House GOP drops controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary

Phys251 · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
Idiotic straw man.

That's what I thought. What you fail to understand is that you're not really anti-abortion, Jay. You're pro-control of womens' and girls' bodies. Because comprehensive sex ed and affordable, easily-accessible birth control are proven measures to reduce the number of abortions. Even j-mac sees that. But you do not. So you have nothing further to say on this matter that those of us who support a woman's right to choose will interpret as anything less than maintaining a system of power over women. That is what this issue is really all about.

And as I said before--and I will not let this go until you get it--for a male to be vehemently arguing against a woman's right to choose is pure hypocrisy.

Phys251 · Jan 25, 2015

Lursa said:
You've been told many times that abortion is a responsible option.

And that sounds like personal responsibility since the woman makes that choice.

Perhaps this is another area where you need a dictionary for clarification? Lordy, the list is LONG.

The very same males who play the "responsibility" card when it comes to women and abortion tend to be rape apologists. "She was asking for it." "She was putting herself on display; he just couldn't resist." "If she hadn't been wearing such revealing clothing, none of this would have happened."

By his logic, it's women who are the ones capable of responsibility, not men, cause men are just animals or something.

JayDubya · Jan 25, 2015

Lursa said:
You've been told many times that abortion is a responsible option.

And you've been told why that statement is completely wrong just as many times. Killing your own offspring in order to avoid your most basic parental obligations to them is the opposite of responsibility.

Lursa said:
No, they cannot be treated equally. That is a lie

As ever, the lie is yours. In this case, your fallacious assertion that humans cannot be treated equally.

no one has put forth a way that the the unborn can be treated equally with the born

Yes I have. Ban abortion.

It's pretty clear that he does consider a kid punishment

No, because he's not a pro-abort like you or Obama.

since he "continually" claims to want the govt to force something on women they dont want.

He wants the government to force people to have sex? Man, he sure hasn't said that in this thread, not once let alone continuously.

That is is punishment.

Parenthood is a punishment? :roll: Achem - "perhaps this is yet another area where you need to consult a dictionary - LORDY, that list is getting long."

Lursa · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
As ever, the lie is yours. In this case, your fallacious assertion that humans cannot be treated equally.

That is your opinion. Has nothing to do with the reality that they cannot be treated equally. Squawking that they can is not the same as explaining how legally without infringing on the rights of the mother.

Lursa said:
No, they cannot be treated equally. That is a lie and no one has put forth a way that the the unborn can be treated equally with the born. The right to life does not supersede all others. That is a personal choice for people. They choose to give it up for freedom, **for their children**...yup, all the time, for their causes, for many reasons.

Get back to us when you have some actual legal basis for your 'opinion.' But at least stop lying.

JayDubya · Jan 25, 2015

Phys251 said:
That's what I thought. What you fail to understand is that you're not really anti-abortion, Jay.

Yeah, I'm anti-abortion, because I'm against aggression and needless violence.

You're pro-control of womens' and girls' bodies.

Not in the least. Your batting average needs some work. Your kid's body is not your body. The ones who want some humans to have control over the bodies of others are pro-aborts like you.

Because comprehensive sex ed and affordable, easily-accessible birth control are proven measures to reduce the number of abortions.

So what? Doesn't justify stealing anyone's property to buy goods or services for others.

And as I said before--and I will not let this go until you get it--for a male to be vehemently arguing against a woman's right to choose is pure hypocrisy.

Your statement is blatantly sexist, but it's not surprising to see a pro-abort take a sexist stance like that.

Phys251 said:
The very same males who play the "responsibility" card when it comes to women and abortion tend to be rape apologists.

I like to play the "responsibility" card when it comes to all issues, but the responsibility for aggression and violence always falls on the ones involved in doing the aggression.

In other words, there's an appropriate place for you to cram such ignorant generalizations.

JayDubya · Jan 25, 2015

Lursa said:
That is your opinion. Has nothing to do with the reality that they cannot be treated equally

Yes they can. Ban abortion. That infringes on no one's rights and allows for unborn and born to be treated equally.

But at least stop lying.

Rich coming from you given your veritable mountain of deceit in this thread, but in order to stop, one first has to start, and I haven't said a single thing that wasn't true.

Lursa · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
Yes they can. Ban abortion. That infringes on no one's rights and allows for unborn and born to be treated equally.

Rich coming from you given your veritable mountain of deceit in this thread, but in order to stop, one first has to start, and I haven't said a single thing that wasn't true.

No. Banning abortion means that the govt would use force to keep women from having abortions. A direct infringement on women's rights.

The govt can only infringe on a mother's rights re: her born offspring if she commits a crime like neglect or abuse. A pregnant woman is not a criminal. The govt can remove a child from a home without physically imposing on a woman's body. Not so with the unborn.

Is that it?

Cool, game over. You are welcome to your opinion, but again, it's not reality.

Phys251 · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
Yeah, I'm anti-abortion, because I'm against aggression and needless violence.

Nope, you're not anti-abortion, as I clearly explained above. You are a male who wants to control women's and girls' bodies.

Not in the least. Your batting average needs some work. Your kid's body is not your body. The ones who want some humans to have control over the bodies of others are pro-aborts like you.

Haha, "pro-aborts." How droll. You lie, again. You have read to see what your Bible says about liars, right?

So what? Doesn't justify stealing anyone's property to buy goods or services for others.

So why don't you support them, given that they actually reduce the number of abortions, jay?? This is the question that you keep dodging. You claim to be anti-abortion, yet when you are presented with two measures that clearly do what you claim to want, you don't seem to like them! I wonder why that is?

Your statement is blatantly sexist, but it's not surprising to see a pro-abort take a sexist stance like that.

HAHAHAHA, thanks for the laugh. You have no idea what sexism is or the fact that you're the one guilty of it.

I like to play the "responsibility" card when it comes to all issues, but the responsibility for aggression and violence always falls on the ones involved in doing the aggression.

In other words, there's an appropriate place for you to cram such ignorant generalizations.

So you would agree with the statement, "A woman never asks for it, ever"?

AGENT J · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
1.)Yes they can. Ban abortion. That infringes on no one's rights and allows for unborn and born to be treated equally.

Rich coming from you given your veritable mountain of deceit in this thread, but in order to stop, one first has to start, and I haven't said a single thing that wasn't true.

1.) this is another lie that has been destroyed by many posters and many facts. Banning abortion in FACT infringes on a woman legal and human rights :shrug:
who says? law, rights, many court cases, human rights groups, even many pro-life people etc etc whats on your side again besides "nu-huh" ?
facts win again

JayDubya · Jan 25, 2015

Lursa said:
No. Banning abortion means that the govt would use force to keep women from having abortions.

The force of law is used to stop aggressive violence, yes.

A direct infringement on women's rights.

No more so than trying to stop any other aggressive violence infringes on anyone else's rights.

You don't have a right to infringe on any other human's unalienable rights.

the govt can only infringe on a mother's rights re: her born offspring if she commits a crime like neglect or abuse

So what you're saying is that if you cause harm to your offspring, the government can intervene. This does not help your argument; it helps mine.

Phys251 · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
I haven't said a single thing that wasn't true.

HAHAHA, this thread is full of your lies. Again, you should consult your Bible to see what it says about liars.

Lursa · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
The force of law is used to stop aggressive violence, yes.

No more so than trying to stop any other aggressive violence infringes on anyone else's rights.

You don't have a right to infringe on any other human's unalienable rights.

Thanks for proving me correct.. The govt would do so, infringing on women's rights to protect those of the unborn, thereby placing the unborn above women. (Once we ignore your hysterical hyperbole, that's really what's left.) The govt would treat the unborn's life and future as more important than a woman's.

And the unborn have no inalienable human rights, there are no national or international human rights organizations that recognize that. You have been told this many times and continue to deny it.(So another lie.)

JayDubya said:
So what you're saying is that if you cause harm to your offspring, the government can intervene.

Lursa said:
The govt can only infringe on a mother's rights re: her born offspring if she commits a crime like neglect or abuse. A pregnant woman is not a criminal. The govt can remove a child from a home without physically imposing on a woman's body. Not so with the unborn.

JayDubya · Jan 25, 2015

Phys251 said:
Nope, you're not anti-abortion, as I clearly explained above. You are a male who wants to control women's and girls' bodies.

Well yes, you did said those things, but those statements of yours were delusional and retarded and they were thoroughly debunked as the nonsense they were.

Haha, "pro-aborts."

Nah. You guys really aren't that funny. Bigotry is too ugly to be a laughing matter.

You lie, again. You have read to see what your Bible says about liars, right?

I haven't lied. I don't have a bible. I don't particularly care what any religious book says about anything.

What are you saying is a "lie," that your kid's body is not your body? Sorry, but that's scientific fact, look it up. Are you familiar with what a placenta is and what its purpose is? I'm guessing not.

So why don't you support them, given that they actually reduce the number of abortions, jay?

If this conversation were in person, I would ask if you were deaf. I already stated plain as day that taking money from one person to buy a good or service for another is immoral and violates their human right to property. You want me to support one rights violation so you can permit me to be what I already am, someone who is opposed to a different rights violation. The thing is, I didn't give you any authority to define me, nor will I ever.

HA, thanks for the laugh. You have no idea what sexism is or the fact that you're the one guilty of it.

You're telling me that I can't have an opinion because I'm a man.

Yup, that's actual gender bigotry alright.

JayDubya · Jan 25, 2015

Lursa said:
Thanks for proving me correct.

Thankfully, no such proof has ever been shown to be possible.

The govt would do so, infringing on women's rights to protect those of the unborn

In no way does preventing one human from killing another in aggression infringe upon anyone's rights.

You assert that this is the case but you do not even attempt to demonstrate it.

At best, you might make the assertion that banning abortion violates the "right" to an abortion. And yes, it does, but that's fine, because there is no such right to be violated in the first place.

Phys251 · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
Well yes, you did said those things, but those statements of yours were delusional and retarded and they were thoroughly debunked as the nonsense they were.

Nah. You guys really aren't that funny. Bigotry is too ugly to be a laughing matter.

I haven't lied. I don't have a bible. I don't particularly care what any religious book says about anything.

What are you saying is a "lie," that your kid's body is not your body? Sorry, but that's scientific fact, look it up. Are you familiar with what a placenta is and what its purpose is? I'm guessing not.

If this conversation were in person, I would ask if you were deaf. I already stated plain as day that taking money from one person to buy a good or service for another is immoral and violates their human right to property. You want me to support one rights violation so you can permit me to be what I already am, someone who is opposed to a different rights violation. The thing is, I didn't give you any authority to define me, nor will I ever.

You're telling me that I can't have an opinion because I'm a man.

Yup, that's actual gender bigotry alright.

You reveal a lot about yourself in your posts, Jay. Things such as:

-You lie without breaking a sweat.
-You choose to misrepresent your opposition and come up with childish labels for them.
-You speak arrogantly as if you were some kind of expert on this subject.
-You are a male who believes his opinion on a women's issue trumps those of women (commonly referred to as "mansplaining").
-You refuse to listen to anything

Now if you want me to stop calling you "anti-choice," then you will finally give me a straight, BS-free answer: Why are you opposed to measures that are proven to reduce the numbers of abortions?

AGENT J · Jan 25, 2015

the facts are that SOME people view a pregnant woman as a LESSER to the ZEF, they value the rights (real or received) above that of the pregnant woman, this is in fact the views that one person here has and denying this fact wont change anything.

the best part is there are pro-lifers here who post HONESTLY and simply admit to the facts that there is no such thing as equality on this issue. They admit that rights will ALWAYS be infringed on no matter what we do.
Doesn't matter if we ban abortion, or make it unlimited or pick somethign in the middle, rights will always be infringed on. People simply choose what rights the value most and you in fact value the ZEF over the pregnant woman and want her to be viewed legally as a lesser.

Like i said many other pro-lifers who post honestly have simply admitted to this fact and they simply give the reason why they value the ZEF over the woman, some say a NEW life, some say a life that has no voice to fight for itself etc etc but none of them lie about it or try to sell the intellectual dishonest and mentally retarded "lie" that they don't value the ZEF more. Its assume because some allow the posters who post dishonestly to paint a bad picture for the whole group but i know better, there are many insightful and honest prolifers here, they simply dont try to sell the lie that has been pointed out and destroyed here many times.

AGENT J · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
Thankfully, no such proof has ever been shown to be possible.

In no way does preventing one human from killing another in aggression infringe upon anyone's rights.

You assert that this is the case but you do not even attempt to demonstrate it.

At best, you might make the assertion that banning abortion violates the "right" to an abortion. And yes, it does, but that's fine, because there is no such right to be violated in the first place.

law, rights, many court cases, facts, human rights orgs and even pro-lifers prove your lie wrong lol

what do you have that supports your claim again? you have somethign that proves all those things wrong? please present it we would love to read it

JayDubya · Jan 25, 2015

Phys251 said:
You lie without breaking a sweat.

Haven't done it, so you wouldn't know whether I sweat or not.

You choose to misrepresent your opposition and come up with childish labels for them.

Anti-abortion and pro-abortion are accurate descriptors, far more accurate and far less misleading than pro-life and pro-choice. I like precision in terms. Nothing childish about it.

You speak arrogantly as if you were some kind of expert on this subject.

While I would love to have a principled and civil debate amongst equals, what usually happens is trying to educate people on basic words while they rant about how anyone who disagrees with their opinion hates women. Or in your case, that anyone who disagrees with your opinion must be an apologist for rape. At least you haven't gone to the level of the guy who wants anyone who disagrees with his opinion to be charged with treason, or that other guy who wants anyone who disagrees with his opinion to be castrated.

You are a male who believes his opinion on a women's issue trumps those of women

And you are a man who has demonstrated actual bigotry against men. Abortion is not a "women's issue." Neither gender is more or less entitled to an opinion on the human rights abuse of abortion.

(commonly referred to as "mansplaining")

Oh god, no, you're one of those people who unironically talk about "checking privilege" or something, aren't you? *shudder*

Phys251 · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
Oh god, no, you're one of those people who unironically talk about "checking privilege" or something, aren't you? *shudder*

It's reading time!

AGENT J · Jan 25, 2015

Phys251 said:
Now if you want me to stop calling you "anti-choice," then you will finally give me a straight, BS-free answer: Why are you opposed to measures that are proven to reduce the numbers of abortions?

in 4+ years i haven't seen any evidence of your request EVERY happening, in fact if it did the majority of posters would be in shock.

the many lies repeated are :
ZEF is just like saying nigger and its a bigoted slur
abortion is homicide
banning abortion is a pro-rights stance

all of these lies have been destroyed again and again and i always invite ANYBODY and EVERYBODY to prove otherwise and no one ever can. In fact the handful of posters that repeat these lies have chased off the por-lifers who are honest.

Risky Thicket · Jan 25, 2015

cpwill said:
:shrug: hopefully we'll get there. but in the meantime, if we can move the football, I say, move the football.

But, you hate that **** when it comes to incremental gun control, right?

JayDubya · Jan 25, 2015

Pretend an already-typed, direct, thorough answer doesn't exist, brehs.

Cliff notes edition: abortion bad, socialism also bad.

Lursa · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
In no way does preventing one human from killing another in aggression infringe upon anyone's rights.

You assert that this is the case but you do not even attempt to demonstrate it.

At best, you might make the assertion that banning abortion violates the "right" to an abortion. And yes, it does, but that's fine, because there is no such right to be violated in the first place.

Of course it does. And I have proven it. You assume that the right to life supersedes all other rights. I have shown you that it does not. People choose to place other rights above it all the time. They place freedom, personal causes, loved ones, principles, etc above life frequently.And so that choice is also not up to the govt.

So to protect the (non-existent) rights of the unborn against the mother's will, the govt must infringe on her rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (self-determination, health, future). The govt cannot protect the life of the mother, for example, if the pregnancy or birthing goes wrong. So it has no legal right to insist she take that risk over abortion, which is a safer medical procedure if she chooses. It doesnt matter if such danger is inherent in pregnancy. Many women choose that risk but with other options like bc and abortion, no woman 'consents' to remain pregnant if she doesnt want to.

So^^ rational, polite, factual, based on the law.

Shall I expect a similar response? Or just more opinion?

AGENT J · Jan 25, 2015

JayDubya said:
Pretend an already-typed, direct, thorough answer doesn't exist, brehs.

yes you have reposted your lie many times and it has been thoroughly proven false countless times by many posters lol

Again we BEG you, if you disagree pleaseo post ONE fact that supports you . . . ONE . . .teach us a lesson . . .prove us wrong . . . thanks

Bob Blaylock · Jan 25, 2015

Lursa said:
You've been told many times that abortion is a responsible option..

A lie does not become truth, no matter how many times it is repeated.

It is never a responsible act to needlessly kill an innocent human being in cold blood. Such will never, ever be anything but an expression of the greatest evil of which a human being is capable.

House GOP drops controversial abortion bill ahead of Roe v. Wade anniversary

Purge evil with Justice

Purge evil with Justice

Struggler

Tenacious

Struggler

Struggler

Tenacious

Purge evil with Justice

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Struggler

Purge evil with Justice

Tenacious

Struggler

Struggler

Purge evil with Justice

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Struggler

Purge evil with Justice

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Sewer Rat

Struggler

Tenacious

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Electrician