1 in 4 women have abortions? Wow.

Mutineer

Well-Known Member
Why is it that if a pregnant woman is murdered her killer is charged with two murders
"Charged" does not mean convicted.
And then there is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
I dunno. Maybe you should research how often people are actually convicted of that particular BOGO.
 

BrownFlush

Woke Racist Reigning Ban King
Cuz when a sperm bites an egg, that is conception. Which plenty of people could convincingly argue is the very beginning of a new life.
There is no argument that "a life" begins at conception but, it would be hard to argue that there is "not life" when you hear a heartbeat.
 

quad decade guy

Well-Known Member
We all make assessments of the people who are around us in our daily lives.

And if you endeavor to live a prosperous, peaceful life you will learn to identify and avoid those who qualify.
Ok.

You didn't answer the question...even vaguely.

See?

Your original statement has huge implications.....

Of which vague, nebulous generalities are of no value or definition for who gets to have children or not. Of which you were suggesting. Alluding to...
 

Mutineer

Well-Known Member
Ok.

You didn't answer the question...even vaguely.

See?

Your original statement has huge implications.....

Of which vague, nebulous generalities are of no value or definition for who gets to have children or not. Of which you were suggesting. Alluding to...
I am not in a position to decide who "gets to have children." So why are you asking me?

But if I was in that position, there'd be alot of women draped with yellow "Caution" tape, and their baby-cannons filled with concrete.

If this does not sufficiently answer your question, consult a Magic "8" Ball.
 

quad decade guy

Well-Known Member
Pro-abortion notions to consider:

I would argue that except in cases of rape or incest no mentally stable, honorable woman worth her lady-parts wants an abortion.

By forcing these deranged people to bring a child into this world, what does society gain?

If people are serious about ending legal abortion, then it needs to be argued and legislated that a human being's life begins at conception.

The world can do without the unwanted children of crazybitches, anyways.
Because you say stuff like this....^
I am not in a position to decide who "gets to have children." So why are you asking me?

But if I was in that position, there'd be alot of women draped with yellow "Caution" tape, and their baby-cannons filled with concrete.

If this does not sufficiently answer your question, consult a Magic "8" Ball.
So, who gets to decide?

I know some crazy religious people....

Ok.

You didn't answer the question...even vaguely.

See?

Your original statement has huge implications.....

Of which vague, nebulous generalities are of no value or definition for who gets to have children or not. Of which you were suggesting. Alluding to...
See above^

Wanna try again?
 

Whither

Scofflaw
Can you explain how communists are for liberty? This is not historical fact in any circumstance. Matter of fact...this statement you made is ....bizarre. Please explain a political system designed to take away every aspect of individualism(liberty) to be controlled by the Govt.?
First: communism is a highly-politicized word. People have used it to mean to many different, often deeply-opposed, things and that's still the case. Or, maybe it's more accurate to say, most communists have broad agreements re: the kind of world they want to live in (no exploited or coerced labor, no classes, no states) and very different ideas re: how to get there. The wikipedia entry on communism gives a brief overview on this subject.

Second: I have no interest in defending the 20th century 'communist' states. They were monstrous. A very simple way of getting at the problem: do the ends justify the means? As a rule of thumb, I highly doubt it. It doesn't seem likely that ruthless, inhuman means will magically yield merciful, human results; no, this seems like a way of rationalizing atrocities.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
First: communism is a highly-politicized word. People have used it to mean to many different, often deeply-opposed, things and that's still the case. Or, maybe it's more accurate to say, most communists have broad agreements re: the kind of world they want to live in (no exploited or coerced labor, no classes, no states) and very different ideas re: how to get there. The wikipedia entry on communism gives a brief overview on this subject.

Second: I have no interest in defending the 20th century 'communist' states. They were monstrous. A very simple way of getting at the problem: do the ends justify the means? As a rule of thumb, I highly doubt it. It doesn't seem likely that ruthless, inhuman means will magically yield merciful, human results; no, this seems like a way of rationalizing atrocities.
Sure thing cOmrAde.
1637607630330.png
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Same old shtick. 3/4s of your 'arguments' amount to childish name-calling.
I didn't call you a name, I posted a meme about commies.

And I wouldn't necessarily describe commies as childish. Just people who support an evil and disgusting ideology. Sure, some are evil and disgusting people. Most are just ignorant though.
 

Whither

Scofflaw
I didn't call you a name, I posted a meme about commies.

And I wouldn't necessarily describe commies as childish. Just people who support an evil and disgusting ideology. Sure, some are evil and disgusting people. Most are just ignorant though.
How would you describe the Teamster commies of 1934? Or all of the commies and anarchists who fought alongside their coworkers for things like the 8 hr day, higher wages, better working conditions, the ability form unions? Was that ignorant, or even evil and disgusting? Should they have been scabs and spoke up on behalf of corporations?
 

UnionStrong

Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
How would you describe the Teamster commies of 1934? Or all of the commies and anarchists who fought alongside their coworkers for things like the 8 hr day, higher wages, better working conditions, the ability form unions? Was that ignorant, or even evil and disgusting? Should they have been scabs and spoke up on behalf of corporations?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Marriage of convenience
 
Top