If you're willing to kill unborn babies, you're willing to do anything...

[yidnar]

I just talked to Jesus, and he said if you constantly spout vile hatred and claim to be a Christian, you are a hypocrite and an embarrassment to Jesus. He also told me he saw you masturbating..

animals like you are disgusting .......youve probably encouraged some stupid slut to abort your child she was carrying .....

You know...Jesus just told me that Bulldog was spot on.

i think your xxxlg flannel shirt is to tight and cutting the oxygen off to your dyke brain.

 

[Chuz Life]

hmmmmmmm

hmmmmmmm

Do Trumpvoters know how to carry on a conversation?

I’d like to find one with a rational mind and language skills.

I would like to have a structured conversation with you, one on one. Anytime.

Start a thread here in the "Bull Ring" so we can't be interrupted or derailed.

The Bull Ring

 

[Montrovant]

Well, I hate to break it to you, but women don't get pregnant spontaneously...it takes a man, too...too bad you never learned that!

You know what also stops pregnancy? A guy keeping it in his pants. But it's only the responsibility of the woman, according to you. Got it.

You ever hear of in vitro fertilization?....asshole!...all LESBIANS LOVE IT...YOU SHOULD TOO!...ROTFLMFAO!

In vitro fertilization is for women who are trying to get pregnant. Weren't we discussing what people should do to avoid pregnancy, and who bears responsibility when a woman does get pregnant?

But go on, do tell how lesbians making use of in vitro fertilization is an important point when it comes to men not being responsible for getting a woman pregnant through sexual intercourse.

Or perhaps your point was that men are not necessary for in vitro fertilization. If that is the case, I hate to have to tell you this, but the process still requires sperm.

Then only fuck men who have been fixed if YOU refuse to be fixed!!!!...Easy answer!

None of what you've said explains how men hold no responsibility when it comes to pregnancy. Yes, there are various ways to avoid pregnancy, both for men and women. How does that absolve men having sex of responsibility for pregnancy?

really? REALLY? did you really write this? are you sure?

Am I sure of what? That men are also responsible for pregnancy, not just women? Yep, I'm sure.

 

[JoeB131]

Our nation's nearly 40 fetal HOMICIDE laws already prove you wrong about that.

Um, yeah, only a matter of time before they are struck down...

I notice that when you try to use them to throw women in jail for killing their own fetuses.... they keep backfiring.

Hey, are you going to ever talk about Poor Purvi Patel and how you nuts tried to prosecute her for a miscarriage?

 

[JoeB131]

I would like to have a structured conversation with you, one on one. Anytime.

Start a thread here in the "Bull Ring" so we can't be interrupted or derailed.

Hey, you tried that shit with me once. After I mopped the floor with you, you ran away to deal with a "Legal Issue" and never came back.

 

[JoeB131]

God and religion do not have any fucking thing to do with my views on abortion.

Your hostility towards women does?

I don't need "God" in my life, for me to know that an abortion kills a child. Neither do you. That's basic biology.

Nor does anyone need "God" in their life to see that (according to the Constitution) the child's rights are being denied and violated by abortions.

This would be the same constitution that allowed slavery? You'd be making women slaves if you granted fetuses "personhood"... which might be the point.

 

[Bush92]

...you have no morals or scruples whatsoever.

If you agree with abortion you’re no better than a Nazi officer who worked in a concentration camp. Brutal murder is all that it is and every mother that has one shall be condemned to hell.

 

[Terri4Trump]

...you have no morals or scruples whatsoever.

Democrats are pure evil

 

[Questioner]

If the simplistic argument from authority fallacy in regards to only "women" having a say on abortion (when most women who've never been desperate enough to need one to begin with would never be too keen on having a positive say about it), then that's rather trivial.

Not to mention, simply false in practice, outside of childish imagination or fantasy, given that most legislators and lawmakers are men, something which won't change for the fore sable future, much as legislative attitudes toward abortion would likely change in the event more women were elected, if anything, assuming that "abortion would be a sacrament to males", per Gloria Steinen's opinion, it wouldn't shock me or surprise me if states or legislatures because more restrictive of abortion once more thinking women happened to take office, party politics and fictitious "rights" regardless.

Given that no one wants to 'have an abortion' to begin with, if it can otherwise be avoided by more intelligent and mature lifestyle choices, nor do they, men or women, want to pay for or subsidize the Neanderthals and underclass who do, and to whom abortion is so naturally correlated with, as opposed to being the so much case in regards to thinking men and women, of better intelligence, class, life goals and mature ambitions, and so forth. Not to mention the naïve, faith based axioms upon which childish arguments for any "right" to an abortion to begin with are dishonestly presented, as if the axioms themselves were to be blindly or unthinkingly taken on face value by the dishonest, inept, conflationary or immoral, for some silly, or contradictory reason or another, rather than called into question, rather than simply honestly presenting the actual, complex history of the topic, whether from what is so stupidly or erroneously called "religious", "secular or otherwise" - be this one's own naivete or ignorance to begin with, or just simple and pure dishonesty, paranoia, conspiracy theories, and so forth, often ironically appealing to religion or religious notions which one falsely conflates with something else or another to begin with in order to justify or oppose any argument to the contrary on the basis of rather quaint religious or emotional sentiments themselves, being either too ignorant or intellectually and morally dishonest to know or to tell the difference, outside perhaps of one's own falsehood and propagandism of choice, which they are either stupid, or honestly and naively pretend they actually believe to begin with, by the mere virtue of saturation, misinformation, or having little in the way of any outside communication, reading actual books, or intellectual inquisitiveness into the subject matter or matters to begin with, historically, presently, or futurely..

Reality just seems to have a "conservative" bias in regards to abortion, and those in denial of it and human nature in general simply aren't willing to cope with it, in comparison to women of some merit, virtue, and mature parenting practices, Waris Dirie being an example off the top of my head, while those to lazy, slovenly, or inept to cope with basic physical hardships and realities outside of inept, intellectual whining and moaning have rarely made history, except as a humorous example for better men and women of more intellect, dignity, and achievement to learn from, of course.

On the whole, the purely physical things are so easy and simplistic, in comparison to higher mental achievements and pursuits, that even those stereotyped as of very low intelligence can do them, and frequently want to, with relative ease, though I won't generalize in every instance, generally if not the most often, those too weak, frail, delicate, or inept to master basic physical urges and drives will likewise be far too inept for anything resembling meaningful or sustainable mental drives, motivations, or pursuits, nor the false notion that the two don't often naturally to go hand-in hand to begin with, as opposed to being entirely asynchronius...

 

[Questioner]

Your hostility towards women does?

More like any thinking man or woman's natural and understandable hostility to the minority of impoverished or educated women (and their sperm donors) with whom disproportionate numbers of elective abortions naturally correlate, as well as the simplistic, anti-intellectual worldviews with which a lifestyle which naturally leads to more elective abortions than necessary correlates, being far less of a factor among men and women in the sciences or the arts, than those of more simple pleasures and fatuities)..

I don't need "God" in my life, for me to know that an abortion kills a child. Neither do you. That's basic biology.

Nor does anyone need "God" in their life to see that (according to the Constitution) the child's rights are being denied and violated by abortions.

This would be the same constitution that allowed slavery? You'd be making women slaves if you granted fetuses "personhood"... which might be the point.

Legally requiring people to support their own biological children could be argued to be "slavery" as well, as per the states' laws.

So no, one could just as easily argue that requiring men to pay child support for the children they sire, or men and women to support their own children after birth, by threat or punishment from the law if they do otherwise, is "slavery" as well.

But I'm going out on a limb, and assuming that you don't favor allowing men to make 10 babies with 10 different baby mommas and not support their children, or women being allowed to murder their 2 year old offspring because "slavery" is imposed upon her via threats of child abuse or neglect if she doesn't.

So your argument really isn't a "slavery" one, nor reducible to childish, anti-intellectual rhetoric in regards to hostility to the minority of women (and their male partners) whose number of abortions and IQs tend to be inversely proportional, no, it is an argument about what "life" is, where it begins and should be defined, and what mythical notions of "rights" the state should acknowledge or enforce to begin with, based your feelings, faith, moral sentiments such as "slavery being wrong" by some idiosyncratic definition, and so forth.

 

[Questioner]

Our nation's nearly 40 fetal HOMICIDE laws already prove you wrong about that.

Um, yeah, only a matter of time before they are struck down...

Unlikely, I'm not sure what silly, simplistic narrative or interpretation that's based on to begin with, but in practice, that's only the tip of the iceberg.

If anything, I'd venture that newer forms of media will ultimately have a more deceive effect on future attitudes toward abortion, rather than the archaic, dinosaur rhetoric which you seem so heavily infatuated with, not even honest or informed enough to outline the complex history of abortion laws and attitudes, in favor of your own childish slogans and catchphrases, which would be "cute" were they not so pathetic, honestly...

 

[Questioner]

Another wonderful example would be the silly or erroneous notion or referral to "women as a group", whatever that means, despite it being predicated on a lack of knowledge of what a "group" (male or female) even is to begin with, or how said minority groups form or are formed themselves via voluntary associations, or how long they tend to last in practice, or what they actually accomplished outside of childish whims, slogans catchphrases and so forth, as opposed to what or how more serious, thinking men and women would form, construct, or approximate said groups to begin with, each one, in practice, being a relatively small association, loosely connected with society or the outside world as a whole, made up of millions of people not otherwise affiliated with said group, nor able to see the interconnections and dynamic, fluid, and changing associations thereof.

Not all groups being equal either, in terms or in regards to their effectiveness, morality, legitimacy, and so forth, particularly if they segregate themselves entirely from the world of literature, information, learning, and personal achievement.

Various authors, men and women, such as the corporate author of "Tribes", as well those who have observed female "groups" or associations, such as female basketball teams, have written on the subject of groups, teamwork, activism, and the voluntary associations which they are formed and made from, with various notes and thoughts on what it is that makes an effective or worthy group to begin with, how long they tend to last, and so forth, and the various myths and misassumptions they are often predicated on to begin with.

 

[Chuz Life]

I would like to have a structured conversation with you, one on one. Anytime.

Start a thread here in the "Bull Ring" so we can't be interrupted or derailed.

Hey, you tried that shit with me once. After I mopped the floor with you, you ran away to deal with a "Legal Issue" and never came back.

I'm back now, Joey and I will be continuiing our debate very soon. Fwiw, the poll shows you have it ass backward. (No surprise there). . . You are the one getting trounced.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I would like to have a structured conversation with you, one on one. Anytime.

Start a thread here in the "Bull Ring" so we can't be interrupted or derailed.

I asked for a rational conversation. Why can’t you do that here?

there was no interruption that caused your response to be hmmmmmmmm.

Just respond to my posts in a rational literate way.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Exactly

That is mass murder of us citizens

Women should be voting against it but instead it is them voting for it

Where in the US constitution does it read:

All persons conceived or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.


Why are all you pro-Trump anti-choice so dense.

WHERE do you come up with this stuff?

Tell me al about your source.

I’m studying idiocy in the electorate.

 

[Chuz Life]

I would like to have a structured conversation with you, one on one. Anytime.

Start a thread here in the "Bull Ring" so we can't be interrupted or derailed.

I asked for a rational conversation. Why can’t you do that here?

there was no interruption that caused your response to be hmmmmmmmm.

Just respond to my posts in a rational literate way.

Go back and review.

I am not the one who responded to your post with "hmmmmmmmmmmmm"

 

[Chuz Life]

Our nation's nearly 40 fetal HOMICIDE laws already prove you wrong about that.

Um, yeah, only a matter of time before they are struck down...

I notice that when you try to use them to throw women in jail for killing their own fetuses.... they keep backfiring.

Hey, are you going to ever talk about Poor Purvi Patel and how you nuts tried to prosecute her for a miscarriage?

Hard to answer multiple points on a phone, like I would like to do. . .

1. With the numbers of Trump appointments to the Scotus and the Fed Courts? I'll take your bet. They won't be struck down in either of our lifetimes.

2. I don't know the details on Purvi Patel. I doubt very much that it was as simple a case as you claim.

 

[boilermaker55]

"Why do we want all these people from 'shithole countries' coming here?"

Now who said that, and does that say anything about respecting “life”?

 

[Chuz Life]

"Why do we want all these people from 'shithole countries' coming here?"

Now who said that, and does that say anything about respecting “life”?

Well, in a world where it is ok to deny rights to and kill children in the womb. . . . How much respect for other lives do you expect there to be?

 

[JoeB131]

More like any thinking man or woman's natural and understandable hostility to the minority of impoverished or educated women (and their sperm donors) with whom disproportionate numbers of elective abortions naturally correlate, as well as the simplistic, anti-intellectual worldviews with which a lifestyle which naturally leads to more elective abortions than necessary correlates, being far less of a factor among men and women in the sciences or the arts, than those of more simple pleasures and fatuities)..

Actually, I knew a lady who had two abortions. She was middle class, college educated, from a strict Asian-American family who had abortions because she didn't want her parents to know she wasn't still a virgin at 22.

Do the poor have more abortions? Sure. Because they have less access to other forms of contraception.

Legally requiring people to support their own biological children could be argued to be "slavery" as well, as per the states' laws.

So no, one could just as easily argue that requiring men to pay child support for the children they sire, or men and women to support their own children after birth, by threat or punishment from the law if they do otherwise, is "slavery" as well.

Except you have the option to reliquish all parental rights... so that's not even a good analogy.