Numark3 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: And that is the ultimate result. Getting you or anyone to agree and admit: Anytime. Anywhere. Any reason. It sounds good until it's openly practiced. That said, I don't read you as a 34/Tibs/TH3/Coach Tuesday leftist. You seem a bit more balanced. It's the far left -- the part that has all the money -- that will explode when they find out women are aborting babies because they're gay. Yea that's what I figured and its interesting. It really does raise tough questions, and there is no doubt there are bad reasons. Especially as science gets more advanced and we can predict physical features of children (aborting babies until you get one with green eyes, etc.) *** I don't know why it riled up others, I was just switching back to minor disabilities compared to homosexuality because I think it proves your point better. Edited February 20, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Sugar and spice. It’s a serious question. You’ve stated you believe abortion is acceptable until birth. What are the magical properties of the birth canal? Edited February 20, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Yea, and I made your list earlier in that thread, can you respond if it satisfies you? As for here, I explained why I thought aborting people for minor disabilities is more interesting than aborting for sexual preference, what is it that you don't understand about that? No, your list did not satisfy me. Again, links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: It’s a serious question. You’ve stated you believe abortion is acceptable until birth. What are the magical properties of the birth canal? We give rights to babies once they enter this world through the magical canal. In other words, once it is born It seems like a pretty reasonable line to draw the line. Are you in favor of giving those rights beforehand? Should we let parents get a SSN for a baby not yet born? You can disagree, but I think being born is a good like to draw for a lot of things. 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: No, your list did not satisfy me. Again, links? Honestly man, if you ask someone to take the time to make you a list, you can take three seconds to copy and paste a name into google to get what you are looking for. Big shocker you asked someone to make a list, they did, and you have some stupid reason to not engage with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 Just now, Crayola64 said: We give rights to babies once they enter this world through the magical canal. In other words, once it is born It seems like a pretty reasonable line to draw the line. Are you in favor of giving those rights beforehand? Should we let parents get a SSN for a baby not yet born? You can disagree, but I think being born is a good like to draw for a lot of things. Your position isn’t logical. First of all, you don’t “give rights” to someone. Rights are an intrinsic and inalienable part of humanity. You can, of course, choose not to protect someone’s rights; but that’s the hallmark of oppressive tyrannies. Secondly, the “assigning of a social security number” is a horrible annalogy for multiple reasons. The notion is that humans have the right to life, and a just government has the duty to protect that right with legislation. Life clearly does not begin where the ***** ends, as there are no magical life confiring properties there. As such, with that admission, the only logical and just position can be one of viable life. Else you’re making the argument of monsters holding a total disregard for the value of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Your position isn’t logical. First of all, you don’t “give rights” to someone. Rights are an intrinsic and inalienable part of humanity. You can, of course, choose not to protect someone’s rights; but that’s the hallmark of oppressive tyrannies. Secondly, the “assigning of a social security number” is a horrible annalogy for multiple reasons. The notion is that humans have the right to life, and a just government has the duty to protect that right with legislation. Life clearly does not begin where the ***** ends, as there are no magical life confiring properties there. As such, with that admission, the only logical and just position can be one of viable life. Else you’re making the argument of monsters holding a total disregard for the value of life. I didn't say life begins when they come out the birth canal. I said it is a very clear black/white line to draw proscribing rights to someone. And legal rights are absolutely given to someone. I am not making a chart comparing the rights someone has before and after being born, that shouldn't be disputed... Like I said, you can disagree with me, but I think it is a reasonable place to draw the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 24 minutes ago, TH3 said: So I am guessing you offer up your home and your resources to afford children who are adopted because their parents are not financially capable of raising them - or you are even better than that and help adoptable kids who are severely disabled - a life beyond what their parents can offer.... Did I see you in the hospice ward helping a mom out who just gave birth to a child who will only live for hours - or help a mom out who gave birth to a still born child... Or are you just on here complaining that people should do what you believe is correct? You've taken the discussion from "late-term abortions are okay because that's not what I signed up for" to "giving birth to child who will only live for hours. You couldn't be more disengenuous if you had Tib's password. First of all, as to the point you're making by moving goal posts (again), I know more than a few women who have given birth to a child who was not going to survive outside the womb, and they are always surrounded by family and church followship in ways you couldn't possibly comprehend due to your lack of original thinking. They're there to help mourn, arrange for the funeral, and provide meals to the family for a couple of weeks to help them through their loss. I've been directly involved often, so piss off for thinking so lazily. Second, and back to the discussion before you shifted it, thinking people can ask a very simple question: Is there any way a woman could avoid getting pregnant with a baby they don't want? Gee...can someone help me out here? Any ideas? Oh, dear, if only women had ways to avoid getting pregnant. And if only those options were free! My oh my, I guess a person can dream. But no. To a predictable leftist like yourself, there are only two choices: abort everything or give birth to a child that won't survive outside the womb for more than two hours. That's how ridiculous you sound., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Crayola64 said: I didn't say life begins when they come out the birth canal. I said it is a very clear black/white line to draw proscribing rights to someone. And legal rights are absolutely given to someone. I am not making a chart comparing the rights someone has before and after being born, that shouldn't be disputed... Like I said, you can disagree with me, but I think it is a reasonable place to draw the line. You're 100% wrong here, and are conflating legality with philosophical and moral constructs. Our entire system of government is predicated on the notion that humans have the intrinsic right to life (amongst other things) and that the ends of just and legitimate government are to protect that right with legislation; and further, that governments which do not do those things are unjust and illegitimate. Our Foundational documents concede that rights do not come from government, but rather are intrinsic to an individuals humanity. Again, our government does not endow individuals with rights. It acknowledges the inalienable rights of individuals, and legitimizes itself with a pledge to protect them. You "line" is arbitrary, as it assigns protections on the "right to life" not when life begins, but rather when it's convenient for individual mothers, and inherently flawed in that it intends a usurpation of government authority over the individual, insisting that rights flow from it's benevolent hand. Finally, your suggestion that charting what rights someone has before and after birth shouldn't be disputed is absurd, monstrous, and an outright rejection of science. Humans have rights when they become human, which is when we admit that they are alive. Edited February 20, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 Kerfuffle over CNN’s hiring of Sarah Isgur exposes why the MSM needs more conservatives. Media Are Still Trying To Pretend Planned Parenthood Didn’t Sell Baby Body Parts When CNN recently hired Sarah Isgur, Jeff Sessions’ former spokeswoman, to be a political editor at its Washington bureau, the predictable backlash from left-dominated media types and activists followed. Even the allegedly unbiased CNN newsroom was reportedly “demoralized” at the mere thought of a Republican on staff. No word on how former Obama official, now CNN’s chief national security correspondent and co-anchor of “CNN Newsroom,” Jim Sciutto, felt about the development. Isgur was accused of holding various right-of-center positions. And when a former political activist-turned-Vox writer claimed that Isgur “pushed Planned Parenthood conspiracy theories that were grounded in misleadingly edited videos,” the talking point quickly gained popularity with Isgur’ detractors. The alleged proof of this conspiracy theorizing resides in a single retweet of a Federalist piece written by my colleague Mollie Hemingway, praising Isgur’s former boss Carly Fiorina for highlighting a series of undercover videos released in 2015, clearly catching Planned Parenthood executives and doctors admitting to illegally profiting from the sale of the fetal tissue of aborted babies. The only conspiracy theory attached to the incident was spread by pro-abortion activists and Planned Parenthood apologists, which included CNN’s news division and other major media outlets, who either ignored the shocking videos or falsely and repeatedly claimed that videos of executives breezily discussing the harvesting and illegal selling of baby parts had been “heavily” and “deceptively” edited. The fact was that Center for Medical Progress had edited the footage in the same manner news organizations always edit footage: they highlight the newsworthy parts of conversations. Unlike most of their media detractors, though, the Center for Medical Progress posted the entire raw footage of the tapes for anyone to watch. Now, it’s bad enough that Democrats defaulted to their post-Trump posture of pretending inconvenient truths simply didn’t exist. But in 2017, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra decided to take it a step further, and use his power to intercede on behalf of Planned Parenthood–a multiple-time contributor to his campaign—by attacking free expression for political reasons. Becerra signed an arrest warrant and filed 15 felony charges against David Daleiden, the founder of Center for Medical Progress, in an effort to shut down what was, by any definition, a worthy investigative effort. As far as I can tell, not a single self-styled firefighting, truth-telling, democracy-saving, mainstream journalist—folks who have never in their professional careers had to worry about retribution from the state for exposing wrongdoing—stood up to defend Daleiden. None of the people who are “demoralized” by the sight of a Republican in their organization or horrified by a “Fake News” T-shirt asked what sort of precedent was being set when a partisan attorney general transparently attacked free speech. MORE at the LINK: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 14 minutes ago, B-Man said: Kerfuffle over CNN’s hiring of Sarah Isgur exposes why the MSM needs more conservatives. Media Are Still Trying To Pretend Planned Parenthood Didn’t Sell Baby Body Parts I really love how the media tries to whitewash their own stupidity. PP dices up babies and sells their body parts. It's been proven, and there would be more proof if Planned Parenthood didn't pay then CA Attorney General Kamala Harris millions of dollars to raid the Daleiden house to confiscate the rest of the videos. You'd think a group of people who cheer for abortion would have no problem admitting just how much they love to dice up babies for profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 15 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: You'd think a group of people who cheer for abortion would have no problem admitting just how much they love to dice up babies for profit. because they know what an evil ***** thing this is to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 6 hours ago, row_33 said: because they know what an evil ***** thing this is to do University of Massachusetts poll of NH Democrat voters. All four candidates support abortion up to birth: Biden 28% Sanders 20% Harris 14% Warren 9% 5:20 PM - 20 Feb 2019 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBLESS Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 9 hours ago, Crayola64 said: If you are talking about a law that allows someone to get an abortion for any reason, at any stage, then I believe the main talking point stays the same regardless of the reason: I may disagree with the reason, but I believe in the right to get an abortion at any stage for any reason. I honestly don't think it changes things that much. My only point, that seems to be lost on a few, was instead of fast forwarding to a hypothetical where there is a gay gene, why not stick to the minor disabilities that we can actually detect. I think its just as interesting, more relevant, and it doesn't mix views on abortion and homosexuality (i just don't think its interesting, but I get your point). Or in other words, how would aborting someone with down's syndrome sit with the left is an interesting point. But my position on this is I don't care about the reason for getting an abortion, its irrelevant to me. No reason or a bad reason, I am okay with abortions. Glad your mother didn't feel that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 1 minute ago, PBLESS said: Glad your mother didn't feel that way. Not everybody here would agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 I know who’s behind this whole foul plot....the goddamn Dutch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I know who’s behind this whole foul plot....the goddamn Dutch. neuken je Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 28 minutes ago, The_Dude said: I know who’s behind this whole foul plot....the goddamn Dutch. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 One pound at birth, born premature...............a real fighter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 11 hours ago, The_Dude said: I know who’s behind this whole foul plot....the goddamn Dutch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 10 hours ago, /dev/null said: I bought it the day it came out and I've played like 30 minutes....I need some quality time with the sticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts