Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let me help you once again and restate my three arguments in this thread:
1. Protesting against the ad because it's airing during a fucking child's game is ridiculous.
2. Jesus would have preferred the money was used to help feed those in need.
3. Pro choice is the only position on abortion.
If you want a more accurate use of the word specious then you at your own bullshit. Like saying protesting this ad seriously threatens the First Amendment. ROTFL!
That is what is so endearing......even when people cite evidence that contradicts their claim they ignore it and just keep on repeating until bedtime. There is no more Conservatism in the US. Religious extremists who want to use the government to enforce their theology onto others has more in common with Saudi Arabia than America. My only hope is the Christian Right and Neocons will get the hell out of my Party and stop pretending to be Conservative. We already have one "C" word and those camps are trying to force it into two.
Its funny how liberals will claim conservatives are trying to shove their religious morals down everyone else's throats, yet turn around and claim that Jesus would of been for social programs that help the poor so thus we should embrace such programs.
Do you not see how hypocritical you are, or are you fully aware of how dishonest your arguements are but proceed with them anyway because you have no honest way to make a point?
If you're against using "religion" to push forward political agendas, why use Jesus to push your own agenda? Or course that's a rhetorical question, we all know why you do it - to push forward your own agenda at all costs.
No I'm saying that semen emission isn't the same as abortion. Dumbass!
Nobody said semen emission is the same as abortion so why object to a claim that was never made?
You brought up "semen emisison" and I'm saying to your stupid ass and to your stupid friends that one has nothing to do with the other. Get your head out of your ass!!
Nobody said semen emission is the same as abortion so why object to a claim that was never made?
You brought up "semen emisison" and I'm saying to your stupid ass and to your stupid friends that one has nothing to do with the other. Get your head out of your ass!!
How many times have you dodged the question now? Six? Seven? Lol...head out your ass.....
You brought up "semen emisison" and I'm saying to your stupid ass and to your stupid friends that one has nothing to do with the other. Get your head out of your ass!!
How many times have you dodged the question now? Six? Seven? Lol...head out your ass.....
That's because the question had no bearing on the abortion debate, dumbass.
How many times have you dodged the question now? Six? Seven? Lol...head out your ass.....
That's because the question had no bearing on the abortion debate, dumbass.
Why? Because you say so to dodge the question?
That's because the question had no bearing on the abortion debate, dumbass.
Why? Because you say so to dodge the question?
Then explain how semen emissions and abortions are comparable.
Why? Because you say so to dodge the question?
Then explain how semen emissions and abortions are comparable.
For the 20th time....I never claimed they are comparable. You can't demand it be explained when that claim was never made.
Then explain how semen emissions and abortions are comparable.
For the 20th time....I never claimed they are comparable. You can't demand it be explained when that claim was never made.
Then you are truly stupid. I just stated that semen emissions had no relevance to the abortion debate and you asked "why" then you clearly admit that the two are not comparable. It was you that brought up the question about semen emissions in a debate about abortions when you knew it wasn't a relevent question. That shows just how utterly stupid you are. So I've concluded that you're nothing but a troll who has no desire for honest debate.
For the 20th time....I never claimed they are comparable. You can't demand it be explained when that claim was never made.
Then you are truly stupid. I just stated that semen emissions had no relevance to the abortion debate and you asked "why" then you clearly admit that the two are not comparable. It was you that brought up the question about semen emissions in a debate about abortions when you knew it wasn't a relevent question. That shows just how utterly stupid you are. So I've concluded that you're nothing but a troll who has no desire for honest debate.
My, you are slower than the average anti-choicer. Semen emissions not being the same as abortions does not mandate it is irrelevant to the debate. We are discussing the legal aspects of when and why it is appropriate for the government to invade the privacy of one's body.
The first can lead to the second.That's because the question had no bearing on the abortion debate, dumbass.
Why? Because you say so to dodge the question?
Then explain how semen emissions and abortions are comparable.
What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort? How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?Then you are truly stupid. I just stated that semen emissions had no relevance to the abortion debate and you asked "why" then you clearly admit that the two are not comparable. It was you that brought up the question about semen emissions in a debate about abortions when you knew it wasn't a relevent question. That shows just how utterly stupid you are. So I've concluded that you're nothing but a troll who has no desire for honest debate.
My, you are slower than the average anti-choicer. Semen emissions not being the same as abortions does not mandate it is irrelevant to the debate. We are discussing the legal aspects of when and why it is appropriate for the government to invade the privacy of one's body.
I haven't mentioned the governments role or lack thereof in any of my post. This is something you pulled out of your ass to change the subject. I'm arguing as to what should be morally accepted by society, I'm well aware of the fact that abortions are legal in most states. It's my opinion that killing an unborn child is akin to murder and should be treated as such which limits the governments role to simply prosecuting those that choose to terminate an innocent human life. In other words Roe V Wade needs to be repealed.
What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort? How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?My, you are slower than the average anti-choicer. Semen emissions not being the same as abortions does not mandate it is irrelevant to the debate. We are discussing the legal aspects of when and why it is appropriate for the government to invade the privacy of one's body.
I haven't mentioned the governments role or lack thereof in any of my post. This is something you pulled out of your ass to change the subject. I'm arguing as to what should be morally accepted by society, I'm well aware of the fact that abortions are legal in most states. It's my opinion that killing an unborn child is akin to murder and should be treated as such which limits the governments role to simply prosecuting those that choose to terminate an innocent human life. In other words Roe V Wade needs to be repealed.
What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort? How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?I haven't mentioned the governments role or lack thereof in any of my post. This is something you pulled out of your ass to change the subject. I'm arguing as to what should be morally accepted by society, I'm well aware of the fact that abortions are legal in most states. It's my opinion that killing an unborn child is akin to murder and should be treated as such which limits the governments role to simply prosecuting those that choose to terminate an innocent human life. In other words Roe V Wade needs to be repealed.
Sadly you will never stop women from killing their unborn children just as you'll never stop people from committing murder, burglaries or any other illegal activity. The punishment should be debated in a court of law on a case by case basis. Personally I think probation coupled with counseling ought to suffice.
You certainly are soft on "murder".What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort? How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?I haven't mentioned the governments role or lack thereof in any of my post. This is something you pulled out of your ass to change the subject. I'm arguing as to what should be morally accepted by society, I'm well aware of the fact that abortions are legal in most states. It's my opinion that killing an unborn child is akin to murder and should be treated as such which limits the governments role to simply prosecuting those that choose to terminate an innocent human life. In other words Roe V Wade needs to be repealed.
Sadly you will never stop women from killing their unborn children just as you'll never stop people from committing murder, burglaries or any other illegal activity. The punishment should be debated in a court of law on a case by case basis. Personally I think probation coupled with counseling ought to suffice.
. And I would be happy or at least happier with the federal government getting out of it altogether and allowing each state and/or local community to decide its policy about that. I think that would effectively stop abortion for convenience in many places and would save the lives of millions of babies. I think it would encourage more people to take precautions to avoid an unwanted pregnancy too.
Those hell bent on having an abortion just because they didn't want to give birth to the baby would still have places to go to have it killed.
. And I would be happy or at least happier with the federal government getting out of it altogether and allowing each state and/or local community to decide its policy about that. I think that would effectively stop abortion for convenience in many places and would save the lives of millions of babies. I think it would encourage more people to take precautions to avoid an unwanted pregnancy too.
Those hell bent on having an abortion just because they didn't want to give birth to the baby would still have places to go to have it killed.
That didn't work before and there is no reason to think it will work ain the future.
What sort of punishment would you think just to mete out to people who abort illegally? What methods of restraint would you propose to prevent women who intend to have an illegal abortion from having one?
Ireland denies them a passport so they are doomed to stay within the borders and give birthor risk a back alley abortion.
What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort? How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?
Sadly you will never stop women from killing their unborn children just as you'll never stop people from committing murder, burglaries or any other illegal activity. The punishment should be debated in a court of law on a case by case basis. Personally I think probation coupled with counseling ought to suffice.
Abortion as a necessity to preserve life has always been legal in this country and it should remain so. Abortion because a baby was inconvenient was mostly illegal up until Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade did not legalize all abortion, but established reasonable guidelines. In the first trimester, the state would be hands off entirely and that took care of rape, incest, and inconvenience. In the second trimester, the state could have some interest, and in the third trimester the state could have a great deal of interest; i.e. outlaw all abortion that was not medically necessary.
Of course the liberal courts have corrupted the intent of Roe v Wade by making all abortion legal including the actual birth itself so long as any part of the baby remained in the birth canal. Our President, as an Illinois legislator, also voted to allow a baby that survived abortion to be killed or neglected to death even if it was completely viable. I can't imagine the mentality that would see that as a justifiable act.
Evenso, there is no way to outlaw abortion as a means to stop it. But we certainly do not have to condone it. And I would be happy or at least happier with the federal government getting out of it altogether and allowing each state and/or local community to decide its policy about that. I think that would effectively stop abortion for convenience in many places and would save the lives of millions of babies. I think it would encourage more people to take precautions to avoid an unwanted pregnancy too.
Those hell bent on having an abortion just because they didn't want to give birth to the baby would still have places to go to have it killed.
You certainly are soft on "murder".What sort of punishment should be meted out to women who abort? How would you propose that those who intend to abort be prevented from doing so?
Sadly you will never stop women from killing their unborn children just as you'll never stop people from committing murder, burglaries or any other illegal activity. The punishment should be debated in a court of law on a case by case basis. Personally I think probation coupled with counseling ought to suffice.
No thank you. I do not want local or even non local folks making reproductive decisions for me or any woman.Let the local folks decide what they consider to be morally acceptable or not.
Let me help you once again and restate my three arguments in this thread:
1. Protesting against the ad because it's airing during a fucking child's game is ridiculous.
2. Jesus would have preferred the money was used to help feed those in need.
3. Pro choice is the only position on abortion.
If you want a more accurate use of the word specious then you at your own bullshit. Like saying protesting this ad seriously threatens the First Amendment. ROTFL!
That is what is so endearing......even when people cite evidence that contradicts their claim they ignore it and just keep on repeating until bedtime. There is no more Conservatism in the US. Religious extremists who want to use the government to enforce their theology onto others has more in common with Saudi Arabia than America. My only hope is the Christian Right and Neocons will get the hell out of my Party and stop pretending to be Conservative. We already have one "C" word and those camps are trying to force it into two.
Its funny how liberals will claim conservatives are trying to shove their religious morals down everyone else's throats, yet turn around and claim that Jesus would of been for social programs that help the poor so thus we should embrace such programs.
Do you not see how hypocritical you are, or are you fully aware of how dishonest your arguements are but proceed with them anyway because you have no honest way to make a point?
If you're against using "religion" to push forward political agendas, why use Jesus to push your own agenda? Or course that's a rhetorical question, we all know why you do it - to push forward your own agenda at all costs.
You super dumbass. You took two quotes discussing different issues and you try to push them together to claim hypocrisy? Spending the money to run the ad doesn't have a fucking thing to do with trying to use the government to force theology onto society. How can you be so damn desperate to try something so transparently dishonest?
