"We keep marrying other species and ethnics " - Fox News Host

PostmodernProphet said:
you know....I really don't care if your eggs were fresh.....the point is simply this.....if there were something in the egg, it would be a chicken, not a human......
Click to expand...

It would be neither. There's an old, old expression, "Don't count your chickens until they hatch." Do you know what means? I suggest you do a google.
 
LadyT said:
Translation:

Because most of us are self righteous hypocrites who like dictate morality and control other peoples lives but want NONE of the responsibility.


That's all you had to say Dixie.
Click to expand...

LOL... No, I am not hypocritical a bit! You seem to be the hypocrite, you are apparently okay with killing unwanted children up to a certain developmental stage, and then suddenly, it's not okay. Just because a child passes through a birth canal, shouldn't change your perspective, that is the epitome of hypocrisy. At least I am being consistent, if we are going to be okay with killing unwanted children, let's just allow any minor child's life to be terminated by the parent. After all, it's not really fair to burden people with raising a child if they don't want to. Why do you want to control people's lives that way? I'm sure there are plenty of new parents who realize after the fact that raising a baby is quite a chore, perhaps more than they bargained for, so they should be considered here... we don't want to force our morality on them, do we? Let's just let them whack their kids, and the problem is solved, right?
 
Yurt said:
logical fail that somehow the foster system is somehow connected to the abortion issue...as if the majority of foster kids are foster kids solely because they weren't aborted...is this really your point?
Click to expand...


The point is that is ironic (at the very least) that conservatives, pretend to care so much about fetuses, while there are thousands upon thousands of children in foster care that need to be taken in. Where's that same overzealous need to be the keeper of those children?
 
LadyT said:
The point is that is ironic (at the very least) that conservatives, pretend to care so much about fetuses, while there are thousands upon thousands of children in foster care that need to be taken in. Where's that same overzealous need to be the keeper of those children?
Click to expand...

fail.....the dems claim to be for the poor and downtrodden.....why don't you take them hypocrite....do you invite homeless people to live with you? how many homeless people to have living with you, how many people do you PAY to get healthcare?
 
LadyT said:
The point is that is ironic (at the very least) that conservatives, pretend to care so much about fetuses, while there are thousands upon thousands of children in foster care that need to be taken in. Where's that same overzealous need to be the keeper of those children?
Click to expand...

And liberals sure do pretend to care so much about foster children while there are MILLIONS of children being sucked down a tube every year. Where is the same uncaring disregard for human life and selfish considerations of personal choice?
 
Dixie said:
LOL... No, I am not hypocritical a bit! You seem to be the hypocrite, you are apparently okay with killing unwanted children up to a certain developmental stage, and then suddenly, it's not okay. Just because a child passes through a birth canal, shouldn't change your perspective, that is the epitome of hypocrisy. At least I am being consistent, if we are going to be okay with killing unwanted children, let's just allow any minor child's life to be terminated by the parent. After all, it's not really fair to burden people with raising a child if they don't want to. Why do you want to control people's lives that way? I'm sure there are plenty of new parents who realize after the fact that raising a baby is quite a chore, perhaps more than they bargained for, so they should be considered here... we don't want to force our morality on them, do we? Let's just let them whack their kids, and the problem is solved, right?
Click to expand...


Blah blah blah.

I didn't catch your answer to my original question that I asked you about 3 times earlier in this thread. I know you're not avoiding it, you must have accidently miss'd it riiiiight?
So here it is once again:

So, Dixie do you also think its valid that people kill homosexuals or nonbelievers believers because they are based in their religion? Or do you just arbitrarily pick racist interpretations to support by claiming they are valid?
 
LadyT said:
Blah blah blah.

I didn't catch your answer to my original question that I asked you about 3 times earlier in this thread. I know you're not avoiding it, you must have accidently miss'd it riiiiight?
So here it is once again:

So, Dixie do you also think its valid that people kill homosexuals or nonbelievers believers because they are based in their religion? Or do you just arbitrarily pick racist interpretations to support by claiming they are valid?
Click to expand...

That's right.... RUN LITTLE PINHEAD RUN!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
this is really getting lame....the error you keep repeating is substitution of the word "human" for the word "adult"......there is no logical basis for doing so and basing your entire argument upon that substitution doesn't really get you anywhere......student would be to graduate (doctor) as infant would be to adult.......not as infant would be to human being......
Click to expand...

The error you keep repeating is you discount time. We live in a world governed by time. What might be is not what is. That was the purpose of the analogy.

I don't know where anti-abortionists get the idea that DNA has miraculously answered the question. I'm sure from the earliest time human beings were aware woman didn't go from being virgins to being mothers overnight. Of course the embryo/fetus in a human being, should it continue, would become a human being just as a sheep embryo/fetus would result in a sheep assuming sufficient time and circumstance allowed.

Where the problem lies is you assume that because a human embryo/fetus never survived to become a sheep or horse or dog that means it must be a human being from the beginning but such is not the case. It can simply be an embryo/fetus and die and never become a human being.

Again, it's like the acorn/oak tree. An acorn will never become a magnolia tree or an apple tree but that does not mean an acorn is an oak tree. It is an acorn. It is not an oak tree.
 
Yurt said:
fail.....the dems claim to be for the poor and downtrodden.....why don't you take them hypocrite....do you invite homeless people to live with you? how many homeless people to have living with you, how many people do you PAY to get healthcare?
Click to expand...

Nice try, but you're not sharp enough to 'fail' any argument.

If we're using your argument as the framework for responsibility your argument, like most conservative arguments falls flat on its face. I don't try to impose my morality in such a way that directly contributes to their being homeless. Conservative's on the otherhand seek to try to control women's bodies which would lead to children being born that don't have parents who are either capable of raising them or want to raise them. Now that anti-choicers have told a woman that she has to carry the child to term, they want little to nothing to do with the byproduct of their choice for her. If in your pathetic meager attempt to prove a point, I would have told this hypothetical homeless person to not pay their rent or sought to make smoking crack mandatory on your 21st birthday, then you may have a point. As it stands, you don't.

Try again.


Then again....don't.
 
LadyT said:
Blah blah blah.

I didn't catch your answer to my original question that I asked you about 3 times earlier in this thread. I know you're not avoiding it, you must have accidently miss'd it riiiiight?
So here it is once again:

So, Dixie do you also think its valid that people kill homosexuals or nonbelievers believers because they are based in their religion? Or do you just arbitrarily pick racist interpretations to support by claiming they are valid?
Click to expand...

Dixie evidently believes that Al Qaeda is fully justified in attacking civlians, because the Koran can be "interpreted" as condoning that.
 
LadyT said:
Nice try, but you're not sharp enough to 'fail' any argument.

If we're using your argument as the framework for responsibility your argument, like most conservative arguments falls flat on its face. I don't try to impose my morality in such a way that directly contributes to their being homeless. Conservative's on the otherhand seek to try to control women's bodies which would lead to children being born that don't have parents who are either capable of raising them or want to raise them. Now that anti-choicers have told a woman that she has to carry the child to term, they want little to nothing to do with the byproduct of their choice for her. If in your pathetic meager attempt to prove a point, I would have told this hypothetical homeless person to not pay their rent or sought to make smoking crack mandatory on your 21st birthday, then you may have a point. As it stands, you don't.

Try again.


Then again....don't.
Click to expand...

meadowmuffins, you force the issue vis a vis taxes....the analogy fits, you just don't like getting caught in yoru own hypocrisy, you thought you had one up on conservatives but instead you just set yourself up for a big fall...further, it has been shown that conservatives give more of their own money than liberals to charities, you failed big time

so, how many people to you pay for to get health treatment? you say there is a problem, have you gone out and helped he uninsured get treatment with your own money?
 
Dixie said:
LOL... No, I am not hypocritical a bit! You seem to be the hypocrite, you are apparently okay with killing unwanted children up to a certain developmental stage, and then suddenly, it's not okay. Just because a child passes through a birth canal, shouldn't change your perspective, that is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Why aren't you out at fertility clinics, trying to stop the slaughter of blastocysts, who in your mind are human beings, equivalent to you or me?

You're not. That's the short answer. And you will never, not once, in your entire life, lift a finger to save those poor human beings/blastocysts from being incinerated or flushed. Because you don't really think they are human beings in the exact same way you are.

You're just a religious fanatic who thinks women can't make intelligent and wise decisions for themselves in consultation with their doctors. You don't trust women, that's what it boils down to.
 
Yurt said:
meadowmuffins, you force the issue vis a vis taxes....the analogy fits, you just don't like getting caught in yoru own hypocrisy, you thought you had one up on conservatives but instead you just set yourself up for a big fall...further, it has been shown that conservatives give more of their own money than liberals to charities, you failed big time

so, how many people to you pay for to get health treatment? you say there is a problem, have you gone out and helped he uninsured get treatment with your own money?
Click to expand...

Oh god. You realize it doesn't make any more valid the 2nd, 3rd or 4th time around?
 
Yurt said:
fail....you can't answer it becuase you know to do so makes you a hypocrite on your point about fostercare....

you failed....better luck next time
Click to expand...

it is fucking hilarious to watch a failed lawyer act as if he is somehow judge and juror on issues where he has gotten his ass handed to him.
 
LadyT said:
So infants are the only ones that can be adopted?
Click to expand...

???....the only ones that can be adopted are those who are released for adoption......you have a couple of different types of situations.....you have 1) kids who's parents have placed them for adoption and 2) kids who have been taken away from their parents due to abuse or neglect.....

usually 1) are put into the system as infants and quickly.....since there is a waiting list years long these kids are usually placed as soon as the state finalizes the parental release (for example, in Michigan around three months)....ergo, an infant adoption.....

for 2) it depends on many things....first, the age of the child when taken away from the parent, which could be anything from infant to theoretically 18 years (though generally older kids are emancipated).....second, how much time the state gives the parent to try to rehabilitate and seek a return of the kids.....the child is not released for adoption until parental rights are terminated......this WILL take years unless the parent releases voluntarily....a child who goes into the system over age ten will likely never be released for adoption and will emancipate at 16 or 17 to get out of the system.....I can give as an example the situation of some friends in Illinois who volunteered as foster parents in hopes of getting an edge on the adoption process.....they took in an infant who was born addicted to cocaine....they filed a notice of intent to adopt.....at age five the state returned the child to her mother, even though she was still on probation for prostitution and drug use.....at age seven they got her back again after her mother tried to sell her to a pimp for drugs.....she was released for adoption and my friends adopted her at age 11......she has since graduated from college and teaches in Illinois.....
 
Yurt said:
fail....you can't answer it becuase you know to do so makes you a hypocrite on your point about fostercare....

you failed....better luck next time
Click to expand...

LMAO. Dude, it was your retarded analogy.

Well, if you're trying to save face, I can understand that, but between you and me, if you really believe that you just presented some sort of brilliant analogy, you're just stupid - and I mean that in the nicest way possible.
 
LadyT said:
The point is that is ironic (at the very least) that conservatives, pretend to care so much about fetuses, while there are thousands upon thousands of children in foster care that need to be taken in. Where's that same overzealous need to be the keeper of those children?
Click to expand...

then your point fails.....there are thousands of children in foster care because the system is giving their parents the opportunity to fix their fucked up lives.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top