User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 11:24:34 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am willing to bet that poll was conducted on REGISTERED REPUBLICANS. We aren't saying that the current "REGISTERED R's" aren't pro-life. We are saying that the votes we are needing to get in the future, aren't currently registered R's, because they are turned off by one or more of the current stances that the R's take. So, yeah, you poll the current ones that are comfortable with the R party enough to be registered R's...you are going to get what that poll says. Problem: We need OTHER votes than the core. We need to get those people who like the fiscal conservative things that the R's do, but can't get past the social issue block. So, why not just concede that the R's need to get more votes, focus on $$$, and stop pandering and stepping on their dicks when it comes to attracting those votes who they need to win, vs just maintain. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No it is not. Many prolifers are single issue voters. That is their litmus test. If the Republican party abandons that position it will lose a lot of voters. They also tend to give a lot. Where will those voters go? 68% "It's just old people, they'll die soon". Look at the percentage for millenials. http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/wsca1kecgkszvfcgr0o6_a.gif Piss them off and they'll form a successful third party so fast, songs will be written about it. I am willing to bet that poll was conducted on REGISTERED REPUBLICANS. We aren't saying that the current "REGISTERED R's" aren't pro-life. We are saying that the votes we are needing to get in the future, aren't currently registered R's, because they are turned off by one or more of the current stances that the R's take. So, yeah, you poll the current ones that are comfortable with the R party enough to be registered R's...you are going to get what that poll says. Problem: We need OTHER votes than the core. We need to get those people who like the fiscal conservative things that the R's do, but can't get past the social issue block. So, why not just concede that the R's need to get more votes, focus on $$$, and stop pandering and stepping on their dicks when it comes to attracting those votes who they need to win, vs just maintain. Yes, a poll titled "republican views" involves "republicans". 
And the answer to the conceited question "where will they go" is "third party", and it will be led by a Rick Santorum-type figure, and it will guarantee the democrats are never defeated. It's cheap and easy to continually babble about republicans needing to drop abortion. In 2012 abortion was not an issue. Republicans stuck to fiscal topics. They lost due- allegedly- to one dumb comment. How does a reasonable person even address that? Drop abortion but continually talk about it anyway? Shock collars? This election cycle is the same. No candidates droning on about abortion, no legislative attempts- yet it's still front and center. So, mechanically, how does one drop an issue that isn't being discussed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 11:46:31 AM EDT
[#2]
Republicans care about children at conception. Democrats only care about children after birth, if it fit's their agenda.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 12:27:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Consciousness defines personhood. Cognitive ability. I don't understand where you're getting that anyone wants to exterminate anyone else. Not babies or vegetables. Excellent use of the "liberal" card though. It really proves your point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. What else defines a person? By that logic, there are hundreds of thousands of living adults in this country (at a minimum) that aren't people. Should be they exterminated? There is no liberal logic used to support abortion that is not self-refuting. Consciousness defines personhood. Cognitive ability. I don't understand where you're getting that anyone wants to exterminate anyone else. Not babies or vegetables. Excellent use of the "liberal" card though. It really proves your point. Someone in a coma is no longer a person? What about my Grandfather with Alzheimer's? And just WHO determines "cognitive ability"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 12:29:35 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, a poll titled "republican views" involves "republicans".
And the answer to the conceited question "where will they go" is "third party", and it will be led by a Rick Santorum-type figure, and it will guarantee the democrats are never defeated. It's cheap and easy to continually babble about republicans needing to drop abortion. In 2012 abortion was not an issue. Republicans stuck to fiscal topics. They lost due- allegedly- to one dumb comment. How does a reasonable person even address that? Drop abortion but continually talk about it anyway? Shock collars? This election cycle is the same. No candidates droning on about abortion, no legislative attempts- yet it's still front and center. So, mechanically, how does one drop an issue that isn't being discussed? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No it is not. Many prolifers are single issue voters. That is their litmus test. If the Republican party abandons that position it will lose a lot of voters. They also tend to give a lot. Where will those voters go? 68% "It's just old people, they'll die soon". Look at the percentage for millenials. http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/wsca1kecgkszvfcgr0o6_a.gif Piss them off and they'll form a successful third party so fast, songs will be written about it. I am willing to bet that poll was conducted on REGISTERED REPUBLICANS. We aren't saying that the current "REGISTERED R's" aren't pro-life. We are saying that the votes we are needing to get in the future, aren't currently registered R's, because they are turned off by one or more of the current stances that the R's take. So, yeah, you poll the current ones that are comfortable with the R party enough to be registered R's...you are going to get what that poll says. Problem: We need OTHER votes than the core. We need to get those people who like the fiscal conservative things that the R's do, but can't get past the social issue block. So, why not just concede that the R's need to get more votes, focus on $$$, and stop pandering and stepping on their dicks when it comes to attracting those votes who they need to win, vs just maintain. Yes, a poll titled "republican views" involves "republicans".
