International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Warp12 3rd July 2022 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 13847595)
I'm not playing games. I'm willing to call a viable fetus a person, but at six weeks? No. And I don't think you are saying that either.


But to say that it isn't a developing human would be a lie. All of the "virus" and "parasite" talk is just an attempt to distract from that fact.

These are the sort of things you can say on the internet, but if you say them IRL you are very likely to get some strange looks.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847596)
But to say that it isn't a developing human would be a lie. All of the "virus" and "parasite" talk is just an attempt to distract from that fact.

These are the sort of things you can say on the internet, but if you say them IRL you are very likely to get some strange looks.

Quote anyone saying "it isn't a developing human". You can't because no one has. We have said it isn't a 'person'. Let's play "Spot the difference".

YOU are the one attempting to distract with the 'parasite and virus' talk by misrepresenting what was said. Still.

Leumas 3rd July 2022 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847596)
All of the "virus" and "parasite" talk is just an attempt to distract from that fact.

Exactly... that is what you are doing.... I asked you a few questions and as usual you never answer ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13847534)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)
Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.

Why???

Also... do you think the government should make it illegal for you to refuse to give blood or to refuse to be an organ donor???

Consider this... if a man has a daughter and she just had double renal failure and as a result her lungs are irrevocably diseased.

Do you think that the government should pass a law to make it illegal for the father (who is fully compatible blood and genetically) to refuse giving half a lung and one kidney to his daughter???


Besides....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847596)
But to say that it isn't a developing human would be a lie.


A swab from the inside of my cheek is also a potential human too... and a developing human is not a human... just as an egg is not a chicken and an almond nut is not an almond tree.

You really need to get yourself a biology book and start learning stuff about what a fetus is and what a parasite is.... maybe that would at least let you realize that that "all your piffle about parasite is just an attempt to distract from the fact"...

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13847607)
Exactly... that is what you are doing.... I asked you a few questions and as usual you never answer ....




Besides....




A swab from the inside of my cheek is also a potential human too... and a developing human is not a human... just as an egg is not a chicken and an almond nut is not an almond tree.

You really need to get yourself a biology book and start learning stuff about what a fetus is and what a parasite is.... maybe that would at least let you realize that that "all your piffle about parasite is just an attempt to distract from the fact"...

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

arayder 3rd July 2022 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 13847525)
I would not call this a fake story. The story under discussion in this thread, however, offers no such detail.

But you called the Indy Star story a fake.

I suspect you have confused detail with truthfulness, Dumb All Over.

What matters is whether the Indy Star story is true, not whether it includes the exhaustive detail one might expect in a three part documentary.

We still await any evidence that the Indy Star story is "fake".

Edited by zooterkin:  Edited to give another member's full name.

Do not change another member's name for purposes of ridicule, nor when they have specifically asked you not to.

Minoosh 3rd July 2022 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847596)
But to say that it isn't a developing human would be a lie. All of the "virus" and "parasite" talk is just an attempt to distract from that fact.

These are the sort of things you can say on the internet, but if you say them IRL you are very likely to get some strange looks.

I'm fine with calling it a developing human life. But then, the "parasite" terminology doesn't bother me either. I see it as fairly neutral.

Interrupting that development under certain circumstances - and not only when a woman's life is threatened - was broadly acceptable for eons. I'm OK with that. I'm not OK with third trimester abortions for no reason, but states already had the ability to regulate that. They are vanishingly rare occurrences. At 6 months, I would consider saving the woman's life to be a valid reason. I also don't want to force a woman to birth a baby without a brain. The risk to the mother in that situation is not negligible.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arayder (Post 13847609)
But you called the Indy Star story a fake.

I suspect you have confused detail with truthfulness, DOA.

What matters is whether the Indy Star story is true, not whether it includes the exhaustive detail one might expect in a three part documentary.

We still await any evidence that the Indy Star story is "fake".

You're a 'the glass is half full" kind of person, aren't ya?

Warp12 3rd July 2022 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13847607)
I asked you a few questions and as usual you never answer .....


You are correct. I am generally not engaging you in debate.

Leumas 3rd July 2022 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847613)
You are correct. I am generally not engaging you in debate.


No ... because you cannot answer those questions and still maintain your indefensible illogical unscientific unconstitutional war against women's human rights

shemp 3rd July 2022 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13847354)
Technically/scientifically a fetus is a parasite.

Just like many members here.

Warp12 3rd July 2022 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13847622)
No ... because you cannot answer those questions and still maintain your indefensible illogical unscientific unconstitutional war against women's human rights


I am not interested in your rather agitated debate style, I'm afraid. I'm sure some others will be more than happy to entertain such shenanigans, however. :)

TheGoldcountry 3rd July 2022 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847538)
I love this, tbh. The more the merrier, I say. The true nature of "pro-choice" is to start by dehumanizing the fetus. Once you do that, I imagine the rest is very easy. :)

Anyone else want to jump on the "unborn humans are parasites" bandwagon? I think we are up to 3 or 4, with an honorable mention for one comparing a fetus to a virus.

You know, the more you act all holier than thou with people, the harder I laugh.

What a ******* sideshow.

Leumas 3rd July 2022 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847633)
I am not interested in your rather agitated debate style, I'm afraid. I'm sure some others will be more than happy to entertain such shenanigans, however. :)

Yup... you will never dare ever to answer those questions ... and your ad hominems are not a valid ruse to obfuscate from the fact that you will never dare answer those questions because they demonstrate the moral and legal bankruptcy of the anti-human-rights position of the anti-women's bodily autonomy fundamentalists.

TragicMonkey 3rd July 2022 09:45 PM

In retrospect, this thread should have been aborted a couple of hundred posts ago. I guess it's too late now.

Stacyhs 3rd July 2022 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 13847660)
In retrospect, this thread should have been aborted a couple of hundred posts ago. I guess it's too late now.

It lasted 6 weeks and one day. Too late.

Bob001 4th July 2022 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847676)
It lasted 6 weeks and one day. Too late.

Maybe somebody could drive it to California or New York.

Leumas 4th July 2022 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847676)
It lasted 6 weeks and one day. Too late.

:big:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13847701)
Maybe somebody could drive it to California or New York.

:big:

mikegriffith1 4th July 2022 04:07 AM

It's curious that the same people who preach to everyone about standing up for the defenseless, helping the needy, caring for the weak, etc., toss aside those principles when it comes to protecting for the most innocent and the most defenseless among us: unborn children.

There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about allowing a woman to kill her own baby merely for her own convenience. Fewer than 5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, endangerment, or fatal deformity. The vast majority of abortions, at least 95%, are elective.

Olmstead 4th July 2022 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13847806)
It's curious that the same people who preach to everyone about standing up for the defenseless, helping the needy, caring for the weak, etc., toss aside those principles when it comes to protecting for the most innocent and the most defenseless among us: unborn children.

There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about allowing a woman to kill her own baby merely for her own convenience. Fewer than 5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, endangerment, or fatal deformity. The vast majority of abortions, at least 95%, are elective.

It's far more curious that those who defend a clump of cells which might grow into a sentient creature at some point in the future will toss aside those principles when it comes to actual sentient creatures. Come back when the Christian party starts caring about the poor; rich men and camels and all that. I won't share their believes, but at least I will respect them.

Lukraak_Sisser 4th July 2022 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13847806)
It's curious that the same people who preach to everyone about standing up for the defenseless, helping the needy, caring for the weak, etc., toss aside those principles when it comes to protecting for the most innocent and the most defenseless among us: unborn children.

There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about allowing a woman to kill her own baby merely for her own convenience. Fewer than 5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, endangerment, or fatal deformity. The vast majority of abortions, at least 95%, are elective.

So, you are one of the ones campaigning for comprehensive, state mandated sexual education in all schools (even home schooling), a tax funded healthcare system with free access to birth control (including the morning after pill) and a social security system that allows young mothers the ability to care for their children including access to schools without having to work?

Or are you one of all the others who only cares about children from the moment of ejaculation to the moment of birth?

Warp12 4th July 2022 05:05 AM

The more I wade through the liberal tears being shed over this scotus action, the more I smile.

It's not that Roe was bad...it's that obviously a lot of very vocal pro-choice advocates have some pretty questionable views about the value of human life. It is as though they would have never been satisfied with anything besides completely unrestricted medical abortions. After all, in their view these aren't developing humans we are talking about...they are just parasites. And anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy of science, to them.

So, in choosing the lesser of two evils, I now fully stand with the scotus on this matter.

Lukraak_Sisser 4th July 2022 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
Then more I wade through the liberal tears being shed over this scotus action, the more I smile.

It' not that Roe was bad...it's that obviously a lot of very vocal pro-choice advocates have some pretty questionable views about the value of human life. It is as though they would have never been satisfied with anything besides completely unrestricted medical abortions. After all, in their view these aren't developing humans we are talking about...they are just parasites. And anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy of science, to them.

So, in choosing the lesser of two evils, I now fully stand with the scotus on this matter.

Yes, every step in the direction of a theocracy is right in your eyes, provided it gets 'liberal tears'. I hope you go to the right church the right amount of times.

Olmstead 4th July 2022 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
Then more I wade through the liberal tears being shed over this scotus action, the more I smile.

It's not that Roe was bad...it's that obviously a lot of very vocal pro-choice advocates have some pretty questionable views about the value of human life. It is as though they would have never been satisfied with anything besides completely unrestricted medical abortions. After all, in their view these aren't developing humans we are talking about...they are just parasites. And anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy of science, to them.

So, in choosing the lesser of two evils, I now fully stand with the scotus on this matter.

You're free to provide relevant scientific findings on brain activity.

cosmicaug 4th July 2022 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13847676)
It lasted 6 weeks and one day. Too late.

I don't see anyone giving out the social security number for this thread. How can you expect me to believe that it happened?

cosmicaug 4th July 2022 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
So, in choosing the lesser of two evils, I now fully stand with the scotus on this matter.

I'm glad to see that you turned around to... honesty?

TheGoldcountry 4th July 2022 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
The more I wade through the liberal tears being shed over this scotus action, the more I smile.

It's not that Roe was bad...it's that obviously a lot of very vocal pro-choice advocates have some pretty questionable views about the value of human life. It is as though they would have never been satisfied with anything besides completely unrestricted medical abortions. After all, in their view these aren't developing humans we are talking about...they are just parasites. And anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy of science, to them.

So, in choosing the lesser of two evils, I now fully stand with the scotus on this matter.

Your opinion on the values of others is about as valuable as what I left in the toilet this morning.

Everyone here as read the vile garbage you've written on this forum. Your hypocritical BS isn't fooling anyone.

Upchurch 4th July 2022 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847844)
The more I wade through the liberal tears being shed over this scotus action, the more I smile.

It's not that Roe was bad...it's that obviously a lot of very vocal pro-choice advocates have some pretty questionable views about the value of human life. It is as though they would have never been satisfied with anything besides completely unrestricted medical abortions. After all, in their view these aren't developing humans we are talking about...they are just parasites. And anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy of science, to them.

So, in choosing the lesser of two evils, I now fully stand with the scotus on this matter.

With cheering the loss of bodily autonomy in favor of valuing human life, will you be willingly accepting forced blood and organ donation when it inevitably arises?

shemp 4th July 2022 08:23 AM

Noem Squirms When Pressed On Story About 10-Year-Old Forced To Travel For Abortion

Quote:

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) on Sunday struggled to defend her state’s abortion ban, which only excludes cases where the pregnant’s person’s life is at risk, when asked about a news story about a child who is traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion.

Shortly after Roe v. Wade was overturned late last month, South Dakota passed a law that bans abortions except in cases when it is necessary to save a mother’s life. It does not allow abortion in cases involving incest or rape. The state’s law also makes it a felony to perform an abortion.

