# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Abortion and women's rights

## Dos Equis

Abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right over her own body.  If it was, prostitution would be legal.

----------

East of the Beast (07-05-2014),Jim Scott (07-02-2014),Matt (07-03-2014)

----------


## Matt

I have a great image for this...

----------

countryboy (07-03-2014),Sled Dog (07-06-2014)

----------


## Taylor

ok so then make prostitution legal

----------

BleedingHeadKen (07-03-2014),Karl (07-04-2014)

----------


## patrickt

It's a woman's right to be supported, and to have her baby supported, by someone else.

----------


## Dos Equis

> ok so then make prostitution legal


Funny how the left cares next to nothing about making prostitution legal, but makes abortion a litmus test for becoming a Supreme Court Justice.

Why do you think this is Tay?

----------


## Taylor

> Funny how the left cares next to nothing about making prostitution legal, but makes abortion a litmus test for becoming a Supreme Court Justice.
> 
> Why do you think this is Tay?


I don't know, don't care, I'm fine with both being legal. The more personal freedom for people the better.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (07-03-2014)

----------


## Matt

> I don't know, don't care, I'm fine with both being legal. The more personal freedom for people the better.


Theres nothing freedom related when it comes to murder.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-03-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> Theres nothing freedom related when it comes to murder.


Thats true, but its not murder, so says the law. I think things like abortion should be looked at in a pragmatic way. Laws shouldn't be decided based on emotion or religion. Every situation is different and the resolution of that situation should be up to the individual, not some random person that has nothing to do with it.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

There is no end to how people will justify killing an unborn human baby.

----------

Matt (07-03-2014)

----------


## countryboy

Liberal definition of "pragmatic", do as we say, and like it.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-03-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Abortion has nothing to do with a woman's right over her own body.  If it was, prostitution would be legal.


Or, it could be that the government does not recognize your right to control you body under certain circumstances. If it did, prostitution would be legal.

----------


## Matt

> Thats true, but its not murder, so says the law. I think things like abortion should be looked at in a pragmatic way. Laws shouldn't be decided based on emotion or religion. Every situation is different and the resolution of that situation should be up to the individual, not some random person that has nothing to do with it.


...and the law is always correct....right? RIGHT???!???

Uh oh. It's not always right now is it?

I think abortion should be looked at in a blunt way...

It's an uncivilized and barbaric form of genocide aimed at our own species. A crime against humanity.

You know what's a funny comparison?

Remember how Hitler killed all the Jews and the German citizens stood by and let it happen...because the law said it was ok....?

We're the Nazis here. We're the oblivious German Citizens all pretending the horrible truth away...all in the name of blindness.

Just as the Germans realized, we will realize, that the law is not always correct. Killing an innocent life is murder no matter how we sugar coat it so that we can sleep at night and justify it.

----------


## Taylor

> ...and the law is always correct....right? RIGHT???!???
> 
> Uh oh. It's not always right now is it?
> 
> I think abortion should be looked at in a blunt way...
> 
> It's an uncivilized and barbaric form of genocide aimed at our own species. A crime against humanity.
> 
> You know what's a funny comparison?
> ...


Sorry but I don't buy into the whole nazi argument. It's just fear mongering in my opinion and is an attempt to shut down a debate. If you personally believe it's murder then don't have an abortion, simple as that. However, I'll do what I want with my body and that's something you nor the government should have control over.

----------


## Matt

> Sorry but I don't buy into the whole nazi argument. It's just fear mongering in my opinion and is an attempt to shut down a debate. If you personally believe it's murder then don't have an abortion, simple as that. However, I'll do what I want with my body and that's something you nor the government should have control over.


Shutting down the debate? Is that what you call it when you begin to lose a debate?? I'm sorry...but being willfully ignorant of a topic to me, is not fear mongering, it's a signal flag that you don't care about the topic and don't want to hear anything but your own opinion. If you want me to pat you on the back...ask. If you want me to echo back a scripted asnwer for you....give me your script. Otherwise you will never change the fact that abortion is murder and that while you have every right to do what you want with your body....you have no right to do anything with the baby's body. 

The Nazi argument, as you call it, is valid and pretty much a self sustaining argument against yours. You can dismiss it...that's fine...but you'll lose this debate. Pretending something away doesn't work. Hell...we've all seen that much over the past few years with liberals trying to pretend away every scandal the Obama administration has ever made. 

To me....being willfully ignorant is not an excuse nor is it a valid defense. 

Let me post it again since you missed this snippet of common sense.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-03-2014),East of the Beast (07-03-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> Shutting down the debate? Is that what you call it when you begin to lose a debate?? I'm sorry...but being willfully ignorant of a topic to me, is not fear mongering, it's a signal flag that you don't care about the topic and don't want to hear anything but your own opinion. If you want me to pat you on the back...ask. If you want me to echo back a scripted asnwer for you....give me your script. Otherwise you will never change the fact that abortion is murder and that while you have every right to do what you want with your body....you have no right to do anything with the baby's body. 
> 
> The Nazi argument, as you call it, is valid and pretty much a self sustaining argument against yours. You can dismiss it...that's fine...but you'll lose this debate. Pretending something away doesn't work. Hell...we've all seen that much over the past few years with liberals trying to pretend away every scandal the Obama administration has ever made. 
> 
> To me....being willfully ignorant is not an excuse nor is it a valid defense. 
> 
> Let me post it again since you missed this snippet of common sense.


Comparing someone that is pro-choice to the nazis and genocide is effectively shutting down the debate. It appeals to emotion and unreasonable comparisons to mass murder. No matter the circumstances, no matter how pragmatic, reasonable, or appropriate the choice of having an abortion may be for someone else...to you, and others, it's murder. How can someone debate that?

----------


## Matt

> Comparing someone that is pro-choice to the nazis and genocide is effectively shutting down the debate. It appeals to emotion and unreasonable comparisons to mass murder. No matter the circumstances, no matter how pragmatic, reasonable, or appropriate the choice of having an abortion may be for someone else, to you, and others, it's murder. How can someone debate that?


Never said anything about pro-choice people. I was describing society in general. We're all guilty for standing by something that's wrong and failing to do what's right. That's on all of us in this age.

How can anyone debate it at all? Abortion is killing an innocent life...that has been the definition of murder since the time man has started making laws and recognizing that society condemns such thing. I don't understand how anyone can look anyone else in the eye and tell them...that murder isn't murder, that their murder is something else, and that we should mind our own business while they murder.

My conscious doesn't allow that. It's black and white. It's the difference between the sky and the ground. The difference between right and wrong. I will never support this crime against humanity and I will never respect those who justify such a thing and try to pretend that murder isn't murder. 

The topic makes me quite angry to be honest. This part of American society makes me physically sick and disgusted to be a part of it. We as Americans should have condemned this barbarism decades ago. Leader of the free world...I call bullshit.

In fact got another image. A common irony here...

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-03-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> Never said anything about pro-choice people. I was describing society in general. We're all guilty for standing by something that's wrong and failing to do what's right. That's on all of us in this age.
> 
> How can anyone debate it at all? Abortion is killing an innocent life...that has been the definition of murder since the time man has started making laws and recognizing that society condemns such thing. I don't understand how anyone can look anyone else in the eye and tell them...that murder isn't murder, that their murder is something else, and that we should mind our own business while they murder.
> 
> My conscious doesn't allow that. It's black and white. It's the difference between the sky and the ground. The difference between right and wrong. I will never support this crime against humanity and I will never respect those who justify such a thing and try to pretend that murder isn't murder. 
> 
> The topic makes me quite angry to be honest. This part of American society makes me physically sick and disgusted to be a part of it. We as Americans should have condemned this barbarism decades ago. Leader of the free world...I call bullshit.
> 
> In fact got another image. A common irony here...



Live and let live. It's not up to you or me to determine what someone else does with their body, in their bedroom, or in a doctors office. It's that simple to me. Live your life the way you see fit, and I and others will do the same.

----------


## East of the Beast

So we should be able to kill anything we don't want in our lives? Gotcha.

----------


## Taylor

> So we should be able to kill anything we don't want in our lives? Gotcha.


Nope, didn't say that. I said that you and others shouldn't be able to decide what happens with my body. Do what you want with yours, but don't touch or legislate mine. You don't believe that abortion should be a personal decision made by the individual based on all of the factors that are important and impactful to them, fine, but I do.

----------


## hoytmonger

Morality and ethics can't be regulated. If a person decides to abort their offspring... that is their decision... I don't happen to agree with it... but that is their decision.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Because Human Sacrifice is now legal in the US.  Only a matter of time before we start doing it on infants and toddlers.  I mean after all, these kids are the property of their parents.  It's a matter between the parent and her doctor, or her own beliefs.

----------


## Dos Equis

> I don't know, don't care, I'm fine with both being legal. The more personal freedom for people the better.


Ok then.

For those who do care and have some interest in what makes the powers that be function, perhaps the issue is not fighting for women's rights.  Perhaps this is just a cover for something much more sinister.

----------


## countryboy

> Live and let live. *It's not up to you or me to determine what someone else does with their body*, in their bedroom, or in a doctors office. It's that simple to me. Live your life the way you see fit, and I and others will do the same.


What part of this do you not understand?

----------


## Dos Equis

> Thats true, but its not murder, so says the law. .


At one time, the law also said it was OK to own slaves.  Who the hell cares what the law says?  

I think you will find that human beings are prone to all sorts of evil when it comes to money.  As the Bible states, the root of all evil is the love of money.

During the slave years it was all about money.  Plantation owners needed very cheap labor to continue to their lifestyles, so they used rationalization to justify their evil conduct by saying that blacks were merely glorified apes.  It was necessary to dehumanize them, because once you do that you can justify any actions against them.  

Likewise, most abortions are done because of money issues.  It's all about maintaining ones lifestyle the way they want it.  Children are simply too expensive for some and take up too much of their time, so they are aborted.  Like the slave, the unborn are not referred to as human beings.  This is vital in order to treat them like you would a slave.

In ancient times, most religions would sacrifice their children to the gods in order to obtain a good harvest, or increased fertility.  Again, it was all about increasing ones wealth and ease.

Some things never change.

----------

Matt (07-04-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

Well if you're in a same sex relationship how does this even come under your radar?   And why?

----------


## Calypso Jones

Babylonian women were resourceful. They used aborted fetuses to make beauty and youth elixirs for themselves.  The more things change...the more they stay the same.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Babylonian women were resourceful. They used aborted fetuses to make beauty and youth elixirs for themselves.  The more things change...the more they stay the same.


When I worked at the hospital, there was a guy from a cosmetic company that would pick up unclaimed placentas. I guess that they made lipstick with it.

----------

Calypso Jones (07-05-2014)

----------


## Matt

> Live and let live. It's not up to you or me to determine what someone else does with their body, in their bedroom, or in a doctors office. It's that simple to me. Live your life the way you see fit, and I and others will do the same.


It is entirely up to you and I to prevent murder. Just forget it. You're too programmed to believe anything else. You're not going to wake up from your daze even if it hit you broadside over the head. You're too naive.

----------


## Taylor

> What part of this do you not understand?


yeah ok, just because you agree with with the picture doesn't mean that I have to.

----------


## Taylor

> It is entirely up to you and I to prevent murder. Just forget it. You're too programmed to believe anything else. You're not going to wake up from your daze even if it hit you broadside over the head. You're too naive.


Yes, i'm too programmed, but you're not. If I got pregnant tomorrow and I knew that if all things were considered that me taking a pill or having an abortion as early as I can would be the best decision for my situation, both short term and long term, then that's my choice, not yours. You weren't part of any of that process and you won't be. You, nor the government, should have any say over what I do with my body or whatever is inside of my body. Like I said, live your life how you see fit, and I'll do the same.

----------


## Taylor

> Well if you're in a same sex relationship how does this even come under your radar?   And why?


I am allowed to have an opinion. By your rationale you shouldn't be able to talk about same sex relationships anymore since you aren't in one, but I doubt you'll stop talking about that, right?

----------


## East of the Beast

> Nope, didn't say that. I said that you and others shouldn't be able to decide what happens with my body. Do what you want with yours, but don't touch or legislate mine. You don't believe that abortion should be a personal decision made by the individual based on all of the factors that are important and impactful to them, fine, but I do.


But we aren't talking about your or my body.We are talking about the body of an unborn human being.What right do you have to kill it? Because it's inside of you? Do you view it as some sort of growing parasite? My God woman if you have no more respect for the sanctity of life than that,why should you expect anyone to respect your life? You preach peace but advocate the the shedding of innocent blood.That is classic hedonism.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-05-2014),Matt (07-04-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

> Babylonian women were resourceful. They used aborted fetuses to make beauty and youth elixirs for themselves.  The more things change...the more they stay the same.


Well that is just barbaric.

Today we use the aborted fetus' to heat hospitals.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-05-2014)

----------


## Dos Equis

> yeah ok, just because you agree with with the picture doesn't mean that I have to.


I prefer this picture.

thRBC7TLSO.jpg
This is the birth fairy.  She waves her magic wand over the "unhuman" before coming out of the womb to make it human.