And the answer to the conceited question "where will they go" is "third party", and it will be led by a Rick Santorum-type figure, and it will guarantee the democrats are never defeated. It's cheap and easy to continually babble about republicans needing to drop abortion. In 2012 abortion was not an issue. Republicans stuck to fiscal topics. They lost due- allegedly- to one dumb comment. How does a reasonable person even address that? Drop abortion but continually talk about it anyway? Shock collars? This election cycle is the same. No candidates droning on about abortion, no legislative attempts- yet it's still front and center. So, mechanically, how does one drop an issue that isn't being discussed? Easiest way would be to not let a Liberal journalist moderate the Republican debates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 12:40:57 PM EDT
[#5]
Sigh....Six pages of hand-wringing, gory vids, and self-righteous circle-jerks over the same tired issue.
I've always contended that free abortion (that's right, tax-payer funded) on demand is one of the better things we could do for the country at this point in our history. Funds well spent. Take a real fucking good look around and in your heart you know it to be true. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 1:03:34 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
it says that in the title of the graphic... you want to know why abortions are still legal... no one shows that video at the bottom of Page 1 on the Times Square JumboTRON. the masses are absolute idiots who dont care about anything except how many bars are on their cellphone reception and whether a place has free wifi. and no one is showing them. roll that video during the superbowl, abortion would be prohibited by the next election. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am willing to bet that poll was conducted on REGISTERED REPUBLICANS. it says that in the title of the graphic... you want to know why abortions are still legal... no one shows that video at the bottom of Page 1 on the Times Square JumboTRON. the masses are absolute idiots who dont care about anything except how many bars are on their cellphone reception and whether a place has free wifi. and no one is showing them. roll that video during the superbowl, abortion would be prohibited by the next election. Ding ding ding, winner. But shhhh American idol is on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 1:08:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Easiest way would be to not let a Liberal journalist moderate the Republican debates. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes, a poll titled "republican views" involves "republicans".
And the answer to the conceited question "where will they go" is "third party", and it will be led by a Rick Santorum-type figure, and it will guarantee the democrats are never defeated. It's cheap and easy to continually babble about republicans needing to drop abortion. In 2012 abortion was not an issue. Republicans stuck to fiscal topics. They lost due- allegedly- to one dumb comment. How does a reasonable person even address that? Drop abortion but continually talk about it anyway? Shock collars? This election cycle is the same. No candidates droning on about abortion, no legislative attempts- yet it's still front and center. So, mechanically, how does one drop an issue that isn't being discussed? Easiest way would be to not let a Liberal journalist moderate the Republican debates. I'm pretty sure Romney stayed on point. There's US senate and house, governor, state legislature,and local elections candidates, any one of which can be the next Akin. Shit, a few months back some hanger on to a state senator or somesuch made a comment and the Usual Suspects got the vapors over that. It's not just thought control for one or two people, it's tens of thousands of potential targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2015 1:26:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone in a coma is no longer a person? What about my Grandfather with Alzheimer's? And just WHO determines "cognitive ability"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. What else defines a person? By that logic, there are hundreds of thousands of living adults in this country (at a minimum) that aren't people. Should be they exterminated? There is no liberal logic used to support abortion that is not self-refuting. Consciousness defines personhood. Cognitive ability. I don't understand where you're getting that anyone wants to exterminate anyone else. Not babies or vegetables. Excellent use of the "liberal" card though. It really proves your point. Someone in a coma is no longer a person? What about my Grandfather with Alzheimer's? And just WHO determines "cognitive ability"? It's either arbitrary, speculative, or flat-out biased. That's why the standard should be based on conception, which is absolutely fact-based, preventable, and the responsibility of any 2 sexually mature people who want to fuck without having children. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 8:56:22 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, I guess when you talk to a pregnant woman, you ask her when her fetus is due? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. So, I guess when you talk to a pregnant woman, you ask her when her fetus is due? Read my other post on page one or two. I'm fine with all the hope and potential and love that goes with a wanted fetus. Babies are wonderful. Pregnancy is wonderful. Why would I have a problem with a woman being thrilled to be pregnant? That's ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:03:35 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Things. Funny how when it's a baby you don't want, it's a thing. When it's a baby you want, you already love him or her more than yourself as soon as you see the ultrasound images. Actually, I'm speaking of a fetus I want as a thing, so your point is totally invalid. A husband is something I want, a best friend is a wonderful thing. Try to hear what I'm saying instead of trying to play "gotcha" games. I misunderstood you, I thought you intensionally said "things" to make a point. Wasn't playing gotcha games. So the reason it's awful to you is because killing is sad, and you have to think about who he might have become, and you'd hate to waste the chance to let him live because making a person is cool. That's the awful part of abortion. It's all about your feelz? What about the actual slaughtering of the unborn child? Not so much? It's not a child, it's just a fetus. You realize that fetus is Latin for child, right? Translate everything to English & you just said "its not a child, its just a child." Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. From the moment of conception it possesses the same DNA it will have for the rest of its life. Every marker that makes it human is present. People give birth to people and not dogs and cats for a reason. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. That's really all you have to make you important too. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. Simply untrue. All DNA & chromosonal constructs are present in an unborn child from conception. An embryo is one of the most complex organisms in nature. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. Speculative I'm speaking English, not Latin. Congrats on your language skills though. Again, being a person, with the rights of a person is different than being human. I don't understand your reply on potential. Complexity can't be the issue. Many animals are complex, and it's ok to kill them. I can't prove that we don't have souls, but neither can you that there are souls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:08:25 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or lead to believing there is such as thing as a master race. IT IS EVIL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eugenics by any other name is still eugenics. And eugenics is pure EVIL. I'd call what the OP is referring to "eupolitics" or something, not eugenics. And the wrongness of eugenics is debatable. It's not black and white. And in this case it's certainly missing the element of force characteristic of certain notorious eugenics movements. I'm sorry, but eugenics is WRONG. Period, full stop. Advocating the elimination of unwanted, undesirable, those with a low quailty of life, those who are not able to justify their cntinued existence by showig how they are a net benefit to society is WRONG. It is EVIL. Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw, Woodrow WIlson, and the others wo pushed this philosophy during the late 19th, early 20th centuries were evil, evil people. Eugenics can also mean me choosing to use someone else's eggs instead of using mine to avoid a genetic disease, or selecting sperm from a green eyed man. Or lead to believing there is such as thing as a master race. IT IS EVIL. Slippery slope argument. Anything can lead to anything. This is a ridiculous argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:12:33 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WOW, this is why we are circling the drain as a country. To many people have adopted a philosphy like this. Even loser douche bags have a soul. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Originally Posted By BigeasySnow It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. Souls are a concept like god. I'm not going to begrudge you either belief, but unless you have a theocracy, you shouldn't really base laws on things like souls and what a god wants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:14:11 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If a fetus could only hold a rifle, I'd bet it would put up a fight, too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Many elections have been lost by Republicans for this reason alone. Many women agree with Republican ideals, except for this one issue. That's a point of contention that they could leave alone and through other policies, let people change their own minds on later. But women sure as shit don't like being told what they can and cannot or should and should not do with their own body, it just pisses them the Fuck off. Perhaps later they'll come around, but not this way. There are a hell of a lot of women against tax payer funded abortion. You have to be one sick bitch to rabidly fight for your "right" to butcher your unborn baby. It's a huge miscalculation to assume all women are like that. I'll rabidly fight for all my rights. Even the ones that I've no intention of using. There's a lot of us who think abortion is awful, but are really into freedom. If a fetus could only hold a rifle, I'd bet it would put up a fight, too. That's ridiculous, Cincinnatus. Your arguments are usually much better than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:17:59 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How incredibly sad.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. How incredibly sad. It's not though. Life is still amazing and wonderful and children can be adored and wanted and we can stand in open jawed amazement at what a person is and what thoughts and personality can come from a human brain. We don't need to make stuff up about souls, or pretend fetuses are people yet to respect life and be thrilled to reproduce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:19:15 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bravo sir! The moral and just man risks his freedom and life to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Many elections have been lost by Republicans for this reason alone. Many women agree with Republican ideals, except for this one issue. That's a point of contention that they could leave alone and through other policies, let people change their own minds on later. But women sure as shit don't like being told what they can and cannot or should and should not do with their own body, it just pisses them the Fuck off. Perhaps later they'll come around, but not this way. There are a hell of a lot of women against tax payer funded abortion. You have to be one sick bitch to rabidly fight for your "right" to butcher your unborn baby. It's a huge miscalculation to assume all women are like that. I'll rabidly fight for all my rights. Even the ones that I've no intention of using. There's a lot of us who think abortion is awful, but are really into freedom. If a fetus could only hold a rifle, I'd bet it would put up a fight, too. Bravo sir! The moral and just man risks his freedom and life to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Like anti-hunting protesters? If a deer could hold a gun... Just ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:24:14 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How old is said "fetus" when you can hear a heart beat? Or when you can see the ultrasound and see hands and a head and a body. Sticking tongs up there and ripping said "fetus" apart piece by piece is murder. Or putting a blender and blending it up is murder. It's not like it's just a sperm And egg up there it has a beating heart. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. How old is said "fetus" when you can hear a heart beat? Or when you can see the ultrasound and see hands and a head and a body. Sticking tongs up there and ripping said "fetus" apart piece by piece is murder. Or putting a blender and blending it up is murder. It's not like it's just a sperm And egg up there it has a beating heart. I don't know how old. For the sake of argument, let's say very young. I don't think a beating heart is a good determinant of whether a thing can be killed or not, do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:25:31 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great mommy material, you are.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. Great mommy material, you are.
Lol. How do you figure? I love kids. I love people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:28:24 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IT IS MURDER. Regardless of religion or not. Movement, feels pain, beating heart, brain waves, etc. That person has rights. That person does not lose those rights, just because it is in the womb. Even if the fetus had rights, those couldn't be the reasons it has them, because those things are common to so many living creatures that it's ok to kill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:30:00 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So kiddy porn is cool? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll rabidly fight for all my rights. Even the ones that I've no intention of using. There's a lot of us who think abortion is awful, but are really into freedom. So kiddy porn is cool? This is another one of those ridiculous arguments that makes anti-choicers sound nutty and dumb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 9:37:09 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
how in the world can you actually differentiate between the two? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Human life, not a person. how in the world can you actually differentiate between the two? Humanity is genetic, it's the species. Personhood is determined by level of brain function. Think of human-like sci fi movie aliens, they're not human, but they're people. Now think of a brain dead person on life support or a baby born with just a brain stem. The aliens are people but not human, the humans without the advanced brain function aren't people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 10:17:24 AM EDT
[#21]
I'm
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's ridiculous, Cincinnatus. Your arguments are usually much better than that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll rabidly fight for all my rights. Even the ones that I've no intention of using. There's a lot of us who think abortion is awful, but are really into freedom. If a fetus could only hold a rifle, I'd bet it would put up a fight, too. That's ridiculous, Cincinnatus. Your arguments are usually much better than that. The concept protecting those who can't protect themselves is ridiculous? That's sad that you see it that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 10:21:40 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Slippery slope argument. Anything can lead to anything. This is a ridiculous argument. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[quote ]Quoted: Eugenics by any other name is still eugenics. And eugenics is pure EVIL.[/quote ] I'd call what the OP is referring to "eupolitics" or something, not eugenics. And the wrongness of eugenics is debatable. It's not black and white. And in this case it's certainly missing the element of force characteristic of certain notorious eugenics movements. I'm sorry, but eugenics is WRONG. Period, full stop. Advocating the elimination of unwanted, undesirable, those with a low quailty of life, those who are not able to justify their cntinued existence by showig how they are a net benefit to society is WRONG. It is EVIL. Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw, Woodrow WIlson, and the others wo pushed this philosophy during the late 19th, early 20th centuries were evil, evil people. Eugenics can also mean me choosing to use someone else's eggs instead of using mine to avoid a genetic disease, or selecting sperm from a green eyed man. Or lead to believing there is such as thing as a master race. IT IS EVIL. Slippery slope argument. Anything can lead to anything. This is a ridiculous argument. Not when you have the historical record to back it up. Eugenics, spearheaded by Early 20th Century Americans (why, hello Hillary Clinton! Thank you for starting us on the path for who THEY were!) believed in segregation, sterilizing "undesirables", killing the mentally or physically handicapped, and the unproductive members of society. They were early backers of Mussolini and Hitler. They een pushed for a lethal gas as a "humane way" to kill, which led the Nazis to come up with Zyklon-B. I will freely admit they were pissed at Hitler for trying to kill all the Jews. Not because he was killing them, in fact they fully supported his killing off of lrge grups of people, they just thought that race or ethnicity wasn't the sole indicator for who to kill. They felt that it should be based more on who is unproductive. And that same group of early 20th Century Progressives contained who? Why, Margaret Sanger, of course! The founder of Planned Parenthood! All designed to create an environment where it's OK to kill an unwanted baby. IT IS EVIL Period, full stop. You can make up your own mind as far as whose camp you want to be in. For me, it is clear cut on this issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 10:23:46 AM EDT
[#23]
The Republican party's long, slow leak will continue unless they get out of the morality business. They should stick to a small government/balanced budget platform.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 10:30:39 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Humanity is genetic, it's the species. Personhood is determined by level of brain function. Think of human-like sci fi movie aliens, they're not human, but they're people. Now think of a brain dead person on life support or a baby born with just a brain stem. The aliens are people but not human, the humans without the advanced brain function aren't people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Human life, not a person. how in the world can you actually differentiate between the two? Humanity is genetic, it's the species. Personhood is determined by level of brain function. Think of human-like sci fi movie aliens, they're not human, but they're people. Now think of a brain dead person on life support or a baby born with just a brain stem. The aliens are people but not human, the humans without the advanced brain function aren't people. Who determines "advanced brain function"? At what point is that determination made? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 10:34:57 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Republican party's long, slow leak will continue unless they get out of the morality business. They should stick to a small government/balanced budget platform. The really shitty thing is, they turn off social moderates with the right wing extremist theocracy platform, then they turn off libertartians because they haven't done shit to shrink government or spend less. Who does that leave who is passionate enough to go to the polls? Anti-democrats and the religious right I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 11:57:10 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Republican party's long, slow leak will continue unless they get out of the morality business. They should stick to a small government/balanced budget platform. Do you attribute the majorities in the House and Senate, the majority of governorships, and the majorities in State Legislatures to this "slow leak"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 11:58:40 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like anti-hunting protesters? If a deer could hold a gun... Just ridiculous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll rabidly fight for all my rights. Even the ones that I've no intention of using. There's a lot of us who think abortion is awful, but are really into freedom. If a fetus could only hold a rifle, I'd bet it would put up a fight, too. Bravo sir! The moral and just man risks his freedom and life to defend those who cannot defend themselves. Like anti-hunting protesters? If a deer could hold a gun... Just ridiculous. You DO realize the difference between a deer and a human, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 12:00:40 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The really shitty thing is, they turn off social moderates with the right wing extremist theocracy platform.... Do you equate being anti-abortion with a right wing extremist theocracy platform? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 12:14:17 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's either arbitrary, speculative, or flat-out biased. That's why the standard should be based on conception, which is absolutely fact-based, preventable, and the responsibility of any 2 sexually mature people who want to fuck without having children. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. What else defines a person? By that logic, there are hundreds of thousands of living adults in this country (at a minimum) that aren't people. Should be they exterminated? There is no liberal logic used to support abortion that is not self-refuting. Consciousness defines personhood. Cognitive ability. I don't understand where you're getting that anyone wants to exterminate anyone else. Not babies or vegetables. Excellent use of the "liberal" card though. It really proves your point. Someone in a coma is no longer a person? What about my Grandfather with Alzheimer's? And just WHO determines "cognitive ability"? It's either arbitrary, speculative, or flat-out biased. That's why the standard should be based on conception, which is absolutely fact-based, preventable, and the responsibility of any 2 sexually mature people who want to fuck without having children. So you support full burial for all miscarriages, and hell, for each monthly menstrual flow, as you can not be assured that there is not a human in those clots? LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 12:28:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you equate being anti-abortion with a right wing extremist theocracy platform? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The really shitty thing is, they turn off social moderates with the right wing extremist theocracy platform.... Do you equate being anti-abortion with a right wing extremist theocracy platform? Absolutely. The "moral majority"  is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 12:34:49 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The really shitty thing is, they turn off social moderates with the right wing extremist theocracy platform.... Do you equate being anti-abortion with a right wing extremist theocracy platform? Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves.Nothing else matters without the Right to Life. Nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 12:35:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Why do they care? Odds are, most people getting abortions or are pro abortion are not Republican. Seems like a self correcting problem, Move On. I'm going out on a limb and say principles. Why do what the democrats do and pander? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 12:38:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing else matters without the Right to Life. Nothing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The really shitty thing is, they turn off social moderates with the right wing extremist theocracy platform.... Do you equate being anti-abortion with a right wing extremist theocracy platform? Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves.Nothing else matters without the Right to Life. Nothing. You're free to live. Stay the fuck out of other people's uteruses and you'll have no problem. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Why is it always men telling women they can't have abortions? It's never an issue men will have to deal with. When it comes to reproductive rights I stay in my fucking lane, why can't you busybodies do the same. The highest law of the land ruled it legal, get over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 12:42:27 PM EDT
[#34]
The thing is, if the party didn't insist on pushing for bans from conception and all the thorny enforcement and intrusion problems that brings we'd have overwhelming support at 20 weeks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 12:55:34 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves."democrats seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves" 
Was that one of those inside jokes I'm never privy to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 12:56:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"democrats seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves"
Was that one of those inside jokes I'm never privy to? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves."democrats seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves"
Was that one of those inside jokes I'm never privy to? When is the last time the democratic party tried to outlaw a specific behavior? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:05:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're free to live. Stay the fuck out of other people's uteruses and you'll have no problem. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Why is it always men telling women they can't have abortions? It's never an issue men will have to deal with. When it comes to reproductive rights I stay in my fucking lane, why can't you busybodies do the same. The highest law of the land ruled it legal, get over it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The really shitty thing is, they turn off social moderates with the right wing extremist theocracy platform.... Do you equate being anti-abortion with a right wing extremist theocracy platform? Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves.Nothing else matters without the Right to Life. Nothing. You're free to live. Stay the fuck out of other people's uteruses and you'll have no problem. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Why is it always men telling women they can't have abortions? It's never an issue men will have to deal with. When it comes to reproductive rights I stay in my fucking lane, why can't you busybodies do the same. The highest law of the land ruled it legal, get over it. It woudl seem, all these anti-abortion-warriors coudl simply get vasectomies to solve their particular personal problem. Why don't they? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:07:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know how old. For the sake of argument, let's say very young. I don't think a beating heart is a good determinant of whether a thing can be killed or not, do you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not a child, it's just a fetus. Without the emotions we attach to it, it's as much a person as a dog or cat. Or less, depending on how undeveloped the fetus is. Potential is all a fetus has to make it important. If you're not considering potential, you don't have anything to consider besides a very simple little organism. There's no such thing as souls, all we are is whatever consciousness and cognitive ability our physical bodies allow us to have. If our bodies are undeveloped, fetal, we aren't people. How old is said "fetus" when you can hear a heart beat? Or when you can see the ultrasound and see hands and a head and a body. Sticking tongs up there and ripping said "fetus" apart piece by piece is murder. Or putting a blender and blending it up is murder. It's not like it's just a sperm And egg up there it has a beating heart. I don't know how old. For the sake of argument, let's say very young. I don't think a beating heart is a good determinant of whether a thing can be killed or not, do you? You keep saying "thing" like it's some kind of animal, or even below that. Let's not forget that this is a baby were talking about that is still developing in the womb. So it's not considered a person, or a baby until after its been born? That's blaspheme. What about the "fetus" that are born super early amd have to go into the icu for months to finish developing? Is that considered a person yet? Now let's say that the fetus which is born super early is laying on the table, now perform an abortion on it the same way you would if it was in the womb still, tell me that's humane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:09:20 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if the fetus had rights, those couldn't be the reasons it has them, because those things are common to so many living creatures that it's ok to kill. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IT IS MURDER. Regardless of religion or not. Movement, feels pain, beating heart, brain waves, etc. That person has rights. That person does not lose those rights, just because it is in the womb. Even if the fetus had rights, those couldn't be the reasons it has them, because those things are common to so many living creatures that it's ok to kill. You keep comparing a baby to an animal, I think you have a screw loose. When is it ever okay to kill a person? Even in self defense you have a chance of going to prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:10:13 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When is the last time the democratic party tried to outlaw a specific behavior? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves."democrats seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves"
Was that one of those inside jokes I'm never privy to? When is the last time the democratic party tried to outlaw a specific behavior? Environmentalism, gun control, their entire Social Justice circus train. their taxation plans are driven by behavior control. Everything democrats do is driven by their particular "morality". Are you seriously defending democrats? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:10:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you equate being anti-abortion with a right wing extremist theocracy platform? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The really shitty thing is, they turn off social moderates with the right wing extremist theocracy platform.... Do you equate being anti-abortion with a right wing extremist theocracy platform? Is anyone else banging that drum? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:12:11 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Environmentalism, gun control, their entire Social Justice circus train. their taxation plans are driven by behavior control. Everything democrats do is driven by their particular "morality". Are you seriously defending democrats? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves."democrats seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves"
Was that one of those inside jokes I'm never privy to? When is the last time the democratic party tried to outlaw a specific behavior? Environmentalism, gun control, their entire Social Justice circus train. their taxation plans are driven by behavior control. Everything democrats do is driven by their particular "morality". Are you seriously defending democrats? You are just yammering. What specific behavior? What bill? What law? I'm not defending democrats, I'm saying that on social issues they are a lot more in line with most of America than the (R)s are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:12:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're free to live. Stay the fuck out of other people's uteruses and you'll have no problem. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Why is it always men telling women they can't have abortions? It's never an issue men will have to deal with. When it comes to reproductive rights I stay in my fucking lane, why can't you busybodies do the same. The highest law of the land ruled it legal, get over it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The really shitty thing is, they turn off social moderates with the right wing extremist theocracy platform.... Do you equate being anti-abortion with a right wing extremist theocracy platform? Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves.Nothing else matters without the Right to Life. Nothing. You're free to live. Stay the fuck out of other people's uteruses and you'll have no problem. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Why is it always men telling women they can't have abortions? It's never an issue men will have to deal with. When it comes to reproductive rights I stay in my fucking lane, why can't you busybodies do the same. The highest law of the land ruled it legal, get over it. Because murder is murder. Size of the human person does not matter. Loction of the human does not matter. Mental capacity of the human does not matter. It is killing a human because it's an inconvenience. Pretty damned pathetic, especially when it is not the only option out there. SCOTUS ruling on it does not negate any of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:13:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When is the last time the democratic party tried to outlaw a specific behavior? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves."democrats seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves"
Was that one of those inside jokes I'm never privy to? When is the last time the democratic party tried to outlaw a specific behavior? Do I have to mke a cake for a gay wedding? Do I have to allow a gay wedding to happen on my private property? Do I have to higher a specific percentage of minorities? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:19:29 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You keep comparing a baby to an animal, I think you have a screw loose. When is it ever okay to kill a person? Even in self defense you have a chance of going to prison. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IT IS MURDER. Regardless of religion or not. Movement, feels pain, beating heart, brain waves, etc. That person has rights. That person does not lose those rights, just because it is in the womb. Even if the fetus had rights, those couldn't be the reasons it has them, because those things are common to so many living creatures that it's ok to kill. You keep comparing a baby to an animal, I think you have a screw loose. When is it ever okay to kill a person? Even in self defense you have a chance of going to prison. Human life is cheap and expendable. Who cares? We have fought many wars over things that weren't even a direct threat to us, all in the name of ideology. How many thousands were killed in the name of spreading democracy, or "stopping communism". There are twice as many people on the planet today as there were in 1970. This number is continuing at an unprecedented rate. Over 87K people have died today alone. Who cares? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:19:33 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are just yammering. What specific behavior? What bill? What law? I'm not defending democrats, I'm saying that on social issues they are a lot more in line with most of America than the (R)s are. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves."democrats seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves"
Was that one of those inside jokes I'm never privy to? When is the last time the democratic party tried to outlaw a specific behavior? Environmentalism, gun control, their entire Social Justice circus train. their taxation plans are driven by behavior control. Everything democrats do is driven by their particular "morality". Are you seriously defending democrats? You are just yammering. What specific behavior? What bill? What law? I'm not defending democrats, I'm saying that on social issues they are a lot more in line with most of America than the (R)s are. You are going to seriously sit there and state that the democrat party does not support, through legislation, environmentalism, gun control, various SJW causes, and behavior modifying taxation? And then expect me to believe you're not defending democrats? You ARE a democrat. Instead of defending democrats, you probably should have thought that line of reasoning through and dropped it, instead of doubling down on stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:19:42 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because murder is murder. Size of the human person does not matter. Loction of the human does not matter. Mental capacity of the human does not matter. It is killing a human because it's an inconvenience. Pretty damned pathetic, especially when it is not the only option out there. SCOTUS ruling on it does not negate any of that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves.Nothing else matters without the Right to Life. Nothing. You're free to live. Stay the fuck out of other people's uteruses and you'll have no problem. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Why is it always men telling women they can't have abortions? It's never an issue men will have to deal with. When it comes to reproductive rights I stay in my fucking lane, why can't you busybodies do the same. The highest law of the land ruled it legal, get over it. Because murder is murder. Size of the human person does not matter. Loction of the human does not matter. Mental capacity of the human does not matter. It is killing a human because it's an inconvenience. Pretty damned pathetic, especially when it is not the only option out there. SCOTUS ruling on it does not negate any of that. Do you have a uterus? No? Then nobody with one gives two shits about your opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:21:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Human life is cheap and expendable. Who cares? We have fought many wars over things that weren't even a direct threat to us, all in the name of ideology. How many thousands were killed in the name of spreading democracy, or "stopping communism". There are twice as many people on the planet today as there were in 1970. This number is continuing at an unprecedented rate. Over 87K people have died today alone. Who cares? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IT IS MURDER. Regardless of religion or not. Movement, feels pain, beating heart, brain waves, etc. That person has rights. That person does not lose those rights, just because it is in the womb. Even if the fetus had rights, those couldn't be the reasons it has them, because those things are common to so many living creatures that it's ok to kill. You keep comparing a baby to an animal, I think you have a screw loose. When is it ever okay to kill a person? Even in self defense you have a chance of going to prison. Human life is cheap and expendable. Who cares? We have fought many wars over things that weren't even a direct threat to us, all in the name of ideology. How many thousands were killed in the name of spreading democracy, or "stopping communism". There are twice as many people on the planet today as there were in 1970. This number is continuing at an unprecedented rate. Over 87K people have died today alone. Who cares? There are 7 Billion people on earth, the handful of potential humans that are aborted is barely a small fraction of a fraction of a percent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:21:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It woudl seem, all these anti-abortion-warriors coudl simply get vasectomies to solve their particular personal problem. Why don't they? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you equate being anti-abortion with a right wing extremist theocracy platform? Absolutely. The "moral majority" is nearly always the far right. I don't have any love for the (D) platform of tax and spend, but they seem to know when to keep their morality to themselves.Nothing else matters without the Right to Life. Nothing. You're free to live. Stay the fuck out of other people's uteruses and you'll have no problem. Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Why is it always men telling women they can't have abortions? It's never an issue men will have to deal with. When it comes to reproductive rights I stay in my fucking lane, why can't you busybodies do the same. The highest law of the land ruled it legal, get over it. It woudl seem, all these anti-abortion-warriors coudl simply get vasectomies to solve their particular personal problem. Why don't they? I think you have it confused. It's the ones that are for abortion that should get a vasectomies or get the tubes tied or just keep the legs closed. Even when I wasn't ready at all for the first baby I had, I still maned up and went thru with it. Abortion never even crossed my mind, I gues I'm just not sick in the head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2015 1:21:34 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because murder is murder. Size of the human person does not matter. Loction of the human does not matter. Mental capacity of the human does not matter. It is killing a human because it's an inconvenience. Pretty damned pathetic, especially when it is not the only option out there. SCOTUS ruling on it does not negate any of that. I see your tank, so i know that you know just as well as I do, that we as a country kill plenty of people just because they are inconvenient to us. The majority of our targets and even our wars fought over the last half century hasn't been because they were a threat to us, but simply because they were inconvenient to us. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