During an interview on CNN, Noem was pressed on a report in the Indianapolis Star that detailed a call that an Indianapolis-based obstetrician-gynecologist received from a doctor who works with victims of child abuse in Ohio, a state that outlawed any abortion after six weeks just hours after Roe was overturned late last month. The doctor in Ohio had a 10-year-old patient who was six weeks pregnant. The child was reportedly on her way to receive care from the Indianapolis-based doctor soon after the call. Abortion is legal in Indiana for now, but the state may soon impose similar restrictions.

Asked whether South Dakota would go forward in forcing a 10-year-old in the same situation to give birth, Noem said she finds the child’s scenario to be a “tragic story” without answering the question.

“What’s incredible is that nobody’s talking about the pervert, horrible and deranged individual that raped a 10-year-old. And what is it? What are we doing about that? What are we doing about those individuals that do this to these children?” Noem said.

CNN anchor Dana Bash interjected as Noem continued to dodge the question. Bash stressed that the 10-year-old who crossed state lines to obtain an abortion is a girl, not a woman, before asking Noem about whether a child should give birth to a child.

Noem once again deflected.

“And every single life — every single life is precious,” Noem said. “This tragedy is horrific. I can’t even imagine. I have never had anybody in my family or myself gone through anything like this. I can’t even imagine. But, in South Dakota, the law today is that the abortions are illegal, except to save the life of the mother.”

Pressed again on the details of the Indianapolis Star story, Noem claimed that she is never okay with that and that the story will “keep me up at night.”

Bash then asked Noem if she would be willing to support a change to state law on abortion to make an exception for a child who becomes pregnant as a result of abuse.

Noem continued to pivot away from the question, saying that the situation “breaks my heart” as a mother and grandmother.

“Got a 1-year-old little granddaughter named Ms. Addie. I can’t even imagine,” Noem said. “What I would say is, I don’t believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy. And so there’s more that we have got to do to make sure that we really are living a life that says every life is precious, especially innocent lives that have been shattered, like that 10-year-old girl.”

Asked whether she considers the case of the pregnant 10-year-old to be a situation where the mother’s life is at risk, Noem avoided answering the question by saying that situation is one where the doctors and loved ones would have to make decisions for that family.

“That’s what’s interesting about the time we live in right now, is every state will have different laws on the books,” Noem said. “The decisions will be made by the legislators that are closest to the people. That’s appropriate. It’s the way our Constitution intended.”

Noem’s latest remarks come a week after she refused to engage on the life-threatening consequences that the overturn of Roe poses during an interview on ABC News.

After promoting a website in her state that supposedly offers financial support to people during their pregnancy, Noem complained about what she called “sensational pundit commentary” on the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Asked about the prospect of her constituents traveling to another state to obtain an abortion, Noem replied that the situation is not currently addressed in her state’s statute.

“And so I think that’s things that there will be debates about. But also we’re having lots of debates in South Dakota,” Noem said, before pivoting to complaining about the Biden administration and inflation.

You can watch the interview here:

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1543591991220572160

3 minutes of waffling and ********.

Also, to those who are about to reply to this with their 50th post insisting "it never happened!", for the purposes of this interview, it doesn't ******* matter! What matters is that Gov. Noem is asked point-blank what she and her state would do if such a case happened in South Dakota under present laws, and this piece of **** couldn't give a straight answer and rambled on with her talking points! And, of course, if this did happen in South Dakota, a large majority of the people there would be fine with forcing this girl to go through with her pregnancy.

The Great Zaganza 4th July 2022 08:27 AM

With the SCOTUS decision, I assume that all deportation or arrest of pregnant women will stop, right?

slyjoe 4th July 2022 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13847968)
Noem Squirms When Pressed On Story About 10-Year-Old Forced To Travel For Abortion



You can watch the interview here:

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1543591991220572160

3 minutes of waffling and ********.

Also, to those who are about to reply to this with their 50th post insisting "it never happened!", for the purposes of this interview, it doesn't ******* matter! What matters is that Gov. Noem is asked point-blank what she and her state would do if such a case happened in South Dakota under present laws, and this piece of **** couldn't give a straight answer and rambled on with her talking points! And, of course, if this did happen in South Dakota, a large majority of the people there would be fine with forcing this girl to go through with her pregnancy.

They should have asked Noem if she plans to get rid of the death penalty in South Dakota. You know, since she values life.

W.D.Clinger 4th July 2022 08:30 AM

Warp12, "King of Kings", wrote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847633)
I am not interested in your rather agitated debate style, I'm afraid.

Made me laugh.

I wasn't alone.
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry (Post 13847653)
You know, the more you act all holier than thou with people, the harder I laugh.


But the questions that were asked are worthy of thought and serious discussion, which may be easier now that Warp12 has declared his lack of interest in thought and serious discussion of them:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13847534)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13847180)
Well, I don't think women should have to carry incest babies to term.


Why???

Also... do you think the government should make it illegal for you to refuse to give blood or to refuse to be an organ donor???

Consider this... if a man has a daughter and she just had double renal failure and as a result her lungs are irrevocably diseased.

Do you think that the government should pass a law to make it illegal for the father (who is fully compatible blood and genetically) to refuse giving half a lung and one kidney to his daughter???


TheGoldcountry 4th July 2022 08:31 AM

Asked whether she considers the case of the pregnant 10-year-old to be a situation where the mother’s life is at risk, Noem avoided answering the question by saying that situation is one where the doctors and loved ones would have to make decisions for that family.

“That’s what’s interesting about the time we live in right now, is every state will have different laws on the books,” Noem said. “The decisions will be made by the legislators that are closest to the people. That’s appropriate. It’s the way our Constitution intended.”

So which is it? Doctors, loved ones, or legislators? (or, heaven forbid, pregnant women and girls)

Also, the Constitution doesn't "intend" anything, it's a piece of paper. I think you meant the founding fathers you worship so much.

Segnosaur 4th July 2022 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13845621)
Quote:

St. Lukeís Health Kansas City said in a statement Wednesday that it would resume offering the medication known as the morning after pill, a day after it told The Kansas City Star that its Missouri hospitals would halt emergency contraception.

It did so after the state's attorney general issued a statement stating unequivicolly that emergency contraception is not illegal under an abortion ban

Quote:

Secondly... why should anyone trust the Attorney general? He's a Republican... a member of the party that has decided that women cannot control their own bodies. It certainly would not be out of character for them to change their opinion in the near future if the members of Y'all Quaeda raise a big-enough fuss.
Because he's the attorney general.

Is there something magical about being attorney general that makes him infallible and/or incapable of changing his mind?
Quote:

And by making this public statement, he has committed his office to that position. He cannot prosecute people for doing what he said was OK.
All he would have to do is issue a statement: "Upon further review of the law and consultations with anti-abortionists (none of whom were women or doctors), we have determined that yes indeed the law prohibits emergency contraception. All 13 year old rape victims must now be denied emergency contraception, and carry their children to term, as the god-inspired law indicates."

Segnosaur 4th July 2022 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry (Post 13847978)
Asked whether she considers the case of the pregnant 10-year-old to be a situation where the motherís life is at risk, Noem avoided answering the question by saying that situation is one where the doctors and loved ones would have to make decisions for that family.

There does seem to be a general trend of republican politicians trying to avoid the issue of pregnant pre-teen rape victims. I wonder why that is?

Its not like this is some unexpected side-effect. Pro-choice people have been pointing to this problem for a long time. Hopefully any time a republican politician gets interviewed, they get asked is "About those underage rape victims that abortion bans affect... why aren't you doing anything about that?" It should be the first question they get asked. And the last question. And sprinkle the question in the middle of the interview as well.
Quote:

ďThatís whatís interesting about the time we live in right now, is every state will have different laws on the books,Ē Noem said. ďThe decisions will be made by the legislators that are closest to the people. Thatís appropriate. Itís the way our Constitution intended.Ē
Technically, aren't the "legislators" (to use a broad definition of the term) that are closest to the people those who act as mayor and/or city counsellors? What is it about being a state-level legislator that makes them somehow better decision makers than those at the federal or municipal level? (or even, god forbit, the individual themselves)

Warp12 4th July 2022 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13848002)
There does seem to be a general trend of republican politicians trying to avoid the issue of pregnant pre-teen rape victims. I wonder why that is?


It seems like an easy out to just chalk the rape up to "God's will", and call it a day. I guess the optics aren't too good on that, though. I mean, at this point, like I say...why should they even care? If they allow abortion for rape and incest, then the liberals take them to task for their limited scope.

That is the beauty of the scotus ruling, in one sense. It really puts the activists in their place. Their "demands" just got a massive downgrade, I'd say. Probably kind of humbling if you were already out bitching and moaning about the status of things before the ruling came down. It seems that it was overdue to hit that reset button.

bruto 4th July 2022 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848006)
It seems like an easy out to just chalk the rape up to "God's will", and call it a day. I guess the optics aren't too good on that, though. I mean, at this point, like I say...why should they even care? If they allow abortion for rape and incest, then the liberals take them to task for their limited scope.

That is the beauty of the scotus ruling, in one sense. It really puts the activists in their place. Their "demands" just got a massive downgrade, I'd say. Probably kind of humbling if you were already out bitching and moaning about the status of things before the ruling came down. It seems that it was overdue to hit that reset button.

Is it just the optics that bothers you now? It really seems that you do not care even a little about what is right and wrong on any local issue as long as your overall goal of crushing liberalism is served.

TheGoldcountry 4th July 2022 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13848006)
That is the beauty of the scotus ruling, in one sense. It really puts the activists in their place. Their "demands" just got a massive downgrade, I'd say. Probably kind of humbling if you were already out bitching and moaning about the status of things before the ruling came down. It seems that it was overdue to hit that reset button.

Yeah, those uppity women demanding <gasp> rights over their own body. Kind of like hitting them with the metaphorical waterhoses like the good ol' days, huh Warp?

Rule of thumb when it comes to rights: meek and humble doesn't usually win any prizes. Legislators rarely hand out awards for people acting like good boys and girls and being quiet. You DO have to demand it sometimes, sorry if you think that's "bitching and moaning."

TheGoldcountry 4th July 2022 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13848047)
Is it just the optics that bothers you now? It really seems that you do not care even a little about what is right and wrong on any local issue as long as your overall goal of crushing liberalism is served.

Wait for the inevitable "that's not what I said, why do you meanies never understand me????"

It's a moldy oldie.

arayder 4th July 2022 10:47 AM

The revenge politics are getting a little thick.

I'd like to think that folks have the sense to realize that the common good might from time to time necessitate embracing parts of the action plan of the other side of the political spectrum.

The idea that it's good politics to ignore and dismiss the problems of un-wanted pregnancies due to rape and incest because doing so bugs pro-choice advocates is, IMHO, the worst kind of partisanship.

Stacyhs 4th July 2022 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13847806)
It's curious that the same people who preach to everyone about standing up for the defenseless, helping the needy, caring for the weak, etc., toss aside those principles when it comes to protecting for the most innocent and the most defenseless among us: unborn children.

There is nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about allowing a woman to kill her own baby merely for her own convenience. Fewer than 5% of all abortions are done for reasons of rape, incest, endangerment, or fatal deformity. The vast majority of abortions, at least 95%, are elective.

Classic virtue signaling. Do you consider an egg a chicken? An acorn a tree? A seed a flower? Batter a cake? Is a bunch of grapes wine? Is a ball of yarn a sweater?

I suppose when a woman miscarries, she must report the 'death of her baby' to authorities so they can issue a death certificate for it?

THESE are not a 'baby':


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...342bc49d54.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...34464d8bb6.jpg


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.