• 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!

Should People Be Punished For Opposing Abortion?

AustralianuS

AustralianuS

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2018
Messages
1,074
Reaction score
78
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am not talking about "freedom of speech", I am talking more about people and groups being punished for opposing abortion. Should people be denied a position or government funding because they oppose abortion? Is opposing abortion as "bad" as being a white supremacist.

I will give some recent examples:

Proposed new Secretary of State (apparently) opposes abortion and several senators think that should disqualify him from being Secretary of State: Senator Jeanne Shaheen

“I continue to have deep concerns regarding Mr. Pompeo’s past statements and policy views, particularly in regards to the LGBTQ community, American Muslims and women’s reproductive rights,” Shaheen wrote on Twitter late Tuesday. “For these reasons, I have concluded that I cannot support Director Pompeo to lead the State Department at this critical time.”
Click to expand...

Kamala Harris and other Dems have expressed similar concerns.

Controversial Writer Kevin Williamson was fired by the Atlantic for making anti-abortion comments. Kevin has many issues though it was not until he made these anti-abortion comments that he was fired: Kevin Williamson Explains What Happened at the Atlantic

In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau (or his puppet masters) requires every group who gets funding for a summer jobs program sign an attestation which says they support abortion: Editorial | The Trudeau government is over-reaching on abortion and summer jobs


I myself support abortion, though I realize it is a complex issue. I do not think people should be punished for opposing it.
 
AustralianuS said:
I myself support abortion, though I realize it is a complex issue. I do not think people should be punished for opposing it.
Click to expand...
Not punished for simply opposing abortion no, but I don't believe that is the case in any of your examples.

The objection to the Secretary of State appears to be based on his public statements on a range of issues, not just his opinion of abortion. Whether politicians (or voters for that matter) support support senior appointments or not is always going to be on that basis. I don't see why the issue of abortion should be treated differently to any other topic.

Kevin Williamson was apparently fired because he'd suggested women who have abortions should be hanged. That's a bit more than simply holding an opinion on the issue and plenty of public-facing individuals have lots jobs because of their statements on controversial issues. Again, the fact this case is about abortion isn't really significant.

The policy in Canada is being commonly misrepresented. Like many other government contracts and programs, participating organisations can be required to follow government rules and policies above and beyond general legal requirements. There will be a whole list of things within that agreement and - guess where this is going - I see no justification to make a special case of the abortion one.
 
Yes. Punishment should include service to the State. Cleaning highways of rubbish. Cleaning gutters.
 
Pompeo is a war hawk, anti-LGBT, and an Islamophobe.

Hardly redeeming assets for the top US diplomat.
 
AustralianuS said:
I am talking more about people and groups being punished for opposing abortion. Should people be denied a position or government funding because they oppose abortion?
Click to expand...
I think for certain positions it perfectly acceptable, in some instances downright appropriate even, to withhold a job offer on account of a person's abortion stance.

AustralianuS said:
Is opposing abortion as "bad" as being a white supremacist.
Click to expand...
Holy Relative Privation, Batman!

If it's relative privation you want, how about this:
Is it worse to reject someone on account of their political position on "something" than it is to approve someone who, from a subject matter and managerial experience standpoint, is utterly unqualified for the position for which they're being considered?​
You can pick whomever you want for the first, but I'll cite Merrick Garland. As examples of the latter, I cite Devos, Pruitt, Carson, and Perry.

AustralianuS said:
Proposed new Secretary of State (apparently) opposes abortion and several senators think that should disqualify him from being Secretary of State...
Click to expand...
The Senatorial "advice and consent" process is not subject to the standard rules of employment. It's a political process, and senators can approve or reject a nominee on whatever basis they see fit. The fact that a Senator thinks a basis for approval or rejection is fitting makes it be fitting.

AustralianuS said:
Controversial Writer Kevin Williamson was fired by the Atlantic for making anti-abortion comments. Kevin has many issues though it was not until he made these anti-abortion comments that he was fired: Kevin Williamson Explains What Happened at the Atlantic
Click to expand...
As a manager, I read "has many issues" and think that it was probably but a matter of time before some issue came along and "broke the camel's back."

I don't know what were Williamson's specific remarks or in what context they were made (and you didn't provide a link to same), so I cannot comment on that aspect of his dismissal.

AustralianuS said:
In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau (or his puppet masters) requires every group who gets funding for a summer jobs program sign an attestation which says they support abortion: Editorial | The Trudeau government is over-reaching on abortion and summer jobs
Click to expand...
Canada's jurisprudence is not the U.S.' Being not-an-attorney, it's enough work for me to research and understand U.S. jurisprudence and its antecedents; I'm not going to undertake to put that much effort into understanding Canada's so I can, in turn, have something substantive to say about it and its effects.
 
HonestJoe said:
Not punished for simply opposing abortion no, but I don't believe that is the case in any of your examples.

The objection to the Secretary of State appears to be based on his public statements on a range of issues, not just his opinion of abortion. Whether politicians (or voters for that matter) support support senior appointments or not is always going to be on that basis. I don't see why the issue of abortion should be treated differently to any other topic.

Kevin Williamson was apparently fired because he'd suggested women who have abortions should be hanged. That's a bit more than simply holding an opinion on the issue and plenty of public-facing individuals have lots jobs because of their statements on controversial issues. Again, the fact this case is about abortion isn't really significant.

The policy in Canada is being commonly misrepresented. Like many other government contracts and programs, participating organisations can be required to follow government rules and policies above and beyond general legal requirements. There will be a whole list of things within that agreement and - guess where this is going - I see no justification to make a special case of the abortion one.
Click to expand...

You are not understanding the idiocy of the Canadian government in this situation

And abortion has nothing to do with the SoS
 
I disagree with the pro-life stance on abortion but I don’t think it should disqualify one from a government position. I can understand asking a judicial candidate their legal opinion on the matter but I don’t see any reason for it to even come up for a SECSTATE position.
 
AustralianuS said:
You are not understanding the idiocy of the Canadian government in this situation
Click to expand...
The “idiocy” is a matter of opinion. My point remains that it isn’t specifically about abortion as you implied but a wider social policy.

AustralianuS said:
And abortion has nothing to do with the SoS
Click to expand...
Not directly, and nor do the other topics mentioned in the quote that you’re conveniently ignoring. The fact remains that other people are perfectly entitled to question the general policy and principle positions of candidates for senior offices of state. It doesn’t mean they should be automatically banned from the post for holding nay particular position (even one directly relevant to the role) but they can still be challenged and expected to support any particular positions they hold.
 
AustralianuS said:
I am talking more about people and groups being punished for opposing abortion.
Click to expand...
DIFFERENT THINGS QUALIFY AS PUNISHMENT. More below

AustralianuS said:
Should people be denied a position or government funding because they oppose abortion?
Click to expand...
DEPENDS ON THE POSITION. If opposition to abortion is totally unrelated to the job that would be performed, then that opposition is irrelevant and should not interfere with job-performance. Something similar might be appropriate with respect to "government funding".

AustralianuS said:
Is opposing abortion as "bad" as being a white supremacist.
Click to expand...
MANY THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. It is often true that opposition to abortion is connected to Stupid Prejudice, exactly like "white supremacy". If such Stupid Prejudice would interfere with treating people fairly (perhaps like portrayed here), then it could make sense for the perpetrator of Stupid Prejudice to be prejudiced-against.

AustralianuS said:
Proposed new Secretary of State (apparently) opposes abortion and several senators think that should disqualify him from being Secretary of State:
Click to expand...
SEE ABOVE. Would opposition to abortion affect international relations with countries that don't have anti-abortion policies?

ALSO: Keep in mind that oppostion to abortion, in addition to a fairly common link to Stupid Prejudice, is also almost always associated with an inadequate education. Abortion opponents typically Deny Facts that prove their opposition to be erroneous --which basically equates to refusing to become better-educated. How can we possibly think that poorly-educated folks can properly qualify for certain jobs?

AustralianuS said:
Controversial Writer Kevin Williamson was fired by the Atlantic for making anti-abortion comments. Kevin has many issues though it was not until he made these anti-abortion comments that he was fired:
Click to expand...
REMEMBER THAT OPPOSITION TO ABORTION IS EQUIVALENT TO THE PROMOTION OF SLAVERY, forcing women who don't want to stay pregnant to involuntarily submit to the worse-than-parasitic actions of unborn humans. This type of slavery dehumanizes women, treating them like toilets, that must have toxic biowastes dumped into their bodies. Why should anyone in a position of informing the public be allowed to promote such things?
 
FutureIncoming said:
REMEMBER THAT OPPOSITION TO ABORTION IS EQUIVALENT TO THE PROMOTION OF SLAVERY, forcing women who don't want to stay pregnant to involuntarily submit to the worse-than-parasitic actions of unborn humans. This type of slavery dehumanizes women, treating them like toilets, that must have toxic biowastes dumped into their bodies. Why should anyone in a position of informing the public be allowed to promote such things?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter what kafir "believe" is slavery - women who wish not to be slaves need not be whores, slavery being the natural consequence of defying divine law.

Kafir can "believe" whatever quaint ideas they wish - but what they think is "right or wrong" is irrelevant, and unless they have the might to assert their imaginary "rights" - it's a moot point.
 
Last edited:
People should not be punished for opposing abortion.

I do wish there was more negativity attached to those lying about issues.
 
Islam scholar said:
Doesn't matter what kafir "believe" is slavery -
Click to expand...
FACTS ARE FACTS. Very different from mere "beliefs". Which often as not are based on worthless claims.

Islam scholar said:
women who wish not to be slaves need not be whores,
Click to expand...
YOUR IGNORANCE IS SHOWING. Whoring has in various times and places been a well-respected profession. Certainly more respected than con-artists advertising themselves as "preachers".

Islam scholar said:
slavery being the natural consequence of defying divine law.
Click to expand...
TOO BAD YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. All you have are totally unsupported and therefore worthless claims.
 
FutureIncoming said:
FACTS ARE FACTS. Very different from mere "beliefs". Which often as not are based on worthless claims.

YOUR IGNORANCE IS SHOWING. Whoring has in various times and places been a well-respected profession.
Click to expand...
It's a moot point what kafir "respect" - if their inferior beliefs and cultural "values" contradict divine law, then they need to be corrected by their betters.

Certainly more respected than con-artists advertising themselves as "preachers".


TOO BAD YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. All you have are totally unsupported and therefore worthless claims.
Click to expand...
Kafir "facts" don't matter - "facts" are decided by societies, therefore what kafi call "facts" are irrelevent since they are liars and damned and need to be to changed to reflect what is revealed to be fact via divine revelation.

Kafir "morality" is no different from that of feral beasts or dogs, and they can't be expected to govern themselves. Only those who acknowledge God can be considered "free" to make their own decisions.
 
Last edited:
Islam scholar said:
It's a moot point what kafir "respect" - if their inferior beliefs and cultural "values" contradict divine law,
Click to expand...
TOO BAD YOU STILL DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT "divine law". All you have are worthless/unsupported claims.

Islam scholar said:
Kafir "facts" don't matter - "facts" are decided by societies,
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE. Actual facts, genuine facts, are determined by experimentation. All mere say-so gets you is the equivalent of this: "Islam scholar" equates with "moron". Why is that mere-say-so inferior to any other mere say-so?

Islam scholar said:
via divine revelation.
Click to expand...
AHA! More say-so! While perhaps anyone might experience a divine revelation, why should anyone who doesn't experience it decide to believe someone who CLAIMED they did experience it? Especially when any such claimant might be lying?
 
Islam scholar said:
It's a moot point what kafir "respect" - if their inferior beliefs and cultural "values" contradict divine law, then they need to be corrected by their betters.


Kafir "facts" don't matter - "facts" are decided by societies, therefore what kafi call "facts" are irrelevent since they are liars and damned and need to be to changed to reflect what is revealed to be fact via divine revelation.

Kafir "morality" is no different from that of feral beasts or dogs, and they can't be expected to govern themselves. Only those who acknowledge God can be considered "free" to make their own decisions.
Click to expand...

Considering there are over 3000 Gods at any given time, what gives you the right to declare "Devine Law", especially since the religion you are referring to has no merit.
 
AustralianuS said:
I am not talking about "freedom of speech", I am talking more about people and groups being punished for opposing abortion. Should people be denied a position or government funding because they oppose abortion? Is opposing abortion as "bad" as being a white supremacist.

I will give some recent examples:

Proposed new Secretary of State (apparently) opposes abortion and several senators think that should disqualify him from being Secretary of State: Senator Jeanne Shaheen



Kamala Harris and other Dems have expressed similar concerns.

Controversial Writer Kevin Williamson was fired by the Atlantic for making anti-abortion comments. Kevin has many issues though it was not until he made these anti-abortion comments that he was fired: Kevin Williamson Explains What Happened at the Atlantic

In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau (or his puppet masters) requires every group who gets funding for a summer jobs program sign an attestation which says they support abortion: Editorial | The Trudeau government is over-reaching on abortion and summer jobs

I myself support abortion, though I realize it is a complex issue. I do not think people should be punished for opposing it.
Click to expand...

I think you are just identifying a particular issue that has come up in a general increase in intellectual intolerance for disagreement. Those who commit "heresy" on LGBTQPQXYZetc. issues, are just as anathema. The Rage Mob cannot take those who do not believe Everything All Right Thinking People Do.
 
Political correctness like this is modern day fascism. One of the defining characteristics of fascism is an intolerance and deliberate suppression of an opposing points of view. Left wingers want to call conservitives fascists, but the left is the biggest perpetrator of fascism through their thought policing.

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk
 
Pizmo said:
Political correctness like this is modern day fascism.
Click to expand...
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CLAIMS OR FACTS? While the phrase "political correctness" is often associated with mere unsupported claims, sometimes it has a actual basis in Objective Fact. Consider that abortion opponents blather about the Constitution and "human rights", even though The Fact Is, the Constitution-plus-Amendments don't use the word "human" even once, and instead use the word "person" throughout. It is therefore Politically Correct to insist on talking about "person rights" instead of "human rights". And since it is easy to prove that the concepts of "human" and "person" are two totally different and unrelated things, abortion opponents need to understand that just because an unborn human is human, that is not sufficient for it to qualify as a person. Simple!

Pizmo said:
One of the defining characteristics of fascism is an intolerance and deliberate suppression of an opposing points of view.
Click to expand...
AND SO ABORTION OPPONENTS WANT TO SHUT DOWN ACCESS TO ABORTION. Tsk, tsk! How is that not fascist at its most relevant?

Pizmo said:
Left wingers want to call conservitives fascists,
Click to expand...
IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT.

Pizmo said:
but the left is the biggest perpetrator of fascism through their thought policing.
Click to expand...
STUPIDLY FALSE. Pro-choicers accept choice. Fascists want folks to think a certain way, only, a way that excludes choices. You need to do much better than that, to offer a valid argument!
 
FutureIncoming said:
ARE 1. YOU TALKING ABOUT CLAIMS OR FACTS? While the phrase "political correctness" is often associated with mere unsupported claims, sometimes it has a actual basis in Objective Fact. Consider that abortion opponents blather about the Constitution and "human rights", even though The Fact Is, the Constitution-plus-Amendments don't use the word "human" even once, and instead use the word "person" throughout. It is therefore Politically Correct to insist on talking about "person rights" instead of "human rights". And since it is easy to prove that the concepts of "human" and "person" are two totally different and unrelated things, abortion opponents need to understand that just because an unborn human is human, that is not sufficient for it to qualify as a person. Simple!


2. AND SO ABORTION OPPONENTS WANT TO SHUT DOWN ACCESS TO ABORTION. Tsk, tsk! How is that not fascist at its most relevant?


3. IF THE SHOE FITS, WEAR IT.


4. STUPIDLY FALSE. Pro-choicers accept choice. Fascists want folks to think a certain way, only, a way that excludes choices. You need to do much better than that, to offer a valid argument!
Click to expand...

1. The typical flawed argument of the left. You are right that the U.S. Constitution never once mentions the word human or the phrase human rights. However, several English speaking nation's with legal abortion such as Canada, Australia, Ireland, Belize, ect... use the term Human Rights in their governing bill of rights. In fact human rights in Belize are defined as "inalienable rights with which all members of the human family are endowed with by their creator". So if the lack of the phrase "human rights" in the United States Constitution is what makes abortion justifiable. Then why isn't abortion illegal in all these other counties that specifically use the word human, and the phrase human rights? Answer: because the lack of the phrase "human rights" in our constitution doesn't have jack **** to do with anything. It's just verbal trickery that American leftist like to use. It's nothing more then the legal loop hole that lawyers found to bypass the constitution. Much like lawyers found loop holes to bypass the constitution in favor of slavery during cases like Dred Scott v Stanford.

2. Fascism is fascism.. It doesn't magically change because it's a Republican doing it. EVERYONE has the right to be open about their beliefs and opinions. If you don't see the fascism in the question "should people be allowed to be pro life?" Then most likely you have been blinded by your own fascistic nature

3. One shoe fits the right foot and the other shoe fits the left foot

4. Another STUPIDLY fascistic statement that shows that you believe your opinions and idealogly to be the only correct ones. Hitler and Mussolini would be most proud of you.

Like most rational people in the world I believe the correct answer to be somewhere in between the insane ramblings of the idiotic right wing, Christian, fascists and the equally idiotic left wing, Politically Correct, fascists.

Is abortion necessary under certain circumstances? Absolutely yes!

Should abortion be birth control? Absolutely not

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk
 
Pizmo said:
1. The typical flawed argument of the left. You are right that the U.S. Constitution never once mentions the word human or the phrase human rights. However, several English speaking nation's with legal abortion such as Canada, Australia, Ireland, Belize, ect... use the term Human Rights in their governing bill of rights. In fact human rights in Belize are defined as "inalienable rights with which all members of the human family are endowed with by their creator". So if the lack of the phrase "human rights" in the United States Constitution is what makes abortion justifiable. Then why isn't abortion illegal in all these other counties that specifically use the word human, and the phrase human rights? Answer: because the lack of the phrase "human rights" in our constitution doesn't have jack **** to do with anything. It's just verbal trickery that American leftist like to use. It's nothing more then the legal loop hole that lawyers found to bypass the constitution. Much like lawyers found loop holes to bypass the constitution in favor of slavery during cases like Dred Scott v Stanford.

2. Fascism is fascism.. It doesn't magically change because it's a Republican doing it. EVERYONE has the right to be open about their beliefs and opinions. If you don't see the fascism in the question "should people be allowed to be pro life?" Then most likely you have been blinded by your own fascistic nature

3. One shoe fits the right foot and the other shoe fits the left foot

4. Another STUPIDLY fascistic statement that shows that you believe your opinions and idealogly to be the only correct ones. Hitler and Mussolini would be most proud of you.

Like most rational people in the world I believe the correct answer to be somewhere in between the insane ramblings of the idiotic right wing, Christian, fascists and the equally idiotic left wing, Politically Correct, fascists.

Is abortion necessary under certain circumstances? Absolutely yes!

Should abortion be birth control? Absolutely not

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Abortion is very effective birth control
 
On a strictly PERSONAL level I oppose abortion but having said that, I am realistic enough to understand that there are cases where there is no alternative. Medically indicated abortions, abortions in cases of rape or incest, cases where birth defects are so profound as to offer zero or near zero quality of life, cases where the life or health of the mother is called into question, cases where the mother is of such diminished capacity that they are unable to even comprehend the issues of pregnancy altogether, etc.

I also like to think that I am realistic enough to also understand that overturning Roe v. Wade will not bring about any end to abortions whatsoever.

Is there an ideal way to view Women's Choice? Many people think that if abortion were to be presented as the very LAST choice, after all OTHER possibilities are explored, and if women's reproductive health offered clear, easy, affordable alternatives at every step along the way PRIOR TO a situation where an abortion is indicated, it could go a long way toward drastically reducing the number of abortions.

Unfortunately too many in positions of power in the "Pro-Life" groups don't want ANY forms of contraception made available.
This is where the friction lies, because Women's Choice is about more than just abortions, it's about women's reproductive health, family planning, contraception, cervical cancer screenings, HPV prevention and eradication, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, counseling and wellness.

And apparently most or ALL of that is anathema to too many in the Pro-Life movement.
And the kind of irrational and dangerous statements made by some who seek high office are conducive to inciting violence from some radical corners of the Pro-Life movement, who already have a track record for said violence.
 
[part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #19]

Pizmo said:
1. The typical flawed argument of the left.
Click to expand...
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Mere claims are worthless without evidence.

Pizmo said:
You are right that the U.S. Constitution never once mentions the word human or the phrase human rights.
Click to expand...
THANK YOU.

Pizmo said:
However, several English speaking nation's with legal abortion such as Canada, Australia, Ireland, Belize, ect... use the term Human Rights in their governing bill of rights.
Click to expand...
THAT'S THEM. Not us here in the USA. Furthermore, what you are talking about is Stupid Prejudice, a symptom of right-winger-ism, not the left.

Pizmo said:
In fact human rights in Belize are defined as "inalienable rights with which all members of the human family are endowed with by their creator".
Click to expand...
OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE NOT SEPARATING CHURCH AND STATE. And since the Church is promoting Stupid Prejudice just like right-wingers... again you are wrong to associate that with the left.

Pizmo said:
So if the lack of the phrase "human rights" in the United States Constitution is what makes abortion justifiable.
Click to expand...
IT IS A LOGICAL THING. And for more info on just how ridiculous it can be to insist on "human rights", read this (which I wrote but is too long to include here).

Pizmo said:
Then why isn't abortion illegal in all these other counties that specifically use the word human, and the phrase human rights?
Click to expand...
I HAVE NO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEIR LEGAL HYPOCRISY. I can simply point out that if they think abortion should be legal, then they shouldn't be legally supporting the right-wing Stupid Prejudice of "human rights".

Pizmo said:
Answer: because the lack of the phrase "human rights" in our constitution doesn't have jack **** to do with anything.
Click to expand...
IGNORANTLY FALSE. You really need to read that linked argument. Here is just a sample of the idiocy that results from claiming "human rights" must be important: A "hydatidiform mole" begins its existence in an ovum-fertilization event, and then develops just the same as any ordinary fertilized ovum until womb-implantation happens. Then it produces the hydatidiform mole instead of a normal embryo. It is 100% alive and 100% human, and therefore your idiocy would insist it must have rights. But not even most vehement of abortion opponents would actually agree with your idiotic logic.

THE FACT IS, "human-ness" and "personhood" are two separate concepts that have nothing to do with each other. The US Constitution recognizes this, even if other constitutions don't.

Pizmo said:
It's just verbal trickery that American leftist like to use.
Click to expand...
SEE ABOVE. Facts are facts, not trickery.

Pizmo said:
It's nothing more then the legal loop hole that lawyers found to bypass the constitution.
Click to expand...
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Per the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, unborn humans have never been considered to be persons, as proved by the first Census of 1790. Roe v Wade might have employed a legal loophole, but it wasn't actually necessary.
 
[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #19]

Pizmo said:
Much like lawyers found loop holes to bypass the constitution in favor of slavery during cases like Dred Scott v Stanford.
Click to expand...
I'VE STUDIED THAT DECISION CAREFULLY. You apparently did not. The Supreme Court at that time actually had no choice in the matter. Slavery was legal and slaves were property, entirely in accordance with the Constitution at that time. (Do not confuse stuff in the Declaration of Independence with stuff in the Constitution --the actual Law of the Land.)

Pizmo said:
EVERYONE has the right to be open about their beliefs and opinions.
Click to expand...
SO YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO FOLKS PROMOTING SLAVERY? (Silly question --of course you have no objection, since you are an abortion opponent, and therefore want pregnant women to become enslaved, dehumanized to the status of toilets into which unborn humans are free to dump toxic biowastes. Tsk, tsk!)

Pizmo said:
If you don't see the fascism in the question "should people be allowed to be pro life?"
Click to expand...
I SEE STUPID HYPOCRISY, NOT FASCISM. Simply because the phrase "pro life" literally puts no restrictions on what types of life should be promoted, while abortion opponents exhibit Stupid Prejudice and falsely claim only human life matters.

Pizmo said:
Then most likely you have been blinded by your own fascistic nature
Click to expand...
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! See above. I'm not the one promoting Stupid Prejudice and Stupid Hypocrisy. I agree that you have just as much right to blather those idiocies as I have the right to tell you that you are blathering idiocies.

Pizmo said:
3. One shoe fits the right foot and the other shoe fits the left foot
Click to expand...
TOO BAD THEY ARE NOT A MATCHED PAIR.

Pizmo said:
4. Another STUPIDLY fascistic statement
Click to expand...
YOUR MERE CLAIM PROVES NOTHING. It is indeed the fascist right-wingers who want to take choice away from people, to control them like slaves.

Pizmo said:
that shows that you believe your opinions and idealogly
Click to expand...
I BELIEVE IN FACTS. Like the fact that an unborn human cannot possibly qualify as a person deserving rights. All you have are worthless/unsupported claims.

Pizmo said:
to be the only correct ones. Hitler and Mussolini would be most proud of you.
Click to expand...
BACKWARD. Since you are the one who thinks the correct thing to do is to take away choices and control people.

Pizmo said:
Like most rational people in the world I believe the correct answer to be somewhere in between the insane ramblings of the idiotic right wing, Christian, fascists and the equally idiotic left wing, Politically Correct, fascists.
Click to expand...
THAT IS OFTEN TRUE. But not in the case of The Overall Abortion Debate.

Pizmo said:
Is abortion necessary under certain circumstances? Absolutely yes!
Click to expand...
AGREED.

Pizmo said:
Should abortion be birth control? Absolutely not
Click to expand...
IGNORANTLY FALSE. It is a perfectly legitimate backup plan for when ordinary contraceptives fail.
 
FutureIncoming said:
[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #19]


I'VE STUDIED THAT DECISION CAREFULLY. You apparently did not. The Supreme Court at that time actually had no choice in the matter. Slavery was legal and slaves were property, entirely in accordance with the Constitution at that time. (Do not confuse stuff in the Declaration of Independence with stuff in the Constitution --the actual Law of the Land.)


SO YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO FOLKS PROMOTING SLAVERY? (Silly question --of course you have no objection, since you are an abortion opponent, and therefore want pregnant women to become enslaved, dehumanized to the status of toilets into which unborn humans are free to dump toxic biowastes. Tsk, tsk!)


I SEE STUPID HYPOCRISY, NOT FASCISM. Simply because the phrase "pro life" literally puts no restrictions on what types of life should be promoted, while abortion opponents exhibit Stupid Prejudice and falsely claim only human life matters.


HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! See above. I'm not the one promoting Stupid Prejudice and Stupid Hypocrisy. I agree that you have just as much right to blather those idiocies as I have the right to tell you that you are blathering idiocies.


TOO BAD THEY ARE NOT A MATCHED PAIR.


YOUR MERE CLAIM PROVES NOTHING. It is indeed the fascist right-wingers who want to take choice away from people, to control them like slaves.


I BELIEVE IN FACTS. Like the fact that an unborn human cannot possibly qualify as a person deserving rights. All you have are worthless/unsupported claims.


BACKWARD. Since you are the one who thinks the correct thing to do is to take away choices and control people.


THAT IS OFTEN TRUE. But not in the case of The Overall Abortion Debate.


AGREED.


IGNORANTLY FALSE. It is a perfectly legitimate backup plan for when ordinary contraceptives fail.
Click to expand...
The argument that every abortion is justified because the word human and the phrase human being does not appear in the in the u.s. constitution is a flawed one. As i pointed out earlier many countries in the world with legal abortion use specific references to inalienable human rights. You can call that hypocritical all you want but the fact remains that your argument does not hold up to any sort of global standard.

Another flawed argument that doesn't hold up on a global scale is the argument that the words human, person, and human being are separate and uniquely different things. There are several languages in the world that do not recognize this trio as separate words. For example in Russian there is only one word for human, person, and human being. That word is chelovek. So in Russian your argument literally translates into "a chelovek, is not a chelovek, or chelovek".

Political Correctness is absolutely a form of fascism, and in this day and age the left is far more fascistic then the right.

According to the left:

- pro life should be a punishable offense

- climate change skepticism should be a punishable offense

- anything remotely homophobic, racist, sexist, or islamaphobic should be a punishable offense

- being openly Christian should be a punishable offense

- being pro 2nd amendment should be a punishable offense

And on and on and on

If you add together everything that left believes should be a punishable offense then at the end of the day if you are anything close to a straight, white, conservitive, male you should be punished. I don't know about you, but I read 1984 and it scared the crap out of me, and I don't want to live in a country in which the thought police are a real thing

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk
 
Pizmo said:
The argument that every abortion is justified because the word human and the phrase human being does not appear in the in the u.s. constitution is a flawed one. As i pointed out earlier many countries in the world with legal abortion use specific references to inalienable human rights. You can call that hypocritical all you want but the fact remains that your argument does not hold up to any sort of global standard.

Another flawed argument that doesn't hold up on a global scale is the argument that the words human, person, and human being are separate and uniquely different things. There are several languages in the world that do not recognize this trio as separate words. For example in Russian there is only one word for human, person, and human being. That word is chelovek. So in Russian your argument literally translates into "a chelovek, is not a chelovek, or chelovek".

Political Correctness is absolutely a form of fascism, and in this day and age the left is far more fascistic then the right.

According to the left:

- pro life should be a punishable offense

- climate change skepticism should be a punishable offense

- anything remotely homophobic, racist, sexist, or islamaphobic should be a punishable offense

- being openly Christian should be a punishable offense

- being pro 2nd amendment should be a punishable offense

And on and on and on

If you add together everything that left believes should be a punishable offense then at the end of the day if you are anything close to a straight, white, conservitive, male you should be punished. I don't know about you, but I read 1984 and it scared the crap out of me, and I don't want to live in a country in which the thought police are a real thing

Sent from my SM-J727T1 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Back up your craziness. I get that there may be a few kooks out there talking about such things - but hell - you diminish every argument you may have by lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom