Um... Holy F***...

Damocles said:
I'm actually ill when I read the argument when the argument is used for fetuses... I don't want to read any more of this. This thing making this argument is clearly lacking the necessary components of humanity to be named a person and therefore is open for an "after-birth abortion". It's even one step further than Apple who thinks that now that you can smell it then it is real...
Click to expand...


It's commonly referred to as "passing the smell test." :D
 
Onceler said:
You're the one who is anti-liberty. Logan's society would fit your views perfectly...
Click to expand...
Uh-uh. Anti-do whatever the hell you want when you want. Liberty and Liberals are natural enemies. Logan's Run fits perfectly with Liberal Utopia.
 
Darla said:
And yet, the Libertarian men here are discussing it. And none of them have been discussing the stunning attack on women happening right there in this country. A fight to allow women's employers, any employer (owner???) btw, this is not about churches, refuse her birth control coverage from health insurance she has both earned, and paid into. The right new right wing narrative taking hold this week that women are such whores and fucking so much, that they can't afford their pills. Apparently men are unaware you take one a day no matter how many times you fuck.

Men calling women whores and sluts all over the country, on radio, on tv, on the internet, because they wanted to testify to women's health issues. The fucking whore, why doesn't she put an aspirin between her legs?

Women are no longer human in this country as of this week,and I have watched this board with interest and the libertarians are still worried about their dicks and their guns...but then I repeat myself.

And of course, abortion.

So no, this isnt' actually anything that will ever happen, but let's talk about it.

Because we wouldn't want to have to talk about what is being done to women in this country. The only good news? I have friends on my FB i haven't seen in years, some from college, things like that. I often block their feeds, because I can't stand their stupid, right wing bs. To a woman, they are up in arms. So this is above and beyond politics and the right wing men are about to get a kick in their balls they won't soon forget come November.

But they're clueless about what's out there. The anger. They have no clue.

But this, this is important.
Click to expand...

Thank-you for getting that out. I've always been fiscally conservative and the more value one can get for the money.....well, it's just the right thing to do. :)
 
I wonder if any of these were quotes from Obama back when he was an Illinois senator promoting protection for abortion doctors killing the kids they accidentally delivered live.......
 
Superfreak said:
Actually, they are extending the liberal view and justifications for killing UNBORN children and including NEW BORNS with the same 'logic'

Take a look at the 'justifications' they give in the OP. Then take a look at any of the abortion threads on this board and you will find the EXACT same 'logic' being used. That is why liberals don't want to discuss the OP. Because they recognize their own logic being used to dehumanize children.
Click to expand...

Using your logic, I can pick the most radical conservative nutbag and say he represents all conservatives. Grow the fuck up.
 
tinfoil said:
Yes, they do. They represent the PRO-CHOICE argument. You own it now, libtards. You guys are famous for painting everyone on the other side of the argument with a broad brush. Well, guess what? You get to see how it feels. These scientists are pro-choice liberals. Prove they are something else if you want to start your argument. LOL
Click to expand...

Already did, start pay attention will you?
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
SF:

I believe you are on record as saying that pre-implantation fertilized eggs should not be entitled to any basic human rights but that a fertilized egg is a human child. On what basis do you make that distinction? Why does implantation matter with respect to the rights afforded to children? Why should an unimplanted fertilized egg, which you think is a child, have any lesser rights than an implanted fertilized egg? On what basis do you draw that line?
Click to expand...

Conception starts at implantation- not fertilization. Numerous fertilized eggs are potential life- but unless they are in an environment to grow, they are not conceived life- they are either rejected due to natural bodily functions (not the same as miscarriage) or they are kept vital in a medial lab.
 
Rune said:
Using your logic, I can pick the most radical conservative nutbag and say he represents all conservatives. Grow the fuck up.
Click to expand...

Yep, and how often have we heard those words, just about every time we post new info about the nutbags. For example, righties say santorum's extreme viewpoints aren't shared by all conservatives.
 
Superfreak said:
No, it is not moron. This is about the slippery slope of liberals trying to define subjectively when a child becomes a 'person' who should be protected by basic human rights. This is about two liberals who are suggesting it should be ok to murder newborns.

That is NOT women's health. Not in the least. Pretending abortion is about 'women's health' is also a stretch, because in most cases it is NOT about the health of the mother. It is about the convenience. It is about avoiding responsibility for one's actions. But very very few abortions are done due to the health of the mother.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope? You have the gall to talk about the slippery slope of Liberals when anti-abortionists have been participating in a luge-like
race when it comes to banning abortions. From birth to souls to quickening to zygotes to a fertilized egg.

Abortion is a health issue. I don't give a damn what is growing inside a woman's body. It's her body and she has a right to have it removed and as far as responsibility for ones actions responsible people do not bear children they can not or will not look after. We have more consideration for dogs and cats. We would never consider giving a dog or cat to a kid/person who would neglect or abuse it, yet, some perverted people demand, actually demand, a woman bear a child under the same circumstances.

Sick. They are sick, perverted people who not only don't give a damn about women but also don't give a damn about children. More often than not they are the same people who bitch about tax dollars going towards single moms and say, "It's not my responsibility to raise someone else's kid."

Take responsibility for your actions meaning we want you to bear a child as punishment. It's a disgusting and vile attitude passed off as caring by sick f*cks posing as the oh-so-righteous.

I feel better now. :D
 
icedancer2theend said:
Conception starts at implantation- not fertilization. Numerous fertilized eggs are potential life- but unless they are in an environment to grow, they are not conceived life- they are either rejected due to natural bodily functions (not the same as miscarriage) or they are kept vital in a medial lab.
Click to expand...


Not according to SF.
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html



Wow... now where have we heard arguments like that before?



And here we go... trying to get the phrasing to 'sound better' so that they don't come off as sociopathic lunatics. Very familiar to what happened when pro-abortion was rephrased 'pro-choice'



This guy is fucking delusional. He has the nerve to proclaim that it is opponents that are the ones that cause it to lead to lynching and genocide? he talks about it being ok to murder an infant... wow... fucking wow...
Click to expand...

Apple just found his "Utopia"; because as long as they don't register the birth, then the baby fairy hasn't changed the baby into a human yet.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
I'm actually ill when I read the argument when the argument is used for fetuses... I don't want to read any more of this. This thing making this argument is clearly lacking the necessary components of humanity to be named a person and therefore is open for an "after-birth abortion". It's even one step further than Apple who thinks that now that you can smell it then it is real...
Click to expand...

OK; now that the loons have finaly reached their apex, here's my stand.

I believe that an unborn child is still a human and it's wrong to murder the child, for the sake of conveniance.
I also believe that women have the control of their body and that the ultimate responsiblity lies with them.

It goes against my nature; but I have to agree with abortion when it's the result of rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger.
I also believe that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control; ie: women who have multiple abortions, only because they're not being responsible with their sexual behavior.

Now, people from both sides can say that I'm being a hypocrite; but until they find a way that works, I don't see another way.

This is a belief that I will eventually have to answer for, when I pass on; because the unborn are still humans and don't deserve to be sacrificed as an "inconveniance".
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I don't think you are barbaric at all. I think you think you are barbaric but you refuse to recognize it.

You think you have this very neat and clean position that permits you to be severely judgmental towards others but if you actually look really hard at your various positions you're position is neither neat or clean and from a moral perspective is not all that much different from what these ethicists have said. According to your own moral code, there are children that you think it is OK to treat as less than human.
Click to expand...

I think the term is "cognitive dissonance": A physcological term. It is the anxiety or conflict when two opposing thoughts are held simultaneously. (dic.com)

It probably affects many right wing folks, especially the anti-abortionists. Their concern for a fetus vs their lack of concern for a child. Their overzealous preoccupation with bringing a child into the world clashing against their oft-times active opposition to programs designed to help the single mom and new born child. One is obliged to question that should they deny suffering cognitive dissonance could that be due to them feigning concern for the fetus and their preoccupation rests solely with punishing the mother and child which, as we know, was the standard in the past.
 
Darla said:
It's not that I'm trying to derail your thread. It's that I see it as a "hey don't look over there, look at it over here" attempt. Now, i know you didn't mean it that way.

But as I've said, I've waited to see any of the libertarians here making any comment on this, and again, it goes back to my signature: Get government off your back and into women's vaginas where it belongs".

And seriously SF, this has zero chance of ever happening. If you really need me to make an official statement; i'm against it?

But come on.
Click to expand...

"And seriously SF, this has zero chance of ever happening."

And this is exactly the way people felt, prior to abortion becoming legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top