A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Conservative65]

[
Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion.

{
choice

• : the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities
  
  
• : the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision
  
  
• : a range of things that can be chosen

}

Sorry sparky, your ignorance did you in.

Abortion and choice are not the same thing.

You promote abortion, not choice.

That's a lie.

I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

While dishonesty forms the foundation that the left rests upon, reiterate that it is neither cute nor clever.

You are a promoter of abortion.

That's a lie.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

Again, lying is not clever. That abortion is not currently forced in no way changes the fact that you are an abortion advocate.

You promote abortion on demand.

That's a lie.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Once again, lying serves you poorly.

You promote abortion on demand. We can move on and explore why you promote abortion, or you can continue to lie, with the assumption that others are too stupid to grasp that you are indeed lying.

That's a lie.

Since your entire post is nothing but a lie about what I do, and do not support, without my ever suggesting that I support what you claim I do, for th third time. don't bother responding, you are going on ignore.

Buh bye.

So you're running and hiding like a little pussy because someone said what you are? Typical coward.

Fuck you. I am not going to engage with someone who insists on lying about my positions.

Run, pussy, run.

You lie about mine, hypocrite.

 

[Czernobog]

Your posts have nothing to do with logic. Only presumption.

Again, the presumption is entirely yours. You presume that the only choice that exists is the choice to abort a baby.

Life is full of choice, the pro-abortion lobby is not a promoter of choices, only of abotion.

Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion. I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

I'm not angry. I am amused at your stupid attempt to tell me what I do, and do not believe.

Since you post said beliefs on a public message board, it is logical to do so.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Again. You lie about what you represent in order to make it palatable.

You don't advocate for *choice*. The babies don't get a choice. And in most cases, neither do the mothers.

A Twisted Form of Domestic Abuse

Bite me. I don't lie. I state my position. Just because it does not fit nicely into some pigeron-hole that will allow me to be labeled as you see fit, that is your problem, not mine.

 

[koshergrl]

[
Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion.

{
choice

• : the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities
  
  
• : the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision
  
  
• : a range of things that can be chosen

}

Sorry sparky, your ignorance did you in.

Abortion and choice are not the same thing.

You promote abortion, not choice.

That's a lie.

I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

While dishonesty forms the foundation that the left rests upon, reiterate that it is neither cute nor clever.

You are a promoter of abortion.

That's a lie.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

Again, lying is not clever. That abortion is not currently forced in no way changes the fact that you are an abortion advocate.

You promote abortion on demand.

That's a lie.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Once again, lying serves you poorly.

You promote abortion on demand. We can move on and explore why you promote abortion, or you can continue to lie, with the assumption that others are too stupid to grasp that you are indeed lying.

That's a lie.

Since your entire post is nothing but a lie about what I do, and do not support, without my ever suggesting that I support what you claim I do, for th third time. don't bother responding, you are going on ignore.

Buh bye.

So you're running and hiding like a little pussy because someone said what you are? Typical coward.

Fuck you. I am not going to engage with someone who insists on lying about my positions.

You lie about your position. You lie when you say you are about "choice" and not just "murder and exploitation". You don't think women should have a choice. You think men should be able to have sex without consequences, even if women are harmed and babies killed.

THAT'S the only choice you care about.

 

[Conservative65]

[
Where do you get such ridiculous notions? Choice clearly means there is more than one option - to have an abortion, or not to have an abortion.

{
choice

• : the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities
  
  
• : the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision
  
  
• : a range of things that can be chosen

}

Sorry sparky, your ignorance did you in.

Abortion and choice are not the same thing.

You promote abortion, not choice.

That's a lie.

I do not purport to favour either option above the other. You keep trying to assign to me a preference that I have never expressed. That is a presumption on your part.

While dishonesty forms the foundation that the left rests upon, reiterate that it is neither cute nor clever.

You are a promoter of abortion.

That's a lie.

I would agree with you that pro-abortion advocates would, likely, think the way you suggest. Since I am not pro-abortion nor have I ever claimed to be, I cannot understand why you would continue to presume that has anything to do with my position.

Again, lying is not clever. That abortion is not currently forced in no way changes the fact that you are an abortion advocate.

You promote abortion on demand.

That's a lie.

I have never posted the beliefs that you keep assigning to me, and I challenge you to quote where I have.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Once again, lying serves you poorly.

You promote abortion on demand. We can move on and explore why you promote abortion, or you can continue to lie, with the assumption that others are too stupid to grasp that you are indeed lying.

That's a lie.

Since your entire post is nothing but a lie about what I do, and do not support, without my ever suggesting that I support what you claim I do, for th third time. don't bother responding, you are going on ignore.

Buh bye.

So you're running and hiding like a little pussy because someone said what you are? Typical coward.

Fuck you. I am not going to engage with someone who insists on lying about my positions.

You lie about your position. You lie when you say you are about "choice" and not just "murder and exploitation". You don't think women should have a choice. You think men should be able to have sex without consequences, even if women are harmed and babies killed.

THAT'S the only choice you care about.

Czernobog says he's pro choice yet opposes giving the rest of us a choice of whether or not we want to support some woman that had kids she can't afford to support after telling us to butt out of what she does with her body.

 

[Chuz Life]

Are you a proponent for letting women choose what to do with their own bodies?

Yes, or no?

YES!

Now, do you think there should be legal consequences for the CHOICES that people make when they CHOOSE to violate the rights of a CHILD?

Yes or no?

YES!

A fetus is not a chjild, no matter how many ways you want to insist that it is.

So the dictionaries, fetal homicide laws and other definitions that say the word "child" can and does include a "human fetus" are what? WRONG?

Yes or No?

Also, I'll ask you again: "Are you a proponent for keeping elective abortions legal?" Yes or No?

Apparently you do, since you just agreed that a woman has the right to do what she will with her own body.

I fully support anyone's right to make choices. Just as much as YOU do.

Try as you may to skew it. . . the point where we differ is not about whether or not people have the right to make choices. It's about whether or not we have the right to violate the rights of OTHERS with the choices we are free to make.

To maintain YOUR views, you have to reject the current legal and other definitions which do in fact recognize a child in the womb AS a "child" and as "a human being."

It seems that DENIAL is your drug of CHOICE.[/QUOTE]

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Fuck you. I am not going to engage with someone who insists on lying about my positions.

You are a coward who is pouting because you got called on your lies. Simple as that.

 

[Mertex]

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

Sure they do.....the facts don't agree with your rhetoric. Quit fudging the truth and face the facts.


For years the Republican Party has been telling us that the welfare system in America is helping to make people lazy and making them too dependent on the federal government.

As it turns out, Red states are far more likely to depend on federal welfare than blue states, and they are also more likely to have a higher percentage of poor people in their states. A new report from the Tax Foundation shows that two of the most conservative states in America – Louisiana and Mississippi – rank in the top 3 recipients of federal handouts.

Both Louisiana and Mississippi are run by backwards-thinking Republican governors who feel like it’s their job to cut benefits for the needy while at the same time handing out welfare to wealthy corporations. They have both also allowed the energy industry to operate with few limitations in their states, further reducing the health of the overall state.

Republicans love to tell us that welfare recipients are lazy and shiftless and that an individual’s success or failure is the sole responsibility of the individual, but THEY are actually the ones who depend the most on government handouts.
Welfare Hypocrisy: Red States Are The Real Freeloaders - The Ring of Fire - The Ring of Fire Network

 

[Mertex]

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

In other words, you're full of shit. Otherwise you'd have no problem telling us what state you live in, so we could confirm your claim.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

In other words, the state is irrelevant, the facts I stated are. Seems you can't handle the truth and divert. You don't need to confirm the claim. The state has already done it for you. Are you claiming they're wrong?

Except they aren't fact. They are claims that you are making, that can't be verified. Like I said, you're full of shit.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Like I've told you before, whether or not you accept it doesn't change the facts. You Liberal morons think that if you claim something isn't true, it makes it untrue because of your claim.

Next thing you'll tell me is that those comprising the majority number in that district don't come from a group that has an over 70% bastard birth rate, an unemployment rate 2x greater than whites, and vote Democrat 95% of the time.

You still won't believe it because you are so deep into denial.. Here are the facts, now shut up and accept the facts, I'm tired of dealing with your bullshit.


In spite of the prevailing stereotypes and assumptions about who uses SNAP Food Stamp benefits the most in the United States, the highest usage is not in Compton, Queens, nor the South Side of Chicago. Instead, a city that is 99.22% white and 95% Republican comes in the lead. Owsley County, Kentucky is a community of about 5,000, residents earning the lowest median household income in the country outside of Puerto Rico, according to the U.S. Census.
The Food Stamp Capital of the U.S. is WHITE and REPUBLICAN

 

[Mertex]

You don't provide facts, you just repeat rhetoric....opinions of right-wing tightwads that don't like any of their money going to help the needy....but they also call themselves "Christians".

And, the majority of "damn freeloaders" live in red states, for all I know you may be one of them, and most of them don't mind cutting their noses off to spite their face.

They don't cease to be facts because you disagree. You call it rhetoric because you don't.

The majority of the freeloaders in my red state come from the only blue district in it.

You lefties choose to use the government to force people to support another person and that isn't necessary. Seems the lefties are the tightwads. You come up with all sorts of things you believe people should have that they don't have and could provide them simply by reaching into your own pockets and meeting those needs. Instead, you choose to get the government to force it from someone else then claim compassion as if it came from you personally.

Are you one of those bleeding hearts that says you don't have a problem with the government telling you to pay higher taxes if it goes to a needy person? If so, if you care and you believe someone without deserves something, why do you have to wait to be told to do it. Shouldn't you just do it?

Ya know, you've stated that a couple of times. I'm curious. What state are you from?

One where the only blue district in the state gets so much in freeloading handouts it makes the rest of the red districts look bad. It's the poorest district in the state by far and has a median income that is $8000 less than the closest red one constituting a 21% difference. If it weren't for all those freeloaders there embarrassing us, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent what you're trying to misrepresent.

Funny thing about that district it is was created to appease a bunch of whining minorities. The only way they could ever get one of their own elected was to have the system create a district where one couldn't lose. I guess when you can't win by what you offer, you get the system changed to give you an advantage making it appear as if you really accomplished something.

Oh! You live in the state of Denial. That explains a lot.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I live in a state where the blue district makes the rest of us look bad. You don't have to believe the information. That it's true is not determined by whether or not you accept it but on what the numbers show.

Yeah, right....because you say so. Where's your link to actual stats?

 

[Mertex]

Just like a fertilized chicken egg.....it has the potential of becoming a chicken, but in the meantime you don't mind enjoying it scrambled. Time has to be added to make it a "person". And, quit acting as if "human being" means so damn much to you.....you want to cut welfare, SNAP, Medicaid for all the "needy" human beings, so I guess you are just a damn hypocrite.

Not at all like a fertilized chicken egg... chickens are different life forms with different reproduction systems.

Ha,ha.....wrong.

Like any other animal, fertilization requires the production of an egg cell from the female and sperm from the male.
How Do Chicken Eggs Get Fertilized? - EnkiVillage

In humans, when the egg is fertilized it either begins to reproduce more cells or it doesn't. If it doesn't, there is no living organism and the body discards the fertilized egg as waste. If it does reproduce more cells, it IS (by biological definition) a new unique living organism in the state of being. Time is not an ingredient, it is a measure. In time, the organism will grow into a fetus and eventually will grow into an infant. At no time does it ever change what it already is... a living human organism in the state of being. So a fetus is a potential infant and an infant is a potential geriatric... they are all living human organisms in the state of being.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. It is still just a potential person, just like the fertilized chicken egg has the potential of becoming a chicken if everything goes as it should. You are lying when you say only the human egg reproduces more cells. Do some reading.

The final stop on the assembly line is the actual laying of the (now fertilized) egg. At this stage, the fertilized egg has already developed approximately 20,000 embryonic cells and will, if incubated properly, eventually develop into a fully formed chick.
How Do Chicken Eggs Get Fertilized? - EnkiVillage

And I've not acted like human beings mean so much to me... I am simply pointing out a biological fact. What you are attempting is a straw man argument. My experience has been, when people start resorting to straw man arguments they've lost the debate.

Well, from the facts provided above in my link, looks like you've lost the argument and are coming up with straw man arguments.

 

[Chuz Life]

YOUNG

Noun
Offspring, especially of an animal before or soon after birth:

 

[Boss]

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. It is still just a potential person, just like the fertilized chicken egg has the potential of becoming a chicken if everything goes as it should. You are lying when you say only the human egg reproduces more cells. Do some reading.

Well if the egg doesn't reproduce any more cells it can't be a living organism or a fetus or anything other than an egg... in which case, there is no reason for an abortion procedure. A woman having to lay an egg isn't a problem.

There is no "potential" anything... the fetus IS a living human organism in the state of being. A human being. If you are unable to admit that, we can't have an intelligent conversation because you're ignorant of biology. You may as well believe that babies come from storks who drop them down the chimney.

 

[Boss]

I don't support said vouchers being used for religious schools, as that would be tantamount to public funding of religious institutions.

No, it wouldn't.... No more so than a Social Security recipient tithing 10% to their church. The government has no control over money dispersed as benefits to the recipient. You are free to spend your benefits however you please... it's none of the government's business.

The First Amendment says government cannot endorse a religion. I have no problem with that but government funding religiously-based activity is not endorsing a religion. On the flip side, government demanding taxes from someone, then using those funds to pay for something that person doesn't condone religiously is violating their First Amendment rights to freedom of religious expression.

 

[Czernobog]

I don't support said vouchers being used for religious schools, as that would be tantamount to public funding of religious institutions.

No, it wouldn't.... No more so than a Social Security recipient tithing 10% to their church. The government has no control over money dispersed as benefits to the recipient. You are free to spend your benefits however you please... it's none of the government's business.

The First Amendment says government cannot endorse a religion. I have no problem with that but government funding religiously-based activity is not endorsing a religion. On the flip side, government demanding taxes from someone, then using those funds to pay for something that person doesn't condone religiously is violating their First Amendment rights to freedom of religious expression.

So...the government funding your religion is not "government endorsement", but funding something your religion does not endorse is government interference in you religious freedom?!.!

That's really your position?!?! And you wonder why we insist that you religious zealots exist in an entirely different reality from the rest of us!

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Chuz Life]

Are you a proponent for letting women choose what to do with their own bodies?

Yes, or no?

YES!

Now, do you think there should be legal consequences for the CHOICES that people make when they CHOOSE to violate the rights of a CHILD?

Yes or no?

YES!

A fetus is not a chjild, no matter how many ways you want to insist that it is.

So the dictionaries, fetal homicide laws and other definitions that say the word "child" can and does include a "human fetus" are what? WRONG?

Yes or No?

Also, I'll ask you again: "Are you a proponent for keeping elective abortions legal?" Yes or No?

Apparently you do, since you just agreed that a woman has the right to do what she will with her own body.

I fully support anyone's right to make choices. Just as much as YOU do.

Try as you may to skew it. . . the point where we differ is not about whether or not people have the right to make choices. It's about whether or not we have the right to violate the rights of OTHERS with the choices we are free to make.

To maintain YOUR views, you have to reject the current legal and other definitions which do in fact recognize a child in the womb AS a "child" and as "a human being."

It seems that DENIAL is your drug of CHOICE.

Bump.

 

[Boss]

So...the government funding your religion is not "government endorsement", but funding something your religion does not endorse is government interference in you religious freedom?!.!

That's really your position?!?! And you wonder why we insist that you religious zealots exist in an entirely different reality from the rest of us!

Well.... I personally do not have a religion. But that is not an accurate assessment even if I did. Government is not funding anything if they give me my benefits and I spend them on something. IF I take my government benefits and buy a prostitute, the government is not funding prostitution. Anything I choose to do with my money after the government gives it back to me is none of the government's business. Money that I give to the government for specific uses shouldn't be used to fund things I don't approve of.


And you wonder why we want smaller limited government and lower taxation!

 

[Faun]

I don't support said vouchers being used for religious schools, as that would be tantamount to public funding of religious institutions.

No, it wouldn't.... No more so than a Social Security recipient tithing 10% to their church. The government has no control over money dispersed as benefits to the recipient. You are free to spend your benefits however you please... it's none of the government's business.

The First Amendment says government cannot endorse a religion. I have no problem with that but government funding religiously-based activity is not endorsing a religion. On the flip side, government demanding taxes from someone, then using those funds to pay for something that person doesn't condone religiously is violating their First Amendment rights to freedom of religious expression.

You remain an idiot. In regions where vouchers were tried, religious schools were, by and large, the only schools which would accept lowered tuition so that poor folks using vouchers could attend their schools. Secular schools typically would not lower their tuition and families weren't getting enough vouchers to attend them. In cities like Cleveland, the first to try a voucher system, nearly all of the secular schools participating I the program dropped out; leaving almost all of the vouchers going to religious schools.

 

[Czernobog]

So...the government funding your religion is not "government endorsement", but funding something your religion does not endorse is government interference in you religious freedom?!.!

That's really your position?!?! And you wonder why we insist that you religious zealots exist in an entirely different reality from the rest of us!

Well.... I personally do not have a religion. But that is not an accurate assessment even if I did. Government is not funding anything if they give me my benefits and I spend them on something. IF I take my government benefits and buy a prostitute, the government is not funding prostitution. Anything I choose to do with my money after the government gives it back to me is none of the government's business. Money that I give to the government for specific uses shouldn't be used to fund things I don't approve of.


And you wonder why we want smaller limited government and lower taxation!

Except that's not how vouchers work. The government doesn't give you one cent. That's why it's a voucher, not a tax refund. All you get is a piece of paper to give to your "school of choice", letting them know that, when they remit, the government will pay whatever percentage of their tuition the voucher is good for. In other words, the government doesn't pay you, they pay the school, just as if it were a public school getting federal funds.

Sorry, vouchers for religious schools is using the government to fund religious institutions - a direct violation of the first amendment.

 

[Boss]

Except that's not how vouchers work. The government doesn't give you one cent. That's why it's a voucher, not a tax refund. All you get is a piece of paper to give to your "school of choice", letting them know that, when they remit, the government will pay whatever percentage of their tuition the voucher is good for. In other words, the government doesn't pay you, they pay the school, just as if it were a public school getting federal funds.

Sorry, vouchers for religious schools is using the government to fund religious institutions - a direct violation of the first amendment.

Vouchers are used so the money can only be spent on a specific thing. And the government isn't paying anyone anything... it's my money. It's not the government funding a religious institution. It is me using my money to pay a religious institution for their services. You're just flat wrong as usual.

 

[Czernobog]

Except that's not how vouchers work. The government doesn't give you one cent. That's why it's a voucher, not a tax refund. All you get is a piece of paper to give to your "school of choice", letting them know that, when they remit, the government will pay whatever percentage of their tuition the voucher is good for. In other words, the government doesn't pay you, they pay the school, just as if it were a public school getting federal funds.

Sorry, vouchers for religious schools is using the government to fund religious institutions - a direct violation of the first amendment.

Vouchers are used so the money can only be spent on a specific thing. And the government isn't paying anyone anything... it's my money. It's not the government funding a religious institution. It is me using my money to pay a religious institution for their services. You're just flat wrong as usual.

Either you don't understand how the voucher system works, or you are flat out lying about your understanding. I don't know which.

Who provides the vouchers?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk