revoke. Don't see nor understand why we care so much about what women do with their bodies when men literally do whatever they want with theirs.
>
> It's not about what they do with their own bodies.
>
> When you harm the baby inside you, a line has been crossed. Their body also deserves rights.
>
> And yeah, very wise, it doesn't happen to men. It's almost like the ethical complexities of having another person inside you only happens with women because only they can get pregnant. What would a fair law look like? You can't ban abortions for men too, because it's meaningless. Murder doesn't become OK because the type of murder is only possible for women.
>
> Meanwhile in hypocritical California men have been charged with double homicide for drunk driving and hitting a pregnant woman. It's shrodingers life for dumbass demonrats, it's only alive when it's convenient for the left.
>
> > I say let women fuck and if they want babies they'll keep 'em. If they dont want 'em then aight cool dont keep it. We should be more concern with why the US is always the butt end of the joke.
>
> The US didn't invent the idea of protecting the unborn.
Meanwhile in hypocritical California men have been charged with double homicide for drunk driving and hitting a pregnant woman.???
Not at all hypocritical. Sure it was a fetus that would have become human and was not given the opportunity. Complex yes.
> > Not sure if you're troll but no I dont think the US should revoke. Don't see nor understand why we care so much about what women do with their bodies when men literally do whatever they want with theirs.
>
> It's not about what they do with their own bodies.
>
> When you harm the baby inside you, a line has been crossed. Their body also deserves rights.
>
> And yeah, very wise, it doesn't happen to men. It's almost like the ethical complexities of having another person inside you only happens with women because only they can get pregnant. What would a fair law look like? You can't ban abortions for men too, because it's meaningless. Murder doesn't become OK because the type of murder is only possible for women.
>
> Meanwhile in hypocritical California men have been charged with double homicide for drunk driving and hitting a pregnant woman. It's shrodingers life for dumbass demonrats, it's only alive when it's convenient for the left.
>
> > I say let women fuck and if they want babies they'll keep 'em. If they dont want 'em then aight cool dont keep it. We should be more concern with why the US is always the butt end of the joke.
>
> The US didn't invent the idea of protecting the unborn.
Meanwhile in hypocritical California men have been charged with double homicide for drunk driving and hitting a pregnant woman.???
Not at all hypocritical. Sure it was a fetus that would have become human and was not given the opportunity. Complex yes.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,105
@previous (!GmgU93SCyE)
According to the Democrats and California that doesn't matter when it's the mother doing the killing.
Like I said, shrodingers life. It is and isn't alive, depending on what's convenient.
According to the Democrats and California that doesn't matter when it's the mother doing the killing.
Like I said, shrodingers life. It is and isn't alive, depending on what's convenient.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,106
@previous (J)
Not an issue with convenient. Abortion is a mothers choice. In the case you used for an example, the death of the fetus was not the mothers choice.
Also the time the DUI Idiot serves in prison gets extended.
Not an issue with convenient. Abortion is a mothers choice. In the case you used for an example, the death of the fetus was not the mothers choice.
Also the time the DUI Idiot serves in prison gets extended.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,107
@previous (!GmgU93SCyE)
You're starting with your conclusion. "If we accept the premise that it's the mother's choice, then only the mother should choose!" no shit.
If you're actually trying to form a consistent ethical stance, the baby doesn't suddenly gain or lose it's consciousness/rights based on who killed it.
Is it alive or isn't it? If it is, abortion is murder. If it's not alive, and has no rights, then the drunk driver didn't kill the baby because it wasn't alive to begin with.
This is not a complicated philosophical idea.
The only way to get to your conclusion is to care entirely about what's convenient for the mother, and to have no concern about whether the fetus has reached a stage where it is a living being deserving of rights.
You're starting with your conclusion. "If we accept the premise that it's the mother's choice, then only the mother should choose!" no shit.
If you're actually trying to form a consistent ethical stance, the baby doesn't suddenly gain or lose it's consciousness/rights based on who killed it.
Is it alive or isn't it? If it is, abortion is murder. If it's not alive, and has no rights, then the drunk driver didn't kill the baby because it wasn't alive to begin with.
This is not a complicated philosophical idea.
The only way to get to your conclusion is to care entirely about what's convenient for the mother, and to have no concern about whether the fetus has reached a stage where it is a living being deserving of rights.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,109
@previous (J)
The law of course as a written document is not ideal. So for the time being the drunk took away the fetus's right to become fully grown. Took the mothers life.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1539&context=wmlr
This is a good example of a law in Virginia and shows how a law in that state re: The Virginia General Assembly first considered a feticide bill
in the 1996 session 6 and considered a similar measure in 1998.
Of course some right wing fool would use feticide as a means of locking up a woman who gets an abortion - Complex for sure.
Now my solution for DUI Idiots is to have their eyes removed so they cannot drive after being released for homicide.
The law of course as a written document is not ideal. So for the time being the drunk took away the fetus's right to become fully grown. Took the mothers life.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1539&context=wmlr
This is a good example of a law in Virginia and shows how a law in that state re: The Virginia General Assembly first considered a feticide bill
in the 1996 session 6 and considered a similar measure in 1998.
Of course some right wing fool would use feticide as a means of locking up a woman who gets an abortion - Complex for sure.
Now my solution for DUI Idiots is to have their eyes removed so they cannot drive after being released for homicide.
+Indie the Grate — 1.6 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,115
Hmmmmmmmm... This you, @OPenis?·TJR (OP) — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,119
·Indie the Grate — 1.6 year ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,120
·Anonymous C — 1.6 year ago, 46 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,123
Y'all motherfuckers need kcroat.·TJR (OP) — 1.6 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,124
+Anonymous L — 1.6 year ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,125
Just ban that half from voting, pregnant or otherwise. Problem solved.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #650,126
@650,109 (!GmgU93SCyE)
> Of course some right wing fool would use feticide as a means of locking up a woman who gets an abortion - Complex for sure.
You said yourself, it's taking away their right to become fully grown. Why wouldn't the woman be punished for that?
> Now my solution for DUI Idiots is to have their eyes removed so they cannot drive after being released for homicide.
If the method doesn't involve a car, and it's intentional rather than unintentional, and is a woman, you're completely fine with it and don't have the same "gouge out their eyeballs" emotional response with you. How is that rational?
> Of course some right wing fool would use feticide as a means of locking up a woman who gets an abortion - Complex for sure.
You said yourself, it's taking away their right to become fully grown. Why wouldn't the woman be punished for that?
> Now my solution for DUI Idiots is to have their eyes removed so they cannot drive after being released for homicide.
If the method doesn't involve a car, and it's intentional rather than unintentional, and is a woman, you're completely fine with it and don't have the same "gouge out their eyeballs" emotional response with you. How is that rational?
·Anonymous I — 1.6 year ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,127
+Anonymous M — 1.6 year ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,131
No way, man.
+Anonymous N — 1.6 year ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,140
Women wouldn’t need an abortion if there weren’t guys wanting to rape them and impregnate them thus ruining their lives and the lives off the child. Kill yourself, OPenis.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,141
@650,126 (J)
> You said yourself, it's taking away their right to become fully grown. Why wouldn't the woman be punished for that?
Than you for making this easy to reply to. Women for eons were not even allowed to vote. We have evolved somewhat because many now believe women have the right to control their own body. Not a popular idea for Right Wing Nuts.
The Drunk took that right away from the Woman. Forcing a Rape victim to deliver a child she does not want is beyond Horrid. Anonymous J how is that rational?
In several Right Wing Nut States the Rapist has parental rights.
> You said yourself, it's taking away their right to become fully grown. Why wouldn't the woman be punished for that?
Than you for making this easy to reply to. Women for eons were not even allowed to vote. We have evolved somewhat because many now believe women have the right to control their own body. Not a popular idea for Right Wing Nuts.
The Drunk took that right away from the Woman. Forcing a Rape victim to deliver a child she does not want is beyond Horrid. Anonymous J how is that rational?
In several Right Wing Nut States the Rapist has parental rights.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,142
@previous (!GmgU93SCyE)
There is no right to murder. You should consider the right of the child to have a say in their own body.
The fact that women couldn't vote in the past doesn't mean the fetus was always alive if a man ended it, but never alive if a women did. That's just making up the facts as you go.
There is no right to murder. You should consider the right of the child to have a say in their own body.
The fact that women couldn't vote in the past doesn't mean the fetus was always alive if a man ended it, but never alive if a women did. That's just making up the facts as you go.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 21 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,144
@previous (J)
"Broad Views on the Legality of Abortion
According to Gallup's May 2023 update on Americans' abortion views, 34% believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," 51% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 13% say it should be illegal in all circumstances."
You as a Right Wing Nut are entitled to your own opinion. People like you would not allow a woman to vote. You take ownership of a woman's body. Reminds me of Grab them by their Pussy's Trump.
I am sure you're aware that the majority of adults in USA agree with Abortion. You call it murder and I call it a Woman's right to choose.
Perhaps a compromise? The Drunk is guilty of Homicide and for the Fetus they might gite one half of that sentence added?
"Broad Views on the Legality of Abortion
According to Gallup's May 2023 update on Americans' abortion views, 34% believe abortion should be legal "under any circumstances," 51% say it should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 13% say it should be illegal in all circumstances."
You as a Right Wing Nut are entitled to your own opinion. People like you would not allow a woman to vote. You take ownership of a woman's body. Reminds me of Grab them by their Pussy's Trump.
I am sure you're aware that the majority of adults in USA agree with Abortion. You call it murder and I call it a Woman's right to choose.
Perhaps a compromise? The Drunk is guilty of Homicide and for the Fetus they might gite one half of that sentence added?
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,145
@previous (!GmgU93SCyE)
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.
There was a time when most people didn't think women should have basic rights at all. Did that make it correct, since it was a popular idea? There are still many countries where this is the majority opinion.
I'll guess that you only think popular opinion matters when it agrees with you, and means nothing when it doesn't agree with you. You clearly have no consistent principles underlying your ideology.
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.
There was a time when most people didn't think women should have basic rights at all. Did that make it correct, since it was a popular idea? There are still many countries where this is the majority opinion.
I'll guess that you only think popular opinion matters when it agrees with you, and means nothing when it doesn't agree with you. You clearly have no consistent principles underlying your ideology.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 23 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,147
@previous (J)
Apparently you do not believe in democracy. Apparently you demand control over a woman's body. You must be aware there's money to be made with pills that will give women more freedoms of choice nor will they for the most part be FDA Approved.
Popularity is a variable just as freedoms have always been a variable. I am pleased I live in a State which is famous for freedoms.
Apparently you do not believe in democracy. Apparently you demand control over a woman's body. You must be aware there's money to be made with pills that will give women more freedoms of choice nor will they for the most part be FDA Approved.
Popularity is a variable just as freedoms have always been a variable. I am pleased I live in a State which is famous for freedoms.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 11 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,148
@previous (!GmgU93SCyE)
> Apparently you do not believe in democracy.
Democracy is a means to social compromise. It's a good system, but it doesn't always work.
Democracy was never meant to be a way to deduce logical truths.
> Apparently you demand control over a woman's body.
No, women are free to do to their own body what they want.
The actual disagreement is that you are OK with infringing on the child's body, and I'm not.
If someone killed someone by shooting through their own hand first, and responded to every acusation with "Oh, I can't make my own decisions about my body?" refusing to acknowledge their crime, and pretending it was the damage to their own hand that was the problem we would all consider them a troll. Yet this is how all abortion activists talk about the issue, pretending not to understand. No one is telling the woman what she can do to her own body, it's when the line is crossed and she harms the other body inside her that's the real problem.
> You must be aware there's money to be made with pills that will give women more freedoms of choice nor will they for the most part be FDA Approved.
There's money to be made in illicit guns, fentanyl, and hitmen. Doesn't make any of it OK, and it doesn't mean the government should shrug off the human rights violation of taking someone's life without their permission.
> Popularity is a variable just as freedoms have always been a variable. I am pleased I live in a State which is famous for freedoms.
Freedom is when defenseless people can be killed? That's a corruption of the word.
> Apparently you do not believe in democracy.
Democracy is a means to social compromise. It's a good system, but it doesn't always work.
Democracy was never meant to be a way to deduce logical truths.
> Apparently you demand control over a woman's body.
No, women are free to do to their own body what they want.
The actual disagreement is that you are OK with infringing on the child's body, and I'm not.
If someone killed someone by shooting through their own hand first, and responded to every acusation with "Oh, I can't make my own decisions about my body?" refusing to acknowledge their crime, and pretending it was the damage to their own hand that was the problem we would all consider them a troll. Yet this is how all abortion activists talk about the issue, pretending not to understand. No one is telling the woman what she can do to her own body, it's when the line is crossed and she harms the other body inside her that's the real problem.
> You must be aware there's money to be made with pills that will give women more freedoms of choice nor will they for the most part be FDA Approved.
There's money to be made in illicit guns, fentanyl, and hitmen. Doesn't make any of it OK, and it doesn't mean the government should shrug off the human rights violation of taking someone's life without their permission.
> Popularity is a variable just as freedoms have always been a variable. I am pleased I live in a State which is famous for freedoms.
Freedom is when defenseless people can be killed? That's a corruption of the word.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 30 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,149
@previous (J)
> No, women are free to do to their own body what they want.
I stopped reading at that point. Calling you out as a Liar for that because you disallow a woman's right to choose.
> No, women are free to do to their own body what they want.
I stopped reading at that point. Calling you out as a Liar for that because you disallow a woman's right to choose.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 32 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,150
@previous (!GmgU93SCyE)
I also disallow men the "right to choose" to shoot someone.
Murder isn't a right.
I also disallow men the "right to choose" to shoot someone.
Murder isn't a right.
+Anonymous O — 1.6 year ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,151
@previous (J)
> I also disallow men the "right to choose" to shoot someone.
You still have time to edit that LoL
> I also disallow men the "right to choose" to shoot someone.
You still have time to edit that LoL
·TJR (OP) — 1.6 year ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,152
@650,140 (N)
> Women wouldn’t need an abortion if there weren’t guys wanting to rape them and impregnate them thus ruining their lives and the lives off the child. Kill yourself, OPenis.
Just like your whore of a mother, most of these women getting abortions got pregnant from a one night stand.
> Women wouldn’t need an abortion if there weren’t guys wanting to rape them and impregnate them thus ruining their lives and the lives off the child. Kill yourself, OPenis.
Just like your whore of a mother, most of these women getting abortions got pregnant from a one night stand.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 48 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,153
·Anonymous O — 1.6 year ago, 30 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,154
@previous (J)
You said " I also disallow men the "right to choose" to shoot someone."
Now really. How would that work for the police or Army, Navy, or Airforce.
You said " I also disallow men the "right to choose" to shoot someone."
Now really. How would that work for the police or Army, Navy, or Airforce.
+Anonymous P — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,157
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,171
@650,154 (O)
Ok, let me clarify my position here.
If a woman has a credible reason to believe the child was a lethal threat to the local community or national security, then she should be allowed to abort.
Ok, let me clarify my position here.
If a woman has a credible reason to believe the child was a lethal threat to the local community or national security, then she should be allowed to abort.
·TJR (OP) — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,172
·Anonymous C — 1.6 year ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,173
kc tire throd· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 9 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,180
@650,171 (J)
> Ok, let me clarify my position here.
>
> If a woman has a credible reason to believe the child was a lethal threat to the local community or national security, then she should be allowed to abort.
You insist on calling the Fetus a Child. I know I cannot change your mind on that. I find it mighty Christian of you to approve of such Abortion under your man made rules.
Because you told me you're a Right Wing Nut. May I assume you also support Killing Humans as long as their are Man Made Laws that make it totally legal.
For instance those Anti Abortion Texans and US Supreme Court Justices are totally OK with the Execution of Humans. Again the wiggle room to be against taking of perhaps a potential life vs a Fully Grown Human. Two faced for sure.
Oh and I see you fully support with your tax money the taking of human lives via Army Navy or Airforce.
.
> Ok, let me clarify my position here.
>
> If a woman has a credible reason to believe the child was a lethal threat to the local community or national security, then she should be allowed to abort.
You insist on calling the Fetus a Child. I know I cannot change your mind on that. I find it mighty Christian of you to approve of such Abortion under your man made rules.
Because you told me you're a Right Wing Nut. May I assume you also support Killing Humans as long as their are Man Made Laws that make it totally legal.
For instance those Anti Abortion Texans and US Supreme Court Justices are totally OK with the Execution of Humans. Again the wiggle room to be against taking of perhaps a potential life vs a Fully Grown Human. Two faced for sure.
Oh and I see you fully support with your tax money the taking of human lives via Army Navy or Airforce.
.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·Anonymous P — 1.6 year ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,181
·TJR (OP) — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,182
@previous (P)
And you're somehow offended by this and that makes you angry.... Your problem, not mine. Go on, now. Vote and leave.
And you're somehow offended by this and that makes you angry.... Your problem, not mine. Go on, now. Vote and leave.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 22 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,183
@650,180 (!GmgU93SCyE)
> You insist on calling the Fetus a Child.
It would be one if it was allowed to be. You said as much yourself.
> I find it mighty Christian of you to approve of such Abortion under your man made rules.
Why does every leftist try to use Christian morality as some sort of guide when they are clearly not Christian themselves?
I'm not Christian, I don't care if this fits in a Christian moral system. Life should be protected because that's inherently the ethical choice.
> Because you told me you're a Right Wing Nut. May I assume you also support Killing Humans as long as their are Man Made Laws that make it totally legal.
> For instance those Anti Abortion Texans and US Supreme Court Justices are totally OK with the Execution of Humans. Again the wiggle room to be against taking of perhaps a potential life vs a Fully Grown Human. Two faced for sure.
> Oh and I see you fully support with your tax money the taking of human lives via Army Navy or Airforce.
Self-defense against criminals and foreign military is very different.
> You insist on calling the Fetus a Child.
It would be one if it was allowed to be. You said as much yourself.
> I find it mighty Christian of you to approve of such Abortion under your man made rules.
Why does every leftist try to use Christian morality as some sort of guide when they are clearly not Christian themselves?
I'm not Christian, I don't care if this fits in a Christian moral system. Life should be protected because that's inherently the ethical choice.
> Because you told me you're a Right Wing Nut. May I assume you also support Killing Humans as long as their are Man Made Laws that make it totally legal.
> For instance those Anti Abortion Texans and US Supreme Court Justices are totally OK with the Execution of Humans. Again the wiggle room to be against taking of perhaps a potential life vs a Fully Grown Human. Two faced for sure.
> Oh and I see you fully support with your tax money the taking of human lives via Army Navy or Airforce.
Self-defense against criminals and foreign military is very different.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 23 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,184
@previous (J)
> It would be one if it was allowed to be. You said as much yourself.
Clearly at Birth we have a living infant -
I see you fail to argue re Legalized Executions. The result is a Dead Human.
> Self-defense against criminals and foreign military is very different.
Alas mistakes happen - It's often called Collateral damage. Full grown humans and pregnant woman.
There is an alternate of course. One could be a pacifist. "a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable."
Again it comes down to man made laws and the men who make them make horrid judgements and of course believe they can use woman as their puppets.
> It would be one if it was allowed to be. You said as much yourself.
Clearly at Birth we have a living infant -
I see you fail to argue re Legalized Executions. The result is a Dead Human.
> Self-defense against criminals and foreign military is very different.
Alas mistakes happen - It's often called Collateral damage. Full grown humans and pregnant woman.
There is an alternate of course. One could be a pacifist. "a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable."
Again it comes down to man made laws and the men who make them make horrid judgements and of course believe they can use woman as their puppets.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 32 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,186
@previous (!GmgU93SCyE)
> > It would be one if it was allowed to be. You said as much yourself.
> Clearly at Birth we have a living infant -
Yet you said "Sure it was a fetus that would have become human and was not given the opportunity"
> I see you fail to argue re Legalized Executions. The result is a Dead Human.
Every culture makes exceptions for criminals and foreign military. No one thinks those are the same as killing an innocent even though both "result in a dead human".
> There is an alternate of course. One could be a pacifist. "a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable."
You already said you want to punish a drunk driver who kills a fetus. Bringing them to prison requires violence, you can't expect them to just voluntarily agree to it.
If you believe in violence against someone who just terminated a clump of cells, you're clearly not a pacifist.
> Again it comes down to man made laws and the men who make them make horrid judgements and of course believe they can use woman as their puppets.
Protecting a vulnerable life is not using women as their puppets.
> > It would be one if it was allowed to be. You said as much yourself.
> Clearly at Birth we have a living infant -
Yet you said "Sure it was a fetus that would have become human and was not given the opportunity"
> I see you fail to argue re Legalized Executions. The result is a Dead Human.
Every culture makes exceptions for criminals and foreign military. No one thinks those are the same as killing an innocent even though both "result in a dead human".
> There is an alternate of course. One could be a pacifist. "a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable."
You already said you want to punish a drunk driver who kills a fetus. Bringing them to prison requires violence, you can't expect them to just voluntarily agree to it.
If you believe in violence against someone who just terminated a clump of cells, you're clearly not a pacifist.
> Again it comes down to man made laws and the men who make them make horrid judgements and of course believe they can use woman as their puppets.
Protecting a vulnerable life is not using women as their puppets.
·Anonymous G — 1.6 year ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,193
@650,103 (J)
Why do women HAVE to keep the baby? what's it to people like you? Is it money? are you getting paid by the hour/minute? or what? do you feel like its not fair that a woman can undo a mistake at the drop of a dime but a man can't? Shit I know the world's unfair because we make it so. Life's hard because we make it hard. But lets do away with the policing women's bodies because we got enough problems as it is. People like you are interesting because you're willing to die on hills for so called "people" that have yet to exist but wont bat a fucking eye to people who are still around and are suffering.
also fuck the politics because neither side gives as much of a fuck as you think they do about this problem. The fact you started with "its not about what they do with their own bodies." is exactly the problem because who the fuck are we as men to dictate what a woman does with her womb and why is this topic anyway?. If she wants an abortion let her fucking have one like come tf on with this nonsense.
Everyday damn day its either "woke this, woke that vote red cus democcunts are satan incarnate and they're killing our babies" or "vote blue because republicans are evil and they hate gay ppl".
Why do women HAVE to keep the baby? what's it to people like you? Is it money? are you getting paid by the hour/minute? or what? do you feel like its not fair that a woman can undo a mistake at the drop of a dime but a man can't? Shit I know the world's unfair because we make it so. Life's hard because we make it hard. But lets do away with the policing women's bodies because we got enough problems as it is. People like you are interesting because you're willing to die on hills for so called "people" that have yet to exist but wont bat a fucking eye to people who are still around and are suffering.
also fuck the politics because neither side gives as much of a fuck as you think they do about this problem. The fact you started with "its not about what they do with their own bodies." is exactly the problem because who the fuck are we as men to dictate what a woman does with her womb and why is this topic anyway?. If she wants an abortion let her fucking have one like come tf on with this nonsense.
Everyday damn day its either "woke this, woke that vote red cus democcunts are satan incarnate and they're killing our babies" or "vote blue because republicans are evil and they hate gay ppl".
·Anonymous C — 1.6 year ago, 18 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,195
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 48 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,197
@650,193 (G)
> Why do women HAVE to keep the baby?
Asked and answered!
What about the position is hard to understand?
> do you feel like its not fair that a woman can undo a mistake at the drop of a dime but a man can't?
Men should be charged if they do it too. Can you find someone pro-life saying "let the doctor go, he's a man". What about the red states that are letting women write a fetus off as a dependent? They would charge the drunk driver, but it wouldn't be hypocritical.
> But lets do away with the policing women's bodies because we got enough problems as it is
Why not let mothers off the hook when their postpartum depression forces them to smother their babies?
When is the line crossed? Kindergarten?
> People like you are interesting because you're willing to die on hills for so called "people" that have yet to exist
People like you! You said "it was a fetus that would have become human and was not given the opportunity".
> but wont bat a fucking eye to people who are still around and are suffering.
Based on what? Because I said we can't let criminals and foreign military do whatever they want?
> also fuck the politics because neither side gives as much of a fuck as you think they do about this problem.
The Democrats keep telling us Trump's SCOTUS picks are recreating the handmaid's tale.
> The fact you started with "its not about what they do with their own bodies." is exactly the problem because who the fuck are we as men to dictate what a woman does with her womb and why is this topic anyway?.
The answer to that is the same as the answer to this: "Who the fuck are we as men to dictate whether a woman can shoot her child?"
Being smaller and shoved up her vag doesn't negate the ethics.
> Why do women HAVE to keep the baby?
Asked and answered!
What about the position is hard to understand?
> do you feel like its not fair that a woman can undo a mistake at the drop of a dime but a man can't?
Men should be charged if they do it too. Can you find someone pro-life saying "let the doctor go, he's a man". What about the red states that are letting women write a fetus off as a dependent? They would charge the drunk driver, but it wouldn't be hypocritical.
> But lets do away with the policing women's bodies because we got enough problems as it is
Why not let mothers off the hook when their postpartum depression forces them to smother their babies?
When is the line crossed? Kindergarten?
> People like you are interesting because you're willing to die on hills for so called "people" that have yet to exist
People like you! You said "it was a fetus that would have become human and was not given the opportunity".
> but wont bat a fucking eye to people who are still around and are suffering.
Based on what? Because I said we can't let criminals and foreign military do whatever they want?
> also fuck the politics because neither side gives as much of a fuck as you think they do about this problem.
The Democrats keep telling us Trump's SCOTUS picks are recreating the handmaid's tale.
> The fact you started with "its not about what they do with their own bodies." is exactly the problem because who the fuck are we as men to dictate what a woman does with her womb and why is this topic anyway?.
The answer to that is the same as the answer to this: "Who the fuck are we as men to dictate whether a woman can shoot her child?"
Being smaller and shoved up her vag doesn't negate the ethics.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 10 hours later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,211
@650,183 (J)
I never said I was a pacifist - Just that it's an option
> Protecting a vulnerable life
USA has done a Horrid job of that with Wars we start and Wars you support.
Oh and I see you fully support with your tax money the taking of human lives via Army Navy or Airforce.
>
> Self-defense against criminals and foreign military is very different.
You fail to address those states that decide to Execute Criminals. I as well. It's again a justified taking of a Human life.
You have no problem forcing a Gang Raped 9 year old to deliver to Birth.
Your self-defense Argument! I call out your Bullshit on that. Vietnam, Korea and Iraq did NOT declare war on the USA.
You support a massive number of Fetus's & full termed babies killed in those wars.
I never said I was a pacifist - Just that it's an option
> Protecting a vulnerable life
USA has done a Horrid job of that with Wars we start and Wars you support.
Oh and I see you fully support with your tax money the taking of human lives via Army Navy or Airforce.
>
> Self-defense against criminals and foreign military is very different.
You fail to address those states that decide to Execute Criminals. I as well. It's again a justified taking of a Human life.
You have no problem forcing a Gang Raped 9 year old to deliver to Birth.
Your self-defense Argument! I call out your Bullshit on that. Vietnam, Korea and Iraq did NOT declare war on the USA.
You support a massive number of Fetus's & full termed babies killed in those wars.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,212
@previous (!GmgU93SCyE)
> USA has done a Horrid job of that with Wars we start and Wars you support.
I never said which wars I support.
> Oh and I see you fully support with your tax money the taking of human lives via Army Navy or Airforce.
Countries need to defend themselves, or they'll be replaced by the countries that do.
> You fail to address those states that decide to Execute Criminals. I as well. It's again a justified taking of a Human life.
Justified because they committed a crime. What crime did the fetus commit?
> You have no problem forcing a Gang Raped 9 year old to deliver to Birth.
Punishing a baby for the sins of their father is not OK.
Would it be OK for the state to commit you to death if they found out your father was a rapist?
> Your self-defense Argument! I call out your Bullshit on that. Vietnam, Korea and Iraq did NOT declare war on the USA.
I never said which wars I support, this is a strawman.
> You support a massive number of Fetus's & full termed babies killed in those wars.
No.
> USA has done a Horrid job of that with Wars we start and Wars you support.
I never said which wars I support.
> Oh and I see you fully support with your tax money the taking of human lives via Army Navy or Airforce.
Countries need to defend themselves, or they'll be replaced by the countries that do.
> You fail to address those states that decide to Execute Criminals. I as well. It's again a justified taking of a Human life.
Justified because they committed a crime. What crime did the fetus commit?
> You have no problem forcing a Gang Raped 9 year old to deliver to Birth.
Punishing a baby for the sins of their father is not OK.
Would it be OK for the state to commit you to death if they found out your father was a rapist?
> Your self-defense Argument! I call out your Bullshit on that. Vietnam, Korea and Iraq did NOT declare war on the USA.
I never said which wars I support, this is a strawman.
> You support a massive number of Fetus's & full termed babies killed in those wars.
No.
·Anonymous O — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,213
@previous (J)>
> I never said which wars I support.
> I never said which wars I support, this is a strawman.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 8 hours later, 4 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,221
@previous (O)
I can't be against murder, because I think we need to participate in wars sometimes to survive.
Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars.
I can't be against murder, because I think we need to participate in wars sometimes to survive.
Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 11 hours later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,229
@previous (J)
> I can't be against murder, because I think we need to participate in wars sometimes to survive.
Given you're to Chicken Shit to name wars you support - Probably because those are the wars We started - Such a long list which make them in the Majority. You wanted to prove murder is ok as a means to defend ourselves yet that argument falls apart with say Vietnam as an example.
> Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars.
Again truly Christian of you as a non-Christian, because you say your Anti Abortion, yet you support the killing of innocent Pregnant woman.
In your world the Fetus has more rights than the born Human.
Did you know Trump supports the arrest and conviction of a woman who has decided to abort.
> I can't be against murder, because I think we need to participate in wars sometimes to survive.
Given you're to Chicken Shit to name wars you support - Probably because those are the wars We started - Such a long list which make them in the Majority. You wanted to prove murder is ok as a means to defend ourselves yet that argument falls apart with say Vietnam as an example.
> Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars.
Again truly Christian of you as a non-Christian, because you say your Anti Abortion, yet you support the killing of innocent Pregnant woman.
In your world the Fetus has more rights than the born Human.
Did you know Trump supports the arrest and conviction of a woman who has decided to abort.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 2 hours later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,230
@previous (!GmgU93SCyE)
> > I can't be against murder, because I think we need to participate in wars sometimes to survive.
> Given you're to Chicken Shit to name wars you support
You never even asked before now, you just made assumptions.
Veering off into foreign policy is just another way to take this off-topic.
Even if I do misjudge some wars legitimacy, it doesn't mean I have to support murder domestically. Becoming more educated about foreign policy is good, but supporting murder at home because I used to think some conflict abroad was self-defense doesn't improve anything- it just makes everything worse.
You said yourself you're not a pacifist. If you found out a war or police action you supported was unjustified, would you fix that by supporting a parents right to kill their 5 year old? NO?? Then what makes a preborn different? And what does any of this have to do with foreign policy?
> You wanted to prove murder is ok as a means to defend ourselves yet that argument falls apart with say Vietnam as an example.
No, I pointed out all cultures defend themselves. It's universally true that societies will justify killing in certain situations.
> > Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars.
>
> Again truly Christian of you as a non-Christian, because you say your Anti Abortion, yet you support the killing of innocent Pregnant woman.
What does this have to do with Christianity? There are atheists, muslims, and many other religious groups against abortion.
And no, I'm not for killing anyone innocent. You pulled that out of your ass, and can't quote anywhere I defended it.
> In your world the Fetus has more rights than the born Human.
No, it has the same rights. Again, you can't quote anywhere I said a fetus should have more rights.
> Did you know Trump supports the arrest and conviction of a woman who has decided to abort.
Did you know the democrats support arresting and convicting murderers too?
The only difference between the parties is what is considered murder. No one questions that murder should be punished, the only debate is what constitutes murder.
> > I can't be against murder, because I think we need to participate in wars sometimes to survive.
> Given you're to Chicken Shit to name wars you support
You never even asked before now, you just made assumptions.
Veering off into foreign policy is just another way to take this off-topic.
Even if I do misjudge some wars legitimacy, it doesn't mean I have to support murder domestically. Becoming more educated about foreign policy is good, but supporting murder at home because I used to think some conflict abroad was self-defense doesn't improve anything- it just makes everything worse.
You said yourself you're not a pacifist. If you found out a war or police action you supported was unjustified, would you fix that by supporting a parents right to kill their 5 year old? NO?? Then what makes a preborn different? And what does any of this have to do with foreign policy?
> You wanted to prove murder is ok as a means to defend ourselves yet that argument falls apart with say Vietnam as an example.
No, I pointed out all cultures defend themselves. It's universally true that societies will justify killing in certain situations.
> > Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars.
>
> Again truly Christian of you as a non-Christian, because you say your Anti Abortion, yet you support the killing of innocent Pregnant woman.
What does this have to do with Christianity? There are atheists, muslims, and many other religious groups against abortion.
And no, I'm not for killing anyone innocent. You pulled that out of your ass, and can't quote anywhere I defended it.
> In your world the Fetus has more rights than the born Human.
No, it has the same rights. Again, you can't quote anywhere I said a fetus should have more rights.
> Did you know Trump supports the arrest and conviction of a woman who has decided to abort.
Did you know the democrats support arresting and convicting murderers too?
The only difference between the parties is what is considered murder. No one questions that murder should be punished, the only debate is what constitutes murder.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 54 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,232
@previous (J)
> > > I can't be against murder, because I think we need to participate in wars sometimes to survive.
> > Given you're to Chicken Shit to name wars you support
> You never even asked before now, you just made assumptions.
You said "Self-defense against criminals and foreign military is very different"
Again it's NOT self defense when WE the USA start the war - Vietnam Korea Iraq
> Veering off into foreign policy is just another way to take this off-topic.
The Mass murders of innocents with YOUR support is NOT veering off topic.
> Even if I do misjudge some wars legitimacy, it doesn't mean I have to support murder domestically. Becoming more educated about foreign policy is good, but supporting murder at home because I used to think some conflict abroad was self-defense doesn't improve anything- it just makes everything worse.
That just makes it easy for you to support the killing of human to be cells, when it's off shore.
> You said yourself you're not a pacifist. If you found out a war or police action you supported was unjustified, would you fix that by supporting a parents right to kill their 5 year old? NO?? Then what makes a preborn different? And what does any of this have to do with foreign policy?
The Unborn may cause the death of the Mother and MOST Right Wing Nuts define those unborn cells as more important than the living Mother and refuse to let her terminate to save her own life. She becomes a puppet of the Right Wing Nuts.
> > You wanted to prove murder is ok as a means to defend ourselves yet that argument falls apart with say Vietnam as an example.
> No, I pointed out all cultures defend themselves. It's universally true that societies will justify killing in certain situations.
And again that argument falls apart because we have started all recent wars in the last century So self defense falls apart.
> > > Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars.
> > Again truly Christian of you as a non-Christian, because you say your Anti Abortion, yet you support the killing of innocent Pregnant woman.
> What does this have to do with Christianity? There are atheists, muslims, and many other religious groups against abortion.
I use the Christian argument because most Right Wing Nuts use this as their argument re Morals.
>
> And no, I'm not for killing anyone innocent. You pulled that out of your ass, and can't quote anywhere I defended it.
You said "Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars"
>
> > In your world the Fetus has more rights than the born Human.
>
> No, it has the same rights. Again, you can't quote anywhere I said a fetus should have more rights.
You support the elimination of the Fetus in foreign lands by USA when those who live offshore were attacked by us. Sure it's usually not intended but shit happens in wars We Start and We have You to blame.
> > Did you know Trump supports the arrest and conviction of a woman who has decided to abort.
>
> Did you know the democrats support arresting and convicting murderers too?
You define Murder and interfering with a cell that has divided by two
> The only difference between the parties is what is considered murder. No one questions that murder should be punished, the only debate is what constitutes murder.
And for you to define Murder and stopping cells dividing to create a Fetus as Murder. Yet you support our invasion of a foreign land as totally ok and know damn well Innocent Pregnant woman will be killed.
You have a wispy washy Moral Code.
> > > I can't be against murder, because I think we need to participate in wars sometimes to survive.
> > Given you're to Chicken Shit to name wars you support
> You never even asked before now, you just made assumptions.
You said "Self-defense against criminals and foreign military is very different"
Again it's NOT self defense when WE the USA start the war - Vietnam Korea Iraq
> Veering off into foreign policy is just another way to take this off-topic.
The Mass murders of innocents with YOUR support is NOT veering off topic.
> Even if I do misjudge some wars legitimacy, it doesn't mean I have to support murder domestically. Becoming more educated about foreign policy is good, but supporting murder at home because I used to think some conflict abroad was self-defense doesn't improve anything- it just makes everything worse.
That just makes it easy for you to support the killing of human to be cells, when it's off shore.
> You said yourself you're not a pacifist. If you found out a war or police action you supported was unjustified, would you fix that by supporting a parents right to kill their 5 year old? NO?? Then what makes a preborn different? And what does any of this have to do with foreign policy?
The Unborn may cause the death of the Mother and MOST Right Wing Nuts define those unborn cells as more important than the living Mother and refuse to let her terminate to save her own life. She becomes a puppet of the Right Wing Nuts.
> > You wanted to prove murder is ok as a means to defend ourselves yet that argument falls apart with say Vietnam as an example.
> No, I pointed out all cultures defend themselves. It's universally true that societies will justify killing in certain situations.
And again that argument falls apart because we have started all recent wars in the last century So self defense falls apart.
> > > Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars.
> > Again truly Christian of you as a non-Christian, because you say your Anti Abortion, yet you support the killing of innocent Pregnant woman.
> What does this have to do with Christianity? There are atheists, muslims, and many other religious groups against abortion.
I use the Christian argument because most Right Wing Nuts use this as their argument re Morals.
>
> And no, I'm not for killing anyone innocent. You pulled that out of your ass, and can't quote anywhere I defended it.
You said "Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars"
>
> > In your world the Fetus has more rights than the born Human.
>
> No, it has the same rights. Again, you can't quote anywhere I said a fetus should have more rights.
You support the elimination of the Fetus in foreign lands by USA when those who live offshore were attacked by us. Sure it's usually not intended but shit happens in wars We Start and We have You to blame.
> > Did you know Trump supports the arrest and conviction of a woman who has decided to abort.
>
> Did you know the democrats support arresting and convicting murderers too?
You define Murder and interfering with a cell that has divided by two
> The only difference between the parties is what is considered murder. No one questions that murder should be punished, the only debate is what constitutes murder.
And for you to define Murder and stopping cells dividing to create a Fetus as Murder. Yet you support our invasion of a foreign land as totally ok and know damn well Innocent Pregnant woman will be killed.
You have a wispy washy Moral Code.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 42 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,233
I need to add a pet peeve to this topic. The Right Wing Nuts demand a woman deliver the baby. Then in typical Right Wing Nut style, they REFUSE to help support the child. They call it welfare and will let the Child and Mother starve to death or near death. Once born they do not give a damn about the child.
Rant over and out.
Rant over and out.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 11 hours later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,238
@650,232 (!GmgU93SCyE)
> You said "Self-defense against criminals and foreign military is very different"
> Again it's NOT self defense when WE the USA start the war - Vietnam Korea Iraq
Vietnam was a bad idea, badly managed too, but both it and Korea were part of containment. Would USA be around if they didn't take the cold war seriously? Don't play and you lose by default. We'd all be speaking Russian.
Iraq war was not good at all IMO.
> > Veering off into foreign policy is just another way to take this off-topic.
> The Mass murders of innocents with YOUR support is NOT veering off topic.
I never said I support that. Some military operations are necessary though.
>
> > Even if I do misjudge some wars legitimacy, it doesn't mean I have to support murder domestically. Becoming more educated about foreign policy is good, but supporting murder at home because I used to think some conflict abroad was self-defense doesn't improve anything- it just makes everything worse.
> That just makes it easy for you to support the killing of human to be cells, when it's off shore.
No, off-shore was never a requirement, I even said domestic police activities can be.
Self-defense is the requirement.
> > You said yourself you're not a pacifist. If you found out a war or police action you supported was unjustified, would you fix that by supporting a parents right to kill their 5 year old? NO?? Then what makes a preborn different? And what does any of this have to do with foreign policy?
>
> The Unborn may cause the death of the Mother
This would be self-defense. Saving a life is different than doing it out of convenience. Neither option is perfect, but at least the motivation is to save a life.
> and MOST Right Wing Nuts define those unborn cells as more important than the living Mother and refuse to let her terminate to save her own life. She becomes a puppet of the Right Wing Nuts.
No, most don't support abortion bans when the life of the mother is in danger. You can find some that do, and some governments that went too far, but that isn't "most".
> And again that argument falls apart because we have started all recent wars in the last century So self defense falls apart.
"You live in a country that did bad things, therefore you must support more murder."
No thanks. Even if I found out I supported a war that killed innocents, I wouldn't knowingly support more, two wrongs don't make a right.
> > > > Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars.
>
> > > Again truly Christian of you as a non-Christian, because you say your Anti Abortion, yet you support the killing of innocent Pregnant woman.
>
> > What does this have to do with Christianity? There are atheists, muslims, and many other religious groups against abortion.
> I use the Christian argument because most Right Wing Nuts use this as their argument re Morals.
> >
> > And no, I'm not for killing anyone innocent. You pulled that out of your ass, and can't quote anywhere I defended it.
>
> You said "Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars"
I was restating what you just said to point out how absurd it was.
You act like being against murder is wrong because someone supported a war that involved murder. Tolerating murder in the past isn't a good reason to support more.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
And the last bit was me pointing out that you find it OK to use this logic to the preborn (why not just murder more, you already supported it), but you would never accept this logic for the born.
> You support the elimination of the Fetus in foreign lands by USA when those who live offshore were attacked by us. Sure it's usually not intended but shit happens in wars We Start and We have You to blame.
It's a fact of life that countries have collateral damage when they fight wars, and fighting wars is necessary for survival.
Accepting that as necessary doesn't mean we have to accept a woman murdering her child. If we care about life here, does it wipe out society? No. But if we didn't contain the soviets, the society would have been replaced by a different society willing to fight.
>
> You define Murder and interfering with a cell that has divided by two
Biologists defined life.
> And for you to define Murder and stopping cells dividing to create a Fetus as Murder. Yet you support our invasion of a foreign land as totally ok and know damn well Innocent Pregnant woman will be killed.
Killing to survive is different than killing for convenience.
Like I said, I support a mother who does it because the pregnancy will kill her.
> You have a wispy washy Moral Code.
Yet you can't name a single contradiction. The only thing you said over and over in this post is that because I think countries need to kill to survive, that I need to abandon my support for lives that would only be killed for convenience.
Why is it necessary for you to conflate deaths of necessity and unnecessary deaths? You're looking for excuses to devalue life.
You also lied several times about me supporting certain unnecessary wars. I'm against ALL unnecessary deaths, everyone should strive to minimize deaths. One of many ways is to punish those who kill the preborn. Another way is to punish war criminals.
> You said "Self-defense against criminals and foreign military is very different"
> Again it's NOT self defense when WE the USA start the war - Vietnam Korea Iraq
Vietnam was a bad idea, badly managed too, but both it and Korea were part of containment. Would USA be around if they didn't take the cold war seriously? Don't play and you lose by default. We'd all be speaking Russian.
Iraq war was not good at all IMO.
> > Veering off into foreign policy is just another way to take this off-topic.
> The Mass murders of innocents with YOUR support is NOT veering off topic.
I never said I support that. Some military operations are necessary though.
>
> > Even if I do misjudge some wars legitimacy, it doesn't mean I have to support murder domestically. Becoming more educated about foreign policy is good, but supporting murder at home because I used to think some conflict abroad was self-defense doesn't improve anything- it just makes everything worse.
> That just makes it easy for you to support the killing of human to be cells, when it's off shore.
No, off-shore was never a requirement, I even said domestic police activities can be.
Self-defense is the requirement.
> > You said yourself you're not a pacifist. If you found out a war or police action you supported was unjustified, would you fix that by supporting a parents right to kill their 5 year old? NO?? Then what makes a preborn different? And what does any of this have to do with foreign policy?
>
> The Unborn may cause the death of the Mother
This would be self-defense. Saving a life is different than doing it out of convenience. Neither option is perfect, but at least the motivation is to save a life.
> and MOST Right Wing Nuts define those unborn cells as more important than the living Mother and refuse to let her terminate to save her own life. She becomes a puppet of the Right Wing Nuts.
No, most don't support abortion bans when the life of the mother is in danger. You can find some that do, and some governments that went too far, but that isn't "most".
> And again that argument falls apart because we have started all recent wars in the last century So self defense falls apart.
"You live in a country that did bad things, therefore you must support more murder."
No thanks. Even if I found out I supported a war that killed innocents, I wouldn't knowingly support more, two wrongs don't make a right.
> > > > Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars.
>
> > > Again truly Christian of you as a non-Christian, because you say your Anti Abortion, yet you support the killing of innocent Pregnant woman.
>
> > What does this have to do with Christianity? There are atheists, muslims, and many other religious groups against abortion.
> I use the Christian argument because most Right Wing Nuts use this as their argument re Morals.
> >
> > And no, I'm not for killing anyone innocent. You pulled that out of your ass, and can't quote anywhere I defended it.
>
> You said "Actually, I can't be against murder of small humans because of that reason. It's OK if I'm against the murder of born persons and support wars"
I was restating what you just said to point out how absurd it was.
You act like being against murder is wrong because someone supported a war that involved murder. Tolerating murder in the past isn't a good reason to support more.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
And the last bit was me pointing out that you find it OK to use this logic to the preborn (why not just murder more, you already supported it), but you would never accept this logic for the born.
> You support the elimination of the Fetus in foreign lands by USA when those who live offshore were attacked by us. Sure it's usually not intended but shit happens in wars We Start and We have You to blame.
It's a fact of life that countries have collateral damage when they fight wars, and fighting wars is necessary for survival.
Accepting that as necessary doesn't mean we have to accept a woman murdering her child. If we care about life here, does it wipe out society? No. But if we didn't contain the soviets, the society would have been replaced by a different society willing to fight.
>
> You define Murder and interfering with a cell that has divided by two
Biologists defined life.
> And for you to define Murder and stopping cells dividing to create a Fetus as Murder. Yet you support our invasion of a foreign land as totally ok and know damn well Innocent Pregnant woman will be killed.
Killing to survive is different than killing for convenience.
Like I said, I support a mother who does it because the pregnancy will kill her.
> You have a wispy washy Moral Code.
Yet you can't name a single contradiction. The only thing you said over and over in this post is that because I think countries need to kill to survive, that I need to abandon my support for lives that would only be killed for convenience.
Why is it necessary for you to conflate deaths of necessity and unnecessary deaths? You're looking for excuses to devalue life.
You also lied several times about me supporting certain unnecessary wars. I'm against ALL unnecessary deaths, everyone should strive to minimize deaths. One of many ways is to punish those who kill the preborn. Another way is to punish war criminals.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 8 hours later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,249
@previous (J)Unless you stay up with current Political News this will shock you to your very core.
Donald Trump on Monday declined to endorse a federal abortion ban and said that the issue is in the hands of the states in the post-Roe era.
foxnews.com/politics/trump-deferring-states-after-weighing-abortion
"Many states will be different, many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be," Trump said in the video. "At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people."
26 and very soon to be 29 States approve of Abortions. As you already know the Majority of Voters approve of a woman's right to chose.
Even better is you a Right Wing Nut is most likely to Vote for Abortions by Proxy when you vote for Trump.
You support the fear of Commies under our beds and are stuck with supporting Abortions by Proxy in those wars of old. Wars we started.
In the end Democracy wins out. Yes I know you said Democracy is not always the answer.
I figure Trump changed his mind because it's going to come out how he has paid for several abortions over the many years.
I cannot change your mind on this - At least now you can see how your leader has come out with a HUGE Change of Mind.
This Video of course is Old and will need to be revised.
+ !BUvnK2leCE — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,255
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 5 hours later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,262
@650,249 (!GmgU93SCyE)
Trump pays attention to polling, and will push this to win over voters who don't know any better.
His SCOTUS picks from the Federalist Society have ended Roe, and have more planned.
Leaving it to the states is a big step up from mandating all 50 states allow abortion. In reality, his justices will go further once they are in. He's putting in Catholics affiliated with an organization that is against abortion.
Who else should I vote for? Biden says he's for abortion in all 50 states (no states rights here), and he's never put in justices or promoted any justices that would ban it.
Trump will say a million contradictory things. You'd have to be living under a rock to not understand one of these candidates has a track record of fighting abortion.
Trump pays attention to polling, and will push this to win over voters who don't know any better.
His SCOTUS picks from the Federalist Society have ended Roe, and have more planned.
Leaving it to the states is a big step up from mandating all 50 states allow abortion. In reality, his justices will go further once they are in. He's putting in Catholics affiliated with an organization that is against abortion.
Who else should I vote for? Biden says he's for abortion in all 50 states (no states rights here), and he's never put in justices or promoted any justices that would ban it.
Trump will say a million contradictory things. You'd have to be living under a rock to not understand one of these candidates has a track record of fighting abortion.
·Anonymous C — 1.6 year ago, 47 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #650,263
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 19 hours later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #650,284
@650,262 (J)
> Trump pays attention to polling, and will push this to win over voters who don't know any better.
Yep he sure is crashing in the recent polls.
> Leaving it to the states is a big step up from mandating all 50 states allow abortion. In reality, his justices will go further once they are in. He's putting in Catholics affiliated with an organization that is against abortion.
As you well know People now have a very poor opinion of that court. People no longer expect Justice. Fact is they now have proof money can buy a vote from a Justice.
>
> Who else should I vote for? Biden says he's for abortion in all 50 states (no states rights here), and he's never put in justices or promoted any justices that would ban it.
Well of course I am most pleased to see you will vote for a massive amount of Abortions by Proxy. You to can be bought.
> Trump will say a million contradictory things. You'd have to be living under a rock to not understand one of these candidates has a track record of fighting abortion.
He will say anything do anything to win. He even says he has the right to assassinate any member of the Supreme court or congress he chooses to. He made himself King/Dictator. He swore on a bible to uphold the US Constitution and then on Jan 6th he started a Riot at the Capitol.
Anyway I think We are over and done with this topic because I get to walk away watching you support Abortions by Proxy. Of course you could take the high road and not vote for either candidate. Me I hope you do not take that road because I want to see you sell out.
> Trump pays attention to polling, and will push this to win over voters who don't know any better.
Yep he sure is crashing in the recent polls.
> Leaving it to the states is a big step up from mandating all 50 states allow abortion. In reality, his justices will go further once they are in. He's putting in Catholics affiliated with an organization that is against abortion.
As you well know People now have a very poor opinion of that court. People no longer expect Justice. Fact is they now have proof money can buy a vote from a Justice.
>
> Who else should I vote for? Biden says he's for abortion in all 50 states (no states rights here), and he's never put in justices or promoted any justices that would ban it.
Well of course I am most pleased to see you will vote for a massive amount of Abortions by Proxy. You to can be bought.
> Trump will say a million contradictory things. You'd have to be living under a rock to not understand one of these candidates has a track record of fighting abortion.
He will say anything do anything to win. He even says he has the right to assassinate any member of the Supreme court or congress he chooses to. He made himself King/Dictator. He swore on a bible to uphold the US Constitution and then on Jan 6th he started a Riot at the Capitol.
Anyway I think We are over and done with this topic because I get to walk away watching you support Abortions by Proxy. Of course you could take the high road and not vote for either candidate. Me I hope you do not take that road because I want to see you sell out.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 1 hour later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #650,285
@previous (!GmgU93SCyE)
> > Trump pays attention to polling, and will push this to win over voters who don't know any better.
> Yep he sure is crashing in the recent polls.
He's winning in swing states and young voters.
Biden doesn't have the electoral votes, and might just lose the popular vote this time.
> As you well know People now have a very poor opinion of that court. People no longer expect Justice. Fact is they now have proof money
can buy a vote from a Justice.
Public opinion doesn't matter for justices who are appointed, not elected, and they serve for life.
Trump will get elected on immigration, and appoint the same federalist society justices he appointed in his first term. Abortion will be banned for a generation.
> Well of course I am most pleased to see you will vote for a massive amount of Abortions by Proxy. You to can be bought.
Trump says he wants abortions banned in some states, Biden says he wants abortions banned in no states.
If you want to vote against abortion, Trump is the better of the two.
I get it, you're around leftists a lot. A leftist will abandon everything because they didn't get 100% of what they wanted. The right wins because we did the math on 50% vs. 0% and we realized 50% is closer to what we want.
> He will say anything do anything to win. He even says he has the right to assassinate any member of the Supreme court or congress he chooses to. He made himself King/Dictator. He swore on a bible to uphold the US Constitution and then on Jan 6th he started a Riot at the Capitol.
This should all be enough to make you wonder why people would pick this over the alternative.
> Anyway I think We are over and done with this topic because I get to walk away watching you support Abortions by Proxy. Of course you could take the high road and not vote for either candidate. Me I hope you do not take that road because I want to see you sell out.
By your logic I should vote for the guy that wants abortion everywhere, because I'm against abortion.
Brilliant intellectual work 🙄
> > Trump pays attention to polling, and will push this to win over voters who don't know any better.
> Yep he sure is crashing in the recent polls.
He's winning in swing states and young voters.
Biden doesn't have the electoral votes, and might just lose the popular vote this time.
> As you well know People now have a very poor opinion of that court. People no longer expect Justice. Fact is they now have proof money
can buy a vote from a Justice.
Public opinion doesn't matter for justices who are appointed, not elected, and they serve for life.
Trump will get elected on immigration, and appoint the same federalist society justices he appointed in his first term. Abortion will be banned for a generation.
> Well of course I am most pleased to see you will vote for a massive amount of Abortions by Proxy. You to can be bought.
Trump says he wants abortions banned in some states, Biden says he wants abortions banned in no states.
If you want to vote against abortion, Trump is the better of the two.
I get it, you're around leftists a lot. A leftist will abandon everything because they didn't get 100% of what they wanted. The right wins because we did the math on 50% vs. 0% and we realized 50% is closer to what we want.
> He will say anything do anything to win. He even says he has the right to assassinate any member of the Supreme court or congress he chooses to. He made himself King/Dictator. He swore on a bible to uphold the US Constitution and then on Jan 6th he started a Riot at the Capitol.
This should all be enough to make you wonder why people would pick this over the alternative.
> Anyway I think We are over and done with this topic because I get to walk away watching you support Abortions by Proxy. Of course you could take the high road and not vote for either candidate. Me I hope you do not take that road because I want to see you sell out.
By your logic I should vote for the guy that wants abortion everywhere, because I'm against abortion.
Brilliant intellectual work 🙄
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 19 hours later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #650,305
@previous (J)
Bottom line is you now Support Abortions when the democracy, of a state allows them.
You could have taken the high road and said you would not support anyone that support abortions.
I am of course amazed about the Arizona decision has riled up so many people. Arizona did not even allow women to vote nor were they even a state when that crazy law was passed.
Deranged Republican Judges of course. Kari Lake said it was a great law on the books but now she needs votes, so she says she is against it.
The two faces of Republicans.
Bottom line is you now Support Abortions when the democracy, of a state allows them.
You could have taken the high road and said you would not support anyone that support abortions.
I am of course amazed about the Arizona decision has riled up so many people. Arizona did not even allow women to vote nor were they even a state when that crazy law was passed.
Deranged Republican Judges of course. Kari Lake said it was a great law on the books but now she needs votes, so she says she is against it.
The two faces of Republicans.
·Anonymous G — 1.6 year ago, 4 hours later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #650,309
@650,197 (J)
"What about the position is hard to understand?"
Its not a hard position to understand. Just an equally selfish position as those who are pro choice. This dumbass debate will go on til the end of time but I wont back down and neither will you. We'll keep doing this song and dance til we're maggots and plant fertilizer. Honestly in many ways I'm grateful that I wasn't born a woman because holy fuck. Imagine having to defend yourself and your autonomy just because a bunch of bozos decided that "if you're pregnant, ya gotta keep it cus in 'merica this god fearing gun loving country we support fetus lives and so does trump and the rest of the cheeseburger red blood anti snowflake 'mericans."
You know whats even more fucking absurd? you talking about ethics and a vag in the same breath. Hell if anything WE as men shouldnt be talking this shit because we dont carry a small person. All we got is seeds in our balls. but here we fucking are. (and yes Im gonna assume you're guy because its tinychan..come on now)
So I think in a span of 4-5 days. you failed to understand the point. why do you think TJR put those answers for the poll? It wasnt to be funny or memes. the right answer was always: women should be able to vote and to abort because it's their right both human and constitutional and we as men shouldn't have a say in anything related to women UNLESS they ask us and what our opinion and even then she still gets the final say and choice.
"What about the position is hard to understand?"
Its not a hard position to understand. Just an equally selfish position as those who are pro choice. This dumbass debate will go on til the end of time but I wont back down and neither will you. We'll keep doing this song and dance til we're maggots and plant fertilizer. Honestly in many ways I'm grateful that I wasn't born a woman because holy fuck. Imagine having to defend yourself and your autonomy just because a bunch of bozos decided that "if you're pregnant, ya gotta keep it cus in 'merica this god fearing gun loving country we support fetus lives and so does trump and the rest of the cheeseburger red blood anti snowflake 'mericans."
You know whats even more fucking absurd? you talking about ethics and a vag in the same breath. Hell if anything WE as men shouldnt be talking this shit because we dont carry a small person. All we got is seeds in our balls. but here we fucking are. (and yes Im gonna assume you're guy because its tinychan..come on now)
So I think in a span of 4-5 days. you failed to understand the point. why do you think TJR put those answers for the poll? It wasnt to be funny or memes. the right answer was always: women should be able to vote and to abort because it's their right both human and constitutional and we as men shouldn't have a say in anything related to women UNLESS they ask us and what our opinion and even then she still gets the final say and choice.
·Anonymous C — 1.6 year ago, 5 hours later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #650,318
PRÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖÖHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 16 hours later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #650,329
@650,305 (!GmgU93SCyE)
> Bottom line is you now Support Abortions when the democracy, of a state allows them.
No, having only two options doesn't mean you support any policies they both hold.
Trump and Biden both support bombing Palestine. Does that mean every American, including you, supports that too?
> You could have taken the high road and said you would not support anyone that support abortions.
Trump doesn't support abortions, he's done more to ban them than any president.
He uses a lot of contradictory rhetoric to win votes.
> I am of course amazed about the Arizona decision has riled up so many people. Arizona did not even allow women to vote nor were they even a state when that crazy law was passed.
That's irrelevant, the Arizona court didn't block women from voting or renounce their statehood.
It riled people up because it was a change in practice from their previous laws that allowed abortion.
> Bottom line is you now Support Abortions when the democracy, of a state allows them.
No, having only two options doesn't mean you support any policies they both hold.
Trump and Biden both support bombing Palestine. Does that mean every American, including you, supports that too?
> You could have taken the high road and said you would not support anyone that support abortions.
Trump doesn't support abortions, he's done more to ban them than any president.
He uses a lot of contradictory rhetoric to win votes.
> I am of course amazed about the Arizona decision has riled up so many people. Arizona did not even allow women to vote nor were they even a state when that crazy law was passed.
That's irrelevant, the Arizona court didn't block women from voting or renounce their statehood.
It riled people up because it was a change in practice from their previous laws that allowed abortion.
·Anonymous J — 1.6 year ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #650,330
@650,309 (G)
> Hell if anything WE as men shouldnt be talking this shit because we dont carry a small person.
So you wouldn't speak if you heard a woman killed her daughter, because you're a man and neither of them are?
Or you just selectively apply this rule to fit the leftist agenda?
You don't need to be in the same demographic as a murderer to know that murder is wrong.
> So I think in a span of 4-5 days. you failed to understand the point.
In the span of 4-5 days you keep changing the subject, ignoring the contradictions in your ideology, and go off on tangents about how we can't be against murder since we aren't women.
Exasperation isn't a replacement for a sound ethical argument.
> women should be able to vote and to abort because it's their right both human and constitutional
Murder isn't a right. The constitution doesn't grant women the right to murder.
> and we as men shouldn't have a say in anything related to women UNLESS they ask us and what our opinion and even then she still gets the final say and choice.
If you shrug off murder because you don't want to be called a sexist then you have no moral integrity.
> Hell if anything WE as men shouldnt be talking this shit because we dont carry a small person.
So you wouldn't speak if you heard a woman killed her daughter, because you're a man and neither of them are?
Or you just selectively apply this rule to fit the leftist agenda?
You don't need to be in the same demographic as a murderer to know that murder is wrong.
> So I think in a span of 4-5 days. you failed to understand the point.
In the span of 4-5 days you keep changing the subject, ignoring the contradictions in your ideology, and go off on tangents about how we can't be against murder since we aren't women.
Exasperation isn't a replacement for a sound ethical argument.
> women should be able to vote and to abort because it's their right both human and constitutional
Murder isn't a right. The constitution doesn't grant women the right to murder.
> and we as men shouldn't have a say in anything related to women UNLESS they ask us and what our opinion and even then she still gets the final say and choice.
If you shrug off murder because you don't want to be called a sexist then you have no moral integrity.
· !GmgU93SCyE — 1.6 year ago, 1 day later, 1 week after the original post[T] [B] #650,365
@previous (J)
When we got into this you said
"Democracy is a means to social compromise. It's a good system, but it doesn't always work.
Democracy was never meant to be a way to deduce logical truths."
NOW you agree with your leader Trump that Democracy is in fact the choice for Abortions right or wrong. Only of course because Trump fears a Criminal Conviction and Abortion as something people care about ballot wise is on the RISE.
You have been pulled into Trumps Web and you're voting for Abortions like it or not.
Also I think you have confused me with Anon G - I need to add my 2 cents into this in your reply to them where you say
"Trump and Biden both support bombing Palestine. Does that mean every American, including you, supports that too?"
Sure many may not support the bombing but 100% of them supports keeping their own neighbors from sending rockets into your and their homes by next door neighbors. IF your Neighbor kidnaps members of your family I am sure you would take swift action.
Anyway you call Abortions murder and now have conceited to democracy as the power to decide one way or the other. In the long run science/chemistry will provide pills that make it a simple and inexpensive solution for women.
I am pleased I live in a State with very liberal Abortion rules and pleased you support, so I now thank you.
When we got into this you said
"Democracy is a means to social compromise. It's a good system, but it doesn't always work.
Democracy was never meant to be a way to deduce logical truths."
NOW you agree with your leader Trump that Democracy is in fact the choice for Abortions right or wrong. Only of course because Trump fears a Criminal Conviction and Abortion as something people care about ballot wise is on the RISE.
You have been pulled into Trumps Web and you're voting for Abortions like it or not.
Also I think you have confused me with Anon G - I need to add my 2 cents into this in your reply to them where you say
"Trump and Biden both support bombing Palestine. Does that mean every American, including you, supports that too?"
Sure many may not support the bombing but 100% of them supports keeping their own neighbors from sending rockets into your and their homes by next door neighbors. IF your Neighbor kidnaps members of your family I am sure you would take swift action.
Anyway you call Abortions murder and now have conceited to democracy as the power to decide one way or the other. In the long run science/chemistry will provide pills that make it a simple and inexpensive solution for women.
I am pleased I live in a State with very liberal Abortion rules and pleased you support, so I now thank you.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.