Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, ThreePointTakedown said:

Yep and there it is. You just want to punish people you don't like. Got it. 

Paint everyone with one brush because you're a lazy thinking and claim the high ground. Pathetic. 

That is so far out of left field from what I said, I don't have anything to respond.    Expecting people to be responsible for their responsibilities = punish people you don't like?     Damn....my poor kids.

  • Bob 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Explain how murder and chemically ending an abortion at 7-8 weeks is the same thing? 

I imagine you'll just say, 'it is' but you'll need to show your work. If all you say is, 'it is' I'll know you have no way to equate those two things. 

 

you dont end an abortion 

you end a life.

if it's not alive...why does it have to be 'ended'

  • Brain 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

A glob of cells is not a person. It does not have the same rights a birthed human does. It certainly should not be afforded extra rights, to use another's body to sustain itself, that is not given to anyone else. 

If you want to give a fetus special rights then come out and say it? Why circle around 'consequences' which is punishment. Its the same as filling pools in with cement. You see others enjoying the fruits of society and you want to shut it down. You can't physically fill in pools. But this is the next best thing in your mind. I know you can't see the similarity but it is. The reason for filling pools was racism. Plain and simple. Why do you want to fill this particular pool? You'll say consequences. But its not much different than a pool. You just don't like this group of people for the same reason as for the pools. Still just as repugnant and senseless as the racists that filled pools. You should be ashamed of yourself. 

you are a glob of cells.

special rights? who said I wanted to equate a fetus with trans people. 

a fetus doesn't need 'special' rights.. just human rights.

 

and here you are saying it isn't human.

Posted
1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

OMG...LOL!!!!  You literally just did it when I ask you why you do it...how in the world did you come to the conclusion I am whining???  

he can't help it

  • Bob 1
Posted

NASA: we found a single celled organism

PROOF of life on mars

 

Leftists: your glob of cells functioning together doesn't become human until it passes thru the magic gateway

  • Bob 1
  • Fire 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

'Dum dum' thanks for that. Do you understand that is your way of otherizing me so its easier for you to ignore the points I make that disagree with your opinions?

Why do you draw the line at heart beat?

If you think its life why not earlier? 

How can an arbitrary line also be a moral distinction when making this decision? 

calling it a fetus is how you otherize thousands of human beings 

  • Brain 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

Yes I do...because 99% of your opinions are completely crazy.

I draw the line at heart beat as that is one of the critical biological functions of humans.  The other reason I say it is the beating heart and not, let's say the brain, is because humans can still be alive even if their brain isn't functioning (I am not getting into a moral debate about being brain dead here)...people can not be alive if their heart is not beating.

You can call it whatever you want...a line or arbitrary line all you want, it is the distinction I make when thinking of a human being a living thing.  It has nothing to do a moral distinction of anything other then when I think life begins.  So nice try but you can't twist/extrapolate/confuse it with making any sort of comment about abortion.

something to think about

dont share with TPT, he won't like it

https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/living-things/275509#203971-toc

  • Bob 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

What do you mean by 'large number'? Do you have access to this information or are you just 'common sense'ing your disagreement? 

i posted a study on the reasons..

i doubt you read it

Posted
1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Yep and there it is. You just want to punish people you don't like. Got it. 

Paint everyone with one brush because you're a lazy thinking and claim the high ground. Pathetic. 

says the guy who will take children from  parents who don't want them to transition.

  • Fire 1
Posted

And there we have the dictator declaring her intent to dictate if Congress doesn't act.   We can't get any more plain than that. 

mspart

  • Bob 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

50 year pol, talking term limits for other pols

 

Perhaps listen to the clip before posting. He does not say a word about term limits in it.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
1 hour ago, Scouts Honor said:

50 year pol, talking term limits for other pols

 

Not for nothing but….Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be politicians.  There is a problem on the Supreme Court and the problem is the influence of politics. 

Posted
51 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Not for nothing but….Supreme Court justices are not supposed to be politicians.  There is a problem on the Supreme Court and the problem is the influence of politics. 

nothing new

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I don’t know who you are saying made a prediction.  I quoted Sowell and Zimmerman, both of which are more so observations than predictions.  You seem to be stuck on the Zimmerman quote and ignoring the Sowell quote, when it is equally relevant. 

“In his 1947 classic Family And Civilization, Harvard sociologist Carle C. Zimmerman examined the way changing family forms affected the fates of the Roman and Greek empires. His historically informed sociological analysis concluded that civilizational collapse is presaged by a dissolution of families, as well as by a loosening of sexual mores, and a rise in both androgyny and homosexuality.”

This "observation" is inherently a prediction that the "loosening of sexual mores" and "homosexuality" lead to "civilizational collapse."  Well, the U.S. had its most successful period in history in the 80 years that we as a country have become less sexually oppressive.  The countries that are the most oppressive to women and gay people have proven to be the least successful (Iran is a great example and the societal collapse that has happened since the revolution). Ironically, if the U.S. adopted similarly  highly oppressive laws as we see in Iran and tightented "sexual mores" just as they did after the Iranian revolution, we would likely see a similar civilizational collapse. 

So this guy really was just simply wrong in his observation, and the collapse of the Roman Empire had nothing to do with the acceptance of gay people. 

Edited by billyhoyle
Posted
45 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

While it may seem ironic on its face, and fun to point out, it really is less so given that Biden had to get re-elected every few years, and did so in a variety of capacities/offices. Supreme Court justices never have to face even one election, which is a good thing, but should logically be combined with either a term limit, an age limit, or both.

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Posted
22 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

you dont end an abortion 

you end a life.

if it's not alive...why does it have to be 'ended'

Sorry for my mistake in typing. I meant 'pregnancy'. Its not a life. It was always alive before it came down the fallopian tube. If it doesn't implant its still alive. Its ending a pregnancy. 

'Ended' because pregnancy is a process. Processes can continue or they can end. Once the pregnancy has ended the body makes the requisite changes based on the outcome. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...