It's magic!!

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-05-2014)

----------


## Karl

> ok so then make prostitution legal


I would sure be getting laid a lot more if it was 

When trucking there is always COMERC_​IAL COMPANY or Lot Lizards those brave divas who walk the truckstopp parking lots for money_

----------


## Dos Equis

> I would sure be getting laid a lot more if it was 
> 
> When trucking there is always COMERC_​IAL COMPANY or Lot Lizards those brave divas who walk the truckstopp parking lots for money_


My question is this, how can porn be legal but prostitution be illegal?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> ok so then make prostitution legal


Agreed, but unlike some posters, I do not equate prostitution with a woman's right to control via abortion/morning after pills, etc.  One is internal, such as a man having the right to choose to have a vasectomy  and the other is external such as government requiring men to have vasectomies or one man giving another man a vasectomy.

On prostitution, I think it should be legal and regulation for public health reasons.   For abortion, it should be "legal, safe and rare" and have a limit at the point where the fetus becomes a human being, currently determined to be at the 24th week.

----------

sotmfs (07-04-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> My question is this, how can porn be legal but prostitution be illegal?


Puritans.  If it was up to them, porn would also be illegal.

----------


## Karl

Goddamn stupid right wingers and their endless obsession with fetuses

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Goddamn stupid right wingers and their endless obsession with fetuses


It's not simply "right wingers".  It's the religious right.  The same group Barry Goldwater warned us about over 30 years ago.

----------


## East of the Beast

> Agreed, but unlike some posters, I do not equate prostitution with a woman's right to control via abortion/morning after pills, etc.  One is internal, such as a man having the right to choose to have a vasectomy  and the other is external such as government requiring men to have vasectomies or one man giving another man a vasectomy.
> 
> On prostitution, I think it should be legal and regulation for public health reasons.   For abortion, it should be "legal, safe and rare" and have a limit at the point where the fetus becomes a human being, currently determined to be at the 24th week.


determined by who? you? by PC "scientist?" There is an independent heartbeat at 6 weeks.If you stop a beating heart you are terminating an independent life.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-05-2014)

----------


## East of the Beast

> It's not simply "right wingers".  It's the religious right.  The same group Barry Goldwater warned us about over 30 years ago.


Damned that religious right always getting in way the of the fun.

----------


## countryboy

> yeah ok, just because you agree with with the picture doesn't mean that I have to.


So the baby growing in the womb is not a separate person? He/she is a part of the mother's body?

I don't agree with the picture, it is simply a statement of fact. I don't have to agree with it, it is self evident. But don't let that prevent you from promoting the ripping of live children from the womb and killing them.

----------

East of the Beast (07-04-2014),Matt (07-04-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> determined by who? you? by PC "scientist?" There is an independent heartbeat at 6 weeks.If you stop a beating heart you are terminating an independent life.


My dog has a heartbeat.  There is a difference between life and a human being.

----------


## countryboy

> Yes, i'm too programmed, but you're not. If I got pregnant tomorrow and I knew that if all things were considered that me taking a pill or having an abortion as early as I can would be the best decision for my situation, both short term and long term, then that's my choice, not yours. You weren't part of any of that process and you won't be. You, nor the government, should have any say over what I do with my body or whatever is inside of my body. *Like I said, live your life how you see fit, and I'll do the same.*


And if that includes terminating a human life, meh, no biggie. Right?

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-05-2014)

----------


## East of the Beast

The only way to determine for sure when a fetus is a person,is to believe life begins at conception.

----------


## East of the Beast

> My dog has a heartbeat.  There is a difference between life and a human being.


That was a weak answer even for you.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-05-2014),countryboy (07-04-2014)

----------


## countryboy

> The only way to determine for sure when a fetus is a person,is to believe life begins at conception.


This doesn't need to be determined, it is a scientific fact. But libs only promote science when it is in their best interests.

----------


## Karl

> So the baby growing in the womb is not a separate person? He/she is a part of the mother's body?
> 
> I don't agree with the picture, it is simply a statement of fact. I don't have to agree with it, it is self evident. But don't let that prevent you from promoting the ripping of live children from the womb and killing them.


Well @countryboy do you really want to PAY for these illegitimate children and their future offspring?

ya can't have it BOTH WAYS so pick one or the other

----------

Max Rockatansky (07-04-2014),sotmfs (07-05-2014)

----------


## countryboy

> Well @countryboy do you really want to PAY for these children and their future offspring?
> 
> ya can't have it BOTH WAYS so pick one or the other


Run along sonny, the adults are having a conversation. Go play with yourself.

----------


## Karl

> Run along sonny, the adults are having a conversation. Go play with yourself.


Don't make me reach through this computer and smack you upside your head

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Well @countryboy do you really want to PAY for these children and their future offspring?
> 
> ya can't have it BOTH WAYS so pick one or the other


I think the concept is that they are better off alive, on welfare and/or in prison than aborted.

----------


## Calypso Jones

So  in your opinion, is the PRE-born not a human being or not a human person?

----------


## countryboy

> Don't make me reach through this computer and smack you upside your head


That's it, you're grounded. Go to your room, and no masturbating to plus size catalogs.

----------


## Karl

> That's it, you're grounded. Go to your room, and no masturbating to plus size catalogs.


Can I atleast keep the Jc Penny's catalog

----------

Reverend (07-05-2014)

----------


## Karl

> So  in your opinion, is the PRE-born not a human being or not a human person?


If it were not for ABORTION there would be a substantially LARGER number of BLACK PEOPLE

In your OPINION @Calypso Jones do you want Tens of Millions MORE OBAMA VOTERS or just leave Abortion alone

----------


## Calypso Jones

It's not what I want Karl...apparently it is what the Democrat party and pro-aborts want.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> So  in your opinion, is the PRE-born not a human being or not a human person?


anyone?  anyone?

----------


## Karl

> anyone?  anyone?


I am going with NOT considering that personhood is not recognized until an actual birth

----------


## Dos Equis

> Puritans.  If it was up to them, porn would also be illegal.


Puritans gave us the Founding Fathers.

Today's ilk gave us Obama.

Word.

----------


## Karl

> It's not what I want Karl...apparently it is what the Democrat party and pro-aborts want.


so do you really want 30-40 million MORE BLACK people 96 percent of whom would vote DEMOCRAT

answer the fucking question

----------


## Matt

> Yes, i'm too programmed, but you're not. If I got pregnant tomorrow and I knew that if all things were considered that me taking a pill or having an abortion as early as I can would be the best decision for my situation, both short term and long term, then that's my choice, not yours. You weren't part of any of that process and you won't be. You, nor the government, should have any say over what I do with my body or whatever is inside of my body. Like I said, live your life how you see fit, and I'll do the same.


This is the fourth time you've repeated the same defeated argument. Do you honestly realize how stupid you look? You would become a murderer at the drop of a dime....instead of being responsible for your actions. Only children believe they can truly run from the consequences of their actions. You miss liberal robot give my generation a bad name.

----------


## Matt

> Well @countryboy do you really want to PAY for these illegitimate children and their future offspring?
> 
> ya can't have it BOTH WAYS so pick one or the other


Better them than the millions of illegal immigrant children that the Obama administrstion is shipping in. Besides theres enough charity to go around.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Better them than the millions of illegal immigrant children that the Obama administrstion is shipping in. Besides theres enough charity to go around.


Isn't every life precious or are the only ones that matter still in the womb?

----------

Karl (07-04-2014),sotmfs (07-05-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> So  in your opinion, is the PRE-born not a human being or not a human person?


A zygote is not a human being nor a person.

Which of these is human and which is not?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> so do you really want 30-40 million MORE BLACK people 96 percent of whom would vote DEMOCRAT
> 
> answer the fucking question


nope....don't want that.. But I don't  think abortion is the solution.

----------


## Matt

> Isn't every life precious or are the only ones that matter still in the womb?


Murder is murder Max. We already condemn Murder of anyone outside the womb. It's high time we stopped the double standard.

----------


## patrickt

Unlike liberals, I think blacks are smart enough to realize that having a decent education, a decent job, and a chance at a better future is possible with conservatives. With liberals, that have gotten, are getting, and will continue to get no education, no job, and a future of poverty on the dole.

Liberals are our racists.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Zygote:  A *zygote* (from Greek ζυγωτός _zygōtos_ "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν _zygoun_ "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] is the initial cell formed when two gamete cells are joined by means of sexual reproduction. In multicellular organisms, it is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. In single-celled organisms, the zygote divides to produce offspring, usually through mitosis, the process of cell division.
In multicellular organisms, a zygote is always synthesized from the union of two gametes, and constitutes the first stage in a unique organism's development. Zygotes are usually produced by a fertilization event between two haploid cells—an ovum (female gamete) and a sperm cell (male gamete)—which combine to form the single diploid cell. Such zygotes contain DNA derived from both parents, and this provides all the genetic information necessary to form a new individual.

~~~~~


*EMBRYOLOGY, HUMAN,* the study of the development of the human organism from the single-celled zygote, or fertilized egg, to the birth of the infant. Development of the human embryo requires approximately 265-270 days. During this time, the original single cell multiplies to 200 million or more cells, and the size of the embryo increases from microscopic to approximately 20 inches in length.
In general, human embryonic development consists of three basic stages. The first stage begins with the fertilization of the ovum, or egg. It concludes at the end of the second week of life, when the developing embryo burrows into the uterine wall and begins to obtain nutrition from the mother. The second stage extends from the third through the eighth week. During this time all the major organs begin to form, and the embryo become recognizable as a human individual. At the conclusion of the second stage of development the organism is known as a fetus. The third stage extends from the third month until birth. In this final stage the organ systems complete their specialized development, and the fetus gradually becomes equipped to live on its own.


~~~~

I'm thinkin' you probably should stop using the term zygote.

----------


## Katzndogz

> Unlike liberals, I think blacks are smart enough to realize that having a decent education, a decent job, and a chance at a better future is possible with conservatives. With liberals, that have gotten, are getting, and will continue to get no education, no job, and a future of poverty on the dole.
> 
> Liberals are our racists.


SOME blacks are smart enough.  Most blacks sadly are not.

----------


## Dos Equis

> so do you really want 30-40 million MORE BLACK people 96 percent of whom would vote DEMOCRAT
> 
> answer the fucking question


The left more than makes up for it with illegal immigration.

Liberals, it seems, would rather pay for complete strangers than they would their own flesh and blood.  I guess its understandable since they all must hate themselves as a baseline.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'm thinkin' you probably should stop using the term zygote.


Why?  Because you think zygote and embryo are the same?  Because you automatically interpret "human organism" as the same exact thing as a human being?  That you believe an apple seed and an apple tree are equal in every respect?

----------

Karl (07-04-2014)

----------


## countryboy

> Why?  Because you think zygote and embryo are the same?  Because you automatically interpret "human organism" as the same exact thing as a human being?  That you believe an apple seed and an apple tree are equal in every respect?


Blah blah blah, we get it, you don't revere human life. Some of us however, do.  :Smile:  

Happy 4th Maxy.  :Smile:

----------


## Karl

> Unlike liberals, I think blacks are smart enough to realize that having a decent education, a decent job, and a chance at a better future is possible with conservatives. With liberals, that have gotten, are getting, and will continue to get no education, no job, and a future of poverty on the dole.
> 
> Liberals are our racists.


Hows that notion working out for you guys @patrickt

----------


## Karl

> Blah blah blah, we get it, you don't revere human life. Some of us however, do.  
> 
> Happy 4th Maxy.


More Troll Crap

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Blah blah blah, we get it, you don't revere human life. Some of us however, do.  
> 
> Happy 4th Maxy.


Some do, but most only give it lip-service.  They'll scream to the heavens to save a zygote then, in another thread, talk about punting children over a fence into the Mexican desert or locking up people and throwing away the key because they are deemed "savages".

If a person truly reveres life, they are consistent in their beliefs.  Most who say they revere life are inconsistent.  In short, they are hypocrites.

----------

sotmfs (07-05-2014)

----------


## patrickt

> Hows that notion working out for you guys @patrickt


I have no idea what you're talking about but that's normal. To what notion are you referring?

----------


## East of the Beast

> Some do, but most only give it lip-service.  They'll scream to the heavens to save a zygote then, in another thread, talk about punting children over a fence into the Mexican desert or locking up people and throwing away the key because they are deemed "savages".
> 
> If a person truly reveres life, they are consistent in their beliefs.  Most who say they revere life are inconsistent.  In short, they are hypocrites.


Another failed analogy.A lot of mental gymnastics to associate abortion with illegal immigration.But  I'm sure it made sense to you.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Another failed analogy.A lot of mental gymnastics to associate abortion with illegal immigration.But  I'm sure it made sense to you.


Wrong again.  It goes directly to one of the many hypocrisies of those who give lip-service to "life" and then turn their backs on it when it becomes inconvenient.

----------


## sotmfs

> It's a woman's right to be supported, and to have her baby supported, by someone else.


It is the right of the baby to be supported by the father.

