Members banned from this thread: Legion


Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 99

Thread: Questions for Anti-Choice Crowd

  1. #61 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    21,925
    Thanks
    39,047
    Thanked 15,464 Times in 9,637 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,149 Times in 1,097 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rjhenn View Post
    Grump's against anyone except Republicans voting.
    That's most likely not true, but that *is* the impression that you get when someone complains about (D)s holding voter registration drives and offering to help ppl get to the polls on election days. The ironic thing here is, of course, that those who have the most problems with getting to the polls tend to be the elderly. The elderly tend to vote (R).

  2. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 97 Times in 72 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 38 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rjhenn View Post
    ICE originally, then a court, if needed.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    Oh, you mean those unelected people in robes that the Conservatives used to complain about?

  3. #63 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 97 Times in 72 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 38 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Given the aspects of the FLOTUS, I imagine that the Toadstool sees "desirable" as sex worker, big tits (fake or not), willingness to put out and/or work at a sub-par salary, possess enough money to invest in TrumpCo properties, etc.

    If they are serious about protecting American jobs, they'll drop that H1B visa shit and allow in ppl willing to work at minimum wage.
    No reason to go there but you’re correct on the morality of our President.

    As for immigration, I am of the opinion we allow too many people in from all nations…Norway, Nigeria, New Zealand…just too many period.

  4. #64 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 97 Times in 72 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 38 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    ????.....nobody is keeping anyone from having sex.....of course if the father would simply marry the mother of his child she wouldn't be an illegal any more......
    That is the ultimate goal, is it not? Prevention of women from having sex except to foster the growth of the species. Opposition to a woman’s choice is rooted in one thing and one thing only, control. That is it. “Sanctity of human life” is a lie those who are anti-choice spin as a cover for the deep seated hatred of women being equal. This is why men skip out on child support, this is why men beat their wives, this is why men are much more likely to fool around on their spouse.

    Truth be told, that is likely one of the reasons for Trump’s popularity (as far as it goes) in some quarters of the patriarchal South; that he fucked anything with a pulse and still was able to get elected.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to JPF For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (05-26-2019)

  6. #65 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    6,130
    Thanks
    2,331
    Thanked 1,286 Times in 1,051 Posts
    Groans
    520
    Groaned 404 Times in 390 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPF View Post
    That is the ultimate goal, is it not? Prevention of women from having sex except to foster the growth of the species. Opposition to a woman’s choice is rooted in one thing and one thing only, control. That is it. “Sanctity of human life” is a lie those who are anti-choice spin as a cover for the deep seated hatred of women being equal. This is why men skip out on child support, this is why men beat their wives, this is why men are much more likely to fool around on their spouse.

    Truth be told, that is likely one of the reasons for Trump’s popularity (as far as it goes) in some quarters of the patriarchal South; that he fucked anything with a pulse and still was able to get elected.
    True, anyone who claims to be a Christian and voted for Trump is a massive hypocrite.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.

    Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.


    "When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016

    The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Powell
    It’s now ‘me the president’ instead of ‘we the people’

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rjhenn For This Post:

    JPF (05-26-2019), ThatOwlWoman (05-26-2019)

  8. #66 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    17,003
    Thanks
    10,962
    Thanked 4,409 Times in 3,603 Posts
    Groans
    110
    Groaned 700 Times in 662 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rjhenn View Post
    Why did God,in Numbers 3:15, command that only those who were a month old or older be counted? Why not count the unborn and those younger than a month? Obviously, they weren't really people yet.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    They're unborn children, correct...they are real, developing people....

  9. #67 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    80,628
    Thanks
    4,125
    Thanked 19,942 Times in 16,331 Posts
    Groans
    1,954
    Groaned 2,088 Times in 1,985 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPF View Post
    That is the ultimate goal, is it not?
    keeping idiots from killing children?.....absolutely........all the other shit you weak minded fuckwits pretend is the goal should embarrass you......

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    TOP (05-26-2019)

  11. #68 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    21,925
    Thanks
    39,047
    Thanked 15,464 Times in 9,637 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,149 Times in 1,097 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPF View Post
    That is the ultimate goal, is it not? Prevention of women from having sex except to foster the growth of the species. Opposition to a woman’s choice is rooted in one thing and one thing only, control. That is it. “Sanctity of human life” is a lie those who are anti-choice spin as a cover for the deep seated hatred of women being equal. This is why men skip out on child support, this is why men beat their wives, this is why men are much more likely to fool around on their spouse.
    Until just recently, beating and/or raping your wife and skipping out on your kids was not against the law. We were mere property.

    Truth be told, that is likely one of the reasons for Trump’s popularity (as far as it goes) in some quarters of the patriarchal South; that he fucked anything with a pulse and still was able to get elected.
    Not only that, but that kind of behavior is actually ADMIRED by many men. Which of course is why the Toadstool brags about it.

  12. #69 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Hooterville by the sea
    Posts
    9,807
    Thanks
    1,401
    Thanked 4,907 Times in 3,722 Posts
    Groans
    937
    Groaned 257 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rjhenn View Post
    So you think that homeless people don't have a right to vote?

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    Didn't say nor hint that smart ass. Were you born a fucking idiot or did it just come naturally?

  13. #70 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Hooterville by the sea
    Posts
    9,807
    Thanks
    1,401
    Thanked 4,907 Times in 3,722 Posts
    Groans
    937
    Groaned 257 Times in 244 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rjhenn View Post
    Yet even the Bible doesn't regard it as an actual person until birth and, in at least one case, not until a month after birth.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    I love how you lefties try to use the bible to justify your fucked up thinking. If you are correct then explain this passage.

    "Exodus 21:22-25 ESV / 64 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


    Sure sounds like the Bible considers the unborn a person.
    Last edited by Bleeding heart; 05-26-2019 at 06:29 AM.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Bleeding heart For This Post:

    TOP (05-26-2019)

  15. #71 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 97 Times in 72 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 38 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    keeping idiots from killing children?.....absolutely........all the other shit you weak minded fuckwits pretend is the goal should embarrass you......
    History reports a far different set of facts than those you imagine.

  16. #72 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    5,763
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,134 Times in 1,669 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 104 Times in 101 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPF View Post
    Considering your position that life begins at conception….

    Shouldn’t we be counting fetuses in the census?

    And….

    If an undocumented female is here and is pregnant….what are you going to do? If you deport her, you’re deporting a citizen so you’d be all for her staying here, right?
    Aren't you forgetting the entire "RULE OF LAW"? A child is under the protection and care of the parent until that child fully gestates...i.e., becomes an adult and no longer legally requires parental protection UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. Let's play the hypothetical game of WHAT IF....the favorite of left wing nuts where emotion is supposed to be paramount to logic, reason and common sense.

    Being under legal obligation as a parent to protect her child...even as a fetus, the choice of what happens to the child is entirely up to the parent. The question then is the same as its always been.....the righteousness of the parent, what she decides her child is actually worth to her. If she is deported the child is obligated by the rule of law to obey its parental wishes as the parent is the only authorized life that can make decisions concerning life, death, and any other manner of life effecting acts of free will.

    Even if the child is a US CITIZEN....that citizenship does not preclude a parent from exercising her parental guardianship. She must by the rule of law do what is in the best interests of the child or face the penalties thereof. In other words.....its of "moot" concern of what citizenship a child is, as there is no method of separating a child from its parent while its in a state of GESTATION regardless of the stage of that gestation from conception to legalized adulthood. Logic and Reason would dictate the only recourse.....the child must go with the mother, unless you want to do the Solomon thing and kill the child. What if the parent refuses to follow the rule of law and continues to break US LAW and reenters under illegal circumstances until the child is separated from the parent via the natural birth cycle?

    The same thing that happens to all criminals.....they are separated from the child and either imprisoned or deported. The child, being a US citizen is then placed into the foster care of the US GOVERNMENT where there are any number of ready, willing and able couples simply drooling at the chance to adopt a child regardless of skin color or dual citizenship status. But in the end.....the right of parenthood prevails, the parent has the option of taking that child with her (IF DEPORTED), again its the righteousness of the parent that is paramount....she is either a righteous parent or a parent that could care less about the life she conceived.

    What happens to that child when it becomes an adult when it is legally a dual citizen....again its a matter of free will. He/She can come and go as a US CITIZEN as long as the travel complies with the US RULE OF LAW. That's all any conservative demands......compliance with the rule of law.

    Which brings up another NON-ENFORCED RULE OF LAW concerning immigration, a law legislated and signed into law under the Clinton Administration of the 90s, a law that has been unenforced for decades.....a law Mr. Trump has recently declared he will ENFORCE to the letter. This law called the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" requires that anyone that sponsors the immigration of another is held responsibility for all the GOVERNMENT AID used by the person being sponsored. Example if the new immigrant accepts food stamp, welfare monies, technical job training or any other type of government aid....THE SPONSER is held responsible to PAY BACK everything the government has given the new immigrant.

    This will be entertaining as hell and will not be a HYPOTHETICAL situation.
    Last edited by Ralph; 05-26-2019 at 07:45 AM.

  17. #73 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    80,628
    Thanks
    4,125
    Thanked 19,942 Times in 16,331 Posts
    Groans
    1,954
    Groaned 2,088 Times in 1,985 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JPF View Post
    History reports a far different set of facts than those you imagine.
    no.......your dimwitted fantasies are not history.......

  18. #74 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 97 Times in 72 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 38 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralph View Post
    Aren't you forgetting the entire "RULE OF LAW"? A child is under the protection and care of the parent until that child fully gestates...i.e., becomes an adult and no longer legally requires parental protection UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. Let's play the hypothetical game of WHAT IF....the favorite of left wing nuts where emotion is supposed to be paramount to logic, reason and common sense.

    Being under legal obligation as a parent to protect her child...even as a fetus, the choice of what happens to the child is entirely up to the parent. The question then is the same as its always been.....the righteousness of the parent, what she decides her child is actually worth to her. If she is deported the child is obligated by the rule of law to obey its parental wishes as the parent is the only authorized life that can make decisions concerning life, death, and any other manner of life effecting acts of free will.

    Even if the child is a US CITIZEN....that citizenship does not preclude a parent from exercising her parental guardianship. She must by the rule of law do what is in the best interests of the child or face the penalties thereof. In other words.....its of "moot" concern of what citizenship a child is, as there is no method of separating a child from its parent while its in a state of GESTATION regardless of the stage of that gestation from conception to legalized adulthood. Logic and Reason would dictate the only recourse.....the child must go with the mother, unless you want to do the Solomon thing and kill the child. What if the parent refuses to follow the rule of law and continues to break US LAW and reenters under illegal circumstances until the child is separated from the parent via the natural birth cycle?

    The same thing that happens to all criminals.....they are separated from the child and either imprisoned or deported. The child, being a US citizen is then placed into the foster care of the US GOVERNMENT where there are any number of ready, willing and able couples simply drooling at the chance to adopt a child regardless of skin color or dual citizenship status. But in the end.....the right of parenthood prevails, the parent has the option of taking that child with her (IF DEPORTED), again its the righteousness of the parent that is paramount....she is either a righteous parent or a parent that could care less about the life she conceived.

    What happens to that child when it becomes an adult when it is legally a dual citizen....again its a matter of free will. He/She can come and go as a US CITIZEN as long as the travel complies with the US RULE OF LAW. That's all any conservative demands......compliance with the rule of law.

    Which brings up another NON-ENFORCED RULE OF LAW concerning immigration, a law legislated and signed into law under the Clinton Administration of the 90s, a law that has been unenforced for decades.....a law Mr. Trump has recently declared he will ENFORCE to the letter. This law called the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act" requires that anyone that sponsors the immigration of another is held responsibility for all the GOVERNMENT AID used by the person being sponsored. Example if the new immigrant accepts food stamp, welfare monies, technical job training or any other type of government aid....THE SPONSER is held responsible to PAY BACK everything the government has given the new immigrant.

    This will be entertaining as hell and will not be a HYPOTHETICAL situation.
    I will admit that I didn’t read much of your post. The foundation is, to be polite, faulty.

    Gestation is a scientific term. A child, by definition, has fully gestated. I think the word you’re looking for is “mature”.

    Try again please.

  19. #75 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    391
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 97 Times in 72 Posts
    Groans
    4
    Groaned 38 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    no.......your dimwitted fantasies are not history.......
    Here is a history lesson:

    Rick Santorum in 2012 (7 years ago—not ancient history) won 11 states (mostly red states) during the GOP Primaries. His thoughts on contraception would be more closely aligned with the typical Republican/Conservative voter. See if you all agree:

    Quote: " It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.


    Santorum, in a nutshell, has summed up the position of most of his ilk. Women are not “supposed” to have sex except to procreate.

    Another historical example would be the deaths in Chicago that any conservative gets orgasmic when discussing. They can quickly cite the general statistics. If you were to ask nearly any Conservative the name of one of the slain…you’d get a blank stare. They don’t care. And frankly neither do I. Why? Because it doesn’t affect you 4 states away. You don’t know the shooter, you don’t know the victim. You don’t know them, their families, have met their families or know anyone who knows or has met their families. It’s natural. Now, when you discuss abortion clinics in Chicago, suddenly the conservatives feign concern for human life from women they don’t know, fathers they don’t know, families they don’t know etc…? Nobody is buying it.

Similar Threads

  1. Another question for the anti NRA crowd
    By Teflon Don in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-25-2019, 12:39 PM
  2. Question for the anti NRA crowd
    By Teflon Don in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 02-23-2018, 06:44 AM
  3. Violent anti-choice rhetoric must end, or anti-abortion violence never wil
    By Never forget Christchurch in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 12-01-2015, 10:51 AM
  4. NRA Strikes at the heart of the anti gun crowd
    By I Love America in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2013, 10:00 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •