Agreed. a type of Utopia for Liberals.all a prelude to a logans run type of reality.
Agreed. a type of Utopia for Liberals.all a prelude to a logans run type of reality.
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...
Agreed. a type of Utopia for Liberals.
It interests me the things men concern themselves with during this particular time. It interests me a great deal.
I feel the exact same way about taking away women's reproductive rights.Good golly, miss molly - that is pretty crazy stuff...
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.You're the one who is anti-liberty. Logan's society would fit your views perfectly...
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.
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.
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.
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
Liberty and Liberals are natural enemies.
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?
Using your logic, I can pick the most radical conservative nutbag and say he represents all conservatives. Grow the fuck up.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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.