----------


## sotmfs

> Funny how the left cares next to nothing about making prostitution legal, but makes abortion a litmus test for becoming a Supreme Court Justice.
> 
> Why do you think this is Tay?


You know that the left cares next to nothing about making prostitution legal?
Do you think the right cares about making prostitution legal?

Are you saying the right is not concerned and does not care about the abortion opinion of a potential Supreme Court Justice?

----------


## sotmfs

> Funny how the left cares next to nothing about making prostitution legal, but makes abortion a litmus test for becoming a Supreme Court Justice.
> 
> Why do you think this is Tay?


I don't think it is!

----------


## sotmfs

> Theres nothing freedom related when it comes to murder.


Until after one is born.

----------


## sotmfs

> There is no end to how people will justify killing an unborn human baby.


Or a born baby.
Or justify not supporting a baby.
Or sending children back into a life of poverty,suffering,danger,and potential death.

----------


## sotmfs

> So we should be able to kill anything we don't want in our lives? Gotcha.


Not at all.Education about birth control and the availability of birth control easily accessible and encouraged.Holding the men that impregnated the women accountable in a serious manner.Encourage and allow protests at the homes and workplaces of the men that are responsible to encourage them to support their children.
.

----------


## sotmfs

> Morality and ethics can't be regulated. If a person decides to abort their offspring... that is their decision... I don't happen to agree with it... but that is their decision.


Those that are truly opposed and want to protect the life of the unborn could offer practical alternatives to the women that believe abortion is the only solution.

Many in South and Central America are doing that now.Instead of having an abortion ,the children live and the sanctity of live is preserved.The children are allowed to leave their birth country and travel to a region were People care about the lives of the unborn and will care about their lives also!!

----------


## sotmfs

> Because Human Sacrifice is now legal in the US.  Only a matter of time before we start doing it on infants and toddlers.  I mean after all, these kids are the property of their parents.  It's a matter between the parent and her doctor, or her own beliefs.


I can see it happening now.There are many children that exist in poverty for whatever reason.Some are abandoned by one or both parents,mainly the father.Society resents and does not want to help these children after they are born.

----------


## sotmfs

> Ok then.
> 
> For those who do care and have some interest in what makes the powers that be function, perhaps the issue is not fighting for women's rights.  Perhaps this is just a cover for something much more sinister.


Perhaps you could enlighten us to what that would be?

----------


## sotmfs

> When I worked at the hospital, there was a guy from a cosmetic company that would pick up unclaimed placentas. I guess that they made lipstick with it.


Are a lot of placentas claimed?

----------


## sotmfs

> But we aren't talking about your or my body.We are talking about the body of an unborn human being.What right do you have to kill it? Because it's inside of you? Do you view it as some sort of growing parasite? My God woman if you have no more respect for the sanctity of life than that,why should you expect anyone to respect your life? You preach peace but advocate the the shedding of innocent blood.That is classic hedonism.


You bet!!What about the men.All the men that are ignored.You know all the men that are fighting to save the lives of their children and provide love,support,and homes for them.Why is it all about and only about the women?
The millions of fathers that believe in the sanctity of life and are demanding blood tests in order to prove they are the father ,going to court to gain custody of their child,to save it from death,why are they being ignored?

----------

East of the Beast (07-05-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

> Agreed, but unlike some posters, I do not equate prostitution with a woman's right to control via abortion/morning after pills, etc.  One is internal, such as a man having the right to choose to have a vasectomy  and the other is external such as government requiring men to have vasectomies or one man giving another man a vasectomy.
> 
> On prostitution, I think it should be legal and regulation for public health reasons.   For abortion, it should be "legal, safe and rare" and have a limit at the point where the fetus becomes a human being, currently determined to be at the 24th week.


Abortion would be rare and if done,done early,if people were educated about birth control,treated sex realistically, did not make the women feel ashamed for being pregnant(or having sex),holding the men more accountable.I believe many women agonize alone(afraid to share with family,theirs and the fathers)because they are made to feel solely responsible and ashamed therefore they prolong the time of the decision.

----------


## sotmfs

> Puritans.  If it was up to them, porn would also be illegal.


Only a few low lives watch porn.How they support the thousands and thousands of porn sites,I will never know!!

----------


## sotmfs

> The only way to determine for sure when a fetus is a person,is to believe life begins at conception.


Many do and they believe it is ok to end after birth.

----------


## sotmfs

> This doesn't need to be determined, it is a scientific fact. But libs only promote science when it is in their best interests.


All libs?
Cons do not?

----------


## sotmfs

> Run along sonny, the adults are having a conversation. Go play with yourself.


You certainly sound like an adult.

----------


## sotmfs

> That's it, you're grounded. Go to your room, and no masturbating to plus size catalogs.


No shit!!You can respond to him in an adult manner ,as you do,but he still acts like an adolescent.

----------


## sotmfs

> Can I atleast keep the Jc Penny's catalog


Grow up.

----------


## sotmfs

> so do you really want 30-40 million MORE BLACK people 96 percent of whom would vote DEMOCRAT
> 
> answer the fucking question


That is what the pro-lifers want and the libs.The pro-abortionists and the cons of course...............

----------


## sotmfs

> This is the fourth time you've repeated the same defeated argument. Do you honestly realize how stupid you look? You would become a murderer at the drop of a dime....instead of being responsible for your actions. Only children believe they can truly run from the consequences of their actions. You miss liberal robot give my generation a bad name.


Women are clueless!! Men should be the ones to get pregnant.The women would learn a lesson in responsibility then.

----------


## sotmfs

> Better them than the millions of illegal immigrant children that the Obama administrstion is shipping in. Besides theres enough charity to go around.


Obama is trying to get rid of them.First he has to find a way to get around the policy Bush initiated.

----------


## sotmfs

> A zygote is not a human being nor a person.
> 
> Which of these is human and which is not?


Come on!! They are cashews!!Monsanto GMO cashews!

----------

Max Rockatansky (07-05-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

> Unlike liberals, I think blacks are smart enough to realize that having a decent education, a decent job, and a chance at a better future is possible with conservatives. With liberals, that have gotten, are getting, and will continue to get no education, no job, and a future of poverty on the dole.
> 
> Liberals are our racists.


No shit!!

----------


## sotmfs

> SOME blacks are smart enough.  Most blacks sadly are not.


No shit!You lib,you!

----------


## sotmfs

> The left more than makes up for it with illegal immigration.
> 
> Liberals, it seems, would rather pay for complete strangers than they would their own flesh and blood.  I guess its understandable since they all must hate themselves as a baseline.


No shit@ Libs,the Libs.

----------


## sotmfs

> Another failed analogy.A lot of mental gymnastics to associate abortion with illegal immigration.But  I'm sure it made sense to you.


It does make sense.
Demonstrate how it does not.

----------


## Taylor

> This is the fourth time you've repeated the same defeated argument. Do you honestly realize how stupid you look? You would become a murderer at the drop of a dime....instead of being responsible for your actions. Only children believe they can truly run from the consequences of their actions. You miss liberal robot give my generation a bad name.


Yeah and it's like the third or fourth time you've repeated your same argument, so what...Do you seriously think you're going to convince me of something over a topic as heated as abortion with just a few comments, clip art pictures, and personal digs at me? You mention being responsible. Me making the best choice regarding a potential life altering pregnancy IS me being responsible for my actions regardless if you disagree with my choice. Suck it up and live your life how you choose, if you don't like what I choose to do in my life then whatever, I don't care. If I have an abortion do I not then have responsibility for my actions? If I end up having the baby am I not being responsible for my actions? I am with both, but both are MY choice and based on what I believe is the most responsible choice for MY life and future, not YOURS. Again, do what you want with your life and your body, but don't try to control mine.

----------

Devil505 (07-18-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> And if that includes terminating a human life, meh, no biggie. Right?


It's a big decision sure, but it's my decision either way.

----------


## Taylor

> But we aren't talking about your or my body.We are talking about the body of an unborn human being.What right do you have to kill it? Because it's inside of you? Do you view it as some sort of growing parasite? My God woman if you have no more respect for the sanctity of life than that,why should you expect anyone to respect your life? You preach peace but advocate the the shedding of innocent blood.That is classic hedonism.


ok so i'm hedonistic. I've also been called bohemian, sweet, a free spirit, a bitch, selfish, careless, and a variety of other things. Look dude, you're not going to be in the bedroom with me one night when I get pregnant, you're not going to be with me when I find out that I am pregnant (which isn't going to happen anytime soon), you're not going to be with me when I visit the doctor, you're not going to be with me when I choose what I am going to do about the situation, and you are not going to be with me after that choice whatever that choice may be. You'll never be with me, you'll never know, you'll never have any sort of impact or ever cross my mind, none of you will, and I'm certainly not going to give a shit about your personal morals or what you demand of me to do in those scary but important moments at the doctor's office or in my room that only impacts my life and future simply because you see the world in black and white and want to control what I do. Plain words, understand them. You have nothing to do with my life and you will never have any influence over it. Live how you want, and I'll do the same.

----------


## East of the Beast

> It does make sense.
> Demonstrate how it does not.


we are not killing innocent immigrants.We are asking them to go through the legal process like everyone else.That's not murder.plain enough?

----------


## East of the Beast

> ok so i'm hedonistic. I've also been called bohemian, sweet, a free spirit, a bitch, selfish, careless, and a variety of other things. Look dude, you're not going to be in the bedroom with me one night when I get pregnant, you're not going to be with me when I find out that I am pregnant (which isn't going to happen anytime soon), you're not going to be with me when I visit the doctor, you're not going to be with me when I choose what I am going to do about the situation, and you are not going to be with me after that choice whatever that choice may be. You'll never be with me, you'll never know, you'll never have any sort of impact or ever cross my mind, none of you will, and I'm certainly not going to give a shit about your personal morals or what you demand of me to do in those scary but important moments at the doctor's office or in my room that only impacts my life and future simply because you see the world in black and white and want to control what I do. Plain words, understand them. You have nothing to do with my life and you will never have any influence over it. Live how you want, and I'll do the same.


a grey world is so easy with easy choices...la la la la la

----------


## East of the Beast

> A zygote is not a human being nor a person.
> 
> Which of these is human and which is not?


The one that has a soul.It's not like they are interchangeable.That would be stupid to even suggest it.We are all aware of the similarities of other species in appearance at this stage,around 3 to 4 weeks.And only a trained professional would know which would be the human.The DNA is the key and yes each one of those is a living thing.I'm thinking they all are but then again I'm not a trained professional.

----------


## Reverend

> I don't know, don't care,


Ignorance and apathy....

----------

Dos Equis (07-05-2014),sotmfs (07-05-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

> we are not killing innocent immigrants.We are asking them to go through the legal process like everyone else.That's not murder.plain enough?


No,it is not.The lives of the immigrants ,especially the children, are not included when it comes to protecting the sanctity of life.Many that want to protect the unborn,without regard to protecting the born,the mother many times also do not want to protect the lives of illegal immigrants.
They do not listen and go through the legal process(many are children that are not at fault) and that removes their right to have their life protected by those protecting the sanctity of life.

Unborn babies are not being murdered,the mothers are being told not to have unwanted children like everyone else.

----------


## sotmfs

> The one that has a soul.


Which one would that be?Numbering them 1,2,3,and 4 left to right.
Do all souls get admitted to heaven?Even the unbaptized souls?

----------


## East of the Beast

> No,it is not.The lives of the immigrants ,especially the children, are not included when it comes to protecting the sanctity of life.Many that want to protect the unborn,without regard to protecting the born,the mother many times also do not want to protect the lives of illegal immigrants.
> They do not listen and go through the legal process(many are children that are not at fault) and that removes their right to have their life protected by those protecting the sanctity of life.
> 
> Unborn babies are not being murdered,the mothers are being told not to have unwanted children like everyone else.


It's faux argument...I'm all about the children but don't try and yank at my sympathy.This is not about children and you know it.You uphold a coniving bastard like Obama who is using children for political gain.Do you honestly think that mother fucker gives a damn about those children?!He only gives damn as far as it fulfills his political desires.....If you really care you'd be out in the mission fields providing all these poor children with clothes,food,medicines etc.....

----------


## East of the Beast

> Which one would that be?Numbering them 1,2,3,and 4 left to right.
> Do all souls get admitted to heaven?Even the unbaptized souls?


I updated my post.read it

----------


## sotmfs

> It's faux argument...I'm all about the children but don't try and yank at my sympathy.This is not about children and you know it.You uphold a coniving bastard like Obama who is using children for political gain.Do you honestly think that mother fucker gives a damn about those children?!He only gives damn as far as it fulfills his political desires.....If you really care you'd be out in the mission fields providing all these poor children with clothes,food,medicines etc.....


I am not trying to make anyone feel guilt or sympathy.Show me were I uphold Obama on this topic or any other.I never claimed to care.I never said I wanted to protect the sanctity of life.It is usually never about children,only about pretending to be about children.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Which one would that be?Numbering them 1,2,3,and 4 left to right.
> Do all souls get admitted to heaven?Even the unbaptized souls?


Exactly.  No one has ever said which one because they can't tell the difference.

Re souls, yes and yes IMO.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The one that has a soul.It's not like they are interchangeable.That would be stupid to even suggest it.We are all aware of the similarities of other species in appearance at this stage,around 3 to 4 weeks.And *only a trained professional would know which would be the human*.The DNA is the key and yes each one of those is a living thing.I'm thinking they all are but then again I'm not a trained professional.


Thank you for admitting you don't know the difference between a human embryo and an animal one.  Believing one has a soul and the others do not isn't science, it's religion.  Exemplifying that this is a religious issue and by forcing one's religious opinions onto others via the law is a violation of church and state.

----------


## Taylor

> a grey world is so easy with easy choices...la la la la la


Yeah, nice job, I never said it was an easy choice either way. I just said it is MY choice.

----------


## Taylor

> Ignorance and apathy....


Nope. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me ignorant and just because I don't care for your point of view doesn't make me apathetic. That's very arrogant of you though. Ignorance is thinking that you know enough about someone else's life and struggles that you can then force them to do something that they may not want to do or be able to do. Apathy is not caring about the lives or circumstances of the people that you want to force your morals and beliefs on to. You can disagree all you want and live your life in as moral of away as you personally see fit, but you can't and shouldn't force others to live like you.

----------


## Reverend

> Nope. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me ignorant and just because I don't care for your point of view doesn't make me apathetic. That's very arrogant of you though. Ignorance is thinking that you know enough about someone else's life and struggles that you can then force them to do something that they may not want to do or be able to do. Apathy is not caring about the lives or circumstances of the people that you want to force your morals and beliefs on to. You can disagree all you want and live your life in as moral of away as you personally see fit, but you can't and shouldn't force others to live like you.


You were the one who said you didn't know and didn't care. I was just commenting on that. 

And I would appreciate it if you would refrain from telling me just how much I know and how much I don't know. I know more about how abortion touches people's lives than you imagine.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Yeah, nice job, I never said it was an easy choice either way. I just said it is MY choice.


Agreed. 

Instead of seeking to limit people's choices, which is what assholes like the anti-gun advocates do, people would be better off trying to expand the choices of others in the name of freedom.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Nope. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me ignorant and just because I don't care for your point of view doesn't make me apathetic. That's very arrogant of you though.


He was stating his own position, dear.  Please don't take everything so personal.   :Wink:

----------

Reverend (07-05-2014)

----------


## Taylor

> You were the one who said you didn't know and didn't care. I was just commenting on that. 
> 
> And I would appreciate it if you would refrain from telling me just how much I know and how much I don't know. I know more about how abortion touches people's lives than you imagine.


It was a political question about the Supreme Court. I don't care if someone wants to try and make a point like that. You are either for forcing a woman to have a baby regardless of the circumstances or you are for them making that choice for themselves. I also do not care that you have touched the lives of people who have had abortions or thought about having one. I'm not saying that to be mean or snobby or anything like that but it's because it doesn't matter to the thousands of other women that are making their own personal choice and are better off because of it, whether it's an abortion or a birth. If you helped people then great but it's still their choice either way.

----------


## Reverend

> He was stating his own position, dear.  Please don't take everything so personal.


Who are you and what have you done with Max?

----------


## sotmfs

> You were the one who said you didn't know and didn't care. I was just commenting on that. 
> 
> And I would appreciate it if you would refrain from telling me just how much I know and how much I don't know. I know more about how abortion touches people's lives than you imagine.


I believe you and you should share that .People here easily define someone by what they read in ones post which can be easily misunderstood.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Who are you and what have you done with Max?


Same ol' Max.  I just appear new to those who have let the scales fall from their eyes.

----------


## sotmfs

> Who are you and what have you done with Max?


I find Max to be one of the more reasonable posters.What do you think?

----------


## Reverend

> It was a political question about the Supreme Court. I don't care if someone wants to try and make a point like that. You are either for forcing a woman to have a baby regardless of the circumstances or you are for them making that choice for themselves. I also do not care that you have touched the lives of people who have had abortions or thought about having one. I'm not saying that to be mean or snobby or anything like that but it's because it doesn't matter to the thousands of other women that are making their own personal choice and are better off because of it, whether it's an abortion or a birth. If you helped people then great but it's still their choice either way.


I don't force women to have children any more than I force them to have sex. And I was not speaking of "touching the lives of people who have had abortions or thought about having one". I was speaking of my own life.

----------


## Reverend

> I find Max to be one of the more reasonable posters.What do you think?


Some days are better than others.

----------


## Reverend

> Same ol' Max.  I just appear new to those who have let the scales fall from their eyes.


Now that's the Max I know.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

That's normal behavior; good days and bad.

----------


## Reverend

> I believe you and you should share that .People here easily define someone by what they read in ones post which can be easily misunderstood.


Sharing too much information about yourself invites attacks. I should know.

----------


## Taylor

> I don't force women to have children any more than I force them to have sex. And I was not speaking of "touching the lives of people who have had abortions or thought about having one". I was speaking of my own life.


Oh

----------


## Reverend

> Oh


Now you understand.

----------


## sotmfs

> Sharing too much information about yourself invites attacks. I should know.


I can handle attacks.Attack me but do not expect it to succeed.I welcome attacks!!
I have no need to attack anyone ,I have no fear of anyone that would cause me to attack them.

----------


## Reverend

> I can handle attacks.Attack me but do not expect it to succeed.I welcome attacks!!
> I have no need to attack anyone ,I have no fear of anyone that would cause me to attack them.


Some days I can withstand attacks, other days, not so much. To Tay's credit, having been told about my intimate experience with abortion, she didn't then insist that I still had no concept of the realities.

----------

Max Rockatansky (07-05-2014)

----------


## sotmfs

> Some days I can withstand attacks, other days, not so much.


You seem to be a strong individual .An attack is usually done by one that is weak,in my opinion.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I believe you and you should share that .*People here easily define someone by what they read in ones post which can be easily misunderstood.*


True, from a single post.  After several posts, however, a picture of the person's personality begins to emerge.   

Some here have admitted to using forums as a "virtual life".  I guess like some virtual political version of "The Sims".  They wear a face, a mask, a costume and act like someone different than they are IRL.  I find that a bit odd, but it's their choice.  Psychologically, I think they were simply living out some inner feelings or conflict and that the persona they adopt isn't as fictitious as they would like to believe.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Some days I can withstand attacks, other days, not so much.


Agreed.  Sometimes if one is being unfairly attacked from several others, it sucks the fun out of the conversation.

----------


## sotmfs

> Some days I can withstand attacks, other days, not so much. To Tay's credit, having been told about my intimate experience with abortion, she didn't then insist that I still had no concept of the realities.


That is good.

----------


## Reverend

> True, from a single post.  After several posts, however, a picture of the person's personality begins to emerge.   
> 
> Some here have admitted to using forums as a "virtual life".  I guess like some virtual political version of "The Sims".  They wear a face, a mask, a costume and act like someone different than they are IRL.  I find that a bit odd, but it's their choice.  Psychologically, I think they were simply living out some inner feelings or conflict and that the persona they adopt isn't as fictitious as they would like to believe.


Still others guard their privacy for practical reasons. This is a very frustrating thing to virtual voyeurs.

----------


## Reverend

> That is good.


I guess to be truly cynical, you have to be carefully taught. Reminds me of a song...

----------


## sotmfs

> True, from a single post.  After several posts, however, a picture of the person's personality begins to emerge.   
> 
> Some here have admitted to using forums as a "virtual life".  I guess like some virtual political version of "The Sims".  They wear a face, a mask, a costume and act like someone different than they are IRL.  I find that a bit odd, but it's their choice.  Psychologically, I think they were simply living out some inner feelings or conflict and that the persona they adopt isn't as fictitious as they would like to believe.


I say the same shit in my non-internet life.I am often facetious so it is hard to know me for some.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I say the same shit in my non-internet life.I am often facetious so it is hard to know me for some.


Humor, especially sarcasm, can be difficult to discern or understood using text which is why the use of emoticons helps since eye and facial expressions, tone and inflection are not transmitted with the text to convey something other than being said.

----------


## Reverend

> You seem to be a strong individual .An attack is usually done by one that is weak,in my opinion.


Thank you, I appreciate that more than you know.

I am no different than anyone else. I have the same fears, the same misgivings, I question myself constantly, I try to learn what is right and what is true. I try to put myself in the shoes of another, not always successfully. If I am strong it is because of the fact that I have turned over every rock I can find searching for the truth and I am confident of at least that much.

----------


## Reverend

> Humor, especially sarcasm, can be difficult to discern or understood using text which is why the use of emoticons helps since eye and facial expressions, tone and inflection are not transmitted with the text to convey something other than being said.


We were just talking about that.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Still others guard their privacy for practical reasons. This is a very frustrating thing to virtual voyeurs.


I think people reveal too much of themselves, especially on social media websites like Facebook.  A mother posts pictures of all her kids then becomes upset when someone uses those photos for purposes not originally intended such as for profit in an advertisement. 

A more practical, sinister aspect is that forums, especially political ones, have a higher percentage of nut jobs, and by this I do mean people with strong mental problems, who might decide to act on the voices in their heads against a person they perceive to be evil, a secret agent, a government stooge or whatever fantasy drives them.

----------

Karl (07-05-2014)

----------


## Reverend

> I think people reveal too much of themselves, especially on social media websites like Facebook.  A mother posts pictures of all her kids then becomes upset when someone uses those photos for purposes not originally intended such as for profit in an advertisement. 
> 
> A more practical, sinister aspect is that forums, especially political ones, have a higher percentage of nut jobs, and by this I do mean people with strong mental problems, who might decide to act on the voices in their heads against a person they perceive to be evil, a secret agent, a government stooge or whatever fantasy drives them.


I have told the story before about a friend on another forum who gave too much information about himself and it ended with him receiving death threats. I never forgot that. So, when I am accused of "not wanting to answer questions" there is a reason for it. I'll tell people what I want them to know in due time.

----------


## Karl

> I have told the story before about a friend on another forum who gave too much information about himself and it ended with him receiving death threats. I never forgot that. So, when I am accused of "not wanting to answer questions" there is a reason for it. I'll tell people what I want them to know in due time.


Real killers dont send THREATS they just SHOW Up UnAnnounced and KILL in a COLD BLOODED Mannerr

----------


## Reverend

> Real killers dont send THREATS they just SHOW Up UnAnnounced and KILL in a COLD BLOODED Mannerr


You don't have to kill someone to harm them.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Real killers dont send THREATS they just SHOW Up UnAnnounced and KILL in a COLD BLOODED Mannerr


They could.  OTOH, like a suicidally depressed person, they could send out warning signals first before actually acting on them.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> When I worked at the hospital, there was a guy from a cosmetic company that would pick up unclaimed placentas. I guess that they made lipstick with it.


even if you don't believe in a God that controls this world....if you only believe in KARMA.....we are gonna pay for this.

----------


## sotmfs

I do not reveal enough info to be easily found.I was threatened by a few people on another site.I told one person He was on the wrong site.
I told him"Hey bubba,you are on the wrong site.You need to go to intimidation.com.This is not that place.
I let another person know that when one resorts to violence he is exhibiting his lack of ability to handle himself verbally and getting angry is not a method of winning a debate.Seek help for your lack of self-esteem and go to a site more in tune to your limited ability.

----------


## Reverend

> I do not reveal enough info to be easily found.I was threatened by a few people on another site.I told one person He was on the wrong site.
> I told him"Hey bubba,you are on the wrong site.You need to go to intimidation.com.This is not that place.
> I let another person know that when one resorts to violence he is exhibiting his lack of ability to handle himself verbally and getting angry is not a method of winning a debate.Seek help for your lack of self-esteem and go to a site more in tune to your limited ability.


I don't think I could be easily found, either, which is why I don't reveal my denomination or my church (for example) or my state of residence. People know what I am philosophically but finding me in the numerous jurisdictions would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I find it disturbing that there are people in existence who would take a place like this seriously enough to make trouble for you in your personal life.

----------


## sotmfs

> I don't think I could be easily found, either, which is why I don't reveal my denomination or my church (for example) or my state of residence. People know what I am philosophically but finding me in the numerous jurisdictions would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I find it disturbing that there are people in existence who would take a place like this seriously enough to make trouble for you in your personal life.


Hey,look at how people react about sports,pro and childrens!!

----------


## Reverend

> Hey,look at how people react about sports,pro and childrens!!


Oh, yeah, soccer players and referees are always being beaten and killed by fans. Little league umpires attacked and beaten by parents. The world is going insane.

----------


## patrickt

> I don't think I could be easily found, either, which is why I don't reveal my denomination or my church (for example) or my state of residence. People know what I am philosophically but finding me in the numerous jurisdictions would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I find it disturbing that there are people in existence who would take a place like this seriously enough to make trouble for you in your personal life.


I'm easily found. I'm not easily frightened.

----------


## Reverend

> I'm easily found. I'm not easily frightened.


I wouldn't think so.

----------


## sotmfs

> Oh, yeah, soccer players and referees are always being beaten and killed by fans. Little league umpires attacked and beaten by parents. The world is going insane.


Not like the good ole days.Ya know,medieval times,the Roman era,etc!!

----------


## Reverend

> Not like the good ole days.Ya know,medieval times,the Roman era,etc!!


Everything runs in cycles. I for one am not interested in doing a Human Torch impersonation.



Attachment 4319

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> That was a weak answer even for you.


That's because people will twist themselves into all kinds of weird positions to justify the mangling of an unborn human child with the intent to kill it.

----------

Matt (07-05-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That's because people will twist themselves into all kinds of weird positions to justify the mangling of an unborn human child with the intent to kill it.


I know exactly what you mean by people twisting themselves every which way.  Take the example of those who label an embryo a child but can't even tell the difference between a human embryo and an animal one:



We kill people all the time either intentionally, through negligence and even as "collateral damage".   We kill people because it's cheaper to do so than spend money preventing needless deaths.  We kill people for ideology.  I'm not talking self-defense, but active aggression for ideological purposes. 

Yet those same people turn themselves into pretzels to preserve a single-celled zygote.

----------

sotmfs (07-06-2014)

----------


## countryboy

> I know exactly what you mean by people twisting themselves every which way.  Take the example of those who label an embryo a child but can't even tell the difference between a human embryo and an animal one:
> 
> 
> 
> We kill people all the time either intentionally, through negligence and even as "collateral damage".   We kill people because it's cheaper to do so than spend money preventing needless deaths.  We kill people for ideology.  I'm not talking self-defense, but active aggression for ideological purposes. 
> 
> Yet those same people turn themselves into pretzels to preserve a single-celled zygote.


What does the ability to recognize a human embryo have to do with it's humanity? I mean, besides absolutely nothing. You base your reverence for human life on appearances alone?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What does the ability to recognize a human embryo have to do with it's humanity? I mean, besides absolutely nothing. You base your reverence for human life on appearances alone?


Actually, it does matter.  It points out that a human being doesn't simply pop into existence anymore than an apple tree.  It has to grow.  We all start out as zygotes, but we have to _grow_ into becoming a human being just like an apple seed has to grow into becoming an apple tree.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> I know exactly what you mean by people twisting themselves every which way.  Take the example of those who label an embryo a child but can't even tell the difference between a human embryo and an animal one:
> 
> 
> 
> We kill people all the time either intentionally, through negligence and even as "collateral damage".   We kill people because it's cheaper to do so than spend money preventing needless deaths.  We kill people for ideology.  I'm not talking self-defense, but active aggression for ideological purposes. 
> 
> Yet those same people turn themselves into pretzels to preserve a single-celled zygote.


Regardless of the appearance, an unborn human life is still an unborn human life. Other than proving my point by trying to justify mangling of an unborn human baby, the rest of your post was irrelevant.

----------

countryboy (07-05-2014)

----------


## East of the Beast

> Thank you for admitting you don't know the difference between a human embryo and an animal one.  Believing one has a soul and the others do not isn't science, it's religion.  Exemplifying that this is a religious issue and by forcing one's religious opinions onto others via the law is a violation of church and state.


But the DNA would.just because they look alike doesn't mean they could be interchanged.I don't see how that strengthens the argument you are making.BTW  The Seperation of Church and State is not a Constitutional concept.Although many think that it is.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-05-2014),countryboy (07-05-2014)

----------


## countryboy

> Actually, it does matter.  It points out that a human being doesn't simply pop into existence anymore than an apple tree.  It has to grow.  We all start out as zygotes, but we have to _grow_ into becoming a human being just like an apple seed has to grow into becoming an apple tree.


Actually it points out nothing other than most people cannot recognize a human embryo. It does not diminish the humanity or person hood of said embryo.

----------


## East of the Beast

for your perusal.

*Separation of Church and State**Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment*Ad by save keep | Close This Ad
Return to Introduction 


Who was Thomas Jefferson ,  
and what did he believe?



Next Page three Supreme Courtrulings that altered the meaning
of the First Amendment

  Site Map 
Today, many Americans think that the *First Amendment* says "*Separation of Church and State*." The Courts and the media will often refer to a ruling as being in violation of the "*Separation of Church and State*." A recent national poll showed that 69% of Americans believe that the *First Amendment* says "*Separation of Church and State*." You may be surprised to learn that these words do not appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution!1  Here is what the *First Amendment* actually does say.
*
The First Amendment :**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*So where did the words "Separation of Church and State." come from? They can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase "Separation of Church and State." When you read the full letter, you will understand that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference. Here is an excerpt from Jefferson's letter. . .

*"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."* Read the full text of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association ..Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment then uses a metaphor, the "wall", to separate the government from interfering with religious practice. Notice that the First Amendment puts Restrictions only on the Government, not the People! The Warren Court re-interpreted the First Amendment thus putting the restrictions on the People! Today the government can stop you from Praying in school, reading the Bible in school, showing the Ten Commandments in school, or have religious displays at Christmas. This is quite different from the *wall* Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association he never intended the words "Separation of Church and State" to be taken out of context and used as a substitute for the First Amendment, but for all practical purposes is what the courts have done.
If actions speak stronger then words, it is interesting to note that 3 days after Jefferson wrote those words, he attended church in the largest congregation in North America at the time. This church held its weekly worship services on government property, in the House Chambers of the U.S. Capital Building. The _wall of separation_ applies everywhere in the country even ongovernment property , without government interference. This is how it is written in the Constitution, this is how Thomas Jefferson understood it from his letter and actions, and this is how the men who wrote the Constitution practiced it.

*"The metaphor of a wall of separation is bad history and worse law. It has made a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be explicitly abandoned."*Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, *William Rehnquist*

Also notice that there are two parts to the First Amendment that refer to religion: the *establishment clause2 and the free exercise clause3. Today much is said about the establishment clause but there is very little mention of the free exercise clause.

While the words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear in the U.S.A. Constitution, they do appear in the constitution of the former U.S.S.R.* *Communist State. 

At the very heart of Jefferson's idea "Wall of Separation",  is the notion that the government will not interfere with people's right to worship God.  The very fact that the government has ruled to regulate religious practices, indicates that the government has crossed that "Wall of Separation."*

----------


## countryboy

> But the DNA would.just because they look alike doesn't mean they could be interchanged.I don't see how that strengthens the argument you are making.BTW  The Seperation of Church and State is not a Constitutional concept.Although many think that it is.


Not only is "separation of church and state" not a Constitutional concept, it is the antithesis of what the Constitution actually says. Not sure what is so difficult to understand about the phrase, "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof".

----------

East of the Beast (07-05-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Regardless of the appearance, *an unborn human life is still an unborn human life.* Other than proving my point by trying to justify mangling of an unborn human baby, the rest of your post was irrelevant.


...and regardless of which side of a fence they are on, the color of their skin or the name of the God in which they pray. 

Calling an embryo a "child" or "baby" and then not being able to pick one out of a line up is proof some people don't know what they are talking about.  They are using an emotional argument, "it's a baby!" instead of a factual one.  Their choice.  Liberal assholes use emotional arguments too but the Republican party has gone down hill ever since they began arguing like Liberals.

----------


## Roadmaster

> ...and regardless of which side of a fence they are on, the color of their skin or the name of the God in which they pray. 
> 
> Calling an embryo a "child" or "baby" and then not being able to pick one out of a line up is proof some people don't know what they are talking about.  They are using an emotional argument, "it's a baby!" instead of a factual one.  Their choice.  Liberal assholes use emotional arguments too but the Republican party has gone down hill ever since they began arguing like Liberals.


No you are using a false argument. Tell me which one isn't a baby. 
http://www.godvoter.org/abortion-is-murder.html

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Not only is "separation of church and state" not a Constitutional concept, it is the antithesis of what the Constitution actually says. Not sure what is so difficult to understand about the phrase, "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof".


The phrase is not in the Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson wrote it in a letter to the Danbury Baptists over a decade after the Constitution: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/...nbury-baptists




> *Letter to the Danbury Baptists*
> *January 1, 1802
> 
> To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.*
> *Gentlemen*
> *The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.*
> *Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.*
> *I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.*
> 
> *Th. Jefferson*

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No you are using a false argument. Tell me which one isn't a baby. 
> http://www.godvoter.org/abortion-is-murder.html


You would quickly change your tune if those were Jewish or Black babies.

----------


## Roadmaster

> You would quickly change your tune if those were Jewish or Black babies.


Did you discover which ones were babies.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-05-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

Here is what they really look like at 8 weeks and 16 weeks. Can you tell they are babies.

http://www.godvoter.org/early-abortions.html

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> ...and regardless of which side of a fence they are on, the color of their skin or the name of the God in which they pray. 
> 
> Calling an embryo a "child" or "baby" and then not being able to pick one out of a line up is proof some people don't know what they are talking about.  They are using an emotional argument, "it's a baby!" instead of a factual one.  Their choice.  Liberal assholes use emotional arguments too but the Republican party has gone down hill ever since they began arguing like Liberals.


You are twisting yourself into knots to justify killing unborn human life. Earlier in the thread, I referred to zygotes and embryos as unborn human life. Does that sound more correct to you? Either way, they will become human babies and you are apparently OK with mangling them with the intent to kill them. Your other references to the race of the unborn human life are irrelevant other than it demonstrates that you are will to twist yourself into just about any position to justify killing it.

----------

East of the Beast (07-05-2014)

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> You would quickly change your tune if those were Jewish or Black babies.


A sad diversion away from your justification of mangling unborn human life with the intent to kill it. 

A friend of mine finally admitted why he argued pro-abortion as much as you have. When he was in college, his girlfriend became pregnant. They both agree that an abortion was the best choice for them due to it minimizing the inconvenience that it would impose on their lives. A rather selfish thing to do IMHO.

----------


## countryboy

> The phrase is not in the Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson wrote it in a letter to the Danbury Baptists over a decade after the Constitution: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/...nbury-baptists


Yes, I know. Point?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Yes, I know. Point?


The derailment about the phrase is bullshit.

----------


## countryboy

> The derailment about the phrase is bullshit.


Oooookay?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> A sad diversion away from your justification of mangling unborn human life with the intent to kill it.


No, but it does point out the hypocrisy of those who rant about saving the "pre-born" yet don't give a shit about the post-born if they are the wrong color, nationality or religion.

----------


## countryboy

> No, but it does point out the hypocrisy of those who rant about saving the "pre-born" yet don't give a shit about the post-born if they are the wrong color, nationality or religion.


Who would that be?

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> No, but it does point out the hypocrisy of those who rant about saving the "pre-born" yet don't give a shit about the post-born if they are the wrong color, nationality or religion.


Oh, I got it now. Since I'm anti-abortion, I only care about the unborn humans and not the ones that are born if they are of certain races. 

Sir, I believe that all young children are innocent, deserve a chance to live and thrive, and cannot be held accountable for the circumstances that created them. This is true regardless of their race.

----------

countryboy (07-05-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> No, but it does point out the hypocrisy of those who rant about saving the "pre-born" yet don't give a shit about the post-born if they are the wrong color, nationality or religion.


 The hypocrisy is not showing what a child looks like at 8 weeks.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Oh, I got it now. Since I'm anti-abortion, I only care about the unborn humans and not the ones that are born if they are of certain races.


Are you denying there are those who are such hypocrites?  On this very forum, no less?

----------


## Roadmaster

> Are you denying there are those who are such hypocrites?  On this very forum, no less?


But you were trying to pass off 8 week olds as not looking like a baby. What did you gain by this.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> But you were trying to pass off 8 week olds as not looking like a baby. What did you gain by this.


Are you saying these pictures are fake? 



Are you saying that at the moment of conception the zygote looks like a tiny little human being?  That's quite fascinating, roadmaster.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Are you saying these pictures are fake? 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that at the moment of conception the zygote looks like a tiny little human being?  That's quite fascinating, roadmaster.


Actually those are fake but that's not the point. At 8 weeks it already looks like a child, many abortions are done at 16 weeks.

----------


## East of the Beast

> The phrase is not in the Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson wrote it in a letter to the Danbury Baptists over a decade after the Constitution: http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/...nbury-baptists


That has already been established try to keep up.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Actually those are fake


Awesome.  You truly epitomize the Pro-Life movement.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Are you denying there are those who are such hypocrites?  On this very forum, no less?


Are you implying that I am one of those people?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Are you implying that I am one of those people?


No.  You I'm still observing.

----------


## sotmfs

> even if you don't believe in a God that controls this world....if you only believe in KARMA.....we are gonna pay for this.


The universe has no emotion.

----------


## sotmfs

> That's because people will twist themselves into all kinds of weird positions to justify the mangling of an unborn human child with the intent to kill it.


I would tend to believe most women,the few I know for sure,do not take having an abortion lightly.They have a hard time ,very difficult time deciding whether or not to do it.A decision they usually make by themselves because the father does not want to be involved at all offering support for the woman or the life of the child they had 50% in conceiving
You ,obviously,know women and men that are different..

----------


## sotmfs

> You would quickly change your tune if those were Jewish or Black babies.


Of course,they are not true humans.They are on the dark side!

----------


## sotmfs

> A sad diversion away from your justification of mangling unborn human life with the intent to kill it. 
> 
> A friend of mine finally admitted why he argued pro-abortion as much as you have. When he was in college, his girlfriend became pregnant. They both agree that an abortion was the best choice for them due to it minimizing the inconvenience that it would impose on their lives. A rather selfish thing to do IMHO.


Your friend speaks for all?

----------


## sotmfs

> A sad diversion away from your justification of mangling unborn human life with the intent to kill it. 
> 
> A friend of mine finally admitted why he argued pro-abortion as much as you have. When he was in college, his girlfriend became pregnant. They both agree that an abortion was the best choice for them due to it minimizing the inconvenience that it would impose on their lives. A rather selfish thing to do IMHO.


I know exactly what you are saying!!A friend of mine,very religious,was active in the pro-life /anti-abortion movement for many years.He organized many protests at clinics and hospitals.His daughter became pregnant during her junior year in college.He paid for her "vacation" and her abortion.He could not be there for her ,but he was still there for the unborn .

----------

Karl (07-06-2014),Max Rockatansky (07-06-2014)

----------


## Matt

> I know exactly what you are saying!!A friend of mine,very religious,was active in the pro-life /anti-abortion movement for many years.He organized many protests at clinics and hospitals.His daughter became pregnant during her junior year in college.He paid for her "vacation" and her abortion.He could not be there for her ,but he was still there for the unborn .


Sounds like he was a fraud then. You do not just throw away your morals and values like that. Sounds suspiciously fake.

sent from a small box floating in the ocean. /mobile.

----------

Karl (07-06-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Sounds like he was a fraud then. You do not just throw away your morals and values like that.


It's easy to "talk the talk", but much harder to "walk the walk".  Hypocrites aren't new.  We see them in politics, among religious leadership and on this forum.  

There are threads here where members proclaim the sanctity of human life, even a single-celled zygote, but bring up inner city poverty and violence or illegal immigrants and those same people change their tune very quickly.

----------

Karl (07-06-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> ok so then make prostitution legal


You voted for Obama, didn't you?

Prostitution is legal.

----------

Karl (07-06-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Prostitution is legal.


Not in Texas.  I doubt it's legal in California.   Is it?

----------

Karl (07-06-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I don't know, don't care, I'm fine with both being legal. The more personal freedom for people the better.


What about the personal freedom of the murdered baby?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Not in Texas. I doubt it's legal in California. Is it?


Some people have what it takes to read THE ENTIRE POST and discern it's meaning.

Other's don't.

Those people vote for Obama.

----------


## Matt

> It's easy to "talk the talk", but much harder to "walk the walk".  Hypocrites aren't new.  We see them in politics, among religious leadership and on this forum.  
> 
> There are threads here where members proclaim the sanctity of human life, even a single-celled zygote, but bring up inner city poverty and violence or illegal immigrants and those same people change their tune very quickly.


No offense Max but when you take two uncomparable topics....most people do change their tune....its called ignoring the guy spouting nonsense.

Abortion is murder. We can dance to any tune we want, in any manner we want, at any time of the day we want....but it wont actually change what abortion is: genocide.

sent from a small box floating in the ocean. /mobile.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Thats true, but its not murder, so says the law.


Oh... it's that all it takes, a phone call or a stroke of the pen...

So Hitler's elimination of the mentally defective, the Jews, the gypsies, and anyone else he sent to concentration camps, that wasn't murder, becuase it was "legal".

Mao's termination of 60,000,000 chinese wasn't murder, because it was the law.

The liberal's termination of some 50,000,000 young Americans isn't murder because an unelected body with no legislative authority whatsoever passed a law.




> I think things like abortion should be looked at in a pragmatic way.


You mean like how PRACTICAL it was for Hitler to get as much labor as he could out of his slaves before they starved to death?




> Laws shouldn't be decided based on emotion or religion.


You're right.

There's not only NO Constituitonal basis for the muder of babies by their incubators, but there's no constitutional basis for the Court to write law saying otherwise.

In fact, the Constitution prohibits depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process, (Amendment V), requires those accused and facing deprivation of life, liberty or propery to have a trial to determine guilt (Amendment VI), and requires that ALL "PERSONS" in the country be granted this protection equally (Amendment XIV).

And clearly the right to life trumps any presumed right of privacy.




> Every situation is different


Not really they're not.

A woman plays hide the salami with a loaded gun, gets shot up with life.   The specifics aren't important all.

You said "rape"?   Explain when the United States began not only the implementation of capital punishment for rapists (and detail your support for the same) but explain which Amendment repeals the Constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder.  If you can't get around the prohibitions against Bills of Attainder, explain what crime the CHILD is guilty and explain your support of capital punishment for this but not for baby-raping killers of somewhat larger stature.




> and the resolution of that situation should be up to the individual, not some random person that has nothing to do with it.


Oh.  So you argue that if murder is the resolution to a "situation" that the aggreived individual desires, then the state has no interest in preventing it?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No offense Max but when you take two uncomparable topics....most people do change their tune....its called ignoring the guy spouting nonsense.


So Mexicans aren't human life?  Awesome.  Thanks for the update.

----------

Karl (07-06-2014)

----------


## Matt

> So Mexicans aren't human life?


If thats your opinion then ill respect that.

sent from a small box floating in the ocean. /mobile.

----------

Karl (07-06-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> If thats your opinion then ill respect that.
> 
> sent from a small box floating in the ocean. /mobile.


Nice dodge.  Wrong, but nice.

----------

Karl (07-06-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> No,it is not.The lives of the immigrants ,especially the children, are not included when it comes to protecting the sanctity of life.Many that want to protect the unborn,without regard to protecting the born,the mother many times also do not want to protect the lives of illegal immigrants.
> They do not listen and go through the legal process(many are children that are not at fault) and that removes their right to have their life protected by those protecting the sanctity of life.
> 
> Unborn babies are not being murdered,the mothers are being told not to have unwanted children like everyone else.


An "immigrant" is a person who's applied for permission to enter and subsequently been granted that permission, thereby subjecting himself to the laws of the United States and earning also the protection of those laws.

You people use the word "immigrant" to innacurately describe those invaders currently engaging in acts of war against the United States, to wit, illegal entry, illegal residency, illegal employment, and illegal consumption of resources intended to be used for the benefit of citizens and lawful immigrants.

Becuase those Invaders are in fact engaging in war against the United States, it is permissible to shoot them.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Yeah, nice job, I never said it was an easy choice either way. I just said it is MY choice.


Actually, YOUR choice is made when you can't figure out how to use proper birth control.  The ONLY women that get pregnant who don't want to are the Stupid women.

Why should anyone believe that murder of someone else will cause the woman to stop being Stupid?

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-07-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> You are twisting yourself into knots to justify killing unborn human life. Earlier in the thread, I referred to zygotes and embryos as unborn human life. Does that sound more correct to you? Either way, they will become human babies and you are apparently OK with mangling them with the intent to kill them. Your other references to the race of the unborn human life are irrelevant other than it demonstrates that you are will to twist yourself into just about any position to justify killing it.


They will not "become" human babies, to make that statement is to be halfway to allowing the Rodent the argument that it isn't a baby at all until it's born, alive.

"Zygote" and "embryo" and "fetus" all terms to describe stages a human baby passes through, all the time being a baby.

"Child", "adolescent", and "adult" are all terms for the phase a human turns into after it's born...all the time being completely human (excluding the Obama voters, of course) throughout.

Abortion kills human babies.

It's not complicated if you don't accept the words from the weasels.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-07-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I would tend to believe most women,the few I know for sure,do not take having an abortion lightly.They have a hard time ,very difficult time deciding whether or not to do it.A decision they usually make by themselves because the father does not want to be involved at all offering support for the woman or the life of the child they had 50% in conceiving
> You ,obviously,know women and men that are different..



If they've decided to murder they own child, they've taken abortion lightly.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It's not complicated if you don't accept the words from the weasels.


Like the weasels advocating gunning down illegal families crossing a fence?

----------

Karl (07-06-2014)

----------


## Matt

> Nice dodge.  Wrong, but nice.


When something throws something at you...you dodge. That's simple reflexes. The variable you've inserted has nothing to do with the topic. As you brought it up I can only deduce, Max, that it has something to do with your beliefs or your opinion. If that's not true I'd suggest an edit from the thread. You know me better than that and should know you cannot catch me with such a simple trap (not that I doubt your verbal trapping skills).

I'm done with the topic either way if I may be excused from the topic. I have nothing left to add and I feel it's just going to devolve into arguing from here on out. Thank you all for respecting that in advance.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> I know exactly what you are saying!!A friend of mine,very religious,was active in the pro-life /anti-abortion movement for many years.He organized many protests at clinics and hospitals.His daughter became pregnant during her junior year in college.He paid for her "vacation" and her abortion.He could not be there for her ,but he was still there for the unborn .


So, ALL Pro-lifers are hypocrits. Got it. No. my friend didn't speak for all nor did I say that he did. You are putting words that weren't said into my mouth.

Pro-baby killers will do anything to deflect the reality of their bloodythirsty beliefs.

Sir, I could have pressured my wife to murder our son before he was born. It would have been very convenient for us at the time. However, since I am pro-life and so is my wife, it never even came up as an option.

 My wife and I even tried to save a child from being aborted. A teenage sister of my wife's coworker became pregnant and the local Planned Parenthood had convinced her that killing her baby was her only "choice". We offered to adopt her child. Her family was all for it and tried to convince her that it would be a good thing. Planned Parenthood (the darling government pro-choice agency) lied and told her that since it was already scheduled, she had to do it or face legal action. This is the PP in Bloomington, IN that was caught in the act of telling a guy that he could take his minor girlfriend to another state to get an abortion.

The EVIL bastards won. The girl now regrets it because she knows that her baby could have had a good life with parents that would love and provide more than she could. 

So, anyone that argues pro-choice, which is equivalent to pro-baby killing, is arguing for EVIL no matter how they try to deflect, or twist the argument.

The guy that you mentioned is a hyopcrit--if he truly exists.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

Man, I tried to keep up with this thread. I have ready many of the posts but, not all for sure.

I can say that all that I'm seeing is lots of twisting, deflecting, and subject changing on the part of the Pro- Baby Killers trying to justify their bloodthirsty belief that it is completely acceptable to mangle unborn human life with the intent to kill it. You know, if it weren't for Roe vs. Wade, that would meet the legal definition of murder. It's amazing how one very convenient legal decision can make people that believe that they are good people when they promote something so barbaric and EVIL.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The variable you've inserted has nothing to do with the topic.


Disagreed.  If all life is sacred, then it's still sacred outside of this thread or topic.

If it's only sacred in one instance, then that should be admitted.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> No.  You I'm still observing.


I'll lose sleep over that, NOT.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I'll lose sleep over that, NOT.


Why would you?

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Why would you?


I didn't.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I didn't.


As you shouldn't.  It's a discussion forum.

----------

Matt (07-07-2014)

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> As you shouldn't.  It's a discussion forum.


Would have rather I simply stated that I don't care if you are "watching" me?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

As the poll notes, this data has remained fairly consistent over the years.  Instead of seeking to ban abortion, I think both the pro-lifers and pro-choicers could find common ground in promoting better sex education, access to cheap (at or slightly above cost) contraceptives and adoption policies where young mothers can give up their babies after carrying them to term rather than seeking an abortion.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Would have rather I simply stated that I don't care if you are "watching" me?


Observing is different than "watching", but I find it interesting you equate the two.

I fail to see why you are so concerned about this issue.  You asked a question and I answered it.  Now you have a problem with the answer.  Why is that? 





> Are you implying that I am one of those people?





> No.  You I'm still observing.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Observing is different than "watching", but I find it interesting you equate the two.
> 
> I fail to see why you are so concerned about this issue. You asked a question and I answered it. Now you have a problem with the answer. Why is that?


I must be debating a Liberal.

----------


## choice

> There's not only NO Constituitonal basis for the muder of babies by their incubators, but there's no constitutional basis for the Court to write law saying otherwise.
> 
> In fact, the Constitution prohibits depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process, (Amendment V), requires those accused and facing deprivation of life, liberty or propery to have a trial to determine guilt (Amendment VI), and requires that ALL "PERSONS" in the country be granted this protection equally (Amendment XIV).
> 
> And clearly the right to life trumps any presumed right of privacy.


I guess you don't know that women are not incubators, but persons.  The very fact that you are basically reducing women to incubators in what you say shows that you have no respect for the personhood of women - meanwhile, you imagine that a mindless, insentient entity, an embryo, is a person.   

But the Supreme Court found in Roe v Wade that the uses of the word "person" in the Constitution could not meaningfully apply to embryos/fetuses and court case findings in federal law had not established personhood for embryos/fetuses - a fact that even Wade admitted.  

So if you care to dispute that, you will need to analyze each use of the word "person" throughout the Constitution to see if the usage in one place, the 14th Amendment, can reasonably be applied to embryos or fetuses as justified by the other usages.  You will also need to work through every federal court case concerning embryos/fetuses and the issue of possible rights they may have - just as the SC justices did.





> You said "rape"?   Explain when the United States began not only the implementation of capital punishment for rapists (and detail your support for the same) but explain which Amendment repeals the Constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder.  If you can't get around the prohibitions against Bills of Attainder, explain what crime the CHILD is guilty and explain your support of capital punishment for this but not for baby-raping killers of somewhat larger stature.


There is a fundamental difference between subjecting rapists to capital punishment and allowing victims, and third parties helping them, to use deadly force if necessary to prevent or stop the rape of the victims before or during the rape.  

A legally insane rapist would very likely never even be prosecuted for rape, because legal insanity is a credible defense.  But if a woman perceives, with cause, that a man (or woman) is threatening her with rape, kidnapping, sexual assault, or robbery, she has the right to use deadly force if necessary to prevent that threat/stop commission of that act, and so does a third party aiming to help her do so.  Moreover, neither she nor the third party has to perceive that her life is threatened.  

If some guy is in the process of trying to put his penis in your vagina against your will and your voiced non-consent and is using force to do it, you do not have to know whether or not he is legally sane before you use whatever amount of force is necessary to prevent that penis from going into your vagina or to force that penis out of your vagina.

The death of the person doing that very bad thing to you is too bad, but there isn't a jury in the US that would find you guilty of murder for defending yourself in such a situation.  And in fact, most prosecutors would not even prosecute the case if there was evidence that you specifically objected to what the guy did and that the guy used force against you.  That would be no different if the guy was legally insane.

Of course, you can argue that the rape embryo isn't doing any harm to the woman.  But even if you ignore the types of objective, empirical harm that all embryos inside women's bodies do to those women, there is here the harm of the embryo/fetus leaking its own cells and loose chromosomes across the placenta into the woman's bloodstream, particularly later in pregnancy and massively in childbirth.  

Those cells will contain the male's chromosomes, and some of the loose chromosomes will be his.  Such cells and chromosomes can end up anywhere in a woman's body through circulation, and evidence shows they can stay in her body for several decades and can make her liable to serious diseases just as they can make her more resistant to some diseases.

So the embryo/fetus from rape is continuing the rapist's rape of the woman. It is not only keeping the rapist's chromosomes inside her body just by being there (when she wants to get all of the rapist's body, including his chromosomes, out of her).  It will put them into her tissue and blood, polluted them for decades if not permanently, unless the woman ejects the embryo from her body early enough.

A government that would claim an embryo or fetus had a right to do that and a woman didn't have a right to eject it would be, simply, an accomplice of the rapist, using legal force to keep the rapist's chromosomes inside her body.  Agh!  

Want an example of a tyranny that would justify overthrowing a government?  You won't find a better example than that one.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I must be debating a Liberal.


Seriously, dude?  Name-calling is all you got?  Man up and quit being a pussy.  You said you didn't care but now you've spent four posts whining about it?  WTF?

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Seriously, dude? Name-calling is all you got? Man up and quit being a pussy. You said you didn't care but now you've spent four posts whining about it? WTF?


When all you got is playing crappy little sematic games like Liberals LOVE to do, that what you get. I wasn't calling you a name. I was stating how you were acting. Man up.

----------


## Karl

> When all you got is playing crappy little sematic games like Liberals LOVE to do, that what you get. I wasn't calling you a name. I was stating how you were acting. Man up.


And CONSERVATIVES never get emotional, knowingly Mislead, and play crappy little semantic games "right" @Conservative Libertarian

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> And CONSERVATIVES never get emotional, knowingly Mislead, and play crappy little semantic games "right" @Conservative Libertarian


He's not a conservative.  He's just a hot head using it as a mask.

----------


## Karl

> He's not a conservative.  He's just a hot head using it as a mask.


Well I see it all the time here then they got the nerve to accuse others of exactly the same thing they do themselves

Judge Not lest ye be Judged themselves

Oh the IRONY

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Well I see it all the time here then they got the nerve to accuse others of exactly the same thing they do themselves
> 
> Judge Not lest ye be Judged themselves
> 
> Oh the IRONY


The irony of their hypocrisy is amusing.   That's the good news!

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> The irony of their hypocrisy is amusing.   That's the good news!


More deflection of the fact that you approve of mangling unborn human babies with the intent to kill them.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Disagreed. If all life is sacred, then it's still sacred outside of this thread or topic.
> 
> If it's only sacred in one instance, then that should be admitted.


Life isn't sacred.

Innocence is.

That's why it's okay to shoot down an invading army at the border, that's why it's okay for the state to formally execute a convicted child kidnapper/rapist/murders,  and that's why it's WRONG to murder unborn children.

Ooo....sorry, didn't mean to offend you with the "w" word.    Explaining the real reasons for Why is so hard for Obama voters to understand and accept.

----------


## Sled Dog

> As the poll notes, this data has remained fairly consistent over the years. Instead of seeking to ban abortion, I think both the pro-lifers and pro-choicers could find common ground in promoting better sex education, access to cheap (at or slightly above cost) contraceptives and adoption policies where young mothers can give up their babies after carrying them to term rather than seeking an abortion.


Better yet, ban abortion because it's murder, treat "doctors" performing abortions as premeditated murderers, and women who murder their own children as premedicated murderesses.

EDUCATE the young and the realities of nature, the realities of prison, the realities of being too stupid to use contraceptives properly, the realities of their immaturity, the realities of economics (ie, it's a BITCH getting a job with a rug rat tied to your ankles), and it's a REAL BITCH not being able to go out and party when you're 19 because you were stupid and got knocked up.

Those are the realities that they should be taught, that if they are as "mature" as they claim to be, they wouldn't be PLAYING with sex and they would at least have the sense to use the proper precautions.

EVERY woman that gets an abortion absent sound medical reasons has done something STUPID...in other words, THEY are STUPID.

Which is why they voted for Obama.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I guess you don't know that women are not incubators, but persons. The very fact that you are basically reducing women to incubators in what you say shows that you have no respect for the personhood of women - meanwhile, you imagine that a mindless, insentient entity, an embryo, is a person.


WOMEN are human beings with strong maternal instincts that do not allow them to murder their own babies.

INCUBATORS are machines that can be emptied of living cargo at whim.

I respect WOMEN.

I like WOMEN.

INCUBATORS are machines. Use them when desired, and put them away when not in use. Aerospace engineers fully understand machinery.

Your thanks for my help in clearing up your lingering confusion is not required.

An embryo is a human being. It won't be known if it's a person or not until it's in a voting booth and refuses to vote for DemocRATs.




> But the Supreme Court found in Roe v Wade that the uses of the word "person" in the Constitution could not meaningfully apply to embryos/fetuses and court case findings in federal law had not established personhood for embryos/fetuses - a fact that even Wade admitted.


No such ruling was made.

Guess what, even if you find some nonsense that you claim says as much?

The role of the court is to determine if LEGISLATED WRITTEN LAW is consistent or not with the Constitution of the United States.

DEFINING TERMS...is a LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION...courts cannot define words, they have to review the law and see if the definitions included therein are consistent or not with the Constitution.

What clause of the Constitution granted congress the authority over the states to define "person"? Oh, there isn't any. Abortion and other matters pertaining to both murder and medicine...are under the jurisdictions of the STATES, per the Tenth Amendment.




> So if you care to dispute that, you will need to analyze each use of the word "person" throughout the Constitution to see if the usage in one place, the 14th Amendment, can reasonably be applied to embryos or fetuses as justified by the other usages. You will also need to work through every federal court case concerning embryos/fetuses and the issue of possible rights they may have - just as the SC justices did.


You asked for it.




> *Article I, Section 2, Part Two:*
> No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years,


Fetuses are less than 25 years old, unless they're OWS Obama voters, and cannot be Congressmen. 




> *Article I, Section 2, Part Three:*
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall be ...


Fetuses are persons not counted, since nobody at the time could tell how many were in the oven at a time, and infant mortality was over 50%.

Also, not being able to do labor, unborn persons counted as 0/5 each, less than slaves.




> *Article I, Section 3, Part Three:*
> No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years,


Fetuses are less than 30years old, unless they're OWS Obama voters, and cannot be Senators. BTW, the Constitution does not permit pigs and maggots to be Senators either.




> *Article I, Section 3, Part Six:*
> The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.


Can't imagine a fetus being impeached since the Constitution already prevents them from holding federal elective office and only a tyrant would appoint a fetus to a position....gotta wonder why King Obama hasn't done it yet.




> *Article I, Section 6, Part Two:*
> and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office


Since it's already been established that unborn children will not be holding office, this doesn't apply.




> *Article I, Section 7, Part Two:*
> But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.


Given what we all know about Congress (we being those people smart enough to not vote for Obama), it's strange seeing Congressthings referred to as persons.

Since Congressthings cannot be unborn human persons, this clause is not germaine to this discussion.




> *Article I, Section 9, Part One:*The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


Could easily be fetuses. Cite the laws in which Congress specifically excluded unborn children or in which they applied double duty on pregant women. Congressional failure to define or close loopholes does not mean people aren't persons.




> *Article I, Section 9, Part Eight:*And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.


So fetuses holding public office cannot take bribes. Figure it out, already.





> *Article II, Section 1, Part Two:* but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector


Unborn children would make better electors than ANY of the treasonous scum that cast their ballot for Obama.




> *Article II, Section 1, Part Three:*
> The original electoral college set up,


Says the elected candidates for president must be persons....later on the Constitution will describe that a person has to be older than the unborn to be a candidate for president.

It's fun going through the Constitution showing people who've never read it what it says. 





> *Article II, Section 1, Part Five:*
> No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


Well, that leaves Obama out of the Presidency. And fetuses, since they're not "born".




> *Article III, Section 3, Part One:*
> No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


There are three hundred thirty million witnesses to the treasons of King Obama, sixty million of them would perjure themselves if questioned under oath on the matter.

It's pretty hard to see a fetus being a traitor...they're um...INNOCENT.




> *Article III, Section 3, Part Two:*The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


The unborn cannot be punished for the sins of their father, including for the crime of rape....the Constitution declares crimes are individual acts for which the individual criminal pays the penatly, not his descendants.

Especially not his descendants that weren't conceived when the father's crime was being committed.




> *Article IV, Section 1, Part Two:*2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.


As I pointed out, it's hard to imagine a fetus committing treason.





> *Article I, Section 6, Part Two:*3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.


Superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment, with all liberals hate with a passion fruit. (Just as religiously devout bakers what I mean by that one.)

Child labor wasn't unlawful when the Constitution was ratified, but most people felt it uneconomical to put their fetuses to work.




> *Amendment IV*Article [IV]
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Can't search a fetus without a warrant, nor can you seize his papers, houses or effects.




> *Amendment V*Article [V]
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


A fetus can't be put on trial for a CAPITAL crime, such as RAPE, without an indictment, nor can he be DEPRIVED OF LIFE without due process of law.

The following Amemdment does not use the word "person" but it cannot be disconnected from the Fifth Amendment




> *Amendment IV*In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Jury trials for ALL accused persons, including, of course, unborn persons.




> *Amendment XII* The Electoral College, reformed.





> *Amendment XIV, Part One*All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Remember when the fascists at the New York Slimes decided that a faded and/or "missing" period in the Declaration of Independence altered the meaning of the phrase "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to be "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness AND the right to as much government as they can get"?

No?

They did. I'm pointing this out because fascists like to ignore punctuation and basic sentence construction when it's inconvenient, like the fascist judges wanting the murder of babies to proceed apace.

Let's dissect the Fourteenth.

_All PERSONS BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside._ 

See the bolded underlined part? Says that BORN and naturalized PERSONS are citizens...provided their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States already (doesn't mean "anchor babies", contrary to fascist mythology).

Next sentence.

_No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

You're certainly happy to note distinction between the birthright citizenship clause that specifies BORN persons and the Equal Protection Clause that specifies ONLY "PERSONS", with NO QUALIFIERS WHATSOEVER.


Then the Fourteenth goes on to discuss qualifications for offices, etc among the DemocRATS that rebelled to keep their slaves.




> *Amendment XX* The Wilson was a Racist Laid Low By The Great Influenza, Oh What Shall We Do Amendment





> *Amendment XXII* Term Limits, but only for Presidents and, now, for Traitors Tyrants pretending to be President.


That's it.

You'll be unhappy to note the following:

1) The Constitution makes a disctinction between persons born and unborn when the disctinction is relevant (Amendment XIV)

2) The Supreme Court of the United States has routinely ruled in favor of EXPANDING the liberties of the people, until Roe v Wade, when it began authorizing the murder of people without trial and flatly refusing to recognize the rights of certain classes of people.




> There is a fundamental difference between subjecting rapists to capital punishment and allowing victims, and third parties helping them, to use deadly force if necessary to prevent or stop the rape of the victims before or during the rape.


Don't have the faintest fucking idea what the hell this statement has with the babies murdered by abortionists and their incubators, even when the baby victim is sired during a rape.

Personally, since I'm a real American, I FULLY SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE VICTIM OF RAPE, male or female, to carry, concealed on their person, without any permission or registration whatsoever, a firearm of sufficient caliber to end the criminal career of any potential rapist on the spot. 




> A legally insane rapist would very likely never even be prosecuted for rape, because legal insanity is a credible defense. But if a woman perceives, with cause, that a man (or woman) is threatening her with rape, kidnapping, sexual assault, or robbery, she has the right to use deadly force if necessary to prevent that threat/stop commission of that act, and so does a third party aiming to help her do so. Moreover, neither she nor the third party has to perceive that her life is threatened.


It's all irrelevant to the topic, isn't it? 

The topic isn't about the criminal penalties of rape and it isn't about rapists. 

The topic is about babies.

Oh, and yes indeed, self-defense defenses in criminal cases most certainly do require that the perception of immediate bodily harm is present to justify fatally injuring the perceived attacker.




> If some guy is in the process of trying to put his penis in your vagina against your will and your voiced non-consent and is using force to do it, you do not have to know whether or not he is legally sane before you use whatever amount of force is necessary to prevent that penis from going into your vagina or to force that penis out of your vagina.


You're still attemptin to diverting the discussion.

BTW, I don't own a vagina, unless you count my husky bitch.




> The death of the person doing that very bad thing to you is too bad, but there isn't a jury in the US that would find you guilty of murder for defending yourself in such a situation. And in fact, most prosecutors would not even prosecute the case if there was evidence that you specifically objected to what the guy did and that the guy used force against you. That would be no different if the guy was legally insane.


Zippity doo-dah, Zippity-day, ...humming...waiting...

Do you know I've never seen Song of the South, not even on video? Censorship, that's what it is...




> Of course, you can argue that the rape embryo isn't doing any harm to the woman.


You can ignore the fact that I've NEVER denied the reality of real medically necessary pregnancy termations, but, of course, if you didn't deny that, your strawman would be an empty suit.




> But even if you ignore the types of objective, empirical harm that all embryos inside women's bodies do to those women, there is here the harm of the embryo/fetus leaking its own cells and loose chromosomes across the placenta into the woman's bloodstream, particularly later in pregnancy and massively in childbirth.


So you too admit that there are, RARELY, medically necessary times to terminate pregnancies.

Good for you.

Remember the term "medically necessary". It will save you an awful lot of hunting and pecking on the keyboards of life.




> Those cells will contain the male's chromosomes, and some of the loose chromosomes will be his. Such cells and chromosomes can end up anywhere in a woman's body through circulation, and evidence shows they can stay in her body for several decades and can make her liable to serious diseases just as they can make her more resistant to some diseases.


See what a wonder the term "medically necessary" is in terms of arthritis prevention?




> So the embryo/fetus from rape is continuing the rapist's rape of the woman. It is not only keeping the rapist's chromosomes inside her body just by being there (when she wants to get all of the rapist's body, including his chromosomes, out of her). It will put them into her tissue and blood, polluted them for decades if not permanently, unless the woman ejects the embryo from her body early enough.


Rape is a crime. All crimes carry trauma for the victim.

Here's a point your are wilfully ignoring:

It's HER child, too.

Shoot the rapist, castrate the rapist, put the rapist in the gay cell blocks, naturally sever ALL paternal rights to visitation and custody of the child, take five times the normal child support from the rapist...

...but you're making psychobabble emotional arguments in favor of murder. If you can't introduce factual arguments, just confess your crime and be done with it.




> A government that would claim an embryo or fetus had a right to do that and a woman didn't have a right to eject it would be, simply, an accomplice of the rapist, using legal force to keep the rapist's chromosomes inside her body. Agh!


Since an embryo and then a fetus (you people can't even keep your own terms straight) is also a "Person", then yes, THIS government is obligated by the Constitution to protect the child.

That's what the law says.

Don't like it, get an amendment passed to redefine "person". The Roe v Wade decision was unconstitutional.




> Want an example of a tyranny that would justify overthrowing a government? You won't find a better example than that one.


Yes, murdering babies is an excellent example of tyranny and an excellent justification for major reform of the system of government.

You haven't explained why you support murder of children.

----------

East of the Beast (07-08-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Life isn't sacred.


Thank you for explaining why it's okay to machine gun down pregnant women and children illegally crossing the border.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Thank you for explaining why it's okay to machine gun down pregnant women and children illegally crossing the border.


you have the NERVE to post this after supporting abortion?

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-08-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> you have the NERVE to post this after supporting abortion?


I support a woman's right to choose, up to a certain point.  That's different than supporting abortion even if you are unable to see the difference.

My main point is to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim abortion is murder based on the "all life is sacred" argument then are the first to jump in and machine gun women and children at the border.

I have a strong dislike for hypocrites because they are liars and gutless.

----------


## Karl

> Thank you for explaining why it's okay to machine gun down pregnant women and children illegally crossing the border.





> I support a woman's right to choose, up to a certain point.  That's different than supporting abortion even if you are unable to see the difference.
> 
> My main point is to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim abortion is murder based on the "all life is sacred" argument then are the first to jump in and machine gun women and children at the border.
> 
> I have a strong dislike for hypocrites because they are liars and gutless.


It is the typical CHILDISH Mentality we have seen the Right wing display again and again yet people like @Calypso Jones and the like demand to be seen as the adults in the room I mean really 

Just like that Obama Out House and the RWNJ wonder why they are often seen as Ignorant and backwards what do you think @Max Rockatansky

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It is the typical CHILDISH Mentality we have seen the Right wing display again and again yet people like @Calypso Jones and the like demand to be seen as the adults in the room I mean really 
> 
> Just like that Obama Out House and the RWNJ wonder why they are often seen as Ignorant and backwards what do you think @Max Rockatansky


I support the Right Wing for many reasons; mostly reason and fiscal responsibility.  What I don't support are the RWNJs who, IMO, are simply using the Right Wing as an excuse to vent their own mental issues in a socially-acceptable manner the same as the LWLs.

A major problem in our national politics today is that both sides have become so partisan, they are each driven by their nut jobs (squeaky wheel gets the grease syndrome).  Most Americans are in the middle on most issues but since they don't rant and rave, they don't receive as much attention as the nut jobs.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> I support a woman's right to choose, up to a certain point. That's different than supporting abortion even if you are unable to see the difference.
> 
> My main point is to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim abortion is murder based on the "all life is sacred" argument then are the first to jump in and machine gun women and children at the border.
> 
> I have a strong dislike for hypocrites because they are liars and gutless.


It's not a choice. It's a child.

----------


## Karl

> It's not a choice. It's a child.


 @Conservative Libertarian what is your view of THIS





Or THIS




And maybe it is time that CONSERVATIVES get a fucking CLUE you too @Reverend please chime in

----------


## Reverend

> @Conservative Libertarian what is your view of THIS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or THIS
> 
> 
> ...


Leave me out of your petty political rants.

----------


## Karl

> Leave me out of your petty political rants.


Well we PARTICIPATE in your PETTY political rants so the LEAST you could DO is Return The FAVOR ya know @Reverend the concept of COURTESY

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Leave me out of your petty political rants.



I'm responding to this because I have the unstable guy who forgets to take his meds on ignore.


I didn't watch the video. Killing children for any reason is wrong.

----------


## Reverend

> Well we PARTICIPATE in your PETTY political rants so the LEAST you could DO is Return The FAVOR ya know @Reverend the concept of COURTESY


Is that you, Max? 

It's not my day to solves the world's problems, it's Fyrenza's day. Come back on the second Tuesday of next week.

----------


## Reverend

> I'm responding to this because I have the unstable guy who forgets to take his meds on ignore.
> 
> 
> I didn't watch the video. Killing children for any reason is wrong.


I didn't watch it either.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Is that you, Max?


Not me, but thanks for asking.  The question means you are either a liar or delusional.  Could go either way.  Maybe both ways....you know, like Karl.

----------


## Reverend

> Not me, but thanks for asking.  The question means you are either a liar or delusional.  Could go either way.  Maybe both ways....you know, like Karl.


Go sit on a tack, Max, I have had about enough of your humor impaired mouth for one week.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Go sit on a tack, Max, I have had about enough of your humor impaired mouth for one week.


Report me, Revvie.  You've done it before.

----------


## Reverend

> Report me, Revvie.  You've done it before.


Say the magic word.

----------


## Reverend

> Go sit on a tack, Max, I have had about enough of your humor impaired mouth for one week.


And it's only Tuesday.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> And it's only Tuesday.


At least you are cognizant of the day of the week.  That's a good sign.

----------


## Karl

> I'm responding to this because I have the unstable guy who forgets to take his meds on ignore.
> 
> 
> I didn't watch the video. Killing children for any reason is wrong.


Well Neo @Conservative Libertarian that is sure an awful lot of "ignoring" there son

----------


## Sled Dog

> Thank you for explaining why it's okay to machine gun down pregnant women and children illegally crossing the border.


Your failure to understand the difference between war and national self-determination, and murdering mothers is noted.

How many times are you going to repeat your ignorance?

----------


## Sled Dog

> I support a woman's right to choose, up to a certain point.


I FULLY support a woman's right to choose what a woman has a right to choose to do.

She can choose to use contraceptives.
She can choose to not use contraceptives.
She can choose to use contraceptives correctly.
She can choose to use contraceptives incorrectly.
She can choose to carry a gun to defend herself from attackers.
She can choose to carry a knife to defend herself from attackers.
She can choose to carry a club to defend herself from attackers.
She can choose to carry a pomeranian to defend herself from attackers.
She can choose to carry a piano to defend herself from attackers.  (Certainly damn few rapists are going to attack a woman carrying a baby grand piano on her shoulder.)

She can choose to carry nothing to defend herself and rely on her fully trained grand master tae-kwon-do and judo skills.
She can choose to carry nothing and she can choose to run naked in the streets, though hopefully she's worth looking at.

She has the freedom to choose all that and she can choose to eat green eggs and ham, too.

She has a right to choose all of that, Sam I Am.

She DOES NOT have the right to choose to commit murder for her own convenience.




> That's different than supporting abortion even if you are unable to see the difference.


What you support is abortion.

All people who allow abortion support abortion.

There's no difference.




> My main point is to point out the hypocrisy of those who claim abortion is murder based on the "all life is sacred" argument then are the first to jump in and machine gun women and children at the border.


Oh.

We thought your main point was your excitement at finding an argument every other supporter of baby murder has used because they too run out of valid arguments.




> I have a strong dislike for hypocrites because they are liars and gutless.


And you support Obama and the Rodents because....?

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-09-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I didn't watch the video. Killing children for any reason is wrong.


Really?

What if they're defending your Furher's bunker with rifles and grenades?

What if they're last-minute cadets forming a skirmish line as the last hope to stop Sherman from encircling Atlanta?

"War is cruelty, you cannot refine it."

----------


## Reverend

> She can choose to carry a pomeranian to defend herself from attackers.


And believe me, those noisy little bastards will go nuts if somebody farts a block way. Nobody can sneak up on a pomeranian.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-09-2014)

----------


## Katzndogz

> I'm responding to this because I have the unstable guy who forgets to take his meds on ignore.
> 
> 
> I didn't watch the video. Killing children for any reason is wrong.


That's why the use of children as killers is becoming so popular.  It's used in Africa and heavily used by the drug cartels.  Many of the "children" that came across the border recently are already experienced killers.

If you intend to defend yourself, you must be ready to kill a child if necessary.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That's why the use of children as killers is becoming so popular.  It's used in Africa and heavily used by the drug cartels.  Many of the "children" that came across the border recently are already experienced killers.
> 
> If you intend to defend yourself, you must be ready to kill a child if necessary.


Clearly many here are ready to gun them down.

----------


## Reverend

> Clearly many here are ready to gun them down.


Who?

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Really?
> 
> What if they're defending your Furher's bunker with rifles and grenades?
> 
> What if they're last-minute cadets forming a skirmish line as the last hope to stop Sherman from encircling Atlanta?
> 
> "War is cruelty, you cannot refine it."





> That's why the use of children as killers is becoming so popular.  It's used in Africa and heavily used by the drug cartels.  Many of the "children" that came across the border recently are already experienced killers.
> 
> If you intend to defend yourself, you must be ready to kill a child if necessary.


I guess that I stand corrected for certain cases.

----------


## Sled Dog

> And believe me, those noisy little bastards will go nuts if somebody farts a block way. Nobody can sneak up on a pomeranian.


I will admit that its easier than carrying a husky.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-10-2014)

----------


## East of the Beast

> Who?


Don't hold your breath on that one.Calling someone out without saying their name is his forte.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (07-10-2014)

----------


## Reverend

> Don't hold your breath on that one.Calling someone out without saying their name is his forte.


He's pretty big on bearing false witness, too.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> He's pretty big on bearing false witness, too.


True.  It's a Commandment and one you should contemplate more often.

----------


## Reverend

> True.  It's a Commandment and one you should contemplate more often.


Attachment 4368

And he weasels out of answering the question yet again.

----------

