• 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!

Abortion.

All of this backs up their argument about personal responsibility. If one was acting according to that they would not get pregnant in the first place and if they did then they would not abort their irresponsibility.

yes and I've seen it many times. I addressed it here in this thread:

At least 2/3 of Americans have sex responsibly. And we all know that no non-surgical bc is 100% effective.

Should married couples that cant afford kids yet not have sex? Jeez, that would be hell on the divorce rate.

And are you saying people should double-down on irresponsibility? Or...try to correct the original accident?​


And really, if you know abortion is an option...is it really irresponsible to risk having sex with BC?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
You've moved the goal posts in an attempt to divert what previously was discussed onto an entirely different conversation.

You expected something different?
 
I don't need to give you examples when my above statement is 100% on the money.

IOW you have no examples to provide. This is the anti-choice way of saying, "I have no proof of my claim. It is all based on emotions."

All pro-choicers who are able to support their claims do so. None of the anti-choice people ever do that. You know why? Because pro-choicers use facts and anti-choicers only care about emotions.
 
Well, since it's there in bold, your words, it's your call if it's 'nothing.'

I made a statement of fact in the above. If you can't handle my saying you're no better than the far religious right with the moral righteousness, not my problem. My examples of the above, your thousands of posts of pontification and moral righteousness.

I don't come to the abortion forum for good reason... abortion is a circular argument where the self-righteous impose their beliefs on other self-righteous pontificating zealots. One does not have to be religious to fall into the latter...

As I said to you earlier, good night.
 
yes and I've seen it many times. I addressed it here in this thread:

At least 2/3 of Americans have sex responsibly. And we all know that no non-surgical bc is 100% effective.

Should married couples that cant afford kids yet not have sex? Jeez, that would be hell on the divorce rate.

And are you saying people should double-down on irresponsibility? Or...try to correct the original accident?​


And really, if you know abortion is an option...is it really irresponsible to risk having sex with BC?

It is not an accident if one willingly has sex.
 
IOW you have no examples to provide. This is the anti-choice way of saying, "I have no proof of my claim. It is all based on emotions."

I am pro choice, so there goes your false argument.

Pro choice means you allow others their choice even if it differs from yours.
 
If your moral beliefs aren't being imposed on others here, I've a bridge with oceanfront property in Barstow, CA. to sell you.

In the abortion forum, don't kid yourself, everyone is trying to impose, sell, preach their morality onto others.

The Pro-choice movement was established in 1969 to keep anti-abortion conservatives from imposing restrictions in states that had legal abortion. The movement has been doing exactly that since 1969 trying to keep abortions legal, available, regulated, certified, inspected, hygienic and private. They have never, ever imposed abortion on anyone. They have never imposed their beliefs on anyone, ever. Preach? Instruct? Yes, trying to keep the terminology real and science based, keep misinformation to a minimum and facts the forefront. Morals are what each person creates for themselves and pro-choice movement doesn't tell you what to think about morality. If you think abortion is killing a human, that's your morality. Only when you try to make your morality into laws do you get an argument from the pro-choice movement.

It is not necessary that we all have the same religion, morality, feelings, opinions. We do all have to have the same facts.
 
That is exactly what they discuss. I mean, you are 100% wrong. That is a pretty amazing feat.

I am not wrong when most abortion threads include accusations the woman was irresponsible for having sex and only pro-choicers ever post accurate biological information about obstetrics.
 
I am not wrong when most abortion threads include accusations the woman was irresponsible for having sex and only pro-choicers ever post accurate biological information about obstetrics.

That literally has nothing to do with what I addressed... again, amazing feat.
 
The Pro-choice movement was established in 1969 to keep anti-abortion conservatives from imposing restrictions in states that had legal abortion. The movement has been doing exactly that since 1969 trying to keep abortions legal, available, regulated, certified, inspected, hygienic and private. They have never, ever imposed abortion on anyone. They have never imposed their beliefs on anyone, ever. Preach? Instruct? Yes, trying to keep the terminology real and science based, keep misinformation to a minimum and facts the forefront. Morals are what each person creates for themselves and pro-choice movement doesn't tell you what to think about morality. If you think abortion is killing a human, that's your morality. Only when you try to make your morality into laws do you get an argument from the pro-choice movement.

It is not necessary that we all have the same religion, morality, feelings, opinions. We do all have to have the same facts.

As I said above, I am pro-choice and no need to school me on the issue of abortion.
I'll take anyone on... Try having NO choice in the sixties. Though I am personally PRO life... try being an unmarried woman in the sixties who finds herself with no means to keep a child from an untimely pregnancy. Rv.W came about 1973. No help to many from the sixties.
 
Wth is with that poster?

She has posted like that since the beginning. He inability to understand the topic rivals her inability to stay on topic.... because one can't really do the second without doing the first.
 
She has posted like that since the beginning. He inability to understand the topic rivals her inability to stay on topic.... because one can't really do the second without doing the first.

Reminds me of another poster who goes by the name of Shefillintheblank.

:lol:
 
Reminds me of another poster who goes by the name of Shefillintheblank.

:lol:

That poster is a a genius compared to the one that we initially talked about.
 
I have a 'sampling' of quotes from posters re: CV 19 that show a clear hypocrisy. Many women need abortions due to financial reasons. Yet that is the primary reason that many far right or conservative posters use to rush re-opening the economy...writing off the lives of the elderly and at-risk people that would be unnecessarily lost due to the early opening. So...it appears 'pro-life' isnt 'all lives.'

Here's a few:


"I got a million of 'em!"

Prolife, my arse.

This is why I use the term "anti choice".
 
I have a 'sampling' of quotes from posters re: CV 19 that show a clear hypocrisy. Many women need abortions due to financial reasons. Yet that is the primary reason that many far right or conservative posters use to rush re-opening the economy...writing off the lives of the elderly and at-risk people that would be unnecessarily lost due to the early opening. So...it appears 'pro-life' isnt 'all lives.'

Here's a few:









"I got a million of 'em!"
Thank you for the recognition

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Goodness me! A thread on abortion - I don't think we have ever had one before.
 
I made a statement of fact in the above. If you can't handle my saying you're no better than the far religious right with the moral righteousness, not my problem. My examples of the above, your thousands of posts of pontification and moral righteousness.

I don't come to the abortion forum for good reason... abortion is a circular argument where the self-righteous impose their beliefs on other self-righteous pontificating zealots. One does not have to be religious to fall into the latter...

As I said to you earlier, good night.

That wasnt what I asked you to support. Your claim had to do with imposing morals on others. And I asked you for examples...

If what you wrote was true...you could give me examples.

Let's see.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
It is not an accident if one willingly has sex.

If one uses birth control? Sure it is.

Unless you are saying that every time a couple has sex (including with BC), they intend to have a baby?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Thank you for the recognition

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

You bet!

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Wth is with that poster?
She has posted like that since the beginning. He inability to understand the topic rivals her inability to stay on topic.... because one can't really do the second without doing the first.

She has told us that she is on the spectrum...Asperger I think.

She discussed it publicly so it should not be a problem to explain.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
She has told us that she is on the spectrum...Asperger I think.

She discussed it publicly so it should not be a problem to explain.

I deal with people on the spectrum daily... generally they are more focused on the point than not. Whatever she has is unusual, if there is an "excuse" for it. People I know that are on the spectrum can not deviate from the point, most of the time. They are not creating tangents or changing the argument of the person whom they are talking to.

If one uses birth control? Sure it is.


Unless you are saying that every time a couple has sex (including with BC), they intend to have a baby?


I was giving their arguments... and yes, they are saying that every time you have sex you are saying that you are ready and willing to be a parent.
 
It is not an accident if one willingly has sex.

It was am accident if her contraception failed. There is no reason to call women who use contraception irresponsible for getting pregnant when they have sex.
 
As I said above, I am pro-choice and no need to school me on the issue of abortion.
I'll take anyone on... Try having NO choice in the sixties. Though I am personally PRO life... try being an unmarried woman in the sixties who finds herself with no means to keep a child from an untimely pregnancy. Rv.W came about 1973. No help to many from the sixties.


1959 – The American Law Institute (ALI) drafts a model state abortion law to make legal abortions accessible.

1965 – The U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut struck down one of the remaining Comstock laws, the state bans on contraception.

1966 – Mississippi reformed its abortion law and became the first U.S. state to allow abortion in cases of rape.

1967 – Colorado became the first state to decriminalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in which pregnancy would lead to permanent physical disability of the woman, and similar laws were passed in California, Oregon, and North Carolina.

1968 – Georgia and Maryland reformed their abortion laws based on the ALI MPC.

1968 – President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Committee on The Status of Women releases a report calling for a repeal of all abortion laws.

1969 – Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, New Mexico and Oregon, reformed their abortion laws based on the ALI MPC.

1970 – Hawaii, New York, Alaska and Washington repealed their abortion laws. Specifically, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortions on the request of the woman,[33] New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy, and Washington held a referendum on legalizing early pregnancy abortions, becoming the first state to legalize abortion through a vote of the people.[34]
1970 – South Carolina and Virginia reformed their abortion laws based on the American Law Institute Model Penal Code.
1970 – Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970 Pub.L.*91–572, which established the Public Health Service Title X program in the United States, providing family planning services for those in need
1970 – The U.S. Congress removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws.[37]

1972 – Florida reformed its abortion law based on the ALI MPC.

1972 - The U.S. Supreme Court, in Eisenstadt v. Baird extends Griswold v. Connecticut birth control rights to unmarried couples.

1973 – The U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade,
Timeline of reproductive rights legislation - Wikipedia
 
She has told us that she is on the spectrum...Asperger I think.

She discussed it publicly so it should not be a problem to explain.

To clarify: Asperger's syndrome is the top of the autism spectrum. So it is medically accurate, but culturally unacceptable, to call me autistic.

I would be happy to post information about the "disability" in its own off-topic thread if necessary.
 
Back
Top Bottom