red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 57 minutes ago, ionel said: Me thinks you are making things up again. 13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. You've never had sex outside of marriage? LOL. More winger hypocrisy.
Interviewed_at_Weehawken Posted June 10 Posted June 10 1 hour ago, red viking said: He puts race aside if you're loyal to him and you're a fellow trumptard. Yes. Worshipping him is priority #1 and I think we all know that. This is at the individual level though and only goes so far because 99.99% of us don't know him and vice versa. But all other things being equal and at a large population scale, he's clearly a bigot. I'm confused here. Are you saying that you don't like President Trump? 1
red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 21 minutes ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said: I'm confused here. Are you saying that you don't like President Trump? I don't have any "feelings" toward him. I simply don't have any respect for him. 2
JimmySpeaks Posted June 10 Posted June 10 58 minutes ago, red viking said: It's not murder just because she removes it from her body. If the baby can't survive without assistance from the hospital, that isn't the woman's problem. If somebody required 24/7 life support in order to survive but you were the only person that could possibly provide that life support, nobody would be able to arrest you for refusing to provide that life support. Nobody would even propose to do that. The wingers are completely inconsistent, hypocritical and illogical. When she chooses to kill the baby it’s murder. That’s consistent and a fact.
red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 (edited) 1 minute ago, JimmySpeaks said: When she chooses to kill the baby it’s murder. That’s consistent and a fact. I'm not talking about killing a baby though. I'm talking about removing it from her body, per the Constitution. Go ahead and let the hospital try to keep the baby alive if they want. She should not be forced to provide life support. You seem to be having some reading comprehension issues. Edited June 10 by red viking
JimmySpeaks Posted June 10 Posted June 10 1 minute ago, red viking said: I'm not talking about killing a baby though. I'm talking about removing it from her body. Go ahead and let the hospital try to keep the baby alive if they want. You seem to be having some reading comprehension issues. When the woman says terminate the pregnancy, which happens a lot, it’s killing a baby with its own DNA and heartbeat. Murder.
WrestlingRasta Posted June 10 Posted June 10 1 hour ago, red viking said: If somebody required 24/7 life support in order to survive but you were the only person that could possibly provide that life support, nobody would be able to arrest you for refusing to provide that life support. Nobody would even propose to do that. Horrible analogy. Answer this question, in the case of a fetus, why is it the mother is the only person that can possibly provide that live support, for that living being who has not yet developed the ability to live on its own outside of that person?
red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 6 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said: When the woman says terminate the pregnancy, which happens a lot, it’s killing a baby with its own DNA and heartbeat. Murder. No, it's not. It's not her problem if the baby can't survive outside the womb.
red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 (edited) 4 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said: Horrible analogy. Answer this question, in the case of a fetus, why is it the mother is the only person that can possibly provide that live support, for that living being who has not yet developed the ability to live on its own outside of that person? Dumb question. Because the fetus happens to be inside her body. Or are you trying to get at the fact that she fornicated, which is a sin? Edited June 10 by red viking
WrestlingRasta Posted June 10 Posted June 10 (edited) 6 minutes ago, red viking said: No, it's not. It's not her problem if the baby can't survive outside the womb. Well, the mother created the baby, so it is her.....I prefer to use the term responsibility over 'problem'. but if not hers, then who's? Edited June 10 by WrestlingRasta
WrestlingRasta Posted June 10 Posted June 10 1 minute ago, red viking said: Dumb question. Because the fetus happens to be inside her body. Or are you trying to get at the fact that she fornicated, which is a sin? It's not a dumb question, you just know the answer destroys your 'not her problem' argument.
JimmySpeaks Posted June 10 Posted June 10 2 minutes ago, red viking said: No, it's not. It's not her problem if the baby can't survive outside the womb. Now do the other 98% that can survive that are terminated anyway
red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 1 minute ago, JimmySpeaks said: Now do the other 98% that can survive that are terminated anyway Whoah. Hold on cowboy. Are you saying that 98% of abortions involve fetuses that can survive outside the womb (are basically 3rd term abortions)?
JimmySpeaks Posted June 10 Posted June 10 Just now, red viking said: Whoah. Hold on cowboy. Are you saying that 98% of abortions involve fetuses that can survive outside the womb (are basically 3rd term abortions)? Good try
red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 (edited) 2 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said: Good try What are you saying. Try re-wording the sentence with somewhat proper grammar. Edited June 10 by red viking
Caveira Posted June 10 Posted June 10 To the war on LA. The crazy rock throwing guy has been identified. Only a matter of time before they throw the book at him. I’m sure he was a fine upstanding citizen. A scholar. A good student with a good future. He faces 8 years in prison. L.A. protester, 40, wanted by FBI for assault on federal officer identified https://ktla.com/news/local-news/l-a-protester-40-wanted-by-fbi-for-assault-on-federal-officer-identified/amp/
Gene Mills Fan Posted June 10 Posted June 10 1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said: Horrible analogy. Answer this question, in the case of a fetus, why is it the mother is the only person that can possibly provide that live support, for that living being who has not yet developed the ability to live on its own outside of that person? I agree rasta How about this analogy: What would happen to a person who killed a dog walking around that couldn't support itself?
wrestlingguy Posted June 10 Posted June 10 Just now, Gene Mills Fan said: I agree rasta How about this analogy: What would happen to a person who killed a dog walking around that couldn't support itself? The reality is, people would care more if a puppy was killed than a baby. 1
red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 4 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said: The reality is, people would care more if a puppy was killed than a baby. What a dumb analogy. A more parallel one: what would happen to somebody that refused to save a dog that couldn't support itself? NOTHING. NADA. ZILCHE. Same if it was a person.
red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 1 hour ago, WrestlingRasta said: Well, the mother created the baby, so it is her.....I prefer to use the term responsibility over 'problem'. but if not hers, then who's? It IS her? Wow. Well, Jimmy says its an individual person with its own DNA. You guys should try to get on the same page. Unreal.
WrestlingRasta Posted June 10 Posted June 10 7 minutes ago, red viking said: It IS her? Wow. Well, Jimmy says its an individual person with its own DNA. You guys should try to get on the same page. Unreal. What are you talking about?
Gene Mills Fan Posted June 10 Posted June 10 (edited) 14 minutes ago, red viking said: What a dumb analogy. A more parallel one: what would happen to somebody that refused to save a dog that couldn't support itself? NOTHING. NADA. ZILCHE. Same if it was a person. No because the person not saving the dog had nothing to do with its conception. 13 minutes ago, red viking said: It IS her? Wow. Well, Jimmy says its an individual person with its own DNA. You guys should try to get on the same page. Unreal. We are talking about post individual heart beats. Or are you allowed a bad action to reverse a bad action. which should be handled immediately not after there are two individuals Edited June 10 by Gene Mills Fan
red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 1 minute ago, Gene Mills Fan said: No because the person not saving the dog had nothing to do with its conception. We are talking about post individual heart beats. Or are you allowed a bad action to reverse a bad action. If I'm the mother of a person, I can refuse to care for it. Just say I'm leaving it at the hospital. Or tell the proper authorities that you are no longer going to care for it and it will have to be somebody else's responsibility. Do you go to prison for that? Yes, even if the heart is beating. The wingers continue to be entirely inconsistent and arbitrary.
red viking Posted June 10 Author Posted June 10 Protests clearly escalating, as predicted. They'd probably be almost done by now if Trump hadn't sent umwantef troops (and now active duty marines).
Sean Willcox St. John Bosco, California Class of 2026 Committed to North Carolina State Projected Weight: 125, 133
Everest Ouellette First Flight, North Carolina Class of 2025 Committed to North Carolina State Projected Weight: 285
Said Gasimov High Point Academy, South Carolina Class of 2025 Committed to The Citadel Projected Weight: 197
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now