• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana Republican: When life begins from rape, "God intended" it [W:266]

Henrin said:
That entire post was just your ignorant point of view based on an idiotic premise. Its interesting how you think the right to her body includes the killing of her offspring though. I wonder if any other right includes such a thing? Does other parts of the right to her body have to rely on broken logic like yours? Its interesting how property doesn't include control of access if you are public business(you know that thing that doesn't exist in the private sector but you think it does), but the right to a womans body includes the right to kill. How very interesting..
Click to expand...

translation: you cant defend against it, its ok

those are the facts, period, if you disagree please use some facts to dispove it

so i guess you think its ok for me to force you to risk your life against your will then right? LMAO

give it up dude, bring facts to the table or stay home, disprove what i said instead of trying to deflect and talk circles, honest people dont buy it.

not my fault i acknowledge BOTH lives and you ignore one, thats your issue LOL
 
Objective-J said:
translation: you cant defend against it, its ok

those are the facts, period, if you disagree please use some facts to dispove it

so i guess you think its ok for me to force you to risk your life against your will then right? LMAO

give it up dude, bring facts to the table or stay home, disprove what i said instead of trying to deflect and talk circles, honest people dont buy it.

not my fault i acknowledge BOTH lives and you ignore one, thats your issue LOL
Click to expand...

No, no, you are avoiding the problem. Your train of thought is illogical nonsense at its foundation. The claim you are supporting is that the woman has the right to use her body to kill another. I would assume this would only be under a certain age, but the point remains. You are accepting a premise of something that goes right in the face of the foundation of rights themselves and then you form a silly illogical argument based on it. This is all rooted in your idiotic understanding of rights to begin with.
 
Henrin said:
No, no, you are avoiding the problem. Your train of thought is illogical nonsense at its foundation. The claim you are supporting is that the woman has the right to use her body to kill another. I would assume this would only be under a certain age, but the point remains. You are accepting a premise of something that goes right in the face of the foundation of rights themselves and then you form a silly illogical argument based on it. This is all rooted in your idiotic understanding of rights to begin with.
Click to expand...

another post and ZERO facts, not surprising, just your repeating your illogical unsupported opinion hoping somebody will believe it LOL

i posted facts and you simply dont like it because they expose the fact that you view the woman as a lesser :shrug:

you crying about wont change anything LOL

theres TWO lives involved, you want to ignore one :shrug:

you keep focusing on the ZEF being killed but ignore the FACT that the women is forced to risk her LIFE against her will on the other side of the coin

for some reason this fact doesnt matter to you

why?

because you dont care, you view the woman as a lesser :shrug:


thanks for repeatedly proving that.

zef gets killed (evil evil evil)

women is forced to risk her life against her will (good good good)

LMAO get real
 
How does the non-aggression principle apply to enforcing women to carry an unwanted foetus to term?
 
Objective-J said:
another post and ZERO facts, not surprising, just your repeating your illogical unsupported opinion hoping somebody will believe it LOL
Click to expand...

Awe, you're hurt that adding something to the right to your body makes no logical sense. That is so cute.

i posted facts and you simply dont like it because they expose the fact that you view the woman as a lesser :shrug:
Click to expand...

Nope, not at all. Your so called facts just expose that you are abusing a negative right or that you aren't aware it is one.

theres TWO lives involved, you want to ignore one :shrug:
Click to expand...



Just change word to words and it's you.

you keep focusing on the ZEF being killed but ignore the FACT that the women is forced to risk her LIFE against her will on the other side of the coin
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring that at all actually.

for some reason this fact doesnt matter to you
Click to expand...

For some reason you can't pay attention.

because you dont care, you view the woman as a lesser :shrug:

thanks for repeatedly proving that.
Click to expand...

Oh, there is those conclusions based on that faulty premise again.

zef gets killed (evil evil evil)

women is forced to risk her life against her will (good good good)

LMAO get real
Click to expand...

Funny how I admitted both were bad earlier in the thread. Now, how does the right to her body work again?
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
How does the non-aggression principle apply to enforcing women to carry an unwanted foetus to term?
Click to expand...

exactly, it simple doesn't unless you are dishonest

some how in some fantasy world forcing a woman to carry a ZEF a for 9 months, which would basically be like torture, and also forcing her to risk physical and mental harm and even her LIFE all against her will is sunshine and rainbows, theres no aggression or evilness there at all LOL

its totally dishonest and laughable that somebody can even claim something so nonsensical and expect to be taken seriously.
 
Henrin said:
Awe, your hurt that your adding something to the right to your body that makes no logical sense? That is so cute.



Nope, not at all. They just expose that you are abusing a negative right or that you aren't aware it is one.





Just change word to words and it's you.



I'm not ignoring that at all actually.



For some reason you can't pay attention.



Oh, there is those conclusions based on that faulty premise again.



Funny how I admitted both were bad earlier in the thread. Now, how does the right to her body work again?
Click to expand...

wow another post with no facts and yet the fact remains you support aggression against women and view them a a lesser :shrug:

way to make a meaningless post, GOOD JOB! :laughat: we can smell your desperation to try and save face

lets reflect.

FACT: you view woman as a lesser
FACT: you support aggression against women in favor of the ZEF

let me know when these facts change :D
 
Objective-J said:
wow another post with no facts and yet the fact remains you support aggression against women and view them a a lesser :shrug:
Click to expand...

Like I said, you can't seem to pay attention. Look back in the thread to see what I think about legality. Jesus dude...

And once again, this view of yours of lesser is once again showing your ignorance on rights.
 
Henrin said:
Like I said, you can't seem to pay attention. Look back in the thread to see what I think about legality. Jesus dude...

And once again, this view of yours of lesser is once again showing your ignorance on rights.
Click to expand...

thanks for your OPINION but the facts havent changed, all the deflecting in the world doesnt matter.

FACT: you view the woman as a lesser
FACT: you support aggression against the women in favor of the ZEF
FACT: impossible to have equal rights in the case of abortion

:shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
thanks for your OPINION but the facts havent changed, all the deflecting in the world doesnt matter.

FACT: you view the woman as a lesser
FACT: you support aggression against the women in favor of the ZEF
FACT: impossible to have equal rights in the case of abortion
Click to expand...

Its funny how I just threw all those points out with the trash and you still think they stand. Pay attention.
 
Btw, I think its funny how you didn't mention you other hilarious so called fact as one that didn't change.

Remember this one:

theres TWO lives involved, you want to ignore one
Click to expand...

That was gold. Thanks for the laugh. Not only is making it illegal not ignoring that there is two lives involved, but it has nothing at all to do with me.
 
Henrin said:
Its funny how I just threw all those points out with the trash and you still think they stand. Pay attention.
Click to expand...

LMAO :laughat:

i bet you THINK you did, the problem is your opinions are meaningless to facts

you posted ZERO facts but somehow you think you changed something, you are hilarious

when are you going to post any, any facts that prove otherwise?

why do you think you saying "nu-huh" changes anything lol
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Btw, I think its funny how you didn't mention you other hilarious so called fact as one that didn't change.

Remember this one:



That was gold. Thanks for the laugh. Not only is making it illegal not ignoring that there is two lives involved, but it has nothing at all to do with me.
Click to expand...

actually it most definitely ignores the life of the women since she will be forced to risk her life :shrug:

fail

nothing to do with you? are you pro choice now?

it has to do with everybody that is wants abortion outlawed :shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
exactly, it simple doesn't unless you are dishonest

some how in some fantasy world forcing a woman to carry a ZEF a for 9 months, which would basically be like torture, and also forcing her to risk physical and mental harm and even her LIFE all against her will is sunshine and rainbows, theres no aggression or evilness there at all LOL

its totally dishonest and laughable that somebody can even claim something so nonsensical and expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I probably should have asked the same question about enforced transvaginal ultrasounds too.
 
Andalublue said:
I probably should have asked the same question about enforced transvaginal ultrasounds too.
Click to expand...

yep thats one i dont get either

its unbelievable that people think thats ok to force on a women through legislation. once again women's rights taking a back seat.
 
Objective-J said:
actually it most definitely ignores the life of the women since she will be forced to risk her life :shrug:

fail
Click to expand...

That doesn't ignore the life of the mother. I can't believe you think you can present hyperbole as fact, but here you are.

nothing to do with you? are you pro choice now?

it has to do with everybody that is wants abortion outlawed :shrug:
Click to expand...

Read back in the thread and I say flat out I'm not looking for legislation, but that I will never join with the pro-choice people arguing for choice. If I can find a path forward that I can accept that includes legislation than I will change my mind on that, but right now, the government hasn't shown that it can handle it. For example, the push for enforced transvaginal ultrasounds proves it.
 
Last edited:
Objective-J said:
LMAO :laughat:

i bet you THINK you did, the problem is your opinions are meaningless to facts
Click to expand...

You mean that the right to your body doesn't include killing another that was put there through natural and designed means? I'm sorry, but that is a fact. Maybe you should learn more about the right to your body.
 
Henrin said:
1.)That doesn't ignore the life of the mother. I can't believe you think you can present hyperbole as fact, but here you are.



2.)Read back in the thread and I say flat out I'm not looking for legislation, but that I will never join with the pro-choice people arguing for choice. If I can find a path forward that I can accept that includes legislation than I will change my mind on that, but right now, the government hasn't shown that it can handle it. The push for enforced transvaginal ultrasounds proves that.
Click to expand...

1.) yes it does you cant change this fact, if you think you can by all means once again post any facts LOL any at all?
i can post facts and proof what do you have? nothing lol deny the facts are you want but your wrong and many people have told you so LOL.

2.) if you arent for outlawing abortion and are not prolife i stand corrected
 
Henrin said:
You mean that the right to your body doesn't include killing another that was put there through natural and designed means? I'm sorry, but that is a fact. Maybe you should learn more about the right to your body.
Click to expand...

look another meaningless post that didnt change anything, how come when posters ask you for proof and facts you just provide double talk and questions and opinons?

weird

can you PLEASE, PLEEEEASE post just one fact that changes anything i have said

ONE? lol
 
Objective-J said:
look another meaningless post that didnt change anything, how come when posters ask you for proof and facts you just provide double talk and questions and opinons?

weird

can you PLEASE, PLEEEEASE post just one fact that changes anything i have said

ONE? lol
Click to expand...

What I posted is a fact. Your denial of it changes nothing. :cool:
 
Henrin said:
What I posted is a fact. Your denial of it changes nothing. :cool:
Click to expand...

I asked you for a fact that changes what i said not a random meaningless one
nice try, you have failed yet again LMAO
 
Andalublue said:
How does the non-aggression principle apply to enforcing women to carry an unwanted foetus to term?
Click to expand...

Without a rule of law, aggression goes unpunished, and that is the legal status quo today ever since the Supreme Court violated the constitution.

If one aggressively kills literally anyone else, they are thrown in jail for murder. This minority, those most vulnerable among us and incapable of aggression, can be killed on a whim without consequence. Aggression should always be punished.


This is not an authoritarian view, but a libertarian one.

We are not more free as a society when we limit personhood to one class and exploit or kill another. If we can own slaves, we are not a free society, one group has been given special "rights" to own others in excess of their human rights, and another group is having their natural human rights denied entirely.

The same is true of a society that permits the homicide of the unborn. That is not a free society. Liberty lies in upholding human rights through the rule of law.


Tell me logically now, do you claim all law enforcement to be aggression? It is not - it could not be - but that is what your sentence suggests.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
Without a rule of law, aggression goes unpunished, and that is the legal status quo today ever since the Supreme Court violated the constitution.

If one aggressively kills literally anyone else, they are thrown in jail for murder. This minority, those most vulnerable among us and incapable of aggression, can be killed on a whim without consequence. Aggression should always be punished.


This is not an authoritarian view, but a libertarian one.

We are not more free as a society when we limit personhood to one class and exploit or kill another. If we can own slaves, we are not a free society, one group has been given special "rights" to own others in excess of their human rights, and another group is having their natural human rights denied entirely.

The same is true of a society that permits the homicide of the unborn. That is not a free society. Liberty lies in upholding human rights through the rule of law.


Tell me logically now, do you claim all law enforcement to be aggression? It is not - it could not be - but that is what your sentence suggests.
Click to expand...

LMAO

maybe you should try answering his question now because you totally dodged it and tried to deflect but you failed, your dishonesty gets more staggering everyday.

His question was how is it non-aggression to force a women to carry a ZEF against her will?

now please answer.
 
There is no aggression in punishing homicide.

Try being literate, I said as much above.
 
JayDubya said:
There is no aggression in punishing homicide.

Try being literate, I said as much above.
Click to expand...

again this doesn't answer the question in anyway what so ever.

there is NO homicide if the government is forcing her to carry the ZEF against her will, play as dumb as you want, be as dishonest as you want, you are not answering the question.

You wont answer because the answer exposes you and your false claim.

on no planet is forcing somebody to risk their life not an aggression LMAO

Try being honest and answering the question, i said as much above. :laughat;
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom