• 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!

Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway

The grey area doesn't have a "purpose". The grey area is a reality that we have named. The entire field of ethics is devoted to this.

LOL..uh huh...sure. The purpose of the grey area is to justify decisions that are not 100% compliant with one's moral values.
 
LOL..uh huh...sure. The purpose of the grey area is to justify decisions that are not 100% compliant with one's moral values.

Okay. I see I'm dealing with someone who has a problem with information and reality. This is not conducive to debate.
 
If I call a goat a dog, it's still a goat. The regimes acted as fascist regimes regardless of what they called themselves.

That they may have acted like a Fascist regime (though its not clear which regime you're referring to) does not make them a Fascist regime, They were Communists, they were referred to as Communists, they called themselves Communists and had you called them Fascists, the Leftists of the day would have been deeply insulted and might well have become violent.
This is why Communism doesn't work in it's purest form... or socialism... or libertarianism.

Yes, I know it doesn't work, though the Leftists killed many millions in trying. They still often encourage scumballs like Fidel Castro to hang in there and continue "the revolution".
Nothing more than ridiculous rightwing propaganda. There is nothing wrong with Communism.

Even if individual rights, freedoms, and human life is not important Communism would still not have any value. It is pointless.
Problem is, there has never been a truely communistic society.

But they killed many millions trying.
Always turns to fascism... a rightwing ideology.

Yep. Communism is now right wing, just as I predicted to my wife, Denial is the only way the Leftists can ever feel good about themselves.
 
Like I said, abortion is not the only thing on their agenda.

No, but plenty of people think it's enough. Perhaps Leftists can volunteer some of their time and money to the cause.
Oh, I'm sure the Reps will be all for it!
rotfl.gif

There are many Ammans, Priests and Ministers, among other religions, who might volunteer for free. And of course there are many other counselors who would provide free advice.
Yeah, like that humongous "Pet program" where we help other countries become "Democratic"?

Sure, that among others.
 
No, but plenty of people think it's enough. Perhaps Leftists can volunteer some of their time and money to the cause.
For sure, because the right will be too busy kissing corporate butt.


There are many Ammans, Priests and Ministers, among other religions, who might volunteer for free. And of course there are many other counselors who would provide free advice.
Of course, we want everything for free, after all, we need money left over so we can give the uber wealthy more tax cuts and more tax shelters - then maybe someday (it hasn't happened yet), we will see some of it trickle down!


Sure, that among others.
Of course, because we all know how much righties love Muslims - and there is no doubt that Muslims love us, too!
 
I replied because it is apparent that you didn't get it when I first told you.

You have a way of making everything personal, and immediately tell people they are full of whatever. You are welcome to your opinion about me, but that doesn't mean that my assumption about the Republican party is wrong. The Party is going all out for the "fetus" while throwing the people under the bus. What part of that don't you get?

And, don't bother replying, because I won't be responding to your comments after this.

You've been shown over and over again that differences in ideology does not mean the the GOP doesn't care about "the poor people" after they are born. Despite this, you continue with your childish, and blatantly false, statements.
 
Actually, in claiming that people would allow babies to starve, you said a great deal about yourself,

And what was that? You do not think there are starving children here in the U.S.A. and you don't think there will be a lot more if we take away a womans right? If so? You are fooling yourself boy.
 
For sure, because the right will be too busy kissing corporate butt.

Actually BHO gave the corporations a great deal of public money but I agree that it should have never happened.


Of course, we want everything for free, after all, we need money left over so we can give the uber wealthy more tax cuts and more tax shelters - then maybe someday (it hasn't happened yet), we will see some of it trickle down!

I've never waited for anything to "trickle down", but suit yourself.

Of course, because we all know how much righties love Muslims - and there is no doubt that Muslims love us, too!

I thought it was the Left who seamlessly supported Muslims rights, women's rights and Gay rights, but you seem to know what you're talking about.
 
Actually BHO gave the corporations a great deal of public money but I agree that it should have never happened.

Obama didn't "give" corporations a great deal of public money, on the other hand:

Last month, the entire House Republican caucus voted to defend corporate welfare for Big Oil, stopping any attempt to remove billions of dollars of subsidies for the industry. Many of these companies exploit the tax code to pay very little in taxes, with companies like Exxon Mobil paying absolutely nothing in federal corporate income taxes in 2009.
GOP Rep. Posey mocks critics of Big Oil: “Those evil oil companies, the answer to all our problems is to tax them more.” « Climate Progress




I've never waited for anything to "trickle down", but suit yourself.
Maybe you are the only one on the right who knows it ain't coming?


I thought it was the Left who seamlessly supported Muslims rights, women's rights and Gay rights, but you seem to know what you're talking about.

The left tries to support everyone's rights. The right only supports your rights if you are a fetus or uber wealthy.
 
That they may have acted like a Fascist regime (though its not clear which regime you're referring to) does not make them a Fascist regime, They were Communists, they were referred to as Communists, they called themselves Communists and had you called them Fascists, the Leftists of the day would have been deeply insulted and might well have become violent.

You can call a goat a dog all day. It's still a goat. I understand that this is in direct opposition to your inflexible rightwing ideology, but, you are wrong. I've demonstrated it clearly. Your lack of acceptance doesn't alter that, though I'm sure you'd want to.

Yes, I know it doesn't work, though the Leftists killed many millions in trying. They still often encourage scumballs like Fidel Castro to hang in there and continue "the revolution".

Fascist... right wingers, killed millions trying. Let me know when you understand what we are actually discussing.


Even if individual rights, freedoms, and human life is not important Communism would still not have any value. It is pointless.

Demonstrating that you do not have any knowledge of the ideology.


But they killed many millions trying.

No, fascists did.


Yep. Communism is now right wing, just as I predicted to my wife, Denial is the only way the Leftists can ever feel good about themselves.

Yet another example of right wing denial. Communism is a left wing ideology. Everytime it has been attempted, it turns to fascism... a right wing ideology. Either you are in denial about this, or you do not understand Communism, fascism, and how societies that have tried Communism have failed and the direction they have then gone. I would be happy to educate you on this, but it seems to me that you are so stuck in your right wing inflexibility, that any attempt would be for naught.
 
You can call a goat a dog all day. It's still a goat. I understand that this is in direct opposition to your inflexible rightwing ideology, but, you are wrong. I've demonstrated it clearly. Your lack of acceptance doesn't alter that, though I'm sure you'd want to.

Calling a goat a dog would be similar to calling a Communist a Fascist, I suppose, but I call a Communist a Communist. And because you claim I have a "right wing ideology" does that make me a Fascist as well?

That would mean that all those people over the past century who called Communists "Communists" would also be "Fascists". There must certainly be a lot of us because you're the first person I've ever heard who called Communists "Fascists". Do you know of any others besides yourself?
Fascist... right wingers, killed millions trying. Let me know when you understand what we are actually discussing.

I don't know what you're discussing but I was speaking of Communism. You seems to think Mussolini was the symbol of Communism.


Demonstrating that you do not have any knowledge of the ideology.

Oh, I know a little bit about it but mostly I know about the consequences of the Leftist insanity.

No, fascists did.

So you believe "The Black Book of Communism" should be called "The Black Book of Fascism"? That the "The Communist Manifesto" should be called "The Fascist Manifesto"?

Actually what you predictably believe is that when Left Wing ideology screws up, as it always does, it becomes "right wing". That's what your fantastical denial is really all about.
 
Calling a goat a dog would be similar to calling a Communist a Fascist, I suppose, but I call a Communist a Communist.

You can call someone anything you want. Doesn't make you right.

And because you claim I have a "right wing ideology" does that make me a Fascist as well?

Did I say that? Fascism is a type of right wing ideology. There are many right wing ideologies, just as there are many left wing ideologies. Sometimes it is even hard to tell what ideology someone actually is. This is why it is not a good idea to go through life believing that everything is black or white.

That would mean that all those people over the past century who called Communists "Communists" would also be "Fascists". There must certainly be a lot of us because you're the first person I've ever heard who called Communists "Fascists". Do you know of any others besides yourself?

Anyone who understands Communism would be able to discern that the states that called themselves Communist were nothing of the sort. The only folks who don't make this distinction are those who are so wedded to their own ideology that they can't see past it.


I don't know what you're discussing but I was speaking of Communism. You seems to think Mussolini was the symbol of Communism.

No, Mussolini was the symbol of Fascism. And, you do know that Mussolini's fascism was anti-leftist.

Oh, I know a little bit about it but mostly I know about the consequences of the Leftist insanity.

What you seem to know is the right wing fear that many extremists are spoonfed.

So you believe "The Black Book of Communism" should be called "The Black Book of Fascism"? That the "The Communist Manifesto" should be called "The Fascist Manifesto"?

I did not say that. I have been clear that there is a difference between the principles of Communism and the practice of Communism. I understand that you want to just attack leftwing ideology, but you are doing a poor job of it, considering all of the ways that you are misrepresenting what I am saying.

Actually what you predictably believe is that when Left Wing ideology screws up, as it always does, it becomes "right wing". That's what your fantastical denial is really all about.

No, I am being completely accurate. As usual, it is the extreme right winger who cannot handle the reality of things. Denial. Terrible thing.
 
Obama didn't "give" corporations a great deal of public money, on the other hand:

Last month, the entire House Republican caucus voted to defend corporate welfare for Big Oil, stopping any attempt to remove billions of dollars of subsidies for the industry. Many of these companies exploit the tax code to pay very little in taxes, with companies like Exxon Mobil paying absolutely nothing in federal corporate income taxes in 2009.
GOP Rep. Posey mocks critics of Big Oil: “Those evil oil companies, the answer to all our problems is to tax them more.” « Climate Progress

Hey, don't get me wrong, Mertex. I'm all for the Democrats refusing to drill for oil and giving big oil companies the heave-ho. I'm Canadian and as a result of our exporting oil to the US our economy is booming! Be sure to vote Democrat as long as you can and always get out there to protest big oil or drilling for the filthy stuff. We'll do the dirty work up here and, despite your dollar collapsing, we will still, as long time friends, accept them.

Maybe you are the only one on the right who knows it ain't coming?

I don't wait for anyone else to plan my future, Mertex, I do it myself. Isn't that what Americans used to do?

The left tries to support everyone's rights. The right only supports your rights if you are a fetus or uber wealthy.

And apparently the most important rights today are the right to abortion and government handouts. Perhaps we're not taxing the rich enough, or the greedy corporations either, because there's certainly a lot of them moving up here.
 
In the comment you referred to earlier, I was not making that comparison - you will see that if you read it. You weren't "letting anything by" - you were misreading my comment.


Again, you're referring to a comment that does not claim that a fetus and an irreversibly comatose person are wholly the same thing. In this new comment that you quoted, I am explaining that a fetus and an irreversibly comatose person are both human, nothing more - this is not a contested statement, so your comments on it are strawmen.

Let me make this clear so you stop attributing imaginary arguments to me:
Not once have I claimed that someone in an irreversible coma and a fetus are the same thing. I have claimed that both can be considered human and that both can respond to external stimuli. Nothing more.

Yeah, you just brought it up to say they are both human. It had absolutely nothing to do with suggesting the two are otherwise comparable to each other. :roll: Seriously, how transparent can a lie get? You were playing the classic "pro-choice" game of likening the unborn to vegetables, actually putting them beneath such people, so as to suggest there is absolutely no reason a person should object to their mass slaughter for the sake of convenience.

This is dishonest, simply because the issue is far more complex than you are presenting.

The issue is always more complex, but I am not nearly interested enough in refuting the absurdity of the argument in detail. If Planned Parenthood were to be shut down as a result of defunding, not a certainty, it might inconvenience the people who use it and possibly make it difficult for a small portion of them to receive some of the services offered, but the kind of rhetoric being thrown around about Planned Parenthood is greatly exaggerating its importance.

I've told you before, DoL. You do not get to tell me what my position is. I know you would much prefer to argue against what you WISH I had said than what I actually said. Too bad. Try to be honest when you debate.

Lol, I wasn't telling you for any other reason than because I think it would be the correct thing to say. You can spin it around however you like and get all paranoid, but I was merely suggesting you should adopt a position that I consider correct.

What's not going to work is you attempting to straw man my argument. Again, I know you would MUCH prefer to argue against what you WANT me to have said, but THAT'S not going to fly. Your descriptions were over the top and absolute. Mine were not. You failed, again.

So are you telling me you think there will not be more of these issues? If you insist you were not stating an absolute than that would mean you are suggesting these might not be an issue at all yet you are insisting I provide a solution for these problems that are already present. Of course, I was reading between the lines of your comments since I know how people on the "pro-choice" side tend to debate. As it stands you have yet to deviate from the typical path of debate. The nonsense of saying "Oh but these children will be abused; it will put even greater strains on social services, the budget, and our economy; and there will be serious health risks if you go and stop killing babies!" is just par for the course. That is an appeal to emotion.

Of course it is. You don't want it to be because it prevents you from attempting to validate your position using emotional and inaccurate terminology. Debate correctly and we won't have these problems.

Are you saying calling for the mass-murder of people for their race genocide is appeal to emotion? If not are you suggesting that I am lying when I say that I truly consider abortion to be the mass slaughter of children? Those are the only two options you have there.

More appeal to emotion.

It is not an appeal to emotion. How many people do you think would be making the arguments you are making for allowing abortion if it was widely recognized that they were as human as the rest of us?

DoL, the situation would be different. I do not care about you solving the current situation. Give some solutions to the issues that the addition of hundreds of thousands of children will bring. This is not a small matter. You want this, you identify how it works.

The situation would not be different, however. It would only mean that the issues might be larger. Like I said, your demand is illegitimate because someone who believes it is the slaughter of innocent human life for no good reason is not going to think first about the consequences and second about stopping it. How about, for once, someone on your side actually debate the issue of abortion itself? Tell me why the near certainty of human consciousness in a matter of months after conception does not merit the same protections other people have. Explain to me how you would go about determining a cut-off point for when the unborn are worthy of said protections and are not, since I assume you believe there is a point where such protections should exist.

Abortion is currently legal. Your position is invalid based on that.

That is just a difference in how we view the law. You believe the physical institutions of the State and the force to impose their decisions are the only things that matter and my belief is that there is a natural law overriding any institutions of man with that belief being the very basis of constitutional government.

DoL, you do not understand the difficulty in finding Medicaid providers. Medicaid pay SO poorly, most providers refuse to accept it. So, telling someone to find another Medicaid provider is not so easy.

"Most" providers? From what I can tell that is definitely wrong.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. I have no problem with a facility that provides abortions getting federal aid as long as that aid is not being used for abortions.

I am just demonstrating how many places get funding to provide these services to the poor.

OK. Let's say that is accurate. So, 11% of what PP does is provide abortions. 89% is other services. STILL... big difference.

Actually, that just means 11% of their clients received abortions that year. It does not reflect how much of that takes up their efforts. One must keep in mind that at present only a third of their facilities offer abortions so it would suggest those facilities provide far more abortions than anything else.
 
You can call someone anything you want. Doesn't make you right.

But it's right to call Communists "Fascists".

Did I say that? Fascism is a type of right wing ideology.

Now you can read as well as I can, Captain Courtesy, and can see I asked you a question. Therefore it should be obvious you didn't say that.

There are many right wing ideologies, just as there are many left wing ideologies. Sometimes it is even hard to tell what ideology someone actually is. This is why it is not a good idea to go through life believing that everything is black or white.

Fair enough.

Anyone who understands Communism would be able to discern that the states that called themselves Communist were nothing of the sort. The only folks who don't make this distinction are those who are so wedded to their own ideology that they can't see past it.

I'm calling Communists what Communists called Communists. Everyone called Communists Communists and you're the only one I've heard of who has ever called them Fascists.

Now perhaps the dream didn't go as expected and things didn't work out as planned but that should have been obvious in the 1920's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's. Yet the Leftists still continued to support Communists and Communism, as they saw it was, not how they envisioned it should be. They never claimed at the time that it wasn't doing well or that it was "Fascism". Instead it was Ronald "Ray Gun" who was the right wing ideologist and a danger to the world. And the Leftists were all looking for wisdom and leadership in Mao's "Little Red Book". Mao, of course, was also the murderer of millions. I suppose he was a Fascist also, right? And Fidel a Fascist too..
No, Mussolini was the symbol of Fascism. And, you do know that Mussolini's fascism was anti-leftist.

Right. Mussolini was never a Socialist, no matter what he and others might claim. He was a Fascist before Fascism even existed!


What you seem to know is the right wing fear that many extremists are spoonfed.

Is that so? I'd never heard of that before either.
I did not say that. I have been clear that there is a difference between the principles of Communism and the practice of Communism. I understand that you want to just attack leftwing ideology, but you are doing a poor job of it, considering all of the ways that you are misrepresenting what I am saying.

Yes, I know. It's always a grand revolutionary idea the Leftists have but then for some reason, through no fault of their own, things screw up very badly. Their ideologies are great, they just seem to have a lot of bad luck with them once they're implemented.
No, I am being completely accurate. As usual, it is the extreme right winger who cannot handle the reality of things. Denial. Terrible thing.

Hey, you won me over. Communism was really Fascism. I'll pass the word along.
 
Murder is, by all accounts, "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
murder: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

By ALL accounts? You obviously have not read the entire thread. If you had, you would have seen that this is NOT the case...

link
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously
.

Abortion is neither unlawful nor based in malice and whether or not it is "taking a person's life" is arguable at best.

It is taking a human life. That is NOT debatable...

It's actually not like murdering someone asleep at all because that person has already developed consciousness. A fetus has the potential to develop consciousness, but it has not yet developed it. An embryo also has the potential to develop consciousness and yet it is certainly not a human being.

It doesn't matter if consciousness has "developed" or not. It is a human life that has all of the DNA any human will ever have. You have no right to determine when a human is "alive" or not. It is alive from conception and that is a human life...

If you think it should be stopped great, I don't. A fetus is not a person.

It doesn't become a person until it is born? Yeah... right... NOT!!!!

[Stop being dramatic. The left is generally anti-war and anti-death penalty because it against the taking of obviously human life. Please.

Yet it supports taking the most innocent of all human life...
 
Actually, my criteria is consciousness. I mentioned pain and you focused on that.


Your opinion on the word "lawful" has no affect on its meaning. Abortion is lawful and is therefore not murder. People who get and perform abortions are 99.9% not doing it out of malice. You want to frame them that way, but it's just not the case.


I said the "taking life" part was arguable at best. You're arguing it and I disagree with you. It still doesn't meet the requirements of murder. Your use of the term doesn't make any sense. You're just using it for emotional pull.


1. People who are unconscious were conscious before and will be after their temporary lack of conscious (barring irreversibly comatose people). A fetus, like an embryo, never had consciousness - they only have the potential for conscious.
2. What is a human being? is a difficult question to answer. I believe that a fetus is human just as I believe a person in an irreversible coma is human - so it's not really a relevant question.


Most women think about it before it happens and most women aren't happy to get it. Counseling usually means emotional manipulation. Women can think for themselves.


Most human beings don't kill their young, which is why liberals don't have children and then kill them. Nice try though.


Really? Because most anti-war arguments are based on nothing being worth the life of a human being. And most anti-death penalty arguments are based on having problems with 1) The killing of innocent people. 2) Taking other people's life in general. Try harder.
you should change the word "consciousness" with "brain life" for you can't have consciousness without "brain life" and "brain life" is the exact opposite of "brain death" which is our goal post for determining when a human is no longer alive. so imo the goal post for the opposite (determining when a human is alive) should be "brain life".
 
Yeah, you just brought it up to say they are both human. It had absolutely nothing to do with suggesting the two are otherwise comparable to each other. :roll: Seriously, how transparent can a lie get? You were playing the classic "pro-choice" game of likening the unborn to vegetables, actually putting them beneath such people, so as to suggest there is absolutely no reason a person should object to their mass slaughter for the sake of convenience.

Here are some suggestions for you: 1. Learn to follow debates instead of just taking things out of context and then calling the person who made the comment a liar. 2. Stop using appeals to emotion and dramatic phrases to get your point across because it suggests that you lack the education and intelligence required to actually talk about arguments.
 
By ALL accounts? You obviously have not read the entire thread. If you had, you would have seen that this is NOT the case...

link
.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously
Great abortion doesn't apply here either.

It is taking a human life. That is NOT debatable...
It might be - but I don't think of it as human in the same way I think of myself as human - so whatever.

It doesn't matter if consciousness has "developed" or not.
It matters to me and a lot of other people.

It is a human life that has all of the DNA any human will ever have.
It does have DNA, I'll give you that.

You have no right to determine when a human is "alive" or not. It is alive from conception and that is a human life...
I don't have the right? But you do? Okay, I see how this works.

It doesn't become a person until it is born? Yeah... right... NOT!!!!
That was quality evidence right there. I'm blown away.

Yet it supports taking the most innocent of all human life...
If that's how you want to see, can't help you there.
 
you should change the word "consciousness" with "brain life" for you can't have consciousness without "brain life" and "brain life" is the exact opposite of "brain death" which is our goal post for determining when a human is no longer alive. so imo the goal post for the opposite (determining when a human is alive) should be "brain life".

Except I do believe that a fetus is alive in some not-so-meaningful sense of the word. When it develops consciousness, then it's a person whose life is the same as ordinary person. When it exists before consciousness, it's life is still at a stage of development that does not make it fully human.
 
Oh, I get it. Anyone that doesn't agree with you is a terrorist. Makes sense.

Pay no attention, mac. It was a stupid comment made by a hack. The statement completely lacked logic.

*yawn*

The OP doesn't say that all people who disagree with me are terrorists. Read it!

The most radical social conservative elements, really terrorists amongst us, have tried to bring America to its knees. They failed but they were far too close to succeeding.

The people who intimidate and murder doctors, who intimidate and interfere with patients, who intimidate and threaten landlords and neighbors and whole communities, who blow up clinics, and, maim and kill clinic workers are terrorists.

This is terrorism.

image556484.jpg
*clicky*

And this is terrorism.

2i8j8s8.jpg

The people who use intimidation and violence are terrorists.

Radical social conservative political leaders almost shutdown the government over the minuscule percentage of the federal budget paid to Planned Parenthood for womens health services rendered under federal programs; funds which by law cannot be used for abortion.

Like all radicals, their cause is more important than anything else even the nation itself. They would and all but did hold the nation hostage to their cause. I call that terrorism.

See the new book: The Wichita Divide | Stephen Singular | Macmillan
 
dolphinocean said:
So, your “far more complex than a simple answer” is a simple solution of shredding into bloody pieces of a tiny helpless human being in the womb and sucking them out to be tossed into the biohazard bin without blinking an eye?

If your appeal to “unwanted children” diatribe is a logical argument to addressing the complex social problem, then shouldn’t we simply allow women such as Susan Smith or Andrea Yates to drown their “unwanted children” with impunity until society can "present some sort of plan for managing the amount of unwanted children"?
Nothing but an appeal to emotion and a straw man argument. No response needed.
What emotional appeal and straw man?

The "shredding into bloody pieces of a tiny helpless human being in the womb and sucking them out " is simply a description of an abortion procedure called "Dilation and Curettage" (D&C). It's a fact. How then can you say it's "Nothing but an appeal to emotion and a straw man argument"?

Susan Smith did not want her two children because her wealthy lover had told her he didn't want a ready made family. As such the children would get in the way of her pursuit of her happiness. She didn't want to give them up to her husband or put them up for adoption for the very same reason abortive women wouldn't. As such, Susan Smith's two children were just as "unwanted" as those unborns you condemned as "unwanted". It's a fact. How then can you say it's "Nothing but an appeal to emotion and a straw man argument"?
 
What emotional appeal and straw man?
The "shredding into bloody pieces of a tiny helpless human being in the womb and sucking them out " is simply a description of an abortion procedure called "Dilation and Curettage" (D&C). It's a fact. How then can you say it's "Nothing but an appeal to emotion and a straw man argument"?

An appeal to emotion is a type of argument which attempts to arouse the emotions of its audience in order to gain acceptance of its conclusion.
Logical Fallacy: Emotional Appeal

You know exactly why its emotional appeal and I can assure you it did not make anyone more inclined to accept your conclusion.
 
What emotional appeal and straw man?

The "shredding into bloody pieces of a tiny helpless human being in the womb and sucking them out " is simply a description of an abortion procedure called "Dilation and Curettage" (D&C). It's a fact. How then can you say it's "Nothing but an appeal to emotion and a straw man argument"?

The best response to this sort of imagery is to say something like "that sounds like a fun weekend" because it usually makes the person using an emotional appeal so angry that they give up :mrgreen: But if they are dealing in emotion rather than logic, then its fun to counter with something that will generate an emotional response.

And besides an absurd post deserves an absurd reply
 
Last edited:
*yawn*

The OP doesn't say that all people who disagree with me are terrorists. Read it!



The people who intimidate and murder doctors, who intimidate and interfere with patients, who intimidate and threaten landlords and neighbors and whole communities, who blow up clinics, and, maim and kill clinic workers are terrorists.

This is terrorism.

View attachment 67113918
*clicky*

And this is terrorism.

View attachment 67113919

The people who use intimidation and violence are terrorists.

Radical social conservative political leaders almost shutdown the government over the minuscule percentage of the federal budget paid to Planned Parenthood for womens health services rendered under federal programs; funds which by law cannot be used for abortion.

Like all radicals, their cause is more important than anything else even the nation itself. They would and all but did hold the nation hostage to their cause. I call that terrorism.

See the new book: The Wichita Divide | Stephen Singular | Macmillan
What nonsense! There is a difference between a terrorist, such as the islamic terrorists and suicide hijacking/bombers, who uses intimidation and violence indiscriminate against large crowd of innocent civilians verses a blood avenger to prevent the mass slaughter of defenseless innocent tiny human beings by a murderous abortionist with blood in his hands.
 
Back
Top Bottom