Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Romney and Republicans Wrong On Abortion
Sunday, October 14, 2012 5:17 PM
DREAMTROVE
Quote: OK, DT, since you took great offense at my post, I'll direct this one at you. but don't expect it to be pleasant.
Quote:That can't just be chalked up to fickle female behavior
Quote:to the victims of Holocaust, men, women and children herded into cattle trains, starved, tortured, worked to death. You really are a piece of work.
Quote:YOU continually bring up forced abortions in this issue
Quote:SO whether you can get your head around women being sentient, there is choice involved.
Sunday, October 14, 2012 5:19 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Sunday, October 14, 2012 7:25 PM
CANTTAKESKY
Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE: I don't go on about superbugs.
Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:05 PM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:43 PM
Monday, October 15, 2012 2:46 AM
Monday, October 15, 2012 3:07 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: What strawmen?
Quote: He is also the same person that does not believe that certain chemicals don't break down in nature
Quote: and that people are trying to purposely contaminate all ground water.
Monday, October 15, 2012 4:45 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by canttakesky: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Your challenge didn't say "Show me where I said something in a non-sarcastic way, which I knew to be false, but presented the opposite to be true." I think the spirit of the challenge excludes obvious falsehoods like sarcasm. You don't really win any points by holding him to the letter of the challenge, at least not with onlookers like me.
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Your challenge didn't say "Show me where I said something in a non-sarcastic way, which I knew to be false, but presented the opposite to be true."
Monday, October 15, 2012 4:51 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Can a fetus vote ? Can a fetus get a driver's license ? Can a fetus buy alcohol ? No. Can a 7 year old do any of those things, legally ? No. Is a 7 yr old an "animal" any more or less than we ? Or a fetus ? As a former fetus, as we all are, I tend to side w/ the whole " they're human " definition.
Monday, October 15, 2012 4:58 AM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Thanks for agreeing with me - you don't have answers.
Monday, October 15, 2012 6:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE: that's the second time you've made this bizarre accusation. what the fuck are you on about?
Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:oh, and i was just part of a survey team that tallied opinions on this, it turns out 80% of the population agrees with me. Fracking is deliberate contamination of the groundwater. Yes, they're getting something out of it, but they know full well they're contaminating the ground water, and since two of the major companies involved, halliburton and bechtel, also have a billion dollar international business selling potable water, I doubt they see this contamination as just an undesired effect, they probably see it as a side benefit. In fact, crunch a few numbers you'll see that the water services they plan to provide to contaminated areas can actually pay the entire operation. Call that a conspiracy if you want, but there's not a lot of theory to it, it's all there in black and white.
Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:And yeah, i mentioned the force abortions in china because it was relevant at the time. I didn't go on about it, it's not the main reason I oppose abortion, I just had to show that it existed because someone said it didn't.
Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:My main objections are religious. First, Taoist, and second, jewish, because I'm also a jew. Abortion as a means of population control was decided at in a eugenics conference in 1937. It had been bandied about for a while as a means of culling target populations, but when planned parenthood Margaret Sanger and the head of its predecessor oraganization controlled parenthood Marie Stokes together with FDRs chief economist JM Keynes got together under the leadership of, and I am not making this up, German Chancellor Adolph Hitler, they decided to move forward with plan. The targets populations specifically were those deemed most a threat to the purity of the white race, being jews, slavs, irish and Mediterranean bloodlines. After the war this was expanded to include blacks and Asians. It's worth noting that not all evil comes from Nazi Germany, even when it does. The Nazis were much more concerned about minority white infections, but the americans on the panel were more concerned about non-whites, and were the ones to launch plans to cull the populations of asia and black america. (some plans to cull africa were launched under the WHO in '52, but others were blocked, and the result was no abortion for africa) The goal of the abortionists was to popularize abortion first, to escalate the number of operations performed from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand prior to making it legal, so there would be a need to legalize it. To the best of my knowledge the lifesaving abortion was always available and I'm sure it always will be. This is really about elective abortion, and the use of propaganda and proselytizing to promote the idea that killing your child is the best course of action. If al qaeda, instead of flying planes into buildings, decided to attack americans by releasing entertainment that included songs with lyrics glorifying suicide and movies in which people whose lives sucked got back at their tormenters by killing themselves, and then american suicide rates went up as a result, sure there would be sheeple who would pretend that it had never happened, that we hadn't been attacked. but the result would be the same, or worse.
Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:You just have to have a little imagination to see how this is a weapon of war.
Monday, October 15, 2012 6:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Here's the sequence...you ask, I answer, you don't like or understand answer, you demand new answer.
Monday, October 15, 2012 8:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Yes, I support drone strikes, no I don't support drone strikes, but keep in mind I support them, but no I don't support them...in other words, yes and no depending on the situation...just like all other forms of military action.
Monday, October 15, 2012 8:22 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SOCKPUPPET: DT, You are arguing with someone whose own prime directive is exterminate and ya think you can appeal to their kinder inner nature? He may have a sense of style but you sir have sprung a wire loose in your circuitry. And don't think for a second I'm going to way in on your pet issue here 'cause sure as hell I ain't, and you damn well know what I think of it, and don't need me weighing in here to remind ya, or do I? Didn't think so. Now surely you have better things to do than to waste your time debating a pointless wedge issue with Nickerbot. Now git, move along.
Monday, October 15, 2012 12:27 PM
Monday, October 15, 2012 2:16 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: Then see my argument further on where I had the time to outline it.
Monday, October 15, 2012 2:29 PM
Monday, October 15, 2012 2:48 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: I asked open ended questions to get your views. Your opinion was that 1) you didn't have any, and 2) there wasn't a definition. You COULD have expounded on due process, but failed to. Obviously it's not an important consideration. But even now you can’t settle on who gets due process. You say it's 'American citizens' when it comes to drone strikes. Then you say it's 'persons' when it comes to a fertilized egg, assuming for your argument that the fertilized egg is covered under a definition for 'person' - which you admit doesn't exist. Your argument is one of convenience, lacking logic and internal consistency, as well as congruency with the real world.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by DREAMTROVE: Nick I don't have beliefs in chemistry, I'm very well trained in the field. I took three years in the subject and I use it daily. I don't know whose sockpuppet you are, but you're just a dick.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:46 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: First of all your citizen/person distinction is moot because the Constituon applies to all persons, not just citizens. As for eggs, as I said the Constutuion says a citizen is a person who has been born or naturalized in the United States which suggests that status as a person comes prior to being naturalized...or born.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:22 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: ...and of course all of this is moot because the US Constitution allows abortions. That was the findings of the Supreme Court who holds the only opinion that matters on that subject.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: The Supreme Court has said that the State has an interest in preserving life that allows it to ban abortions. The same decision says a woman has a right to privacy in her own body and medical choices. Roe talks about those two interests and which one wins and awards a spit decision. If the fetus is viable, then the State wins, otherwise the woman wins. That is why in most states you can't get an abortion in the last trimester of a pregnancy. However...that is based on forty year old science. Science will continue to push back viability. This will in turn diminish the woman's window of rights. Should science push viability back to conception then Roe v. Wade can be used to bar abortions entirely. I would suggest that if science is the only limiting factor then it's wrong to allow the slaughter of children simply because we are not advanced enough scientifically to recognize the state's interest is supreme.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:42 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: First of all your citizen/person distinction is moot because the Constituon applies to all persons, not just citizens.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012 10:51 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: That's a load of crap. If you don't believe me, ask the child laborers in Myanmar. Or the detainees in Gitmo. I am assured that they are "persons" and that they are also not subject to any of the protections of the Constitution.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL